BUFTX
BUFFALO DISCOVERY -.03 or - .11% I happy to see that.
Derf

ONE year anniversary.
Returns as of 09/17/2020
YTD
1 yr Since Inception*
Global Contrarian, (GPGCX) 0.82% 10.50% 10.50%
MSCI All-Country World Small Cap Value Indexi -14.43% -7.26% -7.26%
MSCI All-Country World Small Cap Indexii -3.95% 4.07% 4.07%
Stay Safe, Derf

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1580733/000119312520250152/d42150d497.htm
497 1 d42150d497.htm BMO LGM FRONTIER MARKETS EQUITY FUND
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration No. 333-193915
BMO LGM Frontier Markets Equity Fund
Supplement dated September 21, 2020 to the Prospectus
dated December 27, 2019, as supplemented
Fund Liquidation and Elimination of Quarterly Repurchase Policy
Shareholders of the BMO LGM Frontier Markets Equity Fund (the “Fund”) have approved the proposal to liquidate and dissolve the Fund. On September 30, 2020 the Fund expects to make its first liquidating distribution to shareholders. The initial liquidating distribution is expected to comprise approximately 90% of the Fund’s assets. The Fund will continue to make liquidating distributions quarterly until all Fund assets are distributed to shareholders and all shares are redeemed. Shareholders (other than tax-qualified plans or tax-exempt accounts) will recognize gain or loss for tax purposes on the redemption of their Fund shares in the liquidation.
As a result of actions by the Board of Trustees and shareholders, the Fund will no longer invest pursuant to its investment strategies or achieve its investment objective of capital appreciation.
Shareholders also have approved the elimination of the Fund’s fundamental policy of making quarterly repurchase offers. Accordingly, the Fund is discontinuing that process.
Income Distribution
Prior to the Fund’s initial liquidating distribution, the Fund will make an income distribution to shareholders. The Fund expects the income distribution to be paid on September 29, 2020, prior to the liquidating distribution scheduled for September 30, 2020.
Important Information for Retirement Plan Investors
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares or of any IRA or retirement plan distribution, the ability to roll over any distribution, and any tax-savings options you may have. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you may be able to roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account. If you are eligible to do so, the rollover must occur within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income. You can make only one tax-free rollover from an IRA to another IRA in any 12-month period (regardless of the number of IRAs you own). Any subsequent distribution of untaxed amounts from an IRA within the 12-month period would be included in your gross income, and may be subject to a 10% early withdrawal tax. The previously described limitation allowing only one tax-free rollover per 12-month period does not apply to (1) rollovers from traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs (conversions), (2) trustee-to-trustee transfers to another IRA, (3) eligible rollovers from an IRA to a retirement plan, (4) eligible rollovers from a retirement plan to an IRA, and (5) eligible rollovers from a retirement plan to a retirement plan.
Please retain this Supplement with your Prospectus for future reference.

I was going to post a noon update, but I’ll hijack @Derf’s thread here. Woke up this morning to news Europe - particularly the U.K. was seeing heavy selling. A resurgence of Covid-19 in England and across the continent is being cited by many as the cause. I guess Boris’ plan to make Britain great again isn’t working out too well either, in light of BREXIT, as the good folks there had hoped.
At noon today the Dow was leading the way down, off nearly 800 points, more than 2.5%. Other indexes, including NASDX, holding up a bit better. Oil caved in after several good days and was down about 4% for the day. Gold to me is the shocker, being off $50 at midday to around $1900. A check on the miners using the VanEck Vectors Gold Miners ETF (GDX) shows them off only about 3% around 12:30 EDT. I somehow expected worse.
A sign of the times that even in an election year and under the current pandemic and sluggish economy Congress can’t agree on a stimulus package - though both sides want one. The death of RBG over the weekend adds more uncertainty to the uncertain political situation. (Please avoid turning this into a political debate.) I would have guessed gold would gain today based on the added uncertainty. Shows how much I know. I doubt the big players have the clout to push it down to this degree as a tactical maneuver. Would think it’s something more fundamental causing the bleeding. Sure, there’s things I’d pick up in a serious rout (real estate / DODFX) but today isn’t the day for me.
A song the late great JP McCarthy of Detroit‘s WJR used to play on some nasty market days. I’m sure Catch and others that resided in the metro area in the 70s and 80s recall JP well.
Slip Slidin Away

