I hold it too, I am going to give it time, considering its record prior to this year. I was in WAGTX and it had become inconsistent, primarily on the fact that so many managing the fund had abandoned ship in 2012 to go over to Grandeur Park and I felt its best days were behind them. That is when I switched to IWIRX. One bad year does not make me run, especially since the year isn't over yet, as any fan of Yogi knows :)

Not sure if the above was actually true? Obviously they would've researched some of the companies in the World Innovators portfolio, but none of the GP guys were actually PMs on the strategy... I don't think?

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/880859/000119312515263450/d66532d497.htm
497 1 d66532d497.htm 497
IGR-STATSUP-1 072715
Statutory Prospectus Supplement dated July 27, 2015
The purpose of this mailing is to provide you with changes to the current Statutory Prospectus for Class A, B, C, R and Y shares of the Fund listed below:
Invesco International Growth Fund
The Fund will close to new investors, other than in the circumstances outlined below, effective the open of business on October 1, 2015.
The following sentence is added on the front cover of the Prospectus:
“As of the open of business on October 1, 2015, the Fund will limit public sales of its shares to certain investors.”
The following information is added under the heading “Other Information”:
“Limited Fund Offering
Effective as of the open of business on October 1, 2015, the Fund will close to new investors. Investors should note that the Fund reserves the right to refuse any order that might disrupt the efficient management of the Fund.
Investors who are invested in the Fund on September 30, 2015, may continue to make additional purchases in their accounts.
Any retirement plan may continue to make additional purchases of Fund shares and may add new accounts at the plan level that may purchase Fund shares if the retirement plan had invested in the Fund as of September 30, 2015. Any brokerage firm wrap program may continue to make additional purchases of Fund shares and may add new accounts at the program level that may purchase Fund shares if the brokerage firm wrap program had invested in the Fund as of September 30, 2015. All retirement plans and brokerage firm wrap programs that have approved the Fund as an investment option as of September 30, 2015, but that had not opened an account in the Fund as of that date, may open an account and make purchases of Fund shares, provided that the retirement plan or the brokerage firm wrap program opens its initial account with the Fund prior to March 31, 2016.
The Fund may resume sale of shares to new investors on a future date if the Adviser determines it is appropriate.”
IGR-STATSUP-1 072715
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIMF-STATSUP-1 072715
Statutory Prospectus Supplement dated July 27, 2015
The purpose of this mailing is to provide you with changes to the current Statutory Prospectuses for R5 and R6 shares, as applicable, of the Funds listed below:
Invesco Global Growth Fund
Invesco Global Opportunities Fund
Invesco Global Small & Mid Cap Growth Fund
Invesco International Core Equity Fund
Invesco International Growth Fund
Invesco Select Opportunities Fund
Invesco International Growth Fund will close to new investors, other than in the circumstances outlined below, effective the open of business on October 1, 2015.
The following sentence is added on the front cover of the Prospectus:
“As of the open of business on October 1, 2015, Invesco International Growth Fund will limit public sales of its shares to certain investors.”
The following information is added under the heading “Other Information”:
“Limited Fund Offering (Invesco International Growth Fund)
Effective as of the open of business on October 1, 2015, Invesco International Growth Fund will close to new investors. Investors should note that the Fund reserves the right to refuse any order that might disrupt the efficient management of the Fund.
Investors who are invested in the Fund on September 30, 2015, may continue to make additional purchases in their accounts.
Any retirement plan may continue to make additional purchases of Fund shares and may add new accounts at the plan level that may purchase Fund shares if the retirement plan had invested in the Fund as of September 30, 2015. Any brokerage firm wrap program may continue to make additional purchases of Fund shares and may add new accounts at the program level that may purchase Fund shares if the brokerage firm wrap program had invested in the Fund as of September 30, 2015. All retirement plans and brokerage firm wrap programs that have approved the Fund as an investment option as of September 30, 2015, but that had not opened an account in the Fund as of that date, may open an account and make purchases of Fund shares, provided that the retirement plan or the brokerage firm wrap program opens its initial account with the Fund prior to March 31, 2016.
The Fund may resume sale of shares to new investors on a future date if the Adviser determines it is appropriate.”
AIMF-STATSUP-1 072715

The 14% turnover ratio does not jibe with the updated list of holdings, so some explanation from the PMs would be nice.

For what it's worth, here is Trump's actual filing with the FEC disclosing his assets and income starting on page 12: images.businessweek.com/cms/2015-07-22/7-22-15-Report.pdf
The real portfolio is his real estate one.

