I have used QUSIX and QUSOX since David wrote a nice article about it in 2015. It has beaten the index overall, although it is more volatile and is in about the top 1/3 of int small cap value funds per M*
MFO classifies it as "Int Small cap core" so it doesn't show up on a "int small/mid cap value screen"
It has been lagging a bit recently. I have not dug into the reasons why

Recent discussions on MFO on EM funds ex-China have set me on a search for a slightly different niche, namely small capitalization emerging market value stock funds. I have linked a SeekingAlpha article from 2020 on the subject as well as a page from LSV, the managers of several value MF’s. They have a SCV EM strategy, but no mutual fund.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4325359-case-for-emerging-markets-small-cap-value
https://www.lsvasset.com/emerging-markets-small-value/
The two funds I own that have considerable EM exposure are SFVLX and EYLD. The former is an all-cap fund, with a decided international value methodology, while the latter is the real McCoy. EYLD does not avoid China and it has an array of holdings not easily recognizable, at least to me. Those who are familiar with Meb Faber at Cambria will not be surprised to see that stock selection in EYLD follows his basic tenets regarding free cash flow and profitability. His largest fund is SYLD, a worthy rival to COWZ on the domestic front. His FYLD does a decent job with international stocks, as well.
MSCI runs an EM SCV index and I’m in search of funds that follow it, specifically the value orientation. EEMS and DGS come up on SC EM searches, but they aren’t quite what I hope to find. Grandeur Peak might fit the bill, but they seem like a growth shop to me. Please post any suggestions you have for this market segment.

If you are a baseball fan you know the term small ball. If not, it means trying to score runs without hitting a home run. I have been tracking money market and brokered CD’s at Schwab. In the last month the steady rise of MM fund rates has ground to a halt while brokered CD rates have moved up,,,even moving out from the shortest terms.
MM SWVXX. FEB 8. 4.41%. Today 4.48%
12 month CD. 4.75%. 5.25%
24 month CD. 4.55%. 5.25%
36 month CD. 4.25%. 5.00%
My question for those with greater insights than I. Does this relative increase in intermediate term and a flattening of the shortest term(Money Market) rates have any meaning going forward?

With possibly one exception, we're in vehement agreement.
I don't see this as a Santos level of deception
What Artisan wrote is obviously not at that level. I thought I made that clear in writing:"Artisan is embellishing; Santos was (and is) lying." Even if Artisan is lying, it's minor.
Therein lies the one possible difference in how we view this. You have carefully used the word "deception". I'm willing to opine that Artisan saying that Samra was an Oakmark manager is a lie.
As evidence of knowing falsehood I point to the Artisan legal filings where Artisan takes care to describe Samra as a former analyst for Oakmark. When someone says one thing to the public and another in legal documents (SEC filings, depositions, etc.), it's likely they know what is true and what is puffing.
Not a grand deception, but a deception nonetheless. What's the benefit? Which sounds more impressive to retail investors - that your manager came over to Artisan with previous management experience, or that he just has prior investment experience? I can turn your question around. If there's no benefit to this deception, if in fact it is nothing but a purely innocent mistake, then why hasn't Artisan corrected it?
It's not worth my time to check whether this, um, misstatement goes all the way back to 2002 when Samra jointed Artisan and it might have been more helpful to Artisan. However, supporting my speculation that mentioning Samra's history at Harris Associates (accurate or not) had more value before Samra developed a long track record with Artisan is the fact that his Harris history is included in earlier Artisan prospectuses (e.g. this 2006 prospectus), but not in the more recent ones (post 2011).

