Latest news with #Equity
Cision Canada
8 hours ago
- Business
- Cision Canada
BMO Announces Fund Launches and Changes to Certain BMO Mutual Funds Français
TORONTO, May 29, 2025 /CNW/ - BMO Investments Inc. (BMOII), the manager of the BMO Mutual Funds, today announced the following changes to its product offering: Fund Launches and Qualification of Series S Securities The following BMO Mutual Funds and series will be launched: 1 Series F, Series I and Advisor Series units of the Fund are not currently available for purchase. BMOII has applied for certain three-tier exemptive relief and will only make Series F, Series I and Advisor Series units of the Fund available for purchase if and when this relief is granted. Series S securities of BMO U.S. Small Cap Fund will be qualified. Risk Rating Changes Effective May 28, 2025, the risk rating of each of the following BMO Mutual Funds changed: Management Fee and Administration Fee Changes The following management fee and administration fee changes were effective after the close of business on May 28, 2025, except as noted otherwise. Fund Series Current Annual Management Fee New Annual Management Fee BMO Asian Growth and Income Fund A 2.25 % 1.95 % BMO Asian Growth and Income Fund Advisor 2.25 % 1.95 % BMO Asian Growth and Income Fund T6 2.25 % 1.95 % BMO Asset Allocation Fund A 1.75 % 1.45 % BMO Asset Allocation Fund Advisor 1.75 % 1.45 % BMO Asset Allocation Fund G 0.85 % 0.80 % BMO Asset Allocation Fund T6 1.75 % 1.45 % BMO Canadian Equity ETF Fund A 1 0.75 % 0.55 % BMO Canadian Equity ETF Fund F 1 0.20 % 0.05 % BMO Canadian Equity Fund A 2.00 % 1.50 % BMO Canadian Equity Fund Advisor 2.00 % 1.50 % BMO Canadian Small Cap Equity Fund A 2.00 % 1.60 % BMO Canadian Small Cap Equity Fund Advisor 2.00 % 1.60 % BMO Canadian Stock Selection Fund A 1.80 % 1.50 % BMO Canadian Stock Selection Fund Advisor 1.80 % 1.50 % BMO Core Bond Fund A 0.95 % 0.85 % BMO Core Bond Fund Advisor 0.95 % 0.85 % BMO Core Plus Bond Fund A 1.15 % 0.90 % BMO Core Plus Bond Fund Advisor 1.15 % 0.90 % BMO Core Plus Bond Fund G 0.75 % 0.65 % BMO Diversified Income Portfolio A 1.75 % 1.35 % BMO Diversified Income Portfolio Advisor 1.75 % 1.35 % BMO Diversified Income Portfolio T6 1.75 % 1.35 % BMO Dividend Fund G 1.00 % 0.85 % BMO Emerging Markets Bond Fund F 0.65 % 0.60 % BMO Emerging Markets Fund A 2.00 % 1.70 % BMO Emerging Markets Fund Advisor 2.00 % 1.70 % BMO Enterprise Fund Advisor 2.35 % 2.00 % BMO European Fund A 2.00 % 1.65 % BMO European Fund Advisor 2.00 % 1.65 % BMO Global Dividend Fund A 1.90 % 1.60 % BMO Global Dividend Fund Advisor 1.90 % 1.60 % BMO Global Dividend Fund T6 1.90 % 1.60 % BMO Global Small Cap Fund A 2.25 % 1.85 % BMO Global Small Cap Fund Advisor 2.25 % 1.85 % BMO Global Strategic Bond Fund A 1.75 % 1.20 % BMO Global Strategic Bond Fund Advisor 1.75 % 1.20 % BMO Growth & Income Fund Advisor 1.85 % 1.50 % BMO Growth & Income Fund T8 1.85 % 1.50 % BMO Growth Opportunities Fund A 1.80 % 1.55 % BMO Growth Opportunities Fund Advisor 1.80 % 1.55 % BMO International Equity ETF Fund A 1 0.85 % 0.70 % BMO International Equity ETF Fund F 1 0.30 % 0.20 % BMO International Value Fund A 1.90 % 1.75 % BMO International Value Fund Advisor 1.90 % 1.75 % BMO Money Market Fund A 2 0.60 % 0.32 % BMO Money Market Fund Advisor 2 0.60 % 0.32 % BMO Money Market Fund ETF 0.28 % 0.12 % BMO Money Market Fund F 2 0.20 % 0.12 % BMO Monthly High Income Fund II A 1.85 % 1.60 % BMO Monthly High Income Fund II Advisor 1.85 % 1.60 % BMO Monthly High Income Fund II T5 1.85 % 1.60 % BMO Monthly High Income Fund II T8 1.85 % 1.60 % BMO Monthly Income Fund G 0.90 % 0.85 % BMO Mortgage and Short-Term Income Fund A 3 1.25 % 0.92% 4 BMO Mortgage and Short-Term Income Fund Advisor 3 1.25 % 0.92% 4 BMO Mortgage and Short-Term Income Fund F 3 0.35 % 0.42% 4 BMO North American Dividend Fund A 2.00 % 1.50 % BMO North American Dividend Fund Advisor 2.00 % 1.50 % BMO North American Dividend Fund T6 2.00 % 1.50 % BMO Precious Metals Fund A 2.00 % 1.85 % BMO Precious Metals Fund Advisor 2.00 % 1.85 % BMO Resource Fund A 2.00 % 1.85 % BMO Resource Fund Advisor 2.00 % 1.85 % BMO SelectTrust® Fixed Income Portfolio A 1.70 % 1.20 % BMO SelectTrust® Fixed Income Portfolio Advisor 1.70 % 1.20 % BMO SelectTrust® Fixed Income Portfolio T6 1.70 % 1.20 % BMO Sustainable Global Balanced Fund A 1.70 % 1.60 % BMO Sustainable Global Balanced Fund Advisor 1.70 % 1.60 % BMO Tactical Balanced ETF Fund G 0.95 % 0.85 % BMO Tactical Dividend ETF Fund G 1.00 % 0.90 % BMO Tactical Global Asset Allocation ETF Fund F 0.65 % 0.55 % BMO Tactical Global Asset Allocation ETF Fund F4 0.65 % 0.55 % BMO Tactical Global Equity ETF Fund F 0.70 % 0.60 % BMO Tactical Global Equity ETF Fund F6 0.70 % 0.60 % BMO U.S. Dollar Balanced Fund A 1.55 % 1.50 % BMO U.S. Dollar Balanced Fund Advisor 1.55 % 1.50 % BMO U.S. Dollar Money Market Fund A 5 1.00 % 0.49 % BMO U.S. Dollar Money Market Fund Advisor 5 1.00 % 0.49 % BMO U.S. Dollar Money Market Fund F 5 0.80 % 0.29 % BMO U.S. Dollar Money Market Fund O 6 0.00 % 0.05% 4 BMO U.S. Dollar Monthly Income Fund A 1.85 % 1.50 % BMO U.S. Dollar Monthly Income