Global: ACWV, HCOYX, PGVFX, DGSCX
International LC: EFAV, MINIX
International MC/SC: BISMX, QUSOX, OSMYX
EM: EEMV, SFGIX/SIGIX
Kevin

A few active management funds I have screened based on comparative performance within their sector:
Foreign Small Blend - GLFOX
Foreign Small Value - QUSOX
Foreign Small Growth - WAIOX
World Allocation - KTRSX
Europe - CAEZX

Not to rain too heavily on your parade, but regarding a couple of the funds I recognize here:
The Lazard Global Listed Infrastructure Fund (GLFOX) is just what it sounds like - a sector fund, and one that even for a concentrated fund, is very concentrated (1/3 of its assets in its top five holdings). It is value leaning (as is typical of Lazard), unlike most infrastructure funds (and despite M*'s characterization of the fund as blend). A fine fund, and it holds mostly foreign equity, but that's as far as it goes to fitting in as a foreign fund.
Polaris Foreign Value Small Cap (QUSOX) - if you're including this one and a world allocation fund, it seems that you might also want to list Polaris Global Value (PGVFX) - a world stock fund from the same team, that recently lowered its ER to make it quite attractive. (As M* notes, its former higher cost was its only negative.)
Acorn Europe Z (CAEZX) - like the rest of the Acorn funds, this noload share class is closed except to grandfathered investors (who own any Columbia or Acorn Z class shares from before 2005). I keep a toehold for just this reason.

David -- thank you for setting up this call. I likely will not be able to attend the call in person, and so would like to submit the following questions for Mr. Horn, for your consideration.
======================================
1. I've seen PGVFX described as a "true, deep value fund". In spite of this, PGVFX seems to always be nearly fully invested, while other "deep value" managers are not shy about holding cash when markets appear too rich. Why does Polaris' "deep value" style diverge from other definitions of "deep value" investing in this way? Would it be accurate to think of PGVFX as more a relative value than deep value fund?
2. I've read that earlier in his career, Mr. Horn used options and similar instruments to enhance portfolio performance and limit volatility. I believe PGVFX also has the flexibility to use similar instruments as part of its investing strategy. Would you provide an overview of PGVFX's use of these instruments and, further, provide a sense of how often these instruments are used in practice?
3. Recently PGVFX took the unusual step of reducing its expense ratio considerably, in spite of what appears to be a rather stable asset base. As a longer-term investor in PGVFX (c.2005) I appreciate this reduction, but am so surprised by the decrease that I am left puzzled as to why this has occurred. Would you provide some context as to what was behind the reduction? (And, thanks !)
4. As a small, independent advisor, Polaris has the potential to offer long-term investors opportunities for long-term outperformance. However, it could also be the case that Polaris' size could create other challenges to achieving outperformance. One of these challenges is attracting and retaining analytic staff. Another is sustaining the culture that has contributed to Polaris' performance in the past. How does a smaller firm like Polaris retain top talent, and get on the radar screen of potential analytic and portfolio management staff?
5. I am interested in understanding more about PGVFX's investment process. Specifically, the PGVFX literature indicates that Polaris uses proprietary software to identify/screen undervalued companies which are then pulled aside for further analytic review. Given the free range PGVFX has in terms of market cap, and breadth of firms in PGVFX's investable universe, I'm having trouble understanding how Polaris' 7-person team can provide coverage of this universe, unless the screening process is highly tailored (and potentially has a forecasting / data mining component). Is Polaris' approach somehow in fact as much based on modeling as much as it is traditional securities desk research? Further, does Polaris rely on outside securities research in building porfolios?
6. After initial screens are made, how does Polaris decide on country/region allocations for the PGVFX portfolio? Are macro-forces / macro research also a consideration, or is it strictly based on valuations (while remaining consistent with the typical allocation targets specified in the prospectus)? Roughly speaking, what is the largest % of the PGVFX portfolio that has ever been allocated to the US? What is the largest % of the PGVFX that has ever been devoted to a single country outside the US?
7. Does PGVFX hedge its exposure to foreign currencies and, if so, how does it make decisions on which markets/currencies to hedge vs. not?
8. What does Polaris feel its capacity is for PGVFX in terms of AUM (including both the fund itself, and any separate accounts)?
9. PGVFX did a remarkable job of avoiding the dot-com bubble, but seems to have fallen harder than the benchmark in the 2007-2008 era. What was the difference in Polaris' process 2007-2008 vs. 2000-2002?
10. How does Polaris define a "value trap", and how does Polaris' process help avoid value traps?
11. Lastly (strictly personal interest, so as to not make everything terribly dour and technical) -- at what age did Mr. Horn begin his career as an investor (what was his first stock)? If Mr. Horn had not pursued a career in investing, what field or pursuit would he have likely ended up in ?

I'd be interested to hear what he feels are the qualitative differences between PGVFX and other funds in the global value space. Processes, how they evaluate companies, but sell discipline, markets/sectors they look for, etc. ..

PGVFX risk/return metrics...

