Reply to @scott: I guess to each their own. It was ingrained in me when was I was a teenager from a financial writer named Benton (Ben) Davis that wealth was created from ..... " Stock market success comes from following a principle. The principle of everlastingly keeping your funds invested in the best performing issues......" Unfortunately being somewhat slow of mind, it took me until I was 38 to shake the cobwebs out of my head and begin successfully implementing that principle.

Yes, fear...
LTCM collapse
Tech bubble
9/11
Financial crisis and great recession
High speed trader exploits
Dark pools
Flash crash
Insider trading scandals
Ponzi schemes
Deficit spending
Growing entitlements
Aging demographic
Contagion
Political gridlock
Record debt
Trumps...
Value opportunities
Record earnings
Healthy corporate books
Highest productivity ever
Consistent fiscal policy
Favorable monetary policy
Recovering housing
Increasing auto purchases
Decreasing unemployment
Rising consumer confidence
Growing GDP
In short, fear of what can go wrong over confidence in what can go right.

Fund companies (and brokerages) are now required to accept your specifying which shares to sell. So the answer to #1 is yes.
The answer to the second question is maybe (based on my experience with a small but I believe representative sampling of fund companies and brokerages). Fidelity has had this feature for years, and for me has been the most valuable aspect of their service. (This, despite the frustrations I've had with their system, as I've posted here before.)
Schwab, in comparison, still requires you to specify which shares you are selling over the phone. They have told me that one can still place orders on line, but that if you want to indicate which shares you're selling, you'd need to call them after placing the order (but before the order settles). So perhaps the answer is a half no. Yes, you can place the sell order on line, even if you're selling specific shares. But no, you still have to call to get the bookkeeping right.
Here's the Boggleheads' wiki page on Vanguard (it's an excellent writeup and useful for understanding the issues, even outside of Vanguard). Vanguard lets you specify online the shares you're selling, but only "covered shares" (generally mutual fund shares purchased in 2012 or later, or stock shares purchased in 2011 or later). Vanguard's system is actually very nice, clean, easy to use as far as it goes. But you have to follow up with them (according to the wiki page, by email) to specify which of the uncovered (pre-2012) shares you're selling.
This may be typical of the more "enlightened" fund companies. American Century seems to work similarly - you can specify online which shares you're selling, but some older shares (appear to be pre-2010) are lumped together. Don't know how/whether they handle specific shares within this older lot. Legg Mason barely lets you sell shares online. And so on.
Most funds/brokers will allow you to indicate a default handling of sales (the term of art is a "standing order"). For example, what you described would be a highest cost first strategy. If you have a standing order at your fund company/brokerage that does what you want, then you're all set for "covered securities" (generally mutual fund shares purchased in 2012 or later, and stock shares purchased in 2011 or later). Not sure how they handle uncovered shares; unfortunately, that's part of your question.
Some places will allow you to place standing orders on a position by position basis. That is, if you have two funds in your brokerage account, you can specify a default treatment for each separately. Other places only handle standing orders on an account by account basis, so if you wanted different standing orders for two funds, you'd have to open two different accounts at the same brokerage.
If all of this sounds crazy, I think you're reading it right. Several years of advance notice, and the financial institutions still can't make it easy. The way each one handles things is different, and you have to check with the institution to see which hoops they are going to have you jump through. My suggestion - do this (gather information) well in advance of doing any actual sales. You'll save yourself a lot of grief by not having to scramble with them between the time you make the sale and the time the sale settles (generally end of day at a fund company, and T+1 at a brokerage) to get the record straight.

Reply to @scott:
Thanks Scott,
VGSIX is a larger holder of these two high dividend payers...I came across an interesting article as to the correct methods to use when elvaluating REITS.
what-are-all-the-financial-ratios-to-evaluate-an-reit?
Using FFO (Funds From Operations) as a measure:
FFO as a REIT Tool
What do you use as criteria to evaluate individual REIT choices you buy and hold?

