I haven't seen evidence that concentration works very well at Oakmark either with Oakmark Select's spotty record during sell-offs and its legacy of holding a double digit position in Washington Mutual in the 2008 financial crisis. Where I think this concentration has for the most part worked is at Yacktman Fund (YACKX). And though it has lagged recently in a go-go growth environment, Jensen Quality Growth (JENSX) is concentrated but has also proven good in downturns, a defensive concentrated fund. The more concentrated a fund is, the more idiosyncratic stock specific risk affects a fund's performance. Any blowups in an individual stock crush the fund. That's why high quality makes more sense in concentrated funds. Low quality value stocks makes more sense in a very well diversified portfolio because it's hard to tell which of the cheap stocks are going to come back and which will end up bankrupt. There is a case to be made for a concentrated portfolio of high quality value stocks--what Yacktman's approach is.

...it was the single best financial decision I ever made...I got out
Not perfect timing, not even timing exactly, a lot of it is fear and postfacto instinct and of course luck

I rewrote the single best thing you did...always feels lucky. Here's to lucky decisions going forward...please share just before you make them.

I forget if it was exactly a 10-bagger, am thinking more, but I invested with him through his heyday and it was the single best financial decision I ever made, and then I got out

Nice!
CGMFX was too volatile for me so I never considered purchasing the fund.

I forget if it was exactly a 10-bagger, am thinking more, but I invested with him through his heyday and it was the single best financial decision I ever made, and then I got out
Not perfect timing, not even timing exactly, a lot of it is fear and postfacto instinct and of course luck

Props to Miller: He got the call right. But I think the problem with his funds isn’t his financial acumen, which I believe he has, but a structural one. One great John Bogle saying is “Strategy follows structure.” The design of an investment product influences its manager’s strategy. What that means in this case is a high fee fund requires a money manager to take on more risks to beat its benchmark and Miller’s funds have always been high fee. The fee acts as a hurdle the manager must overcome before breaking even with the no fee S&P 500 or now no fee index funds. In Miller’s case his style is to concentrate his portfolio in an eclectic mix of high risk stocks— deep value ones everyone hates and market tech darlings most value managers misunderstand. This strategy works well in bull markets and is like a leveraged play on a strong or recovering economy, but it works terribly in most bear markets and is like a leveraged play on the downside. This could be fine if most investors understood his style, but investors tend to chase performance, buying at the top and selling at the bottom. Concentration only tends to work for most investors in high quality stocks that outperform on the downside and hold their own on the upside, not low quality deep value stocks or small caps that get hammered in sell offs and cause fund investors to panic. Miller would in this regard probably be better off running a hedge fund for sophisticated investors with the wealth and understanding to ride out the very rough patches than a mutual fund for ordinary folk.

So they fixed that. And now I don't see any information posted under financial metrics.

In my experience, the GOP tends to care more about the unborn than the living. Force women to have babies, but provide minimal to no healthcare, daycare, education or financial assistance to the poor who are often poor because they come from broken homes with single mothers. There is also the hypocrisy of opposing women's rights to choose while supporting the death penalty, unrestricted gun rights, building up our nuclear arsenal, starting wars with countries that did not attack us and supporting drill-baby-drill energy policies--including coal mining--that are killing the planet slowly and are an existential threat to humanity. The thing about the anti-Women's rights to choose issue is it is relatively cheap for the GOP fight. It doesn't cost the party a penny to say No. It would cost a lot more for them to provide women with adequate healthcare, childcare, housing, schooling and intervention to assure a healthy upbringing for what otherwise become unwanted children.

@SomeoneWhoIsNotWhoHeClaimsToBe You should be ashamed for using Honest Abe Lincoln's face on your post. And your forebears if they were truly coal miners and knew what's what would know there isn't a more significant union busting, labor hating party in the U.S. today than the GOP. No new coal jobs were create during Trump's presidency and in fact they hit an all-time low at the end of 2019--https://spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/us-coal-mining-employment-hits-new-low-at-the-end-of-2019-may-go-lower-in-2020-57173047 Coal is a product that is killing the planet anyway. Instead of saving those 50,000 remaining coal mining jobs, the federal and state governments should provide financial support and re-training for those workers and give them first crack at green jobs under the Green New Deal, which would create a lot more than 50,000 jobs if the GOP and Dixiecrats or today's Blue Dog Dems weren't hell bent on killing it by any means necessary.