Dear friends,
You are cordially invited to join me on a conference call with Bernie Horn, founder of Polaris Capital Management and manager of Polaris Global Value (PGVFX). You’re receiving this note because you asked to be included on the Observer’s conference call notification list. The call will take place between 7:00 - 8:00 p.m., EST, this coming Tuesday, January 13th. To register, just follow this link.
Mr. Horn and the Polaris team advise Polaris Global Value and sub-advise funds for PNC and Pear Tree. Mr. Horn has been managing global portfolios since 1980, launched Global Value L.P. in 1989, founded Polaris in 1995 and launched PGVFX in 1998. The fund remains small but distinguished. It has a great long-term record and superb tax efficiency, but suffered a terrible ’07 and bad ’08. That cost the fund nearly two-thirds of its assets, though the fund’s assets are a small fraction of the firm’s total AUM. Mr. Horn and his team made substantial and thoughtful revisions since then, and the fund has been in the top 10% of world stock funds over the past 3 and 5 years.
We're likely to talk most about PGV but maybe a bit too about QUSOX, his really good international SCV fund.
If you can make it, you're more than welcome. If you can but you have questions you'd like me to raise with him, just post them below. I've logged the queries from AJ, Vert and Mike and it's likely he'll review this thread before the call. As always, it's just a telephone conference call and I'll try to post highlights and an mp3 afterward.
For what interest it holds,
David

Outside of their quant model, looks like they hedge dollar exposure in order to further reduce volatity. That would explain why its returns are beating other global value funds like DODWX and PGVFX over the last few months.
That would make it most similar to TWEBX in market cap, being currency hedged, and holding lower volatility names.

You are correct about the foreign holdings in FLPSX and that it doesn't always track exactly with a US mid cap index. In my situation, I have foreign holdings covered in other funds such as ARTGX, FMIJX and a smaller stake in GPROX, which is in a tax-deferred account. PGVFX is a pretty interesting fund with low turnover and low tax cost ratio. It did have two very bad years in 2007-2008 but has turned around nicely since then.

Once or twice a year, I try to find something comparable to FLPSX and fail (at least according to the metrics that matter to me, such as cost, portfolio, etc).
The portfolio is value-leaning, non-large cap, low turnover (12%), 1/3 foreign. IMHO, it's that last factor that explains the relative underperformance the past few years. It's a global stock in all but M* classification. Which is not a bad thing if that's what you want. For that sort of fund, it's doing quite well.
I think I finally did find a possible alternative. Polaris Global Value (PGVFX). But here's the thing - it is classified a global stock, and is somewhat more heavily foreign weighted (60/40 foreign/domestic).
Having more foreign stocks, it doesn't match FLPSX in performance - but it does tend crudely track the same performance curve, and it helps if one wants/needs a bit more foreign exposure. (Since domestic stocks have been outperforming foreign ones, a person's portfolio could easily have tilted "too much" toward domestic.)
It's more tax efficient (both relative to FLPSX, though this may be because it is still sitting on losses from 2008-2009 (per website). On an absolute basis), it falls into the same mid cap value box (though with slightly higher average market cap). Same low turnover (14%).
This has been a fund on my radar for years, but I always considered it too expensive (and in the past have been disinclined to buy global funds). But it has temporarily lowered its ER (it remains to be seen whether the temporary reduction will be renewed).
Finally, unlike FLPSX, one can benefit here from a foreign tax credit. The rule is that if a fund's portfolio is more than 50% foreign, then the fund is allowed to pass the foreign taxes through to you. FLPSX, at 1/3 foreign, can't do that. (Funds are not required to pass through the taxes, but they usually do.)
Just an offbeat thought on a replacement or complement to FLPSX. I'd say it was thinking outside the box, but part of the appeal is that it falls within the same style box.

Hi Paul,
Mr. Marcus managed or co-managed Mutual Series funds for less than 2 years, so I doubt that he earned any "pedigree" during such a brief period. And if you look at the record of MEURX, the only fund he managed by himself, it trailed the category average until the last month of his tenure. So like many new funds, I usually recommend that folks watch until some track record develops and refrain from being an early buyer.
In the World Stock space, my short list of funds to consider would be DODWX, PGVFX, OAKWX and THOIX (per test trade, THOIX is apparently available in Fidelity retirement accounts for a $500 minimum with a $49.95 initial transaction fee).
Kevin

The conference began with a welcome from former fund analyst Kunal Kapoor, who is now director of information products and client solutions. This year, as last, I found the intro somewhere between disingenous and creepy because it starts with the declaration that Morningstar is driven by it's desire to serve investors. Uhh, no. As a publicly traded entity, it has a fiduciary obligation to maximize return to its shareholders; if maximizing the firm's returns also benefits investors, so much the better. Regardless of where Morningstar started, that's where they are now: a multinational conglomerate behold to its shareholders and bolstered by a taste for acquisitions.
Three focuses for Morningstar's efforts currently: they're working to (1) provide advisors with deeper and broader research (they've rechristened their "mutual fund research team" as their "manager research team" because advisors care less about the package than what's in it), (2) to help advisors improve their operational efficiency and (3) to "help manage changing client dynamics." That latter point reflects a massive data aggregation effort, so that advisors will not only be able to analyze the assets that a client has given them but also all of the other assets the client has anywhere. Last year's promise of devoting additional resources of small and emerging managers is scarcely evident; this year's "emerging managers" panel focuses on the likes of Bernard Horn of Polaris Global Value (PGVFX) who has $300 million in assets and who has been running the fund since 1998. The implied judgment - "if you do stellar work for 15 or 16 years, you'll begin to reach the threshold of 'vaguely interesting' for us" - is not affirming. (To be fair, M* initiated analyst coverage when the fund was just seven years old but it's hard to reconcile the "emerging" label with the manager's tenure."
I'm sure that and Google Glass are both good things, but I'm comfortable with neither.
For what it's worth,
David

