https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1540305/000089418922005239/defiancespakandpsyliquidat.htm
Filed Pursuant to Rule 497(e)
File Nos. 333-179562; 811-22668
Defiance Next Gen SPAC Derived ETF (SPAK)
Defiance Next Gen Altered Experience ETF (PSY)
August 1, 2022
Supplement to the Summary Prospectuses, Prospectus, and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”),
each dated April 30, 2022
The Board of Trustees of ETF Series Solutions, upon a recommendation from Defiance ETFs, LLC, the investment adviser to the Defiance Next Gen SPAC Derived ETF and Defiance Next Gen Altered Experience ETF (each, a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”), has determined to close and liquidate the Funds immediately after the close of business on August 30, 2022 (the “Liquidation Date”). Shares of the Funds are listed on the NYSE Arca, Inc.
Effective on or about August 8, 2022, each Fund will begin liquidating its portfolio assets. This will cause each Fund to increase its cash holdings and deviate from the investment objective and strategies stated in the Funds’ prospectus.
The Funds will no longer accept orders for new creation units after the close of business on the business day prior to the Liquidation Date, and trading in shares of the Funds will be halted prior to market open on the Liquidation Date. Prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may only be able to sell their shares to certain broker-dealers, and there is no assurance that there will be a market for the Funds’ shares during that time period. Customary brokerage charges may apply to such transactions.
On or about the Liquidation Date, each Fund will liquidate its assets and distribute cash pro rata to all remaining shareholders. These distributions are taxable events. Distributions made to shareholders should generally be treated as received in exchange for shares and will therefore generally give rise to a capital gain or loss depending on a shareholder’s tax basis. Shareholders should contact their tax advisor to discuss the income tax consequences of the liquidation. As calculated on the Liquidation Date, each Fund’s net asset value will reflect the costs of closing each Fund, if any. Once the distributions are complete, the Funds will terminate. Proceeds of the liquidation will be sent to shareholders promptly after the Liquidation Date.
For additional information, please call 1-833-333-9383.
Please retain this Supplement with your Summary Prospectuses, Prospectus, and SAI for future reference.

As one digs a little, it just keeps getting better.
It seems that the 10% performance fee used to be 11%:
https://prdistribution.com/news/tbo-capital-announces-reduction-of-performance-fees-for-all-balances-2.html
The application form lets you send in money and lets you make daily withdrawals. That's an open end fund. But the Terms and Conditions page says that this is a "closed ended [sic] mutual fund".
How many decades of industry experience does it take to differentiate between an open end fund and a closed "ended" fund?
The page goes on to say that "It offers monthly dividends to investors instead of growth option i.e. increase in NAV (share) price."
This begs the question: is it selling shares of its underlying holdings every month and distributing proceeds to keep its NAV from growing?
I think I'll stop now. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. I'll leave with a couple of questions based on this excerpt:

Outperformed 95% of peers over the last six years with less risk.
...
Long-tenured advisors of three PhDs and one MD in internal medicine

What are the 5% of health care fund peers who have made more than 50% annualized over the last six years? Or is this "outperforming 95% of peers" just a made up figure to make it seems that the 50% returns reported are not equally fictitious?
M* premium screener returns no funds of any type with 50% returns over the past five years.
Stringing together the best performing health care fund in each of the last six calendar years, e.g. FSMEX (8.68% in 2016), ETIHX (45.83% in 2017) and so on, one achieves only a 36% annualized return. All actual health care funds returned less than my cherry-picked combo.
Who are the PhDs and MD? TBO Capital names only four principals, and none of them hold any sort of doctorate degree according to their Linked In profiles.

