On April 20th, 2020, the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil fell to negative $37.63 U.S. dollars per barrel. Admittedly, that was a short term aberration related to imbalances in the futures markets along with the Covid-19 panic. That said, oil’s price has tended to run in the $20-$40 range over much of the past decade, rarely getting above $50.
But oil has been climbing steadily now for several weeks. At this time, Bloomberg is showing Brent at $52 and NYMEX at $48.90. Unfortunately, the rally hasn’t helped refiner rich PRNEX much. The fund is still off 2% YTD and also negative over the past year. Curiously, Lipper places it in the top tier (5/5) in its category for “total return” - reflecting the deeper issues affecting these types of nat resource funds.
Disclosure - I’ve owned PRNEX from time to time. Sold it 1-2 months ago before it’s recent uptick. Should have held on.

@stillers +1 (though I might recalculate the three year std dev after adjusting for the March 2020 outlier)
"I agree with stillers that beyond the 3-year threashhold DODFX has outperformed DODIX. Yet, according to Lipper, at the 10-year point their annualized returns are nearly identical: DODIX: +4.67% / DODFX: +4.85%"
However, since the timeframe you are interested in is 3 years, we can compare performance data over the past three years. M* reports that the foreign large cap value category lost an annualized average of 0.70%, through Nov 30th. See its trailing total returns here (click on Monthly tab). DODFX did bit better, losing just 0.10% annually. Fidelity reports that the average prime MMF made 1.31% annually through Nov 30th (see its graph here).
Using the theory that one should take money from winners and place it on losers, we should take money out of cash and bet it on foreign large cap value funds? Surely that doesn't sound right; MMFs are safer investments, even now, than DODFX. One can stretch rules of thumb too far, especially over short time frames.
I do agree with Giroux that IG bonds do not look attractive. However, if one accepts the Fed statement that it will keep short term rates near zero for the next three years, then one might eek out a bit better return with IG bonds than with a "high" yield savings account. That's at least until the economy heats up, which could push longer term rates higher. IMHO this small potential improvement in return isn't worth the risk but it's a thought.
But DODIX isn't a vanilla IG bond fund. It can invest a significant amount in junk - it is a "core plus" fund. While IG bonds and the stock market have essentially no correlation (BND and VTSMX have a correlation coefficient of -0.04), DODIX and VTSMX have a correlation coefficient of 0.58 over the past three years.
Edit: Over the past decade, DODFX has outperformed its category by just north of 1% annually. Not great, but enough for M* to characterize its 10 year performance as "above average" (vs. its 3 year "average" performance). It earns a lower star rating than its performance suggests because its risk is rated "high" over all time frames, and star ratings are risk adjusted.

TMSRX has distributed its holiday fare to shareholders this week. It threw off a big dollop of short term capital gains and a generous slice of income. The secret sauce ain’t cheap if held in a taxable account. Nevertheless, there is much for which to be grateful.

I felt that TMSRX's $0.29 distribution on 12-15-2020 (approx 2.7% in total) would be ok for a taxable acct.

hank: I agree with @stillers that beyond the 3-year threshold DODFX has outperformed DODIX.

Hank, FWIW, I did NOT say that. I only presented SD data for the 3-yr period, not performance data.
On cash substitutes, good that you can take the volatility of DODIX as a cash sub. That said, there is a wasteland of 2020 M* forums participants who previously thought that several multi-sector bond funds with high concentrations of securitized holdings were good cash subs. They learned some very hard lessons in Feb-Mar this year.
It doesn't surprise me that DODFX and DODIX had similar TRs over 10 years. No offense, but DODFX is not a very good FLV fund, while DODIX is a worthy domestic IC+ bond fund.
Bottom Line: Don't overthink this. You're asking if a mediocre international stock fund is riskier than a domestic IC+ fund. Risk, in its simplest form, is uncertainty concerning loss. SD, while not exactly a measure of that, is a still a worthy measure of it and DODFX's SD is about 5x-6x greater than DODIX's for all prior time frames.
Granted, the macro outlook sure is pointing to outperformance of international stocks in the coming year(s). Now if I only had a nickel for the multiple times that's been the macro thinking over my 40 years of investing, I'd, well, probably have enough money for something.

