from the high level
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/16/opinion/inflation-economy-2021.html

I am not trying to dissuade anybody from buying the new fund. Here are my random thoughts, FWIW -
M* chart shows GUSYX has lost 11.65% in the last one month, giving a year to date total return of 16.2%. GPGEX, a fifth global fund from the same shop, evidently is a sister fund to GPRIX (Global Reach), which has lost about 8% in the past one month. GUSYX and GPRIX occupy the same style box. Traditionally, at the beginning of an economic cycle, small-mid caps have done well but late cycle usually has not been so kind to them.
Three of their existing Global funds have similar performance - Global Contrarian fund looks decidedly different.
I own both the international (GISYX) and US (GUSYX) stalwart funds. I am sure GPRIX is not the same as the Stalwart funds (M* shows materially different P/E ratios notwithstanding the same style box) but I will sit GPGEX out. If I want more of a similar investing style, given I already have enough GP, I might checkout Wasatch.
M* shows all the Global funds open to new investors and GPRIX has $400+M in AUM.

I have several of GP Funds. While some of the best stock ideas are being shared among the GP fund managers, each fund manager has the final decision in purchasing/selling a stock. Also, each fund has different mandates from the others. For example, the Global Micro Cap Fund is not the same as the Global Reach Fund, but some of the Global Micro Cap stock suggestions have been utilized in the Global Reach Fund, but not all of them. Similarly, Global Micro Fund may have some picks that are shared with the International Opportunities/Global Opportunities Funds, but not all of Global Micro Cap stock ideas are utilized.
For example, compare USNQX and NASDX. While both are based on the Nasdaq 100 benchmark, why aren't both funds performing the same (fund expenses are slightly different from each other)? Currently, USNQX has a lower expense ratio (.44%) than NASDX's expense ratio (.50%) but NASDX has a better YTD return than USNQX (from Google Finance). Years ago, NASDX performed better than USNQX. Then for several years, USNQX performed better. For the last year or two, NASDX has performed better than USNQX. Same can be said for S&P 500 funds (fund expenses are slightly different) as to why aren't they performing more in synch while utilizing the same benchmark
Second, Wasatch and GP have similar tendencies in closing their funds to keep them nimble. Since the GP managers learned Wasatch's management practices, they are probably being used similarly in GP's practices. I would hate to miss out on a fund that is closed for 5-10 years waiting for it to re-open.
Disclosure: I own the Global Micro Cap (in taxable and non-taxable accounts) and Contrarian funds, Global & International Opportunities funds, Emerging Opportunities, and Global & International Stalwarts. Thinking about a position in the US Stalwarts Fund.

Good point BaluBalu. It's like, why even bother opening this fund if you're already capacity-constrained in other funds. Good boutique fund company, but the apparent overlap in all their funds is concerning to me. It reminds me a little of what Royce funds did 10-15 years ago.
FWIW. I've owned GPGOX since inception and have been very happy with it. For many years it was my only SC investment.
Can anyone with more than a couple Grandeur Peak funds chime in as to why? Maybe it is beneficial to own multiple, but why?

@BaluBalu
December 10th Episode linked here:
wall-street-legend-ed-hyman-describes-the-powerful-forces-driving-record-economic-growth-into-2022

That's a behemoth. What can explain it? The fund was riding high, then fell in 2021.

