@BenWP - First I bought/buy nearly all my CEF positions at large discounts to NAV usually after major market swoons. I don't tend to trade them and I'm primarily interested in the distributions they throw off. I hold only one healthcare equity position (ABBV) because I'm not smart enough to pick individual holdings across the sector.
Why BME - strong parent company with a solid, steady performance history of roughly 12% - 9.5% - 15% (3 - 5 - 10 yr avg).
Why THQ - while the major holdings are fairly similar to BME the fund can and does look worldwide. It also is selling at a large discount and when I can buy assets at 12% off I'll do it. Tekla handles healthcare quite well.
Granted I might have done better buying something like FSMEX but tax handcuffs would pinch more than I care to deal with at the moment. I used to hold HQL but at the time many of their positions were similar to holdings in POAGX. I opted to keep the latter.

I have 14 accounts so it’s easy to end up with some funds that occupy only 1% of net worth but I have 6 funds that make up 85% of my portfolio. (Without explanation)
20% 401-k Stable Value Fund
20% VTI - Vanguard Total Market in taxable
16% FADMX - Fidelity Strategic Income - I’ve held this fund for years, starting when it was FSICX, it stumbled a bit in March but holding for now.
16% Cash - I know it pays me nothing but I think going forward it will prove to be a better investment than most bond funds.
6% FPURX - Puritan
6% VWELX - Wellington

IAFMX was formerly the Cognios Large Cap Growth Fund.

Thanks. This confirms that the fund started 10/3/16, though it subsequently went through at least a name change.
Note that there is enough predecessor history as reported in an early N1/A filing to get about eight years of combined history. Though the filing doesn't seem to provide the predecessor's performance data for 2016, i.e. from 1/1/2016 to 10/3/2016 when the new fund started. One could reasonably extrapolate to fill in this gap.

The Predecessor Account was managed by the same portfolio managers at the Adviser of the Growth Fund since the inception of the Predecessor Account on June 1, 2012. ...
The bar chart and table reflect the past performance of the Growth Fund and the Predecessor Account and provide some indication of the risks of investing in the Growth Fund by showing changes in the Predecessor Account’s performance from year to year over the periods indicated and by showing how the Predecessor Account’s average annual total returns for the periods indicated compared to a broad-based performance benchmark.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1643838/000139834416018829/fp0021688_n1aa.htm
FWIW, the predecessor account, over the period provided (6/1/12 to 12/31/15) had an annualized return of 21.92% (per filing). In comparison, QQQ returned 18.30%.
I computed the latter figure by:
- having M* give me QQQ's cumulative return from 6/1/12 to 12/31/15: 82.53%;
- computing the number of years spanned with Excel:
  YEARFRAC(DATE(2012,6,1),DATE(2015,12,31),1): 3.5811 years.
- annualizing: POWER(1 + 0.8253, 1/3.5811) = 1.182976. So QQQ's rate of return was 18.30%.

IAFMX was formerly the Cognios Large Cap Growth Fund.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1643838/000138713120004152/fm-497_042220.htm
Here is the Cognios Large Cap Growth Fund prospectus from 10/3/16:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1643838/000139834416020683/fp0022458_497.htm
Here is the initial registration filing for Cognios Large Cap Growth Fund:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1643838/000139834416019245/fp0021866_n1aa.htm

