Re-opening the fund to existing shareholders with a maximum investment dollar amount (say $25,000) would satisfy the desire to add to GPEOX while maintain the fund's small asset size.

Looking at the Wasatch offerings, they seem comfortable with running more money - ie WAIGX ($1.3B), WAFMX ($892M) WAEMX ($785M), although some are much smaller, and some require direct investments with Wasatch. All told, Wasatch has rolled out close to 20-funds.
I am an existing Grandeur Peak investor with a humble pre-established automatic investment plan, and I appreciate GP's decision to close funds, and limit AUM.

Hi @MJG,
Thanks for posting your thoughts on the January effect on the markets (S&P 500 Index) along with explaining your reasoning.
If investors have invested based upon their risk tolerance, goals, time horizon, etc. then this past January is a good opportunity for them to review how they are invested and make adjustments if this volatility brings them pause and makes them uneasy. Things have indeed changed over the past ten years. Thinking back my portfolio now generates about half the income of what it did ten years ago. After all, back then, I was getting about 4% to 5% interest on my cash area investments alone. Today, zilch.
Perhaps some have taken on more risk than they realize, in an attempt, to maintain income levels.
Old_Skeet

@vkt This is interesting. Thanks for sharing. Could looking at the correlations between your RARE ratings and current 3 and 5 year measures for common statistics such as the Martin and Sortino ratios help to clarify what new information the RARE rating is providing? I took a quick look in MultiSearch using 3 and 5 years for a sample of the funds you ranked. Just quickly eyeballing things there appeared to be somewhat positive correlations except perhaps with YAFFX. Anyway, an evaluation tool like RARE seems like it could provide a useful additional metric to consider when evaluating a fund.......

Howdy @msf and @vkt
Overview of Fidelity's Active Trader Pro in link below.
At least 36 trades per 12 month rolling period, and more tools available for 120 trades and above. I do agree with @vkt regarding what is available with this program has value with helping to establish a better buy/sell.
I queried Fidelity about this a few years ago and attempted to download the program to a laptop. I/we didn't qualify for the program due to low trading volume. It didn't matter whether one could present a fact of having enough money within Fidelity account(s) to more than satisfy any other conditions and circumstances, including longevity as a customer. We still do not perform more than 36 trades/12 months.
I do understand their position.
I/we are very pleased with Fidelity over a 35+ year period.
Lastly, a few years ago I mistakenly purchased and then sold (to remove the mistake) a mutual fund within a two day period. This fund did have a short term trading period monetary fee ($fine). I called Fidelity and explained the "boo-boo" and the fee was never debited against the account.
https://www.fidelity.com/trading/advanced-trading-tools/active-trader-pro/overview
Regards,
Catch

(DSEEX/DSENX)
"Smart Alpha + Smart Beta = Complete"
Please join us for a live webcast titled
"Smart Alpha + Smart Beta = Complete" hosted by:
Jeffrey Sherman, C F A
Portfolio Manager Jeffrey Sherman will discuss the strategy, sector allocations and outlook for the DoubleLine Shiller Enhanced C A P E® (DSEEX/DSENX) for 2016.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016 1:15 pm PT/4:15 pm ET/ 3:15 pm CT
Register
https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1085237