Thanks @rsorden
Here’s what I came up with for FRDM (top 10 countries by investment)
Taiwan 22.14%
Chile 18.87%
South Korea 18.12%
Poland 13.40%
South Africa 5.89%
Brazil 5.54%
Malaysia 4.92%
Indonesia 4.88%
Mexico 3.46%
Philippines 2.31%
Source
For comparison, the same source lists 27% of DODEX invested in China - which I understand is a source of consternation for many. I’d say it depends on the size and role of an EM fund in your portfolio. My EM exposure is very small - a “long-shot” consisting of 1-2% of total holdings. So if my EM fund held 27% China, it wouldn’t constitute a very large commitment.
Great topic. Thanks for all the insights.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799295/000172967823000013/prosai-stkr6919_0323.htm
497 1 prosai-stkr6919_0323.htm SUPPLEMENT TO PROSPECTUS AND SAI
March 8, 2023
BNY Mellon Investment Funds I
-BNY Mellon Diversified Emerging Markets Fund
Supplement to Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
The Board of Trustees of BNY Mellon Investment Funds I (the "Trust") has approved the liquidation of BNY Mellon Diversified Emerging Markets Fund (the "Fund"), a series of the Trust, effective on or about May 12, 2023 (the "Liquidation Date"). Before the Liquidation Date, and at the discretion of Fund management, the Fund's portfolio securities will be sold and shares held of underlying funds will be redeemed, and the Fund may cease to pursue its investment objective and policies. The liquidation of the Fund may result in one or more taxable events for shareholders subject to federal income tax.
Accordingly, effective on or about April 11, 2023 (the "Closing Date"), the Fund will be closed to any investments for new accounts, except that new accounts may be established by participants in group retirement plans if the Fund is established as an investment option under the plans before the Closing Date. The Fund will continue to accept subsequent investments until the Liquidation Date, except that subsequent investments made by check or pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder no longer will be accepted after May 2, 2023. However, subsequent investments by Individual Retirement Accounts and retirement plans sponsored by BNY Mellon Investment Adviser, Inc. or its affiliates (together, "BNYM Adviser Retirement Plans") pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder (but not by check) will be accepted after May 2, 2023.
Effective on the Closing Date, the front-end sales load applicable to purchases of the Fund's Class A shares will be waived on investments made in the Fund's Class A shares. In addition, as of that date, the contingent deferred sales charge ("CDSC") applicable to redemptions of Class C shares and Class A shares of the Fund will be waived on any redemption of such Fund shares.
To the extent subsequent investments are made in the Fund on or after the Closing Date, the Fund's distributor will not compensate financial institutions (which may include banks, securities dealers and other industry professionals) for selling Class C shares or Class A shares subject to a CDSC at the time of purchase.
Fund shares held on the Liquidation Date in BNYM Adviser Retirement Plans will be exchanged for Wealth shares of Dreyfus Government Cash Management ("DGCM"). Investors may obtain a copy of the Prospectus of DGCM by calling 1-800-373-9387.
6919STK0323

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1591556/000159155623000015/stk62530323.htm
497 1 stk62530323.htm SUPPLEMENT TO PROSPECTUS AND SAI
March 8, 2023
BNY Mellon Investment Funds II, Inc.
- BNY Mellon Alternative Diversifier Strategies Fund
Supplement to Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
The Board of Directors of BNY Mellon Investment Funds II, Inc. (the "Company") has approved the liquidation of BNY Mellon Alternative Diversifier Strategies Fund (the "Fund"), a series of the Company, effective on or about May 12, 2023 (the "Liquidation Date"). Before the Liquidation Date, and at the discretion of Fund management, the Fund's portfolio securities will be sold and shares held of underlying funds will be redeemed, and the Fund may cease to pursue its investment objective and policies. The liquidation of the Fund may result in one or more taxable events for shareholders subject to federal income tax.
Accordingly, effective on or about April 11, 2023 (the "Closing Date"), the Fund will be closed to any investments for new accounts, except that new accounts may be established by participants in group retirement plans if the Fund is established as an investment option under the plans before the Closing Date. The Fund will continue to accept subsequent investments until the Liquidation Date, except that subsequent investments made by check or pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder no longer will be accepted after May 2, 2023. However, subsequent investments by Individual Retirement Accounts and retirement plans sponsored by BNY Mellon Investment Adviser, Inc. or its affiliates (together, "BNYM Adviser Retirement Plans") pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder (but not by check) will be accepted after May 2, 2023.
Effective on the Closing Date, the front-end sales load applicable to purchases of the Fund's Class A shares will be waived on investments made in the Fund's Class A shares. In addition, as of that date, the contingent deferred sales charge ("CDSC") applicable to redemptions of Class C shares and Class A shares of the Fund will be waived on any redemption of such Fund shares.
To the extent subsequent investments are made in the Fund on or after the Closing Date, the Fund's distributor will not compensate financial institutions (which may include banks, securities dealers and other industry professionals) for selling Class C shares or Class A shares subject to a CDSC at the time of purchase.
Fund shares held on the Liquidation Date in BNYM Adviser Retirement Plans will be exchanged for Wealth shares of Dreyfus Government Cash Management ("DGCM"). Investors may obtain a copy of the Prospectus of DGCM by calling 1-800-373-9387.
6253STK0323