Oodles of red flags. Starting with performance that would make Bernie Madoff blush. Not a single losing month from January 2016 through June 2022. (I can hardly wait to see it post July results.) Smooth as silk. Just look at the graph.
https://tbocapital.com/performance
No wonder the "prospectus" doesn't say anything about how the fee is handled in a down month (do they multiply their percentage by a negative return?)
That "prospectus" is missing a lot of information aside from how fees are handled (and what the fee is if you invest more than $1.5M). No bios on the fund managers (they claim experience but w/o history), no SAI or other doc with information about how the fund is structured, no tax information, etc.
Did I mention that the numbers are inconsistent? For example, Jan-June 2021 monthly returns given on the performance page total to a cumulative return of 33.27%. But the prospectus gives the 2021 YTD performance as of June 2021 as 29.48%. And the three year return isn't annualized.
There's no 2021 annual report, only one for 2020, and none earlier.
But all this is minor stuff. The kind of information one would look at if a fund were real. It's the more blatant stuff where the fun is.
The domain name/website used to be operated by completely different people selling land development services.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121030031036/http://tbocapital.com:80/services.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20121028192927/http://tbocapital.com:80/about.html
The site went black in 2015 (when the "new" TBO Capital says it started), and the WayBack Machine Archive doesn't show any real text pages until May of this year, e.g.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518131741/https://tbocapital.com/performance
(The complete list of pages crawled, real or not is:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://tbocapital.com/*)
ICANN reports that the website registration is private (no surprise there). Though it gives a mailing address in Iceland.
Kalkofnsvegur 2, Reykjavik, Capital Region, 101, IS
Neither the "managers" of the fund nor TBO Capital show up on either the SEC's or FINRA's site for brokers, firms, etc.
https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/
https://brokercheck.finra.org/
"The SEC typically regulates investment advisers that have assets under management in excess of $100,000,000." The prospectus states the fund has $164M AUM.
And for the regulation wonks: Performance fees are generally prohibited. They are allowed if an offering is restricted to accredited investors (but this fund is open to anyone), or if the performance fee operates on a fulcrum (this doesn't).
With a fulcrum, performance adjustments are symmetric; fees go down if the fund underperforms just as they go up with outperformance.
https://etfdb.com/etf-education/learn-about-fulcrum-fees/ (See Regulatory Considerations)

Anybody heard of or done business with? It's a private Healthcare fund. I can't seem to find anything on them...except from them..ha! Claims good returns but? Any experiences? Thanks

Realistic, I think. But one of his points is that stocks will underperform---- because they have over-performed for many years. Action, then Reaction. Then reversion to the Mean. 1,2,3.
"Not many stocks yield more than 3.2%." Huh? Did I just not hear him correctly? I went back and re-played it. I heard correctly. Does he have small-caps in mind? I dunno, but that statement is just incorrect. Erroneous. Right now, I own just three (3) single stocks. All of them yield well over 3.2%. ...I do not think it would be hard to find a great many others. I can certainly see his macro case. (I studied Hegel back in school!)
"Income (vs. cap gains) will be more important, going forward," for some time to come.
IQDG..... Hmmmmm. I took a look. Where does he see an 8% yield? I find 4.7%.
https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/etf/IQDG
THANK YOU, @bee.

