http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1498498/000119312515314419/d34943d497.htm
497 1 d34943d497.htm ASHMORE FUNDS
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
File Nos. 333-169226 and 811-22468
ASHMORE FUNDS
Supplement dated September 8, 2015
to the Statutory Prospectus for Class A, Class C and Institutional Class Shares
of Ashmore Emerging Markets Currency Fund
On September 4, 2015 the Board of Trustees of Ashmore Funds approved a plan of liquidation (the “Plan of Liquidation”) for the Ashmore Emerging Markets Currency Fund (the “Fund”), with such liquidation scheduled to take place on or about October 9, 2015 (the “Liquidation Date”). On or before the Liquidation Date, the Fund will seek to convert substantially all of its portfolio securities and other assets to cash or cash equivalents. Therefore, the Fund may depart from its stated investment objectives and policies as it prepares to liquidate its assets and distribute them to shareholders. Any shares of the Fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will be automatically redeemed on that date. As soon as practicable after the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute pro rata to the Fund’s shareholders of record as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date all of the remaining assets of the Fund, after paying, or setting aside the amount to pay, any expenses and liabilities of the Fund.
The Fund may make one or more distributions of income and/or net capital gains on or prior to the Liquidation Date in order to eliminate Fund-level taxes. For taxable shareholders, the automatic redemption on the Liquidation Date generally will be treated like other redemptions of shares generally – that is, as a sale that may result in a gain or loss to shareholders for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
Effective as of the close of business on September 8, 2015, Class A, Class C and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund will no longer be available for purchase by new or existing investors or be available for exchanges from the other series of Ashmore Funds, except for shares that may be purchased as a result of dividend reinvestments.
At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem their shares of the Fund pursuant to the procedures set forth under “How to Sell or Exchange Shares” in the Fund’s Prospectus. Effective September 8, 2015, or as soon as practicable thereafter, the Fund will waive any contingent deferred sales charges that may be applicable to the redemption of the Fund’s Class A or Class C Shares, respectively.
Shareholders may also exchange their shares for shares of a different series of Ashmore Funds, subject to any investment minimums and other restrictions on exchanges as described under “How to Sell or Exchange Shares” in the Fund’s Prospectus.
Investors Should Retain This Supplement for Future Reference

The short version:
talked a bit about the piece on a family's first fund and the notion of slow, steady, manageable gains. Highlighted the James Balanced: Golden Rainbow profile that Charles did and TIAA-CREF Lifestyle Conservative piece of mine.
in the "hold it or fold it" segment (viewer requests about individual funds):
Akre: great fund, distinct biases, a manager who's younger than Buffett but ...
Driehaus Emerging Growth: great fund but I'd look at their Emerging Small Cap Growth first. Two reasons - more interesting asset class and the presence of an options hedge that has reduced its volatility below the large cap fund's.
Vanguard Selected Value: it delivers what Litman Gregory promises, a collection of distinctive outside managers whose styles are complementary. Really nice risk-return profile, low expenses.
Manor Growth: meh. Seems risk-conscious, okay returns, nothing to write home about, nothing to flee.
Mentioned after the break: Diamond Hill Small Cap. They're in the red zone for closure. Over $1.6 billion with a strategy capacity in the $1.5-2.0 billion range. I have no inside information or special insight here but ...
David

Wellesley is generating income from taxable bonds, taxable as ordinary income. VTMFX is generating income from tax-free munis, and qualified dividends taxed at lower cap gains rates. So its $2K of income is worth more after tax than the first $2K of income from Wellesley. That narrows the gap, even for current income. And VTMFX should have more long term growth (higher percentage of equity).
I'm offering no opinion (in this post) on which fund is the better choice. Just commenting on the figures. The quality of the distributions (ordinary income, qualified income, or tax free) for the funds are different. Enough so that for any tax bracket one ought to take a closer look at the perceived income gap.
In addition, M* reports trailing twelve month yield from Wellesley as 3%, not 5% (VTMFX's trailing yield is indeed 2%). So even pre-tax, the gap may not be as wide as suggested.
I believe that claimui's 5% figure comes from the 2% of cap gains that Wellesley distrbuted last year. So one fund recognizes 2% in cap gains, while the other "lets it ride". You should be able to get similar (capital gain) income out of VTMFX by selling the shares when you want. If you need that gain as current income then sell shares periodically, otherwise the deferral of gain may be an advantage.

