Best wishes to all who applied for and received an allocation.
While I was also initially very interested in the fund, I ultimately decided to stay with GPROX which accounts for around 18% of our portfolio; and I did not want to open an account outside our online brokerage.
Again, best wishes and I hope you all make me look bad. :)
ps - David, most people probably do not realize that WAMVX has a better three year average return than all the GP funds.

Partial shares.

I hope they start 2 for the price of 1 sales and Thanksgiving free turkey farm stock.
I want some of that $25 B-H stock. Is that partial shares or do I have to add my own money to buy the gift?

I hope they start 2 for the price of 1 sales and Thanksgiving free turkey farm stock.
I want some of that $25 B-H stock. Is that partial shares or do I have to add my own money to buy the gift?

Scott....good point which I hadn't considered. They could make nice "stocking stuffers" for Christmas.

Exactly, and there's actually a very nice selection of stocks, including things like Liberty Media (LMCA).
Plus, in terms of stocking stuffers:
"What if the recipient is under 18?
Kids and teens can own stock by having an adult on the account with them. This kind of account is called a custodial account. The minor (referred to as the beneficiary) owns the stock, while the adult (the custodian) has legal responsibility over the account until the minor turns 18.
The minor can receive his own log-in credentials (separate from the adult’s) so he can see how his stocks are doing anytime on his own. In addition, young people can place stock trades with the adult’s consent. For example, if a 15 year old wants to buy $20 of Facebook stock, he sets up the transaction, which is routed by email to mom for approval. If mom approves, an order to purchase $20 of Facebook stock is placed and executes. Otherwise, no order is placed."

I don't think they're differentiating between an individual that's part of an institutional group and an individual that's not. Based on what they've said I think each "individual" is equally limited. I also think with only $25 million in assets, limits in the low 5 digits and not being able to add more than $6K each year, most institutions of any size just aren't going to bother. I'm sure there were people asking for an allocation of $100K and I'm wondering a little what they decide to do when they get told they can invest $25K, or whatever the limit was, and they can add $6K each year. Maybe I'm wrong but I could imagine some of them just deciding not to buy anything because it's just too small for their situation.

@briboe69, they said in the email that the limit was consistent so in theory all you need to find is one person who got less than they asked for and you should know the max. I also think they said they wanted to make sure everyone who expressed interest got an allocation. I asked for less than Ben and also got what I asked for. I have to imagine they have at least 1500 people interested and likely a good deal more to have received requests for $85 million. I think if everyone who expressed interest made a maximum request the limit would be roughly $30K. Assuming there were a lot of people, like those who have commented here, who requested much less than that, I think the limit had to be lower in order to give everyone an allocation.

Happy shopping, everyone.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/are-you-ready-to-buy-stocks-at-your-grocery-store-1444728780

Plenty of time. You have until the end of the month to get your purchase instructions in. I asked for and got 10k.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/889188/000119312515341955/d35003d497.htm
497 1 d35003d497.htm 497 FOR FORWARD FUNDS
FORWARD FUNDS
Supplement dated October 13, 2015
to the
Summary Prospectus for Investor Class and Institutional Class Shares of the Forward Global Dividend Fund,
Summary Prospectus for Class A and Class C Shares of the Forward Global Dividend Fund,
Forward Funds Investor Class and Institutional Class Prospectus, Forward Funds Class A, Class B,
Class C and Advisor Class Prospectus, and Forward Funds Statement of Additional Information
each dated May 1, 2015, as supplemented
NOTICE OF LIQUIDATION OF FORWARD GLOBAL DIVIDEND FUND
On September 22, 2015, the Board of Trustees of Forward Funds (the “Trust”), including all of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trust (as that term is defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended), approved the liquidation of the Forward Global Dividend Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust. The Fund will be liquidated pursuant to a Board-approved Plan of Liquidation on or around November 17, 2015 (the “Liquidation Date”). On the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute pro rata to its respective shareholders of record all of the assets of the Fund in complete cancellation and redemption of all of the outstanding shares of beneficial interest, except for cash, bank deposits or cash equivalents in an estimated amount necessary to (i) discharge any unpaid liabilities and obligations of the Fund on the Fund’s books on the Liquidation Date, including, but not limited to, income dividends and capital gains distributions, if any, payable through the Liquidation Date, and (ii) pay such contingent liabilities as the officers of the Trust deem appropriate.
IN LIGHT OF THE PLANNED LIQUIDATION, SHARES OF THE FORWARD GLOBAL DIVIDEND FUND WILL NO LONGER BE OFFERED TO NEW INVESTORS OR EXISTING INVESTORS (EXCEPT THROUGH REINVESTED DIVIDENDS) OR BE AVAILABLE FOR EXCHANGES FROM OTHER FUNDS OF THE TRUST.
****
PLEASE KEEP THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
SUPP GLB DIV LIQ 10132015

Also, watch-out for your kid's "Barbie" when discussing family finances.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/03/11/privacy-advocates-try-to-keep-creepy-eavesdropping-hello-barbie-from-hitting-shelves/
"Kids using 'Hello Barbie' aren't only talking to a doll, they are talking directly to a toy conglomerate whose only interest in them is financial," Susan Linn, the group's director, said in a statement. "It's creepy - and creates a host of dangers for children and families."
--
"Honey - Give me that password for our bank account one more time!" :)