"Clearly DODFX is positioned for a rising rate environment."
I'm not so sure about that. Over the past few years, it had been positioned as a short term fund (see M* historical style boxes here), but in 2020 it extended its duration into intermediate term territory.
Also, as I suggested above, rising interest rates could be a result of an improving economy. In that case, one would expect the spread between junk and IG to decline, making junk more attractive. In addition, junk bonds are less sensitive to interest rate changes, tending to a fair degree to track equities. See, e.g. this Balance piece.
Yet as you noted, DODIX is not taking advantage of its ability to hold lower grade bonds. It is one of the few core plus funds with a M* average credit rating of A. (Just 17 hold A rated portfolios vs. 25 with BB portfolios; over half the core plus funds have portfolios rated BBB.)
ISTM the fund is positioned for a slow slog; low and steady rates, where it is betting on rates not going up (and prices dropping), while not willing to bet on avoiding short term problems in the economy (where junk bond prices would fall).
In the equity market, rising interest rates are good for the financial sector, because people expect higher rates to lead to higher spreads and greater profits. I don't know how that connects with financial sector bond prices though. I really have no idea unless one expects lower profits to substantially increase the risk of financial institutions being unable to service their IG debt.

DODFX currently holds 27% in financials. That’s very high. In fact it’s significantly higher than the 19% financial stake reported by T.Rowe’s Equity Income Fund (PFRDX). Clearly DODFX is positioned for a rising rate environment. Helps explain its underperformance in recent years as well as its more recent turn-around. One’s opinion on the question, I submit, needs to take into account their presumptions regarding the future of interest rates - as well as inflation and currency valuations.
Yes, per @msf, DODIX may by prospectus invest large amounts in non investment grade paper. But it hasn’t done so, currently holding just slightly above 10% in junk bonds - nearly all of it in the highest rated tier (BB).
- “Using the theory that one should take money from winners and place it on losers, we should take money out of cash and bet it on foreign large cap value funds?”
It’s an intriguing conjecture. But, No, I wouldn’t recommend that. On the other hand, if one is using “play money” (defined as 1-5% of a larger well diversified portfolio) I think it might be a good idea to do just that.

Just received an email from GP which states:
December 17, 2020
Dear Fellow Investors,
We are announcing today that the Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund (GPGIX/GPGOX) and Grandeur Peak International Opportunities Fund (GPIIX/GPIOX) (the "Funds") will close to new investors through intermediary platforms after December 31, 2020. The Funds will remain open to existing investors. Retirement plans and financial advisors with existing clients in the Funds will still be able to invest in the Funds for existing as well as new clients as long as their clearing platform will allow this exception. The Funds will remain open to new investors who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds.
Both Funds were re-opened during the market melt-down in the spring in order to provide an opportunity for investors to invest during the sell-off. With the strong rebound in the market, and even stronger performance by the Funds this year, they are back to assets levels where we feel it’s necessary to limit inflows. As you know, we carefully review capacity at the firm level and strategy level. We are committed to keeping all of our investment strategies small enough to be able to fully pursue their investment strategies without being encumbered by either their individual asset base or the firms’ collective assets. Achieving performance for our clients will always be our paramount objective.
As a reminder, these two Funds, as well as all of the Grandeur Peak Funds, will be making their annual capital gains and income distributions on December 29th, with a shareholder record date of December 28th. If you would like to make further investments in these Funds within taxable accounts prior to year-end, you may wish to wait until after December 28th to avoid the distribution.1
Thank you for your continued interest and trust. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out to me or a member of our Client Relations Team.
Best Regards,
Eric Huefner
President

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834420024642/fp0060307_497.htm
497 1 fp0060307_497.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST: GRANDEUR PEAK FUNDS
SUPPLEMENT DATED DECEMBER 17, 2020 TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND
PROSPECTUS FOR THE GRANDEUR PEAK GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND AND
GRANDEUR PEAK INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND (THE “FUNDS”) DATED
AUGUST 31, 2020
Effective as of the close of business on December 31, 2020, the Funds will close to new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund through third party intermediaries subject to certain exceptions for financial advisors with an established position in the Fund and participants in certain qualified retirement plans with an existing position in the Fund. The Funds remain open to purchases from existing shareholders, and to new shareholders who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds.
The Fund retains the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close the Fund or limit inflows into the Fund.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

