TRMCX is now open. A spot check suggests that it remains closed at most brokerages.
Closed: Fidelity, Schwab, TD Ameritrade, Vanguard
Open: Merrill Edge (according to its website)
Here's TRP's page showing funds that are closed, and funds that while open may be closed at brokerages. RPMGX is still on the former (closed) list, while TRMCX has moved to the restricted (closed at brokerages) list.
https://www.troweprice.com/financial-intermediary/us/en/investments/capacity-constrained-funds.html

See my comment here.

How do we know the published job numbers are not fabricated?

It appeared there is a miscalculation from BLS, and the actual number reported is 3% higher than that of April number. Taken that in its totality, the employment picture is not so rosy as the president announced...

The special note said that if this misclassification error had not occurred, the "overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported," meaning the unemployment rate would be about 16.3 percent for May.

https://www.greenwichtime.com/business/article/The-May-jobs-report-had-misclassification-error-15320999.php
This is the same article published in Washington Post last night by Heather Long, a long respected financial reporter. ...
Question is how can this error released pre-maturely? And this get back to TheShadow's question...

As I noted in my linked-to post, correcting for the same type errors in April makes the reduction in the unemployment rate even larger. It goes from the official 1.4% improvement to 3.4%. Though total unemployment is, of course, higher than officially reported for both months. So while the absolute number is not so rosy as the president announced, the trend surpassed the president's rosy picture.
@davidrmoran addressed Shadow's question. But then again, so did Heather Long's article:

“You can 100% discount the possibility that Trump got to the BLS. Not 98% discount, not 99.9% discount, but 100% discount,” tweeted Jason Furman, the former top economist for former president Barack Obama. “BLS has 2,400 career staff of enormous integrity and one political appointee with no scope to change this number.”

As a special added bonus, note that PK is also on record as having made the same statement. (In the words of Warner Wolf, let's go to the videotape. Check the 37 minute mark. "I'm mostly on the side of fast recovery ... IF the coronavirus is under control.")

How do we know the published job numbers are not fabricated?

It appeared there is a miscalculation from BLS, and the actual number reported is 3% higher than that of April number. Taken that in its totality, the employment picture is not so rosy as the president announced...

The special note said that if this misclassification error had not occurred, the "overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported," meaning the unemployment rate would be about 16.3 percent for May.

https://www.greenwichtime.com/business/article/The-May-jobs-report-had-misclassification-error-15320999.php
This is the same article published in Washington Post last night by Heather Long, a long respected financial reporter. Another data point from CNBC. That’s due an error in how furloughed workers were treated in the data sample. April’s unemployment rate would have been nearly 20% absent that same error.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/05/heres-why-the-real-unemployment-rate-may-be-higher-than-reported.html

Question is how can this error released pre-maturely? And this get back to @TheShadow's question...
As a result of this new picture emerged, safe assets such as high quality bonds and gold declined for the week.

Thought this might fits your thread @Junkster...thanks for your posting:
https://thechartreport.com/5-things-about-marty-zweig/
(Zweig’s interview begins at about 6½ minutes into the clip below and has to be one of the most timely market calls in the history of financial media.)