After DB, which accounted for over half of the $2B in flagged (not necessarily illegal) transactions comes JPMorgan (since acquired by Chase JPM) accounting for 1/4 ($500B) of the flagged transactions. No other bank comes close. A UK bank, Standard Chartered, is third at under 10% (about $180B), then another US Bank, BNY Mellon BK at 3%. No Russian banks on the receiving end of these flagged transactions (obviously).
For full details, see: https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/
The article that davidrmoran linked to says that "To make it all happen, the perpetrators needed a Western bank to work with them." As an investor, ISTM it is those western banks that I need to keep an eye on. I'm not going to be investing in Russian banks, even should they be scrupulously clean and profitable.
That's not to say that there isn't a lot of corruption in Russian banks. See, e.g. Vast Offshore Network Moved Billions With Help From Major Russian Bank
https://www.occrp.org/en/troikalaundromat/vast-offshore-network-moved-billions-with-help-from-major-russian-bank
As an investor, what's actionable regarding Russian banks? "The Troika [now owned by Sberbank] Laundromat report named at least half a dozen major Western banks that had been recipients of the money, sending their shares tumbling and sparking internal investigations." So again there is that. (Citibank is mentioned as referring 20% of Troika's new clients.)
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/03/07/troika-bank-scandal-exposed-global-failure-to-prevent-money-laundering-a64730
As a customer (as opposed to an investor), the first bank that pops into my mind when ethics are mentioned is Wells Fargo. Lewis mentioned WaMu (now owned by the aforementioned Chase). While it may not come to mind quite as quickly, BofA is right up there as well on the list of ethically challenged consumer banks.
There's no question that DB is one of the leading money laundering offenders. The good news is that there doesn't seem to be any mutual fund where DB constitutes more than a tiny sliver of its portfolio. Though AEGFX is so large ($166B), that its tiny ¼% of AUM still constitutes 2½% ownership of the bank.

Interestingly Tweety claimed that TikTok was funding a $5B (patriotic?) 'education' fund as part of this transaction. TikTok was like, "huh? We never agreed to that."[1] Turns out, Tweety was referring to likely tax revenues the US-based entity would bring into the country down the road -- but framing it as something 'extra' that he got.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-tiktok-bytedance/bytedance-says-not-aware-of-5-billion-education-fund-in-tiktok-deal-idUSKCN26B039

see
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/131445/

Between my 4 international funds the holdings in Germany is well below what the size of Germany’s GDP and population would suggest
Say what? Population? Germany has 1% of the world's population. Which of your four funds has well below 1% of assets in Germany?
So let's stick with GDP. Again, not the greatest proxy for market cap (national market caps range from 3% of GDP in Costa Rica to 1300% of GDP in Hong Kong). But since you picked GDP as a metric, we can work with that.
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/gdp_share/ (GDP percentages)
Germany has 4.64% of the world's GDP. I'm not going to exclude the US here, because most of your funds have more invested in the US than in Germany. Of your four funds, three of them have more than 4.64% invested in Germany. And the fourth, D&C, has 3.80% in Germany. That doesn't seem to be "well below what the size of Germany's GDP ... would suggest."
OTOH, by your metrics (population and GDP), China is modestly underweighted. GISOX and ARTKX each hold 11% in China, and the other two hold less (to be expected for the European fund ESMAX). China generates 16% of the world's GDP with 18% of the population.
A good way to test the hypothesis that Germany is underrepresented in international funds is to select funds randomly. You did the opposite; you formulated this hypothesis based on four funds that you had selected for investment (i.e. not random funds). You then used the same four funds to validate what you already knew was true about them. Not particularly persuasive.
FWIW, of my global/international funds, half of them have more assets in Germany than in France and in Switzerland. This factoid doesn't mean anything either.

