From an email I just received from GP:
May 17, 2021
Dear Fellow Shareholders,
With the continued strength of global markets and the performance of the Grandeur Peak Funds, we find it necessary to announce the following fund closures effective as of market close on Friday, May 28, 2021.
Moving to Hard Closure[1]:
*Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund (GPEOX/GPEIX)
Moving to Soft Closure[2]:
*Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund (GPROX/GPRIX)
As you know, we carefully review capacity at both the strategy and firm level. We are committed to keeping our investment strategies nimble to fully pursue their investment objectives without being encumbered by their individual asset base or the firm’s collective assets. Achieving performance for our clients remains our paramount objective as always.
As of June 1st, the Grandeur Peak Funds that remain open to all investors include:
*Grandeur Peak Global Stalwarts Fund (GGSOX/GGSYX)
*Grandeur Peak Global Contrarian Fund (GPGCX)
*Grandeur Peak US Stalwarts Fund (GUSYX)
To check the current open/closed status of all Grandeur Peak Funds at any time, please visit our website.
Thank you for your continued trust. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out to me or a member of our Client Relations Team.
Best Regards,
Eric
[1]"Hard Closure": means that these Funds will no longer accept purchases, from new or existing investors, through financial intermediaries unless the purchase is part of: (1) a retirement plan which held the Fund prior to this closure, (2) an automatic reinvestment of a distribution made by the Fund, or (3) a de minimis annual rebalancing approved by a member of the Grandeur Peak client team. The Funds will remain open to purchases from existing investors, and to new investors who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds. The Funds retain the right to make exceptions to any Fund closure or limitation on purchases.
[2] "Soft Closure" means that the Fund will close to new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund through third-party intermediaries subject to certain exceptions for financial advisors with an established position in the Fund and participants in certain qualified retirement plans with an existing position in the Fund. The Fund will remain open to purchases from existing investors, and to new investors who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds. The Funds retain the right to make exceptions to any Fund closure or limitation on purchases.
PDF from GP:
https://www.grandeurpeakglobal.com/documents/grandeurpeakglobal-pr-20210517.pdf

David Trainer looks at Coinbase and other similar investments the way this skeptic still does......

Coinbase (COIN), the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the U.S., could see profits come under pressure as more companies embrace blockchain and competition in the exchange space increases, according to at least one strategist.
"This business will be commoditized," David Trainer, CEO of the research firm New Constructs, told Yahoo Finance on Friday.
"You don't make a lot of money trading things," Trainer said.
..."firms like Coinbase are kind of tricking you into thinking, oh, because we're blockchain, we're going to be real profitable," he said. "Well, the real truth about blockchain is that companies are going to be less profitable."

Coinbase

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834421010939/fp0065552_497.htm
497 1 fp0065552_497.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST: GRANDEUR PEAK FUNDS
GRANDEUR PEAK EMERGING MARKETS OPPORTUNITIES FUND
GRANDEUR PEAK GLOBAL REACH FUND
(Each, a “Fund,” and together, the “Funds”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 17, 2021 TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND
PROSPECTUS OF THE FUNDS DATED AUGUST 31, 2020,
AS SUPPLEMENTED FROM TIME TO TIME
Effective as of the close of business on May 28, 2021, the Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund will no longer accept purchases, from new or existing investors, through financial intermediaries unless the purchase is part of:
● a retirement plan which held the Fund prior to this closure,
● an automatic reinvestment of a distribution made by the Fund, or
● a de minimis annual rebalancing approved by a member of the Grandeur Peak client team.
Also, effective as of the close of business on May 28, 2021, the Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund will close to new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund through third party intermediaries subject to certain exceptions for financial advisors with an established position in the Fund and participants in certain qualified retirement plans with an existing position in the Fund.
The Funds remain open to purchases directly from Grandeur Peak Funds by existing investors and by new investors.
The Funds retain the right to make exceptions to any Fund closure or limitation on purchases.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

lost extra income over 30 years minus gained extra income over first three years =
30 years x 12mo/year x ($2112 - $1728) - $62,208 = $138,240 - $62,208 = $76,032.

