Curious why he would not disclose if he continues to purchase shares of his fund. He does have a $1M in it. So answer either way wouldn't have mattered much in my mind. I am an investor and would have appreciated if he answered the question.
Or is it because he is thinking of starting another fund? I wouldn't want him to, but may be he is and that's where he is dedicating more capital.
Also he clarified it is Emerging Markets Growth and Income. Not International Growth and Income. So it would serve investors better word Overseas in the name was replaced with word Emerging.

Here are some quick highlights from Thursday night’s conversation with Andrew Foster of Seafarer.
Seafarer’s objective: Andrew’s hope is to outperform his benchmark (the MSCI EM index) “slowly but steadily over time.” He describes the approach as a “relative return strategy” which pursues growth that’s more sustainable than what’s typical in developing markets while remaining value conscious.
Here’s the strategy: you need to start by understanding that the capital markets in many EM nations are somewhere between “poorly developed” and “cruddy.” Both academics and professional investors assume that a country’s capital markets will function smoothly: banks will make loans to credit-worthy borrowers, corporations and governments will be able to access the bond market to finance longer-term projects and stocks will trade regularly, transparently and at rational expense.
None of that may safely be assumed in the case of emerging markets; indeed, that’s what might distinguish an “emerging” market from a developed one. The question becomes: what are the characteristics of companies that might thrive in such conditions.
The answer seems to be (1) firms that can grow their top line steadily in the 7-15% per annum range and (2) those who can finance their growth internally. The focus on the top line means looking for firms that can increase revenues by 7-15% without obsessing about similar growth in the bottom line. It’s almost inevitable that EM firms will have “stumbles” that might diminish earnings for one to three years; while you can’t ignore them, you also can’t let them drive your investing decisions. “If the top line grows,” Andrew argues, “the bottom line will follow.” The focus on internal financing means that the firms will be capable of funding their operations and plans without needing recourse to the unreliable external sources of capital.
Seafarer tries to marry that focus on sustainable moderate growth “with some current income, which is a key tool to understanding quality and valuation of growth.” Dividends are a means to an end; they don’t do anything magical all by themselves. Dividends have three functions. They are:

An essential albeit crude valuation tool – many valuation metrics cannot be meaningfully applied across borders and between regions; there’s simply too much complexity in the way different markets operate. Dividends are a universally applicable measure.
A way of identifying firms that will bounce less in adverse market conditions – firms with stable yields that are just “somewhat higher than average” tend to be resilient. Firms with very high dividend yields are often sending out distress signals.
A key and under-appreciated signal for the liquidity and solvency of a company – EMs are constantly beset by liquidity and credit shocks and unreliable capital markets compound the challenge. Companies don’t survive those shocks as easily as people imagine. The effects of liquidity and credit crunches range from firms that completely miss their revenue and earnings forecasts to those that drown themselves in debt or simply shutter. Against such challenges dividends provide a clear and useful signal of liquidity and solvency.

It’s certainly true that perhaps 70% of the dispersion of returns over a 5-to-10 year period are driven by macro-economic factors (Putin invades-> the EU sanctions-> economies falter-> the price of oil drops-> interest rates fall) but that fact is not useful because such events are unforecastable and their macro-level impacts are incalculably complex (try “what effect will European reaction to Putin’s missile transfer offer have on shadow interest rates in China?”).
Andrew believes he can make sense of the ways in which micro-economic factors, which drive the other 30% of dispersion, might impact individual firms. He tries to insulate his portfolio, and his investors, from excess volatility by diversifying away some of the risk, imagining a “three years to not quite forever” time horizon for his holdings and moving across a firm’s capital structure in pursuit of the best risk-return balance.
While Seafarer is classified as an emerging markets equity fund, common stocks have comprised between 70-85% of the portfolio. “There’s way too much attention given to whether a security is a stock or bond; all are cash flows from an issuer. They’re not completely different animals, they’re cousins. We sometimes find instruments trading with odd valuations, try to exploit that.” As of January 2015, 80% of the fund is invested directly in common stock; the remainder is invested in ADRs, hard- and local-currency convertibles, government bonds and cash. The cash stake is at a historic low of 1%.
Thinking about the fund’s performance: Seafarer is in the top 3% of EM stock funds since launch, returning a bit over 10% annually. With characteristic honesty and modesty, Andrew cautions against assuming that the fund’s top-tier rankings will persist in the next part of the cycle:

