@joe74 Two things:
1. The manager, Rezo Kanovich, who really made this Invesco Oppenheimer fund successful left to join Artisan Funds before the Invesco merger occurred. He now runs the Artisan International Small-Mid (ARTJX) fund.
2. David Nadel previously ran Royce International Premier (RYIPX) very successfully.
In other words, this is good news for Invesco Oppenheimer shareholders after Kanovich's departure, but bad news for Royce shareholders.

@ET91,
You are correct as listed in the below 5/25/19 filing:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/880859/000119312519154380/d723247d485bpos.htm#toc726790_201
..."Limited Fund Offering
The Fund is closed to new investors. Investors should note that the Fund reserves the right to refuse any order that might disrupt the efficient management of the Fund.
Investors who were invested in the Fund on May 24, 2019, may continue to make additional purchases in their accounts.
Any Employer Sponsored Retirement and Benefit Plan or its affiliated plans may continue to make additional purchases of Fund shares and may add new accounts at the plan level that may purchase Fund shares if the Employer Sponsored Retirement and Benefit Plan or its affiliated plan had invested in the Fund as of May 24, 2019. New Employer Sponsored Retirement and Benefit Plans or its affiliated plans authorized prior to May 24, 2019 will have until December 31, 2019 to fund the account. Any brokerage firm wrap program may continue to make additional purchases of Fund shares and may add new accounts at the program level that may purchase Fund shares if the brokerage firm wrap program had invested in the Fund as of May 24, 2019. The Fund may also accept investments by 529 college savings plans managed by the Adviser during this limited offering.
The Fund may resume sale of shares to new investors on a future date if the Adviser determines it is appropriate."

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/880859/000119312519284727/d820045d497.htm
497 1 d820045d497.htm 497
Statutory Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information Supplement dated November 5, 2019
The purpose of this supplement is to provide you with changes to the current Statutory Prospectuses and Statement of Additional Information for Class A, C, R, Y, R5 and R6 shares of the Fund listed below:
Invesco Oppenheimer International Small-Mid Company Fund
This supplement amends the Statutory Prospectuses and Statement of Additional Information of the above referenced fund (the “Fund”) and is in addition to any other supplement(s). You should read this supplement in conjunction with the Statutory Prospectuses and Statement of Additional Information and retain it for future reference.
The following information replaces the table in its entirety under the heading “Fund Summary - Management of the Fund” in the prospectuses:
“Portfolio Managers Title Length of Service on the Fund
David Nadel Portfolio Manager (lead) 2019
Frank Jennings, PhD Portfolio Manager 2019 (predecessor fund 2018)”
Mr. Jennings will continue to serve as Portfolio Manager to ensure a smooth transition.
The following information replaces in its entirety the information under, and including, the heading “FUND MANAGEMENT – Portfolio Manager” for the Fund in the prospectuses:
“FUND MANAGEMENT – Portfolio Managers
The following individuals are jointly and primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund’s portfolio:
• David Nadel (lead manager), Portfolio Manager, who has been responsible for the Fund since 2019 and has been associated with Invesco and/or its affiliates since 2019. Prior to joining Invesco, Mr. Nadel was employed by Royce & Associates from 2006 to 2019, where he served as Principal, Director of International Research and Portfolio Manager.
•Frank Jennings, PhD, Portfolio Manager, who has been responsible for the Fund since 2019 and has been associated with Invesco and/or its affiliates since 2019. Mr. Jennings will continue to serve as Portfolio Manager to ensure a smooth transition. Prior to the commencement of the Fund’s operations, Mr. Jennings managed the predecessor fund since 2018 and was associated with OppenheimerFunds, a global asset management firm, since 1995.
More information on the portfolio managers may be found at www.invesco.com/us. The website is not part of this prospectus.
The Fund’s SAI provides additional information about the portfolio managers’ investments in the Fund, a description of the compensation structure and information regarding other accounts managed.”
The Statement of Additional Information is also amended to reflect the portfolio manager changes above.
As of November 5, 2019, Mr. Nadel manages one other vehicle in the Invesco fund complex but does not own shares of the Fund.
O-ISMC-PRO SUP 110519

All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, and Fund Family Scorecard. The site now includes several analysis tools, including Correlation, Rolling Averages, Trend, Ferguson Metrics, Calendar Year and Period Performance.

I remain a Meb fan. He's helped shape the ETF landscape these past 10 years. His seminal paper on trend following, entitled A Quantitative Approach to Tactical Asset Allocation, remains the most downloaded paper on SSRN. His straight-forward books, including The Ivy Portfolio. His podcast, which now exceeds 100 episodes, with some spectacular guests are great. We started following him on MFO with Existential Pleasures of Engineering Beta, when he launched his first Cambria ETFs. He invests in his own strategies. But to one of David's points, the firm now has 11 ETFs and several so far have struggled to beat their category peers, which puts him in some good company. I believe he also considers himself as much a part of the 4th estate as he does a money manager. Maybe that, if there is a conflict there, is part of what David picked-up on in a setting like AAII.