Walkin the walk M*s top performing L/S fund in 2015-16
Update From the Jan 31 OTCRX Fact Sheet
..We continue to be focused on credit domestically and globally as the change in credit conditions is being underappreciated by investors from our perspective.
Credit market stress continues to percolate in various sectors with stress now going beyond commodities..
the decline in equity markets has made valuations slightly
more attractive; however, overall valuations in both the equity and bond markets are not compelling on an absolute basis considering the growth outlook. We
estimate the S&P 500 is trading around 15x-16x consensus 2016 earnings, this is near its historical average. Based on our conversations, it appears that in the
near term there will continue to be selling pressure in the market driven by asset liquidations among Sovereign Wealth ( funds )..
As we enter February, we have approximately 20% of the Fund in cash. We anticipate equity and bond markets will remain volatile as the market goes through a
painful digestion period driven by a less accommodative Federal Reserve, slowing global growth, tighter financial conditions, and the risk of a currency war.
Ultimately, asset prices will have to adjust to reflect a higher risk premium
Copyright © 2015 :::: Otter Creek Adviosors, LLC
http://www.ottercreekfunds.com/media/pdfs/OCL_Factsheet.pdf
OTCRX Y T D +4.09 1 YR +13.89 A U M $225 mil
JANUARY 20,2016 Webcast Combine the two links for the full presentation.About 45 minutes.
http://www.ottercreekfunds.com/media/pdfs/OCL_Call_Presentation_4Q2015.pdf
http://www.ottercreekfunds.com/media/pdfs/Q42015_CC.mp3
Or
http://www.ottercreekfunds.com/index_webcasts012016.html
Also
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=OTCRX&region=usa&culture=en_US
Synopsis /Outline
THE OTTER CREEK INVESTMENT PROCESS
US MACRO: THE AGE OF GOVERNMENT AUSTERITY IS OVER
Government spending is estimated to add around 40 70bps to GDP growth in 2016 according to various Street economists
US MACRO: OVERALL THE US ECONOMY HAS SLOWED
US MACRO: MIXED SIGNALS
Global trade volume growth has turned negative
One potential upside factor to growth is lower oil prices eventually boosting GDP
CENTRAL BANKS: THE POLICY CONUNDRUM
TAILRISK: EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED IN 2016
Large increases in global debt, zero bound rates, slowing growth
...we are expecting heightened levels of volatility to continue
(and they're busy boys on those days)
MARKET FUNDAMENTALS: EARNINGS GROWTH and PROFIT MARGINS
S&P 500 earnings growth excluding energy has moderated, but it is still growing
Margins gains have slowed
CHEAP DEBT & LOW RATES: REAP WHAT YOU SOW
Zero bound rates have created meaningful distortions in how capital is allocated...it started with energy production
Auto subprime financing at all time highs
THE MACRO and MARKET ENVIRONMENT: CONCLUSIONS
PORTFOLIO POSITIONING IN TODAY’S ENVIRONMENT
Long Portfolio
Short Portfolio
INVESTMENT THEMES
DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION
Seek to achieve:
•Absolute risk-adjusted returns
•
Capital preservation
in periods of dislocation
•
Low
correlation
relative to the market indices
•
Below average volatility
relative to the S&P 500 Index

For mutual fund investors ( that's us ? ) this development had to make Schwab the broker of the decade !
Ted's original post
November 2015 in Fund Discussions Flag
FYI: Initial investments for most funds cut to $100 from $2,500; subsequent investments reduced to $1 minimums.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2015/11/16/schwab-slashes-minimums-on-onesource-ntf-mutual-fu?t=mutual-funds
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/71587/#Comment_71587

There's a proxy now to increase the management fee of OSMAX/OSMYX in a way that would increase it by 23 basis points (1/3 of its current 70 basis points). That's just the management fee; the total ER would likewise increase by 23 basis points. If you own shares, you can vote your proxy through Feb 11. Shareholder meeting is Feb 12.
The reason given is that while the management fees were once reasonable, now that other managers are getting more, these managers want in on the action too. Okay, a cynical paraphrasing; the exact phrasing is:
"(1) ... the Current Fee, which was established at the initial launch of the Fund in 1997, is no longer priced in line with the Fund’s peer group"
In case you didn't get that, it goes on to give another reason:
"(2) the Current Fee is below market and substantially lower than the fees charged to the Fund’s peers"
SEC filing: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1041102/000072888915001798/proxy.htm

@llljb, you have it exactly right. BTW, I had to correct the numbers in my previous post from a bug in my earlier script that didn't calculate the percentages correctly, so YAFFX comes out second best below SMVLX in the average but your conclusion is correct.
As I mentioned in the first post, an average is just half the story. It is easily affected by outlier values, hence the distribution is important. I didn't put all the numbers in this post so people's eyes wouldn't glaze over.
The only difference between an A grade and an E is the rarity of that outperformance while both have good average expected values. Most investment periods in YAFFX history over last 8 years wouldn't benefit from the small period in which it outperformed.
To give some concrete numbers, while YAFFX had an expected average outperformance of 12%+ over 5yr periods, the median was actually -12%+. So half the periods not only saw negative alpha but also by a significant amount.
In terms of percentile, 0 or getting the same returns as an index happened at 57 percentile so if investors had invested spread uniformly across those 8 years, 57% of those investors would have seen negative alpha after 5 years in the fund. Hence the term lottery ticket for this grade and lower than a B which would have a lower alpha expected average but majority of people would at least see a positive alpha if not the maximum. Mainly because YAFFX outperformance was in such a narrow period. This is what gets hidden in cumulative calendar year returns listed everywhere.
In contrast, SMVLX had a long enough outperformance periods that any 5 yr period in its history would have enough overlap with an outperformance period to enjoy positive alpha. 0 is at 0 percentile for 5yr returns. So, investing on ANY day in the last 8 years would have given you a positive alpha between zero and the best, so even with worst luck in timing, you would not have suffered relative to the index and may have enjoyed respectable positive alpha. Hence the highest grade.
What is surprising to me is how poorly highly rated T Rowe Price funds in this category have done in this metric. Haven't looked at them closely yet to see what the explanation might be.

