https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/897111/000089843224000164/form497.htm
497 1 form497.htm FORM 497
CARILLON SERIES TRUST
Carillon Chartwell Short Duration Bond Fund
SUPPLEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 26, 2024 TO
THE PROSPECTUS, SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND STATEMENT OF
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DATED
MAY 1, 2023, AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED OR SUPPLEMENTED
The Board of Trustees of Carillon Series Trust has approved a Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution pursuant to which the Carillon Chartwell Short Duration Bond Fund (“Fund”) will be liquidated and terminated on or about April 19, 2024 (the “Liquidation Date”) based upon the recommendation of Carillon Tower Advisers, Inc. (“Carillon”), the Fund’s investment adviser.
In anticipation of the liquidation, effective on or about April 5, 2024, the Fund will be closed to new shareholders. To prepare for the liquidation, Carillon and/or Chartwell Investment Partners, LLC, the Fund’s subadviser, may need to increase the portion of the Fund’s assets held in cash and similar instruments in order to pay for Fund expenses and to meet redemption requests. As a result, the Fund may no longer be pursuing its investment objective during this transition. The Fund will distribute cash pro rata to all remaining shareholders who have not previously redeemed or exchanged all of their shares on or about the Liquidation Date. These distributions may be taxable events. Once the distributions are complete, the Fund will terminate.
Liquidation proceeds will be delivered in accordance with the existing instructions for your account. No action is needed on your part.
Please note that you may exchange your shares of the Fund at net asset value at any time prior to the Liquidation Date for the Class Chartwell shares of the Carillon Chartwell Income Fund, Carillon Chartwell Short Duration High Yield Fund, Carillon Chartwell Mid Cap Value Fund, Carillon Chartwell Small Cap Value Fund or Carillon Chartwell Small Cap Growth Fund. You may also redeem your shares of the Fund at any time prior to the Liquidation Date. No sales charges, redemption or termination fees will be imposed in connection with such exchanges and redemptions. In general, exchanges and redemptions are taxable events for shareholders.
In connection with the liquidation, the Fund may declare taxable distributions of its net investment income and net capital gains in advance of the Liquidation Date, which may be taxable to shareholders.
You should consult your tax adviser to discuss the Fund’s liquidation and determine its tax consequences.
For more information, please contact us at 1.800.421.4184.
* * * * *
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT WITH
THE PROSPECTUS, SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

I did some math for my state Massachusetts, which taxes income and LT Cap Gains at 5% but ST cap Gains at 12% !!!
If you hold BOXX for over a year there is a small benefit; you pay 15% plus 5% vs 22or 24% etc ( depending on income)
IF you sell before a year, you get hosed, as pay both ST federal tax and ST State tax.
This would only make sense if you plan to hold them for at least a year.
The % differences even so are small unless you are in a very high bracket

I took a brief look at this last night and have to read more about how the mechanism works, associated risks, etc.
1. One man's tax dodge is another man's smart investing. In theory, ETFs don't have an advantage over mutual funds - the statute that makes cap gains disappear in a puff of smoke (via in-kind distributions) originally applied to corporations as well as mutual funds. Decades ago it was rewritten, maintaining the break for mutual funds while excluding corporations from this benefit.
This all happened before ETFs existed. ETFs benefit because they just happen to be a form of mutual fund. In practice, ETFs have the advantage because they redeem shares in-kind, while OEFs rarely do so.
That said, my personal feeling is that this dodge "provides an unfair tax subsidy for ETFs and encourages the transfer of capital from other kinds of investment vehicle to ETFs." This has got little to do with Washington scrounging up extra dollars - a fix could be revenue neutral. IMHO it's a matter of providing a level playing field.
Jeffrey M Colon, The Great ETF Tax Swindle: The Taxation of In-Kind Redemptions, Penn State Law Review (2017)
There are lots of loopholes begging for attention, such as carried interest. And one that seems to curry favor here - unrestricted Roth conversions - a way of getting around income restrictions intended to limit tax benefits that higher earners receive. As the saying goes, it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
2. NYC is unusual in that it has both a high tax rate (combined NYS + NYC) and that rates go up pretty fast with income. This combination makes it quite possible for one to owe more taxes if the income is treated as cap gains (state/local taxable) than if it is treated as Treasury interest (ordinary tax, but only at federal level).
For example, in 2023 a couple with taxable income of $90K would pay 22% on ordinary income and 15% on cap gains. That 7% savings by treating the Treasury interest as cap gains would be more than offset by an added NYS tax of 5.5% plus a NYC tax of 3.876%.
Now this assumes that the taxpayer can't deduct the NY taxes due to SALT limits on deductions. That may change in 2026. In this particular example, even with a SALT deduction (worth 22% x 9.376% or about 2.06%), one would still pay more in net state and local taxes (7.3%) than one would save in fed taxes (7%). But it is close and one can easily conceive of other brackets where deductibility of SALT would make a difference.
In California, look at a couple with taxable income of $110K. As with the $90K NY couple, they'd be paying 22% fed tax on ordinary income and 15% on cap gains - a 7% difference. At the state level, they'd be paying 0% on Treasury interest but 8% on cap gains. Same problem.
This transmutation of Treasury interest into cap gains works very well for high earners - where the cap gains rate (even at 20%) is well below the fed rates of 35% or 37%. Of course it also works well for the hoi polloi in states with low or no local income taxes.