TMSRX has distributed its holiday fare to shareholders this week. It threw off a big dollop of short term capital gains and a generous slice of income. The secret sauce ain’t cheap if held in a taxable account. Nevertheless, there is much for which to be grateful.

In its 30+ year history, dating back to 1989, I can find only 5 years when DODIX failed to generate a positive return. In only 1 of those years did its loss exceed 1% (it lost 2.9% in 1994). As a substitute for a money market fund (vs a clone or replica) I can under most circumstances accept that amount of volatility. Others may make their own decisions. Yahoo Performance data: DODIX
I agree with @stillers that beyond the 3-year threshold DODFX has outperformed DODIX. Yet, according to Lipper, at the 10-year point their annualized returns are nearly identical: DODIX: +4.67% / DODFX: +4.85%
And I agree that an international stock fund is inherently riskier than a predominately investment grade domestic bond fund. That’s a mathematically provable thesis as well as conventional wisdom. But an individual investor might view risk differently, asking “Which of these choices is more likely to generate gain and less likely to produce a loss over a relatively short near-term period (1-3 years) based on the macro outlook?” I’m suggesting that on the second note the “playing field” is much less uneven now than it has conventionally been. Others are concerned about fixed income as well. David Giroux in his last semi annual report called the investment grade bond market “extremely unattractive and in fact the most unattractive it has been in my whole career.” Capital Appreciation Semi-Annual Report 2020
Not seeking to answer my own question, but rather to explain why I felt it deserved to be asked. If the question didn’t have at least two sides to it, it wouldn’t be worth asking. And thanks @sillers for your input.

Your work above on CTFAX showed its possible for a F of F's to have 100% TO ratio.
BAMPX had numerous portfolio changes 3/31/2020 to 9/30/2020 (per annual and semi annual) as did CTFAX. Although the bond/equity allocation of BAMPX remained constant (+/- 5%), many of the the funds within the allocation totally changed. Comparing the two periods....43% of the allocations in the fund were sold and no longer have overlap. iShares Core S&P Total Mkt 16 to 10%, US Total Bond Index Master 13 to 0%, Blackrock Strategic Inc Opp 12 to 18% and 4 other funds went from 3-5% allocations to 0% each. Five new funds were purchased. The changes made were done so within just 6 months. TO ratios are annualized so we may have more changes within the remaining 6 months to get to the 98%. Therefore, I guess its possible for F of F's to reach 100% TO as these two examples indicate.
Just to clarify... my comment on Money markets was, as I indicated, intended to be separate not related to this matter. I do not want to infer anyone is profiting by trading. In fact, their strategy may be a good thing not a bad thing in my book. Their fund performance will tell the tale over time :) BAMPX looks like a good candidate for my watch list. Thank the author for the heads up.

@lynnbolin2021

@MJPete, I have different views set up. Do you have a particular fund family that you are restricted to?

Hello again, and thank you. I apologize for rambling I'm new to the sight looking to increase my knowledge and technique. I run a loose bucket strategy that I just need to tune up knowing I don't have a lot of down market protection.
Not as much a fund that I'm restricted to but whatever Pershing has set up, which is inconsistent and has wide variations of fund classes. Blackrock, Fidelity, Vanguard, Franklin incur fees which are manageable with large enough transactions.
I just spent about two hours scrubbing for class shares of alternates to your list and T.Rowe Price Global Stock is available, though I wish Capital Appreciation was, (but has been closed for some time now. I'm hoping the new management house they just announced will open it (and a few others up in the future)
The others I am interested in are share classes with $1m-5m min. exchanges, or just as ETF, so not available. I appreciate your offer run a different view.