Follow-up
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1580733/000119312520250984/d42150d497.htm
497 1 d42150d497.htm BMO LGM FRONTIER MARKETS EQUITY FUND
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration No. 333-193915
BMO LGM Frontier Markets Equity Fund
Supplement dated September 22, 2020 to the Prospectus
dated December 27, 2019, as supplemented
Fund Liquidation and Elimination of Quarterly Repurchase Policy
Shareholders of the BMO LGM Frontier Markets Equity Fund (the “Fund”) have approved the proposal to liquidate and dissolve the Fund. On September 30, 2020 the Fund expects to make its first liquidating distribution to shareholders. The initial liquidating distribution is expected to comprise approximately 90% of the Fund’s assets. The Fund will continue to make liquidating distributions quarterly until all Fund assets are distributed to shareholders and all shares are redeemed. Shareholders (other than tax-qualified plans or tax-exempt accounts) will recognize gain or loss for tax purposes on the redemption of their Fund shares in the liquidation.
As a result of actions by the Board of Trustees and shareholders, the Fund will no longer invest pursuant to its investment strategies or achieve its investment objective of capital appreciation.
Shareholders also have approved the elimination of the Fund’s fundamental policy of making quarterly repurchase offers. Accordingly, the Fund is discontinuing that process.
Important Information for Retirement Plan Investors
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares or of any IRA or retirement plan distribution, the ability to roll over any distribution, and any tax-savings options you may have. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you may be able to roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account. If you are eligible to do so, the rollover must occur within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income. You can make only one tax-free rollover from an IRA to another IRA in any 12-month period (regardless of the number of IRAs you own). Any subsequent distribution of untaxed amounts from an IRA within the 12-month period would be included in your gross income, and may be subject to a 10% early withdrawal tax. The previously described limitation allowing only one tax-free rollover per 12-month period does not apply to (1) rollovers from traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs (conversions), (2) trustee-to-trustee transfers to another IRA, (3) eligible rollovers from an IRA to a retirement plan, (4) eligible rollovers from a retirement plan to an IRA, and (5) eligible rollovers from a retirement plan to a retirement plan.
Please retain this Supplement with your Prospectus for future reference.

Why not just use QQQ which beats it for 1-3-5 years.

I didn't realize that IAFMX had been around that long. Shadow's prospectus gives the inception date as 10/03/16. What's its five year annualized performance? Do you have some incubator numbers that we could tack on?

As FD1K noted, a cursory look suggests that there is nothing particularly special here, just a small, concentrated, expensive fund with several of the usual suspects.
So what's unusual? High turnover. M* reports 139%. The prospectus Shadow provided says nearly twice as high, 230%! More remarkable is that only 15% of its holdings are companies it acquired in the past year. This suggests that all it is doing is rebalancing its portfolio every day of the week and twice on Sundays. It also suggests that the fund will not be tax efficient, and the numbers confirm that (2.26% tax cost ratio).
Aside from funds with frenetic managers like Dick Strong, high turnover funds are often quant funds. Sure enough, the prospectus reads: "The Adviser uses quantitative screens ... The Adviser then uses a quantitative process ... The periodic reconstitution and rebalancing of the portfolio according to the Fund’s quantitative investment strategy may result in significant portfolio turnover."
Here's a M* column on quant funds:
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/947272/what-is-a-quantitative-fund

@rforno allows me to pounce quickly and buy stuff I want during volatility when stuff goes on sale.

I don't need to hold cash in order to do the above. I sell my bond funds and buy stock funds...or...at Schwab they let me buy a stock/CEF (examples: SPY,VTI,QQQ,PCI) even if I'm fully invested in IRA and after I complete the buy I sell the exact amount from my mutual fund, Fidelity will not let you do it, you must have the cash in the account.
I don't see any reason to be in cash and why most times I invest at 99+% even in retirement unless I see elevated risk (such as VIX>35) and sell as part of my portfolio defense.
I haven't used cash (besides several thousands) for several decades prior to retiremet and after that. I have credit cards I can pay for almost everything and if I need more I can sell my funds and pay in 2-3 days. The only time you need cash is for illegal drugs and ransom. Of course, most retirees should have more than one bond fund and be invested in high-rated bonds as a ballast for stocks.

According to M* IAFMX is a LC growth fund with small AUM=59 million and expensive ER=1.15%. It invests mostly in the tech category at 54%. Concentrated portfolio of about 30 stocks, top holdings MSFT,Apple,AMAZON,ADOBE
Why not just use QQQ which beats it for 1-3-5 years.
If you want to gamble on tech go for MPEGX/MACGX

Here is the most recent prospectus from April 22, 2020:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1643838/000138713120004056/fm-485bpos_042220.htm

