The "combo" actually is just the proxy that incorporates the registration (prospectus) by reference. It does contain links to the prospectuses on p. F-13 (near the bottom of the file Shadow linked to).
Here's the link to the acquiring fund's (Queens Road Small Value Fund's) new prospectus:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1170611/000139834420019562/fp0058114_497.htm
Tax issue, from the proxy statement:
"Any sales by the Target Fund [FPA Capital], including those made in anticipation of the Reorganization, of portfolio holdings prior to the Reorganization may generate capital gains that are expected to be distributed to shareholders prior to the Reorganization, which distribution may be taxable to shareholders." (p. 4)
"Because there are differences in the Funds’ principal investment strategies, if the Reorganization is approved by shareholders of the Target Fund, it is anticipated that substantially all of the investments held by the Target Fund will have to be sold prior to the Reorganization and reinvested in accordance with the investment strategies of the Acquiring Fund." (p. F-14)
M* reports a negative 17% cap gains exposure in FPPTX, so in theory this should not be a problem. The downside of having capital losses is that they will be carried over (I think) to the merged fund and thus apportioned among a larger base of shareholders.

Could you cite sources and explain your thinking? I've occasionally sold, or declined to buy, funds because I fundamentally disagreed with the manager's approach. But when investing in actively managed funds I generally take the view that I'm buying certain expertise and philosophy and rarely second guess changes.
M* calculates the weighted average credit rating of the fund's holdings (based on Sept. 30th portfolio) to be "A". M*'s methodology is not a simple average, but a weighting based on default probabilities. This gives more weight to lower graded bonds. So if anything, M*'s calculation tends to give funds lower credit ratings than the funds would appear to merit.
Of 126 distinct core plus funds for which M* reports credit ratings, it rates only 3 at AA and 19 at A, including DODIX. The remaining 104 are rated BBB or BB (mostly BBB). There are 28 unrated funds.
M* reports average duration for 122 distinct core plus funds. While DODIX's 4.8 years is not near the bottom numerically (there are a few very short duration funds), it is 21st lowest (3 way tie), i.e. in the quintile of shortest durations.
These figures raise the broader question: do you want to own any core plus fund? The comment, "I want them to be boring" suggests the answer is no. Not because DODIX is making changes that you currently disagree with, but because this is what actively managed funds generally, and core plus bonds specifically, tend to do.
My approach with actively managed bond funds is that I don't want them to be boring. That's what index funds are for. If I'm paying for active management, I want to see the managers take advantage of a variety of opportunities - in sectors, in quality, in yield curves, in economic cycles, etc. Different strokes for different folks.
Regarding the last (semi) annual report, the fund did open a new position in Exxon Mobile (sic). However, that was presented as one of sixteen new positions that represented a variety of sectors. The securities were selected individually and not based on sector. Likewise, the 2019 annual statement "highlighted ... the additions of AbbVie, Occidental Petroleum, UniCredit, and Vodafone Group over the course of the year."
That said, a closer look at the June 2020 and Dec 2019 statements does show a significant increase in energy debt, e.g. Petroleo Brasileiro SA and Petroleos Mexicanos among others.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1170611/000110465920114615/a20-32694_1n14.htm
Excerpt from filing:
It is proposed that this filing will become effective on November 13, 2020, pursuant to Rule 488 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