Hedge funds brace for second stock market plunge
https://finance.yahoo.com/m/c98296d6-00d7-3765-bca4-bf72f3765c55/hedge-funds-brace-for-second.html
Ft article
Managers say asset prices have become too detached from bleak fundamentals
/New York Stock Exchange in Wall Street. There are fears investors may have become too complacent after the recent surge in share prices © AFP via Getty Images
June 4, 2020 3:00 am by Laurence Fletcher in London
Hedge funds are getting ready for another slump in stock markets after growing uneasy that surging prices do not reflect the economic problems ahead.
Some managers fear that equity investors, used to buying the dips during the decade-long bull market that ended in March’s sharp sell-off, have become too complacent about how quickly economies can recover from the coronavirus crisis and how effective stimulus packages from central banks and governments can be.
The S&P 500 index completed its best 50-day run in history on Wednesday, according to LPL Financial, closing within 8 per cent of its record high of mid-February.
“The markets are priced to perfection,” said Danny Yong, founding partner at hedge fund Dymon Asia Capital in Singapore. “The stability in equity markets does not reflect the job losses and the insolvencies ahead of us globally.”
Mr Yong has been buying put options — which protect against market falls by allowing their owner to sell at a pre-determined price — on stock indices and also on currencies sensitive to risk appetite such as the Australian dollar and the Korean won./
Are you folks buying more equities at this stage?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jpmorgan-math-shows-why-u-182018867.html
/Think the sizzling U.S. stock rally is excessive in an economy frozen by shutdowns? From one perspective, it’s just getting started.
Giant piles of cash sloshing around the financial system means there’s substantial ammunition yet to push risk assets higher. JPMorgan Chase & Co., meanwhile, sees potential for billions to flow into equities at the expense of bonds to rebalance portfolios. Money-market funds have lured $1.2 trillion this year, while fund managers with $591 billion overall are holding cash at levels rarely seen in history, according to Bank of America Corp.
All that shows how much firepower investors have to support the market at a time when stock prices look unhinged from fundamentals like corporate profits, and trade frictions between China and the U.S. return to the forefront./
they were talking about deaths/covid19 destructions and massive downturns/double dip few wks ago
how times have change.

Hi David,
Regarding this about active mutual funds versus passive ETFs, I have a few quibbles:

They have not been repeatedly defamed by self-interested marketers and lazy financial journalists looking for cheap stories. “80% of mutual funds failed to beat the market last year” is utterly fatuous – beating the market isn’t the goal, one year is an irrelevant time period, risk matters as much as returns, very nearly all passive products also trail the market – but has made it hard to approach investors, young, professional or otherwise. The term “skunked” comes to mind. The repackage offers a clean slate.

While looking at a year's worth of performance versus the benchmark isn't very meaningful, it is actually over the long-term that active funds struggle the most to beat their benchmarks, and many financial articles have made that point. In fact, I think it is far more common to have an active fund beat a benchmark in the short-term, have an excellent year but struggle over the long-term as the cumulative hurdle effect of its fees gets harder and harder to overcome. Also, while there are many passive ETFs that don't match their benchmarks either, in the main categories like large cap, mid-cap and small-cap, they often do and sometimes even beat their benchmarks because of securities lending, or only lag a minuscule amount. Also, the long-term record of many funds versus their benchmarks doesn't necessarily improve when adjusted for risk. The SPIVA data on funds versus their benchmarks has risk-adjusted returns over the last fifteen years:
https://us.spindices.com/resource-center/thought-leadership/spiva/
92% of large-cap funds, 86% of mid-cap and 87% of small-cap funds have lagged their benchmarks on a risk-adjusted basis over the last 15 years. In fact, the one equity category where active managers had a fighting chance in this data were international small-caps where the benchmark won only 68% of the time over 15-years. Fixed income funds were better, but not by as much as one would hope
Even gross of fees, active managers struggled:

The risk-adjusted performance of active funds obviously improves on a gross-of-fees basis, but even then, outperformance is scarce. Only Real Estate (over the 5- and 15-year periods), Large-Cap Value (over the 15-year period), and Mid-Cap Growth funds (over the 5-year period) saw a majority of active managers outperform their benchmarks. Overall, most active domestic equity managers in most categories underperformed their benchmarks, even on a gross-of-fees basis.
As in the U.S., the majority of international equity funds across all categories generated lower risk-adjusted returns than their benchmarks when using net-of-fees returns. On a gross-of-fees basis, only International Small-Cap funds outperformed on a risk-adjusted basis over the 10- and 15-year periods.
When using net-of-fees risk-adjusted returns, the majority of actively managed fixed income funds in most categories underperformed over all three investment horizons. The exceptions were Government Long, Investment Grade Long, and Loan Participation funds (over the 5- and 10-year periods), as well as Investment Grade Short funds (over the 5-year period).
However, unlike their equity counterparts, most fixed income funds outperformed their respective benchmarks gross of fees. This highlights the critical role of fees in fixed income fund performance. In general, more active fixed income managers underperformed over the long term (15 years) than over the intermediate term (5 years).
On a net-of-fee basis, asset-weighted return/volatility ratios for active portfolios were higher than the corresponding equal-weighted ratios, indicating that larger firms have taken on better-compensated risk than smaller ones.

