https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/725781/000119312524020451/d615312d497.htm
SUPPLEMENT DATED JANUARY 31, 2024 TO THE CURRENT
SUMMARY AND STATUTORY PROSPECTUSES FOR:
Invesco Small Cap Value Fund
(the “Fund”)
This supplement amends the Summary and Statutory Prospectuses for the above referenced Fund and is in addition to any other supplement(s), unless otherwise specified. You should read this supplement in conjunction with the Summary and Statutory Prospectuses and retain it for future reference.
The Fund will close to new investors, other than in the circumstances outlined below, effective as of the open of business on April 1, 2024.
The following sentences are added to the front cover of the Summary Prospectus:
As of the open of business on April 1, 2024, the Fund will limit public sales of its shares to certain investors. Please see the ‘Other Information – Limited Fund Offering’ section of the Statutory Prospectus for further information.
The following sentence is added on the front cover of the Statutory Prospectus:
As of the open of business on April 1, 2024, the Fund will limit public sales of its shares to certain investors.
The following information is added under the heading “Other Information” of the Statutory Prospectus:
Limited Fund Offering
Effective as of the open of business on April 1, 2024, the Fund will close to all new investors, except in the limited circumstances described below. Investors should note that the Fund reserves the right to refuse any order that might disrupt the efficient management of the Fund.
Investors who were invested in the Fund before March 29, 2024, may continue to make additional purchases and exchanges in their accounts. During this limited offering, the Fund reserves the right, in its discretion, to accept purchases and exchanges: from certain investors which may include, among others, corporations, endowments, foundations and insurance companies; from registered investment advisor (RIA) or bank trust firms with eligible assets described above that launch a new offering platform or move assets from an existing platform to a new platform; and in other limited circumstances after a determination by the Adviser that such action is not detrimental to the Fund and its shareholders. The Fund reserves the right to change this policy at any time.
Any Employer Sponsored Retirement and Benefit Plan or its affiliated plans may continue to make additional purchases and exchanges of Fund shares and may add new accounts at the plan level that may purchase Fund shares if the Employer Sponsored Retirement and Benefit Plan or its affiliated plan had invested in the Fund before March 29, 2024. Existing RIA and bank trust firms that have an investment allocation to the Fund in a fee-based, wrap or advisory account, can continue to add new clients, purchase shares, and exchange into the Fund. The Fund will not be available to new RIA and bank trust firms. The Fund may also accept investments by 529 college savings plans managed by the Adviser during this limited offering.
The Fund may resume sale of shares to new investors on a future date if the Adviser determines it is appropriate.
VK-SCV-SUMSTAT-SUP 013124

@MikeM and @Mark: I'm an adherent of the CG ETFs, also. CGGR, CGGO, and CGDV in three different family accounts. I never owned American MFs, probably because of loads, altho I do have access to Washington Mutual in my retirement account. Capital Group seems to know how to select effective teams.
I like what Harbor Funds has done in the past in choosing outside managers for actively managed funds. With their ETF lineup, a Jennison Associates group runs WINN and a team of Europeans at CWorldWide Asset Management has OSEA. FWIIW, Harbor did not do well with MFs run by a single or star manager (such as Marsico). For ETFs following an index, it may be that a single person can handle the job.

Are the CG ETFs transparent or non-transparent ETFs? Only if you know off hand. TIA

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1355064/000158064224000502/swbc_497.htm
MUTUAL FUND SERIES TRUST
AlphaCentric SWBC Municipal Opportunities Fund
Class A: MUNAX Class C: MUNCX Class I: MUNIX
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated January 26, 2024 to the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated August 1, 2023.
______________________________________________________________________________
The Board of Trustees of Mutual Fund Series Trust has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on or about February 27, 2024 (“Liquidation Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments and may no longer pursue its stated investment objective. The Fund will begin liquidating its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents until all shares have been redeemed. Any capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash. Shares of the Fund are otherwise not available for purchase.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED OR EXCHANGED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 27, 2024 WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OR ACCOUNT OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the Fund at 1-844-223-8637.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
You should read this Supplement in conjunction with the Prospectus, any Summary Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information for the Fund, each dated August 1, 2023, as supplemented, which provide information that you should know about the Fund before investing. These documents are available upon request and without charge by calling the Fund toll-free at 1-844-223-8637 or by writing to 4221 North 203rd Street, Suite 100, Elkhorn, Nebraska 68022.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

