You guys are a tough audience. According to M*, RSIVX is a whopping 1.6% behind its benchmark over the last year. Any fund with a 6% yield is going to have some volatility.
I remember in David's original write up that the manager's promise was to deliver 6-8% yield and more or less stable capital over a five year cycle. It seems to me he's on his way to meet that goal.
But if stable capital is what you want on a daily or even monthly basis, you should certainly be elsewhere.
None of this is to say that there might not be better bond funds out there, and the ones listed here look good (PTIAX -- wow!) but I personally am giving RSIVX more of a chance.

Same experience and thoughts as @willmatt72.Haven't pulled plug yet but when I do I'll keep this fund @ the top of my replacement list.
Performance Trust Strategic Bond PTIAX
http://www.ptiafunds.com/images/website/documents/fund-documents/ptiax_factsheet.pdf
Taper Tantrum May -Aug 2013*
http://www.ptiafunds.com/images/website/documents/fund-documents/ptiax_dividend.pdf

Prudential and Prudential Jennison Funds
https://www3.prudential.com/email/pi/a/capgains2015.pdf

Hi - I had an existing fund account at Grandeur Peak and faxed instructions (Monday afternoon) to set up a new fund account exactly like the old one. The new acct was established overnight (over Tuesday night). I had bank information in place. (It's possible, if you are establishing a new bank with GP, there may be a slight delay.)
My correspondent has been Amy Johnson, Sr Manager, Client Relations. Her coordinates are on the October 15 email she sent around. She has responded quickly - within an hour or so - when I have emailed with questions.
ajohnson [a] grandeurpeakglobal [dot] com
Hope this helps!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SICAV
Number (para starting 'choice'):
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/47d959ee-57b1-11dc-8c65-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz3p9v58NhV

Speaking of RiverNorth, it boggles the imagination that RNSIX could be so mediocre YTD, at slightly less than 1% total return -- when many FI cef's are up 4-5% or more, and (representing the Gundlach sleeves) DBLTX and DBSCX are up 3.1% and 3.7% respectively.
From a quick glance at the holdings, it looks like they might be overweight junk corporate credit, which would more or less account for the underperformance. These are supposedly the credit/cef strategic experts -- did they not adjust an iota for the clear weakness in HY? Or are they just napping while they collect their investors' high E.R.s?

ETFs? Nope. There are just about 1,800 of them - with a new, much-needed Social Media Sentiment Index ETF on the way (whew!) - controlling only $3 trillion. You already know about the 7,700 '40 Act funds and the few hundred remaining CEFs are hardly a blip (with apologies to RiverNorth, to whom they're a central opportunity).
No, I mean the other 24,725 private funds, the existence of which is revealed in unintelligible detail in a recent SEC staff report entitled Private Fund Statistics, 4th Quarter 2014 (October 2015). That roster includes:
8,625 hedge funds, up by 1100 since the start of 2013
8,407 private equity funds, up by 1400 in that same period
4,058 "other" private funds
2,386 Section 4 private equity funds
1,789 real estate funds
1,541 qualifying hedge funds
1,327 securitized asset funds
504 venture capital funds
69 liquidity funds
49 Section 3 liquidity funds, these latter two being the only categories in decline
The number of private funds was up by 4,200 between Q1/2013 and Q4/2014 with about 200 new advisers entering the market. They have $10 trillion in gross assets and $6.7 trillion in net assets. (Nope, I don't know what gross assets are.) SEC-registered funds own about 1% of the shares of those private funds.
If Table 20 is to be credited, almost no hedge ever uses a high-frequency trading strategy. (You'll have to imagine me at my desk, nodding appreciatively.)
Sadly, the report explains nothing. You get tables of technical detail with nary a definition nor an explanation in sight. "Asset Weighted-Average Qualifying Hedge Fund Investor and Portfolio Liquidity" assures that that fund liquidity at seven days is about 58% while investor liquidity in that same period is about 15%. Not a word anywhere about what that means. An appendix defines about 10 terms, no one of which is related to their data reports.
As ever,
David

