I was hoping someone had a cheat sheet reference/link.
Lets take a random example VEXRX. The fund owns individual securities derived from 5 advisors... 4 of them with different fundamental investment philosophies. So I assume Vanguard is getting presented with 4 different recommended portfolios of equities. How does Vanguard decide which stocks get included in the VEXRX portfolio and what % for each holding? What is the Vanguard process to choose or exclude all the stocks recommended by their advisors?
I am not recommending VEXRX. I do not own VEXRX. I know nothing about VEXRX. No need to critique the fund.

@Mark...Agree. Non "Fun"-gible Tokens.
You can't even close-pin them to your bike like the Fun tokens we collected/traded as a kid.

I bought a property in a very unique community that has 45 years left on a 100 year land lease. The property is part of a Co-op (think Condo) but our association doesn't own the land. We pay a hefty land lease fee on top of our normal HOA expenses.
It's my first year as an owner and I am questioning the logic of our board members regarding insurance premiums. None of these properties are bank owned... everyone is cash. Insurance premium increased 25% this year over last year's costs. To add insult to injury, the association needed a bridge loan to avoid payment penalties from the insurer. That loan charges 4.61% interest.
We are in year 55 of a 100 year lease which means that in 45 year the value of the condo goes to zero (for shareholders...remember I own a share of a Co-Op) and the land lease owner takes possession of all of our "property".
I understand the importance and need for basic insurance coverage (liability being one), but I would like find alternative ways to manage the risk of an aging property and its diminishing value due to the this land lease dynamic.
Anyone have any thoughts on this very unique real estate dynamic that I now call home (well at least until I am 107)?

Dec 18 Episode:

GM's Subscription Base Service:
gm-aims-to-build-netflix-sized-subscription-business-by-2030

Re: BRUFX. Bruce:
Bruce Fund (called rep on 12/17 and received the following info which is tentative):
ordinary income -$9.7481
ST CG -$1.9481
LT CG - $50.2761
**********************************************
JUST POSTED on 17 Dec. to my wife's IRA, but still pending. I did not look at the per-share amounts. The "split," I mean.

I was sure Chartwell sounded familiar. Finally found the thread. Chartwell grew its fund business by acquiring Berwyn funds in 2016. It appears that prior to that it had been offering only two funds itself, though it was managing portions of two Vanguard funds and providing other advisory services.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/25497/the-berwyn-funds-reorganizing-to-be-part-of-chartwell-investment-partners
In late 2016, Vanguad fired Chartwell. Vanguard accounted for 1/4 of its AUM.
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Vanguard-fires-Chartwell-of-Berwyn-whose-owner-kills-deal-with-Philly-investor.html

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1697268/000158064221005921/chartwell497.htm
(see link for table of changes)

"Ckucking" back in. GGSOX -6.7 % for 3months from 12/16
+19.2 for 5 years " "
GPROX -6% For 3 months as of 12/16
+18.4 for 5 years
Looking to buy more on the dip after distributions

I am not trying to dissuade anybody from buying the new fund. Here are my random thoughts, FWIW -
M* chart shows GUSYX has lost 11.65% in the last one month, giving a year to date total return of 16.2%. GPGEX, a fifth global fund from the same shop, evidently is a sister fund to GPRIX (Global Reach), which has lost about 8% in the past one month. GUSYX and GPRIX occupy the same style box. Traditionally, at the beginning of an economic cycle, small-mid caps have done well but late cycle usually has not been so kind to them.
Three of their existing Global funds have similar performance - Global Contrarian fund looks decidedly different.
I own both the international (GISYX) and US (GUSYX) stalwart funds. I am sure GPRIX is not the same as the Stalwart funds (M* shows materially different P/E ratios notwithstanding the same style box) but I will sit GPGEX out. If I want more of a similar investing style, given I already have enough GP, I might checkout Wasatch.
M* shows all the Global funds open to new investors and GPRIX has $400+M in AUM.