My wife's retirement, my retirement and our non retirement accounts are all down about the same 0.5%
No NVDA

All good points but there are some rather peculiar tweaks I have found since my wife and I stopped getting paychecks. I get SS but not till the last of the month, and it generally is not enough to pay for big ticket items like estimated taxes, April trip to Africa, etc.
So for the first time I am taking money out of our investment accounts. With interest rates up so much, we are making a goodly amount on treasuries and MMF I use as our safe cash to avoid loosing a ton this early in retirement.
We like having a B+M local bank but it pays little on a checking account so I try to leave money in the MMF as long as possible. For the same reason I have not set up automatic seeps of the dividends and interest to our bank.
While it easy to move the money, Schwab requires you sell the MMF first, and it takes a couple of days to clear, so a fair amount of planning is involved. This to me is the major disadvantage to using Schwab.
To avoid always using our cash cushion for expenses, (as it is intended for DCA and increasing equities when they go on sale), I am selling some of our appreciated stocks, but trying to do so in a proportional manner.
Once my wife is on SS ( and I have to take RMDs) it will be a little more manageable.

You have to look at your total portfolio. A total 20% loss, is just 20% regardless of how you spin it. The bucket system adds complexity to an already complex retirement situation compared to accumulation. You can achieve the same goals by using several funds without all the moving parts. The bucket system isn't logical. It's just a way to trick your brain...or...if you don't have a real excuse = I sleep better at night.

The author disagrees with the often recommended notion of stashing away 3, 5 or 10 years spending in cash or short term treasuries to ride out potential market downturns. It’s a popular notion often recommended here and across the financial press.
His investment portfolio: ”Beyond cash, all a retiree needs is one ‘bucket’ for investments. The portfolio would hold between 50 and 75% in equities for those following the 4% rule or similar retirement spending strategies. The remaining 25 to 50% would be held in intermediate term Treasuries and TIPS.”
I’m pretty much in agreement with @Crash. I generally don’t bother to maintain a bucket at all, but sell / withdraw from investments “across the board” two or three times during the year for basic needs or major expenses. If the markets get a little “crazy” on the upside, I may pull out an entire year’s spending ahead of time to lock in that extra return. During withdrawals I also rebalance, taking a higher percentage from those assets that have appreciated the most. (I am aware that some here refute the notion of rebalancing at all. )
But your position is probably different. My pension (with some limited cola) and SS (inflation adjusted) could probably cover basic necessities (but not infrastructure maintenance, travel, new vehicles). So I can’t put myself in the position of those who live entirely off investments. It’s a huge difference and so “buckets galore” might well be the preferred route for them.
FWIW - I only started keeping accurate year-by-year records in 2007 (but have some generalized averages from before). Beginning with 2007 (the past 17 years) I’ve had three “down” years. Two resulted in single-digit losses. But ‘08 was nasty with a loss of over 20%. That suggests to me, anyway, that a large cash stash isn’t warranted. To wit - this simplistic analysis overlooks both the magnitude and the duration the market downturn that began in 1929. A multi-year downdraft in equities of that magnitude would inflict greater pain. (But there’d be other more serious issues to worry about.) Recent downturns have been much shorter and may have given some of us a false sense of security. Also, the Japanese experience in the 90s and afterwards should sober any who look at it.

The 3 bucket strategy increases complexity and requires too much maintenance.
The author's recommended approach seems prudent:
"Beyond cash, all a retiree needs is one 'bucket' for investments.
The portfolio would hold between 50 and 75% in equities for those
following the 4% rule or similar retirement spending strategies.
The remaining 25 to 50% would be held in intermediate term Treasuries and TIPS."

Harold EVENSKY, the originator of the bucket system, had just 2 buckets - one for short-term money that didn't belong in the market, and another that was in the market for long-term. It just formalized the idea that the money one needed soon didn't belong in the market.
But his followers, especially Christine BENZ at M*, "refined" it into 3 or more buckets. Then elaborate systems followed to fill them up.
So, this 2010 interview of Evensky by Benz is interesting.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/330323/the-bucket-approach-for-retirement-income
Edit/Add. Also found a related MFO thread from 2021, https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/58461/cash-flow-strategy

There are many varying components, regarding the CDs that fit your personal situation, whether you are talking about CDs for taxable assets vs. retirement assets, what kind of termination fee components work for you, etc. etc. I prefer Bank CDs for my taxable assets, where liquidity is not as impacted by early termination fees, and where taxable accounting can easily be spread across multiple bank accounts. With my IRA assets, liquidity and early termination fee components are not as relevant, and it makes my life "simpler" by having all retirement investments in one brokerage--easy end of year accounting with one brokerage, that provides instant RMD and "taxable consequences" for account withdrawals. I am willing to invest in lower yielding CDs in my IRA brokerage account, where I use more of a laddering system of CD selection, and not concerned as much about liquidity and early termination.