M* shows 41 distinct world small/mid funds. Their returns Monday, grouped by current portfolio style:
SCG (5): GPRIX -1.68%, GPGCX -2.09%, GPMCX -2.17%, EKGAX -2.67%, -SGSCX -3.1%
SCBl(3):  IZSYX -2.69%, DGLIX -2.92%, EVGIX -3.01%
MCG (17): WAGOX -1.04%, OBEGX -1.26%, WWWEX -1.24%, GGSYX -1.63%, GLNIX -1.65%,
                  GPGIX -1.63%, OWSMX -1.65%, SMCWX -1.69%, HGXVX -1.74%, DGSCX -2.06%,
                  AGCTX -2.08%, OPGIX -2.11%, GEOSX -2.37%, FHSIX -2.41%, ESVAX -2.42%,
                  TSYIX -2.43%, GNXIX -2.85%
MCBl(6):    NALFX -1.61%, FHESX -2.35%, LPEIX -2.36%,
                  CAEIX -2.49%, TEMGX -2.49%, CSMOX -2.64%
SCV (2): YASLX -2.43%, GGMMX -2.76%
LCG (1): FEUIX -1.21%
MCV (4): RAILX -1.35%, GCCHX -2.54%, GCHPX -2.56%, MOWIX -4.20%
LCBl(3): VMNVX -0.91%, HEOYX -1.92%, DGBEX -2.14%
The six italicized funds are ones that seem to be environmentally focused (e.g. "climate", or "environmental" or energy in an SRI sense). There are also ESG funds, DGBEX, FHESX, and HGXVX, but an ESG focus may not fundamentally alter the pool of companies they are fishing in. (One can debate whether sustainable development goals funds should be grouped with environmental funds.)
This exercise helps to illustrate a few things. Peers matter, how one groups funds matter. 15% of these funds are environmental. That means they aren't looking at the same companies, any more than, say, a financial sector fund is looking at the same companies as a value fund.
Styles matter, but grouping by style here leaves one with too few funds for meaningful comparisons. If you like the investing approach of a fund, and it is executing that approach well, it doesn't matter how its figures look relative to other funds with different approaches.
Time frames matter. These one day returns, even grouped by style, are all over the map. I suspect one would find at best only modest correlation between star ratings and these one day performance figures. Too much noise in a day to be meaningful.
Worth a mention is VMNVX. On a one day basis, it certainly looks like it is meeting its goal of lower volatility. But what I want to highlight is its overall performance. Out of the gate, it was the darling of many investors. The fund is now about 6½ years old. For its first couple of years its performance was great relative to its peers (for whatever that's worth). However, over the past five years, it has turned in a 69th percentile performance. Time frames matter.
Also worth a mention is NALFX. Possibly the granddaddy of clean energy funds (nearly 40 years old), it did miserably for many years (1 or 2 stars). IMHO waaay ahead of its time. Look at it now. Top 3% over the past five years. Being in the right place at the right time matters. With a fund that's only been around for a year, one can't tell whether that's luck or skill. But with this fund, after decades one has a pretty good idea of where it is heading.

Different doesn't mean better, though it can provide diversification. On the day, GPGCX underperformed every other Grandeur Peak fund, peer or not. Again, this is why one doesn't look at short term performance.
[ Edit: my error, GPMCX did worse, -2.17% vs. -2.09% ]
One of the fund's four stated strategies is indeed finding out of favor growth. Also from the man, the other three involve finding "broken growth, underappreciated growth and undiscovered growth."
This is like reading an old description of Legg Mason Value Trust and suggesting that BIll Miller should have been benchmarked against a value index.

The adviser follows a value discipline in selecting securities. ... Value stocks as a group may be out of favor ...

2004 Prospectus
 

The veteran value investor buys traditional "value" fare like financial stocks, but also "growth" stocks prone to nosebleed valuations and jarring volatility like Nextel Communications, Amazon.com Inc., IAC/InterActiveCorp, eBay Inc. and, most recently, Google Inc. These picks occasionally have drawn critics, but they were also key drivers of a more than 15% jump for the fund in the fourth quarter. ...
Mr. Miller: ... Now people look at the market and are concerned about valuation, but we aren't.

WSJ, Jan 6, 2005
Watch what I do, not what I say.
To find SCG funds that purport to be value funds (i.e. ones saying that they buy out of favor stocks), look for boutique growth families marketing value funds, or conversely, boutique value families with a fund classified as SCG.
For example, and hardly coincidentally, WAMVX. Its principal strategies include "us[ing] a 'bottom-up' process of fundamental analysis to look for individual companies [it] believe[s] are temporarily undervalued." Sounds like "out of favor" to me. Summary Prospectus.