Link to SEC filing:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000091580213000011/gp4970408.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund
Grandeur Peak International Opportunities Fund (the “Funds”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED APRIL 8, 2013 TO THE PROSPECTUS
FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL CLASS SHARES OF THE FUNDS DATED AUGUST 31, 2012
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Prospectus for the Institutional Class Shares of the Funds dated August 31, 2012. You should retain this Supplement and the Prospectus for future reference. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.grandeurpeakglobal.com or calling us at 1.855.377.PEAK (7325).
Effective as of the close of business on May 1, 2013, the Funds will close to new investors, except as described below. This change will affect new investors seeking to purchase shares of a Fund either directly or through third party intermediaries. Existing shareholders of a Fund may continue to purchase additional shares of that Fund.
A financial advisor whose clients have established accounts in a Fund as of May 1, 2013 may continue to open new accounts in that Fund for any of its existing or new clients.
Existing or new participants in a qualified retirement plan, such as a 401(k) plan, profit sharing plan, 403(b) plan or 457 plan, which has an existing position in a Fund as of May 1, 2013, may continue to open new accounts in that Fund. In addition, if such qualified retirement plans have a related retirement plan formed in the future, this plan may also open new accounts in the Fund.
As described in the Prospectus, the Funds’ investment adviser, Grandeur Peak Global Advisors, LLC, retains the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close a Fund or limit inflows into a Fund.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund
Grandeur Peak International Opportunities Fund (the “Funds”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED APRIL 8, 2013 TO THE PROSPECTUS
FOR THE INVESTOR CLASS SHARES OF THE FUNDS DATED AUGUST 31, 2012

A couple of thoughts:
Poster Bob C could offer thoughts regarding how to find a financial planner. Additionally, I would make sure that you are going with a financial planner and not some sort of a broker. That's really an issue that a family member ran into - they are older and the experience with a financial planner has been far better and more appropriate for their age. They had been with someone who was essentially a broker (and had "product" to sell) for ages.

polls 5 yrs after financial crisis
http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2013/04/poll-finds-caution-5-years-after-financial-crisis

I think it was bee that first introduced me to Prag Cap. Recently though the site appears disappointingly full of pop-up ads, testaments to Cullen Roche, and links to Orcam Financial Group.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/932471/000093247113006039/ps111a042013nc.htm
Vanguard Capital Opportunity Fund
Supplement to the Prospectus and the Summary Prospectus
Important Changes to Vanguard Capital Opportunity Fund
Vanguard Capital Opportunity Fund is now open to new accounts for personal investors, and shareholders are no longer subject to a $25,000 annual investment limit. Participants in certain qualified retirement plans may continue to invest in accordance with the terms of their plans. Certain qualifying asset allocation programs may continue to operate in accordance with the program terms.
The Fund will remain closed to all prospective financial advisory, institutional, and intermediary clients (other than clients who invest through a Vanguard brokerage account) until further notice, and there is no specific time frame for when the Fund will reopen for new account registrations by these clients.
During the Fund’s closed period, current institutional shareholders may continue to purchase, exchange, or redeem shares of the Fund online, by telephone, or by mail. Current financial advisory and intermediary clients may not contribute to existing Fund accounts.
The Fund may modify these transaction policies at any time and without prior notice to shareholders. You may call Vanguard for more detailed information about the Fund’s transaction policies. Participants in employer-sponsored plans may call Vanguard Participant Services at 800-523-1188. Investors in nonretirement accounts and IRAs may call Vanguard’s Investor Information Department at 800-662-7447.
© 2013 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor. PS 111A 042013

Reply to @Charles: I don't think he'd say he's bullish on anything, especially at these levels of the PE10 overall, but those sectors at least are less than fully valued on a long-term PE basis.
He doesn't make specific predictions or recommendations like the loud-talking financial commentariat, but more on the order of pointing out what's a reasonable valuation or not for a possible long-term investment, leaving it up to us to decide if it works in our individual situations.
On the basis of PE10s, the U.S. market as a whole is overvalued vs. the long-term median. That doesn't mean, of course, that it can't keep going up, especially in this, um, unique econ environment.

