Capital and KKR are planning a series of hybrid funds that will invest in both publicly and privately traded assets. The first two strategies, expected to launch next year, will hold about 60% in public bonds picked by Capital managers, and 40% in direct and asset-based loans sourced by KKR.

These are likely the asset allocation or balanced funds. Really have to monitor these funds as they evolve.
TRP has a global allocation fund with 10% in private equity, and the fund is very average in performance for a number of years.

Yup. I didn't like the (then) 10-15% Blackstone Black Box they were promoting in RPGAX. I was interested in the fund to compliment PRWCX but I like knowing what I own!

The following proves that PVCMX is not an absolute return fund, see (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/absolutereturn.asp)
Quote "an absolute return fund seeks to make positive returns by employing investment management techniques that differ from traditional mutual funds. Absolute return investment strategies include using short selling, futures, options, derivatives, arbitrage, leverage, and unconventional assets. Absolute returns are examined separately from any other performance measure, so only gains or losses on the investment are considered."
The manager uses his unique strategy which depends mainly on owning cash equivalent positions when he can't find stocks that meet his criteria. I call it timing the markets.
JD, since retirement in 2018, I hardly owned stock funds. I'm mainly a bond OEFs trader. In extreme market risk, I'm at 99+% in MM.

Capital and KKR are planning a series of hybrid funds that will invest in both publicly and privately traded assets. The first two strategies, expected to launch next year, will hold about 60% in public bonds picked by Capital managers, and 40% in direct and asset-based loans sourced by KKR.

These are likely the asset allocation or balanced funds. Really have to monitor these funds as they evolve.
TRP has a global allocation fund with 10% in private equity, and the fund is very average in performance for a number of years.

Wouldn't expect this from conservatively-run juggernaught Capital, but here they are. I hope these funds don't tarnish their reputation by getting too ... creative. (I hold several large long-long-loooong term positions in various of their equity funds)
Per WSJ:
Capital Group, the stock-picking juggernaut whose American Funds have been a staple in brokerage accounts for nearly a century, is tapping private-equity pioneer KKR to step into the lucrative world of private investments.
Capital and KKR are planning a series of hybrid funds that will invest in both publicly and privately traded assets. The first two strategies, expected to launch next year, will hold about 60% in public bonds picked by Capital managers, and 40% in direct and asset-based loans sourced by KKR.
The new funds will target mass-affluent clients, or those who invest between $100,000 and $1 million. These customers hold the biggest chunk of the assets in wealth accounts, and represent the next frontier for firms that manage alternative assets such as private companies, loans and real estate.
Capital and KKR also intend to explore multiple flavors of hybrid funds—and private assets—in different markets around the world.
< - >

The plan marks one of Capital’s biggest forays into private assets since the 1970s when it helped start a venture-capital fund that would later emerge as Sequoia Capital. The money-management industry has changed dramatically since then, as trillions of dollars flowed into low-cost funds that track market indexes.
For KKR, the partnership will help extend its reach beyond the ultrawealthy individuals and families who currently invest in its products through wealth managers and financial advisers.
“Roughly 5% of U.S. households would meet that qualification,” Nuttall said. “There is this whole universe that we’re not getting close to touching.”
Facing relentless pressure to lower their own fees, traditional stock and bond managers have turned to investing in alternatives. These investments still command higher fees, and are harder for index and exchange-traded funds to duplicate. The pitch for customers is a chance at market-beating returns.
< - >
https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/american-funds-parent-launching-partnership-with-kkr-to-move-into-private-assets-114430d0?mod=hp_lead_pos5

@BaluBalu, keep an eye on the news.
Goldman Sachs had huge missteps into retail - Marcus online and Apple Card, both big money losers for Goldman Sachs. The expanding retail pie for Goldman Sachs to make money never happened. The relationship between Apple and Goldman Sachs may soon end and the new partner may be JP Morgan Chase (others considered were Citi, Capital One, Synchrony).
So, the current deal from Apple Card may soon change. You may not want to jump into something that may be good for a few months only.