“I again would argue that investors need to review their allocations and comfort zones with those allocations, especially as to their ability to replenish their assets in the event of a permanent capital loss. Things that were five or ten years ago are often no longer what they seem ...
“First, don’t be afraid to hold more cash than you usually would. Secondly, if you are going to be invested in equities, try and make sure that they and your other assets are as uncorrelated to the general markets as possible. Look for things that are unloved ... And try to protect yourself from asset managers who are talking their own book.”
I may have altered Ed’s emphasis a bit here through my edit. But he strikes me, as usual, as being very prescient. Than again, after a record setting 10-year romp, how many are listening?

WCM estimates:
https://www.wcminvestfunds.com/files/wcm-mutual-fund-capital-gains--2019-as-of-93019-new-format.pdf

The Bottom Line pieces are distinctly collaborative efforts. Mark Gill says they've been thinking about storyline "X" and asks if I could suggest, say, 10 funds that fit their parameters. Usually the parameters are perfectly sensible, so usually I suggest 10-20 funds - with snippets of commentary - that might be credible. Mark then works with their editors and reader panels to draft a story that meets their incredibly restrictive style guide. I get the draft from his editor with a "let us know if this works for you." I tweak, sometimes suggest caveats, but mostly respect their judgments because mostly they're respected mine.
That sometimes translates to a situation where the top five funds in my mind aren't the five best suited to the needs of their readers, though three of them might be and the other two were in the discussion.
On Homestead, I do like organizations (RE in this case) with a mission. There was a generational change in leadership six years ago with Prabha Carpenter's arrival. Two of the three long-tenured managers - in Mr. Morris's case, he'd been managing for RE since the mid 1970s - departed after a short transition, then the last of them - Mark Ashton - retired in 2018. So, not quite a coup so much as a pretty orderly, low-key generational transition. She's been solid at Value. Small Company, not so much but I haven't had occasion to figure out why.
On LEXCX, it is a very much old-economy fund. That means it's not a green fund. The point that I usually make about it centers on the notion that you're often better off doing nothing than doing something. The Corporate 100, with a 23% turnover and sort of twitchy rules about auto-selling, is a quasi-index which hasn't quite sparkled.
For what that's worth,
David

I emailed Parnassus on Friday to ask where their estimates were since they pay early in late November. I never got a response but am glad to see they are posted today!
Record 11/20/2019 Ex/Pay: 11/21/2019

Hi, @MikeW. MGGPX current EM exposure is 19+%, whereas Heugh's MIOPX is nearly 33%. The fact that he works from Hong Kong must slant his choices towards the region. He has nothing in emerging Europe and only 1.63% in South America, for example. I would assume that MSAUX would be a collection of his best ideas for Asia; I note that Japan is not represented at all although it is in the global fund.

As an Asia portfolio, why would he own emerging Europe and/or South America?

Hi, @MikeW. MGGPX current EM exposure is 19+%, whereas Heugh's MIOPX is nearly 33%. The fact that he works from Hong Kong must slant his choices towards the region. He has nothing in emerging Europe and only 1.63% in South America, for example. I would assume that MSAUX would be a collection of his best ideas for Asia; I note that Japan is not represented at all although it is in the global fund.

Hi, ff!
Sorry, but I left after about 25 minutes. At that point, the focus of the talk still wasn't clear. I think, based on the teaser, that he was going to endorse investing in the EMs but that hadn't yet been mentioned. My departure was mostly occasioned by matters of style.
The one argument he made appeared to be that asset allocation is irrelevant, only expenses matter. He attempted to substantiate that with a reference to a series of "guru" portfolios that he constructed and modeled over (I believe) a quarter century. Before expenses, differences in returns were negligible (I believe he said 2%) and after imposing a uniform 1.25% expense ratio on the portfolios, the differences collapsed to nothing.
I hedge with "I believe" because this wasn't an argument being carefully laid out, it appeared to be a sort of fly-by of a talk he'd given in Las Vegas. Because I'm not a member of AAII, I don't have the ability to download conference presentations. Sorry.
I found the method suspect (why 1.25% on Buffett's rec to buy the S&P500 index or on the Permanent Portfolio, which charges 0.88?) and the conclusions unpersuasive (since they didn't, for example, take into account risk which influences an investor's willingness to hold on to portfolio). A real-world test of this claim is available by looking at the long-term performance of a family's target date funds, which differ only by asset allocation. In the case, for example, of the Wells Fargo funds, the most long-dated fund has returned 7.5% APR for 25 years and the most short-dated one has return 4.6%. On an initial investment of $10,000, that's the difference between a $30,000 portfolio and a $60,000 portfolio.
The longest-dated fund has also had a 50% max drawdown against 10% for the shortest-dated one.
I have no opinion about the Cambria ETFs themselves, since I haven't had occasion to study them closely though I believe Charles has. In broad terms, there are twelve with a 13th in registration. Eight of the 12 have trailed their Lipper peers on a total return basis since inception, four have led them. Six have trailed by more than a percentage point a year, one has led by more than a percentage point a year. Eight of 11 rated funds have MFO ratings in one of the bottom two tiers, one has a rating in the top tier and one is too new to be rated. Expenses range from 0.34 (GAA) - 1.23% (CCOR).
David