Great comments.
Retirement continues to be good after 15 years. Actively putting attention into maintaining good health makes sense to me as does accepting the aging process as it inevitably occurs. Being close to relatives makes sense in our situation (in some situations it doesn't!). Financially, maintaining a balance between current enjoyment and set asides for the future continues to make sense to me. My simple minded approach for about a decade has been to release income (including some long term gains) from investment accounts to our household account each year. Remaining portfolio balances continue to be set aside for growth, for potential use in extreme emergencies, and for assisting relatives if needed. Any remaining balances will eventually be distributed to heirs and to non-profits.
As my 70th birthday approached last year, I decided to somewhat increase the income being generated by the portfolio for release by beginning to move 25% of the OEF/ETF portfolio balance to a newly created high yield portfolio (an @Junkster thought process led to this decision). That process was recently completed. The new portfolio has been populated with higher yielding stocks (3%+ yields at time of purchase), cefs, bdcs, reits, and commercial mreits. Time will tell if this exercise has been helpful or not!
Income released to the household is used for a variety of general purposes. What remains is mostly used for travel. Unfortunately, an early March return from Hawaii heralded the end to this year's travel. Summer travel plans got cancelled or mothballed. Also, the month in Hawaii scheduled for this coming winter will probably get cancelled soon.
Trips since the pandemic hit have centered around getaways most weeks to our nearby beach cabin (having that has proved to be a real blessing this year). My hope is that a relatively effective vaccine will be fairly widely distributed by next summer. Once that happens, I am hopeful travel risk will be reduced enough that somewhat more normal travel can resume. I am not getting any younger!
After thought: Alway remember life is short! Don't take any day for granted! My wife recently mentioned she could count 19 friends, co-volunteers of hers at the American Legion, and relatives who have passed away during the past year. (We just visited a friend at the coast yesterday who lost his wife to liver cancer during the past month. She was about our age and appeared to be in good health when we last visited them during the winter. The problem was only recently discovered.)

Not sure if the following is referenced behind the WSJ paywall, but several years ago, PIMCO was 'caught' by the SEC doing the same thing with its bond fund ETF::
PIMCO Settles Charges of Misleading Investors About ETF Performance
https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-252.html
Reuters version
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pimco-sec/pimco-to-pay-20-million-over-misleading-investors-about-etf-performance-idUSKBN13Q5WZ
And Semper Capital was tripped up by the same thing earlier this year.
Barrons:SEC Accuses Mortgage Fund of Overstating Its Returns
https://www.barrons.com/articles/sec-accuses-mortgage-fund-of-overstating-its-returns-51588272533

Fidelity continues to stand out as the best HSA for investing
More Here

two hats, one personal and the other for a non-profit organization..Fiduciary concerns with the non-profit.....
In an ideal world, you'd be able to get at least decent returns on CDs and bond funds. I too have researched VLAAX and think that's a great choice. Both stocks and bonds in that one. I understand the hesitancy about putting non-profit money into the Market. And there are no gov't guarantees. I'm thinking that you might need to be concerned more about either growth or yield. Or maybe you'd be happy with middling performance in both respects? DODIX comes to mind. Rock solid, over decades. Having a good year in 2020, if that's any kind of indicator. Its portfolio (per Morningstar) is about 90% investment-grade paper. Another hybrid which has not yet been mentioned is BRUFX. Only 15% turnover there. (PRWCX is closed.)

I wonder why Mondrian (financial parent of Rothko) started a second EM fund when it had been running MPEMX for several years. MPEMX is hardly a great fund, but it still managed to outperform the soon to be liquidated Rothko. Over RKEMX's lifetime (12/18/2018 to present, i.e. 10/15/2020), it returned a cumulative 2% (!), vs MPEMX's cumulative return of 19.46%. That in turn was a tad (2/3%) under the category average.
I never really "got" Rothko. Mondrian is more to my liking. Though in art as in investing, what one prefers can be a matter of personal taste.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814679/000168386320013977/f7248d1.htm
497 1 f7248d1.htm 497
ADVANCED SERIES TRUST
AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio
Supplement dated October 16, 2020
to the Currently Effective Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
This supplement should be read in conjunction with the currently effective Advanced Series Trust (the Trust) Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (SAI), and the Summary Prospectus for the AST Goldman Sachs Global Income Portfolio (the Portfolio or the Target Portfolio). The Portfolio discussed in this supplement may not be available under your variable contract. For more information about the portfolios available under your variable contract, please refer to your contract prospectus. Defined terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings given to them in the Trust Prospectus and SAI.
At a meeting of the shareholders of the Target Portfolio held on October 15, 2020, shareholders approved the reorganization (the Reorganization) of the Target Portfolio into the AST Wellington Management Global Bond Portfolio (the Acquiring Portfolio), each a series of the Trust. The Acquiring Portfolio will change its name to the "AST Global Bond Portfolio" on or about November 16, 2020.
Pursuant to the Reorganization, the assets and liabilities of the Target Portfolio will be exchanged for shares of the Acquiring Portfolio, and Target Portfolio shareholders will become shareholders of the Acquiring Portfolio. No sales charges will be imposed in connection with the Reorganization. The Acquiring Portfolio shares to be received by Target Portfolio shareholders in the Reorganization will be equal in value to the Target Portfolio shares held by such shareholders immediately prior to the Reorganization. It is expected that the Reorganization will be completed on or about November 16, 2020.
THIS SUPPLEMENT SHOULD BE READ AND RETAINED FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
826SUP2

