@JoeD,
The telephone number on the website seems to be to the actual office of the fund rather than the transfer agent's office.
There was a post on M* (under "Bond Squad" with STATX) that resonates the same sentiment about the telephone number to Las Vegas and how the inquiry was handled.
Here is the link to M* discussion on STATX:
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/385173/3953084.aspx
M* listed VG as the only brokerage to trade STATX.
I believe the prospectus mentioned something about paying dividends at least twice a month:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1679960/000116204418000223/state485bpos201803.htm
FUND DISTRIBUTIONS
The Fund distributes substantially all of its net investment income to shareholders in the form of dividends. The Fund intends to declare and distribute income dividends every two weeks to shareholders of record. In addition, the Fund distributes any net capital gains it earns from the sale of portfolio securities to shareholders no less frequently than annually. Net short-term capital gains may be paid more frequently. Dividend payments are made through DTC participants and indirect participants to beneficial owners then of record with proceeds received from the Fund.

http://www.tbil.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Mutual-Fund-Fund-Fact-Sheet-Final-01.11.19.pdf
Link to STATX (State Funds Enhanced Ultra Short Duration Fund) Fact Sheet.
Wish I understood a bit more about the leveraging effect via lending (reverse repos) and how much that contributes to the returns. They do offer a nifty little video at their site.
Not sure why they pay out divys 2x per month. Treasuries don't pay interest, correct? You buy at a discount. But I guess they churn with those repos and collect fees.
*Fund receives securities lending collateral which is limited to (i) 102% cash or (ii)
102% - 115% US Government Securities.
* Fund lends its 3 Month Treasury bills and receives a lending fee which is paid to the
fund and distributed as a dividend to investors.
Maybe this is a fund that only works if the AUM stay small and they can pick off those "pennies and nickels"?

Taking a closer look at this now than I did in the last thread, and I'm wondering how far off you are with that "Bernie" comment.
The strategy has echoes of RPHYX's - buying "orphaned securities; exceedingly short-term (think 30-90 day maturity) securities for which there are few other buyers."
[Than you Professor for Riverpark's fund profile: https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2012/09/riverpark-short-term-high-yield-fund-rphyx-july-2011-updated-october-2012/]
In the case of RPHYX, the remnants are short term junk bonds that the fund manager believes have little risk of default. In contrast, STATX is picking up short term Treasuries (with presumably even less risk of default).
While both funds may be picking up coins from the sidewalk (bonds that aren't being bought by other investors), ISTM that RPHYX is picking up nickels and STATX is picking up pennies.
So how does STATX generate an SEC yield a full percentage point higher than RPHIX's, even allowing for its 1/2 percent lower fees? Especially since it is investing in higher grade bonds, slightly shorter average maturity (1.0 vs. 1.1 years), and lower duration (0.01 vs. 0.55 years)?
The only thing I see is the use of reverse repurchasing agreements, which as the prospectus states, has "a leveraging effect on the Fund’s NAV".

Here is a link to the earlier discussion concerning this fund
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/46465/state-funds-enhanced-ultra-short-duration-mutual-fund-statx

Hi @Derf and good morning. Thanks for your question.
I did put a little bit of cash to work recently opening first step positions in DWGAX, INUTX, PONAX and TEQIX since I have now reached my new asset allocation of 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity. My focus this year is to grow my portfolio's income generation while maintaing my asset allocation along with achieving some growth of principal. Over the past five years my portfolio's income generation has ranged from a low of 3.0% to a high of 5.3% with an average of 4.4%. I'd like to get my income average a littler higher. Ten years ago its average was north of 5%. As most of us know yields have dropped during this time frame but are now (more recently) back on the rise. Even with the past, and more recent, market swoons my portfolio's total return has been better than nine percent annually over the past ten years; however, I also held a greater percentage in equities earlier than I presently do. At one time I was about 70% equity but I have now reduced this down to 40% equity (through time) due to an age based asset allocation realignment. Now being 70+ years in age I consider my present asset allocation, noted above, to be an all weather asset allocation, for me, as it holds ample cash, generates ample income, and should still grow my principal over time.