They're going to have to prove something before they get my money. I'd much rather entrust my capital with a more talented group of investors at a cheaper rate. Grandeur.

I concur that the "all or nothing" seems over the top. I always make my moves in increments. -- But then I may lack the confidence, competence (or hubris) of others. -- Then again, staying fully invested, regardless of price also does not strike me as a strategy to follow if risk/avoiding major capital drawdowns is important to an investor.
As for the sell signal on that Monday (made the weekend before), anybody selling stocks/ETF should ALWAYS use limit orders (OEFs, will of course fill at EOD, which was far above the day's lows).
One follow-up re the "best days" myth -- This week on Moraif's radio program (which is podcasted on his website) he specifically addressed this matter -- and amplified it somewhat. He recently did some research, and determined that the top 60 "up" days occurred during bear markets. --- So ginormous "up" days in the current market environment may not be reason for glee... (unless 'its different this time'...)

It is unlikely in the extreme that an investor would be invested in the stock market virtually all the time, but then haplessly trade OUT of the market just prior to a giant up day, only to then re-enter the market --- and then repeat that same error again and again...
Much more likely: If you are "unlucky enough" to miss most of these big up days, its probably because you also missed a a good piece of the major down moves during which these brief counter-trend rallies occur --- and are thus well ahead of the buy-and-holders.
A good primer on this fallacy is explained in more eloquent detail in the book "Buy Hold and Sell" by financial advisor Ken Moraif (he repeatedly makes the annual Barron's Top Advisor list)

And if I'm not mistaken, Ken Moraif managed to do just that 2 weeks ago when he gave his "sell everything" order after the market closed on Friday so that anyone who followed his advice sold all their stocks on Monday morning at virtually the worst point possible and all their mutual funds at the close on Monday, not far from the worst, just to miss the crazy rally on Wednesday and Thursday. Of course it's always possible that the trend has changed and this little mishap will be lost in the details, but the taxes those people had to pay on their gains will require a bit more downside before they get back to even.
Much has been made about the difficulty of timing the market, but this guy isn't "just" a timer, he's an "all-or-nothing" timer. That's strikes me as more than a bit risky for the average investor.

You know it's been a tough year when this fund turns green. Today's +0.56% gain puts it ahead at about +0.34% YTD. The contrarian fund is still in the red over 1, 3, 5 and 10 year periods. (I like to track a few that I don't own every day just to get a better feel for what's happening.)
Not much else was up today. BEARX did well. High-quality bond funds showed small gains.
Board favorite PRWCX (I own this one) lost 1%. We'll see how long these guys (PRWCX) can continue to walk on water.

Simple answer - assuming all dividends were reinvested, M*'s pages give you the pre-tax, total return (including dividends and price depreciation) numbers I think you are looking for:3.86% in 2011, 4.20% in 2012, 3.39% in 2013, 2.65% in 2014, and a less impressive 0.91% YTD (through Sept 3, 2015).
Depending on whether this is in a taxable account, what tax rates you apply to ordinary income and capital losses, this may or may not have beaten inflation. Eyeballing the figures (see the first graph in linked paged above), it is pretty clear that even after tax everyone came out ahead except possibly in 2011, where the net gain was 3.86%, while inflation was 3.0%. If you were taxed at 25%, your after tax return was under the 3.0% inflation rate.