Being able to do a partial transfer/rollover of an account with 72(t) distribtutions is nice, but it begs the question why would one want to do that? The usual advice, especially with respect to (employer-sponsored) retirement plans is to do full rollovers.
Jeffrey Levine (Kitches.com) has a nice discussion of many of the SECURE 2.0 Act provisions. He offers a good example of why one might want to do a partial transfer. In short, because there might be an investment opportunity that would lock up the money (e.g. CD). To take advantage of that opportunity while still being able to make the requisite distributions, one retains some of the money in the original account for withdrawals. See Example #5.
https://www.kitces.com/blog/secure-act-2-omnibus-2022-hr-2954-rmd-75-529-roth-rollover-increase-qcd-student-loan-match/
I am a bit confused by the recommendation on Yogi's page. "IRA owners and plan participants should keep 72(t) account balances segregated from other amounts."
ISTM 72(t) accounts must be segregated. 72(t) withdrawal amounts are based on the entire balance of the account being used. And you're not allowed to add money to the account once the withdrawals commence. That appears to originate with RR 2002-62 Section 2.02(e). So there's no commingling at the start of withdrawals, and no commingling after that.
Thus keeping 72(t) account balances segregated seems to be a requirement, not a recommendation. And this has little to do with SECURE 2.0. Prior to that Act, one could not do a full transfer into an existing IRA with a nonzero balance. 2.0 allows partial transfers, but the restriction appears to remain intact - one cannot do a transfer, partial or full, into an existing IRA.
The only effect that 2.0 seems to have on distributions is that while the total amount of the 72(t) distribution must be based on the combined balances of the split account, one is free to make the exact requisite withdrawal amount from any combination of the 72(t) accounts (that resulted from the split). In this respect, the 72(t) calculation and execution is like an RMD calculation and execution done across multiple accounts.

@bee, excellent points.
I have been tracking implications of the new Secure 2.0 for individuals and there are several. This about 72T came to my attention only recently.
The Rule of 55 is also good but, as you noted, it doesn't apply to old 401k/403b. So, one must leave work in the 55-59.5 time window. I have participated in discussions elsewhere about some people hanging on to their old 401k/403b for the benefit of Rule of 55, just in case, but it isn't applicable if one left work before 55.
The best thing to do is to avoid tapping IRAs as much as possible. But people should be familiar with these early withdrawal tricks without the 10% penalty.

I believe there are other IRA penalty free withdrawal provisions worth considering before considering a 72T withdrawal.

