Too bad about the $100K minimum, I'll have to pass on this one. This fund has had decent performance overall, and is probably one of the better ALT funds.
TTL Assets are at $1.8B.

That wasn't the point. It's very probable that one of those 5 sectors will lag badly, Why allocate to it at all? Nobody expects 100% equality at all times.

Just noticed recently that AQR Long-Short and Market Neutral, about which much was typed here several years ago while they were soaring at a time not much else was doing anything, are now negative since inception (per M* growth of $10k charts).

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1261788/000089418920010078/infinityq497etempclosure.htm
497 1 infinityq497etempclosure.htm 497
Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund
Investor Class - IQDAX
Institutional Class IQDNX
A series of Trust for Advised Portfolios
Supplement dated December 30, 2020, to the
Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”)
each dated December 31, 2019
IMPORTANT NOTICE ON PURCHASE OF FUND SHARES
Effective as of the close of business on December 31, 2020, the Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund (the “Infinity Q Fund”) is closed to all new investment, including through dividend reinvestment, and the Infinity Q Fund’s transfer agent will not accept orders for purchases of shares of the Infinity Q Fund from either current Infinity Q Fund shareholders or new investors. Current shareholders, however, may continue to redeem Infinity Q Fund shares. If all shares of the Infinity Q Fund held in an existing account are redeemed, the shareholder’s account will be closed.
Shareholders will be notified when the Infinity Q Fund is re-opened for all investment.
Please retain this Supplement with the Prospectus and SAI.

This year 5 stocks in the S&P 500 accounted for a 35% gain. The other 495 stock together accounted for a collective 5% loss. That's changing...see article linked below:
the-biggest-market-comeback-of-the-year

Follow up filing (see link for more information):
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1444822/000119312520329459/d78353d497.htm

My MEGMX purchase was made in early May. I looked at ARTYX at that time but was wanted a fund that would be EM per my way of viewing things and had a hard time thinking of stocks like VISA, Netflix, and Nike as being EM stocks (M* lists ARTYX as currently being 28% US Equity).
Here are a couple of links for MEGMX. It appears to clearly be a foreign stock fund:
Fact Sheet
11/30 Holdings
Time will tell what impact the Chinese government's regulations updates will have on Alibaba, Tencent, and other internet-based companies. My suspicion is that the problems will get ironed out once the government is satisfied it has reasserted its control. But, the fund managers get paid to sort those problems out.

No s*** it will not be perfectly equal 100% of the time. The onerous oversight and needless portfolio turnover would be ridiculous and counterproductive.

Some thoughts about right sizing solar farms....

Solar is so cheap, we need to build far, far more than we need.
Solar panels have become so cheap that the true cost of electricity is shifting from solar arrays themselves to the steel and land needed to house them.
That shift means it’s now cheaper to overbuild, even if producers don’t always sell the power. With the price of panels set to continue falling over the next decade, the economics will only grow stronger.
The low cost overcame renewables’ traditional weakness: the intermittency of supply if the sun or wind fails to appear. Oversizing a system by a factor of three, they found, was optimal.

https://yahoo.com/now/time-start-wasting-solar-energy-171845386.html

It was a nice find, while recognizing that the material is just marcom. Unlike legal filings, it's not to be taken literally. Does anyone think that FGDFX literally "has 'equal weight exposure to the five five [sic] Disruptive Funds'"?
Of course not. As early as the end of August, a mere four months since inception (4/16/20), the fund had veered substantially from equal weighting, weighting one underlying fund 1/5 more heavily than another.
So what exactly does "equal weight exposure" mean when appearing in promotional literature. Does it mean approximately equal, as in the prospectus I quoted above for another fund? Or is it merely a broad objective, a neutral position where management has significant discretion in setting actual targets?
The former describes traditional old style balanced funds and funds of funds like the example I gave previously. For those funds of funds, "the work to accomplish that [would be] deminimis". But for funds of the latter type, more modern asset allocation funds, there would be significant management risk. Some investors may not "understand [the] concern on the team [management] and allocation." That lack of understanding doesn't make the risk any less real.
Again I suggest contrasting prospectuses to understand this. The prospectus of that other fund doesn't include management as a risk factor. Understandable, since the fund must hew closely to its target allocations of underlying funds.
Contrast that with the prospectus of FMRHX, another Fidelity fund of funds. At any given moment in time, this fund has a "neutral allocation" (quoting the prospectus). But the fund's manager ("the Adviser") is given wide latitude in deviating from this target. Consequently, one of its "Principal Investment Risks" is

Asset Allocation Risk.The fund is subject to risks resulting from the Adviser's asset allocation decisions. If the Adviser's asset allocation strategy does not work as intended, the fund may not achieve its objective. ... The selection of underlying funds and the allocation of the fund's assets among various asset classes could cause the fund to lose value or its results to lag relevant benchmarks or other funds with similar objectives. In addition, the fund's active asset allocation strategy may cause the fund to have a risk profile different than that portrayed above from time to time and may increase losses.