@msf: As of 9/3 rphyx adjusted close up 6 cents from the new year. I'm ahead of the game, or not ?
Derf

Yahoo hasn't incorporated the August dividend:
http://www.riverparkfunds.com/downloads/Distributions/RiverPark_Short-Term-High-Yield-Retail-Distributions-history.pdf
The fund opened the year at $9.89, and closed yesterday at $9.79. That's a loss of "just" 10c. In the meantime, it has distributed $0.1901/share.
If your total (combined fed/state) tax bracket is under 47%, then your after tax earnings on that 19.01c is greater than a dime, so you made money even if you don't get any writeoff on the 10c capital loss.
How much ahead you come out depends on tax brackets, if/when you sell shares, and so on. But there's virtually no way you've lost money so far this year, after taxes.

I'm having difficulty making a fund selection and hope to tap the wisdom of this group for any thoughts you may have, particularly since many of you are Vanguard investors and may be familiar with the nuances of the two funds I'm contemplating.
Here's the situation: in order to simplify my financial life, I recently moved our "emergency fund" (equivalent to about 6 months of our living expenses) to a new and separate brokerage account at Vanguard. One reason is the ability to add small amounts to Vanguard funds on a regular basis--this is not an account we are looking to drastically grow, but still would like to pop in a few bucks a month.
Half the funds are kept in cash; the other half will be in a conservative Vanguard fund. I'm really torn between the Wellesley Income fund and the Tax Managed Balanced fund, mostly because of taxes since it is in a taxable account. How worried should I be about this? VWINX has high portfolio turnover, and is certainly not as tax-efficient as VTMFX. However, Wellington Management is without a doubt stellar, and I think there is an opportunity for downside protection. VWINX held up quite nicely in 2008 and 2011. I also prefer the more conservative allocation of VWINX.
I anticipate this to be a *very* long-term holding, so I'm not concerned with short-term gains, but should I be considering the tax equation more and opt for VTMFX? Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

@msf: "The ability to apply capital losses against ordinary income is capped at $3K" *per federal tax year* With any excess being carried over to the next tax year.
And for an individual looking for current fairly stable income, gains/losses tend to be a moot point.

And if you have no capital gains at all, you also get full credit against your ordinary income.

I understand your point, but this is not entirely correct. :-)
The ability to apply capital losses against ordinary income is capped at $3K. While you might not have any capital gains, you might have capital losses elsewhere bringing your total losses to over $3K. Or you might recognize losses in RPHYX itself above $3K.
That could happen if you let those losses pile up for several years before recognizing them.
Point taken, though.

That's because the interest dividends are taxed at, say, 25%, while you only get tax credit for 15% of the capital loss.

I understand your point, but this is not entirely correct. If you have long term capital gains that are taxed at 15%, and your losses on RPHYX offset those long capital gains, then yes you are only getting 15% credit for those losses. But if your losses on RPHYX offset short term capital gains that are taxed at ordinary income, then you get full credit. And if you have no capital gains at all, you also get full credit against your ordinary income.

I could have sworn I posted this already somewhere:
Unfortunately, when current yield equals current cap gain loss, one comes out a loser. That's because the interest dividends are taxed at, say, 25%, while you only get tax credit for 15% of the capital loss. One winds up down 10% or so.

I own both funds as a sort of '401K Stable Value Fund' replacement and a source of current income. I'm on the slightly positive side of Happy with it, with the current LT Capital Loss :-( being offset by the Current Yield. It's not great, but it's better than a CD...

Catch, Thanks for the chuckle. We've been negative for awhile now - if it makes you feel any better.
I've always felt subjecting one's life savings to the vicissitudes of the markets was a bit of a gamble. But bear in mind the old: "No pain. No gain."
With short term bonds yielding what? (1% or something like that) ... is it any wonder that it's becoming harder to extract big gains from riskier assets.