Fund Advisor 1.85 % 1.50 % BMO U.S. Dollar Monthly Income Fund T5 1.85 % 1.50 % BMO U.S. Dollar Monthly Income Fund T6 1.85 % 1.50 % BMO U.S. Equity ETF Fund A 1 0.80 % 0.58 % BMO U.S. Equity ETF Fund F 1 0.25 % 0.08 % BMO U.S. Equity Fund A 2.00 % 1.50 % BMO U.S. Equity Fund A (Hedged) 2.00 % 1.50 % BMO U.S. Equity Fund Advisor 2.00 % 1.50 % BMO U.S. Equity Fund Advisor (Hedged) 2.00 % 1.50 % BMO U.S. Equity Plus Fund A 1.80 % 1.55 % BMO U.S. Equity Plus Fund Advisor 1.80 % 1.55 % BMO World Bond Fund A 1.75 % 0.95 % BMO World Bond Fund Advisor 1.75 % 0.95 % Notes 1 The fixed administration fee of 0.10% paid to BMOII by this Fund in respect of this series was eliminated. BMOII continues to be responsible for payment of the administration expenses for the Fund, other than the fund expenses which continue to be paid by the Fund directly. 2 The fixed administration fee of 0.08% paid to BMOII by this Fund in respect of this series was eliminated. BMOII continues to be responsible for payment of the administration expenses for the Fund, other than the fund expenses which continue to be paid by the Fund directly. 3 Effective September 1, 2025, the fixed administration fee of 0.17% paid to BMOII by this Fund in respect of this series will be eliminated. Following the change, BMOII will continue to be responsible for payment of the administration expenses for the Fund, other than the fund expenses which will continue to be paid by the Fund directly. 4 The management fee changes will be effective September 1, 2025. 5 The fixed administration fee of 0.15% paid to BMOII by this Fund in respect of this series was eliminated. BMOII continues to be responsible for payment of the administration expenses for the Fund, other than the fund expenses which continue to be paid by the Fund directly. 6 Effective September 1, 2025, the fixed administration fee of 0.15% paid to BMOII by this Fund in respect of this series will be eliminated. Following the change, BMOII will continue to be responsible for payment of the administration expenses for the Fund, other than the fund expenses which will continue to be paid by the Fund directly. For more information about the Funds, please visit Mutual Funds | BMO Global Asset Management ( "BMO (M-bar roundel symbol)" is a registered trademark of Bank of Montreal, used under licence. BMO Global Asset Management is a brand name under which BMO Asset Management Inc. and BMO Investments Inc. operate. BMO Mutual Funds are managed by BMO Investments Inc., which is an investment fund manager and a separate legal entity from Bank of Montreal. Commissions, management fees and expenses (if applicable) all may be associated with investments in mutual funds. Trailing commissions may be associated with investments in certain series of securities of mutual funds. Please read the fund facts or simplified prospectus of the relevant Fund before investing. Mutual funds are not guaranteed, their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Distributions are not guaranteed and are subject to change and/or elimination. For a summary of the risks of an investment in the BMO Mutual Funds, please see the specific risks set out in the simplified prospectus. About BMO Financial Group BMO Financial Group is the seventh largest bank in North America by assets, with total assets of $1.4 trillion as of April 30, 2025. Serving customers for 200 years and counting, BMO is a diverse team of highly engaged employees providing a broad range of personal and commercial banking, wealth management, global markets and investment banking products and services to 13 million customers across Canada, the United States, and in select markets globally. Driven by a single purpose, to Boldly Grow the Good in business and life, BMO is committed to driving positive change in the world, and making progress for a thriving economy, sustainable future, and inclusive society.
The Hill
12 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
16 states sue over research grant cuts
Attorneys general from 16 states filed a Thursday lawsuit against the Trump administration's cuts to research grants funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Earlier this month, the NSF said it would no longer reimburse indirect costs for research exceeding 15 percent. The move comes after an April announcement that struck more than $200 million in funds for studies exploring Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) in addition to misinformation. The coalition of states says that a federal law requires the NSF to increase the 'participation of women and underrepresented minorities' in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). 'This administration's attacks on basic science and essential efforts to ensure diversity in STEM will weaken our economy and our national security,' New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement on the lawsuit. 