CTFAX makes sizeable changes in general, not only relative to the S&P 500. Between its annual report p. 68 (period ending Dec 31, 2019) and its semiannual report p. 43 (period ending June 30, 2020), it decreased its allocation of fixed income funds from 71.1% to 44.2%. It sold off all of its inflation protected securities fund (7.9% of the portfolio), all of its Total Return Bond Fund (about 5% of the portfolio), and decreased its other bond funds by around 5-10% (eyeballing). At the same time it inceased its equity fund holdings from 19.7% to 44.7%, and increased its equity ETF holdings from 5.0% to 7.9%.
That wasn't just around the S&P 500. It increased its Dividend Income Fund allocation from 2.0% to 4.9%, its Acorn Int'l Fund from 2% to 4.9%, its Acorn Fund from 2% to 5%. You detect a pattern here - outside of large cap funds, it raised its equity fund allocations by 2.5x. But it raised its large cap funds, those closest to the S&P 500, by "only" 2.1x, from 11.8% to 24.9%. And it changed Mid cap fund altogether, swapping out its 2.0% of Acorn Fund for 5.0% of Select Midcap Value.
That was just in six months. It's not hard to see how this fund could have a 100% turnover just counting the churn of underlying funds.
The funds mentioned, CTFAX, Blackrock X%/Y% funds invest strictly in house funds (Columbia and Blackrock/iShares respectively), so it's hard to see how the fund companies profit from trading. Certainly one could see them profiting by keeping a higher allocation to cash, just as Schwab makes its money in its managed portfolios by keeping a high cash allocation. But at least for CTFAX, its MMF allocation is under 1%.

CTFAX Statement of Additional Information p.102 says under normal conditions the portfolio turnover rate is expected to be below 150%. The past 4 year CTFAX avg has been in the 100% range like BAMPX 98%. CTFAX makes portfolio changes relative to changes in the S&P500. I do not know if small daily adjustments to portfolio allocations within a F of F's would amount to 98% annualized TO rate... but maybe so. I do not know the answer to BAMPX. All of the Blackrock Target Funds 80/20, 60/40, 40/60 and 20/80 have similar TO ratio numbers around 100% in 2020. Separately... I also remember reading somewhere that in some conditions money market instruments purchases may include a profit to the dealer resulting in a TO ratio skew.

Zacks Premium Research for RPHYX
Zacks MF Rank More Info Strong Sell 5
MF Research Report

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1137360/000113736020000525/vvtkol2020liquidations.htm
(KOL)
497 1 vvtkol2020liquidations.htm 497E SUPPLEMENT TO PROSPECTUS AND SAI
SUPPLEMENT DATED DECEMBER 3, 2020 TO
THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND PROSPECTUS DATED MAY 1, 2020 AND THE CURRENT STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
OF VANECK VECTORS ETF TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 24, 2020
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the above-dated Summary Prospectus and Prospectus and the current Statement of Additional Information for VanEck Vectors® ETF Trust (the “Trust”) regarding VanEck Vectors Coal ETF (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust. You may obtain copies of the Fund’s Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information free of charge, upon request, by calling toll-free1.800.826.2333 or by visiting the VanEck website at www.vaneck.com.
At a meeting held on December 3, 2020, the Board of Trustees of the Trust unanimously approved the liquidation, winding down and termination of the Fund, which is expected to happen on or about Tuesday, December 22, 2020.
After the close of business on Monday, December 14, 2020, the Fund will no longer accept creation orders. This is also expected to be the last day of trading of shares of the Fund on NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”). Shareholders should be aware that when the Fund commences liquidation, it will no longer pursue its stated investment objective or engage in any business activities except for the purposes of selling and converting into cash all of the assets of the Fund, paying its liabilities, and distributing its remaining proceeds or assets to shareholders (the “Liquidating Distribution”). During this period, the Fund is likely to incur higher tracking error than is typical for the Fund. Furthermore, during the time between market close on Monday, December 14, 2020 and Tuesday, December 22, 2020, shareholders will be unable to dispose of their shares on NYSE Arca.
Shareholders may sell their holdings of the Fund, incurring typical transaction fees from their broker-dealer, on NYSE Arca until market close on Monday, December 14, 2020, at which point the Fund’s shares will no longer trade on NYSE Arca and the shares will be subsequently delisted. Shareholders who continue to hold shares of the Fund on the Fund’s liquidation date will receive a Liquidating Distribution (if any) with a value equal to their proportionate ownership interest in the Fund on that date. Such Liquidating Distribution received by a shareholder, if any, may be in an amount that is greater or less than the amount a shareholder might receive if they dispose of their shares on NYSE Arca prior to market close on Monday, December 14, 2020. The Fund’s liquidation and payment of the Liquidating Distribution may occur prior to or later than the dates listed above.
Shareholders who receive a Liquidating Distribution generally will recognize a capital gain or loss equal to the amount received for their shares over their adjusted basis in such shares. Please consult your personal tax advisor about the potential tax consequences.
Shareholders should call the Fund’s distributor, Van Eck Securities Corporation, at 1.800.826.2333 for additional information.
Please retain this supplement for future reference.