I have a small $ amount in the Rockefeller Climate Solutions Fund, which they set up from their LLP that has been running for several years. The Rockefeller foundation and family office have dumped XOM etc and are trying to make up for John D's creation of the global oil industry.
As the press release below indicates, the fund is run by the Asset Management company. I don't know what the role of "Trust for Professional Mangers" is although there are a lot of other funds, some pretty well known on that list
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210923005097/en/Rockefeller-Asset-Management-Launches-Climate-Solutions-Fund-Expanding-Audience-for-Strategy-with-9-Year-Track-Record
Rockefeller Asset Management Launches Climate Solutions Fund, Expanding Audience for Strategy with 9-Year Track Record
September 23, 2021 08:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rockefeller Asset Management (RAM), a division of Rockefeller Capital Management, recently launched the Rockefeller Climate Solutions Fund (RKCIX), seeking long-term capital growth by investing in companies focused on climate change mitigation or adaptation solutions across the market capitalization spectrum. The Fund, which launched with nearly $100mn in assets and several underlying investors, was converted from a Limited Partnership structure with the same investment objective and a 9-year track record. In addition, the firm has partnered with Skypoint Capital Partners as the Fund’s third party wholesale marketing agent.
“Climate change is becoming a defining issue of our time. We believe investors can generate alpha and positive outcomes by investing in companies producing climate mitigation or adaption solutions with distinct competitive advantages, clear growth catalysts, strong management teams, and attractive earnings potential.”
RAM, in collaboration with The Ocean Foundation (TOF), established the Climate Solutions Strategy nine years ago based on the belief that climate change will transform economies and markets through changing regulation, shifting buying preferences from next-generation consumers, and technological advancements. This global equity strategy deploys a high conviction, bottom-up approach to investing in pure-play companies with meaningful revenue exposure to key environmental sectors such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, water, waste management, pollution control, food & sustainable agriculture, healthcare mitigation, and climate support services. The portfolio managers have long believed that there is significant investment opportunity in these public companies producing climate mitigation and adaptation solutions and that they have the potential to outperform broader equity markets over the long-term.
Rockefeller Climate Solutions Fund is co-managed by Casey Clark, CFA, and Rolando Morillo, who lead RAM's thematic equity strategies, leveraging the intellectual capital built from RAM's three decades of Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) investing experience. Since the inception of the Climate Solutions Strategy, RAM has also benefited from the environmental and scientific expertise of The Ocean Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to conserving ocean environments around the world. Mark J. Spalding, the President of TOF, and his team serve as advisors and research collaborators to help bridge the gap between science and investing and contribute to the strategies, idea generation, research, and engagement process.
Rolando Morillo, Fund Portfolio Manager, says: "Climate change is becoming a defining issue of our time. We believe investors can generate alpha and positive outcomes by investing in companies producing climate mitigation or adaption solutions with distinct competitive advantages, clear growth catalysts, strong management teams, and attractive earnings potential."
“RAM has been committed to continuously reinvesting in its investment team and ESG-integrated platform to support significant demand for its strategies, including thematic offerings like Climate Solutions, globally. The original LP structure was designed for clients of our family office. After nearly a decade, we are excited to make the strategy accessible to an expanded audience through the launch of our 40 Act Fund,” said Laura Esposito, Head of Institutional and Intermediary Distribution.

The value tilting funds I own have loaded up on oil since the March 2020 weird pricing, particularly SMVFX, SMXAX, GQEPX, and COWZ. I did not own any of those funds in early 2020.

@BaluBalu, the MONTHLY fund ASSET data only suggest that there MIGHT be equity fund outflows but other data do indicate outflows from equity and other fund categories, and inflows into m-mkt funds. The long-term asset pattern is that after the %Equity allocation bottomed in March 2020, it peaked in March 2022 and is now the lowest since. Other data:
1. ICI WEEKLY data on fund FLOWS indicates steady fund outflows.
2. Barron's WEEKLY data on 4-week moving average (4-wMA) of fund flows show outflows from stock and bond funds, and inflows into m-mkt funds (currently inflows of +$7 billion/week).
3. Anecdotal data from posters here and other forums that they have sold or reduced stock/bond exposure and have moved into Treasuries, and lately into m-mkt funds.
4. Rates have gone up and m-mkt funds are now starting to pay some interest.

Question for those that commented on this thread. Did anyone take a position in energy when it went negative in 2020 ?
I'll answer that first. No I didn't & kick myself in the butt every time I think about it !
I await your reply, Derf

I realized a tax loss in GASFX somewhere in there. I don't feel like I missed out on anything important in the long run. That money went into water and green energy.

Question for those that commented on this thread. Did anyone take a position in energy when it went negative in 2020 ?
I'll answer that first. No I didn't & kick myself in the butt every time I think about it !
I await your reply, Derf

It's worth noting that the linked piece is labeled as "Opinion," so it is not a news piece. Errors MSF pointed out aside, I think there is important information in it: Between 2010 and 2020, the cost of solar power fell 90 percent, and the cost of wind and battery power fell nearly as much. That kind of information matters if we're going to stave off climactic disaster and invest in a greener future. And there's no question in my mind that the coverage of Solyndra this opinion piece mentions was far more severe in many media outlets than that of Chesapeake.