Hi Guys,
Along with a long list of other famous quotes, John Maynard Keynes is usually credited with saying “ When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?”
Well the equity market facts are changing given that January 2016 was a down month. Consequently, the expectations for a positive annual return should be revised to reflect this additional data. The obvious question becomes “by how much”?
Statistically, when new information is added to existing info to update a projection, the procedure is called a Bayesian analysis. Simply put, an original baseline projection is multiplied by the additional (new) data to provide the posterior odds. The method is attributed to Thomas Bayes who did the math work in the mid-eighteenth century.
Historical equity market data provides a departure point. I did a quick and dirty analysis to make an estimate using the S&P 500 as a benchmark. I went back to 1979 data because of easy access and divided that data into a 2 by 2 matrix. Entries were made into 4 boxes: both plus and minus January returns, and, plus and minus S&P 500 annual returns.
In rough numbers, the baseline anticipated S&P 500 annual return is historically positive about 70% of the time. How does that change if the January return is positive? If it is negative?
For the timeframe that I explored, January returns were positive 23 times and that translated into a positive annual S&P 500 return 20 times. That equates to an 87% likelihood. Not bad since the supplemental January data enhances the probability of a rewarding annual return from 70% to the higher value. But that’s not what happened.
For that same timeframe, January returns were negative 14 times. In 9 of those instances, the year end returns were positive. Those outcomes represent 64% of the examination period for a negative January. From a Bayesian perspective, these data suggest that the likelihood of a positive annual S&P 500 return is reduced somewhat from the baseline data set.
That’s not so good, but it is not a disastrous probability downgrade. Given current market uncertainties and the limited data set, it could be assessed as a marginal downshift.
That’s exactly my interpretation. I am slightly decreasing the equity portion of my portfolio this year, but that decision is more dictated by my advanced age (81) then these specific calculations.
I hope you find these simple analysis interesting, and perhaps even actionable. What will you be doing?
Best Regards.

OUSA looks compelling forbes.com/sites/trangho/2015/07/18/how-to-invest-in-the-stock-market-with-kevin-oleary-of-shark-tank/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix#11204b113f24

Updated Feb 9 with SCG grading
A follow up from my earlier preliminary study that I have named Rolling Alpha Returns Exposé (tm) RARE analysis of mutual funds to identify if mutual fund returns are sensitive to when an investor holds them (more sensitive they are, less likely most investors would have realized the fund's best returns even if they held it for a long time).
Having finished the remaining programming to find the distribution of returns, I am presenting a grading system for mutual funds using the following grades. Selected funds with at least 8 years of history from The Great Owls and the top 20-30 ranked funds at US News Fund ratings. They show significant differences in the sensitivity to time periods.
The grading scale:
A - Over-achievers : Significant alpha over index returns (1% or more per year) and for most investment periods regardless of which 3 or 5 yr period you pick in the last 8 years. So most investors would have seen that performance.
B - Steady achievers : Respectable alpha over index returns (0.5 to 1% per year) for most investment periods
C - Closet indexers : No statististically significant difference from index returns for most investment periods.
D - Pretenders : While some cherry picked returns look good, less than index returns for most investment periods
E - Lottery tickets : Significant alpha for specific periods but underperformance for most investment periods
F - Failures : Statistically significant under performance for most investment periods
X - Toxic : Very poor returns relative to index for most investment periods except for an insignificant percentage of intervals so unless investors caught that interval would have suffered significantly relative to the index
Selected funds can be index funds themselves but using a different index or a narrower index than the sector index but measuring themselves againt it.
Grades for selected funds:
(*) indicates Great Owl Funds
Large Cap Core/Blend US Domestic Funds
A+
SMVLX
A
JENHX(*), VSBPX
A-
VSLPX
B+
VITPX
B
POSKX(*), AWEIX(*), VTCIX, NMIAX
B-
JPDEX
C+
NOPRX(*), DTMEX
C
FLCEX, VQNPX, VPMIX
C-
PRBLX
E
YAFFX
F+
GLDLX(*)
F
PRDGX(*), TRISX(*), PRCOX
F-
WMLIX
X
CAPEX, SLCAX, SCPAX
Large Cap Value US Domestic Funds
A+
FDSAX(*), DFLVX, DPDEX, BRLVX
A
NOLCX, BPAIX, DDVIX(*), TRVLX, VWNDX, LSVEX
A-
VUVLX
B+
VEIPX, DODGX
B
MPISX, EVSAX
B-
TILCX, HOVLX
C+
FLVEX
C
TFFYX(*), DIVIX
D
EQTIX
F+
LCEAX, ILVAX
F
MEIAX
X
FBCVX
Comments on LCV funds in the post below.
Large Cap Growth US Domestic funds
A+
FDGRX, NICSX, GTLLX
A
TRBCX, TPLGX, TRLGX, FBGRX
A-
PLGIX, FNCMX, JIBCX
B+
PRGFX, PARNX
B
POGRX, VHCOX, RDLIX(*)
C+
TILGX, FDSVX, TLIIX,TILIX
C
VPMCX, FLGEX
C-
EGFIX(*)
D
JICPX, HACAX
D-
BRLGX, VWUSX
F+
MMDEX(*)
X
FCNTX, PRGIX
Comments on the LCG fund grading in my comment below
Small Cap Growth US equity funds
A+
PRNHX, DCGTX
A
PRDSX, HSPGX, BCSIX, RSEGX, TRSSX, JGMAX, WFSAX, JANIX
A-
PPCAX
B+
OTCFX
B-
WGROX, LSSIX
C+
TSCIX
C
PLWAX
C-
HASGX, GWETX
D+
WAMVX
D
DTSGX, FCAGX
F
CCASX, QASGX
F-
TISEX, GSXAX, SGPIX, TSGUX
X
BRSGX, MPSSX, TCMSX
PS: I do realize it is egg on my face for criticizing SMVLX and starting this analysis to prove my hunch while it came out on top of all the other funds. Sometimes intuitions can be wrong and hence the need for analysis. This is why startups pivot when intuitions about their markets aren't supported in numbers later on. Shows I didn't design the analysis to prove my hunch as can be easily done with statistics!
It appears that this analysis could be applied between any two similar funds to decide which one is less likely to disappoint if you weren't lucky enough to be in it for its best periods. This can be ONE fund selection criterion say for example if you wanted to choose between POSKX and VTCIX. This would help even more when there is no good index to compare a fund to like allocation funds or multi sector funds. More of such results later.