One important saving grace I think is that SPIVA only considers risk as volatility and not downside capture or Sortino ratios. So that should be considered. All of that said, the threat from passive ETFs is most certainly real and should not be underestimated.

I remember reading a GMO article by Grantham saying that the S&P 500 was overvalued when it reached 1500 back in 2003 or 2004 (I can't remember year). That caused me to be cautious. The S&P 500 went on to double from those levels. I understand that people can't predict what the fed and other central bankers will do (i.e. low interest rates and QE forever) and fed decisions influence PE,.. but yes GMO has been WRONG for a while now. I am buying EM right now though. We shall see. I guess another thing that is impossible to predict is inflation which can also have effect on PE,.. Bottom line I guess is that making forecasts with respect to markets (bonds, stocks,..) doesn't work and yet I keep reading financial articles about them and people keep publishing them. As Buffett says, keep emergency cash and invest in the S&P 500 for the long run. I guess like the late Bogle Buffett doesn't mention investing in international markets.

It feels like we are in Dot Com era for sure. Unfortunately after the bust, "value" = "financial" ruled. Unfortunately "value" is not "financial" anymore. Whoever knows what sector is "value" today, please do tell.

Just received an email about the fund closing:
May 27, 2020
Dear Fellow Investors,
We are announcing today that the Grandeur Peak International Stalwarts Fund (GISYX/GISOX) will close to new investors through intermediary platforms after June 10, 2020. The Fund will remain open to existing investors. Retirement plans and financial advisors with existing clients in the Fund will still be able to invest in the Fund for existing as well as new clients as long as their clearing platform will allow this exception. The Fund will remain open to new investors who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds.
The International Stalwarts Fund recently reached $1 billion under management, and the investment strategy in total is now roughly $2 billion. 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 asset base. Achieving performance for our clients will always be our paramount objective.
The International and Global Stalwarts Funds will reach their five-year anniversary this September. When we launched the Stalwarts Funds, we talked about capacity across the Stalwarts line being in the $5-7 billion range given the Stalwarts’ focus on more liquid SMid-cap (Small- and Mid-cap) companies. We also hoped that the Stalwarts Funds would therefore be able to stay open to clients longer than many of our small/micro-cap funds. We are moving the International Stalwarts strategy to soft closed to protect existing investors’ continued access to the Fund.
We have been very encouraged by the performance of the Stalwarts Funds and the value they have added to our collaborative research process over the last 4½ years (click here for Fund performance). We are excited to have recently added the US Stalwarts Fund to the Stalwarts line. The Global Stalwarts and US Stalwarts funds both remain open to new and existing shareholders. Part of the decision to close the International Stalwarts Fund is to preserve space for future assets in the Global Stalwarts strategy. Managing “sister” funds like the three Stalwarts Funds allows us to provide investment opportunities to a diverse breadth of investors.
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.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834420011509/fp0054235_497.htm
497 1 fp0054235_497.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 27, 2020 TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND PROSPECTUS FOR THE GRANDEUR PEAK INTERNATIONAL STALWARTS FUND (THE “FUND”) DATED AUGUST 31, 2019
Effective as of the close of business on June 10, 2020, the Fund will close to new investors, except as described below. This change will affect 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 Fund remains 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
******* From GP website: International Stalwarts has Total Net Assets as of 5/26/2020:$1 Billion

I like to bookmark websites that are worthy of returning to on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. Two that come to mind are:
Daily:
Crossing Wall Street:
crossingwallstreet
Weekly
Wealthtracks:
https://wealthtrack.com/
Weekly Blog from Allstar Charts:
https://allstarcharts.com/blog/
McClellan's Charts in Focus:
https://mcoscillator.com/
Monthly:
Mutual Fund Newsletter:
funds-newsletter.com/