Thought I'd share. Back in my days in elemetary school we had a daily show and tell. Now, retired we still have a daily show and tell among some of my old classmates. So, here is my "show and tell" for the board.
In viewing Morningstar's Market Valuation Graph this morning (1/16/19) and converting its reading of 0.92 to Old_Skeet's market barometer scale I come up with a score of 162 for the graph indicating oversold. In compairson, Old_Skeet's barometer (which follows the S&P 500 Index) based upon its metrics has a reading of 156 which reflects that the Index is undervalued.
Have a great day ...
Old_Skeet

I've held 3-4 of their funds since they opened the shop. It went swimmingly until it no longer did. When their funds were outpacing the pack the boys from Utah looked like geniuses, making company visits where few venture, and seeming to have a great team. The last two shareholder letters paint a very different picture; there's talk of mistakes, the need to move personnel around, a recognition that no matter how great a company might appear to fund management, the market is cruel. I still ponder what a "guardian portfolio manager" ought to be doing with respect to the rest of his team. I'm holding for now, but I previously dumped a significant percentage of my foreign (over)exposure.
I think we all like honest and direct shareholder letters. The situation at GP reminds me of Bridgeway Funds, another small, independent company that had great numbers for several years. Bridegeway does good with its profits and seems to be a good place to work. John Montgomery writes fine analyses of his firm's fund performance. It really sounds good, but the performance of their small and micro-cap funds does not cut the mustard. Montgomery's first vehicle was BRUSX, a real winner for a long time. But in the last 10 years he's may behind his benchmark, losing an average of 3.58.% in the last 5 years, for example. Le marché est cruel.

She's got them bug-eyes... https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/maria-bartiromo-during-the-60th-anniversary-ball-of-the-year-gala-for-picture-id110217475

Large retailer moving into financial services/products space. Where have I heard this before?
Oh yes, 1981, when the U.S.'s largest retailer (Amazon is currently only third), already owning an insurance company, acquired a financial services company. Most of its business came from selling mutual funds, MMFs, and CDs. At the time, it was looking forward to making even more money off a new fangled financial product called an eye-are-eh.
So how'd that work out with Sears, Dean Witter, Allstate, and Discover?
Of course there are many ways for a company to get into the mutual fund business besides this one and the couple mentioned in Investopedia. It could simply serve as the sales arm of an existing fund or family as Vanguard originally did when Bogle founded the company: provide administrative and distribution services for an existing company. Or it might function like Harbor, branding the funds and overseeing the management, but outsourcing the day-to-day management of all its funds to third party money managers.

Caught the speculation on Bloomberg today. Nothing definite. But usually where there’s smoke there’s fire.
BY DANIEL LIBERTO Updated Jul 25, 2018
Excerpt:
Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) has all the right tools in place to take the asset management industry by storm, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. In a research note, reported on by Bloomberg and Financial News, the investment manager said the Seattle-based company’s strong online presence and vast customer base, including 100 million-plus Amazon Prime subscribers, leaves it “well placed” to sell mutual funds to retail investors .....
Bernstein predicted that any move by Amazon to start selling funds would prove popular with its customers. The analysts noted that a large portion of the company’s Prime subscribers fit the same profile as mutual fund buyers and added that many of them have already thrown their support behind the idea, via a recent survey by online marketplace LendEDU.
https://www.investopedia.com/news/amazon-well-placed-disrupt-asset-management-industry-bernstein/

Is there anything in this short article that is correct?

Put simply, the R-class of mutual funds are available only through employment-based retirement accounts ... In other words, investors access R-class mutual funds through their employers or work arrangement. ,,, To qualify for Class R shares, you must have access to a 401(k), 457 or employer-sponsored 403(b) plan.

American Funds R-5 shares are available through individual (not employer sponsored) HSAs, e.g. The HSA Authority.
https://www.oldnational.com/thehsaauthority/individuals-employees/investment-services

mutual funds that charge loads are not allowed in employer-sponsored retirement plans

"Apart from fees charged for administration of the plan itself, there are three basic types of fees that may be charged in connection with investment options in a 401(k) plan. ...
Sales charges (also known as loads or commissions)."
From DOL (2013). Emphasis in original.

R-class shares were designed to allow securities firms to serve retirement planners without charging a load

Ironically, the fund cited in the piece, RGAAX, is the R-1 share class of an American Funds fund. AF R-1 shares are load shares. They charge 12b-1 fees of 1.00%. As a matter of law, any fund charging a 12b-1 fee in excess of 0.25% must be called a load fund. (The article also gets the ticker wrong; it gives a MMF ticker ending in XX.)

R shares still have fairly low expense ratios but tend to be costlier than index funds.

R shares can be index funds just as easily as they can be actively managed funds. Often, that makes them cheaper than sibling share classes of the same fund. For example, OGFAX (JP Morgan Equity Index R6) is the cheapest share class of this fund; at 0.04%, it costs just 1/5 as much as the institutional share class HLEIX.