I completely agree that the focus on numbers is wrong. I didn't pick it. The thesis of the opinion piece was that from a financial perspective, fracking is a sham.
A piece that presents readers with dubious assertions creates impression that it can't make its case objectively. It is easy to attack, especially by those with an opposing perspective. Ultimately it is harmful as it doesn't persuade and leaves readers suspicious.
I don't appreciate hit pieces on any side of any issue. They're problematic regardless of whether they are more prevalent on one side or another.
Aside from all of that ISTM that it was worth the space saying a little bit about how one looks at cash flows, capital intensive investments, and tax subsidies. There are a number of people investing in MLPs getting "tax free" payments courtesy of the industry's tax breaks: K-1 line 1 ordinary income "May be negative in early years due to accelerated depreciation, but become positive over time."
https://tortoiseecofin.com/media/2581/the-abcs-of-mlps_053018.pdf
2020 - the year that oil futures turned negative. If there was any time in the past few years that the industry would go through a shake out, that was it. OTOH, the piece you cited states that between 2015 and 2020 the industry filed more than 500 bankruptcies. So while the 107 given for 2020 may have been the high for that time span, it doesn't seem that far out of line with the other years.
Again, a frame of reference would help. What is the size of the companies that failed? What percentage of the industry did that represent? The point of the original piece was that "fracking companies" were not profitable, yet aside from Chesapeake which was pretty much a pure play, what even constitutes a fracking company? Haliburton? Schumberger? Are oil companies the same as fracking companies or are we conflating things here? (That was another problem with the original piece.)
harmful emmissions should not only be measured but taxed significantly.
Maybe, or maybe cap and trade would work better. They're not quite the same, and sometimes one can be better than the other. (The former sets the price of emissions and lets the market decide the amount, while the latter sets the amount and lets the market set the price.) Of course in the end either is far superior to the status quo.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2014/08/12/pricing-carbon-a-carbon-tax-or-cap-and-trade/

@MSF I don't doubt your numbers, but I do doubt your focus, given what's at stake environmentally. Part of the problem with finance's fixation on traditional cash flow metrics is it ignores the triple bottom line and the old saying what gets measured gets managed applies. This is why the SEC's movement to force each company to provide comparable statistics on their carbon emmissions matters. And those and other kinds of harmful emmissions should not only be measured but taxed significantly. Not only that but the total carbon/environmental impact of products manufactured should be measured. What then would the fossil fuel industry's cash flow be when adjusted for environmental and social impact? I am aware of course that no industry including for instance solar panels is impact free. Yet the right wing's fixation on alternatives and ESG every time there's a problem like Solyndra is far more of a hit piece if you ask me. Consider another potential "hit piece" comparing Solyndra to the military: https://vox.com/2015/1/5/7490593/F-35-vs-solyndra The fact is we should be investing in real alternative fuel sources whether they're good short-term financial investments or not. That should be the focus. Despite our missions to Mars, there still is no planet B. I would also add that Chesapeake's problems were not an isolated incident: https://ogv.energy/news-item/over-100-oil-and-gas-companies-went-bankrupt-in-2020
@WABAC Although the technology may have advanced since this article was published, as far as I know biofuels are not an adequate environmentally-friendly solution: https://scientificamerican.com/article/biofuels-bad-for-people-and-climate/