Kevin, I've looked at AQR funds for some time and you certainly cant argue with the performance numbers. What are your thoughts though on QMNIX which has delivered an 18% return over the past year? Can that really be market neutral? Or said an another way, would an investor have to be willing to accept an 18% decline in such a fund, which would be unacceptable in the market neutral space? Rarely is there a free lunch, but sometimes there is. I recall when Gundlach started Doubleline many said his "secret sauce" would be uncovered (if there was one) yet he has continued to deliver.

mine was in my email this morning...looks like the only option will be to open another account at GP. Will think about this during my 12 hour drive home today.
To those who already have assets at GP...do they allow AIP on hard-closed funds like GPGOX and GPIOX? If I decide to open an account there, I figure I may as well move all my GP funds and start an AIP. Thanks for the input!

I got my allocation at about 2 in the morning.
Looks like the close isn't 100% hard: you can set up an Automatic Investment Plan and add $500 / month to a maximum of $6000 / year.
I generally don't do AIP, since I work freelance and earn my money in irregular bursts, but it seems that will be the only option here, and I wonder if they'll close off that too at some point.

In the alternative and L/S space, I continue to like QLEIX and QMNIX, and we own the latter.
CHART
Kevin

The decision was actually closer to Gundlach $67M, TCW $433M.
Gundlach had made a claim for $500M based on a personal oral five year service contract. (I'm wondering how his lawyers argued that the statute of frauds, that requires contracts to be in writing for any service that must take more than a year, did not apply.)
In any case, the court awarded Gundlach back wages, which is what one would expect in most jurisdictions, and certainly in employee-friendly California. It did not award him any bonuses under an unsigned, unenforceable agreement. Here's TCW's one page letter, along with a Bloomberg summary:
http://www.cfrs-ca.org/Events/Documents/Inv/11Sept27_Inv/C6.pdf
In contrast, Gross seems to be relying upon a generic company agreement, not one personal to him. That agreement says explicitly that if you're not around until the end of the period to get your bonus, you lose. Gross' argument is that, well, the company has been generous to others (giving them bonuses even when they left early), so it has a legal obligation to give him a gift also. The Gundlach court didn't seem to think that bonuses/performance fees are part of wages that are protected by state law.
Gundlach had nothing in writing. The article cited in the original post said pretty much the same thing about Gross - he'll lose also if he can't show something more in writing.

I've looked for 'the holy grail' for some time -- a hedged or l/s fund that RELIABLY will deliver positive returns, I've not had much success OTHER than the Boston Partners funds (which I've no access to, as they are closed to new investors).
Other than that, I would actually 'second' wxman's reco re Wellesley. While its not marketed as an alternative strategy, the combination of its target bond/equity allocation, value/income tilt, ultra-low expenses make it's performance behave like a hedged strategy vehicle. --- I recommend you IGNORE for a moment its M* category, and simply compare its raw trailing & annual returns. -- They compare VERY FAVORABLY as a 'hedged vehicle' vis-a-vis most 'alternative funds'. Even more convincing: Wellesley has a historical track record which includes many market cycles. --- Contrast that with the relative new vintage of most alternative funds. Wellesley has proven itself, that cannot be said about most alternative funds. -- Compare COAGX's trailing returns > 1 year to VWIAX to see what I mean.
Lastly, whatever the theoretical efficacy of some of the alternative strategies, in most cases, E/R -- which strike me as very high vs conventional funds (and certainly vs Wellesley!) seem to end up devouring a lot of the returns, delivering "meh" returns over extended periods (where they even exist).
Wellesley -- its the "secret hedged-equity" vehicle. But that is strictly on the hush-hush.

This really strikes home for me. I was at a small startup that never had a shareholder meeting or board election since the day it incorporated. After several years of this, a majority of shareholders (in both numbers of bodies and more importantly, shares) removed and replaced the board. The company CEO then asserted he'd been constructively terminated and made all sorts of pronouncements.
I'm hesitant to post more. Suffice to say, and with thanks to Yogi, it's déjà vu all over again.
IMHO the article is correct. Generally (in the absence of an employment contract to the contrary) a company is free to fire an employee for anything except what legislatures and courts have deemed against public policy ("bad reasons") - like your race or religion. California is likely the best place in the US to work as an employee, as it gives employees great protection.
So it will be interesting to see if Gross can make his argument that firing was to avoid a bonus payment fly. It would seem he needs to show that this money really was a substantial reason for his termination, and that (in California) this would constitute a "bad reason".

@LLJB
The other global micro cap fund is ALPS | Metis Global Micro Cap Fund with A, C, and I classes.
Prospectus link: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834415004432/fp0015045_485bpos.htm
I just called GP. The CSR indicated we should probably receive an email sometime today concerning everyone's allotment.

As I am sure this will be on many people's minds, here is the statement from the indication of interest form:

We plan to notify submitters of their allocation around October 12, 2015.

I'm thinking that "around" is the operative word.
But I guess you could call Mark Siddoway. (smile)

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
Lawyers say firm founder's written contract — or lack of one — could be the key
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20151010/FREE/151019999?template=printart