@Sven Yes. Current Income Sources: defined benefit pensions = 45%, taxable investment account = 30%, social security = 25%. (Also have two smaller Roths that are not being tapped.) Taxable investment account has grown substantially since retirement. Exhausting it is not a significant concern (wife and I also have good long term care policies taken out during pre-retirement planning phase). Just don't appreciate fluctuations in account balance in years account balance does not end at new high. Restricting annual withdrawals to some or all of the dividend income already sitting in the account at end of year helps keep those fluctuations in perspective. It also simplifies the year end review.

@davfor ...in an ideal world, the dividends/distributions generated in your IRA would sufficiently cover your RMDs as well.

I'll take you word for it. But, I don't face any RMD requirements. So, that's an uncharted world to me. About 90% of my investment $'s are invested in a taxable account. That account is the focus of my annual withdrawal ruminations. During most of my working years, available cash was funneled into a weekend real estate investing hobby. The limited $'s that were set aside in a tax deferred retirement account were withdrawn in annual steps from the age of 55 when I retired until the age of 62 when I began to collect social security.

There are 2 separate issues.
I was commenting on the infeasibility relying only on distributions for meeting RMDs.
But with larger IRA accounts, the RMDs are large, and may be sufficient to meet retirement expenses. Then, there is no worry about SWRs. Or, the RMDs may only need small supplements from the portfolio. So, that becomes a valid retirement withdrawal strategy. However, for many, the RMDs aren't enough for expenses.

@MikeM and @Mark: I'm an adherent of the CG ETFs, also. CGGR, CGGO, and CGDV in three different family accounts. I never owned American MFs, probably because of loads, altho I do have access to Washington Mutual in my retirement account. Capital Group seems to know how to select effective teams.
I like what Harbor Funds has done in the past in choosing outside managers for actively managed funds. With their ETF lineup, a Jennison Associates group runs WINN and a team of Europeans at CWorldWide Asset Management has OSEA. FWIIW, Harbor did not do well with MFs run by a single or star manager (such as Marsico). For ETFs following an index, it may be that a single person can handle the job.

I cringe when people talk about stocks for all times and talk only about good times. People have to deal with markets they are in. So, these historical data are useful for perspectives.
In the charts above, I tried to add SP500 but couldn't. I looked up SP500 index data:
12/1964 84.75
12/1974 68.56
That was -19.10% index return during that 10-yr period. I couldn't find reinvested SP500 TR for that period - I think that it still would be negative. In that time, VWELX was just flat, but DODBX and FPURX were positive. Did the people investing in 1965 know this? If not, what would have been a prudent course, especially if decumulation in retirement was expected.
10-yr periods ending around dot.com bubble, the GFC, the 2020 Pandemic were difficult too. So, that is the lesson - bad stuff happens, and occasionally.

Or ... we can see now (sort of). Using the conventional 30 year horizon and the usual 4%/year (inflation adjusted) assumed spend down amount, a 20 year cash cushion would result in 80% in cash, 20% invested. Setting aside 5 years of cash would result in 20% in cash, 80% invested.
Portfolio Visualizer only goes back to 1985, but that covers the 1987 crash, the dot com bust, and the great financial crisis. Run PV through 30 year periods (or to 2024 when starting after 1994), rebalance annually, withdraw 4% annually, inflation adjusted.
The worst start year, not surprisingly, is 2000. That's starting with a market collapse and going through another one in the same decade. A lost decade for large cap stocks.
Here are the nominal results of three portfolios from Jan 2000 - Dec 2023. The first starting with 20 years of cash, the second with 5 years of cash and the rest in VFINX. The third with 5 years of cash and the rest invested 60/40 VFINX/VBMFX. After the 24 year period ...
20% stock/80% cash - 14% remaining (7.7% inflation adjusted)
80% stock/20% cash - 42% remaining (23% inflation adjusted)
48% stock/32% bond/20% cash - 73% remaining (40% inflation adjusted)
For the remaining six years, you'd like at least 24% (4% x six years) remaining in real dollars. The 80/20 mix almost makes it, and the balanced portfolio makes it with ease.
If you're wondering what would happen to the 80% cash portfolio without rebalancing, it would have come out about the same (a half percent worse). The others would have come out worse than with rebalancing.
Here's the PV run. You can experiment with it yourself.
Many years ago, Suze Orman said she was keeping almost all of her assets in TIPS. Which was fine for her - she didn't need to grow her portfolio and TIPS wouldn't be degraded by inflation. That doesn't work for most people, who need growth even in retirement. (4% withdrawals with no growth lasts only 25 years.)
I think @Crash said something similar, though in a different way.