I've happened to talk to (or overhear in a case or two) a handful of real estate agents this week (including one I know.) All of them have generally said that inventory is low - you have hit a point where it would seem that many who were going to sell have sold. When inventory is now coming on the market, it is getting offers more quickly; suddenly, tables have turned a bit from a buyer's to a seller's market.
What I think will be the case is that it's sort of like a stock that's tanked and is now in the process of turning around. You will have people at levels on the way up (including, most likely, an s-load of bank-owned) looking to sell. All of those who I talked to said there are still a lot of people in negative equity on their house and that prices are not really moving noticeably higher but inventory has gotten low. If you get this continued level of activity, sellers over time will eventually come off the sidelines.
The other sense that I got is that investors large and small are swarming over anything that looks rent-worthy. A lot of the activity that is being seen in lower priced places is not first time buyers, but investors calling constantly. A main point: I got the sense that if a condo is reasonably priced and still available in many cases it's because the place probably is not renter-friendly. Things still aren't great and many people can't buy for a number of reasons, but investors are calling something serious. No one I talked to or overheard acted like things were going to go to the moon tomorrow by any means, but the idea is best described a sort of bottoming process that is seeming more substantial.
I think at some point the turnaround has to be about more than investors (Blackstone hoovering up houses) and more about more participation by the broader population - it remains to be seen if that will happen. I don't think you're going to see the housing market recover to what it was a few years ago at the top at all, but you're going to see a bottoming process that might take some time (but is in the process of happening) and then a more gradual/realistic move higher (a move that goes up with real rates of inflation per year, perhaps? I dunno.)
Overall, different places are going to move at different speeds, but I get the sense after what I heard that housing is, to use a stock market equivalent, December 2008/January 2009. I don't think the real estate market is going to repeat the housing bubble again, but the current status would seem to be bottoming process and how large the window of time is before it starts to trickle up is going to be different everywhere. You're probably seeing foreign money come in in major markets, as well.
The one thing that no one seems to talk about in all of the real estate articles is replacement cost. Obviously not an expert opinion by any means, but I don't feel as if materials costs fell nearly as much as house prices did. In terms of a lot of places, I think the question becomes how much would it cost to build it you were going to built it today? Additionally, there's always the "they're not making any more land" speech.
I think if house prices do creep higher, the banks and some other plays (I like Fiserv as a broader financial play) may benefit. I'm not sure about some of these single family REITS (SBY) and Blackstone (BX) doesn't seem entirely shareholder friendly.
A few other odds/ends thoughts:
1. If real estate continues to see what looks like a bottoming process, you may see some more money shift in that direction - the sense that I got is that real estate is Dec 2008/Jan 2009, but that it's not going to move higher as quickly as stocks started to in March 2009. Still, larger investors may start shifting a little in the re direction. I actually think there are some positives if this happens - you're going to eventually oversaturate the rental market a bit and maybe sky-high rents in many areas may come down a bit. I like apartment REITs in Canada where the real estate market is incredibly expensive, I think apartment REITs in the US are not going to see no demand certainly, but I think they're probably close to being at the top of their "cycle".
2. "Gold's at 5X what it sold for in '98" How much has global money supply increased? That said, what precious metals do from here is anyone's guess. You have all of this liquidity flowing in one direction and then another and another.
3. The N Korean situation is tense, but I think at the end of the day I hope it's what I think it is: continued noise in an attempt to get more aid from other nations. They will send the country what it wants, and the problem goes away for a few more years.
4. Europe is genuinely worrying because none of the core problems are being fixed.
5. There's a lot of core problems that are not being addressed in the US, but you are going to have ZIRP as far as the eye can see and QE probably for some time to come. If there's a recession, it will be met with more easy monetary policy. If Yellen takes over for Bernanke, more of the same. The market could very well continue to run as long as the situation persists and I definitely see the possibility that ZIRP and whatnot could persist until 2016, and then it becomes another administration's issue.
It becomes a matter of monetary policy isn't going to create a sustainable recovery where the training wheels can come off, eventually you have to have a government that's not broken and can work together on addressing lingering issues. What's so unfortunate about the last 2-3 years is that monetary policy has given government in some regards some breathing room to address issues, and yet we have two sides that can't seem to agree on a thing.
Someone said on here the other day that we should be investing in infrastructure while interest rates are this low. Are we doing that? No. Instead, it would appear that the country is going towards the PPP (Public Private Partnership) route that other countries have done (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57577055/obama-unveils-plan-for-attracting-private-investments-for-public-works/) If this is the case, companies like Brookfield Infrastructure (BIP, which I own) and Cheung Kong (CKISF.pk, I believe) may be able to participate, and I'm sure there will be a lot of pension funds and other institutional money. Materials companies will then participate, as well. Some other countries have funds that are entirely Public Private Partnerships, and Brookfield Infrastructure owns a few PPPs.
Lastly, I think yield (REITs, for example) remains in demand until probably at least 2016.
One other minor thought. I continue to like the pipelines, because I think there are going to be more and more regulations and it's going to be more and more difficult to build them. We need energy pipelines in this country (and carrying by other modes of transit aren't without risk, either), but.... Even Cramer discussed this the other night and while not across the board, I kind of agree in some regards ("Don't Build It and the Profits Will Come" - http://www.thestreet.com/story/11880242/1/cramer-dont-build-it-and-the-profits-will-come.html)

