and a better measure, super core
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/16/opinion/core-inflation-statistics.html

update:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834423012093/fp0083913-1_497.htm
497 1 fp0083913-1_497.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund
Grandeur Peak Global Contrarian Fund
Grandeur Peak Global Explorer Fund
Grandeur Peak Global Micro Cap Fund
Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund
Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund
Grandeur Peak Global Stalwarts Fund
Grandeur Peak International Opportunities Fund
Grandeur Peak International Stalwarts Fund
Grandeur Peak US Stalwarts Fund
(each, a “Fund”)
Supplement dated June 16, 2023
To the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information,
each dated August 31, 2022, as supplemented
On June 14, 2023, the shareholders of each Fund approved an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization and Termination pursuant to which each Fund will be reorganized into correspondingly named series of Grandeur Peak Global Trust (each, a “Reorganization”). Each Reorganization is expected to close after the close of business on or about July 21, 2023.
*********
Please retain this supplement with your Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.

update:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834423012096/fp0083914-2_497.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
Rondure New World Fund
Rondure Overseas Fund
(each, a “Fund”)
Supplement dated June 16, 2023
To the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information,
each dated August 31, 2022, as supplemented
On June 14, 2023, the shareholders of each Fund approved an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization and Termination pursuant to which each Fund will be reorganized into correspondingly named series of Northern Lights Fund Trust III (each, a “Reorganization”). Each Reorganization is expected to close after the close of business on or about July 21, 2023.
*********
Please retain this supplement with your Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.

TRP OEF to Fidelity OEF: Fidelity will only let you exchange 90% of one family's OEF (here, TRP) to another family's OEF (here, Fidelity). And the amount must be denominated in dollars (i.e. 90% of less of the current value of the TRP holding). I've been encountering resistance from some reps, but this is Fidelity's rule and they will follow it if pressed. One has to keep pointing out that the transaction is in dollars, not shares. I've done this twice in the past couple of days.
TRP OEF to ETF: Same family only matters for OEF to OEF. There, it's the fund distributor (I think) that handles all end-of-day transactions "simultaneously" without going through a third party. That's the way all the fund families used to handle exchanges before brokerages starting acting as intermediaries.
OEF to ETF generally: I have a vague recollection of pressing Fidelity about an OEF to ETF trade, where they finally acknowledged that their placing an ETF buy order immediately after placing an OEF sell order (in dollars) shouldn't be any different from putting in a same day buy order for an OEF.
If anything, the buy side with the ETF would take longer to settle (T+2 vs. T+1 for most OEFs).
Edit: Now I remember the conversation. It was about swapping a Fidelity index OEF for a non-Fidelity ETF so that I could move the holding to another brokerage paying a bonus for new assets. I never made that trade, but finally convinced Fidelity that it was permissible.

A famous, or should I say infamous, example of ETF pseudo-clones diverging from the originals is Pimco's Total Return ETF (BOND, originally TRXT). Out of the gate, it outperformed PTTRX by using odd lots (only practical for small funds) and mispricing its holdings, for which it paid a $20M settlement.
https://www.ft.com/content/5db6b962-3c81-33a2-86c3-6b2d58bedcc8
In addition, divergence was expected because because regulations at the time restricted what the ETF could do with derivatives; PTTRX did not have those restrictions. (The ETFchanged its objective, name, and managers in 2017.)
The point is there may be many reasons that an ETF performs differently from the "original" fund. Even if their asset allocations are similar. I haven't looked closely at TBLD vs TIBIX, but whatever the cause, TBLD sure hasn't measured up to TIBIX.
Portfolio Visualizer comparison - stats and graphs

I am not in a fully-invested 100% equity camp. In retirement, my tactical asset allocation (TAA) is 40-60% equity, and due to my buys in 2022, it became higher than that. So, I am in profit-taking mode now to adjust my TAA.
My short-term fixed-income includes stable-value (SVs; 5.50% from TIAA-SRA annuity), T-Bills (rolls will continue, as posted elsewhere), m-mkt funds, ultra-ST bond funds, even some short-term bond funds.
In that context, TCAF is new to my potential buy list for future. I may add it later with cash, or shift $s from SCHD or SCHB.
I have also been watching another cousin pair, global-allocation CEF TBLD and OEF TIBAX / TIBIX. Let us say, politely, that TBLD has been a disaster even with some bond allocation. Of course, there are other factors in play for CEfs (premiums/discounts; leverage, but none for TBLD), but the success of the so-called "cousins" isn't guaranteed. And, here, ETF TCAF with 100% equity is at best a "second cousin" of moderate-allocation OEF PRWCX.

From @msf - For anyone who "may add it during the next selloff", I wish you good luck but also wonder whether one might have done better by having already bought.

