I guess I will plead "ignorance" on the topic..
Apparently "social investing" means shunning fossil-fuel producing energy companies. Yet, all the Top 25 holdings in VFTSX are massive CONSUMERS of fossil fuels, aren't they?
Virtually all MNCs who manufacture products, operate globally using an import-export business model (siting their production in the cheapest locale, then exporting to 1st world nations) rather than manufacturing locally which would minimize consumption of fossil fuels. The import-export model relentlessly consumes untold amounts of fossil fuels as product laden containers are hauled to the developed world, and empty containers are then returned to 3rd world production facilities.
I see ethical drug makers are well-presented in SRI screens. These companies routinely engage in price-gouging in the USA, and charge much less for the identical drug in other countries. Are those practices "socially responsible"?
Banks seem to be well-represented too. Of course, the banks engaged in an orgy of shoddy underwriting practices which permitted the mortgage crisis/Great Recession.
I see PepsiCo is a top VFTSX holding. Along with Coke, their products are among the greatest contributor to diabetes in this country and around the world. Socially-responsible? -- I guess it helps the business of those "socially responsible" diabetes-drug makers -- a "virtuous circle/feedback loop" if ever there was one.
[edit: Many of the tech companies ID'd as 'Socially responsible" engage in extremely aggressive & contorted accounting fictions designed solely to move 'accounting income' to offshore locations --- thereby legally dodging their tax bills (again its "legal" because they bribed legislators and hired lobbyists to make it legal). Is this "socially responsible" or is it sneaky, greedy, and serve to drain govt revenues, which impedes spending on "socially responsible" infrastructure, and health programs...?...]
My point -- all corporations are greedy b@$t@ard$. They conduct their operations, to one extent or another, in socially IR-responsible --albeit legal -- means. And often what they do is legal because they pay lobbyists and bribe legislatures (here and abroad) to turn a blind eye.
All business enterprises (of any scale) are "dirty" to one extent or another.
As far investing based on "religious" concepts --- I'm no clergy, but a certain philosopher/man of god, once stated its easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven. That philosopher would probably have suggested giving your money to the poor and skip investing altogether. (A philosophy which I certainly would NOT advocate!)

FYI: Tuesday’s market selloff comes just as some investors had thought the market tumult of the last week and a half might be behind us. They were wrong.
For now, the key is to keep stock of your portfolio and these five factors weighing on sentiment, as none of them is likely to go away soon.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/09/01/5-forces-driving-the-global-stock-selloff/tab/print/

Regarding the global micro cap fund, a 9/1/15 email from Mark Siddoway regarding the Stalwarts funds opening indicated:
"Details of the Global Micro Cap Fund launch will be emailed
to Grandeur Peak shareholders in the next few months. Our
four existing Grandeur Peak Funds remain closed to new investments."
@Ted,
Mark's email gave his cellphone number...I don't think it would be a wise idea to call him on it.

Fact, there is believed to still be a lot of leverage currently remaining in the capital markets.
In a downturn, usually leverage postions of investors get closed before margin calls are made. I have no way of knowing how much leverage is currently out there but it would not surprise me if it was north of 35%. See where I am going with this. A decline of 30% would put the S&P 500 Index somewhere around 1500 from its recent 52 week high of about 2135. This puts its TTM P/E Ratio back in line with what many say is a normal TTM P/E Ratio range of 14 to 16. Some like to streach and use forward estimates or even the Rule of Twenty.
Jill Mislinski currently does a monthly piece on this which I have linked below.
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/PE-Ratios-and-Market-Valuation.php
From review ... It is interesting that TTM Earnings are currently being reported at $94.68 down from prior year ending reporting of $102.31 ... and, they are not expected to improve until sometime in the fourth quarter with a December ending target of $100.59. At the current market close (1914) on September 1 puts the index at a TTM P/E Ratio at 20.2.
Still kina of expensive ... Don't you think? Let's see that is about a decline in TTM Earnings of about 7% thus far this year and 2% decline projected for the full year. Now if we take the prior's year ending closing price of about 2060 and mark it down by 7% we arive at a price of 1915 for the Index. Interesting, is it not? That is about where it closed on September 1. Wonder if it will close some where around 2020 come the end of this year? Indeed interesting if it does. That would be 2% below its 2014 December ending closing price of about 2060 and reflect the 2% anticipated decline in TTM Earnings.
Now some will say let's use the Rule of Twenty and in doing so that currently put's the Index around fair value. Perhaps so ... perhaps not. It depends on what the leveraged investor does. If they continue to close positions to reduce leverage ... Well, its still overvalued by my thinking. Now my engineer high school buddy will most likely put a different spin on my thinking as my dergee was in Economics. But, math is math.
Information about The Rule of Twenty is linked below ...
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-05-01/rule-of-20-is-the-stock-market-fairly-valued
And, for those that like reading a good debate on the Rule of Twenty below is a link to Bogleheads.org ...
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=168118
Comments on my thinking are welcome ... pro or con.