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1651872/000139834420020218/fp0058698_497.htm
(RKEMX)
GALLERY TRUST
(the “Trust”)
Rothko Emerging Markets Equity Fund
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated October 16, 2020 to the Fund’s Summary Prospectus, dated June 25, 2020, and
Statutory Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”),
each dated March 1, 2020, as supplemented June 25, 2020
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Summary Prospectus, Statutory Prospectus and SAI, and should be read in conjunction with the Summary Prospectus, Statutory Prospectus and SAI.
The Board of Trustees of the Trust, at the recommendation of Rothko Investment Strategies, a division of Mondrian Investment Partners Limited (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser of the Fund, has approved a plan of liquidation providing for the liquidation of the Fund’s assets and the distribution of the net proceeds pro rata to the Fund’s shareholders. In connection therewith, the Fund is closed to new investments effective as of the Fund’s close of business on October 16, 2020. The Fund is expected to cease operations and liquidate on or about October 29, 2020 (the “Liquidation Date”). The Liquidation Date may be changed without notice at the discretion of the Trust’s officers.
Prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem (sell) their shares in the manner described in the “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” section of the Summary Prospectus and Statutory Prospectus. For those Fund shareholders that do not redeem (sell) their shares prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute to each such shareholder, on or promptly after the Liquidation Date, a liquidating cash distribution equal in value to the shareholder’s interest in the net assets of the Fund as of the Liquidation Date.
In anticipation of the liquidation of the Fund, the Adviser may manage the Fund in a manner intended to facilitate the Fund’s orderly liquidation, such as by holding cash or making investments in other highly liquid assets. As a result, during this time, all or a portion of the Fund may not be invested in a manner consistent with its stated investment strategies, which may prevent the Fund from achieving its investment objective.
The liquidation distribution amount will include any accrued income and capital gains, will be treated as a payment in exchange for shares and will generally be a taxable event for shareholders investing through taxable accounts. You should consult your personal tax advisor concerning your particular tax situation. Shareholders remaining in the Fund on the Liquidation Date will not be charged any transaction fees by the Fund. However, the net asset value of the Fund on the Liquidation Date will reflect costs of liquidating the Fund.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
MON-SK-007-0100

Disgusting swamp goo.

I agree. I wasn't in that meeting but I sold most of my portfolio(all bond funds) at the end of 02/2020 documented (

here).
But, the following (link) is also a disgusting swamp goo and we can call it Joe Quid pro quo.

You obviously do not know and have not cared to find out that this is bullshit and has been known to be so for some time. Do I need to post cites? I mean, seriously, dude.

Except now we have the PC hard drive with the emails or rather the repair guy does.
I suppose "The Swamp" is in the eye of the beholder.

GOP Senator Sasse certainly has his opinion of "The Swamp".

“The fact is that we ought to start rewarding work, not just wealth,” Biden said in a February debate. He added that it’s “wrong” that billionaires pay lower rates on capital gains than employees do on their salaries.

