It may be a bit irrational, but I like the allure of smaller firms who have a specific focus and operate in an environment where they are under the radar to a degree. This autonomy affords them a measure of leeway in terms of following their specific direction without the glare of media spotlight. At a minimum...it certainly holds the AUM down to a modest level.
James, Vulcan Value Partners and Stewart Capital come to mind within my positions.
On the surface, this micro cap fund draws immediate comparison to the new Grandeur Peaks offering, simply due to timing. I noticed that the younger James associate (son) is the PM for this fund...which may be instructive for GLRBX when the senior Dr. James retires.
The other glaring difference is the scope of holdings. With a similar market cap target of about $1.5B, this James fund holds only 41 equity positions per their website. While not disclosed, per their history I would think that the GP micro cap fund holds 4 to 5 times that number. That is what I call rolling the dice.
I look forward to a more thorough analysis sometime in the future.
press

Oh, that's just great. It's back to stupid we go. I am sooooo #*$&! sick of this!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-03/if-s-p-500-valuations-had-you-worried-in-august-they-re-back

Love seeing these old "ST" tickers from the old Strong Funds where I once invested. Wells inherited these from Dick Strong when he was banned from the securities business by the SEC. Bought up what was left of his firm and kept the old fund names for awhile. The "Advantage" label came from Strong too. But I can only recall it applying to their Ultra-Short bond fund.
While he was a crook, Strong actually had some pretty good funds and some talented managers. 15 years have passed. Possibly Wells is trying to distance themselves from the origin of some of these.
Memories :)

The Investor shares disappeared on 10/23. The "Advantage" name disappears in December. Their argument, valid or not, is that "A" shares are widely available without a load so reducing the number of share classes is no big deal.
Maybe yes, maybe no.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
WSJ Slant:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-broadly-steady-after-rally-on-wall-street-1446540520
Bloomberg Slant:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-02/asian-stock-futures-pace-u-s-recovery-with-august-rout-reversed
Reuters Slant:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/03/global-markets-idUSL1N12Y1X620151103
MarketWatch Slant;
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-street-eyes-pullback-after-rally-ahead-of-earnings-factory-orders-2015-11-03/print
WSJ Markets At A Glance;
http://markets.wsj.com/us
Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
Current Futures: Positive
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Some of the figures above mix Q3 data (portfolio composition) and 11/2/15 data (performance).
The fault ... is not in our (Morning)stars, but in ourselves.
The Morningstar data in the article cited are all Q3 data. That's why you're seeing -1.06% YTD for PREMX. Go to the M* performance page for the fund, and in the Trailing Total Returns section, click on the "Quarterly" tab.
M*'s definition of cash includes bonds with maturities of up to a year. How do funds define cash? Whatever it is, I suspect it is different (much more constrained, resulting in a much lower stated cash allocation).
It is best to stick with a single data source - that way you know the same definitions and calculations apply to all the figures, and the will be reliable. Otherwise, one might wind up wondering whether PREMX (as of the end of Q3) indeed had 4.46% in Ukrane (M*'s figure) or 4.9% (T. Rowe Price's figure).

FYI: ( Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
It has taken index fund evangelist John Bogle 40 years to get the mutual fund industry to be comfortable talking about fees. Everyone now agrees that they matter. But there’s another way Bogle likes to look at fees that no one’s talking about. Instead of just comparing funds’ expense ratios, as is standard practice, he thinks investors should also examine the total dollars that each fund collects in fees.
There are two reasons why calculating total-dollar fees matters. One is legal. “The Gartenberg court decision in 1982 determined that a mutual fund fee has to be so large as to offend the conscience of the community before the courts will intervene,” Bogle says. “A percentage fee can never offend anyone’s conscience. What does one say about a fee that should be 0.5% but is 0.75% instead?”
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Mutual+Fund+Fees:+How+Low+Is+“Low”?+barron's

@PRESSmUP You're welcome.
China is an interesting case. They appear to be "getting serious" about solar. But, the most recent data I have seen tells me 2/3's of China's energy still comes from coal. And, solar just represents a blip on their energy source chart. Five times a blip just makes for a big blip. Also, I have read that what they are doing in part is to shut down their dirtier coal burning plants close to urban areas and replace them with plants located further from those urban centers. (From an environmental perspective, this helps their domestic population somewhat but not the planet.)
About the possibility oil will wind up be left forever in the ground....well, forever is a long time. I suspect future extraction will increasingly come with more strings attached. Here are some quotes about that general subject from an article I just read:
"The International Energy Agency (IEA) and many other credible parties continue to forecast that our growing world population from 7 billion people today to 9 billion by 2050 will need much more energy – in particular as most of these people will aspire a life like we have here in North America."
"“Sustainable Innovation” may become key to future energy financings and.....oil and gas companies will have to innovate much more than they do today in order to survive as energy-producing Fortune 500 companies in the decades to come."
"....lacking some spectacular new innovations, longer term most Canadian oil sands reserves will likely remain undeveloped."
See: This Oil Bust Will Change The Energy Industry Forever

Openice is correct.
STHYX and STHBX - http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1081400/000108140015000890/invclassliquidation.htm
(click to see filing)
Excerpt from filing:
"Effective after the close of business on October 23, 2015, all Investor Class shares of each Fund converted to Class A shares of the same Fund (the “Conversion”). Following the Conversion, all references to the Investor Class shares in each Fund’s Statement of Additional Information are hereby removed."
October 23, 2015

They may have converted to the A share class because WF dropped the Advantage moniker for a number of their funds on/about 10/23 thereby giving them different symbols. This info was given in a supplement to the prospectus. So if that's what happened, you might find out what your new symbols are.