Looking at today’s results ... hard to make out much. Commodity related assets / funds got creamed across the board - universally it seems. While I don’t consider gold a commodity in the normal sense, the miners look to have dropped about 4%. TMSRX was flat. My intermediate duration investment grade bond fund (PBDIX) was flat as well. Most everything else I own was down.
From media reports financials got hammered today - supposedly due to the headline news overnight about big bank involvement in massive money laundering schemes. Helps explain why some more conservative (income oriented) equity funds underperformed tech and blue chips today.
Of the funds I track but don’t own, Price’s real estate fund (TRREX) got slammed with a drop of 3.5%. DSENX had a tough day, down 2.7%. All of this says to me that rates must have risen - at least in some parts of the yield curve. The rather large .78% drop in Price’s very good HY fund, PRHYX, is also surprising - especially since HY hasn’t done much this year.
Well ... I’m moved to do nothing.

ONE year anniversary.
Returns as of 09/17/2020
YTD
1 yr Since Inception*
Global Contrarian, (GPGCX) 0.82% 10.50% 10.50%
MSCI All-Country World Small Cap Value Indexi -14.43% -7.26% -7.26%
MSCI All-Country World Small Cap Indexii -3.95% 4.07% 4.07%
Stay Safe, Derf

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1580733/000119312520250152/d42150d497.htm
497 1 d42150d497.htm BMO LGM FRONTIER MARKETS EQUITY FUND
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration No. 333-193915
BMO LGM Frontier Markets Equity Fund
Supplement dated September 21, 2020 to the Prospectus
dated December 27, 2019, as supplemented
Fund Liquidation and Elimination of Quarterly Repurchase Policy
Shareholders of the BMO LGM Frontier Markets Equity Fund (the “Fund”) have approved the proposal to liquidate and dissolve the Fund. On September 30, 2020 the Fund expects to make its first liquidating distribution to shareholders. The initial liquidating distribution is expected to comprise approximately 90% of the Fund’s assets. The Fund will continue to make liquidating distributions quarterly until all Fund assets are distributed to shareholders and all shares are redeemed. Shareholders (other than tax-qualified plans or tax-exempt accounts) will recognize gain or loss for tax purposes on the redemption of their Fund shares in the liquidation.
As a result of actions by the Board of Trustees and shareholders, the Fund will no longer invest pursuant to its investment strategies or achieve its investment objective of capital appreciation.
Shareholders also have approved the elimination of the Fund’s fundamental policy of making quarterly repurchase offers. Accordingly, the Fund is discontinuing that process.
Income Distribution
Prior to the Fund’s initial liquidating distribution, the Fund will make an income distribution to shareholders. The Fund expects the income distribution to be paid on September 29, 2020, prior to the liquidating distribution scheduled for September 30, 2020.
Important Information for Retirement Plan Investors
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares or of any IRA or retirement plan distribution, the ability to roll over any distribution, and any tax-savings options you may have. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you may be able to roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account. If you are eligible to do so, the rollover must occur within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income. You can make only one tax-free rollover from an IRA to another IRA in any 12-month period (regardless of the number of IRAs you own). Any subsequent distribution of untaxed amounts from an IRA within the 12-month period would be included in your gross income, and may be subject to a 10% early withdrawal tax. The previously described limitation allowing only one tax-free rollover per 12-month period does not apply to (1) rollovers from traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs (conversions), (2) trustee-to-trustee transfers to another IRA, (3) eligible rollovers from an IRA to a retirement plan, (4) eligible rollovers from a retirement plan to an IRA, and (5) eligible rollovers from a retirement plan to a retirement plan.
Please retain this Supplement with your Prospectus for future reference.

