@Sven, I just test traded EVBIX again in my Fidelity SEP-IRA, and the minimum I see before placing the trade continues to be $500 + TF. Perhaps they have different minimums for specific retirement accounts.
Kevin

Good point Jerry about 401(k) So here's a link including IRAs. Still not real encouraging
http://www.fidelity.com/inside-fidelity/employer-services/fidelity-analysis-highlights-balances-and-contribution-rates-of-combined-retirement-savings
And another link breaking down balances by age
http://www.401khelpcenter.com/press_2013/pr_fidelity_022713.html#.VAn0XsJdWSo

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000091580214000043/grandeurpeakglobalreachhardc.htm
497 1 grandeurpeakglobalreachhardc.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund
(the “Fund”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2014 TO THE PROSPECTUS
DATED AUGUST 31, 2014
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Prospectus for the Fund dated August 31, 2014. You should retain this Supplement and the Prospectus for future reference. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.grandeurpeakglobal.com or calling us at 1.855.377.PEAK (7325).
Effective as of the close of business on September 30, 2014, the Fund will close to all purchases, except as described below (the “Hard Closure”). The Hard Closure of the Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund means purchases will no longer be accepted into this Fund from either new or existing shareholders after September 30th, unless the purchase is part of one of the listed exceptions:
Institutional Shareholders:
•401k plans with an existing position
•Automatic rebalancing of an existing position (as long as purchase amounts are de minimis, as determined by Grandeur Peak)
Retail Shareholders (Direct Shareholders Only):
•Retirement Accounts
•Education Savings Accounts
•Minor Accounts (UTMA/UGMA)
•Pre-established Automatic Investment Plans
All Shareholders:
•Automatic reinvestment of the Fund distribution
These exceptions will be implemented wherever possible, but they may not be possible on all intermediary platforms.
As described in the Prospectus, the Fund’s investment adviser, Grandeur Peak Global Advisors, LLC, or the Fund each retains the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close a Fund or limit inflows into a Fund.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

For copyright reasons, I found the article link, which is below.
http://www.bottomlinepublications.com/content/article/wealth-a-retirement/faltering-funds

Stop investing in MM funds altogether? What nonsense? Someone in retirement does not want all his money in stocks/bonds. If he is raising his "cash" stake does not mean he is "invested" in MM funds. It is because one does not want to risk all capital "invested" in Stocks/bonds.
Second, all 401Ks do NOT offer Stable Value funds anymore. How can participants "look for stable value funds?".
Finally, incompetent regulators before coming up with such a rule need to also make 401k plan participants offer a CASH option. In IRAs at brokerages one has that option. In 401ks that does not have an option. If Stable Value fund is not available in 401k and MM funds are risky because they NAV can now float how is a retiree to safeguard wealth accumulated over the years?

FYI: (Follow-Up Article)
401(k) investors need to rethink money-market mutual funds
The Securities and Exchange Commission earlier this summer released new money-market mutual regulations that those saving for retirement might want to review, especially if they are among the millions who have invested on average anywhere from 2% to 6% of their 401(k) in such funds
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-safe-money-market-fund-may-be-at-risk-2014-09-02/print

@ VintageFreak Index funds may be the answer to your dilemma (not the drywall one)

Not sure I had any dilemma, but as I have said many times I do use index and balanced funds primarily in my retirement accounts.

From the link in MFO post, http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/14903/causeway-funds-in-registration#latest,
the following information was posted in their SEC filing:
"...The Fund expects to pay significantly increased taxable distributions of net short-term capital gain (that is, the excess of short-term capital gains over short-term capital losses) and net capital gain (that is, the excess of net long-term capital gain over net short-term capital loss) in 2014 due to its conversion
29
Table of Contents
in October 2014 from a “fund of funds” structure to directly investing in portfolio securities. This is because when it converted, the Fund redeemed shares in underlying Causeway Funds that had appreciated from the time the Fund purchased the shares, causing the Fund to realize capital gain during 2014. Taxable investors receiving the distributions should be prepared to pay taxes on them (at ordinary income rates for the net short-term capital gain and, for non-corporate shareholders, at the 15% and 20% maximum rates mentioned above for the net capital gain). However, if you are investing in the Fund through a tax-advantaged retirement plan or account, or are a tax-exempt investor, there will be tax consequences to you from those distributions. "

I have a neighbor who worked his 40 years as a federal employees. Yet his knowledge of saving for retirement is lacking to say the least. It is all too common that many do not wish to be informed and the are easy prey by these brokers.