Palm Valley lists the following:
Inception 4/30/2019
INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE (%) as of March 31, 2024
___________________ Quarter YTD 1 Year 3 Year Inception
Palm Valley Capital Fund 1.04% 1.04% 7.38% 4.55% 7.55%
S&P SmallCap 600 Index 2.46% 2.46% 15.93% 2.29% 8.47%
Morningstar Small Cap Index 5.69% 5.69% 21.51% 2.68% 8.31%

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1014913/000110465924063686/tm2414610d1_497.htm
497 1 tm2414610d1_497.htm 497
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration No. 333-07305
1940 Act File No. 811-07685
FRONTIER FUNDS, INC.
Supplement to Prospectus Dated October 31, 2023
Frontier HyperiUS Global Equity Fund
Institutional Class Shares (FHYPX)
Service Class Shares (FHGSX)
The Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Frontier Funds, Inc. (the “Company”), based upon the recommendation of Frontegra Asset Management, Inc. (“Frontegra”), has determined to liquidate the Frontier HyperiUS Global Equity Fund (the “Fund”). Frontegra is the Fund’s investment adviser and Hyperion Asset Management Limited doing business as H.A.M.L. is the Fund’s subadviser. After considering a variety of factors, the Board concluded that it would be advisable and in the best interest of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund be closed and liquidated as a series of the Company, effective as of the close of business on the liquidation date, June 10, 2024.
The Board approved a Plan of Liquidation that determines the manner in which the Fund will be liquidated. Pursuant to the Plan of Liquidation and in anticipation of the Fund’s liquidation, the Fund will be closed to new purchases, additional investments and incoming exchanges, except for purchases made through an automatic investment program or the reinvestment of any distributions or a purchase exception that is approved by the officers of the Company, effective after market close on May 22, 2024. After the Fund is closed to new investments, shareholders will be permitted to exchange their shares of the Fund for shares of the other available Frontier Funds or to redeem their shares of the Fund, as provided in the Fund’s prospectus, until the liquidation date. No redemption fees will be imposed by the Fund in connection with redemptions or exchanges; however, please note that your financial intermediary may charge fees in connection with redemptions or exchanges.
Prior to the June 10, 2024, liquidation date, the Fund will no longer actively pursue its stated investment objective, and H.A.M.L. will begin to liquidate the Fund’s portfolio. The Fund’s portfolio managers will likely increase the Fund’s assets held in cash and cash equivalents in order to prepare for an orderly liquidation and to meet anticipated redemption requests. As a result, the Fund is expected to deviate from its stated investment objective, policies and strategies.
Pursuant to the Plan of Liquidation, any shareholder who has not exchanged or redeemed their shares of the Fund prior to the liquidation date of June 10, 2024, will have their shares redeemed and will receive one or more payments representing the shareholder’s proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund as of the liquidation date, after the Fund has paid or provided for all taxes, expenses and any other liabilities, subject to any required withholdings. The automatic redemption of Fund shares on the liquidation date will generally be treated the same as any other redemption of Fund shares for tax purposes, so that shareholders (other than tax-exempt accounts) will recognize gain or loss for income tax purposes on the redemption of their Fund shares in the liquidation. In addition, the Fund and its shareholders will bear transaction costs and tax consequences associated with the disposition of the Fund’s portfolio holdings prior to the liquidation date. The Fund expects to have declared and paid a distribution or distributions, which, together with all previous such distributions, will have the effect of distributing to the Fund’s shareholders all of the Fund’s investment company taxable income and net capital gain (after reductions for any available capital loss carryforward), if any, realized in the taxable periods ending on or prior to the liquidation date. The distribution or distributions will include any additional amounts necessary to avoid federal income or excise tax. Shareholders should consult their tax adviser for further information about federal, state and local tax consequences relative to their specific situation.
This supplement should be retained with your Prospectus for future reference.
The date of this Supplement to the Prospectus is May 21, 2024.