For a variety of environmental reasons, I'd like to see the end of fracking. But that doesn't diminish the appearance of the cited NYTimes Op-Ed piece as a polemic, grounded in misleading, cherry picked data.
Start with the except quoted. Here's an alternative description of 2014, just as factually accurate and just as misleading: With oil prices plummeting over 50% in 2014, it's not surprising that the oil industry failed to make a profit that year.
Is it really true that the domestic industry cannot make a profit with oil at $100/bbl? A graphic by the Dallas (yes, I know) Fed asserts that oil companies can make a profit on drilling new wells at WTI prices ranging from $48 to $69 depending on the oil field (including fracking). See p. 35.
https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/Documents/research/energy/energycharts.pdf/
The Op-Ed piece draws your attention to oil, while using Chesapeake as a poster child. What it doesn't say is that Chesapeake "was far slower than many of its peers to pivot to tapping shale formations for oil, which turned out to be much more lucrative than gas."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fracking-trailblazer-chesapeake-energy-files-for-bankruptcy-11593374287
What caught my eye in the Times Op-Ed was this part: "Previously, from 2002 to 2012, Chesapeake, the industry leader, didn’t report positive cash flow once, ending that period with total losses of some $30 billion"
Negative cash flows are to be expected in capital intensive industries when they first start out. They have to put a lot of cash into equipment and oil fields for payoffs down the road. It's a balancing act. Expand too slowly and you get killed by fixed costs. Expand too rapidly and you're crushed by debt. The WSJ I cited reports that Chesapeake failed the latter way: "Chesapeake’s breakneck growth left it highly leveraged." That's an indictment of Chesapeake management (ousted by Icahn in 2013), not of the industry.
Let's talk about that $30B in losses for 2014. While I'm not fond of non-GAAP figures, in some industries one should also look at EBITDA. The oil industry gets tremendous subsidies from the federal government in the form of accelerated depreciation and depletion allowances. It is curious how this taxpayer subsidy is not mentioned. Perhaps because it could call the dollar losses into question - are these real losses or just financial manipulations?
$30B is surely a ton of money, but it's presented for shock value without a frame of reference. Here's one (also misleading, but in the other direction): while the industry leader lost $30B in ten years (in a capital intensive industry where it invested for the future), Uber lost the same amount of money in just five years, spending that money not on capital but on capturing market share. They lost money on every ride but made it up in volume.
Limited cites to data, no links given (e.g. "the single best and most thorough account of the fracking boom", so the writer says); this stands in stark contrast to copious citations and links presented for environmental concerns. Not even a link to a Chesapeake financial statement? (Here's the 2014 10K, showing a $2B net profit, even after writing off $2.7B in depreciation, depletion, and amortization.)
The conclusion may be right or wrong. One can't tell because in the end, this is just a hit piece.

@Crash

you guys are correct, but it seems to me that you're simply beating up on a simple maxim: given our system, and given a young-enough starting point, investors will do well, over long periods of time. Don't the "sadistics" bear this out?

All of that depends on whether we are at an inflection point or not. This is why I think it is a serious mistake to compare the social sciences like economics and its uglier cousin finance with the hard sciences like physics. Tomorrow I can be almost certain that the law of gravity will apply if, say, Vladimir Putin stepped out of a window. I can by no means be certain that the belief that "in the long run U.S. stocks will go up" will remain true.
I also think such a fundamentalist faith in markets is an ideology rooted in mistaken ideas about humanity and history, and is, therefore dangerous. If one believes that stocks always go up eventually during one's lifetime, you could support the notion that Social Security should be privatized and linked to stocks. I think that's a terrible idea as stocks may not always go up and it makes regulating the private sector by the government virtually impossible. Imagine trying to break up a monopoly at one of the largest companies in people's Social Security accounts that would send the accounts downward.
But even as an investor I think the ideology is dangerous. Relative to human history, U.S. stock market history is short, a blip. Why should we believe it repeats when if you look at all of human history every great civilization or world super power has ended either via violent implosion/explosion or a gradual slide into decay? Otherwise, we'd all be Egyptians, Sumerians or Romans today.
The long-term U.S. stocks go up philosophy depends on some basic premises which if we're at an inflection point may not be true:
1. The U.S. remains the world global superpower. There is China.
2. Labor in the U.S. remains powerless, and capital remains triumphant. This depends on globalization, technology and government social programs--to placate labor--and government/corporate oppression--laws preventing labor activism--to remain true. There is evidence that we've reached peak globalization so the labor/wage arbitrage game corporations have played since the 1970s may be coming to an end. In other words, there is much talk about "de-globalization" and "on-shoring" today. Whether that's true or not is a vital question to investors because labor will have power again here if jobs can't just be shipped to low wage nations as easily anymore. That is the wage arbitrage of which I speak.
3. Climate change does not pose a material threat to business. It does. It is, no matter what the deniers think, and capital markets by themselves cannot solve it. It could and will beneift and hurt some sectors of the market, but long-term the growth-at-all costs model may have to change, and that may require a steady state growth or even a declining growth model imposed by government.
4. The Fed maintains control over inflation and the dollar remains the world reserve currency. This is kind of linked to the superpower question.
5. There is no violent social unrest internally or war externally that could lead to the destruction of our nation. January 6th, the BLM unrest and Trump's attempt to overthrow a democratically determined election could be viewed as preludes.
6. Technological increases in labor productivity continue. If they don't continue, then it is harder for the private sector to ignore labor's demands for greater wages.
If any of these premises shift and we are at an inflection point, then the buy and hold philosophy may not be true in the future. In other words, the idea that in the long-run stocks go up isn't science. It's history--In the past stocks went up. And it's libertarian ideology and ideology is a polite term for what the belief system is. Markets can solve all problems including labor's problems with retirement is the belief.