FYI: Recent volatility, which continued Monday, has been a cold reminder of why stocks are generally considered long-term investments.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150901/FREE/150909992?template=printart

FYI: MutualFundWire.Com Slant:
Regards,
Ted
Ted
http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=52540&wireid=2

@Old_Joe said

We tend to look at YTD because it's a convenient and fairly common starting point for comparing numbers

Yup, but I noticed something last week, when someone (it may have been you) posted a half-dozen MF returns, all of them slightly positive, YTD. Surprised me, because it seemed several of them would have been negative, so I looked 'em up and the YTD returns were correct. However, not only were the 3 mo returns all negative (as expected) but the 1 yr returns were also all slightly more negative. And, wouldn't ya know it, when I checked several in my potpourri, the same thing--- positive YTD, but negative 1 yr.
Ergo, FWIW, because of that bump-up at the beginning of 2015, we're at one of those points in time where it's probably best to look at the 1 yr, and ignore the YTD, to get the most realistic assessment of how individual investments have been performing recently.

This is a rather tiresome old-fashioned view on SRI and ESG--environmental social and governance--based investing that has been refuted by academic evidence. Click here: https://institutional.deutscheawm.com/content/_media/Sustainable_Investing_2012.pdf
A key excerpt from this report is the following:
"100% of the academic studies agree that companies with high ratings for CSR and ESG factors have a lower cost of capital in terms of debt (loans and bonds) and equity. In effect, the market recognizes that these companies are lower risk than other companies and rewards them accordingly....
89% of the studies we examined show that companies with high ratings for ESG factors exhibit market-based outperformance, while 85% of the studies show these types of company’s exhibit accounting-based outperformance. Here again, the market is showing correlation between financial performance of companies and what it perceives as advantageous ESG strategies, at least over the medium (3-5 years) to long term (5-10 years)."
In fact, I think the idea that "personal beliefs don't belong in your retirement account" actually is a reflection of the personal beliefs of many of the authors who routinely bash SRI/ESG without looking at the academic evidence, revealing their own biases. The fact is trillions of dollars are now invested globally according to some sort of SRI/ESG principles with little negative effects and in many cases positive ones:
fa-mag.com/news/sri-assets-up-76--since-2012--study-says-19953.html

"If one believes that solar is the way of the future, hopefully those people have the patience to wait out that long-term view. In other words, if you invest on beliefs in things that you think could do good, you will still likely have your beliefs and patience tested more than a few times along the way."
IMHO, a post child fund for being too early is New Alternatives Fund (NAEFX). Started in 1982; if it isn't the first fund dedicated to solar and alternative energy, it's pretty close. Usually rated 1* (it currently has a 2* rating). I haven't determined whether that's because it was really early with what was then very costly technology, or because it couldn't pick better holdings, or both.
Just this year it finally started a noload share class. But its extra 0.25% 12b-1 fee means that you'll wind up paying the equivalent of the front end load if you hold it a couple of decades.
Definitely not an endorsement of this fund; just pointing out that it has been possible to buy into these ideas for decades. But if you did, you needed a whole lot of patience. The technologies seem much more viable now.
The OP article makes the usual assertion that by definition any restrictions on diversification diminish profits. It doesn't address studies that show one can do well by doing good.
Nor does it explain why, if unconstrained investments should do better, unconstrained bond funds have such a lackluster record. (The freedom to invest anywhere does not mean one has the ability to do that well. Most managers are better sticking with what they know best.)

Using BRLVX (American Beacon Bridgeway Large Cap Value) as a model, it looks like you'll be able to purchase the migrated Bridgeway Large Cap Growth fund in a Fidelity IRA with a $2500 min (and $49.95 fee). So you might not have to rush to buy some shares.
(Not available at Schwab, $250K min at Fidelity taxable, Vanguard, E*Trade, TDA. Add more usual suspects as appropriate.)

It's not the vote, but the actions after the vote that matter.
"If Bridgeway Fund’s shareholders approve the Plan, the Reorganization is expected to take effect in the fourth quarter of 2015" (see above).
Having said that, Bridgeway could close the fund at any time (either before, but probably after, the vote) to facilitate the transition to AB. As to the date of that vote:
" A special shareholder meeting is being called for that purpose and shareholders of the Bridgeway Fund will receive proxy solicitation materials". It seems the board still has to set the meeting time/place.

@MFO Members: Fund announcements. Call Eric Huefner @ 801-384-0003, and tell them Ted told you to call.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.grandeurpeakglobal.com/documents/pdfs/grandeurpeakglobal-pr-20150812-1.pdf

Hi, Whak!
In fairness, it's a market neutral fund so you should expect market-like returns, up or down. In general it captures 40% of the upside and 20% of the downside. Since the strategy launched, it's captured 80-some percent of the S&P. Since the mutual fund launched in July 2013, it's captured about 25% of the returns but hasn't had a lot of volatility to work with.
I did ask Morty a similar question last week, about the fund in the recent choppiness. His answer was that it's working about as planned. It can capture as much as 50% of a sudden downdraft but the volatility-driven options should allow a fairly quick recovery. He's asked if I'd like to speak with the managers later this week, but I'm only the road and a bit unsure of my schedule.
More soon.
David

@little5bee, Digging a hole in the ground and burying your money is better than buying any lottery ticket.