The fund flows should be looked at in the context of the US IPO levels. In a bad year, there were 62 IPOs (2008), in a good year 1,035 (2021) IPOs. These were the numbers of IPOs, and I will later find the $amounts of IPOs.
So, $150 billion will have some impact. The effect of fund flows is different from that of the total market-cap.
https://stockanalysis.com/ipos/statistics/
Edit/Add: $amounts $23.1 billion (2008), $130.9 billion (2021). Lower $amounts after 2008 were $19.2 billion (2009), $18.5 billion (2016).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264607/ipo-volume-in-the-us/

Well! TCAF exceeded PRWCX today. What could be merrier?
TCAF +1.21%
PRWCX +0.95%

Don't forget PRWCX has a lot of fixed income in it --- so it won't ever move in tandem with a pure equity fund. But sure, it's nice to see on its opening day. :)

Yogi said it well: "As TCAF is 100% equity, but PRWCZ is moderate allocation, tracking will be poor for performance, beta and volatility (SD); but correlation (r) may be good."
One expects these two securities to move in tandem (good correlation), though the size of movements (related to volatility and beta) of PRWCX should be muted relative to TCAF.
Bonds are often referred to as "ballast" or dead weight in portfolios. Thinking about PRWCX as TCAF plus "ballast", it's not hard to envision it moving like TCAF. Except instead of moving through water, PWRCX moves through molasses with more resistance - both up and down.
---
For anyone who "may add it during the next selloff", I wish you good luck but also wonder whether one might have done better by having already bought. Dips look like buying opportunities at the moment (short term reduced price) but as the saying goes, "the best time to invest is yesterday, the next best time is today." It depends on whether one is a trader or a long term investor.
---
Regarding Merrill: The problem alluded to is that one could research TCAF there (it recognized the ticker) and click "buy" to get to a prefilled order page. But the system responded "ticker not found" when submitting the actual trade order. kings53man said he was able to buy at Fidelity. Vanguard likewise would accept a trade.
Merrill has fixed that problem this morning. And substituted a new obstacle:

Trading of this security is generally not permitted on the Merrill platform as it carries unique risks, as further described in the prospectus. Merrill maintains a Block List for certain Exchanged Traded products and this has been identified as one of them. This order has potential for volatile performance and/or significant tracking error and may have higher expense ratios, lower liquidity or higher risk of fund closure than other similar funds in the same peer group.

Clip from Bloomberg:
“The relentless rally in equities faces a fresh threat over the next few weeks with the world’s biggest money managers set to unload as much as $150 billion of stocks. JPMorgan Chase & Co. projects real-money portfolios, including those of sovereign wealth and pension funds, will tilt back in favor of bonds to meet allocation targets, in the largest rebalancing flows to the asset class since the fourth quarter of 2021. The periodic rejigging could knock off as much as 5% from the price of global stocks, according to estimates by JPMorgan strategist Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou.”
(Same article from Yahoo)

Well! TCAF exceeded PRWCX today. What could be merrier?
TCAF +1.21%
PRWCX +0.95%

Don't forget PRWCX has a lot of fixed income in it --- so it won't ever move in tandem with a pure equity fund. But sure, it's nice to see on its opening day. :)

Well! TCAF exceeded PRWCX today. What could be merrier?
TCAF +1.21%
PRWCX +0.95%

I just bought 100 shares and will track quarterly before adding more.

where?
Nothing avail at ML

Both NYSE and Yahoo are reporting day volume as 190,276. So, the activity picked up near or at close.
T Rowe Price is reporting 500,000 shares outstanding. So, there must have been private placement(s) or lots of shares in dealers'/market-makers' hands.

My wife had a mining fund that I somehow bought at the right time. I sold it recently for a small gain. One such fund in the family IRA's is plenty.
For my IRA, I bought a small position in USAGX in August 2011 during another budget showdown. It was at 41.63 per share. I bought on the "dip" in December 2012 at 26.04 per share. Who is the dip? I bought again in June of 2017 at 13.61 per share.
I broke one of my rules on the last buy. It was one of two investments I have ever made based on the political situation at the time. The other, bought in tandem, and at the same times as USAGX, was MERKX, a "hard money" fund that recently evaporated without notice from The Shadow.
After global pestilence, European war, and rocketing inflation, USAGX closed yesterday at 16.43.
I am awaiting first contact.

FYI, I just received my first call notice for a 2-year CD I bought in March. The yield was 5.5%, and I found a non-callable replacement yielding 5.15%, so that’s OK. I assume that most of the longer term CDs I bought back will be called sooner or later. However, some of the CDs I bought then were non-callable, even though I wasn’t paying attention to that feature when I first started buying CDs for my ladders.

BTW, the volatility table per category is deceiving. We have learned since 2020 that volatility is unpredictable in market meltdowns. Sometimes the indexes which trade during the day show more volatility.

I had a look at the text explanation of those FI categories. The "floating rate bond" category, showing annualized volatility of 1.6%, consists of investment grade fare, not generalizable to FR/BL junk.

NYSE (link) volume 34,410. Bid-ask 25.29-25.31. Not bad.

LOL - All those newbies piling in today are causing the Dow & S&P to rise over 1%. MFO has become a big “market mover”.
There’s at least a couple stocks I’d buy / add to first, if inclined to invest more …

@BenWP +1. Looks highly concentrated with the same stuff as any LC index.

Agreed. I'm still inclined to go with Capital Group's CGDV versus TCAF, though I may throw some $$ at this pup as a diversifier -- their holdings don't overlap much.
The initial holdings feels somewhat LCB-oriented .... almost PRBLX-like maybe?