@vkt
OMG.........nah, they can't be "just" banks. They would get run out of town by the credit unions, eh? They've (the banks) got the need, the fix and the backing.
The Pusher Man (The Fed) has their backside.
Hell, the banks can still get .5% on cash reserves and "excess" cash reserves, as of December, with the rate hike.
The financial market place is so perverted.
Regards,
Catch

FYI: DoubleLine Capital, overseen by widely followed investor Jeffrey Gundlach, said on Wednesday it posted a net inflow of $1.95 billion in January, marking the firm's 24th consecutive month of inflows.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/doubleline-gundlach-inflows-idUSL2N15I232

Pull up a 10-year chart of the Nasdaq biotech index IBB and it will become apparent. The IBB gained 670% from the bear market bottom on 3/9/2009 to its peak in July 2015.
Although it has lost nearly 40% of its value in the last six months alone it, and other high beta, "risk on" equity holdings have much further to fall.
What goes up must come down. Way down.

I'm wondering if GPEOX might reopen to existing shareholders. I would like to add to my holdings. They are sitting at $335MM.

I called GP a few weeks ago asking the same question.

To answer my own question above here is what was reported mid last year
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-08/drillers-26-billion-in-hedges-spreads-price-plunge-pain

For U.S. shale drillers, the crash in oil prices came with a $26 billion safety net. That’s how much they stand to get paid on insurance they bought to protect themselves against a bear market -- as long as prices stay low.
The flipside is that those who sold the price hedges now have to make good. At the top of the list are the same Wall Street banks that financed the biggest energy boom in U.S. history, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co.

The systemic risk hasn't been as bad as in the mortgage crisis. Insurance companies like AIG have not been foolishly involved here.
But explains why investment banks have been laying off or getting rid of their commodities trading divisions and may be partly why financials have been tanking in this sell off.
What are all the investment banks going to do for their profits when most of their proprietary trading opportunities close one by one? Do banking?

I'm wondering if GPEOX might reopen to existing shareholders. I would like to add to my holdings. They are sitting at $335MM.

@Dex and @Crash
Noted previous in this thread: "sea change that people are not talking about - free trade, population growth, robotics, free movement of money and movement of mfg to lower cost areas causing deflation and hardship for worker."
Like it's happening under our noses, but everyone looks past it. ...Or can't read the signs
A quick Google wordings search indicates the following linkage numerics directed towards papers, blogs and other related online postings:
--- free trade, 274,000 thousand finds
--- population growth, 47.4 million finds
--- robotics, 89.3 million finds
--- money movement, 84.2 million finds
--- manufacturing movement, 175 million finds
--- deflation, 7.7 million finds
--- worker hardship, 22.3 million finds
It appears that someone is writing/talking about some of these areas, eh?
I have mentally reduced the above finds numbers by 50%, due to redundant wording or multiple postings or similar.
I have not yet finished review of the sites information.
Regards,
Catch