@bee, thank you for posting. This WealthTrack is particularly informative.
You asked a few questions.
1. Treasury. Low bond yields prevent treasuries to rally on the upside. He suggested holding some longer term treasury since they have lesser correlation to stocks comparing to other bond asset classes.
2. PRWCX is not a risk managed equity fund since all stock and bond positions are long. It is, however, a highly flexible asset allocation fund. Risk managed equity typically have several components within the portfolio to short the market as part of the downside protection. Some examples are listed in Calamos funds below.
https://calamos.com/blogs/investment-ideas/calamos-risk-managed-funds-show-resilience-in-march-madness/
Although Pimco bond funds are not considered hedge funds, they use swaps and other instruments routinely to reduce the drawdowns.
T. Rowe Price does have an alternative fund, Multi-strategy total return fund, TMSRX
quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fund/chart?t=tmsrx
@David Snowball also profiled this fund last year in great details.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/2020/07/t-rowe-price-multi-strategy-total-return-tmsrx/#more-14321
In addition, @Charles Bolin contributed a very nice article in MFO's commentary last year. Table 2 contains lots of alternative funds/ETFs to consider. Charles obtained these information from the MFO Premium Lipper's database.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/2020/09/alternative-and-global-funds-during-a-global-recession/#more-14509

A quick Google search yielded this :
A total of 371 out of 715,425 Israelis who passed at least a week after receiving two doses of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine have contracted the virus – 0.04%, with 16 being sent to the hospital – according to a Health Ministry report released on Thursday.
Stay Safe, Derf

All this info leads me to ask one more question. Any info on vaccinated participants who later contracted Covid-19 , as how it effected them, would be appreciated.
Stay Safe, Derf

GPMCX was started will around 25 Million AUM. Inception was around 10/2015. Total assets now around 55.9 million. Seems that closing this fund has worked.
Stay safe, Derf

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/cathie-wood-risks-having-too-120000989.html
Enjoy the read, Derf

Sure. Its efficacy rate under trial conditions is virtually identical to Pfizer's. Along with Pfizer's vaccine, it appears to be more effective than AstraZeneca's against the South African strain. At the moment, it (along with some of the other vaccines) is the best thing available.
According to the FDA in its EUA letter:

Based on the safety and effectiveness data, and review of manufacturing information regarding product quality and consistency, it is reasonable to believe that Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine may be effective. Additionally, it is reasonable to conclude, based on the totality of the scientific evidence available, that the known and potential benefits of Moderna COVID‑19 Vaccine outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccine, for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older.

https://www.fda.gov/media/144636/download
The FDA goes on to require the following fact sheet to be provided to vaccine recipients:

WHAT IS THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE?
The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is an unapproved vaccine that may prevent COVID-19. There is no FDA-approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19.
The FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

https://www.modernatx.com/covid19vaccine-eua/eua-fact-sheet-recipients.pdf

Moderna vaccine uses similar mRNA technology to that of Pfizer-BioNTech for generating immune response as new antibody in human against coronavirus. In Phase III trial testing to cover various age and racial demographic in US, the vaccine showed 95% efficiency after the second booster shot.
Israel is the first country to vaccinate their citizen early. The date on the decline of infection and hospitialization are highly encouraging.

Close to 90% of people aged 60 and older in the country have received their first dose of Pfizer’s 2-dose vaccine so far. Now, data collected by Israel’s Ministry of Health show that there was a 41% drop in confirmed COVID-19 infections in that age group, and a 31% drop in hospitalizations from mid-January to early February.

https://nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00316-4
https://vox.com/22262509/israel-covid-19-vaccinations-serious-illness-decline
Concern today is the mutation of coronavirus to other contagious variants (i.e. UK and South Africa). There is no firm data of whether these variants are more lethal. This also implies that the pace of vaccination needs to speed out to minimize the spread of the more contagious variants. Good news is that early data that mRNA-based vaccines work effectively (90%+) against these variants in the laboratory. The older technologies that is used in Astro-Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson have showed to be less effective (50%). Neveretheless these vaccines require only one shot dosage whereas Pfizer and Moderna require two shots. Mixing two different type of vaccines are being considered.
Now Pfizer and Moderna are testing the vaccines for those under 16 so that they will be able to go back to schools with confidence. If the testing is successful, there is a chance of these students will return to school in fall 2021.

LA Times: The FDA didn’t ‘approve’ Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-12-12/why-fda-didnt-approve-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-eua

In the case of a vaccine, authorization can be granted if “the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks,” the FDA says.

Some (most?) people equate that with "generally safe"; I read it as "safe enough".
In anticipation of "look at the evidence" response, here's more from the LA Times:

• It was 95% effective at preventing cases of COVID-19 in both Latinos and non-Latinos.
• It was 100% effective in Black people.
• It was 94% effective in people who were at least 56 years old. (The older you get, the greater the risk of a serious case of COVID-19.)
• It was 95% effective in those who had at least one medical condition that made them more likely to develop a serious case of COVID-19.
• It was 96% effective for people who were obese, another condition that makes people more vulnerable to COVID-19.
Yet none of this was enough for the vaccine to win official FDA approval.