Bloomberg Article:
https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-16/election-news-biden-win-could-change-the-way-rich-pay-taxes-on-investment-gains?srnd=premium

This is a WSJ October 12, 2020 article by Justin Baer which identifies AlphaCentric Income but also mentions some other possible funds: Semper MBS Total Return, Deer Park Total Return Credit Fund and Performance True Strategic Bond Fund.
The article states how in each instance, the fund bought those mortgage securities in small “odd lots,” or increments of less than $1 million, according to a securities filing.
The article mentions how odd lots often trade at a discount to larger, “round-lot” positions. Sometimes these discounts are not being applied buy rely on a third parties that use pricing on round lots on the same trading security.
There is a pay wall -interesting article.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-probes-small-bond-trades-that-lead-to-big-returns-11602495001
Can be viewed in inprivate window in Mozilla.

Disgusting swamp goo.

I agree. I wasn't in that meeting but I sold most of my portfolio(all bond funds) at the end of 02/2020 documented (

here).
But, the following (link) is also a disgusting swamp goo and we can call it Joe Quid pro quo.

You obviously do not know and have not cared to find out that this is bullshit and has been known to be so for some time. Do I need to post cites? I mean, seriously, dude.

Except now we have the PC hard drive with the emails or rather the repair guy does.
I suppose "The Swamp" is in the eye of the beholder.

Disgusting swamp goo.

I agree. I wasn't in that meeting but I sold most of my portfolio(all bond funds) at the end of 02/2020 documented (

here).
But, the following (link) is also a disgusting swamp goo and we can call it Joe Quid pro quo.

You obviously do not know and have not cared to find out that this is bullshit and has been known to be so for some time. Do I need to post cites? I mean, seriously, dude.

Old_Joe, pay attention who posted about politics first. If you guys want to discuss politics please use the off-topic.
It's pretty clear see below
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-investors.html

Sticking to the original topic, as I meant no insult to any individual posters here, OJ or FD1000, I find, to be more specific, much albeit not all of technical analysis to be nonsense. I think volume data is useful in the right hands, as are advance decline, short-term momentum, and investor sentiment ratios, but it is this specific rearview analysis in the article of long-term past returns I find to be ridiculous:

April has been the strongest month this century, rising 80% of the time AND producing average monthly gains of 2.5%. The second- and third-best months are November (rises 79% of the time, with average monthly gains of 1.7%) and October (rises 70% of the time, with average monthly gains of 1.3%), respectively. In fact, if we look at the S&P 500, there have only been 7 years when this benchmark index has fallen during both October AND November. Here are the years:
1951, 1971, 1973, 1976, 1987, 2000, 2008.
5 of those 7 years occurred during the secular bear markets from the 1970s and 2000s. 1987 was when we had Black Monday and the resulting fallout the next month (November). Outside of those years, we've had ONE year since 1950 when we've been in a secular bull market and saw the S&P 500 slide during both October and November in the same year. I think it's safe to say that the odds really favor the bulls during the balance of 2020.
Let's take it one step further. If we look at the S&P 500 from the close on October 27th through the close on January 18th of the following calendar year, our benchmark index has ended this period higher than it started in 61 of the last 70 years. It's risen 35 times in the past 38 years during that period. I'd say the odds are definitely on the bulls' side. But it's not just the frequency of the gains, it's the size of them. Before I give you this next stat, keep in mind that the S&P 500 has averaged gaining roughly 9% per year since 1950. Would you like to know how many times the S&P 500 has gained at least 9% during this "less-than-90-day-period"? 17. And if we lower the bar to 8% or more, the number swells to 25 times in the past 70 years.
What if I said that the NASDAQ's history during this period is even more bullish? Because it is. The average gain on the S&P 500 during that October 28th through January 18th period is 4.59%. The NASDAQ? +6.20%. Furthermore, over the past three decades, here are the 4 best calendar months on the NASDAQ in terms of annualized returns:

To look at history based merely on the price movements in the past without any real analysis as to why that price movement occurred--say falling interest rates, age demographics, America becoming a super power after the wars, and not being in the midst of a terrible pandemic for instance--and whether similar conditions are present today is stupid and useless to me, and reaks of snakeoil salesmen.
However, there is use in some technical data I believe for measuring the "psychology" of the market in the short-term.