'Putting politics over science will only set our country back, and I will continue to fight to protect critical scientific research and education,' she added. Alongside New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Washington are each listed as plaintiffs in the legal battle. The NSF did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment on the legal challenge. The state's lawsuit comes as a group of 13 schools sued the NSF over slated changes. 'Research projects with more narrow impact limited to subgroups of people based on protected class or characteristics do not effectuate NSF priorities. NSF will continue to support research with the goal of understanding or addressing participation in STEM, in accordance with all applicable statutes and mandates, with the core goal of creating opportunities for all Americans,' the foundation wrote in an April statement. 'NSF will continue to support basic and use-inspired research in S&E fields that focus on protected characteristics when doing so is intrinsic to the research question and is aligned with Agency priorities,' it adds.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
This will ‘devastate scientific research': 16 states sue the Trump administration over National Science Foundation directive
Sign up for CNN's Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more. Attorneys general from 16 mostly Democrat-controlled US states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration Wednesday, arguing that some of the federal government's attempts to gut National Science Foundation research programs are illegal. The suit, filed in federal court Wednesday afternoon, asks a judge to put a stop to NSF policies that are halting millions of dollars' worth of research spending. The move comes after the NSF announced in April that it would do away with hundreds of grants — mostly related to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) and misinformation research — that amounted to more than $230 million. The cancellations have mounted since then, so far affecting a total of 1,753 grants worth nearly $1.4 billion across numerous areas of research, according to NSF data. Neither the National Science Foundation nor the White House responded to a request for comment. The agency also announced a new policy in May that caps how much researchers can spend on 'indirect costs,' which include operating expenses such as the use of laboratories, safety programs and equipment, at 15%. (The cap is currently on hold through June 13, pending a legal hearing.) The attorneys general argue such a policy would 'slash millions of dollars for groundbreaking scientific research across the country, jeopardizing national security, the economy, and public health,' according to a news release from New York State Attorney General Letitia James, who is coleading the suit with Hawaii State Attorney General Anne Lopez. The coalition's lawsuit also argues that the Trump administration's efforts to shutter research related to diversity is illegal. The NSF 'has a Congressionally-mandated focus on improving diversity in STEM fields,' according to the news release from James' office. 'Congress has instructed in law that a 'core strategy' of NSF's work must be to increase the participation of people who have historically been left out of STEM occupations.' A federal law states that the National Science Foundation should work to increase the 'participation of women and individuals from underrepresented groups in STEM.' The new lawsuit argues that recent NSF directives 'violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution by unlawfully changing NSF policy and ignoring Congress's intent for how NSF should function,' according to the news release. 'The lawsuit seeks a court order ruling NSF's new policies are illegal and blocking them from being implemented.' The National Science Foundation is a $9 billion agency charged with advancing discoveries across the scientific spectrum, largely by evaluating the scientific merit of grant requests and doling out dollars, mostly to universities and other research institutions. The agency's staff has been asked in recent weeks to ensure funding requests comply with Trump's executive orders that have sought to dismantle DEIA-related activities and a 'free speech' directive that argues efforts to combat misinformation can be 'used to infringe on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States.' Many researchers, stakeholders, and institutions that work with the NSF have decried the new policies. The Federation of Associations in Behavioral & Brain Sciences, for example, said in an April 24 statement that the Trump administration's directives have put scientists in the 'middle of a political tug-of-war, wasting valuable time and resources.' Former NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan, who was tapped to lead the agency during Trump's first term, also resigned in late April — 16 months before his term was set to end. 