FYI: (This is a follow-up article) As with the first discussion on Trump, please keep any comments on his investing not his politics.
He doesn’t diversify, as all of his mutual fund holdings are from one company
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-fails-the-fiscal-responsibility-test-in-his-fund-picks-2015-07-27/print

Hi old skeet. Your system is perfect for you. Not questioning anyone's system really. I was just looking at a way to test the manager diversification theory.
My own opinion is using multiple funds and management styles in a category isn't going to do any better than holding an index fund. I believe for different reasons, management diversification will do worst.
Are you willing to test my theory? I could be totally wrong that manager diversification retards return.
Take all your positions in your small cap fund sleeve (or large cap holdings if you prefer) and average their 3 or 5 year returns. Then take the average of the corresponding index and the fund you would keep if you could only keep one (50:50 weighting for simplicity). Is the average of your 4+ funds better or worst then 'index plus 1 favorite', or even better then the index itself?
I agree, comfort may out weight returns. Just curious about how this manager diversification effects total return for people here at MFO.

Hi @ heezsafe ...
Thank you for your question(s). And, to satisfy you, and others, that I have an awarness of the cost and fee structure I have choosen to respond to your question number one concerning expense ratio for the overall portfolio. I simply don't have the time to respond to your remaining questions.
The average mutual fund expense ratio on the portfolio as a whole is 0.89% while a similarly weighted hypothetical portfolio, according to Morningstar, is 1.27%. This can also be determined by each sleeve as a whole and for each fund held within its sleeve as well as the portfolio as a whole.
An advanced verson of an Instant Xray report provides answers to most of your remaining question. I believe, if you would like this information on your own portfolio you might visit your own neighborhood investment advisor. And, ask for a portfolio review. Some brokerage houses offer this as a free service while others may charge for it. So you might wish to call around and inquire about this to see if they are willing to do this for you if you are not one of their full service clients.
Make your phone calls and I am sure you will find an office that will provide you with a portfolio review and report details you are seeking to know about. Again, some may do it for a fee while some may do it in hopes you will become a client and/or in good client service of your account if you are one of their "valued" clients.
Seems to me ... the fiddler has now played.
Old_Skeet

Hello, MONDAY! And may you live in interesting times....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-27/chinese-stock-index-futures-drop-before-industrial-profits

Both the CSI300 and Shanghai Composite ended up down over 8% today: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/27/us-markets-china-stocks-idUSKCN0Q10KE20150727

@Old_Skeet
(1) What was the expense ratio of your composite MF portfolio for 2014?
(2) Since the SEC now requires funds to include a separate statistic that includes all expenses paid by fund shareholders in their fund offering literature (this figure includes transaction costs, acquired fees, trading commissions, etc), what would that figure have been for your composite MF portfolio in 2014?
(3) For all your MFs not in tax-sheltered locations, what percentage of the total return of those funds was relinquished to the taxman? For half of those funds, if you had been invested instead in an index fund (say, an index fund used as a benchmark for any of these funds' performance), would your net (after-tax) returns have been higher, about the same, or lower?
"Just curious." I'm speculating you haven't any idea what the answers would be to any of these questions. And, if that is the case, ... then why is that the case? [expenses.... fiddle-dee-dee?]
@MikeM You are not alone--- I started doing what you're suggesting about 5 years ago and probably should have started 10 yrs ago. It takes awhile (still a work in progress for me). The thing I've come to most like about it is that it gives you "another kind" of choice when rebalancing (or, if you get an unexpected gain in an individual stock and decide to realize it, you can "diversify down" the risk of reinvesting the gain by sprinkling some of it into an MF index fund with the same, or different, mkt cap). I dunno, does that rationale make sense? SleepyTime, and my explainer module power is on the wane.

I generally don't discuss funds I've owned, but it's worth making an exception here, because this was a holding I went into with eyes wide open - taking a flyer despite knowing all the strikes against it.
PBHG Emerging Growth (PBEGX). Managed by Christine Baxter, the 25 year old daughter of the fund family's co-founder (Harold Baxter); a fund family focused on momentum investing (guaranteed to crash and burn at some point) - sort of like Janus on steroids if that was possible; and a fund family just as caught up in the 2003-4 fund scandals as was Janus.
As this M* column notes, PBHG wasn't well staffed with analysts and had high management turnover including Baxter, who stepped down at the end of 1999 after erratic and underwhelming performance (relatively speaking).
At least I sold it in early 1999 - on an absolute basis, the fund did great; on a relative basis it underperformed by more than 10%/year for several years (see link on Baxter stepping down).
Some people go to Vegas; I decided to spend my play money this way.

