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
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
"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.”.
...."
this may be just regular annual update with legal inserting the latest regulatory mambo-jumbo.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.)