If one were "back testing a portfolio to forward implement" a retirement Withdrawal Strategy using PV as @yogibullbear has outlined above, what funds would you choose?
We can't count on the same results going forward but the hope is past performance at least rhymes with future performance and we adjust as we go.
Criteria:
ER under 1%
3 Fund Portfolio
4% WD Yearly
Minimum 7% total return on a 3,5,10 and 15 yr basis
No COLA - I prefer the portfolio's yearly balance and 4% WD be the determinant of the dollar amount of the WD
Here are some funds for consideration and comment:
90% + Equity Portfolio (VFINX, FBGRX, PRMTX, FSMEX, PRNHX)
Other Choices:
- I often see these choices as being index funds that capture the market as well as sector funds that attempt to capture the outsized gains of a sector.
aggressive-allocation
70/30 or 80/20 Allocation Funds (PRWCX, TSAIX, looking for more choices )
Other Choices:
- Manager risk can be a larger dynamic with these investments. When these funds get it right they often captures more of the upside while reducing some of the downside risk.
moderately-aggressive-allocation
60/40 or 50/50 Balanced Funds (FBALX, VBINX, VWELX, FPURX, VGSTX, GAOZX, DODBX, RBAIX, RGPAX, VGWAX)
Other Balanced Funds:
- Not all balance fund are created the same. This article separate balance funds into three categories - US-centric, Global, and Diversified
balanced-funds
Other considerations:
Low Draw Down / Low Volatility Funds
- Funds that focus on Bonds, Utilities, Preferred stock might fit in this category.
12-battle-tested-low-volatility-funds
and with ETFs:
7-yield-solution-4-etf-portfolio
(JEPI, NUSI, HNDL, HIPS)
These funds should consistently produce a minimum 7% total return that I'll call The 7% Solution - where a retiree "spends down" (WD 4% yearly) while allowing the remaining 3% to grows the portfolio for future inflation adjusted 4% WDs.

the distinction between cost method and lot selection
Exactly. Further, each - cost basis and lot selection - is a distinct legal (accounting) fiction. In reality shares owned are nothing but fungible writings in an electronic ledger. For the tax purpose of computing gain, the IRS offers two different methods of ascribing cost - average and actual. If there is no gain to be calculated for taxes (as is the case for tax-sheltered accounts), then there is no cost basis.
That doesn't preclude investors from thinking about how much money they made in buying and selling shares, regardless of whether they are taxed on cap gains. To facilitate this, brokerages often provide their own tax-sheltered "cost basis" calculations for investors to track gains in their minds. Though not on their 1040s.
To illustrate this dichotomy between tax purposes and investor perceptions, consider income averaging. Say you make $100K in a single year, but the IRS lets you average that income over five years. From your perspective, you made $100K up front; you've got $100K in your pocket. From the IRS perspective, you made $20K that year, and you'll make $20K over each of the next four years. Which is real, $100K all at once or $20K each of five years? You may say the former, since you've got $100K now, but if you're talking taxes, the $20K/year is the "real" interpretation.
Likewise, funds and brokerages have their own rules for calculating holding periods. These rules need not be consistent with each other or with tax rules.
Typically, funds (a) waive short term redemption fees on shares purchased via div reinvestment (including cap gain divs), and (b) apply the redemption fee (e.g. 2%) only to those shares sold within the short-term period as opposed to all shares sold in the transaction.
In contrast to (b), brokerages typically charge a flat short term trading fee if any of the shares sold are subject to the brokerage's short term fee. Fidelity, at least, explicitly waives fees on reinvested divs:

[Fidelity's short-term trading fee] does not apply to ... shares purchased through dividend reinvestment.

https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/Brokerage_Commissions_Fee_Schedule.pdf
Finally, to illustrate the difference that ordering rules make, consider the following transactions:
Jan 4 - purchase 100 shares
Nov 25 - purchase 100 shares
Dec 28 - div reinvest - purchase 10 shares
Jan 16 (next year) - sell 110 shares
On a strict FIFO basis, 10 shares (purchased Nov 25) will have been sold within 60 days of purchase. If for the purpose of calculating a short-term redemption fee, reinvested divs are deemed to have been sold first, then the 110 shares sold will be the 10 purchased on Jan 16 and the 100 purchased on Jan 4. No fee will be assessed (assuming no fee is charged for redeeming div reinvestment shares).

Too many employees and not enough work, given productivity gains from automation / computerization. They are bored out of their minds, what else do you expect. It is all our fault for expecting too little and giving them whatever they whine for. I am sure the rest of the government is no better.