Hi@Derf,
I Agree things work until they don't. My vaccum cleaner quit on me yesterday ... Got to go get a new one this AM.
With the fall spiff that I reference in the above post ... It is form 2014 not 2015. I am thinking of not making a special spiff this year in the market. From my thinking, stocks are too expensive right now from TTM Price to Earning Ratio as the S&P 500 Index is currently priced at about 21.5 TTM and on forward estimates at 17.1. I am thinking the forward estamtes are too optimistic.
Old_Skeet

Hey! With 3D printing technology constantly changing and innovating ,this fund may want to reconsider with this product in development.
This 3D-printed bikini can now clean polluted ocean while you swim
Wayne Murphy October 18, 2015
http://thenextdigit.com/26717/printed-bikini-clean-polluted-ocean-swim/
Link to developer.

http://eraycarbajo.com/gallery/sponge-suit/

FPA Crescent Fund – Q3 2015 Update
Activity:
o Sold out of Norsk Hydro and Sulzer
o Added to several names, including Alcoa, CIT Group, Cisco, LPL Financial, General
Electric
o Purchased a handful of new equity positions and a few new fixed income positions,
including Glencore and Bombardier, in the quarter.
o Top contributors for the quarter were Google, Sound Holdings, Microsoft, Sears Holding
Corp. 6.625% Due 10/15/2018, and Bombardier 7.750% Due 3/15/2020. Oracle, Joy
Global, Aon, Citigroup and United Technologies were the top detractors for the period.
Positioning:
o Gross exposure to equities is circa 58% and net equity exposure is approximately 55%.
Fixed Income increased a bit to 3.4%.
o Added to private investments, specifically real estate partnerships.
o Cash is approximately 40%.
Outlook:
o Still challenging to find bargains, but is improving. We are looking at various areas of
opportunities, including Chinese internet, copper, oil/gas and Brazil
http://www.fpafunds.com/docs/fpa-crescent-fund/q3-2015-crescent-update.pdf?sfvrsn=2

I'm liking it, having started a position over the summer since I had next to no tech exposure and wanted something other than herd-based holdings. PRGTX is (to me) fairly eclectic in holdings, doesn't have the "usual suspects" overweighting their top 10, and has a nice mix of domestic and intl focus. I only wish it paid quarterly versus annually, to capitalise on volatility in the sector, though.

I searched "mutual funds" then clicked on the "news" tab in Google and set it for "within past 24 hours." By default, ten stories appear on page one.
Of the top 10 stories, four focus on mutual funds in India.
Three are press releases, one about the Voya "Born to Save" program and two from Zack's offering lists of "must buy" funds.
Uhhh ... three left:
an RIA at Seeking Alpha offering a first take on Janus Adaptive Global Allocation Fund (JAGDX)
a "distinguished investment strategist" at Seeking Alpha offering sector ratings (pssst ... energy is "dangerous").
responses to part of a due-diligence questionnaire by the managers of Loomis Sayles Dividend Income Fund (LSCYX).
So if we were to look for evidence of trained journalists doing something other than passing along press releases we'd ... ummm, need to look at the cover of Sunday's NFL games?
(sigh)
David

Charles,
If you take GO largeish equity funds and etfs and sort by UI, you see it is almost identical to sorting by month of bad drop (2015, then 2011, finally 2009) and also (of course) by longevity.
In my little test list, USMV is at the top and FCNTX at the bottom. PRBLX UI is in the middle.
Will it really prove to be the case that LOGIX or SDY or VONG (indexes as GOs seems a little weird no matter how you compute) turns out to have been wiser investments than those two funds and/or PRDGX ? (I am doing the sorting via copy into Word doc table, as I have been too thick to figure out how to do it in the Excel sheets in either posted or enlarged form.)

Another tech heavy fund (without the international component) with similar 1, 3, 5 and 10 year returns is FBSOX. And, it managed to sidestep the tech meltdown from 2000 to 2002.