FYI: John Turner suspected that brokers were encouraging federal workers to ditch their top-flight retirement plan. So he went undercover.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/as-brokers-urge-ira-rollovers-ex-workers-ditch-their-low-fee-federal-retirement-plan/2014/08/14/53c68dd0-2239-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html

Bee, according to a test trade I just made in my Fidelity retirement account, EVBIX is available for a $500 minimum with a $49.95 initial transaction fee.
Kevin

@Crash: a few observations..
"It's not a very big amount, a bit more than 6% of my portfolio." in professional asset management, this is a very big trade -- have no doubt. plus you're redeeming the more stable exposure to fund the frontier one....
on the other hand, 30% in one fund that is not a target-date or otherwise multi-asset fund is obscene, i agree. but your asset allocation and decision making seem a bit rushed. hope you have checked your portfolio composition via morning* or otherwise and are satisfied that it will meet your retirement or alternatively specified goals. good luck.

FYI: My youngest daughter was born 21 years ago this week. At the time, I called an economist named Mark Lino from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, who told me to expect to spend as much as $300,000 to get her to age 18; toss in college costs, and it was well past $500,000 to get her to adulthood.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-its-so-difficult-to-raise-kids-and-save-for-retirement-2014-08-22/print

Thanks for the link Ted...I enjoyed the "life of Riley Index" articles, and have bookmarked Scott Burns. It's good to place a bit of perspective on the retirement goal (which is very close).
Press

Hi Ted,
The fund that you mentioned (SHRAX) likely never made it to my candidates list way back in the early 1990s. I avoided front-end loaded mutual funds like the plaque that they are. I was reading John Bogle’s “Common Sense on Mutual Funds” in those days, and indeed agreed that costs mattered greatly.
The front-loaded funds were immediately discarded by me from further consideration. I probably interviewed a half dozen financial advisors during that period, and every single one of them recommended portfolios populated only by these costly products.
Our potential retirement war-chest was modest, and I was sickened at the prospects of reducing it immediately by a composite 5% to 6%. It would take years of positive outcomes to replace those unnecessary highway robbery charges. I still feel that way, but less so as my wealth substantially increased. Even then, I believe that I recognized that I was summarily tossing away some excellent fund managers.
I do like Ricky Freeman’s record and his tenure. It is outstanding. He definitely is a talented and skilled stock picker. I am especially impressed by his low portfolio turnover numbers. The man makes his choices, and he stays the course with them. He sticks to his guns. Good for him, and the record shows that it is good for his investors too.
Automatically discarding front loaded funds will eliminate some superior active fund managers. However, I suspect that from an overarching portfolio strategy, it probably does more good than harm.
That’s more than a naked opinion since the cumulative fund management data consistently demonstrates that, on an annual basis, only 20% to 40% of active mangers outdistance passive Index management. Integrated over time, those numbers deteriorate even more, not including the upfront fee. It’s a hard uphill road to overcome fees, and the odds do not favor the individual investor.
Thanks for your input.
Best Wishes.

........ but I think there will be an entry point in the next 6 months that even I can recognize.
.......one-time contribution to my new grandchild's retirement fund. $3K now presumably produces over $4M at 70, if it's shifted into a Roth when she starts earning money.

Yeah, the math is pretty compelling. Assuming any taxable distributions are paid from outside the account. Here's what happens to a one time investment of $3,000 assuming a rate of return of 10%, allowing for 70 years of compounding:
$3,000 invested at 10.0% annually for 70 years yields: $2,369,241
Interesting, that $3,00 is just the amount needed to invest in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund.......and imagine if the person holds that investment for 70 years. [Actually, you can invest in VTI, the etf version, with no minimum].
Regarding "I think there will be an entry point in the next 6 months".....just wondering what gives you this confidence of what will happen in the next 6 months? How much of a drop are you expecting, and how much would be an acceptable entry point for you?

While I like the phrase: "It's time in the market, not timing the market," I can't ignore Schiller's assessment of the market. My children's IRAs spring contributions languish in cash, earning far less than the 3+% quoted in the article, but I think there will be an entry point in the next 6 months that even I can recognize.
OTOH, I'm ambivalent about the timing of my one-time contribution to my new grandchild's retirement fund. $3K now presumably produces over $4M at 70, if it's shifted into a Roth when she starts earning money. I might open the account and add most of the money later. Guess it all depends on her parent's ability to keep her from closing the account prematurely.