I have several of GP Funds. While some of the best stock ideas are being shared among the GP fund managers, each fund manager has the final decision in purchasing/selling a stock. Also, each fund has different mandates from the others. For example, the Global Micro Cap Fund is not the same as the Global Reach Fund, but some of the Global Micro Cap stock suggestions have been utilized in the Global Reach Fund, but not all of them. Similarly, Global Micro Fund may have some picks that are shared with the International Opportunities/Global Opportunities Funds, but not all of Global Micro Cap stock ideas are utilized.
For example, compare USNQX and NASDX. While both are based on the Nasdaq 100 benchmark, why aren't both funds performing the same (fund expenses are slightly different from each other)? Currently, USNQX has a lower expense ratio (.44%) than NASDX's expense ratio (.50%) but NASDX has a better YTD return than USNQX (from Google Finance). Years ago, NASDX performed better than USNQX. Then for several years, USNQX performed better. For the last year or two, NASDX has performed better than USNQX. Same can be said for S&P 500 funds (fund expenses are slightly different) as to why aren't they performing more in synch while utilizing the same benchmark
Second, Wasatch and GP have similar tendencies in closing their funds to keep them nimble. Since the GP managers learned Wasatch's management practices, they are probably being used similarly in GP's practices. I would hate to miss out on a fund that is closed for 5-10 years waiting for it to re-open.
Disclosure: I own the Global Micro Cap (in taxable and non-taxable accounts) and Contrarian funds, Global & International Opportunities funds, Emerging Opportunities, and Global & International Stalwarts. Thinking about a position in the US Stalwarts Fund.

AS for AUM of 35 MILLION. I believe their micro fund closed at 20 or 25 million.
Sometimes smaller AUM is to your advantage . I dislike making a buy ,watching it rise , only to be able to get out with a few bucks of profit after a stead decline !!
HOT money , not for me, Derf

Good point BaluBalu. It's like, why even bother opening this fund if you're already capacity-constrained in other funds. Good boutique fund company, but the apparent overlap in all their funds is concerning to me. It reminds me a little of what Royce funds did 10-15 years ago.
FWIW. I've owned GPGOX since inception and have been very happy with it. For many years it was my only SC investment.
Can anyone with more than a couple Grandeur Peak funds chime in as to why? Maybe it is beneficial to own multiple, but why?

There have been previous discussions on MFO about GP’s numerous funds, many closed with relatively small AUM. What I’ve had a hard time grasping is how the PMs are able to keep track of as many as 325 stocks in one fund (Global Reach, for example) while at the same time it appears that these people play roles in the management of other GP funds as well. I also wonder how these variously labeled teams are able to travel to visit what appear to be quite small firms across the globe in the time of Covid.
FWIIW, I own only GUSYX at present. Did own others in the past. Many of the GP funds had double digit % distributions this year, but my fund is under 3%, a holiday gift of sorts.

I have never seen a mutual fund at $35M AUM by choice. I own two of their funds but this is a very strange behavior that is unsettling.

December 16, 2021
Please see below for today’s Press Release announcing the launch of the Grandeur Peak Global Explorer Fund (GPGEX) on Thursday, December 16, 2021.
The Global Explorer Fund will only be available in one share class (Institutional), with a minimum investment of just $1,000 ($100 for minors)* in order to make it broadly accessible to all investors. The Fund should be available through most of our existing channel relationships (Schwab, TD Ameritrade, Pershing, Fidelity, etc.) and it is of course available directly from Grandeur Peak Funds. If you have difficulty purchasing the Fund, please let us know and we will work with you to try to get it listed on your platform.
To learn more about this new fund, call any of us on the client team (contacts below) or our Investor Services team at 1-855-377-7325; Additional information will also be posted to our website: www.grandeurpeakglobal.com.
Best Regards,
Mark Siddoway, CFA, CAIA, MBA
Head of Client Relations
801-384-0010
Todd Matheny, CAIA
Director of Client Relations
801-384-0095
Amy Johnson, MBA, CFP®
Sr. Manager, Client Relations
801-384-0044
*Third-party platforms may impose different minimum requirements.
PRESS RELEASE
Dear Fellow Shareholders,
We are pleased to announce the launch of the Grandeur Peak Global Explorer Fund (GPGEX). The Fund will invest in what the firm believes are the most interesting equity investments around the world. The holdings will primarily be micro to mid-cap companies.
The new fund is a sister fund to the existing Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund (GPRIX). The two funds share a similar mandate, but they approach portfolio management from a different angle. The Global Reach Fund (launched in 2013) is managed collaboratively by the firm’s five industry teams/portfolio managers, plus a guardian portfolio manager. Similarly, the new Global Explorer Fund will be managed by the firm’s seven geographic region teams/portfolio managers, plus a guardian portfolio manager.
Said Blake Walker, CEO, “In our quest to cover the globe, members of our research team wear multiple hats – some combination of an industry hat, a geography hat, and a fund hat. We long ago divided the world up into industries (5) and geographic regions (7) and gave analysts the charge to find the most interesting companies in their assigned space. The beauty of viewing the world through these two different lenses is that we have at least two people looking at every company, namely the relevant industry analyst and geography analyst. We have found it to be a powerful ‘multiple minds’ tool.”
Juliette Douglas, a geography portfolio manager, and the portfolio manager who will coordinate the Global Explorer team’s efforts, continued, “In hindsight, it could have made sense to launch the Global Explorer at the same time as Global Reach, but candidly we weren’t staffed or ready to do so eight years ago. Today it’s an easy extension for our team and the geographic paper portfolio we have managed for some time. We expect Reach and Explorer will look fairly similar given our collaborative approach, but we also believe there will be a very real benefit in putting our geography PMs at the helm of their own fund. Those benefits will play out in the Global Explorer Fund and also radiate through the rest of the Grandeur Peak Funds. The geography teams are thrilled at this opportunity.”
Grandeur Peak has from day one shown a very strong commitment to managing capacity at a firm level, and closing funds early. With many of the Grandeur Peak Funds currently closed, Todd Matheny, Director of Client Relations, commented on the capacity of the new Fund: “With the Global Explorer Fund focused on our more capacity-constrained micro to mid-cap space, we plan to soft close the Fund around $35M in AUM. We are excited about this Fund, and the strategic value it adds across our entire family of funds, but we intend to close it very small to ensure all of our funds retain the investment flexibility they need to remain focused on delivering performance for our clients.”