I was interested to see David endorse Homestead Value, or more specifically the firm behind the fund. HOLVX seems to be doing fine at this point, having survived a total management changeover in 2017. At that time, Mark Ashton and his team all stepped down from that fund and also from another former good fund, HSCSX. The small company fund had shot the lights out up until the changes. Both the value fund and the SC fund declared massive distributions for two years, as is often the case when new managers take over and start selling. I would tread cautiously given the disastrous (-26%) 2018 that HSCSX posted under new managers Prabha Carpenter and James Polk, as they are the two running the value fund also. I know Homestead because I used to own HSCSX and now own Homestead Growth, a fine find that is managed by T. Rowe Price.

FYI: WHAT WERE FOLKS reading last month? Here are the seven most popular articles that we published in October.
Regards,
Ted
https://humbledollar.com/2019/11/octobers-hits-2/

Although I have never owned LEXCX I have owned, in the past, a fund which is the modern day version of LEXCX. It is IACLX (Corporate Leaders 100). It holds and equally weights the top S&P 100 companies and has a value approach as it rebalances quarterly. And, over the past five years IACLX has out performed LEXCX.
In reducing the number of funds that I owned, several years back, I discarded IACLX. However, I did keep it in my son's (age 33) Roth account which I have oversight over. Although it has not been one of his top producers it is one of his steady Eddie equity funds and carries three stars from M*. It's ten year average total return is better than ten percent which, in gereral and on average, are what stocks are suppose to do.

Will touch on 4 podcasts from 7-26-19 to 10-29-19 - Asbury, John Hancock, Jeff Gundlach and Fido.
Asbury (7-26) mid caps in......no large growth is in.....market looks good into the fall. Healthcare equipment is a buy. Healthcare has legs, 10yr could go to 2.50%. Inversion must last 3 months and you have a year before a recession.
Hancock (9-17) ......growth is slowing. Look for Fed cuts. Large and mid caps are in. Only buy quality tech, health, staples----only quality.....no overseas bonds....quality only. 10yr could go to 0.75% in next recession. No banks or small caps. 10yr at 1.80% is a buy.
Gundlach (10-16) ..... negative bonds 97% owned by governments or pension funds. EM down 20% since 2018. No banks; US is expensive. Dollar will weaken growth. US is all about debt. 2020 is not looking good. Will see QE before we have next recession. Time to sell some things.
Fido (10-29) ..... when ECB and US cut rates at same time, 71% chance things rise. 41 global cuts this year. Will take 9 months for it to kick in. Buy financials, industrials....healthcare is a value trap. Buy tech and energy. The Fed will let inflation run hot since we had to wait so long to get some.
God bless
the Pudd

FYI: The majority of stocks have lifetime returns that are less than that of one-month treasuries. The best performing 4% of stocks were responsible for all of the wealth created in the stock market from 1926 through 2018.
Regards,
Ted
https://theirrelevantinvestor.com/2019/11/01/so-many-losers/

You noted: "think health care maybe good for long term"
Just say'in, the charts don't lie for this area............ Yes, they have their moments, too; with sideways movement and all the noise from political land is always an edge.
Health medical devices/science has been the strong area here since 2016. 'Course, there are many narrow areas in health science if you want to gamble a bit more.
SPY included in the chart for a broad U.S. reference.
Hover cursor over color symbol at top of chart to see ticker symbol.
Healthcare, broad and sector specific

Agree with @MikeM (assuming he means “Better safe than sorry” here).
You don’t know until it’s you out of your life’s work with ongoing expenses and at the mercy of what we collectively term “the markets”. Guess wrong and you might find yourself out looking for a job on your 95th birthday.
I’’m atypical in that I have a DB pension. Wish everybody did. So with that I went 6-7 years into retirement without having to touch the IRA. If you can do that, it’s a great way to build up that nest egg. But 4% yearly? I’ve been able to take a bit more than that over the past 10-12 years and not really “ding” the balance. In fact it’s grown. But I’ve been lucky. Most years I pull 5-7% out. But a couple years, for new car purchases, it’s been a bit higher than 7%.
I doubt the linked OP article even addresses the traditional vs Roth issue. If you’re pulling $$ from a Roth IRA, it’s quite likely that $10 withdrawn from that Roth will buy you as much as $12-$15 pulled from a traditional IRA would (after taxes are accounted for). So, with a Roth, you need to pull out a significantly smaller percentage to maintain the same lifestyle.
The markets are a real wild card. I’d be loath to try and draw too many conclusions from the past 10 or even 20 years. That’s too short of time. History has a much longer memory. Final comment - It seems as if the bond market is hooked on “downers” today while the equity markets are doing steroids. One wonders how long that dichotomy can persist.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/healthcare-etfs-win-in-october:-heres-why-2019-10-30
Healthcare ETFs Win in October: Here's Why
Contributor
We have added more to Vang health care etf and recently...think health care maybe good for long term