Reply to @Charles: Interesting stuff Charles. Greenspan argued (before Congress etc.) in the pre-2007 period that bubbles cannot be identified while occurring - but only in retrospect after the collapse. I'm not buying that argument hook line & sinker, but I do understand why he would say that. Obviously, some did see the housing bubble and acted on that insight in advance - to their benefit.
On your other point, I'm surprised there haven't been some linked stories & discussion by now on the N Korean thing. Compared to the threat from Cyprus - Yikes, no comparison to what even 1 atomic bomb going off anywhere in the world would do to global political and financial stability. .... No intent here to be a fear-monger. Probably won't happen. But ... the potential downside would be enormous.
And ...umm ... How long does "sequester" last if we get into a shooting war in Asia?
Take care.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/three-days-that-saved-the-world-financial-system/2013/03/28/d5b9a38c-94ef-11e2-b6f0-a5150a247b6a_print.html

Hi Ted,
Thanks for the reference.
CalPERs has not yet made a final decision to go completely passive in their equity portfolio; it is currently being reviewed. Since CalPERS is currently about 50 % passively managed in their equity sleeve, the most likely outcome will be an increase in their passive strategy policy, but not to the 100 % level.
Certainly one reasonable concern is if the entire equity investment community, both institutional and individual, were to commit to the passive approach completely. That unlikely decision would totality destroy the active, competitive pricing mechanism that keeps things somewhat welded to real world profits and possibilities. Active investors keep the marketplace respectably efficient.
But there is little danger that we will all become passive investment advocates or participants. Far too many of us are residents of Lake Wobegon where we are all above average in everything we do. Market-like rewards are just a surrender to mediocrity and are also boring.
Also we love to speculate and gamble. Las Vegas continues to grow and prosper in spite of the losing odds offered. Not all of us are risk adverse, and those that are still visit Las Vegas, the racetrack, and the lottery. We venture into games and investments that have low probabilities of success with outsized payoffs. That’s why IPOs typically soar to unwarranted astronomical prices followed by wealth depleting subsequent adjustments.
The current financial industry numbers do support the observation that passive investing is gaining popularity, especially among the institutional cohort. Something like 50 % of that elite group own passively managed equity products. By comparison, individual investors hold roughly 15 % Index products. There’s a lesson here, especially since the institutions hire only the best-of-the-best money managers.
Since institutions are approximately 70 % of the marketplace that means that overall about 39.5 % (0.7 X 0.5 + 0.3 X 0.15) of equity positions are in passive holdings.
That’s not nearly a full commitment to the passive approach, but a hefty percentage nevertheless. I sure do not want it to be a uniform strategy. I doubt it ever will. I suspect I will become a little uncomfortable when the passive percentage penetrates the 50 % threshold.
I salute the active investors of the world; they make my decisions much easier and make the market work as designed.
Your commitment and research is top-gun.
Best Wishes.