Just received an email from GP which states:
December 17, 2020
Dear Fellow Investors,
We are announcing today that the Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund (GPGIX/GPGOX) and Grandeur Peak International Opportunities Fund (GPIIX/GPIOX) (the "Funds") will close to new investors through intermediary platforms after December 31, 2020. The Funds will remain open to existing investors. Retirement plans and financial advisors with existing clients in the Funds will still be able to invest in the Funds for existing as well as new clients as long as their clearing platform will allow this exception. The Funds will remain open to new investors who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds.
Both Funds were re-opened during the market melt-down in the spring in order to provide an opportunity for investors to invest during the sell-off. With the strong rebound in the market, and even stronger performance by the Funds this year, they are back to assets levels where we feel it’s necessary to limit inflows. As you know, we carefully review capacity at the firm level and strategy level. We are committed to keeping all of our investment strategies small enough to be able to fully pursue their investment strategies without being encumbered by either their individual asset base or the firms’ collective assets. Achieving performance for our clients will always be our paramount objective.
As a reminder, these two Funds, as well as all of the Grandeur Peak Funds, will be making their annual capital gains and income distributions on December 29th, with a shareholder record date of December 28th. If you would like to make further investments in these Funds within taxable accounts prior to year-end, you may wish to wait until after December 28th to avoid the distribution.1
Thank you for your continued interest and 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 Huefner
President

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834420024642/fp0060307_497.htm
497 1 fp0060307_497.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST: GRANDEUR PEAK FUNDS
SUPPLEMENT DATED DECEMBER 17, 2020 TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND
PROSPECTUS FOR THE GRANDEUR PEAK GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND AND
GRANDEUR PEAK INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND (THE “FUNDS”) DATED
AUGUST 31, 2020
Effective as of the close of business on December 31, 2020, the Funds 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 from existing shareholders, and to new shareholders who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds.
The Fund retains the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close the Fund or limit inflows into the Fund.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

@wxman123
Here is the answer: pay businesses to be closed:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/15/false-choice-between-economy-containing-virus/

Nothin.
Unsure about travel in 2021. That’s the biggest discretionary expense. So, like 2020, next year might require little drawdown from investments. That argues for staying the course rather than building cash. Somehow wish it were other. (But have reduced spec positions while waiting for the next 25-30% selloff).
Nice bounce today across the boards. DJI is up 300 in early afternoon - above the 30,000 mark.
Energy’s strong with Brent over $50 and NYMX close behind.
And a pop of about $25 for gold, with miners up a couple percent today.
I remain convinced a lot of the action is of “the elephant chasing his tail” variety, with folks investing $$ they’d have spent on things without the Covid related restrictions. But “don’t fight the tape” (or do so at your own peril).
In the meantime .... What’s not to like?
At this point I view bonds as the wastewater of the investment plumbing infrastructure. They still serve some purpose - but don’t expect them to contribute to your prosperity.