Underscoring added. It should be clear that management for this fund matters.
So which type of fund does FGDFX more closely resemble? Its prospectus provides the answer (despite the fact that it also asserts that "The Adviser does not intend to trade actively among underlying Fidelity ® funds") :

Asset Allocation Risk. The fund is subject to risks resulting from the Adviser's asset allocation decisions. The selection of underlying funds could cause the fund to lose value or its results to lag relevant benchmarks or other funds with similar objectives. In addition, the fund's active asset allocation strategy may cause the fund to have a risk profile different than that portrayed above from time to time and may increase losses.

Underscoring added. What's different, and where the concern lies, is that while Fidelity assigns real managers to FMRHX to actually manage the fund, Fidelity merely names the underlying funds' managers for FGDRX. AFAIK it does this with no other fund of funds and thus appears to be using these manager names as placeholders to meet the letter of the law.
Bottom line: the glossy is a nice find, as it suggests the fund's neutral allocation. But it's promotional material and as such is allowed a measure of puffery. Such material is often "preceded or accompanied by a prospectus."

Just a few thoughts about EM with a few fund suggestions. (I own MEGMX and TRECX in that area.) From the article:

Emerging Markets remain one of the best positioned areas of the market from a risk-return perspective.
EM debt and EM equity are likely gaining traction with investors from the falling dollar and large variance in valuation between them and the US.
Within EM debt, the analysis and decision making is much more difficult as currency choices need to be made.
What am I buying in EM equity?
Artisan Developing World Investor (ARTYX)
Emerging Markets Internet & E-Commerce ETD (EMQQ)
Templeton Emerging Markets (EMF)
What am I buying in EM debt?
MFS Emerging Markets Debt A (MEDAX)
Vanguard EM Bond (VEMBX)
TCW Emerging Markets (TGEIX)
Morgan Stanley EM Debt (MSD)

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4396512-updating-thesis-on-emerging-markets

This article was just published today:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-29/bruce-berkowitz-scores-big-with-decade-long-bet-on-florida-land

Coming into today, FAIRX had a ytd gain of 61.17%. After today's 8.79% decline, the ytd gain is now 47.00%.
That's impressive.

https://institutional.fidelity.com/app/proxy/content?literatureURL=/9898959.PDF
Using the above link, on pages 17 and 18 Fidelity explains the investment process and the portfolio construction parameters of their Disruptive Funds.
...
It also states that FGDFX has "equal weight exposure to the five five Disruptive Funds

Nice find!

LMFAO

Well I'm confused @Mav123. What does the amount she pays to retain control of her fund company got to day with the value of her funds holdings?

A good question. I own ARKK (down nearly 4% today) and ARKG (down nearly 7% today). Part of the drop in share price (maybe a third of it) is due to these funds going ex-dividend today, but not the bulk of the drop. They're acting almost like closed-end funds. It's hard to imagine all of their holdings selling off simultaneously.

Well I'm confused @Mav123. What does the amount she pays to retain control of her fund company got to day with the value of her funds holdings?

I held FAIRX with 2 other funds (OAKBX,SGENX) for about 8-9 years from 2000 to 2010. I held FAIRX for about 8 years and OAKBX,SGENX about 9 years. It's part of my system of finding good risk/reward funds until they don't keep up and sell them.
Similar case to PIMIX, held it from 2011 to 01/2018 and since then maybe just a for a short trade but not for moths. PIMIX is a still a good fund but not the way I do it. See my bond thread(link)

The Gospel of Hydrogen Power (NYT Article):

You can make (hydrogen) fuel using water and solar power, as he does. The byproduct of making hydrogen is oxygen, and the byproduct of burning it is water. Hydrogen is among the most plentiful elements on earth, so you don’t have to go to adversarial countries or engage in environmentally destructive extraction to get it. The car is as quiet to drive as any other electric, it requires little maintenance, and because it doesn’t carry 1,200 pounds of batteries, it has a performance edge.

hydrogen-power-cars
The comments at the end of the article are more informative than the article.

Here are some other explanations from Bloomberg and BusinessInsider:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-28/cathie-wood-buys-back-option-that-had-threatened-control-of-ark
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/cathie-wood-retains-majority-ownership-ark-invest-after-bid-control-2020-12-1029921823

@Mav123: I also looked at that jibberish of a sentence and wondered if the English language has a future. String as many nouns (5 here) together as you can find and blast them out into cyberspace in hopes that no one will notice that you are being deceitful. « Tranche » is a favorite of today’s dissemblers. George Orwell is applauding in his grave.