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: (This is a follow-up article) (Click On Article Title At Top Og Google Search)
Bank of New York Mellon Corp. said Monday morning that it had finished working through a backlog of mutual and exchange-traded fund-pricing issues before the market opened, ending a weeklong struggle by the company to provide accurate asset values to about 1,200 funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=BNY+Catches+Up+With+Pricing+Backlog+wsj

@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.

We tend to look at YTD because it's a convenient and fairly common starting point for comparing numbers within a defined period of time. But we tend to forget that as far as the universe is concerned, there's nothing magical or even particularly significant about Jan 1. We might just as well arbitrarily start our comparison period on April 1... in fact, that might actually make more sense given the foolishness of the financial arena.
There's probably a psychological factor there too- it makes it less painful to mentally write off a bad YTD as just a lousy single year, while we remember the good ones (and next year is sure to be better. Maybe.). Skeet is right about looking at the longer view.

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.)

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

"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.

Checking the chart since inception ~2 years ago - it survived two dips much better than the S&P, one dip was almost (but not quite) as bad, yet overall returns over the past two years are 1% vs 20% for the S&P. That's a bit lousy, hedge fund or no, especially considering the ER.
So for those of you who hold it - or have held it - are you happy with your investment?

Although it took about a week to get fixed ... as of Monday (8/31) evening my VOYA funds were being reported correctly in both Yahoo Finance Portfolio and Morningstar Portfolio Manager.

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

We've seen this before: Bridgeway Large Cap Value fund reorganized into American Beacon Bridgeway Large Cap Value Fund (MFO thread).
Apparently my speculation in that thread - that the first fund move was a one-off - was wrong. Still, it's just the large cap Bridgeway funds moving to American Beacon, and as I wrote there, one can see a certain logic in these moves (marketing large cap funds more widely).
But how does this fit in with American Beacon recent shutdown of a bevy of smaller funds? American Beacon Funds to liquidate several funds (MFO thread)? Hard to figure out AB's game plan.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
WSJ Slant:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/markets-end-turbulent-month-lower-1441009465
Bloomberg Slant:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-30/u-s-stock-index-futures-slide-with-volatility-set-to-continue
Reuters Slant:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/31/us-markets-stocks-usa-idUSKCN0R011O20150831
MarketWatch Slant:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-street-braces-for-losses-as-dow-futures-fall-1-2015-08-31/print
WSJ Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
Current Futures: (Negative)
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

My other TRPrice funds do not/did not use a logarithmic scale - if that's what TRPrice used for their Latin America fund. [*]
They used increments that were uniform and regular. Somebody - at least internally - should receive a spanking here, IMHO.
[*] For example - TRP New Era's vertical axis has [10K, 20K, 30K, 40K, 50K, 60K] values on its vertical axis.

"Have an old 401k I have been wanting to rollover. Do you have a retirement account with them by any chance? What is your experience?"
@VintageFreak- No, sorry, just non-sheltered stuff with them. @JohnChisum might, though. I know that he has a number of their funds.

Ten years ago (late 2005) the new manager for Giftrust (who had been appointed early 2004) raised Giftrust's performance (12 month period) to 8th best out of 240 growth funds (as ranked by Bloomberg).
From the time Giftrust started to the time it removed its restrictions on new money (2011), there were 119 rolling 18 year periods (the longer of the lock up periods for the fund). Of these, 70 had double digit annualized returns. For the final five years before "opening up" (2006-2011), the fund ranked in the top 2% of large growth funds (M*).
WSJ, Nov. 7, 2011 Goodbye to Giftrust, a Rare Rund That Locked In Its Holders
So American Century may have done people a favor ten years ago when didn't let them out. The idea of a lockup (to manage cash flows as with hedge funds) is to keep cash flows stable. You don't need a lockup when a fund is doing well; you need it through lean times.
The WSJ columnist opined in that 2011 column: "The strategy mostly has paid off for investors." In 2012 he said unambiguously that "Ultimately, [the lockup] strategy paid off; the fund suffered some rough short-term patches, but was consistently above average when viewed through a long-term lens."
Yet when the fund had hit one of those patches in 2004 he called the fund a stupid investment of the week for the second time, noting that "it takes a rare investment to earn the distinction twice".
That was Chuck Jaffe, who often has some interesting thoughts, but just as often blows with the wind. Which is the point. The wind happened to be blowing cold ten years ago.
For the record, I think the idea was oversold, but that was started in 1983. The lockups were agreed to by the investors years before 2005; ten years ago they did not suddenly become "pacts with the devil".
I have my own gripes with AC concerning their herky jerky migation to being a load family. 1996, 2001, and other changes I can't find now. But that doesn't deter me from looking at their funds so long as I can get no load, inexpensive shares.