We’re proud of performance over the last few years. We have really benefited from the fact that our strategy was well-positioned for anemic growth environments. Three or four years ago a lot of people were buying the story of vibrant growth in the emerging markets, and many were willing to overpay for it. As we know, that growth did not materialize. There are signs that the deceleration of growth is over even if it’s not clear when the acceleration of growth might begin. A major source of return for our fund over 10 years is beta. We’re here to harness beta and hope for a little alpha.

That said, he does believe that flaws in the construction of EM indexes makes it more likely that passive strategies will underperform:

I’m actually a fan of passive investing if costs are low, churn is low, and the benchmark is soundly constructed. The main EM benchmark is disconnected from the market. The MSCI EM index imposes filters for scalability and replicability in pursuit of an index that’s easily tradable by major investors. That leads it to being not a really good benchmark. The emerging markets have $14 trillion in market capitalization; the MSCI Core index captures only $3.8 trillion of that amount and the Total Market index captures just $4.2 trillion. In the US, the Total Stock Market indexes capture 80% of the market. The comparable EM index captures barely 25%.

Highlights from the questions:
While the fund is diversified, many people misunderstand the legal meaning of that term. Being diversified means that no more than 25% of the portfolio can be invested in securities that individually constitute more than 5% of the portfolio. Andrew could, in theory, invest 25% of the fund in a single stock or 15% in one and 10% in another. As a practical matter, a 4-5% position is “huge for us” though he has learned to let his winners run a little longer than he used to, so the occasional 6% position wouldn’t be surprising.
A focus on dividend payers does not imply a focus on large cap stocks. There are a lot of very stable dividend-payers in the mid- to small-cap range; Seafarer ranges about 15-20% small cap amd 35-50% midcap.
The fundamental reason to consider investing in emerging markets is because “they are really in dismal shape, sometimes the horrible things you read about them are true but there’s an incredibly powerful drive to give your kids a better life and to improve your life. People will move mountains to make things better. I followed the story of one family who were able to move from a farmhouse with a dirt floor to a comfortable, modern townhouse in one lifetime. It’s incredibly inspiring, but it’s also incredibly powerful.”
With special reference to holdings in eastern Europe, you need to avoid high-growth, high-expectation companies that are going to get shell-shocked by political turmoil and currency devaluation. It’s important to find companies that have already been hit and that have proved that they can survive the shock.
Bottom line: Andrew has a great track record built around winning by not losing. His funds have posted great relative returns in bad markets and very respectable absolute returns in frothy ones. It’s a pattern that I’ve found compelling.
Thanks to Timothy Gaar, David Hubbard, Sheldon Zafir and Heezsafe for raising questions with Andrew; regrets to Don Davis and Elie Tabet who were in the question queue when time ran out. I forwarded their contact information to Seafarer in hopes that their questions might yet be answered.
For folks unable to catch the call, there’s an available mp3 of the call. My observations, above, are based on notes that I took on the fly as the call proceeded, rather than on a careful replaying of the audio. They represent my interpretation plus my best attempt to reproduce Andrew’s words. I would, as always, be delighted to hear the reactions of some of the 40 other folks who participated as well.

The real news to me is Eventide itself. Has been riding Healthcare and small caps to hefty gains. Almost seems like mini version of Janus of the 90s. Time will tell if it is competence or just happened to hit the sweet spot. I'm assuming it is the latter and passing. If M* says something good about them, that would really seal the deal.

I'd be curious to hear what they are thinking about as far as capacity goes for each of the strategies... The previous target was $3 billion for the firm (currently around $2.4). Obviously, we have seen significant capital appreciation since...

In the prospectus, they stated that the distribution could include return of capital...so I just plan to watch it for a while after I make a small investment before committing serious $$$$.