The new Unconstrained funds everyone is jumping into?
Considering we are in a rising interest rate environment, which bonds if any will do better that others? What if you are close to or in retirement age? What to do.

The new unconstrained bond funds are in response to the fact that interest rates have gone down since September 1981, and they can't go down forever. We have been in a bull market for bonds lasting 33 years. On September 8, 1981, the 10-Year Treasury had a yield of 15.59%. Those who bought and held it made 15.59% each and every year for 10 years, risk free, then got their full principal back.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DGS10
The same 10-Year Treasury has a yield of 2.4% today.
The unconstrained funds typically have a lower duration, with the express purpose of decreasing interest rate sensitivity. A bond fund with a duration of 6 years will experience a 12% loss of NAV if the corresponding interest rates of those bonds rise 2%.
Add in the yield to that loss of NAV and the total return is calculated.
Full disclosure: I have no interest rate forecast nor will I ever have one.
In exchange for interest rate risk, the unconstrained bond funds, flexible income funds, "tactical income funds", or whatever you wish to call them, take on more credit risk.
Why do they have to take on more credit risk as a result of decreasing their duration/maturity? Because very high quality bonds, such as Treasuries, have such a low yield, that when you shorten the maturity of the bonds and subtract the expense ratio of the active bond fund, you are not left with much yield. Therefore, bank loans and junk bonds and other high credit risk securities enter into the portfolios of these mutual funds.

Okay I will jump in and start this thread. It seems to be way overdue.
So what about bonds and bond funds? The new Unconstrained funds everyone is jumping into? Gundlach?
Lots of questions here. Considering we are in a rising interest rate environment, which bonds if any will do better that others? Will the impact be short or long term? What if you are close to or in retirement age? What to do.
Dive in and post your opinions and suggestions.

FYI: So you have been bitten by the gold bug? Here are six easy ways to add a little gold to any portfolio — and the pros and cons of each. (Sources: GoldResource.net, SeekingAlpha.com, Morningstar Inc. and Kapitall Inc)
Regards,
Ted
1. Mutual Fund
The $70 million Gold Bullion Strategy Investor Fund (QGLDX) is currently the only mutual offering pure-play exposure to the price of gold. Launched 12 months ago, the fund gains exposure to the gold through a 25% allocation to gold futures contracts and a 75% weighting in short-term bonds.
Pros: Liquidity. Also works as an interest rate hedge. No transaction costs.
Cons: Above average expense ratio. Relatively untested strategy.
2. Exchange-Traded Funds
The financial services industry created multiple ways to generate long- or short-exposure to the price of gold. But, keep in mind, whether the various exchange-traded products are offering long or short exposure, they are essentially designed to track the price of gold, as opposed actually owning the precious metal.
Pros: Inexpensive to own and easy to buy, with all-day liquidity. A good vehicle for traders.
Cons:Transaction costs. Most company-sponsored retirement plans still do not offer exchange-traded product
3. Gold bullion
There is no greater commitment to gold investing than direct ownership and possession of gold coins and bullion.
Pros: A sense of security like none other, assuming you have a secure storage facility. The best price you’ll get when buying physical gold.
Cons: There is a mark-up when purchasing bars and ingots, and when selling you might need to hire a professional appraiser. Bullion is also less liquid than coins, and can be difficult to use as an actual currency for smaller purchases.
4. 4. Gold coins
Coins introduce a different level of physical gold ownership because the value is affected by multiple factors, including brand, country of origin, and supply of specific coin brands by location.
Pros: When demand for gold is high, gold coins can sell at a premium to the price of gold. Can be used as currency.
Cons: Easy to purchase, but there is usually a steep convenience upcharge, and the spreads rarely favor smaller investors.
5. Futures and options
Not for the meek or inexperienced investor, trading futures and options is considered among the best ways to make money in gold, assuming you have a solid understanding of how it’s done. It is a strategy best left to the professionals.
Pros: A lot of money can be made without putting up a lot capital, because this is a market designed for speculators.
Cons: You can lose your shirt in a hurry.
6. Gold-mining stocks
A less direct way to gain exposure to the price of gold, mining company stocks generally benefit from rising gold prices, but the correlation can be unpredictable because of other factors driving revenues and profits.
Pros: There is usually dividend income. The stocks can sometimes outperform gold prices.
Cons: Transaction costs for buying and selling the securities. There is always a risk that the company stock prices will move way out of step with the price of gold.