We left the fund when Ed Owen’s retired. Now we hold VG index instead. Today VHT is holding up well while S&P500 is down over 1%.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141819/000089418924004498/jensentpmsupplementnamecha.htm
497 1 jensentpmsupplementnamecha.htm JENSEN FUNDS 497E
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration Nos. 333-62298; 811-10401
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING CHANGE IN INVESTMENT POLICIES AND FUND NAME
Jensen Quality Value Fund (“Quality Value Fund”)
Jensen Global Quality Growth Fund (“Quality Growth Fund”)
(each, a “Fund”, and together, the “Funds”)
Each, a series of Trust for Professional Managers (the “Trust”)
Supplement dated August 1, 2024
to the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”)
dated September 30, 2023
On July 25, 2024, the Trust’s Board of Trustees approved, at the request of the Funds’ investment adviser, Jensen Investment Management, Inc. (the “Adviser”), the following changes to the Funds. These changes are anticipated to be effective on or about September 30, 2024.
Quality Value Fund – Name Change and Investment Policy Change
A change in the name of the Jensen Quality Value Fund to the “Jensen Quality MidCap Fund.” The Adviser believes the name “Jensen Quality MidCap Fund” more accurately reflects the Fund’s current investment objective and principal investment strategies. In connection with the name change, the Fund will incorporate into its principal investment strategies a new investment policy of investing at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in equity securities of companies meeting the Adviser’s criteria for “quality” and “mid-capitalization.” The Fund did not previously have an 80% investment policy related to its name. The addition of this investment policy will not result in any material changes to the Adviser’s management of the Fund’s portfolio and there will be no change to the Fund’s investment objective.
Quality Growth Fund – Investment Policy Change
A new investment policy for the Quality Growth Fund will be implemented, consistent with the Fund’s name, of investing at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in U.S. and foreign equity securities of companies meeting the Adviser’s criteria for “quality” and “growth.” The Fund did not previously have an 80% investment policy related to its name. The addition of this investment policy will not result in any material changes to the Adviser’s management of the Fund’s portfolio and there will be no change to the Fund’s investment objective.
New Non-Fundamental Investment Restriction
The following non-fundamental investment restriction will be applicable for the Funds: “Each Fund may not make any change to its investment policy of investing at least 80% of net assets (plus borrowing for investment purposes) in accordance with the investment focus suggested by the Fund’s name without first changing the Fund’s name and providing shareholders with at least 60 days’ prior written notice.”
Please retain this supplement for future reference.

Interesting trivia today from Bloomberg Media (August 1, 2024)
”The words ‘Federal Reserve’ were on track to be mentioned about 380 times on second-quarter calls with analysts, according to a Bloomberg analysis of transcripts of S&P 500 and Stoxx 600 companies. That would be the highest tally ever in the database’s records going back to 2001, if the current pace holds.”
Some added Bloomberg reporting today …
- While the Fed did not cut rates at yesterday’s FOMC meeting, they signaled that they might cut rates at the next meeting in September.
- Bond traders appear to be pricing in 3 Federal Reserve rate cuts by year’s end.
- Jobless claims surprised on the upside today.
- The 10-Year Treasury yield fell below 4% today.

AAII Sentiment Survey, 7/31/24
BULLISH remained the top sentiment (44.9%, above average) & bearish became the bottom sentiment (25.2%, below average); neutral became the middle sentiment (29.9%, above average); Bull-Bear Spread was +19.7% (above average). Investor concerns: Elections, budget, inflation, economy, the Fed, dollar, Russia-Ukraine (127+ weeks), Israel-Hamas (42+ weeks), geopolitical. For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks up, bonds up, oil up, gold up, dollar up. NYSE %Above 50-dMA 71.65% (overbought). FOMC held rates; September cut would depend on additional data. Treasury spreads 2Y/10Y negative, 2Y/30Y positive. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1583/thread

There is now a standard construct for newer term-structure CEFs with the life of 12.0-13.5 years that several CEFs follow. Examples are from Nuveen, Pimco, Thornburg, etc. Variations are also possible but may take longer for SEC approval.

An interval fund could work for institutional investors.
He could have started with a 5-year term CEF with an opportunity to extend the term with shareholder vote, which is a more captive capital than an interval fund.
My advice to him now is "Cool it." Come back next year.