There's no cost basis accounting in tax-sheltered vehicles.

You might find the following relevant:
I have a long standing mutual fund holding in my IRA but in March I had some idle cash in the account and I added to that mutual fund, which is subject to a 2% redemption fees if sold within 90 days of purchase.
The fund prospectus says, "In determining whether a redemption fee is applicable to a particular redemption, it is assumed that the redemption is first of shares acquired pursuant to the reinvestment of dividends and capital gains distributions, and next of other shares held by the shareholder for the longest period of time."
I tried to sell shares I bought a few years ago.
Schwab Rep and supervisor are adamant that cost basis method in IRA controls for purpose of applying the 2% redemption fees. They say the March purchase taints the sale because average cost basis is used in that account and thus they have to apply the 2% redemption fees. (The strange part is, their reps are not trained and their system are not designed for their own literature, which correctly says, "Assets using the Average Cost Method will default to the FIFO Lot Selection Method when disposed." We already know the brokerages thoroughly confuse the distinction between cost method and lot selection. If they actually applied the FIFO lot selection as their literature says, there is no redemption fees in my case.)
The above issue is also there at Fidelity. We discussed this in the Fidelity Community in the past year - I go there very rarely these days but anyone active there probably can pull up that discussion. My memory is not good re Fidelity's exact process but they might even just apply average cost basis method (means test the last purchased shares to see if there is a taint) in applying the fund level redemption fees, not withstanding what the customer's selection is. Posters should pay attention to what Fidelity does or read that discussion in Fidelity Community where Fidelity employees participated.
It is interesting how these brokerages' own short term redemption fees ($50) is applied on a FIFO basis but these brokerages use some other method for purposes of applying the fund's redemption fees, irrespective of what the prospectus says. I guess it is easy for them to have a simpler punitive system, rather than customize for each fund. Most customers do not select a cost (or lot) method in retirement accounts and so they are defaulted to a average method. Something to be aware of.
While it is likely differences among funds exist, I have only seen funds apply FIFO.

Per CNBC:
Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of Donald Trump’s Truth Social network, reported a net loss of $327.6 million, with total revenue at $770,500 in its first fiscal quarter.
< - >
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/20/trump-media-djt-q1-2024-earnings.html
.. I found the key bullet points of their earnings press release pathetically amusing, too. Sounds like they're desperate for some positive talking points....
~ Completed the Business Combination with Digital World Acquisition Corp. (DJT), Successfully Debuted as Public Company, and Now Has Over 621,000 Retail Shareholders. ~
~ Commenced Trading on Nasdaq, Under Symbol DJT on March 26, 2024 ~
~ Company Has Sufficient Working Capital as a Result of a Going Public Event ~
~ Signs First Contracts for Deployment of its TV Streaming Platform ~

I searched for credit cards with good overall cash-back policies and minimal hassles.
I didn't want to play games with rotating categories, travel rewards, or some other BS.
Show me the money!
My experience with PenFed credit cards is that their points are worth less than $0.01 when redeemed for cash back or statement credit. So, the 5x points for gas and 3x points for supermarkets isn’t quite equal to 5% and 3%.
There are two different matters here - how you earn rewards (flat rate, special fixed categories, rotating categories) and how you redeem them (cash, miles, unrestricted bill credit, restricted bill credit).
On the earning side, rotating categories are the most nuisance to deal with. Even here, one can get some benefit by using a card for bills you pay automatically, like a gym or a cable/streaming service. When a rotating category card starts giving more rewards for a category, change your autobilling for services in that category to use the card. Change your autobilling back at the end of the three month rotation period. You don't have to think about categories any other time.
Fixed categories like PenFed's Platinum Rewards card (gas, supermarkets) let you avoid the hassle of dealing with continually changing categories. You can mimic this effect with Citibank Custom Cash by selecting a single category for which to use the card. Though with fixed categories you still need to remember which card you have dedicated for which category.
Truly minimal hassle means fixed rate bonus, no limit, no expiration.
On the redemption side, anything other than cash back (cash or statement credit) or actual frequent flier miles reduces redemption value. If you've got $30 in value that you redeem for a gift card (unless at a discounted price) you'll get $30 of purchasing power in the gift card, but you'll lose the opportunity to earn more cash back when you spend that $30. You'll be using the gift card and not your credit card.
Then there are redemptions that are worth less than a penny per point. This is a problem with PenFed's Platinum Rewards and even with Fidelity's credit card (if not redeemed into a Fidelity account). It is not a problem with Pen Fed's Cash Rewards card (flat 2% if you have a free Penn Fed checking account).
Some cards let you get statement credits for full value, but restrict how much you can redeem. This is often tied to travel. Capital One Venture miles can be redeemed for credit against past travel expenses (or for cash at a reduced redemption rate); BofA's travel card restricts mile redemptions to credits for past travel. If you do any traveling this is merely a hassle. If you have no travel expenses at all, this is a major impediment.
Each person's tolerance for pain (hassle) and each person's spending pattern are different. I'm okay with rotating categories, but only for supplemental cards. I keep it relatively simple by using a primary card that credits me with dollars, flat rate rewards, and no redemption restrictions. Secondary is a fixed category card. Tertiary are rotating category cards, if I remember what the categories du jour are.