" JPMorgan Chase & Co and Bank of New York Mellon Corp fell 4.4% and 5.6%, respectively, on reports that several global banks moved large sums of allegedly illicit funds over nearly two decades despite red flags about the origins of the money.
The S&P banking subindex lost 4.5% "
Complement of Schwab.
Derf

I was going to post a noon update, but I’ll hijack @Derf’s thread here. Woke up this morning to news Europe - particularly the U.K. was seeing heavy selling. A resurgence of Covid-19 in England and across the continent is being cited by many as the cause. I guess Boris’ plan to make Britain great again isn’t working out too well either, in light of BREXIT, as the good folks there had hoped.
At noon today the Dow was leading the way down, off nearly 800 points, more than 2.5%. Other indexes, including NASDX, holding up a bit better. Oil caved in after several good days and was down about 4% for the day. Gold to me is the shocker, being off $50 at midday to around $1900. A check on the miners using the VanEck Vectors Gold Miners ETF (GDX) shows them off only about 3% around 12:30 EDT. I somehow expected worse.
A sign of the times that even in an election year and under the current pandemic and sluggish economy Congress can’t agree on a stimulus package - though both sides want one. The death of RBG over the weekend adds more uncertainty to the uncertain political situation. (Please avoid turning this into a political debate.) I would have guessed gold would gain today based on the added uncertainty. Shows how much I know. I doubt the big players have the clout to push it down to this degree as a tactical maneuver. Would think it’s something more fundamental causing the bleeding. Sure, there’s things I’d pick up in a serious rout (real estate / DODFX) but today isn’t the day for me.
A song the late great JP McCarthy of Detroit‘s WJR used to play on some nasty market days. I’m sure Catch and others that resided in the metro area in the 70s and 80s recall JP well.
Slip Slidin Away

Added to SWAN, DRSK and MO (yielding almost 9%).
Starter positions in CDC (VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF) and FDL (First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund) 5.5% yield.
No large purchases yet - lots of cash to deploy. Gonna chip away at it.

TikTok was like, "huh? We never agreed to that.

Trump, who had previously called on companies such as Oracle and Walmart to pay the United States a "fee" to participate in the TikTok deal, said there would also be a $5 billion U.S. education fund as part of the deal. ...
Oracle and Walmart described the agreement differently. They said that together with ByteDance top investors General Atlantic, Sequoia and Coatue they would create an educational initiative to deliver an artificial-intelligence driven online video curriculum for children, from basic reading and math to science, history and computer engineering.

(From originally cited Yahoo article)

After DB, which accounted for over half of the $2B in flagged (not necessarily illegal) transactions comes JPMorgan (since acquired by Chase JPM) accounting for 1/4 ($500B) of the flagged transactions. No other bank comes close. A UK bank, Standard Chartered, is third at under 10% (about $180B), then another US Bank, BNY Mellon BK at 3%. No Russian banks on the receiving end of these flagged transactions (obviously).
For full details, see: https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/
The article that davidrmoran linked to says that "To make it all happen, the perpetrators needed a Western bank to work with them." As an investor, ISTM it is those western banks that I need to keep an eye on. I'm not going to be investing in Russian banks, even should they be scrupulously clean and profitable.
That's not to say that there isn't a lot of corruption in Russian banks. See, e.g. Vast Offshore Network Moved Billions With Help From Major Russian Bank
https://www.occrp.org/en/troikalaundromat/vast-offshore-network-moved-billions-with-help-from-major-russian-bank
As an investor, what's actionable regarding Russian banks? "The Troika [now owned by Sberbank] Laundromat report named at least half a dozen major Western banks that had been recipients of the money, sending their shares tumbling and sparking internal investigations." So again there is that. (Citibank is mentioned as referring 20% of Troika's new clients.)
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/03/07/troika-bank-scandal-exposed-global-failure-to-prevent-money-laundering-a64730
As a customer (as opposed to an investor), the first bank that pops into my mind when ethics are mentioned is Wells Fargo. Lewis mentioned WaMu (now owned by the aforementioned Chase). While it may not come to mind quite as quickly, BofA is right up there as well on the list of ethically challenged consumer banks.
There's no question that DB is one of the leading money laundering offenders. The good news is that there doesn't seem to be any mutual fund where DB constitutes more than a tiny sliver of its portfolio. Though AEGFX is so large ($166B), that its tiny ¼% of AUM still constitutes 2½% ownership of the bank.