If we're including multi-billion funds, one I like is American Century Mid Cap Value, ACMVX. (Before anyone writes that this is closed, look again. It is only closed when purchasing through a third party, e.g. Schwab.)
I ran a search for small funds in the small cap value space, and ran across LSV Small Cap Value (LVAQX). In some senses, similar to TDVFX (tiny AUM, tiny cap). Not quite deep value though. Even lower turnover (15%). And fine performance so far (three years old - see original share class LSVQX).
This seems like a quant fund with training wheels. It keeps its sectors within 5% of its benchmark - I'm guessing that this could explain the low turnover, since quant funds are often whipsawed.

@MFO Members: Let's see now, here is this turkey's track record, enough said !!!
Regards,
Ted
YTD: 76 Percentile
1Yr. 90 "
3Yr. 85 "
5Yr. 98 "
10 Yr. 66 "
15 Yr. 89 "

from our May commentary on the merger, for what interest it holds:
Putnam Voyager Fund (PVOYX) is merging into Putnam Growth Opportunities (POGAX) on July 15, 2016. Voyager’s performance was rightly described as “dismal” by Morningstar. Voyager’s manager was replaced in February by Growth Opportunities', after a string of bad bets: in the past six years, he mixed one brilliant year with two dismal ones and three pretty bad ones. He was appointed in late 2008 just before the market blasted off, rewarding all things risky. As soon as that phase passed, Voyager sank in the mud. To their credit, Voyager’s investors stayed with the fund and assets, still north of $3 billion, have only recently begun to slip. The new combined fund’s manager is no Peter Lynch, but he’s earning his keep.
David

Sometimes you can do a distribution in kind from your IRA to your taxable account and bootstrap an institutional share account that way. (Occasionally the fund company will require you to pony up enough to meet the high minimum or it will convert the shares to retail shares.)
If you do a distribution this way, you can even avoid IRA tax consequences by replacing the shares removed with their cash value within 60 days (i.e. a 60 day IRA rollover).
I've posted before that I think the question of whether there's a 12b-1 fee is a red herring.
Retail funds are going to collect money from the fund one way or another to pay for servicing the account. A fund uses this money to pay a third party brokerage to do the selling and generate account statements, or to do these tasks itself if selling direct.
It may or may not break the cost out as a separate line item, but either way, that's a reason why the retail funds cost more. The TRP fund has no 12b-1 fee, but included in "other expenses" are "administrative fees" of up to 0.15%:

The funds may make payments to retirement plan recordkeepers, broker-dealers, and other financial intermediaries (at a rate of up to 0.15% of average daily net assets per year) for transfer agency, recordkeeping, and other administrative services that they provide on behalf of the funds. These administrative services may include services such as maintaining account records for each customer; transmitting net purchase and redemption orders; delivering shareholder confirmations, statements, and tax forms; and providing support to respond to customers’ questions regarding their accounts.

See Prospectus.

FYI: Putnam Investment Management will merge its long-time flagship stock mutual fund out of existence this summer, according to a filing with regulators.
Assets in the $3.3 billion Putnam Voyager Fund (PVOYX) will be absorbed by the $609 million Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund (POGAX) in the middle of July. Robert Brookby, portfolio manager of Growth Opportunities Fund since 2009 and Voyager since February, will run the unified fund, the filing says. Brookby took over for Nick Thakore, who left the firm. He had run Voyager since 2008. From the filing.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2016/05/04/putnam-voyager-fund-will-be-merged-out-of-existence/tab/print/

Is it not the % of assets that count not the amount? If I sold 25k of stocks that would be a big decision . If Bill Gates did that it might be almost meaningless regarding his market view.

Many of the top small cap value funds are closed to new investors, and this is an ongoing good news/bad news. Nuveen FSCCX and Wisdom Tree DES are both open and have among the best 3 and 5-year records. Mid cap value is also pretty bare, but Wells Fargo SMCDX has a good track record. ETFs offer more options in PEY, DVY, DON, all of which have out-performed the S&P 400. But, as David says, it depends on what is important to you. Diamond Hill has a great small cap fund, but it is closed.
We use Vanguard Index VIMAX as a core hold, with UMBMX as a concentrated add-on. It has out-performed both midcap blend and value over the last 10 years, mostly it has less downside loss.
For small cap we use SWSSX or VTMSX as a core, with IYSIX in our more aggressive accounts.