When it comes to allocation, it is meant to be equally allocated to the underlying funds...

Source? De facto ≠ de jure
Prospectus:

Investment Objective
The fund seeks long-term growth of capital.
----
Principal Investment Strategies
Normally investing assets in a combination of five Fidelity ® funds, each of which normally invests in equity securities of companies that represent a disruptive theme.

• Fidelity ® Disruptive Automation Fund ...
  
• Fidelity ® Disruptive Communications Fund ...
  
• Fidelity ® Disruptive Finance Fund ...
  
• Fidelity ® Disruptive Medicine Fund ...
  
• Fidelity ® Disruptive Technology Fund ...

Fidelity’s disruptive strategies seek to identify innovative developments ...

That's the complete description of how this fund operates in the statutory prospectus.
Just "a combination" of funds, not an equal combination.

Do you mean any other funds of funds, or funds in general?
You may remember the Strong Advisor funds of the 1990s and early 2000s, with their turnover ratios of
 60.3% (Small Cap Value, 2000),
 87.8% (Opportunity Fund, 2001),
 88.1% (International Core Fund, 2003),
 95.4% (Common Stock Fund, 2000),
116.1% (US Value Fund, 2001),
116.6% (US Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund, 2004),
174.2% (Utilities and Energy Fund, 2003),
184.5% (Technology Fund, 2003),
186.8% (Emerging Growth Fund, 2000),
199.4% (Growth and Income Fund, 2003),
221.6% (Large Company Core Fund, 2001),
234.1% (Balanced Fund, 2001),
268.5% (Blue Chip Fund, 2003),
269.3% (Large Cap Core Fund, 2002),
285.3% (Large Company Growth Fund, 2001),
399.8% (Growth Fund, 2001),
416.8% (Endeavor Fund, 2002),
420.4% (Endeavor Large Cap Fund, 2002),
437.3% (Select Fund, 2002),
468.7% (Large Cap Growth Fund, 2001),
501.7% (Discovery Fund, 2001),
605.7% (Focus Fund, 2001),
629.8% (Enterprise Fund, 2001),
658.7% (Growth 20 Fund, 2001),
683.7% (Mid Cap Growth Fund, 2000)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/723257/000119312505044665/dncsr.htm
Aside from such "believe it or not" figures, the ICI reports that turnover ratios have been trending downward. The ICI's 2020 Fact Book has a graph (Figure 3.7) showing this trend in the asset-weighted average turnover ratio of equity funds. There's a peak in 1987 a bit over 80% turnover, and another peak around 2000 at just under 80%. The current figure is 28%.
Still, some funds like Magellan (FMAGX) have turnover rates north of 100% today.
With respect to funds of funds, the M* premium screener reports 123 distinct funds of funds (about 12%) with turnover rates above 100%, including what seems to be a favorite here, Columbia Thermostat (CTFAX). That fund has a turnover ratio of 158%.

Received my weekly Capital Wealth Planning email today:

I can't understand why SWAN has a low ranking. It has to offer amongst the best risk-reward over it's short life, CAGR 15.9 Sharp 1.59 Max DD 5.06.

@waxman, Thanks for reading and commenting. Here is an explanation that I just posted on Seeking Alpha:
The Ranking system is good but not perfect. This article exploited some of areas, such as my lowest ranked funds, where an investor may follow shorter term trends instead of the ranking system. The benefit is that the spreadsheet does millions of calculations and provides good insights that would be impossible to keep straight without it.
One thing that hurts SWAN is its Lipper Category, "Large Cap Core", because I use the average bear market performance of the Lipper Category for the past three bear markets. It would be better classified as an "Alternative" in my opinion. Low yield also hurts. Momentum has been low during the past three months. Finally, Consistency is the percent of times the fund performed average or better during its life up to 13 years. It did great in 2020, but not 2020 for the Large-Cap Core Category.