Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Grandeur Peak Global Explorer Fund Launch

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:

Best Regards,

Mark Siddoway, CFA, CAIA, MBA
Head of Client Relations

Todd Matheny, CAIA
Director of Client Relations

Amy Johnson, MBA, CFP®
Sr. Manager, Client Relations

*Third-party platforms may impose different minimum requirements.


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.”


  • The press release makes clear the benefit to the Grandeur Peak staff: those who were assistants are now in charge of something. But what is the benefit to the potential investor? If Global Reach and Global Explorer "will look fairly similar" then what is the benefit of Global Explorer to the investor already invested in Global Reach?
  • See my post above.
  • Derf, what post are you referring to, please?
  • @Ben : The post was below not above Roys' post.
    Purchase went thur per recent phone call.
  • Ah. I see the post now. Maybe I'll phone Grandeur Peak and see if they can answer my question. At the moment I don't see the difference between owning shares in a mutual fund that chose its investments by method A and a different fund with the same company that chose the identical stock investments by method B. X number of shares in company Y is the same no matter what prompted the decision to buy these shares. From the press release etc, it seems that the new fund will hold the same stocks as Global Reach but for different reasons. This puzzles me.
  • I had a pleasant talk with Grandeur Peak and got the answer to my question : At the outset the holdings of Global Explorer will have a lot of overlap with that of Global Reach but with different weightings. Over time it is expected that the portfolios will become less similar.
  • edited December 2021
    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.
  • 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.
  • edited December 2021
    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?
  • 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
  • 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
    @Derf, I'm not understanding your comments. Can you explain what you mean?
  • When a MF gets hot, more money flows in & as the heat continues more , lots more pours in !! To my way of thinking , Management must find a place to invest this inflow. Chances of finding a "good home" for these investments turns to stocks & others that will pan out to be dogs & a drag on that once of a lifetime winner.
    Now I'm note stating this is going to happen every time, but more than one would think.

    I hope this answers your question, Derf
  • edited December 2021
    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.
  • Your last comment is your best @TheShadow !
  • edited December 2021
    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 hold a handful of GP funds in both taxable and Roth. Sad to see that they're trending down the Royce route here. I held them in higher regard.
  • I'll check & see how they compare with Chuck.
    Long term holds for me.

  • I have a few philosophical issues with the split--geography/industry--approach. Let's say you're a general global stock money manager with just one fund. You've got two analysts--one a global tech analyst and the other a Japan analyst. The tech analyst comes to you and says "I am finding some of the best tech values of my life in Japan. We should load up on them." But the Japan analyst comes to you and says "Japan is on the brink of economic collapse. We should avoid it at all costs." Wouldn't the wise thing to do be to incorporate/integrate both viewpoints, and maybe have a modest Japan tech weighting in only the very best Japanese tech companies that actually were the least dependent on the Japanese economy to thrive, perhaps exporters of some sort? Would you really want those two viewpoints split into two separate funds--have one loaded with Japanese tech stocks and the other with no Japanese exposure at all? Are you doing best by your shareholders by allowing for such schisms?
    I guess what I'm saying is that the appeal of Global Reach is its holistic approach of putting all of the firm's best ideas into it, having a truly singular view of money management instead of slicing and dicing the bread too thin in ten different directions. In the really old days of money management most active managers only ran one or maybe two funds. In fact, some were employed directly by the fund instead of contracting out to a separate money management firm. (See John Bogle's "two masters" essays.) All of the manager's best ideas went into their one fund, and they ran it to the best of their entire staff's abilities. They wouldn't act as though, "Oh we have a great micro-cap stock idea, but you know what we're going to leave it out of this fund because well you only get the second-tier mid-cap ideas we have while the other fund is gated off, and you can't access it."
  • @LewisBraham: yes, these were similar to my thoughts as well. According to the phone conversation I had with a Grandeur Peak representative, Global Explorer will take the same collaborative, mutually consulting approach as Global Reach, which is likely —at first — to result in similar holdings but with a different weighting. It doesn't seem like "you can't have this stock" enters into the equation. However it also looks like (and I may have misunderstood this point) that Global Explorer might have more micro caps in its portfolio than Global Reach.
  • So now there will be six global funds--Global Stalwarts, Global Reach, Global Opportunities, Global Micro Cap, Global Contrarian and Global Explorer. My impression was that Global Opportunities was supposed to have more micro caps than Global Reach.
  • edited December 2021
    The following is not about GP per se. A manager of a new fund is usually very accessible to potential investors. I have spoken with a few, even those that are already managing billions. The only way to know about the nature of a fund that can not be gleaned from public info is to talk with the fund manager. (We tend to expect more from fund reps than their job entails - to give us administrative info and act as a go between us and the fund investment professionals.)
  • "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
  • Rather high ER, that's all I can say. I own none of them.
Sign In or Register to comment.