December 16, 2021
Please see below for today’s Press Release announcing the launch of the Grandeur Peak Global Explorer Fund (GPGEX) on Thursday, December 16, 2021.
The Global Explorer Fund will only be available in one share class (Institutional), with a minimum investment of just $1,000 ($100 for minors)* in order to make it broadly accessible to all investors. The Fund should be available through most of our existing channel relationships (Schwab, TD Ameritrade, Pershing, Fidelity, etc.) and it is of course available directly from Grandeur Peak Funds. If you have difficulty purchasing the Fund, please let us know and we will work with you to try to get it listed on your platform.
To learn more about this new fund, call any of us on the client team (contacts below) or our Investor Services team at 1-855-377-7325; Additional information will also be posted to our website: www.grandeurpeakglobal.com.
Best Regards,
Mark Siddoway, CFA, CAIA, MBA
Head of Client Relations
801-384-0010
Todd Matheny, CAIA
Director of Client Relations
801-384-0095
Amy Johnson, MBA, CFP®
Sr. Manager, Client Relations
801-384-0044
*Third-party platforms may impose different minimum requirements.
PRESS RELEASE
Dear Fellow Shareholders,
We are pleased to announce the launch of the Grandeur Peak Global Explorer Fund (GPGEX). The Fund will invest in what the firm believes are the most interesting equity investments around the world. The holdings will primarily be micro to mid-cap companies.
The new fund is a sister fund to the existing Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund (GPRIX). The two funds share a similar mandate, but they approach portfolio management from a different angle. The Global Reach Fund (launched in 2013) is managed collaboratively by the firm’s five industry teams/portfolio managers, plus a guardian portfolio manager. Similarly, the new Global Explorer Fund will be managed by the firm’s seven geographic region teams/portfolio managers, plus a guardian portfolio manager.
Said Blake Walker, CEO, “In our quest to cover the globe, members of our research team wear multiple hats – some combination of an industry hat, a geography hat, and a fund hat. We long ago divided the world up into industries (5) and geographic regions (7) and gave analysts the charge to find the most interesting companies in their assigned space. The beauty of viewing the world through these two different lenses is that we have at least two people looking at every company, namely the relevant industry analyst and geography analyst. We have found it to be a powerful ‘multiple minds’ tool.”
Juliette Douglas, a geography portfolio manager, and the portfolio manager who will coordinate the Global Explorer team’s efforts, continued, “In hindsight, it could have made sense to launch the Global Explorer at the same time as Global Reach, but candidly we weren’t staffed or ready to do so eight years ago. Today it’s an easy extension for our team and the geographic paper portfolio we have managed for some time. We expect Reach and Explorer will look fairly similar given our collaborative approach, but we also believe there will be a very real benefit in putting our geography PMs at the helm of their own fund. Those benefits will play out in the Global Explorer Fund and also radiate through the rest of the Grandeur Peak Funds. The geography teams are thrilled at this opportunity.”
Grandeur Peak has from day one shown a very strong commitment to managing capacity at a firm level, and closing funds early. With many of the Grandeur Peak Funds currently closed, Todd Matheny, Director of Client Relations, commented on the capacity of the new Fund: “With the Global Explorer Fund focused on our more capacity-constrained micro to mid-cap space, we plan to soft close the Fund around $35M in AUM. We are excited about this Fund, and the strategic value it adds across our entire family of funds, but we intend to close it very small to ensure all of our funds retain the investment flexibility they need to remain focused on delivering performance for our clients.”

Actually, and as noted in the SEC proposal, "Government funds are [currently] permitted, but not required, to impose fees and gates." So technically some parts of the SEC proposal have scope beyond prime & muni m-mkt funds.
Pragmatically, I doubt that any government MMF adopted¹ fees or gates. But by the same token, I'm not aware of any MMF that ever actually imposed them. Not that I've looked that hard though.
The SEC proposal notes that "during the period of market stress in March 2020 ... no money market fund imposed a fee or a gate."
¹ The distinction I am drawing between "adopting" and "imposing" can be understood from a footnote in a Fidelity explanation of the current rules. I use "imposing" to mean "actually charging a fee or actually restricting withdrawals" as opposed to merely allowing a fund to do this. By default, government funds were not allowed to impose fees or gates unless they explicitly adopted them. From Fidelity:

The final rules are clear that liquidity fees and/or redemption gates do not apply to U.S. Treasury or government money market mutual funds. The SEC is allowing U.S. Treasury or government money market mutual funds to add liquidity fees and/or redemption gates to a fund, but only after shareholders receive 60 days’ written advance notice.

The SEC is proposing changes to MMFs. There are three key pieces (plus an enhanced reporting requirement):

1. Increase liquidity - this could potentially decrease yields, but since yields are already at 0.01% and positive only because of subsidies, we're unlikely to see them go any lower.
   
2. Remove the gating/fee requirements on fund redemptions. This is the change that appears most significant for retail investors - one will no longer have to worry about being able to get money out of prime or muni MMFs without paying a redemption fee.
   
3. Implement swing pricing on institutional funds. Not going to explain this, since it affects only institutional MMFs.

The fact sheet seems to be the best place to start.
Press release: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-258
Full text of proposal (325 pages): https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2021/ic-34441.pdf
Fact sheet: https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2021/ic-34441-fact-sheet.pdf
If you want to submit a comment to the SEC, you can do so here:
https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml (look for Money Market Reforms and its submit comments link)

I finally found PGIM estimated distributions where they were supposed to be. My problem was my iPad could not find them whereas my desktop did. FWIIW, PWJZX won't have a large distribution on 12/17. @Mark: Schwab processed my BIAWX distribution yesterday.
@TheShadow: I believe Perritt has only two funds. PGIM is the massive Prudential operation.