One can certainly disagree with the FDA and assert that the vaccines are "generally safe", i.e. safe for general (not just emergency) use. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

It's not a matter of how diversified a fund is but how much of a stock the fund, or more broadly the management company, owns. A fund could grow 10x its size and not throw itself off kilter. It could simply buy 10x as much of everything.
As an absurd example, consider a hypothetical fund with 20% in each of the FAANG stocks. Highly concentrated, yet it would have no problem taking in tons of cash, because it wouldn't have an impact on the stocks it held.
GPIOX and GPGOX each hold about 3/4% of Metropolis Healthcare. Not enough to move the needle, but GP as a whole has a fascination with this company. Should GP sour on the company, it might try to unload its 13% ownership. Regarding Dechra Pharmaceuticals, GP holds almost 1/4 of the company.
It's different when a large fund complex owns a sizeable percentage of a company, e.g. Fidelity (FMR) owns nearly 1/5 of Dechra. But that's spread over more funds with more varied objectives (albeit virtually all growth-oriented).
BCSIX has been soft closed since Oct 18, 2013. IMHO that's more a way of limiting hot money than it is to slow the growth of the fund. Forcing new investors to buy directly from Grandeur Peak similarly serves as an obstacle to traders. But additionally, GP's refusal to take money from existing investors through third parties will slow inflows in a way that BCSIX's soft close does not. IMHO the two sets of closures are not that similar.
I share some of your cynicism when it comes to management motives generally in closing funds. Ages ago I read a paper or two on how fund companies optimize profits by closing their funds late enough to allow the garnering of significant AUM, but not too late as to so harm their funds' performance as to induce outflows. Funds' performances were nevertheless harmed to some extent by delaying closures to optimize profits rather than performance. (FMAGX is a poster child for funds that close too late.)
BCOIX played the same game as GP - announcing its closing two weeks before it took effect.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/869351/000120928613000420/e1326.htm
In contrast, when Vanguard announces a fund is closing, it closes that day.

There is also the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill being passed.

Not to quarrel with accepted wisdom, nevertheless I wonder if GP could show shareholders what advantage it has been to them to close only to re-open several of the funds. When I look at GPIOX and GPGOX, the ones I used to own, I see AUM south of $1B, holdings shading towards mid-cap of 191 and 166 stocks respectively, and no one stock representing more than 2.56% of the fund. Couldn’t the managers add new money to existing positions without throwing things off kilter? ISTM, that money sloshing around because of closure announcements causes more headaches than a steady stream of new regular purchases. I know that I have read of SC funds losing their mojo because the managers could not deal with lots of new money. If GP were running concentrated portfolios of 25-40 SMID stocks, timely closures might be called for. I own BCSIX that has been closed for some time, but I don’t really know if closing helped me. Other members might know of funds whose closings and re-openings amounted to more than management suddenly realizing that a closed fund ain’t making enough dough for the firm. Hope I’m not being quarrelsome.

...Just found this:
"Recently launched (1/1/2021) multisector bond fund with an emphasis on higher yielding bonds."
http://ptam.com/mutual-funds/ptcrx.html
So, safe to say it's a high yield fund?

I receive this weekly by email and it is always very detailed weekly report.
MARKET RECAP
The major market indices finished up this week.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 1.00%.
The S&P 500 Stock Index rose 1.23%.
The Nasdaq Composite climbed 1.73%.
The Russell 2000 small capitalization index gained 2.51% this week.
The Hang Seng Composite gained 3.02%
The KOSPI fell 0.64%.
The 10-year Treasury bond yield rose 4 basis points to 1.206%.
Frank Holmes Investment Commentary:
https://usfunds.com/investor-library/investor-alert

From @johnN link:

Two BNT162b2 recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest), as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction). No deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the vaccine or placebo.

2/12/21 Episode
Topics:
Diversification works well...when you don't need it.
- Stay invested for the long term.
- Diversify for the upside, not the downside.
- How do treasuries and bonds help investors stay invested on the downside?
- Risk Manage Equity Portfolio (Is PRWCX be such a strategy?)

Donuts.
STCG: $0.052/sh
LTCG: $0.377/sh
ex-date: 2/12/21
https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/information/distributions#/?table=estimated

+1

Here's the entire letter including footnotes:
https://www.grandeurpeakglobal.com/documents/grandeurpeakglobal-pr-20210212.pdf
I might call it a demisemi-hard closure. The hard closed funds will remain open for for two more weeks, and when they do close they'll remain open to direct investments including new accounts.

I changed my opinion on risk vs return after the March 23 bottom when my health funds PRHSX and FSMEX dropped the same amount as the higher risk ARKG. Now, I compare returns and SD (3 year) and own only ARKG and PTH.
ytd 1 YR return SD
ARKG 19% 211% 38
PTH 18 94 27
FSMEX 9 37 18
It works for me.

And that turnover, despite the fact that futures trading requires more turnover, is still very high.
From the SAI: The [turnover] calculation does not include the turnover of other instruments in which the Fund more commonly invests, such as commodity futures instruments
Hence my statement that "any turnover calculation (even if I could decrypt all of this) wouldn't be meaningful."
With monthly expirations, it would not surprise me to see a 1200% turnover ratio, were futures included in the calculations. That's still a far cry from the very high 4,000-5,000% ratios of this fund, which might be describing the small amount of stocks and bonds that sometimes (and very fleetingly) show up in the portfolio.