I have been trying to find out what happened to my 2 funds, STHBX and STHYX. There are no more quotes for these funds after 10/23/2015. And I did not receive any e-mail from Wells Fargo. Can someone point me where to look? Thanks.

Correction: Franklin reports only 21% cash as of 9/30. Guess M* data is incorrect (an ongoing problem over there) or they're calculating 'cash' as something more than what Franklin does.

TGBAX ytd -2.83 1-year -4.94 3-year+1.27 5-year +3.00%
MAINX ytd +0.45% 1-yr: -0.95% 3-yr: +1.31% (too young for 5-year number.)
PRSNX ytd +0.60% 1-yr: -1.14% 3-yr: +2.18% 5-yr: +3.48%
My PREMX holds 4.46% in Ukraine, but it's explicitly an EM bond fund.
At FNMIX, another EM bond fund, Ukraine doesn't appear in the top 10 countries.
Consider this, which I just saw, dated 27th October: (re: PREMX)
"...Conviction investments keep the portfolio dynamic. An overweight to Ukraine has benefited from recent debt restructurings that were in favor of bondholders. And the fund remains committed to Brazil, with investments in sovereigns and government-backed companies--in particular, Petrobras (PBR)..."
LINK: http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=718764
Here's a less pertinent M* article. After going into it up to a point, I stopped reading. Her numbers are all screwed up. The thing is dated 02 November. She says that PREMX, (among others) is down y-t-d by -1.06%. Go to the "quote" page for the fund, and it tells you that PREMX is up, ytd by +2.60%. How reliable are her OTHER numbers in there, eh?
For what it's worth, here's the link:
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=720665

So it seems that as of September TGBAX is up to 8% Ukrainian bonds (from 1.8% prior). Morningstar also shows it at 50% cash, too.
In reviewing the 2015 annual report that just came out, I am somewhat dismayed at the 'managers commentary' ... seemed rather light on analysis and commentary and just kept harping on about "absolute return". Frankly the managers commentary seemed almost like an afterthought to them this year.
I'm still holding TGBAX but am strongly considering lightening my position due to a) 50% cash holding and b) a somewhat 'odd feeling' I had reading their managers commentary.

Anent Walzer's '25k funds' puzzles, a colleague of mine in the industry speculates:

... bet that gross assets includes all of your derivatives positions, including those on both sides of a market, while net assets, in addition to netting out actual liabilities, would net out the offsetting positions. The fund's 7-day liquidity is how much of its portfolio it could liquidate in 7 days (and there is probably an assumed discount threshold, meaning that the fund could liquidate the assets for at least 90% or whatever of fair value). Investor liquidity is probably the amount of fund assets that investors have the right to liquidate over the next 7 days. Since liquidity in these funds is limited and sometimes requires advance notice, a number of just 15% may make sense.

Ted,Good to see your posts again.Keep chuggin along.Corn must be in the bin and rent payments paid for 2016 farm lease I hope. Also hoping for this.A little way to go though.
@MFO Members: I agree with DlphcOracl that we are still in a secular bull market, and my forecast of a 15% return, made last February, in 2014 for the S&P 500 is right on (2,215) target. For 2015, I predict the S&P 500 will close at 2,401 a 13% rise for the year.
Regards,
Ted
Ted December 2014 in Fund Discussions
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/54158/#Comment_54158
Just a little "color " to Ted's post
Major Asset Classes | October 2015 | Performance Review
Despite the broad-based gains at the kick-off to the fourth quarter, losses still dominate the year-to-date comparisons, along with a few instances of mild gains.
While there was a bullish wind blowing in October, there was a familiar exception. Broadly defined commodities once again dipped lower, albeit mildly so this time. Although the price for crude oil revived in October, the Bloomberg Commodity Index continued to slip, retreating by a comparatively modest 0.5% last month.

http://www.capitalspectator.com/major-asset-classes-october-2015-performance-review/

I believe they had $25.4M as of the end of 10/30/15.
October 30 was final day to fund your subscription allotment.

$27.2 Million AUM as of 11/02/2015 - they overshot slightly

Crowdfunding for everyone. Pretty exciting, thinks wired.com. So now you and grandma can invest in startups.
http://fortune.com/2015/10/30/its-official-startups-can-soon-raise-money-from-your-grandma/
There will be some income limitations, and platforms set up by issuers to handle the investment can be held legally liable for issuer fraud against investors. Beyond that, however, not all issuers will be required to undergo and disclose an audited financial review, and I suspect you'll be on your own.
http://www.howardlindzon.com/crowdability-the-sec-approves-equity-crowdfunding/
"The media will tell you your Grandma is about to get gutted by hucksters.
She might.
But she was also getting pitched 3D printing stocks and the safety oil income trusts a few years back by her ‘registered’ financial advisor."
@bnath001 Are you a rational person? If so, then Jeffrey Carter believes in you, because he's "a huge fan of individual liberty." He'd tell you to go for it--- the Full Monty! :)
http://pointsandfigures.com/2015/11/01/sec-approves-crowdfunding-for-everyone/

I'm thinking that the risk is low that oil producers will find their wares unwanted....though the geopolitical impact of the shift away from petroleum-based energy is fascinating to contemplate.
I suppose you could argue that the free market is helping to drive this shift, but it is also undeniable that the kick-start from governments was also helpful. And actually, by governments, I was mainly talking about China...though we are clearly trying to play catch up.
thanks for the post Davfor...posted below is another link with related information.
press
http://fs-unep-centre.org/publications/global-trends-renewable-energy-investment-2015