All Edgar/SEC filings for PSUS.
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=2002660&owner=exclude
No filing yet to withdraw the IPO. But it must be coming as that has been leaked to the press.
The last filing is dated 7/30/24 that indicated a sharply reduced IPO size.
What probably killed the deal was the filing dated 7/25/24. It turns out that Bill Ackman sent a private letter to its PSHZF/PSH holders about how the 2 funds were different, and his strategies for the launch of PSUS. It also named people and firms that had made preliminary commitments to become investors in PSUS. How on earth Bill Ackman could think that this was OK? When his lawyers forced him to file that letter on Edgar/SEC (7/25/24), its days were numbered. The investors who had indicated interest were furious and some just withdrew their indicated interests.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2002660/000119312524184256/d813540dfwp.htm
It's also reported in the news that Bill Ackman may come back with some variation of the IPO. My guess is that it could be an interval-fund.

WSJ:

Ackman originally aimed to raise around $25 billion in the offering, hoping to capitalize on his social-media celebrity, before lowering the target to around $2 billion this week.
< - >
[In a letter to his fund investors] He asked the shareholders—a mix of institutions and high-net-worth individuals—to participate in the IPO “the sooner the better” to “improve the strength.” He suggested the IPO was on track to raise around $2.5 billion to $4 billion so far, well below his initial ambitions. He also named some investors he said planned to participate in the IPO and some he said weren’t. Such details typically are closely guarded and Ackman wrote the letter assuming it would remain private.
But the following day, the fund disclosed the letter in a securities filing, apparently after determining it needed to be made available to other potential IPO investors. The embarrassing snafu allowed the offering to proceed but helped push back the planned IPO date by around a week.

Stable-Value (SV) Rates, 8/1/24

TIAA Traditional Annuity (Accumulation) Rates
No changes
Restricted RC 5.50%, RA 5.25%
Flexible RCP 4.75%, SRA 4.50%, Newer IRAs 4.75%
(TIAA Declaration Year 3/1 - 2/28)
TSP G Fund hasn't updated yet (previous 4.500%).
Edit/Add. August rate is ?%
Options outside of workplace retirement plans include m-mkt funds, bank m-mkt accounts (FDIC insured), T-Bills, short-term brokered CDs.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1581/thread

Post-Conference Notes by YBB
Rates were maintained - fed funds 5.25-5.50%, bank reserves rate 5.4%, discount rate 5.5%. Treasury QT continues at the reduced level of -$25 billion/mo, but MBS QT remain at -$35 billion/mo.
Inflation target remains +2% average. The confidence in progress on inflation is higher. All aspects are showing improvements - goods, services, headline & core PCE. There is also balanced progress on the dual mandate - inflation & jobs. The current monetary policy is restrictive & its effects are showing up with expected lag, especially in housing.
Economy is growing moderately. Capex is rising. Recessions isn't in the cards for the near future. The pandemic & its aftermath has upended lot of conventional wisdom & rules.
Labor market remains strong. Wage growth is OK. Surveys seem worse that what the aggregate data are showing.
There were specific discussions about rate cuts. There was no consensus for July (this meeting) cut. But September cut would depend on additional data. There are risks in cutting too early vs waiting too long. There may be multiple cuts as there is room with the fed funds at the current level, but larger 50 bps or higher cuts are unlikely.
The Fed is keeping track of the developments on CBDC but there are no plans for digital-dollar. As the Fed is a payment processor itself, it is watching the instant payment aspects of digital currency.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1580/thread

Headline News: Pershing Square USA withdraws IPO. Charlie Munger wisdom endures.

* laughs *
A CEF that IPOs at $50 when every other one I know of goes out at $25 was the first clue Quackman was trying to goose things and trade on his name and CNBC 'reputation' alone in the eyes of average retailers.
Cue the sad trombone symphony ...