Uhhh ...
Working on figuring out why this research isn't, well, stupid. The basic argument is this: if an "institutional investor" owns shares in two companies in the same industry, it's in the manager's best interest for both of the firms to overcharge which maximizes the firms' earnings and the investors' profits at the expense of customers. Since "the 1%" invest and "the 99%" shop, it's a systemic transfer of money from the latter to the former.
The proposed solution is this: allow each "institutional investor" to own one and only one stock in each industry sector.
Uhhh ...
(blinks)
Uhhh ...
Okay, the analysis is based on one of the world's worst and oddest industries, commercial airlines where capital costs are vast, a key resource (access to gates at hub airports) is guarded like a dragon's hoard and disruptors are few.

General Electric Co is a diversified company with products & services that range from aircraft engines, power generation, oil & gas production equipment, & household appliances to medical imaging, business & consumer financing and industrial products.

So if you invest in GE, you're blocked from any further investment in the seven industries in which it has operations?
The S&P 500 becomes the S&P No More Than 100?
Of course, you could only have one of Barnes & Noble and Borders because they represent an unassailable duopoly.
And it's at least plausible that the requirement would be that Fidelity, as a whole, could own only one bank since Posner keeps pointing an accusing finger at "BlackRock" without any hint of what at BlackRock owns the apparently dysfunctional, conflicting stakes.
Except for the fact that smart outsiders have so often said incredibly stupid things about the workings of the fund industry (the federal appeals court in one case decided that (a) rich people are smart, (b) rich people pay high fees for actively-managed hedge funds, and (c) the fees on actively-managed mutual funds are lower than those on hedge funds, therefore (d) the fees on mutual funds are reasonable.)
David

@scott
Yes. I have spoken with way too many folks who bitch about this or that about pricing from a particular company. My reply has been that, if you think you're being overcharged for a service and the company is making a profit; invest in the company.
Examples are everywhere; be it Comcast, a phone service provided...........
Well, I don't need to 'splain more.....
Hell, I know at this point in time that we are protecting what it costs our household to provide health insurance and pay all of the now higher deductibles. We're getting this money back from our healthcare investments. Although we don't really care about where the capital appreciation arrives.

I thought this thread was about target date funds when I posted earlier. Seems to me an attempt has been made to subvert it into into the thread-worn debate over index funds vs. active management. I, for one, want no part of that debate.
When I alluded earlier to terms like "research/analytical capabilities" and "corporate culture" I had in mind only that target date funds usually allocate widely across various asset classes and geographic areas. To an extent, management attempts to "overweight" or "underweight" different asset classes and geopolitical areas based upon its readings of relative valuations.
Now, you can say "To hell with that. All index all the time." if you want. To do so, however, is to say that no knowledge exists in any corner of the investment universe. Citadel gains nothing by hiring Ben Bernanke. Franklin Templeton's Mark Möbius provides no benefit to the firm's global allocation strategies, and the praises often bestowed on T. Rowe Price for it ability to identify the more attractive segments of the domestic and international stock and fixed income markets are, in fact, sorely misplaced.
Have it your way.

Hey Scott, it's the same company, maybe not the same hedge fund (?), and actually BlueCrest, as of the first of the year, no longer has anything to do with the mutual fund. A woman named Leda Braga developed a trading system at BlueCrest and then split from BC to start her own company, Systematica Investments. That's whose investment vehicle EBCIX followed before the split, and continues now with the new company.
It's a tangled web the hedgies weave.

Bluetrend (Braga's fund) is available on the London market as a feeder fund (an "investment trust", sort of like a CEF in the US), as is AllBlue (although I haven't looked to see if that fund still has exposure to Bluetrend after the break off) Interesting that this fund is also a feeder fund for Bluetrend. London also has Third Point Offshore and a few others (the Brevan Howard funds, for example) and RIT Capital Partners (aka Rothschild Investment Trust.)
RIT Capital Partners has investments in a number of private funds.
Ackman's Pershing Square feeder fund is also available in Amsterdam, but there is a pink sheet share in the US.
Edited to add: AllBlue still invests in Bluetrend.
Thanks for your reply.