Another Tweedy, Browne product:
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/tbgvx/f?pgid=hetopquote&t=TBGVX

I think I'd call TBGVX more of an international fund than global. It's American holdings are quite limited. FMIJX would be similar. But TBHDX, as Charles pointed out, would be another good global choice, maybe a touch more conservative than the others.

TBGVX is Tweedy's international offering. TWBVX was formerly the US offering. In fact, however, TWBVX transitioned to a global offering a while back -- details are on their fact sheets where they show their rationale for benchmarking the fund against the S&P500 vs. a global index for a certain number of years before benchmarking to a global index.
That said, I have no idea why TBGVX as the "international" offering has always held a pretty good share of US stocks.
I own PGVFX, BTW, and almost dropped it. Requires a fair degree of patience, and there appears to have been some turnover in their analyst staff. I'm on the fence. It tends to have an unusual portfolio, and a strong mid-cap value tilt; does not tend to hold cash. Its earlier record seems to have been based on its sidestepping the dot-com bust. Did not hold up so well in aftermath of the 2008 bust, but is finally digging itself out.
FWIW.

So there are quite a variety of global value funds that do things in different ways. One recommendation I would have is to ask yourself what you want the fund to do and what you are comfortable with the fund owning. In particular you need to decide whether the fund covers emerging markets and how aggressive it should be.
If you are comfortable with a truly global fund that will buy value in EMs for a buy and hold core then DODWX is your winner.
If you want a fund that focuses on value with a develped market slant, OAKGX or PGVFX might be better matches. Neither goes deep into EMs, but they do hold names with emerging market sales exposure.
If you want a deeply focused fund, OAKWX or LLGLX.
If you are more conservative and want a fund that focuses on quality developed market names and downside protection, then TWEBX or JGVAX.
If you are looking for a go anywhere absolute value fund that will sit on cash until opportunities come up, FPRAX (or TWEBX).
If you want a small cap mandate, you could wait for Grandeur Peak to release its "fallen angels" fund.

@reids: Vert's suggestion of PGVFX would be my second choice. Its to bad that Artisan Global Value is closed to new investors.
Regards,
Ted

GAINX, profiled in the Mutual Fund Observer, looks promising.
PGVFX is a pretty aggressive global value fund with a good record.
Less aggressive are TWEBX and JPPIX.
For what it's worth, I like all of these and own all except TWEBX.

Vert: " ... I can't imagine it being much better than the Perkins or Polaris shops."
I owned PGVFX at one time, and liked several things about the fund ... one being atypical weightings, such as ~ 10% in Scandinavia, as I remember.

Another I fund I sold after holding for several years. Just trying to consolidate with brokerages and this fund not available NTF anywhere.

Vert: " ... I can't imagine it being much better than the Perkins or Polaris shops."
I owned PGVFX at one time, and liked several things about the fund ... one being atypical weightings, such as ~ 10% in Scandinavia, as I remember.

I took a look at EVGBX in comparison with JGVAX and PGVFX and I fear I can't find even one reason to prefer it over either of those. It's no smaller in AUM, little if any more 'valuey', hasn't performed nearly as well, has been far more volatile and is quite a bit more expensive. Heck, it even has a higher turnover. I didn't check into what kind of organization Marcus has working with him, but I can't imagine it being much better than the Perkins or Polaris shops.

Perkins Global Value Fund (JGVAX) seems to fit your criteria well. It's all-cap, run by a respected value firm, plays a lot more defensively than PGVFX (which I also like). At last report the cash level was around 16%, AUM isn't very large, its holdings will go down to the micro-cap level, though not very many of these at the moment (under 2% as I recall). Not too expensive, either. There are various fund classes, but JGVAX seems the most likely option with a 1.03% expense ratio. JPPIX would be a lower expense version and comes on sale at Scottrade for a mere $100,000. And its Morningstar Risk Grade is Low for what that's worth.

Thanks, all.
David -- the names of the Tweedy funds are a bit confusing. TBGVX is actually their international offering. TBVFX ("Tweedy Brown Value") is actually their global offering (was morphed over from a predominantly US-only orientation not too long ago).
PGVFX is an interesting case -- few years ago was one a runner-up for global manager of the year, but got hit quite hard in the great recession and was slow to recover, so its long-term record suffered greatly. Now its back on track. But, oh, what a wild ride.
Thanks !
D.S.