'I believe I have done all I can to advance the critical mission of the agency and feel that it is time for me to pass the baton to new leadership,' Panchanathan said on April 24 in parting remarks, which were provided to CNN by an agency spokesperson. The White House has proposed a sweeping 55% budget cut for the NSF, and the agency could face sweeping layoffs. The coalition of states suing the Trump administration over NSF changes include New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Washington. The lawsuit mirrors another filed May 5 by 19 states and Washington, DC, against the Trump administration for allegedly taking 'a wrecking ball to the Department of Health and Human Services.' The Trump administration had in late March announced plans to cut some discretionary federal health spending and transform several health agencies. The restructuring plans include consolidating the 28 agencies of HHS into 15 new divisions, including the Administration for a Healthy America. The lawsuit over the HHS changes alleges that the impacts of the restructuring already have been harmful, leading to the shutdown of some regional HHS offices that provide services to low-income families, children with disabilities, youth experiencing homelessness and preschool development programs.
News18
2 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Why Trump Going After Harvard Is A Boon
Last Updated: There is no reason for the US to continue reaping the maximum profit from the world's intellectual capital; every nation must set up its own Harvard equivalents With US President Donald Trump hellbent on bringing Harvard University to heel—as well as several other Ivy League and top schools—successive salvos continue to reveal interesting facts. On Monday, he ranted about 30 per cent of Harvard's student body being foreigners. Subsequent 'fact-checking" showed that the actual figure was closer to 27 per cent—from 145 nations. Even so, it means well over a quarter of the student body of the best American university is not American. Imagine if Indians woke up one day to find that one-fourth of those studying at IITs, IIMs, IISc, AIIMS, or any of the premier colleges are foreigners. What would be the consensus? Would there be pride in the fact that Indian universities are attracting the best brains from abroad, never mind if some Indians do not get a chance to benefit from the same facilities? Would Indians be overjoyed that those foreigners go on to bag the best jobs in the country too? What would be the reaction of Indians if some very vocal foreign students also drove the agenda of the Indian universities, became the leaders of protests that stalled classes, and also openly indulged in politics, rather than stick to their academic goals? Would Indians be proud of the fact that foreign students were so involved in activities beyond what their visas envisaged? Would Indians be happy that the Indian education process was being regularly disrupted? It is easy to be appalled at Trump's supposed xenophobic moves to 'isolate" the US education system from the midstream of international talent. After all, those universities have benefited not only from the intellectual capital of the world but also from their financial largesse. It seems suicidal to make the US jump off that gravy train. But there must be a significant latent groundswell of local resentment that Trump has sussed but opinion makers refuse to acknowledge. Much like they refused to countenance that Trump could make a comeback after the defeat of 2020, the avalanche of court cases, and 'shocking" revelations by former friends and disgruntled relatives. Whatever Trump does, as mad as most of his moves seem to the world outside, there is a common thread: America First. If that means annoying friends—like India and Indians—so be it. And his campaign against Harvard and others is in that very same vein. His dumping the DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) mantra was the definitive indication, though, that Indians there (or here) were not sad about Trump scrapping it. Indians did not qualify for it most of the time anyway because American-born desis are not seen as being disadvantaged, though they are in a minority, racially and numerically. But remember, India has quotas too. Imagine if foreigners were also deemed eligible for them under similar DEI-type principles! Which Indian politician would not have done exactly what Trump is doing now had he or she seen seats at the best universities and coveted jobs going to immigrants? It would be interesting to find out how many Americans who are not eligible for DEI or affirmative action have been unable to get into top universities in the past 50 years. Surely it cannot be that most Americans who do not fall under any minority or special category have no scholastic talent? Some 71 per cent of all Nobel Prizes have been awarded to Americans—423 of them so far since 1901. An average of 35 per cent of American Nobel laureates in the sciences and economics are foreign-born, but that percentage is far higher if only the last two decades are considered. For instance, 4 out of 6 American Nobel laureates in medicine, chemistry, and physics in 2023 were immigrants. Surely it cannot be that US-born people have suddenly become less bright? The inescapable conclusion is that the formidable resources of top US research institutions are being used to great effect by talented immigrants who