Hi @ MikeM,
Each of us have to run with what works best for each one of us.
I have my portfolio as a whole benchmarked against the Lipper Balanced Index and overall have out performed it through utilization of my sleeve management system which I have posted many times before and below again for those interested. And, yes ... I have most of the sleeves benchmarked against a standard and entered into Morningstar's Portfolio Manager as a portfolio by themselves. With this, I can check each sleeve along with the funds held within the sleeve for their daily performance, weekly performance, monthly performance, quarterly performance, year-to-date performance, one, three, five and ten years returns against a chosen benchmark the exception being the specialty sleeve which has no benchmark.
In addition, the use of special investment positions (SPIFFS), form time-to-time, have been a positive contributor to the portfolio's overall performance.
Old_Skeet's Sleeve Management System (06/26/2015)
Here is a brief description of my sleeve system which I organized to help better manage the investments that were held in five accounts. The accounts consist of a taxable account, a self directed ira account, a 401k account, a profit sharing account and a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves … an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consists of two sleeves. … a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves … a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. An finally there is the growth area, where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of four sleeves … a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve and a specialty sleeve. Each sleeve consists of three to six funds (in most cases) with the size and the weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds and the amounts held. By using the sleeve system one can get a better picture of their overall investment picture and weightings by sleeve and area. In addition, I have found it beneficial to xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole monthly. Again, weightings can be adjusted form time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets and wish to weight accordingly. All funds pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio with the exception being those in my 401k, profit sharing, and health savings accounts where reinvestment occurs. With the other accounts paying to the cash area builds the cash area of the portfolio to meet the portfolio’s monthly cash disbursement with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. In addition, most all buy/sell trades settle to the cash area with some nav exchanges taking place.
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My neutral targets are cash 15%, income 30%, growth & income 35%, and growth 20%. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio monthly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc.
Cash Area (Weighting Range 5% to 25%)
Demand Cash Sleeve… (Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual)
Investment Cash Sleeve … (Savings & Time Deposits)
Income Area (Weighting Range 20% to 40%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: GIFAX, LALDX, THIFX, LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: AZNAX, CAPAX, FKINX, ISFAX, PASAX & PGBAX
Growth & Income Area (Weighting Range 25% to 45%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX, EADIX & PGUAX
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, IGPAX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, CFLGX, FDSAX, INUTX, NBHAX, SPQAX & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, DDIAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area (Weighting Range 10% to 30%)
Global Sleeve: AJVAX, ANWPX, NEWFX, PGROX, THOAX & THDAX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, BWLAX, HWAAX, IACLX, SPECX & VADAX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: IIVAX, PCVAX & PMDAX
Specialty Sleeve: CCMAX, LPEFX, SGGDX & TOLLX
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

Hi guys!
These are areas I do not have very much money invested. I cut the number of funds I want to expand the areas I'm in so.....what say you about these or others in the space? Have never had Blair. In '13, I had the Glenmede Small Cap (since sold) and Large Cap Fund (again, since sold), so I know a little about them.
the Pudd

That was also nearly 11 years ago... Liquidity in these markets is much different today.

As are the number of golden geese Wasatch has left :)

Something seems fundamentally wrong at WBMAX. How the heck does it close down Friday? Down -14.% YTD.

In another post talking about ARIVX, PressmUp brought in the concept of having multiple funds in the same category (or bucket or sleeve) to diversify management mishaps. Basically if one manager is having an off year another might be compensating with a good year. I know a lot of people here follow this concept and I understand the principle. My counter to this argument is that an index will give the same result of management diversification and the same or better returns over time. My own personal attempt at investing is to mix one favorite fund/manager in a category with the corresponding index. Hopefully a little alpha to outperform the index but even here I could be kidding myself. Of course this alpha fund has to have a system or process or be unique enoughto give alpha.
Just playing around, I used the 2 funds PressmUp mentioned and compared return to the one alpha fund plus index idea. Because all the funds mentioned were fairly new it is a very limited comparison. I took the funds in equal ratios, 50:50 since there were only 2 funds to play with. VVPSX and SCMFX were the funds PressmUp uses and I use 1 fund, GPGOX in the SCap space. I only took the last 3 1/2 years to compare all over an equal time frame.
50:50 mix of:
VVPSX + SCMFX averaged 16% / year from 2012 to 2015 YTD
VVPSX + Russ2000 index avg 17%
SCMFX + Russ2000 index avg 15%
GPGOX + Russ2000 index avg 17%
Russ2000 index alone avg 16%
All examples pretty close in return I would say. I also know my statistics are flawed in that I used 2015 with the same weight in the average as the other full years. But for quick and dirty comparison it works.
Now I'm more curious about people who have 3 or 4 or more funds in a category. Have you stopped to make sure that your manager diversification scheme actually benefits your return?
Are you willing to test your multiple fund selection?
For people with multiple funds in a category, would you be willing to make this comparison for information purposes? If you averaged your 3 or 4 or 5 small cap funds for example (any category really) and compare that to what you think is your favorite fund (if you had to pick just 1) plus the index, which method gives greater return? I'd be very curious to hear.

Just took a peek at the 6/30/15 top holdings for the fund, it looks dramatically different than the previous quarter.
http://www.gafunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/global_innovators_fund_fs.pdf
The annual report should be out shortly, should be interesting.

John, I'm sorry I can't give you an informed response since I hold what I consider to be the best funds for my age (81) and objectives. While I don't think they are overpriced, they were my best holdings for past year and no intension of selling.

related - bumpy road ahead for Chinese market
http://www.scmp.com/business/markets/article/1843772/bumpy-road-ahead-chinese-shares