Add Larry Summers to the the bear camp. He’s on Bloomberg a lot. Larry’s somber tone resembles El-Erin’s, though they are birds of a different feather. El-Elian earned his stripes at Pimco. Memory has it that he and Gross were sometimes at loggerheads and did not part amicably. Summers hails from academia and has held cabinet level government positions.
I see macro-economics front and center in most of this financial mumbo-jumbo today. Coronavirus, temporary high unemployment, diminished consumer spending, hotel / transportation on edge of bankruptcy, possible debt downgrades, trade tensions with China, election year uncertainty and, lastly, ultra-low interest rates coupled with massive government cash infusions. I don’t have a lot of success in reading macro tea-leaves. But among the choices above, I’m fixating more on the last couple.
Idea: Might be too much work, but a couple ongoing threads titled “Bullish Gurus” and “Bearish Gurus” would allow folks to keep posting links referencing both positive and negative market sentiment.

I think this was supposed to be joke. "10 bank stocks". during editing someone decided "best" was missing and added it. Banks not going to make any money with rock bottom interest rates. Since I'm not a financial ANALyst I cannot question how and where earnings are going to come from. If you look at the top 4 banks - JPM, BAC, C and let me just say "We F Chumps", half of the revenue comes from interest. This means they have to somehow grow revenues from non-interested related enterprise. Guess what's going to have to happen if they are pressured to increase their earnings to meet market expectations.
"Value" funds better find value elsewhere. This is not 2002.

Don't Fight the Fed...

When the Federal Reserve needed Wall Street’s help with its pandemic rescue mission, it went straight to Larry Fink. The BlackRock Inc. co-founder, chairman, and chief executive officer has become one of the industry’s most important government whisperers. In contrast to other influential financiers who’ve built on ties to President Trump, Fink possesses a power that’s more technocratic. BlackRock, the world’s largest money manager, can do the things governments need right now.
The company’s new assignment is a much bigger version of one it took on after the 2008 financial crisis, when the Federal Reserve enlisted it to dispose of toxic mortgage securities from Bear Stearns & Co. and American International Group Inc. This time it will help the Fed prop up the entire corporate bond market by purchasing, on the central bank’s behalf, what could become a $750 billion portfolio of debt.
One part of the Fed’s plan is to buy bond exchange-traded funds. BlackRock itself runs ETFs under the iShares brand, and could end up buying funds it manages. There are rules in place to avoid conflicts of interest—for example, it won’t charge the Fed management fees on ETF shares. “BlackRock is acting as a fiduciary to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,” says a spokesman for the company.
“It’s impossible to think of BlackRock without thinking of them as a fourth branch of government,” says William Birdthistle, a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law who studies the fund industry.

how-larry-fink-s-blackrock-is-helping-the-fed-with-bond-buying

With the exception of maybe TROW and LAZ, I wouldn't touch bank or financial stocks with YOUR money. Even if the fed backstops them as they did in 2008, I just don't trust them ... and I never would buy bank preferreds, which are almost always non-cumulative, meaning WHEN (not 'if' - b/c they never learn) they get into trouble again and suspend divs, in certain cases you're not guaranteed your dividend and thus have essentially given the bank an interest-free loan.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/stock-market-news/slideshows/the-best-bank-stocks-to-buy-this-year?src=usn_invested_nl
10 of the Best Bank Stocks to Buy for 2020
The best financial stocks to buy for 2020 have had a tough year but are faring better than the sector.
Anyone buying adding to bank stocks/etf. VHF