So for those, like me, who don't understand a single word of that, what does it mean to the individual computer user? What should we avoid doing?

This vulnerability mostly impacts enterprises and will keep security teams busy for quite some time.
If your hardware/applications don't use Apache Log4J versions 2.0 - 2.15.0 you are not at risk.
The Netherland's National Cyber Security Centrum (NCSC) posted a comprehensive A-Z list of all products it is aware are either vulnerable, not vulnerable, or under investigation.

My wife and I did decide to move our accounts back to TRP from Schwab to take advantage of the new Summit Program, primarily to access TRP institutional share classes at greatly reduced minimums and access to closed TRP funds. With us holding around 80% of our investments in TRP funds, primarily PRWCX, it just made financial sense to make the move. Their brokerage arm is able to hold our non-TRP funds.
6 accounts were moved. The process began on November 17 and was completed today, December 14. Took a little longer than I thought it might as there were a couple hiccups, for a bit they were having difficulty moving the non-brokerage part of my wife's Roth IRA and we were not able to connect our bank account to our new TRP accounts from the TRP website and needed to mail in the forms. A little patience and all is fine. Next step is to transfer into the institutional share class of PRWCX.
We were assigned a Senior Financial Consultant from TRP to assist in the transfer of our accounts. He communicated via phone and email, and when necessary did the leg-work to provide answers to questions we had instead of us having to deal with customer service via phone.
Now, I just need to get reacquainted with navigating the TRP website again.

+1 sma3 I'm interested in SPD JEPI and NUSI as those etfs have sufficient volume at Fidelity to allow market purchases.

For interested holders of BIAWX I received this message in my Fidelity account: A short-term capital gain of 0.14699 per share and long-term capital gain of 0.76367 per share, declared on 12/14/2021, is pending on this position."

.....And once again, here on Oahu: new crap is happening: cyberattacks vs. Queen's Health System, the municipal Board of Water Supply and Honolulu EMS. These despicable motherlovers must be caught and made to SUFFER.
https://www.kitv.com/news/crime/bws-ems-employees-warned-of-possible-identity-theft-after-hackers-target-payroll-vendor/article_a5caee94-5c76-11ec-bd0b-a3979031a6b6.html

PRHSX held 29.3% of its 200 name portfolio in biotech as of 09-30-2021.
I've owned the fund for a long time, and the key to me has been to buy it and forget it. An investment in a health sector fund is definitely a long term (10+ years) prospect.

@dstone42, your 529 plan is administrated by your state who sponsors the 529 plan. Not familiar specifically with TRP's 529 plan. Withdrawing 529 fund to pay for "Qualified College Expense" is straightforward. Several options you can do:
https://savingforcollege.com/article/how-to-pay-your-college-tuition-bill-with-a-529-plan
We chose to have the fund sent to us (account owner) to pay for tuition and room & board, and NOT to the university. By year end, a 1098-T Form you receive will only include the tuition. What is not included are Room & board, books, and computer supplies. Depending on the university, the housing billing is separated from the tuition billing. I like to keep these qualified expenses separately for accurate tax reporting purpose.

I have been lucky in that when I re-established my download capability, all the transactions came through OK. A lot of people on the Quicken discussion boards report the same problem though. Look for "Schwab CC_501 Loop" or other Schwab transaction error threads.
Worried about Quicken security given this major snafu, I deactivated "share with Quicken " on the SChwab website ( Service- Security) REactivating today Schwab downloads worked, but none of Fidelity or Vanguard did
Had to go in and deactivate/reactivate all of those

@JonGaltill: right, BST is a BlackRock closed end science and tech fund, but it does have a global portfolio. Of its 3 managers, 1 also serves on BME, the Health Sciences CEF that has done well previously, although it has done little to merit its M* 5 star rating in recent years.

I own BME and it's been solid in my view. No concerns about that one ... not to go off-topic but I'm fairly impressed with how Blackrock allocates for their CEFs.

@JonGaltill: right, BST is a BlackRock closed end science and tech fund, but it does have a global portfolio. Of its 3 managers, 1 also serves on BME, the Health Sciences CEF that has done well previously, although it has done little to merit its M* 5 star rating in recent years.