Thanks David.
Would enjoy a hearing Mr. Foster's philosophy on dividends...if and how does it factor in his portfolio construction.
And, perhaps, a little on how he manages capital gains.
Looking forward to the call, as always.
c

If you read Jason's column you can track back to Bob Seawright's essay on how advisors can make better decisions, then back again to Seawright'sessay of the same name in Research Magazine. Both make thoughtful arguments.
In the Research Magazine piece you'll find the name of the Dalbar study they're discussing. Googling the title allows you to find the Dalbar Quantititative Analysis of Investor Behavior (2014) study. There you'll get this answer to the question above:

QAIB uses data from the Investment Company Institute (ICI), Standard & Poor’s, Barclays Capital Index Products and proprietary sources to compare mutual fund investor returns to an appropriate set of benchmarks. Covering the period from QAIB’s inception (January 1, 1984) to December 31, 2013, the study utilizes mutual fund sales, redemptions and exchanges each month as the measure of investor behavior. These behaviors reflect the “average investor.” Based on this behavior, the analysis calculates the “average investor return” for various periods.

The Dalbar study, like Morningstar's, uses fund flows as a surrogate for investor returns. That is, if EM stock funds soar in 2015 but have a low level of assets while, say, large growth funds hold trillions but then crash, the former weighs lightly and the latter weighs heavily in assessing how the average stock investor did.
Three follow-up thoughts: (1) Messers. Zweig and Seawright agree that Dalbar is consistent with, though more pessimistic than, the rest of the published research:

... all the relevant studies show that individuals underperform by a significant amount (we tend to buy high and sell low), Dalbar’s data (the study I reference in the piece) shows a gap that’s much larger than the other research. I should have noted that here. But it doesn’t change the primary point — our decision-making isn’t very good and needs to get much better. It just isn’t likely that it’s quite as bad as Dalbar portrays it.

(2) I really dislike the quality of Dalbar's writing. They do a singularly poor job of explaining how they calculate things like the "Guess Right ratio" and their jumbled graphics detract from the argument.
(3) That said, they make important arguments: that the quality of investor decision making has improved steadily over 20 years, that the improvement seems to have plateaued, that investor education programs have limited effect but that there are four strategies that advisors might pursue which would improve investors' prospects.

The suggested approach consists of setting appropriate expectations, controlling investor exposure to risk, monitoring of risk tolerances and presenting forecasts in terms of probabilities.

For what interest it holds,
David

@00BY / @catch22 Thanks for the insights.
Inverse bond opportunities/Short bonds for the brave.
David Sherman's ideas in this space are only available to accredited investors.(who among us?)
Cohanzick Nexus
Cohanzick Investment Management’s Nexus Fund is only open to accredited investors as the term is defined by the Securities Act of 1933 under Rule 501 or Regulation D. Before accepting an investment in the Nexus Fund, it must verify an investor’s Accredited Investor Status.
Nexus is a short-biased credit fund focused on event-driven and fundamentally-based mispricing among bonds within a corporate capital structure or between equity and corporate bonds. The fund is co-managed by David K. Sherman and Bruce A. Falbaum, CFA.
http://www.cohanzick.com/credit-opportunities
http://etfdb.com/etf/IGS/#fundamentals
http://etfdb.com/etfdb-category/inverse-bonds/#returns

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
WSJ Slant:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-edge-higher-1428668291
Bloomberg Slant;
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-10/u-s-index-futures-little-changed-as-s-p-500-set-for-weekly-gain
Reuters Slant:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/10/us-markets-stocks-idUSKBN0N113U20150410
MarketWatch Slant:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-futures-ease-with-lacker-speech-apple-watch-in-focus-2015-04-10/print
WSJ Markets At A Glance;
http://markets.wsj.com/us
Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
Current Futures:
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