In the near term, Europe will likely be volatile now that EU will take a much harsher approach with Sprain and Italy for the bailout using Cyprus as the blueprint. If Europe continues to slide, valuation will become attractive again. Last summer at the height of Euro crisis, I took a position on Europe ETF, VTK, and sold it a month ago for a modest gain. Opportunities will come again when the fear strikes. For now emerging market is more attractive since many countries are in better financial situation than the Europe, especially southern region. Some argue that Euro will split into two tier currency... what a messy social experiment.

Reply to @prinx: I think it's difficult and there are definitely lessons - it has been a learning experience. Additionally, I've structured my holdings so that the single stock section provides a considerable yield with few exceptions (such as FISV and GTOMY.) Fiserv and Gemalto are to take advantage of what I believe is an evolution in financial technology and how people bank/transact - mobile banking, mobile payments and new programs like Amex/Wal-Mart's Bluebird, for example (which is - as of a couple of days ago - now FDIC insured). I think you're going to see less bank branches over time and an increasing amount of Bluebird-type programs attracting the "unbanked". From Visa:
"An estimated 2.5 billion adults lack access to formal financial services—representing over half of
the world’s adult population.1"
"In 2012, an estimated 1.7 billion people will have a mobile phone but not a bank account.8"
http://corporate.visa.com/_media/financial-inclusion-fact-sheet.pdf
"Bank branch closings have outpaced openings by an average of 48% in every quarter since the first quarter of 2011, including the quarter to date. Banks have closed 3,839 branches in that time while opening 2,595 for a net loss of 1,244 branches. At an average range of 2,000 to 4,000 square feet of space per bank branch, that represents a loss of 2.5 million to 5 million square feet of retail absorption. William R. Koehler, president of both Key Community Bank and KeyBank added: "In the face of the present environment, we recognize the need to rationalize our branches while also repositioning them in a way that allows us to provide the right convenience for our customers where they are. "
"We expect banks to continue reducing their branch network footprint, moving away from a focus on traditional branches toward new touch points with customers," Fitch reported. "This new branch model is likely to reward banks that deploy technology innovatively to optimize customer interaction, while cutting personnel and facilities expenses in the process. Over the near and medium term, we expect banks to invest heavily in technology to facilitate the smooth downsizing of branch networks," the rating agency said. "Increased technology spend will offset many of the benefits of reduced branch operating costs during the transition period, but longer term savings will likely be driven by the development of a more flexible, technology-driven distribution system."
http://www.costar.com/News/Article/Bucking-Historical-Trends-Bank-Branches-Disappearing-Rapidly/141624
Everything else provides a yield at least above 1.5% and a number yield above 4%.

Reply to @catch22:
Hi Catch,
Thanks for your reading and response time commitment.
The studies included a large and diverse number of participants so the conclusions are well grounded and documented. Barber and Odean alone reviewed the trading history of multiple hundreds of thousands of investors.
I too know a few folks who elect not to rebalance and/or refuse to accept a matching or near matching employer contribution to their savings/investment program. I regard these actions as almost criminal in character.
I have an unkind but descriptive name for these misguided souls: financial losers.
Take care.

Was caught in a fairly large traffic snarl on the Golden Gate bridge the other day, and observed, once again, the similarity of results from lane-changing in a situation like that and financial market returns. Four lanes of stop and go traffic. People see the lane next to them suddenly start to move, manage to change lanes just as that lane stops again, while the lane they just left starts to move for a little while. Repeat. And repeat. Fail to notice that by staying in one lane rather than trying to catch the "best" lane things average out.
Nest time you're in a situation like that pick some noticeable vehicles in the lanes around you and use them as markers. You pass them... for a little while, then they pass you. Typically, when the jamup clears, you will find that those "markers" have gotten through at about the same rate as your lane, and the lane-jumpers are lost somewhere back in the crowd.
Very seldom does repeated lane-changing prove rewarding. I'll bet MJG has a math-based explanation for this effect, but I've often contemplated the empirical similarity to investment discipline.