There is a reason that international mutual funds don’t hold a high percentage of German companies as compared to their British, French, Swiss and Japanese holdings.
Given that Japan's market is 3x the size of Germany's, there might be another explanation for funds holding a relatively large amount in Japanese stocks.
For reference purposes, Vanguard's Developed Market Index Fund VTMGX has the following weightings:
Japan 22%, UK 12%, Switzerland 9%, France 8%, Germany 8%
Further, given that the UK's form of capitalism is closer to that of the US (a liberal market economy) than generally those on the Continent (coordinated market economies or if you prefer, mixed market economies), there might be an additional explanation for a claimed overweighting of UK stocks.
See Varieties of Capitalism generally, and Table A1 in this paper for a relative scoring of how coordinated the economy of each OECD country was from 1995-2003.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41267-016-0001-8
Not to mention that the US and UK legal systems are based on common law, while those of continental European countries are based on civil law.
https://guides.law.sc.edu/c.php?g=315476&p=2108388
That leaves us with Germany, France, and Switzerland from the list.
Spot checking a few large cap blend funds:
IGFFX: France 9%, Switzerland 7%, Germany 3%
ARTKX: Switzerland 20%, Germany 5%, France 4%
SGOVX: France 11%, Switzerland 5%, Germany 3%
FMIJX: France: 10%, Switzerland 10%, Germany 3%
SCIEX: Germany 18%, Switzerland 13%, France 3%
MDIJX: France 11%, Switzerland 10%, Germany 7%
OAKIX: Germany 18%, Switzerland 12%, France 12%
TROSX: Germany 11%, Switzerland 10%, France 10%
Germany doesn't seem to be underweighted compared with France and Switzerland, though I gladly acknowledge this is not a random sampling. A more robust analysis is welcome. The reasons for including the funds above:
ARTKX, SGOVX, FMIJX, OAKIX are funds that one sees mentioned frequently here.
I'm pretty sure that at least one T. Rowe Price Int'l fund has been mentioned in threads, though I'm not sure which one(s); TROSX is one of two non-index, non-institutional blend funds at TRP (the other is the much smaller Spectrum Int'l RPSIX).
American Funds name shows up here also, though usually for its domestic funds. I included its only large cap blend int'l fund IGFFX.
I've mentioned SCIEX as being effectively half of VWIGX, a fund that got a lot of discussion recently. In another thread on international core funds, I suggested MDIJX as a well balanced (between value and growth) int'l fund from a fine family for int'l funds (MFS).
FWIW, though VWIGX is a growth fund, since it is hot, here is its country breakdown (including Japan and UK): Japan 10%, Germany 8%, France 6%, UK 6%, Switzerland 5%.

Persistence with a winner pays, of course, most of all in hindsight :) ---
If any of us had stuck w Danoff starting fully 3y into his career, and compared w peers who had instead (for good reasons) gone and stayed w SP500, D&C Growth, TRP Blue Chip, Fido ditto, Jensen, Sequoia, Yacktman, sundry Vanguard offerings, etc etc, we would have come out at least tens of thou ahead, if not much more.
Not sure anyone has had a career like Danoff over 30y.
Oh, and Tillinghast beats all of those also from summer 1993. What a pair those two are.
You just gotta have faith (as one of my kids always reminds me when our team is behind).

@msf, you have good memory. I invested with Contra fund in the 1990's and it was done well consistently. It was the rapid growth that concerned me at that time.

Fidelity used to be better at closing funds. At least it gave the appearance of trying.
FCNTX was closed from April 3, 1998 to Dec 15, 2000 (it had around $35B AUM at the time). Fidelity closed the fund again from April 28, 2006 to Dec 15, 2008. (It had around $65B, and Danoff was also managing New Insights with another $10B). Fidelity also closed New Insights on April 28, 2006, but reopened this smaller fund earlier, on Oct 31, 2007.
The only Fidelity fund I can recall being closed when it was still small was New Millennium (FMILX) . Three and a half years after it launched at the end of 1992 it closed, as promised, for a decade.

At the same time, it's not hard to find large cap growth funds, mid cap growth funds, and global growth funds that have done better YTD without leveraging. Not to mention that the risk profiles of long and short positions differ: the amount you can lose with a long position is "just" 100%; your potential loss on short positions is unlimited.

Excellent point. There is no free lunch here. Besides the 2% expense ratio is too rich for my taste.

More information. The young employee I was referring to likes to day trading for penny stocks. No doubt it was exciting to make quick bucks here and there. Putting money into a 401(k) account and investing in index funds was not his vision of saving for the future.
I read somewhere that young people don't reach mental maturity until 25 years old. I took accounting in high school and understood the power of compounding in my saving account. Like I mentioned earlier I had others who save diligently in their 401(k) and pay off their college loans at the same time.

Research by The National Institute on Retirement Security. Because sometimes it's nice to talk about facts. Are they a creditable organization? You be the judge.
The study is from 2014. I'm not convinced that conditions have gotten any better for the millenials.