FYI: Over at the Fox Business Network, believe it or not, there seems to be considerable schizophrenia when it comes to President Donald Trump.
There are the Lost Causes, such as Lou Dobbs, Stuart Varney, and Trish Regan, who are so pro-Trump on a daily basis that it’s hard to tell where the White House ends and their television studios on Sixth Avenue begin.
There are also those, such as Neil Cavuto, Liz Claman, and Charlie Gasparino, who do their best to steer clear of the president of the United States, and just try to report — wait for it — the business news of the day.
And then there is Maria Bartiromo.
In an era that seems to prefer affirmation over information, she may be in a class by herself. The Brooklyn-born-and-raised Bartiromo, who once dominated the lane reporting on the vicissitudes of the stock market, has been busy lately transforming herself into a Trump acolyte. People have noticed. “Is this a piece on how she’s totally changed?” asks one FBN devotee. “How she went from being the ‘Money Honey’ focused on business to crazy-slash-drinking-the-Trump-Kool-Aid?”
Regards,
Ted
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1cq2nzw56k40k/Maria-Bartiromo-Was-a-Generational-Icon-for-Financial-Television-What-Happened

FYI: Sears Holdings Corp (SHLDQ.PK) Chairman Eddie Lampert prevailed in a bankruptcy auction for the U.S. department store chain with an improved takeover bid of roughly $5.2 billion, allowing the 126-year-old retailer to keep its doors open, people familiar with the matter said Wednesday.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sears-bankruptcy-lampert/sears-chairman-prevails-in-bankruptcy-auction-for-retailer-with-5-2-billion-bid-sources-idUSKCN1PA0SW
WSJ Article:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sears-to-stay-open-after-edward-lampert-prevails-in-bankruptcy-auction-11547636823?mod=hp_lead_pos1

@MikeM,
FWIW - I compared Hussman’s HSGFX with the Oppenheimer gold fund I own.
10-year performance: HSGFX -5.02%. OPGSX +1.40
Based on that, you’d have been substantially better off in gold. Admittedly, he’s a pretty “low bar” to top. :)

FYI: When Janus Henderson Group Plc hired Bill Gross in 2014, it probably expected to quickly become a force in the active fixed-income mutual fund world. After all, Gross was named “Manager of the Decade” by Morningstar Inc. in 2010 for steering the Total Return Fund at Pacific Investment Management Co., which at one point amassed almost $300 billion of assets.
Instead, the Janus Henderson Global Unconstrained Bond Fund is looking more and more like a vanity project for Gross and potentially the last stop for the 74-year-old billionaire.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/bill-gross-s-vanity-fund-mostly-harms-himself-42755.html?print

@Hank, these are not normal times when HSGFX has a better 1 year return than PRWCX :) I tend to agree with @wxman123. These long/short or market neutral funds generally under-perform over time compared to a good balanced fund. So moral of the story is simply, they are not worth holding over a long period of time. And if you are going to trade in and out of them, the manager has to time the market correctly and you have to time when you think holding the fund makes sense - correctly. Tough game.

@MikeM, Pretty much agree with everything you’ve said here. These are not normal times. Utter chaos in DC. Self-inflicted trade wars. Predictable backups at airport security lines. Terminals closing. Payless paydays for many government workers - now including the FBI and U.S. Coast Guard. Enough to make one forget that the European Union is also in upheaval. Now - let’s toss in the fact that those bonds balanced funds hold are very susceptible to a sharp decline in value should rates spike. With only 2.7% on the 10-year Treasury, bonds themselves constitute a risk asset.
Gimmicks vary greatly in approach. (I’m currently sampling T. Rowe’s 5-manager octupus TMSRX.) As you indicate, most are high fee and doomed to deliver poor long term results. Would never recommend one for someone not yet retired. Where a 10% (+ -) holding might make sense is for an older retired person who wishes to remain invested in traditional risk assets like equities, commodities and bonds - but who also wishes to include in the mix a wild card - something that’s not necessarily correlated to any of those other assets and which has the potential to outperform when all of the others are falling.
No guarantees or pie-in-the-sky expectations for those gimmick funds. But extreme circumstances may elicite extreme solutions. Since you and @Ted enjoy discussing football here, there are some interesting parallels / gimmicks in the sport which might constitute the equavanant of adding one of these funds. The Hail Mary pass is one. The intentional safety another. Then there’s there’s the on-side kick. And on rare occasion a team may throw a long pass down field hoping the opponent intercepts - in effect, an intentionally thrown interception.
Regards