"Clean" WHERE? This usually means solar power, and while a laudable idea, you have to have large tracts of surface available, good weather most of the time, and you need to manufacture the stuff (polluting THERE) in order to build the panels. This stuff doesn't magically produce and transport itself; nor transport its output magically either (wiring, etc). Geothermal would be great, but a major implementation problem. Tidal power, sure, but you have to produce the materials, transport them, install them, run wiring, etc. Off-loading all this construction and manufacture into space and transmitting microwaves back? Yeah, THAT might be a 'solution' EVENTUALLY, but 15 years (or 25)? Fusion power could do it, but not in that time period. Not bloody likely we're getting THERE from HERE!
And while we're making that viable, what is everyone ELSE doing? We become even MORE economically handicapped, lose MORE jobs to cheap labor elsewhere, and THEIR pollution simply blows HERE? And is it moral to simply export our environmental problems? We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.

Confused. So what? Just shrug? Do you have a point other than a kvetch about what you think is delusion? This is not even at the level the perfect defeating the good. What do you propose? What would you advise? I cannot tell if you actually keep up, what with your credentials.

I can’t understand your commentary because it is written incoherently. Write it clearly. Oh wait I thought you were kings53man who uses terms like “global warning.” You I’ve already responded to. You just don’t like the response. You want to make this a relative nationalist problem when it is a global one that requires everyone to pitch in regardless what the Chinese are doing.
Also, it seems oddly unpatriotic and un-American of you actually to say “ We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.” America is the country that put a man on the moon. We used to lead in technology, not follow what other countries are doing.” Why is it that when it comes to climate change you cry, “Waaah, we can’t.” We invest and make the tech better. Where’s your “can-do American attitude” when it comes to this? In fact, it will be both a PR and economic triumph if we lead in this area and a disaster if we don’t.
And I find it reductive and one-sided to say that investing in improving our carbon footprint doesn’t create any jobs but only destroys them. There have already been a number of studies that green jobs can more than replace fossil fuel ones.
But as I’ve already said, this is not a relative game and actually beside the point in some respects. It shouldn’t matter what the Chinese are doing with regard to what America is doing because the entire planet is suffering from what everyone is doing. And everyone needs to do something. And at least Biden has a plan to do something as opposed to the big fat nothing, lying and denial the GOP has offered.

"Clean" WHERE? This usually means solar power, and while a laudable idea, you have to have large tracts of surface available, good weather most of the time, and you need to manufacture the stuff (polluting THERE) in order to build the panels. This stuff doesn't magically produce and transport itself; nor transport its output magically either (wiring, etc). Geothermal would be great, but a major implementation problem. Tidal power, sure, but you have to produce the materials, transport them, install them, run wiring, etc. Off-loading all this construction and manufacture into space and transmitting microwaves back? Yeah, THAT might be a 'solution' EVENTUALLY, but 15 years (or 25)? Fusion power could do it, but not in that time period. Not bloody likely we're getting THERE from HERE!
And while we're making that viable, what is everyone ELSE doing? We become even MORE economically handicapped, lose MORE jobs to cheap labor elsewhere, and THEIR pollution simply blows HERE? And is it moral to simply export our environmental problems? We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.

Regarding quality of markets, IMHO the problem is more the level of enforcement than unpredictable legal environments. An example of the latter might be attempting to remove Section 230 protections from social media companies in order to secure military funding. (I offer this as an example of capriciousness; it is independent of whether changes/removal of Section 230 would be good or bad.)
Regardless of which types of risks one is concerned about, there are many to choose from in EMs. The SEC Chairman opines that with respect to the plethora of risks, "Passive Investing Strategies Do Not Take Account of These Risks." IMHO this is a good argument for using actively managed funds to the extent that one is interested in EMs.
https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/emerging-market-investments-disclosure-reporting
Even though the D&C fund will be actively managed, it is important to look at its benchmark. This is because different index providers classify countries differently. If one focuses exclusively on economic criteria ("(1) per capita income, (2) export diversification, and (3) degree of integration into the global financial system"), which is what the IMF does, countries like Taiwan, Greece, and Korea are considered to have developed ("advanced") economies.
https://www.schroders.com/en/insights/economics/what-it-takes-to-be-promoted-to-emerging-market-status/
https://etfdb.com/emerging-market-etfs/taiwan-south-korea-and-israel-developed-or-emerging-markets/
The picture changes when one adds criteria of interest to investors, such as quality of markets and liquidity. AFAIK, Taiwan has never been considered a developed market by any index provider and Greece was demoted by MSCI in 2013 and by FTSE in 2016.
https://www.msci.com/market-classification
https://research.ftserussell.com/products/downloads/FTSE_Equity_Country_Classification_Paper.pdf
Korea is where things get interesting. S&P added it to developed markets in 2001, FTSE 2009. MSCI continues to consider it an emerging market. So if you use a fund like the emerging D&C EM fund (using MSCI criteria) to complement a developed market index fund like VTMGX (based on a FTSE index), you'll wind up "drowning" in Samsung stock (it's #2 in the Vanguard developed market index fund).
https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/articles/is-south-korea-crowding-your-emerging-markets-allocation