@bee, now try to run 10 years to 2020, i.e. 2010-2020 (i.e. 1/1/2010-12/30/2020 under Year-to-year), but you can not. The result is truncated to 1/1/2015-12/31/2020 (well under 10 years). Then see my post just before yours - my guess is that your 10-year test periods were all pre-mid-2014 except the full 2014/2015-2024.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=1F7QzYmcVWRuBv5WmY6L5B

Microsoft’s AI / Chat gpt offered up these (among other) observations. I’ve edited them a bit for brevity.
“The Return Stacked® U.S. Stocks & Managed Futures ETF (RSST) aims for long-term capital appreciation by investing in two complementary strategies: (1) U.S. Equity Strategy: This part of the fund seeks exposure to U.S. stocks. For every $1 invested, the fund aims to provide $1 of exposure to its U.S. equity strategy. (2) Managed Futures Strategy: The fund also invests in managed futures contracts. Again, for every $1 invested, it aims to provide $1 of exposure to its managed futures strategy.
Risk Factors:
Derivatives Risk: The use of derivatives (such as futures contracts) may carry more risk than other investments.
Commodity Risk: Investing in physical commodities can be extremely volatile.
Commodity-Linked Derivatives Tax Risk: Changes in legislation or regulations may affect the tax treatment of commodity-linked derivative instruments.
Foreign and Emerging Markets Risk
Leverage Risk: The fund uses leverage to stack the total return of its holdings in the U.S. equity strategy and managed futures strategy together.”
-
Morningstar assigns RSST a “Negative” rating. While I own 1 or 2 of their “Neutral” rated funds, I’d probably steer clear of any having their rare Negative grade.
Morningstar cites high fees (which don’t look excessive to me) and high manager turnover along with a lack of manager experience operating this fund (which is apparently quite new). M* seems to think the methodology used (process) is suspect and cites momentum investing as one part of the process,
Lipper apparently doesn’t yet have enough data to rate RSST

The graphic is set for the 5 days ending May 17, Friday; for the best to worst % returns in select etf categories. One may then also select the one month column to align the one month return best to worst; or for the other listed time frame columns.
ADD an etf performance of your choosing, if you desire.
*** Requested ADD: For the week and YTD
--- MINT = +.13% / +2.43% Pimco Ultra Short Term Enhanced Bonds
--- EWW = +.72% / +1.64% (I Shares, Mexico)
MMKT note: Fidelity core mmkt's yields remain unchanged this week, with core acct's yields at 4.95% (SPAXX) and 4.98% (FDRXX).
NOTE: A slightly lower CPI moved the U.S. equity/bond sectors. The Wednesday report saw solid gains, with some pull back at the weeks end.The broad U.S. equity and bond sectors finished the week with generally positive performance in most sectors through an erratic market week, with 'growth and tech.' again having the edge up. China large cap (FXI etf), had another week of 'performance+', with a +22 YTD; as well as DXJ etf (Japan large cap hedged), which is now +24.1 YTD. * China is pumping large amounts of monies into that economy. Bonds in most sectors ended the total week performance with positive gains. Bond funds ranged from +.13% to a +2%, with the ultra short term being the lowest positive (as expected) and the very long term being the best sectors. See the 'graphic' link at the beginning of this write for details of weekly returns.
NEW: 1 week 'heat map' by sectors. This is an interactive graphic. You may hover the computer pointer over the various blocks to view portions of sectors and/or stocks within those sectors. NOTE: to the left of the graphic, one may change the 1 week performance drop down menu to another time frame. Another example: at the left edge of the graphic, select exchange traded funds and then 1 week or a time period of your choice.
Remain curious,
Catch