All Search Tools have now been updated with performance data through March.
The MFO Fund Dashboard contains all funds profiled through April commentary.
Some notable funds on the Three Alarm list, which examines only absolute return within category, include:
Greenspring (GRSPX)
American Century One Choice 2025 A (ARWAX)
American Century One Choice 2035 A (ARYAX)
Third Avenue International Value Instl (TAVIX)
The Cook & Bynum Fund (COBYX)
Muhlenkamp (MUHLX)
Fairholme (FAIRX)
Valley Forge (VAFGX)
Hussman Strategic Growth (HSGFX)
Hussman Strategic International (HSIEX)
AMG Managers Brandywine Advs Mid Cap Gr (BWAFX)
Royce Partners Svc (RPTRX)
Royce Premier Invmt (RYPRX)
Delafield Fund (DEFIX)
FpA Capital (FPPTX)
Paradigm Value (PVFAX)
Royce Low Priced Stock Svc (RYLPX)
Royce Micro-Cap Invmt (RYOTX)
Royce Select I Invmt (RYSFX)
Royce 100 Svc (RYOHX)
Royce Heritage Svc (RGFAX)
Royce Pennsylvania Mutual Invmt (PENNX)
Artisan Small Cap Value Investor (ARTVX)
Ave Maria Opportunity (AVESX)
Royce Global Value Svc (RIVFX)
Royce Select II Invmt (RSFDX)
Wintergreen Investor (WGRNX)
Of Royce's 27 funds, nine are Three Alarm.
Pacific Advisors has five Three Alarm Funds...they only offer six. From its website:

We are a family of six focused mutual funds, each designed to meet a different need and to complement each other when building a diversified investment plan. Whether you are just starting out in your career, or enjoying retirement today, we deliver top quality service and a wide range of investments to meet your changing needs.

Here is a snapshot (from MFO Premium beta site) of their lifetime performance:

Really horrible family of funds, seems to me. Why would anyone buy them?
Vanguard offers 150 funds. How many are on the Three Alarm list? None. I find that remarkable. How many are on the Honor Roll? 32. I find that remarkable too.
A look at just-turned-three Great Owls, finds:
Guinness Atkinson Dividend Builder (GAINX)
Rainier International Discovery Instl (RAIIX)
DFA World Core Equity Institutional (DREIX)
Seafarer Overseas Gr and Income Instl (SIGIX)
Wasatch Frontier Emerg Sm Countrs Inv (WAFMX)
PIMCO Total Return Active EtF (BOND)
AQR TM Large Cap Momentum Style I (ATMOX)
Vanguard Target Retirement 2060 Inv (VTTSX)
2060?!
A total of 8159 funds (oldest share class only, at least one year old) are included in this quarter's update.
We also updated the look a bit to support new site theme...here's example of Risk Profile output:

Enjoy.
c

Rothschild Larch Lane Alternatives Fund Investor Class RLLBX
The Rothschild Larch Lane Alternatives Fund (the “Fund”) returned 2.18% net of all fees and expenses for the month of March. Three of the Fund’s four subadvisers
had gains for the month. The Fund benefited from short positions in non-U.S. currencies, long positions in select global government bond markets,
and short positions among energy and agricultural commodities. In March, equity index trading in Europe and Asia contributed to gains while single-name
U.S. equity positions detracted from performance
http://www.rothschild.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147486821
http://www.rothschild.com/RLLFunds/availabledocuments/

Non-dollar bonds are being pressured by the strength of the U.S. dollar. Unlike international companies that generate revenue from outside their borders, foreign bonds are dependent to a great extent on the value of their currency. Some folks believe the dollar may stagnate for a while, some believe the euro will strengthen, both of which would help foreign bonds. Timing this is nearly impossible. You might consider Matthews Asia Strategic Income MAINX (keep in mind this is Asia-specific fixed-income), Templeton Global Bond TGBAX (manager Hasenstab is the best at currency choices), or a multi-sector option like BlackRock Strategic Income BSIIX (has about 25% in non-U.S. bonds). These have decent track records and strong management teams. But, yes, you should capture some of the gain in Apple. The point is not to sell Apple, but rather to not lose all the gains should the stock market correct or worse. Remember that a bad day for bonds is nothing compared to a bad day for stocks.