As a long term owner of two Primecap funds (at either end of the so-called risk spectrum) I have some concerns. The obvious one is relative performance: all of the Primecap funds seem to have under-performed their benchmarks -- as well as "the market" -- over the past five years, some over the past ten (especially when taxes are taken into account). I regard that as a moderate length of time, sufficient to capture my attention. When it comes to the riskier funds (in my case POAGX), I seem to see some very off-beat names in the top 25 holdings, although I'm certainly not privy to the research resulting in those buy decisions. Of far greater concern to me is the fact that the team at Primecap appears to lack any notion of a "sell" discipline. The concept of a "target price" seems alien to them. On many occasions in the recent past the market has literally gifted stocks in the portfolios with sudden, unwarranted, and ultimately temporary price increases that Primecap rarely takes advantage of. (Examples include BABA, BIIB, NKTR, SGEN, but there are quite a few in addition.) What to do? I decided to take this year's hefty capital gains distributions (attributable to shareholder redemptions) in cash. Based on preliminary information, it looks like most Odyssey fund shareholders did the same thing yesterday. The Vanguard funds haven't made their distributions yet.

The SEC is proposing changes to MMFs. There are three key pieces (plus an enhanced reporting requirement):

1. Increase liquidity - this could potentially decrease yields, but since yields are already at 0.01% and positive only because of subsidies, we're unlikely to see them go any lower.
   
2. Remove the gating/fee requirements on fund redemptions. This is the change that appears most significant for retail investors - one will no longer have to worry about being able to get money out of prime or muni MMFs without paying a redemption fee.
   
3. Implement swing pricing on institutional funds. Not going to explain this, since it affects only institutional MMFs.

The fact sheet seems to be the best place to start.
Press release: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-258
Full text of proposal (325 pages): https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2021/ic-34441.pdf
Fact sheet: https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2021/ic-34441-fact-sheet.pdf
If you want to submit a comment to the SEC, you can do so here:
https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml (look for Money Market Reforms and its submit comments link)

So for those, like me, who don't understand a single word of that, what does it mean to the individual computer user? What should we avoid doing?

This vulnerability mostly impacts enterprises and will keep security teams busy for quite some time.
If your hardware/applications don't use Apache Log4J versions 2.0 - 2.15.0 you are not at risk.
The Netherland's National Cyber Security Centrum (NCSC) posted a comprehensive A-Z list of all products it is aware are either vulnerable, not vulnerable, or under investigation.

.....And once again, here on Oahu: new crap is happening: cyberattacks vs. Queen's Health System, the municipal Board of Water Supply and Honolulu EMS. These despicable motherlovers must be caught and made to SUFFER.
https://www.kitv.com/news/crime/bws-ems-employees-warned-of-possible-identity-theft-after-hackers-target-payroll-vendor/article_a5caee94-5c76-11ec-bd0b-a3979031a6b6.html

I have done withdrawals from IL 529 sent to beneficiary - easy. States oversee 529 but the services are from the fund companies.
As there are thousands of colleges and universities, all 529s may not be ready to handle sending funds directly to institutions. But what would be the benefit of that? In fact, funds may be lost in institutional jungle.
On the other hand, people can send personal funds directly to institutions to pay bills for their kids (and others, if so inclined) and a benefit is that those funds don't count for the annual gift limits.