Just my two cents, but I doubt most of these int'l value funds will ever beat the S&P over the long run. Corporate culture is different here in the US; more greed, leading to more production, profits. Think Pfizer, Apple, Amazon, etc.

Those words are truer than you might know! Gordon Gecko: "Greed is good." Yes, these days, it's not easy to see VALUE, domestic or foreign, having another "day in the sun" anytime soon. But as for international GROWTH: I'm interested to see the extent of any positive jump in Europe and the UK bourses, in response--- finally--- to a Brexit deal. Even though, as I read in Al Jazeera: four-fifths of UK GDP is in the financial sector. And the "deal" includes absolutely zero content about financials. So, free and easy access to the continent's financial sector will END for the UK on January 1st. So, as I'm fond of stating here: "ORK!" What sort of "deal" is THAT????? Politicians just lying to us all again. What a f*****g surprise, eh?

It's funny how most studies on market performance ignore the Great Depression as if it never happened, yet the first article does reference it:

The author does mention that this price performance ignores dividends so the recovery rate would've been sooner than 25 years with that, but I wonder how many people during the Great Depression would have had the stomach or the financial wherewithal with 25% unemployment to hold on and reinvest their dividends as the market went into free-fall.

Yes, that article really spoke to me, too. @msf makes great points here. "If one has the resources, or projected future earnings, to take more time for oneself, definitely go for it. But for far more people than his figures suggest, being able to do so is only a dream."
Sadly true. What will it take for constructive, purposeful financial literacy to happen in the schools? Is "youth wasted on the young," as they say? Are high-schoolers constitutionally unable to fathom the vital truth about compounding over time, for instance? Or has it "just not been tried?"

I completely agree with the idea that many people should pay more attention to living and less to making a living. And if you're one of the fortunate minority at risk of dying with a surfeit of cash, there are many worthwhile things you can do with that money to solve this "problem".
But I do take issue with how the figures are presented.
" the average inheritance in the U.S. being $177,000(the median is closer to $69,000)"
The two numbers come from different sources. Which is curious, because the writer had available figures from the same source (Survey of Consumer Finances) on the page he cited:
$707,291 (average) and $69,000 (median).
By mixing numbers from different sources, he makes it appear as though average and mean are not all that far apart. So don't worry when he then gives only average figures:
"The average retired adult who dies in their 60s leaves behind $296k in net wealth, $313k in their 70s, $315k in their 80s, and $238k in their 90s."
However, from the source of that quote also comes this:

The median respondent that died in their 60s had about $3,000 in liquid investments within two years of their passing, which increased to $10,000 for respondents that died in their 70s and $15,000 for those that died in their 80s.

Without liquidating or otherwise monetizing their homes (if any) many people have virtually no assets to live on.

Indeed, about 46 percent of senior citizens in the United States have less than $10,000 in financial assets when they die. Most of these people rely almost totally on Social Security payments as their only formal means of support

https://news.mit.edu/2012/end-of-life-financial-study-0803
The shift from inheritance (used in the original piece) to liquid asset data in the quotes I gave is deliberate. If we're talking about trading money for time, we're talking about the money that you have to spend, not how much your heirs will inherit.
If one has the resources, or projected future earnings, to take more time for oneself, definitely go for it. But for far more people than his figures suggest, being able to do so is only a dream.

Notes:
- Ark ETFs are actively managed ETFs.
-The concept of "cash-like equities" is mentioned by Ms Woods.
What are your cash like equity mutual funds?
-Tesla's future aims at Autonomous Taxi Services.
-Bitcoin is the flight to safety currency in Cryptocurrency space. Large gains will be captured by the IRS, not the individual investor.
-Social Media continues to be an important part of modern day financial services.
-Capitalizing on how the world is changing:
- Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Energy Storage, DNA Sequencing & The Blockchain.
- Quantum Computing

Sure -- M* screws up a lot. To be fair, there's a whole lot of data that gets dumped on them each day but that's true for brokerage firms, the Bloombergs and other financial websites of the world, as well as many others. M* seems particularly susceptible to glitches, and they're going through a patch of them at the moment.

Found more information on Ben Griffins at M* (including mis-spelling on his name)

Ben Griffins
03/01/2020 —
Ben Griffins is a vice president of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. and T. Rowe Price International Ltd and an investment analyst in the Equity Research Team of T. Rowe Price International Ltd, covering European small-cap stocks. Ben has been with the firm since 2006. Prior to joining T. Rowe Price, he was an investment manager with Baillie Gifford. Ben earned a diploma in investment analysis from Stirling University and an M.Eng. in engineering science from Oxford University. He also has earned his Chartered Financial Analyst designation.
Certification Chartered Financial Analyst
Education
M.S. University of Oxford,
Other Assets Managed

financials.morningstar.com/fund/management.html?t=PRIDX&region=usa&culture=en-US

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.