arrived there via generous scholarships. But what happened to the American-born gene pool that had fuelled earlier scientific advances? Is this Nobel Prize skew a result of natural selection or affirmative action ensuring only a certain kind of talent makes it to the institutions that have the best resources? These are uncomfortable questions, but valid all the same. How much of a nation's resources can be shared with newcomers without irking the 'natives"? Trump's reaction to this skew, taking a cue from popular sentiment, was inevitable. While Trump is predictably not handling the optics very well, especially with much of the US mainstream media implacably ranged against him, his motivations should be apparent to anyone familiar with his core constituency. Without an equitable resolution to the issue, even a change of party (and therefore policy too) after him will only kick the can further down the road. It will have to be addressed eventually. Western universities have had the advantage of centuries of wealth flowing in, which many nations elsewhere—in Asia, Africa, and South America—have not. These areas definitely do have intellectual capital, but only Western universities have the facilities to utilise it properly. What Asian, African, and South American countries lacked for a long time was commensurate financial capital to back the endeavours and aspirations of their best and brightest brains. That is no longer the case. Many nations now have the money to set up world-class universities and fund cutting-edge research; centuries-old legacies and endowments are not a prerequisite for that. They just need to attract the best teachers and set strict performance standards. The Arab nations are already snatching the initiative from the West in many spheres. They will surely venture into the education and research sectors too. It will not be long, perhaps, before the same bright foreigners who now seek entry into America's top universities—as well as faculty members—will flock to new, well-funded institutions in West Asia. That will not only take the pressure off US universities but also give them a run for their money. Rich Indians, both resident and non-resident, have donated plenty to existing educational institutions in India, but they have been even more generous to American universities of all kinds, from Ivy League to relatively obscure. That sends a mixed message. What do Western universities have that Indian ones lack? Better systems and processes, more rigorous academic practices, opportunities for creative thinking, and a culture of funding research. So? Can that not be replicated in India by enlightened investors? Surely the same Indians who reach great heights in US universities and push the boundaries of knowledge can achieve the same right here if provided the right facilities and opportunities? It will take time to gather the best teachers from around the world and persuade the brightest young minds to stay in India. There are Indians with the money to pull it off, but will they play the long game? It is naïve to expect that after Trump, the US will go back to being a country that puts foreigners/immigrants/"aliens" on the same level as its own citizens when it comes to facilities and opportunities and privileges certain minorities for its best institutions. That genie is out of the bottle. And why should America continue to reap the maximum profit from the world's intellectual capital anyway? The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : donald trump education Harvard United states Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: May 28, 2025, 17:16 IST News opinion Opinion | Why Trump Going After Harvard Is A Boon
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Rotary Club of Ending Child Abuse unveils DEI Little Free Library in Jacksonville
Jacksonville, N.C. (WNCT) — The Rotary Club of Ending Child Abuse announces the completion of its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Little Free Library project in Jacksonville. This is a community literacy initiative that hopes to foster inclusion and prevent child abuse through access to diverse educational resources. It was funded by Rotary District 7730 DEI Committee and Club fundraising efforts and supports over 90 Little Free Libraries across Onslow County. The project ran from December 1, 2024, to May 15, 2025. A highlight of the project was the installation of a new Little Free Library at Plaza ManorApartments in Jacksonville, N.C. where many books focused on diversity were supplied. 'This project has deepened our club's understanding of the importance of equitable access to literature,' Club President Taylor Alphin said. Books are shown to boost literacy and long-term educational success, so it's important to offer inclusive titles in areas where children might otherwise lack reading materials. LaWanna Wooden, President-Elect and project leader, added, 'Books that reflect all families help plant the seeds ofempathy, curiosity, and acceptance—tools that can prevent abuse and strengthencommunities.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