It's been a fine fund through four sets of manager changes. It's made good money this year through its e-tail investments. And Price doesn't encourage silly risk-taking.
One quick reminder, though: based on Charles's inception-to-date data, it took the fund a little more than 10 years to recover from the tech crash that bottomed in 2002. That's comparatively good but still sobering.
David

This fund seems to defy gravity, up 23% during the last year, up 98% during 3 years, up 153% during 5 years.
Any opinion?

The Marketwatch column confuses "elderly inflation" with inflation experienced by SS recipients (and also with CPI-E).
Here's SSA's page discussing the objective of cost of living adjustments, and how they relate to price indexes.
Among other things, it points out that living expense changes and price changes are not identical. That elderly and SS recipients are two different cohorts (1/5 of SS recipients are under age 62, and 1/5 of seniors do not receive SS). That patterns of medical expenses are different for seniors (and not incorporated into price indexes, including CPI-E). And so on.
If you want to get right to the section on limitations and problems with CPI-E, here's a link to the section within the page.
So much of the discussion (not here, of course) amounts to smoke and mirrors, or what OJ wrote, "sleight of hand".
Another example. The "hold harmless" rule saying that your SS check cannot go down because of Medicare increases doesn't prevent the value of that check from decreasing. In fact, the value of that check will decrease in 2017, assuming any COLA. That's because the net dollar amount will not increase (any increase will be offset by an increase in Medicare premiums). So nominal amount will not drop, but value will due to inflation.
If it looks like there's a lot of grumbling about no SS increases this year (when inflation is low), wait until next year or whenever inflation picks up, and the SS checks still don't go up (after Medicare deductions). But, hey, the nominal amounts won't drop. Smoke and mirrors.

Hi Hank, I don't know what M* page you were copying from as far as the RSIVX credit quality breakdown goes, but here are the figures from the page that's on the site now, with data as of 9/30.
In round #s, all of the A categories (AAA-AA-A) = 3%, BBB = 21%, BB = 3%, B = 51%, < B = 14%, NR = 9%. The average quality per M* is B, which is what D. Sherman said it would be at the launch of the fund.
So overall, it's ~ 24% IG (with most of that at the lower end of IG), 68% non-IG, and 9% unrated.

@claimui, I certainly agree with you the deep value can be very volatile and gut-wrenching and I think that has something to do with why there's a value and a small cap premium. In my case, I think allocating a portion of my portfolio where I can live with that volatility and potentially extended poor returns is a reasonable attempt to collect those premiums. My guess would be, although I haven't studied it, that a passive fund like Vanguard's Small Value Index fund suffers from what David mentioned in his review of TDVFX, meaning that they fail to capture the value premium. I don't completely believe in M*'s version of value vs. growth in terms of where funds fall in their style box, but out of the 3 funds TDVFX is furthest into value territory while Vanguard's is in the upper right hand corner of the small value box. Pinnacle is obviously very small but not as far left on the value spectrum. I wonder if that's caused in part by their large cash stake?
Like you, I think PVFIX is a reasonably compelling fund and like you I'm not fond of the big cash position. It feels to me like they become market timers and we know how that usually works out. David Iben had an interesting chart in his quarterly conference call for KGGAX that he used to make a point about valuation vs. timing. It showed, in more detail than I'll mention, if he buys a business that's worth twice as much as he buys it for and it takes 10 years for the market to recognize the true worth of the company, he still makes 7% annually on the investment. If he buys a company that's worth 5 times as much as he pays then he makes 17% annually even if it takes 10 years for the company's value to be recognized.
His point was that if he gets the valuation right then whether he's early or not is far less important, part of which is because he thinks 10 years would be an unusually long time for the market to overlook the company's value and part of which is because he's been early for the last 2 years.
It seems like value generally has had a pretty rough ride of it for a while now so hopefully the fun times when value does really well aren't too far off in the future.