FYI: This week on What Are Your Thoughts, Michael Batnick and Josh Brown discuss:
.Do we expect too much from ordinary investors?
.Why do fund managers get fired easier than advisors?
.Netflix rallies 45% in 12 days!
.What is your desert island market indicator?
.Not a single 52 week high on the S&P 500!
.Did the right teams advance in the NFL playoffs
.Brill Browder’s book Red Notice reaction
Regards,
Ted
https://thereformedbroker.com/2019/01/14/what-are-your-thoughts-45-in-twelve-days/

Just received an email about the soft opening of funds:
Grandeur Peak
to Soft Open Several Funds
January 14, 2019
RE: Grandeur Peak will Soft Open the Global Opportunities, International Opportunities, Global Reach strategies on January 14, 2019.
Dear Fellow Shareholders,
With the recent global market selloff, we are re-opening the Global Opportunities, International Opportunities, and Global Reach Funds to existing shareholders as of today for those interested in taking advantage of the selloff to purchase additional shares. We, of course, have no idea whether the selloff will continue, and if so, for how long, but we think the current prices make this an interesting long-term entry point regardless. As Robert mentioned in his recent annual letter: “growing assets is not a priority for us, but with the recent market selloff and our investment style being somewhat out of favor this past year, it feels like an interesting time to be investing in our style and niche.”
The soft re-opening is likely to be for a limited time, as we remain committed to keeping assets tightly limited in our small and micro-cap funds, but the time frame will depend on where the market goes from here and the level of additional investments received. Besides re-opening these Funds to existing shareholders, we will also allow new shareholders to purchase these Funds if they buy them directly from Grandeur Peak Funds (www.grandeurpeakglobal.com). Financial advisors and retirement plans with clients in one of these Funds will be able to invest in the Fund for both existing as well as new clients.
The Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund, which is currently open only to existing shareholders, will now also be open to new shareholders purchasing the Fund directly from Grandeur Peak Funds.
Outlined below is the revised status of the Grandeur Peak Funds as of today.
Open to existing fund shareholders and new Direct shareholders:
Emerging Markets Opportunities (GPEIX/GPEOX)
Global Opportunities (GPGIX/GPGOX)
Global Reach (GPRIX/GPROX)
International Opportunities (GPIIX/GPIOX)
Remain open to new and existing shareholders (no change in status):
Global Stalwarts (GGSYX/GGSOX)
International Stalwarts (GISYX/GISOX)
Remains Hard Closed (no change in status):
Global Micro Cap (GPMCX)
Thank you for being an investor in the Grandeur Peak Funds. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out to me, Mark Siddoway, or Amy Johnson.
Best Regards,
Eric Huefner
President & COO
801-384-0003
The objective of all Grandeur Peak Funds is long-term growth of capital.
RISKS:
Mutual fund investing involves risks and loss of principal is possible. Investing in small and micro cap funds will be more volatile and loss of principal could be greater than investing in large cap or more diversified funds.
Investing in foreign securities entails special risks, such as currency fluctuations and political uncertainties, which are described in more detail in the prospectus. Investments in emerging markets are subject to the same risks as other foreign securities and may be subject to greater risks than investments in foreign countries with more established economies and securities markets.
An investor should consider investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses carefully before investing. To obtain a prospectus, containing this and other information, visit www.grandeurpeakglobal.com or call 1-855-377-PEAK (7325). Please read it carefully before investing.
Grandeur Peak Funds will deduct a 2.00% redemption proceeds fee on Fund shares held 60 days or less. For more complete information including charges, risks, and expenses, read the prospectus carefully.
Grandeur Peak Funds are distributed by ALPS Distributors, Inc (“ADI”). Eric Huefner, Mark Siddoway, and Amy Johnson are registered representatives of ADI.
Robert’s Chairman Message 2018
GPG000742 12/31/19
OR-----
link to GP website:
https://www.grandeurpeakglobal.com/documents/grandeurpeakglobal-pr-20190114.pdf

FYI: Cash is becoming the king as investors flee volatile stock markets.
Assets in money market mutual funds have swollen to $3.066 trillion, their highest level since March 2010, driven by retail investors. The money fund assets had spent much of the last decade in the $2 trillion range but tracked above $3 trillion again in mid-December, coinciding with a late-2018 market downturn that resulted in the S&P 500 posting a 6.2 percent drop for the year, it's worst showing in a decade.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/14/money-funds-reach-3point07-trillion-most-since-2010-as-investors-flee-volatile-markets.html

This is a fund David owns and keeps in high regard as per his input on this site.This is supposed to be a cautious mod allocation fund but lost about 6.5% in the past year with about 25% cash in assets, ie loss greater than the s&p 500 index by about 2%. FPACX has lost about 25% of its AUM in the past few years. Has Steve Romick and his clan lost their supposed mandate? Or is it very poor equity choices. What say thee?