Oh, I wasn't talking about Fidelity/Elan. I was thinking, perhaps of one of the AAA cards, though they are provided by Bread Financial/Comenity Bank. That is not well regarded either. So a AAA card may not be a better alternative.
I'm looking for a backup card for foreign travel. Backup means it won't be used frequently but reliability is important. It seems that QuickSilver (Capital One) changed from Visa to MC a couple of years ago. It checks all my boxes.
It pays only 1.5% cash back, but for an infrequently used card a half percent difference isn't important. What does matter is that it has no annual fee or foreign transaction fee. And MC means it complements the Visa card I use for foreign travel. A modest signup bonus ($200) is a small plus. Not to mention half off coffee drinks in their cafes.
Obviously, each person's criteria are different. The Fidelity card works nicely for many.

BIVRX gained 61.2% in 2021, and then followed that up by rising 49.5% in 2022. This "long-short" fund has 6 positive calendar years of gains, 0 negative.
However, in 2024 it is down YTD..... close to (-9%) thus far. It's worth a small allocation to me. Long-short funds are so funky.

Yes, but there is a downside to staying within the 25% MLP limit.

40 Act Funds – RIC Compliant – Less than 25% MLPs
Funds that own less than 25% MLPs do not pay taxes at the fund level, enabling them to pass through the entire return to their investors. The return of capital benefit from owning MLPs is muted due to the limit imposed on MLP ownership. Investors interested in RIC-compliant energy infrastructure funds should research what the fund owns for the other 75%. Common positions include midstream C-Corporations, utility companies, exploration and production companies, refiners, and MLP affiliates structured as C-Corporations.
Advantages:

• Ownership of the underlying securities
  
• Little to no tracking error

Disadvantages:

• Generally lower yield

https://etfdb.com/index-education/mlp-investing/

If any fund (mutual fund, closed-end fund, or ETF) owns more than 25% MLPs, the fund will be taxed as a corporation. Accordingly, there are two types of MLP funds – those structured as RICs, which own up to 25% MLPs, and those structured as corporations (or C-Corp funds), which tend to be 90-100% MLPs.

https://www.etftrends.com/energy-infrastructure-channel/beyond-the-k-1-tax-treatment-for-an-mlp-fund-vs-an-mlp/
MLPFX is of the latter type. Thus, like and individual investor in an MLP, it owes taxes on income generated by the MLP. The tax gimmick in MLPs is that their dividends are treated as returns of capital. So one does not owe taxes immediately on this income. MLPFX passes these ROCs through to its investors.
Ultimately the tax bill comes due. The return of capital reduces the cost basis of an MLP so that when it is sold, the gain is not based on the purchase price but on the purchase price minus the "tax-free" divs received. Since MLPFX is taxed as a corporation, it will owe those taxes.
"Upon a Fund’s sale of a portfolio security, the Fund will be liable for previously deferred taxes."
Prospectus
These deferred tax expenses are reported as expenses of the fund as they are accrued, i.e. at an estimated rate of 5.44% per year. That's the cost of creating a wrapper fund to convert MLP K1s into 1099s.

One disadvantage of investing in a C-Corp fund instead of individual MLPs is the potential for tax drag to weigh on fund performance relative to its underlying holdings. C-Corp funds accrue a deferred tax liability for the portion of distributions considered to be a tax-deferred return of capital and for gains in underlying holdings.

ETFtrends (cited above).
Aside from Fidelity Treasury Portfolio, I can't find any underlying funds in the portfolio.