You can withdraw funds from your 457(b) plan penalty-free at any age once you leave your employer or retire. You won't owe an early withdrawal penalty even if you are not yet 59 ½, but you will pay federal and state income taxes on the withdrawal.

what-are-the-rules-for-withdrawing-from-a-457b
also,

What Is the Rule of 55?
Under the terms of this rule, you can withdraw funds from your current job’s 401(k) or 403(b) plan with no 10% tax penalty if you leave that job in or after the year you turn 55. (Qualified public safety workers can start even earlier, at 50.) It doesn’t matter whether you were laid off, fired, or just quit.
This rule applies to current – not former – 401(k) or 403(b) plans. The government does not permit penalty-free withdrawals before 59.5 from plans you had with a previous employer. If you want access to that money under the rule of 55, you would have to transfer those funds into your current 401(k) or 403(b) plan.
You won’t have to pay the penalty if you take distributions from a 401(k) early for these reasons:
- You become totally and permanently disabled.
-You pass away and your beneficiary or estate is withdrawing money from the plan.
-You’re taking distributions to pay deductible medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income.
-Distributions are the result of an IRS levy.
-You’re receiving qualified reservist distributions.

401k-403b-55-rule

72T uniform withdrawals allow PENALTY-FREE (but TAXABLE) withdrawals from retirement accounts (IRA, 401k, 403b) before the age of 59.5. However, the rules are COMPLEX to prevent excessive withdrawals & are very RIGID – once started, there couldn’t be any changes & the program must continue for 5 years or to age 59.5, whichever the later (even if there is risk of running out of money, triggering premature termination penalties). A less noted provision of the new SECURE 2.0 allows some flexibility for 72T in making partial transfers and rollovers after 12/31/23.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/249/uniform-withdrawals-retirement-accounts-72t?page=1&scrollTo=964

It’s really hard to listen to these guys when they jump around like this. So we should jump into the SPY for a 2.5% rally?? It’s kind of a silly call.

We're down 1.6 on the SPX right now, so after this 'major crash' I'm sure the pundits are saying it's time to start buying, right? *growls*

There is always risk. The question is are you being rewarded enough for taking it? Unlike Russia, China's economy is so intertwined with ours, it is virtually impossible to avoid completely, even if you want to. Here's one example: https://investopedia.com/articles/investing/040115/reasons-why-china-buys-us-treasury-bonds.asp

China has steadily accumulated U.S. Treasury securities over the last few decades. In August 2022, the Asian nation owned $971.8 billion in Treasurys, roughly 13% of the U.S. national debt. U.S. debt to China comes mainly in the form of U.S. Treasury securities (bonds issued by the federal government).

To me, the idea, pushed by some politicians here, that we can just de-couple from China completely, without dire consequences, is absurd.

I think it is hard to believe that Xi will follow international banking and Finance standards and regulations after seeing what Putin has done to all of above and to accepted moral standards without much adverse consequences. The fact that Russia hasn't collapsed and Putin hasn't been assassinated must be encouraging to Xi. That may be why the new foreign minister ( previously China ambassador to US) came out with such a hard line speech yesterday.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/conflict-china-us-inevitable-new-foreign-minister-warns-rcna73705
They are clearly upping the anti. Some predict Xi will invade Taiwan next year while US is preoccupied by election. He must be very encouraged to hear the right wing of the GOP try to stiff Ukraine.
If this does happen, it will not just be Chinese funds that will crater; all risk assets will crash. TSM will be wiped out, as all of their factories will be rubble.
Somehow I doubt that would make INTC shoot upward. The implications for the world economy would be very very negative; far worse than Covid and far far worse than Ukaine. After an invasion, what other country, especially in Asia, would ever want to do business with China again?
These global implications are why I think it is unlikely China will invade, but they are likely to do almost everything else they think they can get away with. Canceling US ADRs and refusing to allow US funds to be re-patriated would be easy.

It’s really hard to listen to these guys when they jump around like this. So we should jump into the SPY for a 2.5% rally?? It’s kind of a silly call.

"Previous charge" makes it sound like Samra was a fund manager (even if not the lead) on OAKIX. No question about ARTKX doing better than OAKIX, just about what Samra was actually charged with at Harris.
It's true that he worked in Harris' international group, but that's as much responsibility as Sama was charged with. His name doesn't appear in any Oakmark prospectus (based on spot checking) in his Harris years of 1997-2002.
One does find statements that he worked as a portfolio manager at Harris, e.g.