@msf, This synopsis is a pretty straight forward, narrow view. But for everyone there are the "what ifs".
What if during the years I wait from 67 to 70, I had to withdraw $20k a year
from an IRA to make up the income deficit for cutting back or eliminating work income? $20k x 3 years is $60k potential growth loss. So, that kind of makes your extra $76,032 gain IF I live until 97 more of a pittance in the scheme of things in my opinion. There is a much greater chance of not living until 97 than doing so statistics say. Factor in that $20k from an IRA is fully taxed. SS is partially taxed. And lets factor in the excess SS I will receive at 67 that I don't need to make up my reduced work income. Still using the $20k needed to fill my income deficit, I now have $15k to bank for 3 years = $45k (I should receive ~$35k/year SS now, (35ss - 20 needed income = 15 excess to save).
Bottom line in my mind, that straight forward formula you gave can easily be affected by real life factors everyone has. With all those factors and probably more factors we may not be aware of heading down the road, using your wait until 70 formula has huge variability for being accurate. I think some of the articles posted in this string are saying a similar view.

The Changing Characteristics of Labor:

...by all accounts robots and other forms of automation are set to explode in usage. What this means is that trillions more “hands” will enter the labor force. Better yet, these “hands” will work 24-hours a day, 365 days a year. They’ll never call in sick, or quit either. Their immense productivity will enable human specialization that will render the present rather primitive by comparison. We’re amazed in modern times that there are professional video game players, and video game coaches, but in future decades the previously-mentioned professions will be ho hum compared to what people will eventually be paid to do.

Forbe's Article:
ignore-the-pessimists-the-baby-bust-is-a-bullish-market-signal

Bloomberg Article on Demand and Price Inflation:

Mattress producers to car manufacturers to aluminum foil makers are buying more material than they need to survive the breakneck speed at which demand for goods is recovering and assuage that primal fear of running out. The frenzy is pushing supply chains to the brink of seizing up. Shortages, transportation bottlenecks and price spikes are nearing the highest levels in recent memory, raising concern that a supercharged global economy will stoke inflation.

The World Economy Is Suddenly Running Low on Everything
inflation-rate-2021-and-shortages-companies-panic-buying-as-supplies-run

I thought the original topic worth airing. Appreciate all the great input from members. Lots of great ideas on this and associated investment subjects.
Bottom line for me (from the experience related above) is that none of the four fund families I deal with any longer appear to require the medallion for transfers under 50K or 100K (depending on institution). With my retirement distributions consistently coming out of TRP, I can continue to “feed the goose that lays the golden egg” as necessary without the added hassle. Amen. :)

We had a medallion signature guaranty run around with Vanguard. We had a joint taxable account that we were splitting into two individual trust accounts as part of an estate plan. Vanguard required a medallion signature on the transfer paperwork (even though the names were all the same and the money was staying at Vanguard). We went to our local credit union, but they only guaranty up to $50k. We went to Fidelity, where my husband's 401k is, and they said no because the paperwork wasn't for a Fidelity account. After many, many phone calls to Vanguard, they finally admitted that we could sign up for voice verification and then do the whole thing online. So, might be worth asking about electronic verification alternatives.

Damn!
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/23/17384608/marshall-islands-cryptocurrency-us-dollar-usd-currency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Islands
.....Charlie Munger is not pleased, eh?
...And, since I mentioned him: an utterly remarkable life!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Munger

FAIRX added medallion guarantee requirements in the prospectus dated March 16, 2009. One can compare that with the March 31, 2008 prospectus that did not have those requirements.
FAIRX went from $3.7B as of Nov 30, 2006 to $6.5B as of Nov 30, 2007 to $6.7B as of Nov 2008, to $8.2B as of May 31, 2009, to $10.6B as of Nov 30, 2009.
Annual figures from 2010 prospectus
May 2009 figure from 2009 semi-annual report
There does not appear to have been a deep drawdown around the time the requirements were added. There were however at least a couple of other notable changes made that March.
First, and my guess for why the policy was changed is that the fund changed distributors. For the past two years it had used Quasar Distributors (an affiliate of US Bancorp Fund Services). It switched to PFPC Distributors (an indirect subsidiary of PNC Financial Services Group).
Second, the fund made a major change in investment policies regarding securities it could invest in. Previously it could invest "in securities of public companies including ... equity securities, such as common stocks, partnership interests, business trust shares, convertible securities, and rights and warrants [to purchase such securities]".
After March 16 it would "achieve the Fund's investment objective by investing in a focused portfolio of equity and fixed-income securities." Emphasis added.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1096344/000094040009000260/fairhm77q1.txt