I stopped using stop loss orders also, over the past 3 years used them and got stopped out on about 5 stocks to protect profits only see them go right back up. That won't always be the case, but feel this way is better. I do like limit orders though.

"With the market turmoil, I reduced my stock fund holdings % in my 401K account down to about 50%."
"was able to avoid some of the carnage"
"your advice on a strategy for gradually increasing my stock holdings back to their target allocation"
"Also, please let me know if you have any thoughts on my asset allocation."
---
Ten weeks ago U.S. equity markets were sitting at or near record highs, so if you bailed than it was a precient call. After a 6-year bull market in equities (dating back to March '09) you chose the exact moment to reduce your risk exposure.
If you bailed more recently due to the increasing chaos (mainly over the past 2 weeks) than that's a very short time-frame in which to be considering reallocating back into equities. As others have said, it's impossible to make these kind of week-to-week calls with precision. If using open-end mutual funds, you'd probably run into trouble with frequent trading restrictions as well.
Ted was correct in suggesting that if you have decades until retirement it's best to take a deep breath and stay at your previously appropriate allocation. For me, up until about age 50, that was 100% in a good solid global equity fund.* In hindsight, I'm happy I didn't sell it and move to bonds or cash every time the markets swooned. I'd never have selected the "correct" time to re-invest and would have damaged my prospects for a comfortable retirement.
As you near retirement it does get a bit more complicated for two reasons: (1) your investment time horizon shortens significantly and (2) you likely lose the stabilizing benefits of dollar cost averaging that you enjoyed during your working years. Here, you'll find plenty of spirited debate about how best to allocate during those later years. But ... that's a different subject than what you seem to be inquiring about.
-
* Note: 100% invested in an equity fund is not quite the same as 100% invested in equities. Most of these funds do maintain a bit of exposure to cash, bonds or alternative investments.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000091580215000072/stickergrandeurpeakemergingm.htm
1 stickergrandeurpeakemergingm.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
Grandeur Peak Global Stalwarts Fund
Grandeur Peak International Stalwarts Fund
Grandeur Peak Global Micro Cap Fund
(the “Funds”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 TO THE FUNDS’ PROSPECTUS AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DATED JUNE 29, 2015
As of the date of this Supplement, shares of the Grandeur Peak Global Stalwarts Fund and the Grandeur Peak International Stalwarts Fund are now offered for sale, and shares of the Grandeur Peak Global Micro Cap Fund are not currently being offered for sale.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE. YOU MAY DISCARD THIS SUPPLEMENT ONCE SHARES OF THE FUNDS ARE OFFERED FOR SALE.

FYI: (I couldn't agree more, just remember the four B's --Booze , Bombs, Buttts & Broads, many times can make you a lot of money.)
When investors utilize SRI and other emotionally charged strategies, they do more harm than good because those strategies lack the following attributes:
• Diversification: The "Golden Rule" of investing is to maintain diversification at all times. Confining stock selection to only those that meet emotional guidelines can leave a portfolio exposed to unnecessary risks.
• Higher Expected Returns: Due to several fund mandates to avoid sin stocks, these equities are often cheaper on a valuation basis than other stocks that get crowded by the large fund managers.
• Effectiveness: Owning a stock of a company has little to no effect on its revenue generation, earnings, dividend safety, and/or compensation for management. A stock is nothing more than a claim on a percentage of the equity for a company.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/personal-beliefs-dont-belong-in-your-retirement-account-2015-08-31/print

From Mark, elsewhere: "I had a wild-ass limit order [on CELG] placed at $87 on the off chance a day like Monday presented itself. It actually went down to $86. Very, very surprised that it filled."
Good going, Mark! And that being the case, I wonder if anyone here, including Mark, has any similar orders in place right now. How about it?
Yesterday, at Fidelity, I investigated the idea of placing a few conditional buy orders (instead of limit orders) with a flash crash in mind, based on % decline. The only semi-workable condition I could come up with is: execute order if during any single day, the stock/etf/etc declines by a buyer-set %. I saw that PJP, a pharmaceutical etf, had a single-day flash crash last week of around 45%. Not that I really expect lightning to strike twice, but I put in an order to buy a few shares if the stock drops 35% on any given day. Did it more as an experiment as anything else, just to see.

@little5bee I hold a substantial stake in the fund. I run a pretty focused strategy with less than a handful of funds and it is in that mix. I think through the market volatility it will be a home run.
@andyj when I spoke to the team at catalyst about it, they call it a hybrid market neutral fund.