Don't like to jump around, but losing my confidence in Int'l fund managers. Hold VWILX and MGGPX. Thinking of reducing positions and adding to VTSAX, a smoother ride. These guys did weather 2020 pretty well, but are getting beat up now. Stay the course? Thoughts needed!! Thanks!

I've owned VWILX for several years.
The fund has experienced significant losses YTD (-31.11%) and over the trailing 12 months (-34.31%).
I don't have any plans to sell VWILX in the short-term.
Guess I'm a glutton for punishment!

Thanks for everyone's input! I haven't made any changes yet to my portfolio yet. Kind of wait and see for now.

I'm of the mind, the day after I sell, will be the upswing!

ya, story of my life. Or, after I buy, the thing falls hard. I'm sticking with my bets, anyhow. This is an INTERNATIONAL thread.... I'm still holding TRAMX. And giving QAT a look-see, recently. And there's a garment maker with facilities in Jordan and New Jersey: Jerash. JRSH. A penny stock, making clothing for other companies, who then attach their OWN brand names to the items.
https://www.barrons.com/market-data/stocks/jrsh?mod=searchresults_companyquotes&mod=searchbar
I've been to Jerash. Very cool, historical. (2004.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerash
"the region of the Gerasenes" (Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26).
https://jerashholdings.com/

Why, despite a lack of uncertainty last year, did you fail to anticipate the worst bond market in centuries? How did you not see the worst opening 6-months in the stock market in 40 years? The worst inflation since 1981?

I don't know. On the other hand, I was very happy with the returns I had experienced with a short-term investment in bond funds that I bought because everyone said they are nearly as good for you as flossing.
Not being a fan of bonds generally, and disappointed with the yields, I sold. I'm no Bernard Baruch, but sometimes there is something to be said for selling "too soon."
As for inflation, if you were raised with the idea that it is the result of too much money chasing too few goods, it wasn't rocket science to wonder where we might be headed with massive tax cuts, supply chain issues, and air drop money.
And, well, a lot of people had been commenting on the stratospheric valuations of the stock market. When hasn't that ended in tears?
So what's the point of Barry abusing his capital letters and wearing out the italic fonts?
If you're crossing the street against the light, and you hear horns honking, you might want to look around.

Don't like to jump around, but losing my confidence in Int'l fund managers. Hold VWILX and MGGPX. Thinking of reducing positions and adding to VTSAX, a smoother ride. These guys did weather 2020 pretty well, but are getting beat up now. Stay the course? Thoughts needed!! Thanks!

I've owned VWILX for several years.
The fund has experienced significant losses YTD (-31.11%) and over the trailing 12 months (-34.31%).
I don't have any plans to sell VWILX in the short-term.
Guess I'm a glutton for punishment!

Thanks for everyone's input! I haven't made any changes yet to my portfolio yet. Kind of wait and see for now. I'm of the mind, the day after I sell, will be the upswing!

Adjusted-Price% for VWINX, VWELX, VFIAX, SPY (last 2 are indistinguishable).

Price% for VWINX, VWELX, VFIAX, SPY (last 2 are indistinguishable).

@Crash,
My information source is the DODBX Fund Report published by M* on 06/16/2022.
A new balanced fund committee took over management of DODBX in May 2022.
This committee began as a working group following the fund's steep losses during the 2020 bear market.
In 2021, DODBX no longer had to fully mimic the stock/bond sleeves of DODGX and DODIX respectively.
International stocks are now included to further diversify the portfolio.
Other changes include allowing a small S&P 500 short position for protection against market selloffs
and selling covered-calls on stocks that are perceived to be at/near full value.
"The increased focus on managing risk is a welcome improvement, but a longer track record
of execution would increase our confidence that the changes will lead to a smoother ride going forward."