Fact, there is believed to still be a lot of leverage currently remaining in the capital markets.
In a downturn, usually leverage postions of investors get closed before margin calls are made. I have no way of knowing how much leverage is currently out there but it would not surprise me if it was north of 35%. See where I am going with this. A decline of 30% would put the S&P 500 Index somewhere around 1500 from its recent 52 week high of about 2135. This puts its TTM P/E Ratio back in line with what many say is a normal TTM P/E Ratio range of 14 to 16. Some like to streach and use forward estimates or even the Rule of Twenty.
Jill Mislinski currently does a monthly piece on this which I have linked below.
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/PE-Ratios-and-Market-Valuation.php
From review ... It is interesting that TTM Earnings are currently being reported at $94.68 down from prior year ending reporting of $102.31 ... and, they are not expected to improve until sometime in the fourth quarter with a December ending target of $100.59. At the current market close (1914) on September 1 puts the index at a TTM P/E Ratio at 20.2.
Still kina of expensive ... Don't you think? Let's see that is about a decline in TTM Earnings of about 7% thus far this year and 2% decline projected for the full year. Now if we take the prior's year ending closing price of about 2060 and mark it down by 7% we arive at a price of 1915 for the Index. Interesting, is it not? That is about where it closed on September 1. Wonder if it will close some where around 2020 come the end of this year? Indeed interesting if it does. That would be 2% below its 2014 December ending closing price of about 2060 and reflect the 2% anticipated decline in TTM Earnings.
Now some will say let's use the Rule of Twenty and in doing so that currently put's the Index around fair value. Perhaps so ... perhaps not. It depends on what the leveraged investor does. If they continue to close positions to reduce leverage ... Well, its still overvalued by my thinking. Now my engineer high school buddy will most likely put a different spin on my thinking as my dergee was in Economics. But, math is math.
Information about The Rule of Twenty is linked below ...
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-05-01/rule-of-20-is-the-stock-market-fairly-valued
And, for those that like reading a good debate on the Rule of Twenty below is a link to Bogleheads.org ...
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=168118
Comments on my thinking are welcome ... pro or con.

This is a rather tiresome old-fashioned view on SRI and ESG--environmental social and governance--based investing that has been refuted by academic evidence. Click here: https://institutional.deutscheawm.com/content/_media/Sustainable_Investing_2012.pdf
A key excerpt from this report is the following:
"100% of the academic studies agree that companies with high ratings for CSR and ESG factors have a lower cost of capital in terms of debt (loans and bonds) and equity. In effect, the market recognizes that these companies are lower risk than other companies and rewards them accordingly....
89% of the studies we examined show that companies with high ratings for ESG factors exhibit market-based outperformance, while 85% of the studies show these types of company’s exhibit accounting-based outperformance. Here again, the market is showing correlation between financial performance of companies and what it perceives as advantageous ESG strategies, at least over the medium (3-5 years) to long term (5-10 years)."
In fact, I think the idea that "personal beliefs don't belong in your retirement account" actually is a reflection of the personal beliefs of many of the authors who routinely bash SRI/ESG without looking at the academic evidence, revealing their own biases. The fact is trillions of dollars are now invested globally according to some sort of SRI/ESG principles with little negative effects and in many cases positive ones:
fa-mag.com/news/sri-assets-up-76--since-2012--study-says-19953.html