@Hank. I own FAIRX. At some point, FAIRX changed the rules. For selling more than $50K worth of shares, FAIRX now requires a medallion signature (ONLINE transaction not via postal mail). I think this is from when people were pulling $$ out of FAIRX in drove (a long while ago when FAIRX went from I think $16-18 billions to $5 billions and now $1 billion). I am not happy with that rule. However, I stuck with FAIRX. Don't ask me why?

"But why stress over that choice? Whats the + or - going to be, $10k, 20k, 30k maybe? A piddly amount in the scheme of things?"
Here's a quick look at the magnitude of the risk, worst case. According to SSA, the average retiree monthly check (as of Dec 2020) is $1,544. That is likely less than what the average PIA (primary insurance amount - amount one would get at normal retirement age) is, because so many people take SS benefits early. For our back-of-the-envelope purposes, $1600 seems like a reasonable amount to use for the typical full retirement monthly benefit.
Someone born in 1954 retiring in 2021 (age 67) would receive 108% of PIA if they started benefits at age 67, and 132% of PIA if they waited until age 70.
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/1943-delay.html
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/delayret.html
So we can compare a benefit of $1728/mo for an extra 36 months to a benefit of $2112/mo starting at age 70. Worst case if delaying is 36 x $1728 = $62,208 (dying right before turning 70). If we use 100 years old as an upper bound on living, the "worst" case (living too long) of not delaying is:
lost extra income over 30 years minus gained extra income over first three years =
30 years x 12mo/year x ($2112 - $1728) - $62,208 = $138,240 - $62,208 = $76,032.
That's about 2.5x as big a variation as suggested. But that's not the key point. The key point is that by deferring benefits risk of a lower cash flow in very old age is being reduced, and risk reduction has real value. At least for the risk averse.
(FWIW, one of my grandparents lived to near 100, and while 1 in 4 aren't the best odds, it's enough to offer hope and for me to use age 100 for my own planning purposes.)
In short, the piddly (or not so piddly) variation in possible legacies may pale in comparison to the value of the risk reduction achieved should one have the "bad luck" of living a long life.

(No luck cutting and pasting this week. So here’s a few take-aways from this week’s Barrons.)
- There’s a lot of inflation discussion in this week’s issue. Randall Forsyth covers the story in his weekly column, as do some other writers. “Year-over-year” the latest month’s inflation figure came in at +4.2%. One home builder is quoted as saying that he can no longer obtain a firm price on lumber he orders. Prices are rising so fast that the lumber company he deals with won’t commit to a firm price until the day of delivery.
- The most recent U of M consumer confidence survey fell slightly. Barron’s attributes that to worries about inflation.
- There’s also a lengthy article about some new ETFs that allow investors to hedge against bond interest rate risk via various approaches. Several are mentioned. (As discussed in another thread here, Price’s Dynamic Income fund, RPIEX attempts to do the same by selling bonds short.)
- One knowledgeable fixed income trader describes TIPS as “very expensive” and advises against owning them.
- Somewhat curiously, Forsyth devotes considerable space to PRPFX which he views as a possible haven in light of mounting inflationary pressures and distorted asset valuations. Forsyth briefly references manager Michael Cuggino’s views on the current financial backdrop.
This seems like an exceptionally substantive issue, which I’ve only half read at best. The value to me of Barron’s is that it causes me to think a lot about different approaches to investing and different types of investments. Barron’s is not a “how to invest” or “what to buy” guide. Just a great thought provoker.

Thanks @Observant1. I don't think that was well explained last year when they moved the floor from 10% to 50%. I assumed that was a "permanent" change to the funds mandate. Being able to make a floor change like that, within 1 year, still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Their thematic approach is to adjust based on stock market valuation. Leave the floor at 10% and adjust per their value algorithms. Seems Columbia has over-complicated the funds philosophy IMHO.