FYI: After a shaky first five months, Bill Gross is regaining his footing at Janus Capital Group Inc., helped by a contrarian bet that the dollar's rally won't continue.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150408/FREE/150409932?template=printart

Fed's Concerns
A nostalgic time before the DotCom crash and of course 9/11 and "the great recession".They called him the maestro for a while,didn't they? Are current conditions a "favorable economic environment".
Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
The Federal Reserve's semiannual monetary policy report
Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
February 26, 1997
"Why should the central bank be concerned about the possibility that financial markets may be overestimating returns or mispricing risk? It is not that we have a firm view that equity prices are necessarily excessive right now or risk spreads patently too low. Our goal is to contribute as best we can to the highest possible growth of income and wealth over time, and we would be pleased if the favorable economic environment projected in markets actually comes to pass. Rather, the FOMC has to be sensitive to indications of even slowly building imbalances, whatever their source, that, by fostering the emergence of inflation pressures, would ultimately threaten healthy economic expansion.
"I will conclude on the same upbeat note about the U.S. economy with which I began. Although a central banker's occupational responsibility is to stay on the lookout for trouble, even I must admit that our economic prospects in general are quite favorable. The flexibility of our market system and the vibrancy of our private sector remain examples for the whole world to emulate. The Federal Reserve will endeavor to do its part by continuing to foster a monetary framework under which our citizens can prosper to the fullest possible extent."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/1997/february/testimony.htm
Global Economy's Manufacturing Sector Struggles
by Robert Brusca April 6, 2015
"Against this background, it is hard to understand the Fed's compulsion to hike rates. There are no capacity constraints in the U.S. or even in the global economy. Manufacturing everywhere is extremely weak. There has been a lot of monetary stimulus and the countries that did that early have fared better (the U.S. and the U.K.). But now that stimulus is wearing off and the stimulus launched in Europe is playing a part by driving the euro lower and the dollar higher.
There is also a legacy of excessive debt and a plan by central banks to control leverage and risk. This program restricts bank lending by using capital/asset ratios that bind and a stress test to enforce disciple. This approach doesn't just control; it also restricts lending and growth."
http://www.haver.com/comment/comment.html?c=150406A.html

Investing, be it money and/or time is to obtain a personal goal, yes?
TIME investing:
I spent a fair amount of time investing in a particular educational path.
I wanted to have the ability to be within a work area that I enjoyed and that would also provide a "decent" livelyhood.....wage.
That did happen (the career); but I was not part of a union workforce, and I knew at a young age that I would not have a bountiful pension program that was very evident in a large, union wage state as Michigan was during my work period. I would not have any health benefit, nor a cost of living index attached to my retirement.
I/we knew we would and should be prepared to provide for ourselves monetarily in the future; for any shortcomings or unknowns from any other income source. We did not and still do not have any rich relative who will be dropping a boatload of money into our laps upon their passing; and we still have not had the big win in the lotto.
MONETARY investing:
From the above arose active investing of our monies that were in excess of our needs from our budget.
As to active investing, well, as @Old_Joe noted too; I don't know what else one could name the direct involvment of investing; other than one being active. One decides; plain and simple about how to guide the monies, eh?
When I use the word "active" here, it is only in the sense of being involved with the decision of "what" for an investment. We're not very fussy about the sector(s) where the capital appreciation arrives. We have active, passive and etf's.
Take care,
Catch

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1396092/000120928615000184/e1618.htm
497 1 e1618.htm
LEADSMAN CAPITAL STRATEGIC INCOME FUND
Supplement dated April 7, 2015
to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
each dated September 15, 2014
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of World Funds Trust (the “Trust”) has approved a Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) relating to the Leadsman Capital Strategic Income Fund (the “Fund”), effective April 7, 2015. Leadsman Capital LLC, the Fund’s investment adviser (the “Adviser”), has recommended to the Board to approve the Plan based on its representations of its inability to market the Fund and the Adviser’s indication that it does not desire to continue to support the Fund. As a result, the Board has concluded that it is in the best interest of the Fund’s shareholders to liquidate the Fund.
In connection with the proposed liquidation and dissolution of the Fund called for by the Plan, the Board has directed the Trust’s principal underwriter to cease offering shares of the Fund immediately as of the date of this Supplement. Shareholders may continue to reinvest dividends and distributions in the Fund or redeem their shares until the liquidation.
It is anticipated that the Fund will liquidate on or about April 7, 2015. Any remaining shareholders on the date of liquidation will receive a distribution of their remaining investment value in full liquidation of the Fund. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund toll-free at 1.800.673.0550.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of any redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
This Supplement, and the existing Prospectus dated September 15, 2014, provide relevant
information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the
Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated September 15, 2014 have
been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference,
and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund toll-free at 1.800.673.0550.