Fund Allocations (Cumulative), 6/30/24
Minor shifts into stocks. The changes for OEFs + ETFs were based on a total AUM of about $35.75 trillion in the previous month, so +/- 1% change was about +/- $357.5 billion. Also note that these changes were from both fund inflows/outflows & price changes. #ICI #Funds #OEFs #ETFs
OEFs & ETFs: Stocks 60.84%, Hybrids 4.50%, Bonds 17.84%, M-Mkt 16.82%
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1579/thread

Perhaps 80% of OEFs / ETFs are "unnecessary" and their disappearance wouldn't impact most investors.
The number of publicly listed companies has decreased significantly from the 1996 peak.
"The count of publicly listed companies traded on US exchanges has fallen substantially from its peak in 1996. Back then, the number exceeded 8,000 companies. Today that count has dropped by more than 50% to just 3700, according to data from the Center for Research in Security Prices."
"It’s not that America has half as many companies as 30 years ago – it’s that companies are increasingly staying private, largely outside the scrutiny of the public eye. Publicly listed companies are subject to regulatory oversight and disclosure requirements, which help ensure transparency and maintain investor confidence. With fewer companies listed, there may be a decrease in overall transparency and investor trust in the market, said Matthew Kennedy, head of data and content at Renaissance Capital."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/09/investing/premarket-stocks-trading/index.html

Thanks for the heads-up @Mitchelg
Not really understanding options very well I dug up some information from the fund’s prospectus and also about ELNs from another source. Possibly this may prove helpful for other ”Options Dummies” like myself.
About RSPA
”The portfolio managers seek to construct the options-based income component of the Fund’s portfolio by investing in high-income, short-term ELNs with a focus on downside protection. The ELNs in which the Fund seeks to invest are hybrid derivative-type instruments that are specially designed to combine the characteristics of investing in one or more underlying equity securities or an index of equity securities and a related equity derivative, such as a put or call option (or a combination thereof), in a single note form (typically senior, unsecured debt) issued by financial institutions. The options within the ELNs in which the Fund invests will be based on the Index or on ETFs that replicate the Index, and such options will generally have covered call and/or cash secured put strategies embedded within them. When the Fund purchases an ELN from the issuing counterparty, the Fund is generally entitled to receive a premium generated by options positions within the ELN. Therefore, the ELNs are intended to provide recurring cash flow to the Fund based on the premiums received from selling the options.
“Selling a call option entitles the seller to a premium equal to the value of the option at the time of trade. When the Fund sells call options within an ELN, it receives a premium but limits its opportunity to profit from an increase in the market value of either the underlying benchmark or ETF to the exercise price of the call option (plus the premium received). The maximum potential gain on the call option embedded within the ELN will be equal to the difference between the exercise price of the option and the purchase price of the underlying benchmark or ETF at the time the option is written, plus the premium received. Accordingly, because these premiums can partially offset losses incurred by the Fund's equity portfolio, the Fund's investments in ELNs may reduce the Fund's volatility relative to the Index, while providing limited downside protection against declines in the value of the Fund's equity portfolio.”
Prospectus
About ELNs
”An Equity-Linked Note (ELN) is a debt instrument, usually a bond, where the payout is based on the underlying entity. The underlying equity of the ELN can be a collection of stocks, a single stock or an equity index. A typical ELN is usually principal-protected meaning that the investor is guaranteed the return of the initial investment, but as ELNs have become more exotic in nature, fewer ELNs are principal protected.
“Generally, the final payment is the amount invested times the gain in the underlying stock or index times a note specific participation rate. For example, if the underlying equity gains 150% during the investment period and the participation rate is 50%, the investor would receive $2.25 for every dollar invested. If the equity remains unchanged or declines, the investor receives the full investment back. However, if the underlying equity defaults, the investor will receive only what is available after bankruptcy.
“Investors should understand everything they can about the underlying equity because what may seem like a safe investment may fail. For example, in 2008 equity-linked notes tied to equity in Lehman Brothers failed. Many investors sued the broker-dealers for promising 100% principal protection and still losing money.”
Source