Reply to @scott:
Hi Scott,
Thank you for your timely reply to my post. It contributed needed extra dimensions to the discussion.
Your observation that early education in financial matters is urgently needed is spot on target. And it is something that can be accomplished with just a little planning and a minuscule budget impact.
I completely agree with your conclusion that young folks are ill prepared for financial decision making. Simply put, given limited exposure, they don’t understand the financial payoffs with respect to investment tradeoff matrices, financial history, the driving elements of our capitalistic economic system, and crowd psychology. An introduction to these crucial elements is easily within the grasp of High School students.
Anecdotally, I can verify that it is not just teenagers who are unaware of financial realities. A few ago, I participated in a handful of lectures that addressed this topic. We conduced a class with High School Juniors, with a Sea Scout group, with a Boy Scout troop, and with a few Senior citizen assemblies. Yes there were several well informed people in each group, but the majority, especially unexpected among the senior cohort, were ill equipped to participate in the investment universe. This was true even for some seniors who had fortunately lucked into some successful (and highly risky) investment adventures.
To more fully flesh-out your educational recommendation, I would suggest that competitive sub-groups within the class be organized and that carefully constructed incentives be provided. Americans love competition. If the boys organize against the girls, my bet is on the females.
Financial firms would be eager to provide funding for incentives, not necessarily money awards. Pizza parties are great fun and inexpensive. Market performance should be a part of the scoring, but not the principle component. Short term outcomes can too easily distort the winning portfolio due to lucky picking from a small concentrated portfolio of highly volatile individual stock holdings. That teaches the wrong lesson. The scoring must be dominated by other more significant longer term market understanding elements (diversification) and considerations (risk control). So designing a proper incentive format is a little more challenging a task, but it is doable.
The class needs a textbook. Many good options exist. I propose that William Bernstein’s “The Four Pillars of Investing” be on the short list of finalists.
Your second observation concerning investment crowd psychology also has considerable merit. That’s a more difficult challenge since it requires courage to jump ahead of a stampeding herd. Changing a belief system often takes decades, and more often fails. Perhaps exposing young folks to a few popular books about crowd behavior from authors like Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point” and James Surowiecki’s “ The Wisdom of the Crowds” would sharpen their insights.
My own favorite in this arena is Daniel Kahneman’s classic “ Thinking, Fast and Slow”.
Whatever approach is selected, the psychology aspects of investing is a much tougher nut to crack, or more appropriately, to control. It is a much riskier venture with a much longer term prospect for successful impact, and a much greater likelihood of failure. Nevertheless, we should try.
Thanks again for your thought provoking reply.
Best Wishes.

You don't have financial education in schools. My question becomes what % of investors who are - for use of a better-term, "more involved in the process" - are "self-taught" or taught by someone in the family. How many of the remainder are either randomly picking funds from a 401K-type situation or paying someone else to handle it?
We need financial education in this country. Forget home ec - home ec becomes financial ec - investing, balancing a checkbook and all manner of other common tasks. There are plenty of "simulation" investment programs today where the students could invest throughout the semester (maybe they have to write a paper about a mistake they made, who knows - there could be a lot that comes from it.)
The second aspect is human nature. People who are panicky are going to be more panicky when things aren't good and they aren't comfortable with the risk they've taken on (or they're comfortable when things are good, they're not comfortable when things suddenly aren't.) When the world is uncertain (yes, I know, there's uncertainty throughout history, yadda yadda, although 2008 is still fresh in people's minds and I think there are still a wealth of people in this country who are just muddling along. Maybe so many people had more risk pre-2008 than they could handle and now you're going to get a swing back too far in the other direction.
That's really it (I think) - you can have all the reports in the world, but I think until you have a better foundation early in life things are not going to change.