Just goes to show that the stock market is NOT a utility, doesn't care that you need 7% annual returns to fund your retirement and it is very risky...what have we had like TWO, 50%+ drawdowns in the past 15 years or something and another couple -20%.......it exists to provide capital to fund companies so they theoretically can grow their business.
A lot of this looking backwards is just a bunch of hooey...what if...what if...so much is different...most successful companies now have way less employees, use way less capital...market valuations have trended higher in the past what 20 years or something? Sooo much more private and gov't debt out there....It's like saying "the last time the Yankees played in a World Series 12 years ago where they had home field advantage they won...never mind that only 2 playes were on the team then, they are playing a different team etc etc...(this is a hypothetical example)..like WTF does the recovery time in 1974 etc etc have anything to do with today? Please.
Jared Dillian said it best recently..."a lot of "investing" is just entertainment"...that is why crap like CNBC exists....the largest comedy show on TV these days...
All that being said, as long as we don't go full blown Bolshie in this country and still have a semblence of Capitalism, I would not bet against the USA...but am thinking you might not be able to do better than a Berkshire that owns blue chips stocks, well run relevant businesses, utilities, railroads, insurance companies...AND has what $150B of Tbills...might be the way to go, who knows?

“Hats-off” to Charles Lynn Bolin for his exceptional article: ”Asset Allocation and Withdrawal Strategies in Retirement” in the January issue of The Observer. In early December, returning home from a short trip to Florida, I hastily tossed up a thread - ”New Report: All Stock Portfolio Beats Stock and Bond Mix Over Time (Originally From Bloomberg)” while awaiting a connection at Chicago’s O’Hare. Time was short. I had no idea the thread would garner so many insightful comments from board members - let alone become the genesis for a future article in The Observer.
Charle’s article is so comprehensive and rich in documentation that any attempt to summarize or characterize it by me seems futile. He begins by linking to the thread, followed by a listing of a dozen or so different aspects of the study’s premise as identified by discussion participants. This is followed by literally reams of historical data. In essence, he’s trying to identify the “right balance” among risk, time span, relative asset performance over different time periods, withdrawal strategies, etc.
While stocks have beaten other investments over the past 130 years, Charles notes that most of us have a somewhat shorter investment horizon. And he identifies some potentially more reasonable risk-averse approaches: ”To illustrate the benefits of having a balanced portfolio, from 1999 until 2020, the conservative Vanguard Wellesley (VWINX) and moderate Vanguard Wellington (VWELX) have beaten the S&P 500. This illustrates the importance of starting and ending points – sequence of return risk. A high allocation of stocks in 1999 could have impacted savings for the remainder of retirement.”
Finally, Charles outlines his own investment allocation and approach, which includes modifying his equity exposure (within a set range) from time to time based on his read of market conditions.

Thanks for the comments. For about the first 15 years of retirement, I focused on total returns to help determine the withdrawal amounts from my investment portfolio . This method turned out to be somewhat complicated and stressful due to significant sequence-of-returns variations in the annual returns. The chart above suggests that basing withdrawals from a prudently developed dividend stock portfolio may well be a sustainable way to guide withdrawal decisions that can somewhat reduce annual volatility. And, as @WABAC says, the simplicity of the approach has appeal. My portfolio is 70% invested in stocks. That complicates things a little bit because part of my dividend income comes from investments that are not stocks -- almost all bonds and money market investments in my case. Part of that income should be retained in the portfolio each year to compensate for any CPI increase during the year. In my case, this can easily be done at the end of the year when my once a year distribution is determined and made. The CPI for the year just ending can be multiplied by the 30% non-stock portion of the beginning of the year portfolio balance. That amount can then deducted from the total annual dividend income received to determine a suggested withdrawal amount for the year just ending. That is essentially the procedure I am currently using......