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/916006/000119312515307686/d50199d497.htm
497 1 d50199d497.htm BRIDGEWAY FUNDS INC.
Bridgeway Funds, Inc.
Large-Cap Growth Fund (BRLGX)
Supplement dated August 31, 2015 to the Prospectus dated October 31, 2014
and to the Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”)
dated October 31, 2014, as supplemented May 29, 2015
At a meeting of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Bridgeway Funds, Inc. (the “Company”) held on August 27, 2015, the Board approved the reorganization (the “Reorganization”) of the Large-Cap Growth Fund (the “Bridgeway Fund”) into the American Beacon Bridgeway Large Cap Growth Fund (the “New Fund”), a newly created series of American Beacon Funds (the “Trust”). The Board determined that the Reorganization is in the best interests of the Bridgeway Fund and its shareholders. The Board also approved a form of Agreement and Plan of Reorganization and Termination (the “Plan”) between the Company, on behalf of the Bridgeway Fund, and the Trust, on behalf of the New Fund, under which the Reorganization will take effect. The Plan provides for the Bridgeway Fund to transfer of all of its assets to the New Fund in exchange for Institutional Class shares of the New Fund, which would be distributed pro rata by the Bridgeway Fund to the holders of its shares in complete liquidation of the Bridgeway Fund, and the assumption by the New Fund of all the liabilities of the Bridgeway Fund. The Plan is subject to shareholder approval as described below.
The effect of the Reorganization is that the Bridgeway Fund’s shareholders will become shareholders of the New Fund. Bridgeway Fund shareholders will receive shares of the New Fund equal in number and value to their shares of the Bridgeway Fund on the closing date of the Reorganization. The Reorganization is expected to be tax-free to the Bridgeway Fund and its shareholders.
The New Fund is designed to be substantially identical from an investment perspective to the Bridgeway Fund. American Beacon Advisors, Inc. will serve as the New Fund’s investment manager and Bridgeway Capital Management, Inc. (“Bridgeway”), the Bridgeway Fund’s investment adviser, will serve as the New Fund’s investment sub-adviser. After the Reorganization, the New Fund will be managed by the same investment management team that is currently responsible for the day-to-day portfolio management of the Bridgeway Fund.
The Plan requires the approval of the shareholders of the Bridgeway Fund. A special shareholder meeting is being called for that purpose and shareholders of the Bridgeway Fund will receive proxy solicitation materials providing them with information about the New Fund (including, among other things, its investment objective, strategies, policies, risks, fees and expenses, and management), the terms of the Plan, and the factors the Board considered in deciding to approve the Plan. If Bridgeway Fund’s shareholders approve the Plan, the Reorganization is expected to take effect in the fourth quarter of 2015. Shareholders should be on the lookout for the proxy solicitation materials, which will arrive by mail. Your vote is very important; please review the materials when they arrive and submit your vote by the deadline.
Please retain this supplement for future reference.

@mcmarasco
"Does anyone know anything about the Voya versions (virtual clones) of PRWCX (ITRAX / ITRIX / ITCSX / ITCTX)? They are open according to M*, but can the average investor purchase them???"
According to test trades I just made, these clones are not available at WellsTrade, Fidelity, TDAmeritrade, Scottrade and Firstrade. I still think that the most attractive option is to get a friend or acquaintance of yours to gift you a share between taxable accounts at a given brokerage.
Kevin

This is a fund designed for tax advantaged accounts. One finds it in individual variable annuities, college 403(b) plans, etc. So the question is: how desperate are you to purchase a PRWCX clone?
You can purchase the ADV class (ITRAX, 1.24% ER) through a Voya Preferred Advantage VA. The annuity itself adds another 0.60% fee. IMHO, that's too high a total cost - the 0.60% annuity fee is about the same as Schwab's, but you're paying up for the fund (it's tacking on a 0.75% 12b-1 fee).
On the plus side, the annuity has no withdrawal fees, the min for the whole VA (all investments) is $5K, and the annual maintenance fee is waived with a relatively low $15K balance. Also, the contract is relatively straightfoward - 50 pages plus fund descriptions, which may sound like a lot, but most of this is required to describe a basic annuity; no bells or whistles.)
Another option is to invest in AZL T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation. A combined (print) page with all the M* info is here (scroll past the nonexistent analyst report for the rest of the info).
You can purchase this inside the Allianz Retirement Pro® VA. This is a low cost VA, rated one of the top 10 traditional VAs by Barron's a couple of years ago, along with Vanguard/Monumental Life), Fidelity, TIAA-CREF (see embedded graphic) - Top 50 Annuities, May 27, 2013.
The VA costs 0.30% (Base Account, not the Income Advantage Account, which is a more restrictive and costly GLWB rider). The Class 2 shares of the PRWCX clone have an ER of 1.05%, for a combined cost of 1.35%, 1/2% below the ING offering, but still not cheap.
This annuity requires a min of $75K (across all investments), and charges an annual maintenance fee unless the balance is above $100K.
I don't suggest investing in these clones, but since the question was raised about how the average investor purchases them, there you have it. It is possible that other retail annuities offer these clones, though I am doubtful, because these seem to be proprietary clones offered through proprietary VAs (e.g. Voya clone offered through Voya VA).