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1006415/000110465920063503/tm2019943-2_497.htm
may 19, 2020
SUPPLEMENT TO THE FOLLOWING PROSPECTUSES:
THE HARTFORD TOTAL RETURN BOND FUND SUMMARY PROSPECTUS
DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2020, AS RESTATED MAY 7, 2020
AND
HARTFORD FIXED INCOME FUNDS PROSPECTUS
DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2020, AS SUPPLEMENTED THROUGH MAY 7, 2020
This Supplement contains new and additional information regarding The Hartford Total Return Bond Fund and should be read in connection with your Summary Prospectus and Statutory Prospectus.
Effective as of the opening of business on June 5, 2020, Class I shares of The Hartford Total Return Bond Fund will no longer be closed to new investors and will be available for purchase by all eligible investors. Accordingly, the following changes are being made to the above referenced Summary Prospectus and Statutory Prospectus effective June 5, 2020:
(1) The paragraph above the share class and ticker table on the front cover page of the above referenced Summary Prospectus is deleted and replaced with the following:
Class C shares of the Fund are closed to new investors. No purchases of a closed share class are allowed, other than as described in this summary prospectus.
(2) The footnote next to The Hartford Total Return Bond Fund on the front cover page of the above referenced Statutory Prospectus is deleted and replaced with the following:
* Class C shares of the Fund are closed to new investors. No purchases of a closed share class are allowed, other than as described in this Prospectus.
(3) Under the heading “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” in the above referenced Summary Prospectus and the heading “The Hartford Total Return Bond Fund Summary Section – Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” in the above referenced Statutory Prospectus, the first paragraph is deleted and replaced with the following:
Class C shares of the Fund are closed to new investors. No purchases of a closed share class are allowed, other than as follows: (i) purchases by shareholders of record of the Fund as of March 29, 2019 to add to their existing Fund accounts through subsequent purchases, or through exchanges from other Hartford mutual funds; (ii) purchases through reinvestment of dividends or capital gains distributions; (iii) purchases by certain financial institutions or financial intermediary firms that have been approved by Hartford Funds Distributors, LLC to purchase shares of the Fund on behalf of their client; and (iv) purchases, including through reinvestment of dividends or capital gains distributions, by any shareholder who receives shares of the Fund as part of a reorganization. Please see the section entitled “Classes of Shares” in the Fund’s statutory prospectus for more information. Not all share classes are available for all investors. Minimum investment amounts may be waived for certain accounts. Certain financial intermediaries may impose different restrictions than those described below.
(4) Under the heading “Classes of Shares” in the above referenced Statutory Prospectus, the footnote next to Total Return Bond Fund in the share class table is deleted and replaced with the following:
(1) Class C shares of the Fund are closed to new investors. No purchases of a closed share class are allowed, other than as described in the Summary Section. Investors should contact their financial professional to determine whether they are eligible to purchase shares of the Fund. If you believe you are eligible to purchase shares of the Fund, you may be required to provide appropriate proof of eligibility. The Fund reserves the right to: (i) reject any purchase order if it believes that acceptance of such order would interfere with its ability to be effectively managed; (ii) reopen a share class of the Fund to new investors at a future date; (iii) issue shares in connection with a reorganization; and (iv) make additional exceptions, limit the above exceptions, or otherwise modify the foregoing closure policy for any reason. You may obtain additional information by calling Hartford Funds at: 1-888-843-7824.
This Supplement should be retained with your Summary Prospectus and Statutory Prospectus for future reference.
HV-7536
May 2020

Yes, color me suspicious. Though in general, any press release put out by a company or organization must be regarded as an advocacy piece, aka "spin". Likewise for third party reporting based upon PRs.
The ASA news release on their website (linked to, above), cites approvingly a letter sent by five "Senior members of the House Financial Services Committee". The news release points to it as calling on the SEC to remove personally identifiable info from the CAT database.
Actually, the letter praises the SEC for saying that it would not require SSNs or various other personally identifiable info to go in the CAT database. What these five GOP House members praised ultimately became the exemption order that ASA is petitioning to set aside. So outside of complaining about reporting in general, what is the point of the ASA petition?
The letter from these Congressmen begins:

We write in strong support of your recent comments indicating that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) will significantly limit its collection of retail investors' personally identifiable information (PII) as pait of the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT). We welcome your statement that the Commission will not require retail investors' Social Security numbers to be collected and stored in the CAT. We appreciate the Commission's ongoing work on the CAT and agree that it is important for regulators to be able to oversee the capital markets on a consolidated basis. However, we strongly believe that the CAT can, and should, fulfill its intended purpose without collecting Main Street investors' PII.

https://d1d329da-dbb0-4cc9-b461-d7bd4ad09b4e.usrfiles.com/ugd/d1d329_13b9948593544d9d8d73e17185af1591.pdf

Nah...just pumping and dumping going on...be careful out there.
Why does it seem that every Joe that's involved with going on TV to enlighten us re the virus has a vested financial interest...why do they not disclose this?
Baseball fan