"But has acted like a story stock"?
Uhhh ... top 3% of all global funds for the past three, five and ten years. It trailed its peers in 2015 by 1.3% and YTD by 3.5%. Their argument is that they favor firms that generate lots of free cash flow, which they take to be a sign of a sustainable business that can finance its own growth without recourse to borrowing. The market lately has emphatically favored "get big quick" story stocks. The four FANG stocks accounted for all of the S&P 500's gains last year but if you look at Netflix (the "N"), they're trading for $110/share and reporting $0.04 earnings/share. Facebook ("F") reported $0.18/share last year against a share price of $115. They do own Alphabet/Google but not Amazon.
So if "story stocks" are bad and they refuse to own the story stocks, despite their current price momentum, wouldn't that be a good thing?
Puzzled, as is so often the case,
David

FYI: When the going gets rough, the 1 percent start selling.
That’s the finding of a new paper that says people with the highest income bailed from stocks disproportionately on the worst days of the financial crisis. The share of selling by the biggest earners rose “sharply” in days following spikes in volatility, according to data on millions of sales reported to the government in 2008 and 2009.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/super-rich-were-first-to-bail-when-lehman-collapse-ripped-stocks

Hi, ep1.
A lot depends on what you're looking for, beyond "small and midcap." Some folks like deep value, some seek low-vol, absolute value or concentrated portfolio. I ran a quick screen through MFO Premium for SC/MC value sorted by highest Sharpe ratio over the full market cycle. Here's the shortlist:
Intrepid Endurance (formerly Intrepid Small Cap, ICMAX) - absolute value which means huge cash holdings until compelling valuations appear. Up 4% YTD despite 67% cash which implies that equity portion was up 12%. Lost 18% in the 2007-09 crash. In a similar vein but without full-cycle performance is Aston/River Road Independent Value (ARIVX) - the former manager of ICMAX is at 85% cash and has still gained 8.5% YTD which implies about a 60% gain in the equity portfolio. Most folks have been pretty caustic about the funds because the managers have been steadily harvesting gains and building cash since about 2011 which means they've missed the current party.
Victory Sycamore Established Value (VETAX) - $4 billion mid-cap fund with a value bias. Nominally has a load though those are often avoidable. Fully invested, consistently top decile performer. Lost 43% in the market crash, substantially less than the index.
Wells Fargo Special Mid Cap Value (WFPAX) - $3.5 billion mid-cap fund with a value bias, same story on the load. Launched in 1998 but the current team has been onboard about seven years, top 5% performer. Down 44% in the crash.
Hennessy Cornerstone Mid Cap 30 (HFMDX) - no-load with about a billion. Substantially more volatile than the two funds above, somewhat higher returns, very low turnover.
Queens Road SCV (QRSVX) - about $135 million, lots of insider ownership, tends toward small blend, top 20% over time. About 20% cash at the moment and up about 5% YTD. Dropped 42% in the crash versus 53% for a comparable index fund.
Intrepid Disciplined Value (ICMCX) - the all-cap value version of Intrepid Endurance. It's about half cash, half stocks now. 4.5% YTD. Lost 37% in the crash. It's a true all-cap value so it's hard to benchmark - most value indexes are mostly large cap and most mid-cap value indexes are mostly midcap. Eyeballing several, I'd say that a comparable passive product might have lost 50-55% compared to this fund's 37%.
One possibility with a bit more risk might be Adirondack Small Cap (ADKSX) which dropped an index-like 52% in the crash but rebounded so sharply that it's now leading its peers by 2.7% annually over the full cycle.
If you're a true believer in the research, you really need to look at Towle Deep Value (TDVFX) which has about the cheapest and smallest-cap portfolio around. Shorter record - just under five years - but very solid returns, vast insider ownership, no marketing, healthy internal culture. Microcap deep value is not, to be clear, a place for the faint of heart.
Just some teasers,
David

Note that 10% of Buffett's money invested bonds would generate enough income to live on while letting the equity portion accumulate. Would investing 10% of your wealth in bonds plus other sources of income (pension,etc.) generate enough income for you to live on? Does this strategy apply to you?