I'm not sure a heavy LCG is super prudent but its understandable why someone wants it. Return isn't everything but I'm kind of the mind that if people are tilting LCG its largely return related. therefore prefer a LCG index compared to products like contrafund or whatever bluechip fund you chuck at it. But all in all this could be a worse portfolio.
Diversification: I would probably suggest barbelling your LCG tilt with something small/mid cappy and maybe a bit more value'y. And I do believe most should have a smattering of international investing in their portfolio. Only because we don't know the future.
Growth Potential: There are a few gotcha's here. continued mutual fund management over long periods of time is like chasing unicorns around. Sure we have documented success stories but a few things are real. 1. People age/philosophies change and 2. the black swan event of tomorrow will require different decisions than the BS events of yesteryear.
The other Gotcha here is "what to do in the next 5-10 years" way of thinking. These are the types of strategies that most often lead one to underperformance. I believe it was Oshaunnessy who said the best portfolios at Fidelity are the ones that people forgot existed or the owners were dead. Build a portfolio today that you feel can last a very long time. obviously circumstances change and decisions will have to be made here or there but don't go into an investment because "this is how i think the next decade will look" . Some people succeed at this but most do not.
Risk Control: If you want returns you are going to have to take risks. Can we control risk with the types of stocks we pick or how many we pick? yeah probably. Nothing is set in stone and there are ebbs in flows but the easiest way to control Risk in equities is diversification.
Costs and Fees:
per morningstar as it pertains to large cap equities, 18% of active funds that are in the lower half of expenses outperformed their index over a 10 year period. only 6% of the more expensive ones could say they did. So expenses do matter. Now that study isn't perfect. if .50 is placed in the cheaper half and .51 is considered the more expensive half it doesn't give us all that info but its gives us a snapshot that costs do matter. Once again also noting that returns aren't always all that matters (while also noting observably in most other places, it is all that matters to the avg investor)

Keep in mind that fpacx will allocate to a higher percentage in stocks when the perceived value is there ... not sure it matters anymore with fiscal and monetary inputs but for certain the market is at elevated valuations ...

I got your point.
The market has been at 'elevated valuations' for almost all of my 55y investing, except for that late '70s / early '80s dip and that short plunge 15y ago. I gave up worrying, though I am known to sell when I (totally imperfectly) deem things crazy-frothy.
Now it's well over double p/e (shiller anyway) its median of 16.
There's little helping someone who cannot stick with it, imo. I don't think 2/3 cash or whatever is it. Not saying stock prices aren't way high.

Half cash and half balanced? For a young worker? Just no

An optimal portfolio for many young workers (early 20s to mid 30s)
would be allocated predominantly, if not entirely, to equities.
After all, young workers' risk capacity is great and equities
generate the highest long-term returns.
But what if an inexperienced investor has never encountered
a nasty bear market like the Global Financial Crisis?
It's possible some investors may panic and sell equities when prices are extremely depressed.
Then they may decide to remain out of the "market" for years failing to capture tremendous gains.
Would it be beneficial for certain investors to start with a lower equity allocation (maybe 50% - 60%)
which can be increased after they gain experience and discover their true risk tolerance?

+1
It’s difficult to draw a line in the sand (or concrete). But if you’re under 40, dollar-cost averaging in and planning to work at least 20 more years … put it in a good low cost growth fund and let it rip. No more than 3 funds I’d say. You can withstand the +35% and -35% market whipsaws with that kind of time horizon.
I get the feeling from our friend @Joyes that his situation is different - probably an older investor.

FPACX is 38% non-equities, so that plus half cash is nuts.
"certain investors" should be in AOR or FPACX and that's it, sure; or half VONE and half ~5% money market.
Kind of a silly speculative discussion.

Half cash and half balanced? For a young worker? Just no

An optimal portfolio for many young workers (early 20s to mid 30s)
would be allocated predominantly, if not entirely, to equities.
After all, young workers' risk capacity is great and equities
generate the highest long-term returns.
But what if an inexperienced investor has never encountered
a nasty bear market like the Global Financial Crisis?
It's possible some investors may panic and sell equities when prices are extremely depressed.
Then they may decide to remain out of the "market" for years failing to capture tremendous gains.
Would it be beneficial for certain investors to start with a lower equity allocation (maybe 50% - 60%)
which can be increased after they gain experience and discover their true risk tolerance?

Until @Joyes replies to the MFO board's inquiry, we are all guessing.

True. There is a big difference between being 25 years old and 75 or 80 in investing posture. Sounds like @Joyes has little experience. Maybe he / she is quite young and new at the process. Or possibly an older individual seeking to invest a recent windfall like an inheritance or cash-out from an employer.
@BaseballFan - One guru I actually pay for monthly market analysis has had his readers at 58% equity and 42% T-Bills most of the year. I don't want to say who because it would violate my terms of use. But obviously that call has not been optimum YTD. Yet ISTM it’s hard to criticize someone wanting to make 5%+ in cash instruments. I recently upped my allocation to 44% equity from 37% when an opportunity came along. But like you I remain cautious.
If the FOMC should cut rates next week I think it would juice the markets. Most of the experts don’t expect a cut that soon. But my view is more sanguine.