Prior to joining Artisan Partners in May 2002, Mr. Samra was a portfolio manager and a senior analyst in international equities at Harris Associates LP, from August 1997 through May 2002.

https://www.artisancanvas.com/?filter=tag+eq+artisan-canvas:authors/david-samra
Though what Samra himself says is:

I worked in the international group there with a very famous value investor, David Herro, who still operates the Oakmark International, Oakmark International Small Cap Fund. And I worked there for five years and left there in 2002. By then I had had almost 10 years worth of experience as an analyst and decided that like to try employing my own philosophy, and I found a terrific home here at Artisan. We launched the International Value Fund in 2002.

https://mebfaber.com/2020/04/29/episode-216-david-samra-the-primary-driver-of-our-behavior-is-finding-a-company-that-trades-at-a-discount-to-intrinsic-value/
At least he was a whole lot closer to being responsible for a fund than Santos got to working at Goldman Sachs. For all we know, Santos was just a copyboy for a company (LinkBridge Investors) that in turn did business with GS.
https://people.com/politics/fact-checking-the-george-santos-claims-from-goldman-sachs-employee-to-college-volleyball-star/
Side note: curiously, there appears to be a Jorge Santos who is a VP at GS. Scroll down to #46 in this Yahoo piece.
https://www.yahoo.com/video/the-e-mpower-top-50-future-ethnic-minority-leaders-2019-230100555.html

Now you guys have me worried.
At the start of 2022, I started my position in EM fund RNWOX, the Rondure New World fund. This fund, I believe, has been neck and neck with SFGIX for risk adjusted returns. In fact, if you put their trends on top of each other, there is little difference in return and volatility. At the time I was looking for an EM fund, the manager, Laura Geritz, spoke more positively about increasing positions in India more than China. China was about 20% of the fund when I bought, lower than the avg EM fund. Now, China has increased to about 27% as @sma3 states. I assume the change is based on stock value given this fund has a value tilt.
I still think this is one of the better EM funds to own, low risk, above avg returns, a 5* fund. I don't plan any changes. I think if China starts to renege on financial obligations, they will destroy their own economy and disrupt all markets. So, I don't plan any changes... yet.

@catch22, 360 CD deal looks OK to me (5% for 11-mo CD) - as can you see from the rate schedule, it is a promotional offer as the rate for 11-mo sticks out. I also looked at "Read Disclosures" at the bottom, and didn't see any catch. It may be hoping that once people open an account, they will keep it open. BTW, 5% for 12-mo CD is common and for those, it has 4.15%.
I only have 360 Performance Savings that is offering 3.40% (low; the best national rate is much higher). This a/c is linked for some bank transfers I do, so I keep just enough for that purpose.
My irritation has been that its promos are geared towards new a/c.
https://www.capitalone.com/bank/cds/online-cds/

Hi @yogibearbull
You noted previous in this thread regarding Capital One CD offers. I was contacted by an in-law today about the Capital One, 5% APY, 11 month CD, "360 Performance Saving", on line offer. Is there anything, hidden in the fine print, for a new customer as to having to maintain an account, if they choose to take the monies from the CD after it matures? I ask, as I've seen offers requiring to maintain an account with bill pay and such.
You mentioned: FWIW, I have Capital One a/c. But what I don't like is that it keeps coming up with new a/c with higher yields ("360 Performance Saving" is the latest) and leaves legacy savings at low levels (they exist but not even shown on the website).
Thank you,
Catch

@msf: I continue to be befuddled by M*'s romance with Harris, Oakmark, Herro, and Nygren. Does M* have no way to send these underperforming hurlers to the showers?

Oakmark and Oakmark International have generated good long-term returns albeit with plenty of volatility.
OAKMX trailing 10 Yr. and 15 Yr. returns (through 02/28/23) beat 98% of funds in the Large Value category.
OAKIX trailing 10 Yr. returns and 15 Yr. returns beat 77% and 99% of Foreign Large Value funds respectively.
Since both funds are very volatile, investors may find them difficult to hold long-term.