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

"Revised" Prospectus... really??

Just received yet another "revised" prospectus, this one from Artisan Funds. Like every other "revised prospectus" that I receive, there is no highlighting or reference to exactly what has been revised. So we are expected to do what, to remain well informed? Maybe keep a reference copy of the original prospectus and minutely examine each and every sentence every time there is a revision, to see exactly what the change was? That would maybe be OK if I had a secretary/lawyer with nothing else to do.

The entire concept is a total farce- there is NO WAY that the average individual investor can keep on top of these changes. Yet the responsibility for complete knowledge of what we are signed up for is completely ours. Not picking on Artisan- this is typical of every fund that we own.

Comments

  • Hi @Old_Joe
    To start the ball rolling for proper business functions; I would "drop" them an email and help them be aware that this "poor book keeping methodology", which reflects poorly on their credibility has been "noted" before several 1,000's of investors on the internet.
    Perhaps they are not fully aware of the broader implications of this media (here) and in particular "social media".
    Ya, pretty sad OJ. An addendum to the original would really do the trick and likely reduce their production costs, too.
    Take care,
    Catch
  • Maybe just do it like Congress. For example:
    "TITLE I—Reauthorization of FEMA and Modernization of Integrated Public Alert and Warning System

    SEC. 101. Reauthorization of Federal Emergency Management Agency.


    Section 699 of Public Law 109–295 (6 U.S.C. 811) is amended—


    (1) by striking “administration and operations” each place it appears and inserting “management and administration”;


    (2) in paragraph (2) by striking “and”;


    (3) in paragraph (3) by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and


    (4) by adding at the end the following:


    “(4) for fiscal year 2014, $972,145,000;


    “(5) for fiscal year 2015, $972,145,000; and


    “(6) for fiscal year 2016, $972,145,000.”.
    ...."
  • I read all mine nightly so I am very aware of the most minute change.
  • edited October 2015
    The changes become quite clear when the tattoo artist tells me to "Hold still - here's another change..."
  • Yep, should be a requirement with a revision to list the revisions in plain and concise language at the outset, like our health insurance booklet does each year.
  • well.. all material changes require a shareholder vote. regular annual updates do not, so that's might be it. also, some obviously beneficial to shareholders items do not require an approval -- it could be a fund re-opening or expense lowering. these are usually highlighted in a cover letter or appear as supplements on top of the prospectus.

    this may be just regular annual update with legal inserting the latest regulatory mambo-jumbo.
  • edited October 2015
    Great point FA!

    When it comes to what they can invest in and in what amount I think those are termed "fundamental" policies and require a shareholder vote. The last one I recall was from D&C about 5 years ago when they proposed allowing DODIX to own substantial amounts of non-investment grade debt (junk). It passed.

    But I'd imagine things like restrictions on shareholder exchanges, minimum investment amounts, redemption policies, etc. are considered "non-fundamental" and can be changed by the fund company without a vote. Sounds like OJ's fiduciaries are a bunch of busy-bodies, frequently altering the non-fundamental policies.

    These things are easily downloadable and I do make it a point to at least skim through them once a year.
  • Hi Old_Joe,
    I am not sure I understand this very well. When you say "revised" prospectus, do you mean that the fund filed another prospectus after it filed its annual prospectus? I thought that funds are required to file one prospectus every year. So, if they file more that one prospectus per year, that means that the later prospectuses are revised. Is that correct?
    I know about the restatements or revisions that companies make to their 10-K reports, and I was wondering whether what you are referring to is similar to the restatements of 10-K-reported data.
    Thanks,
    Alban
  • @Alban

    It seems to vary from company to company. The specific revision which triggered my post says this at the top:

    Summary Prospectus
    February 1, 2015,
    as supplemented September 21, 2015


    It is a presumably revised or "supplemented" version, but contains all of the information in the previous version, with no highlighting to indicate which portions have been revised or supplemented.
  • I was not aware of this issue, but this seems to be problematic from the point of view of investors. So, I was wondering what folks in this forum know about this issue.
    Does anyone here have any idea regarding the nature of these revisions in terms of items covered, etc? Also, what are the rules covering the reporting of these revisions? Could funds potentially use these revisions as a way to hide important fact in the original prospectuses? The types of funds that do a lot of these types of revisions should perhaps be avoided by investors.
  • Summary prospectuses typically state that the statutory prospectus and SAI are incorporated by reference. So these more complete documents are an integral part of what you are reading.

    The change here concerned the closing and opening of funds. Rather than avoiding funds that make such changes (that affect their prospectuses), funds that diligently manage their level of assets would seem to be desirable.

    Statutory prospectuses AFAIK always include the supplements (revisions) explicitly, so you can see clearly exactly what changed. For example, the Artisan Global Value statutory prospectus starts with a two page supplement (dated September 21st). Here's a copy of that supplement.

    (In case you think you're seeing double in this SEC filing, the reason why the two pages appear twice is that the filing includes the supplement for the Investor/Institutional share class prospectus, and the supplement for the Advisor share class prospectus. Aside from the share class names and prospectus page numbers, the two versions appear identical.)
Sign In or Register to comment.