EStud would know more, but I always inferred a general Midwestern love of Harris et alia, and more specifically a retro honoring (with lots of inertia) of Wisconsin financial grads (including Mairs & Powers, and some others), by way of Indiana and Oberlin and such, none of these Boston or West Coast snoot whippersnappers

Bloomberg Opinion Piece:

Every silver lining has a cloud. Stock markets’ recovery since March has been prodigious. Now the notion of a reflationary 2021 is turning into a new orthodoxy. But the combination of events in the last few months has been toxic for some of the crucial building blocks of the financial system that was already in trouble — pensions.

Article Link:
https://bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-12-03/there-s-a-toxic-cloud-behind-the-stock-recovery

Not to get in between a good cat fight, but neither of you have mentioned the use of "credits" or economic incentives. My apologies if you have.
The EPA mentions this:

Policy-makers have two broad types of instruments available for changing consumption and production habits in society. They can use traditional regulatory approaches (sometimes referred to as command-and-control approaches) that set specific standards across polluters, or they can use economic incentive or market-based policies that rely on market forces to correct for producer and consumer behavior. Incentives are extensively discussed in several EPA reports:

Tesla has a page dedicated to economic Electric and Solar incentives (none of which addresses the negative impact lithium mining has on the environment):
https://tesla.com/support/incentives
Much of Tesla financial success has been based on credits. Here's a quote from @msf in a different thread,

"Tesla made more than $1 billion from ... regulatory credits over the past four quarters. ... That is more than double its profits over the past four quarters." So Tesla's profitability at this point is due to its cars being "clean" rather than their selling at a profit.

I believe technology eventually helps solve natural and man made problems. Tesla may be on the right track.

The Union of Concerned Scientists did the best and most rigorous assessment of the carbon footprint of Tesla's and other electric vehicles vs internal combustion vehicles including hybrids. They found that the manufacturing of a full-sized Tesla Model S rear-wheel drive car with an 85 KWH battery was equivalent to a full-sized internal combustion car except for the battery, which added 15% or one metric ton of CO2 emissions to the total manufacturing.
However, they found that this was trivial compared to the emissions avoided due to not burning fossil fuels to move the car. Before anyone says "But electricity is generated from coal!", they took that into account too, and it's included in the 53% overall reduction.

the-carbon-footprint-of-tesla-manufacturing
Here's a Opinion piece with regard to global carbon incentives:

“This is an example of hope,” he said, as we stood behind his office at the Federal University of Acre, a tropical campus carved into the Amazon rain forest. Brown placed his hand on a spindly trunk, ordering me to follow his lead. “There is a flow of water going up that stem, and there is a flow of sap coming down, and when it comes down it has carbon compounds,” he said. “Do you feel that?”
I couldn’t feel a thing. But that invisible process holds the key to a massive flow of cash into Brazil and an equally pivotal opportunity for countries trying to head off climate change without throwing their economies into turmoil. If the carbon in these trees could be quantified, then Acre could sell credits to polluters emitting clouds of CO₂. Whatever they release theoretically would be offset, or canceled out, by the rain forest.
Five thousand miles away in California, politicians, scientists, oil tycoons and tree huggers are bursting with excitement over the idea. The state is the second-largest carbon polluter in America, and its oil and gas industry emits about 50 million metric tons of CO₂ a year. What if Chevron or Shell or Phillips 66 could offset some of their damage by paying Brazil not to cut down trees?

inconvenient-truth-carbon-credits-dont-work-deforestation-redd-acre-cambodia
Lastly, we all need to come to common ground to find solutions. Something many of our politicians and media outlets choose not to promote.