Figure 1 shows that in 2014 Millennials (66.2%) had similar rates of working for an employer that offered employees a retirement plan as GenX (68.8%) and Boomers (67.6%). But, as displayed in Figure 2, a challenge to this generation is the fact that only a little over half of Millennials (55%) are eligible to participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, compared to over three-fourths of GenX (77%) and Boomers (80%).
Figure 3 shows that Millennials have high (94.2%) take-up rates when they are both offered and eligible to participate in a retirement plan sponsored by their employer. These high rates (94.2%) are nearly equal to the rates of Boomers (94.4%) and GenX (95.4%). As a result, a little over one-third of Millennials (34.3%) participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, compared (in Figure 4) with half of GenX (50.5%) and Boomers (50.9%). The rate at which eligible employees take-up an employer-sponsored retirement plan is about 95 percent for all generations.
As displayed in Figures 1 and 4, in 2014, nearly two-thirds (66.2%) of working Millennials had access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan. But, only a little over one-third (34.3%) of Millennials actually participated in an employer-sponsored retirement plan. This is because a much smaller percentage of Millennials (55%) were eligible to participate in the plan offered by their employer than in older generations.

So they have access, but they aren't eligible? Why is that?

A possible explanation for lower rates of retirement plan eligibility and therefore coverage is that the Millennial generation has a higher rate of part-time employment than GenX or Boomers. Figure 13 indicates that in 2014, the rate of part-time employment by Millennials (25.1%) was close to double the rate of part-time employment by GenX (13.6%) and Boomers (14.9%). The higher rate of part-time employment by Millennials is a large factor in their lower eligibility for employer-sponsored retirement plans, as they may not work enough hours to be covered by their employers’ plans.52 Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), employers can limit eligibility in retirement plans by requiring that an employee worked at least 1,000 hours in order to have a year of service under the plan.53Working 1,000 hours in one year is equal to working a little over 19 hours per week.
A second possible explanation for lower rates of coverage in a retirement plan is that this generation has not worked in their current position long enough to become eligible for participation in the plan. Figure 14 shows the length of time that Millennials have been employed with their current employer in 2014. Figure 14 also shows that over half of Millennials have only been employed with their current employer for at least a year (26.5%) or under one year (23.6%). These short tenures contribute to their lower eligibility rates, as their employer may not allow them to participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan until after they have worked for the employer for one year of service.

A side bar addresses the second point:

There is a media-fueled perception that Millennials are perpetual job-hoppers.54 But two prominent studies show that this perception is a myth. First, a recent Pew Charitable Trusts study found that three-fourths (75%) of college-educated Millennials in 2016 were employed for more than 13 months with their current employer, compared to 72 percent of Gen Xers in 2000.55 Second, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in a study tracking Boomers throughout their work-lives, found that Boomers held short tenures with their employers during their younger years.56 Specifically, it found that of the jobs that Boomers began when they were 18 to 34, 69 percent of those jobs ended in less than a year and 85 percent ended in fewer than five years.57 Thus, Millennials are job-hopping at similar or even lower rates to their Gen X and Boomer predecessors.

Yeah? But what about the avocado toast?

+1 davidrmoran

TRP has invested a portion of some of its allocation funds in hedge funds for a while now. I’ve had a large portion of my Roth IRA in TRPBX for quite a few years, and it’s got about 5-10% of assets in a hedge fund, if I recall correctly.

Clickbait. Apparently the original headline read as John posted (up 35%). The text reads: "So far this year, RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity (ticker: RLSFX) is up 36.6%".
Online, Barron's had to change the headline: "This Stock Fund Has Soared More Than 30% This Year", and the actual figure as of the dateline (Sept. 17th) is 30.34%.
What's your interest in long/short? By definition they are leveraged funds (borrowing to sell short, using the cash to buy over 100% long). This fund (at least currently) is effectively a 130/30 fund.
At the same time, it's not hard to find large cap growth funds, mid cap growth funds, and global growth funds that have done better YTD without leveraging. Not to mention that the risk profiles of long and short positions differ: the amount you can lose with a long position is "just" 100%; your potential loss on short positions is unlimited.
This is not to say there isn't value in long/short funds. But what is the appeal of this fund beyond the headline figure? Even Wellington manages a fund (HGOYX) with a better YTD return.