Here's a similar thread I started a couple of years ago.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/54511/administrative-nuisances-with-some-financial-institutions
The policies and procedures of different institutions are all over the map. I think that a rational argument can be made for requiring medallion signatures in some cases, but not to the extent that some places do.
To address @ET91's question about why a notarized signature isn't sufficient: A notarization validates your signature, but not the accuracy or even truthfulness of what you're signing. Consider a certified check. A bank will certify a check that you write only after if verifies that you have the money in your account and it puts that money aside to cover the check. Notarizing a check does not make it "as good as cash". Similar to check certification, medallion stanps guarantee that you do own the stated security in the stated institution.
It's not unreasonable for the institution guaranteeing the document to review what it is guaranteeing and to keep copies for its records. I agree that it used to be easier to get medallion guarantees - at least to the extent that institutions weren't so restrictive about what they would guarantee.
Then there are the banks .... I had a similar experience to what @catch22 described - with a relative for whom mobility (rather than distance) was a problem. No accommodation offered. Then there's the pettiness. The only time I've used BofA for a notarized signature (for which they require you to be a customer), the bank insisted on charging me the legal maximum for the service: $2! (I could have billed it to my HOA since I was getting a document notarized for the HOA, but I like to think I have better values than BofA ... at least $2 better :-) )

Fro @Catch’s Patriot Act link above:
“What Banks Consider to be Suspicious Activity …
“Another red flag for banks is when you have account activity that is out of the ordinary. For example, if you normally make $5,000 deposits into your business checking account every two weeks, making much larger deposits could trigger an account audit.
“The Patriot Act does not require banks to notify you that your account is being investigated for suspicious activity. This means that your bank can freeze your account without telling you the reason. While you're in the dark about what is going on, the bank is most likely filing a Suspicious Activities Report with the federal government … .”
Makes me wonder if transferring a large sum (like $25,000) from a mutual fund to a bank checking account in anticipation of buying a new car or other major outlay would trigger this? Seems to me that if the government was serious about money laundering they’d impose some tighter sanctions on crypto.

May 15th:

Tribute to Davis Swensen:


The Persistence and Predictability of Closed-EndFund Discounts - Burton G. Malkiel:

Unlike a regular (open-end) mutual fund, which sells new shares at net asset value (in some cases plus a sales charge) and also redeems shares at the net asset value (in some cases minus a redemption fee), a closed-end fund issues a fixed number of shares that then trade in the stock market just like an ordinary stock. Holders of shares who wish to liquidate must sell their shares to other investors. The shares are typically issued at net asset value (NAV) plus a fee to defray underwriting costs. Thus, the fund begins life selling at a premium. But typically, within months, the stock of the fund persistently sells at a discount to NAV.This persistent discount appears to violate the law of one price and constitutes the closed-end fund puzzle.

www-stat.wharton.upenn.edu/~steele/Courses/956/Resource/CEF/MalkielXu.pdf
Closed-End Fund (CEF) Investing: 14 Criteria For Better Yield:
https://wantfi.com/closed-end-fund-investing-guide.html

May 7th

Snippets of rules and regs.....
The below is from BOA, but typical of other banks:
--- In order to add or remove an owner and add, remove or update a beneficiary on your Bank of America account, you'll need to schedule an appointment in a financial center. When adding an owner, all account owners will need to be present at the appointment and bring a valid government-issued photo ID.
Example: Parent or parents want to add an adult daughter(s) or son(s) to their savings/checking account at their bank or credit union. A very good idea in the event of impairment or death of the parent/parents. Control of the account may be maintained for bill paying, etc.; by the daughter(s) or son(s). Account beneficiary(s) as well as a Power of Attorney is a separate matter for this discussion. SO.....mom, dad and adult son (who lives nearby) have to be present together to sign new documents. Later, let's add 1 daughter who lives 100 miles away. Mom, dad, son and daughter all have to be present to sign another new document. Still later, let's add daughter number 2 who lives 220 miles away. Mom, dad, son and daughter number 1, with daughter 2 all have to be present with a bank officer to create another new document.
I asked a bank officer I know about this process. I asked about which provisions for all of this may be relative to the Patriot Act. She only stated that some policies of the bank were internal to their operation and that other policies were "noted" as a "follow the Federal rules" aspect.
2005.....Patriot Act compliance, then and renewed/expanded since
Patriot Act and banking