Don't forget that the S&P 500 has a dividend yield of over 2%......
Need to include that in the income, along with the income from the bonds
Cheers

According to M*, PRVIX return for Q1 2016 was 3.19%, right on the nose.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=PRVIX&region=usa&culture=en_US
Likewise, RPTIX for Q1 2016 was -0.38%, again matching what your 401k said.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=RPTIX&region=usa&culture=en_US
As a sanity check, I went to TRP's site to get the T. Rowe Price Report for Spring 2016. It shows the retail class of Small Cap Value (PRSVX) returned 3.17% in the quarter, just two basis points behind PRVIX.

FYI: Matthews Asia has announced the renaming of the Matthews Asia Science and Technology Fund (Investor Class: MATFX; Institutional Class: MITEX) to the Matthews Asia Innovators Fund.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160503005302/en

Last Quarter 401-k traded in retail for institutional shares. I ran the institutional shares, prvix, adjusted close & came out + 5.31% gain for the Qter.. 401-k shows gain of 3.19 %. The other change took place in rptix. Adjusted close shows +1.37 % while 401-k shows -.38 % for the Qter.. Was this due to selling one day at close & buying the next day at close.
Did I take one in the shorts or what. Seems to me MF would do the exchange same day to keep the customer happy !
Thoughts requested,
Derf

Vanguard's 1-3 year short-term government bond fund VGSH has lower expenses than SHY (.10 vs .15) and can be bought, along with VOO, in a Vanguard brokerage account for no commission.

FYI: Simply allocate 90 percent of your money to the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) and 10 percent to the iShares 1-3 Year Treasury Bond ETF (SHY).
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-02/put-buffett-s-advice-into-action-with-these-two-etfs

Valeant is not 'a sewer': Bill Ackman
Bill Ackman, Pershing Square Capital CEO and portfolio manager, discusses the changes happening at Valeant Pharmaceuticals, and his decision to invest in the company's business model, after Berkshire Hathaway Vice Chairman Charlie Munger commented the company has become a sewer.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000514305

mcmarasco: "If there any any other investment vehicles worth considering, please let me know!! Yes, PFF 5.5% yield month-in-month-out, year after year, with little downside risk.
Regards,
Ted

Actually, in reading over Dodge & Cox's Prospectus recently (was having trouble falling asleep) I came across language that looks similar to Sequoia's. It's in the generic portion which applies to all their funds. This might might pull-up the prospectus: https://www.dodgeandcox.com/pdf/prospectus/dc_statutory_prospectus.pdf
Language: "Redemptions-in-kind The Funds reserve the right, if conditions exist which make cash payments undesirable, to honor any request for redemption by making payment in whole or in part in readily marketable securities chosen by a Fund and valued as they are for purposes of computing a Fund’s NAV. If payment is made in securities, a shareholder may incur transaction expenses in converting these securities to cash. The Funds have elected, however, to be governed by Rule 18f-1 under the Investment Company Act, as a result of which a Fund is obligated to redeem shares, with respect to any one shareholder of record during any 90-day period, solely in cash up to the lesser of $250,000 or 1% of the net asset value of the Fund at the beginning of the period."
---
On the broader subject, I'll maintain that focused funds like Sequoia are inherrently hazardous, for the obvious reason (because they focus on a narrow group of equities). And in today's climate, with the floods of performance-chasing hot money running in and out, I'd think they're even more hazardous - game of musical chairs. (Last one out - please turn off the lights.)
But just for old time's sake, here's GW Bush's classic "Fool Me Once."

I owe you serious.
You gotta be persistent w c/s kids. I IMed Fido c/s just now, and no, '$50 is the fee.' I said 'For class conversion ...?' 'Lemme check. Oops, no, that can be done n/c. Phone only.'
Woohoo.
Future purchases? DSENX, then convert .... Wild.
So Trump-level thanks for your prior investigations of this.