NYT article -

What has emerged from your research that retirees should think about?
The importance of interdependence alongside independence — we all would do better in our later years if we’re connected and not isolated. And how do I maximize my health span, not just my life span?
And there’s the serious issue of funding our longer lives. A third of the boomers have close to nothing saved for retirement and no pensions; that is a massive poverty phenomenon about to happen, unless millions of people work a bit longer, spend less, downsize or even share their homes with housemates or family.
What is the biggest mistake retirees make?
Far too many think far too small. I have asked thousands of people from all walks of life over the years who are nearing retirement what they hope to do in retirement. They tell me: ‘I want to get some rest, exercise some more, visit with my family, go on a great vacation, read some great books’ Then most stall. Few have taken the time or effort to study the countless possibilities that await them or imagine or explore all of the incredible ways they can spend the next period of their lives.

rethinking-retirement

I was first attracted to this fund, FSRPX, when I was creating a list of mutual funds with consistently high risk adjusted returns. It's management captures 148% of the upside (of the Consumer Cyclical Index) while suffering only 91% of the Index's downside losses in down markets.
It continues to deliver those results long term. Its 5, 10, and 15 trailing returns has placed this fund in the top 1% of Consumer Cyclical funds. It is a concentrated fund in which just 10 companies account for 66% of the fund's assets.
FSRPX - M* Profile:
https://morningstar.com/funds/xnas/fsrpx/quote
Forbes Article -
The Tale of Retail

Lots of BS about me. How nice is to post trash without any proof.
==============
@davidrmoran:but it is true that FD1k should be a multimillionaire, philanthropist, and posting regularly for seekingalpha or similar
FD: I'm a multimillionaire but not philanthropist or making money posting on seekingalpha.
=============
@davidrmoran: plus a byline somewhere advising others about bonds and his rapid fund trading without penalty.
FD: why do you think I should pay any penalty? I have special arrangement at Schwab where I have a dedicated trader that buys all the Inst funds for me with no commissions and I can sell these funds within one day (I don't buy funds that have longer mandatory hold). Example: IOFIX,PIMIX. If I don’t buy Inst funds and these funds are not Schwab fund and I sell within 90 days I do pay the $49.95 short term penalty which is nothing compared to the amount I'm making.
===============
@Junkster,
Your posts have several examples of liars, are you insinuating that I lied too?. I never claimed that I made a very high %, just a pretty good performance with very low SD. Remember, since I retired in 2018, we have enough money to sustain our standard of living for another 40-50 years if our portfolio will make just 4% annually including inflation. Our portfolio is 35+ times our annual expense without our SS. This is why I set up the following goals: make 6% average annually with the lowest SD I can get (preferably under 3) and never lose 3% from any last top. We don’t care about maximizing performance anymore but to meet our specific goals. To do that I use mainly bond mutual funds + several short term trades (hours-days) using stocks/ETF/CEFs/other. The 3 year results are much better than my goals. I never lost more than 1% from any last top in the last 3 years. Below is a copy from my Schwab accounts as of yesterday which is about 95% of our total money. There is no way to achieve these results without being a good trader and why I posted other funds too
3 year performance/SD...SPY 13.1%/17.7...VBINX (60/40) 10%/11.1....VWIAX (40/60) 7.046.6%/...PIMIX 3.75%/5.6....IOFIX 0.2%/23.7
My portfolio performance was 9.9% annually for 3 year with SD=2.18
Below you can see an image of performance as of 10/14/2020 from Schwab. Column 1=one year...Column 2=YTD...Column 3=one year...Column 4=3 years

Below is the SD for one year and 3 years