@rforno, I thought options income was short-term CGs, not ROC. May be will double-check.

I double-checked as well just to make sure my info was still current. Per Kiplinger:

Option-income funds designate much of their distributions as a "return of capital," a phrase that suggests you're not getting a true dividend. But just as there is good cholesterol and bad cholesterol, there are good and bad returns of capital. Cash inflows from option sales are repeatable and sustainable. So, unless an options-based fund is mismanaged, it shouldn't suffer the long-term erosion of NAV that plagues CEFs that regularly liquidate assets to maintain high payouts.
(src: https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/t052-c003-s001-option-income-cefs-may-be-a-smarter-choice.html0

BUI... I can't find a YIELD statistic, though share price and amount of dividends are there... Any help? But much of the div. is return of capital. Isn't that very much like my MLP? (ET.)

BUI writes options on its positions, so that option income is reported as ROC, but that's generally considered a 'good' type of ROC (like an MLP's distribution) versus the 'bad' kind when the fund isn't earning enough to cover its dividend and has to return capital to meet that target.

BUI... I can't find a YIELD statistic, though share price and amount of dividends are there... Any help? But much of the div. is return of capital. Isn't that very much like my MLP? (ET.)

I too read the article. Two things that come up:
1. The etf vs mutual fund tax dodge must be glaring to the politicians in Washington looking for tax dollars. It’s gone on for too long. The implications if the tax dodge is equalized runs through every single fund and so the bucket has been kicked until it won’t.
2. Investing in t bills is taxed only federally. Incurring long term capital gains incurs federal long term tax and in high tax states also ordinary income (it does for NYC and California). So the “arbitrage” of the tax dodge needs some very particular characteristic at the individual level depending on one’s tax brackets. These are questions best reserved for @msf to educate us on.
My thought is boxx works for NOW for small sizes.
Maybe @msf or others can verify.

An ETF that offers investors the ability to replicate the return of a 1-3 month Treasury bill index but pay deferred long-term capital gain rather than income tax as an alternative to municipal bond funds.
https://etfsite.alphaarchitect.com/boxx/
Citywire has an article about BOXX ETF.

With respect to PG&E, the facts are a bit more complex than the shotgun evaluation from Berkshire. For many years PG&E grew safely and profitably, with a reasonable return mandated by the regulatory environment. As the Berkshire report itself observes, this system worked perfectly well. Because of it's financial stability PG&E was regarded as a "widows and orphans" stock- plodding but safe and dependable- predictable dividends right on schedule.
Then came, from the "conservative" political forces, demands to "free" the utilities from the "artificial regulatory burdens" and allow them to "compete" in a free-for-all environment that would "unlock" their potential for greatly increased profits. The Berkshire report very conveniently "forgets" how PG&E and other utilities were raped by entities like Enron in this new era of "regulatory freedom".
PG&E management, it turned out, were sheep who after years of cozy and protective regulation, were completely unsuited to life in the wild, and were duly herded into the corral and slaughtered. Bankruptcy followed in 2001, with of course, "new management" following.
The new management cut back severely on any equipment purchases or upgrades, and their maintenance forces were left to wither. Their once new and shiny service vehicle fleet became more of a traveling junkyard of faded-paint and obviously over-used equipment. Maintenance support personnel were cut back to the point where even the office support staffs had no resources to document what little construction or repair work was being done.
This resulted in the first of a long line of subsequent safety-failure episodes: in 2010 a massive explosion and eight-alarm fire in a major natural gas line just to the south of San Francisco killed eight and destroyed or severely damaged some forty homes. The US Geological Survey registered the explosion and resulting shock wave as a magnitude 1.1 earthquake.*
PG&E's service resources were so depleted that it took them over an hour just to determine what had happened, and to respond. The fire was only fifty percent contained after four hours, and continued to burn for another 12 hours.* It later was found that that section of gas pipe was fabricated of scrap piping material, incorrectly welded during installation, and incorrectly documented in PG&E records.
This disaster was followed by a long series of major fires caused by faulty or aged PG&E electrical equipment, leading eventually to a second bankruptcy in 2020. We PG&E customers now have the dubious honor of having the highest electrical rates in the entire United States, as PG&E attempts to rebuild what they neglected for so many years.
And Berkshire now has the temerity to complain about "profits". Right.
* per Wickipedia

A number of years ago Giroux recommended a fellow TRP fund for folks who could not access PRWCX, and it was TRP Dividend Growth Fund PRDGX. It carries a much lower dividend rate than SCHD and is more focused on dividend growers and capital appreciation.

I found this section somewhat interesting and sparking deeper thoughts on the sector, reminding us (er, me) that proper due diligence and analysis always is required. Speaking of which, I wonder what Giroux' take on them would be since last I saw he remained bullish on utes....

Our second and even more severe earnings disappointment last year occurred at BHE. Most of its large electric-utility businesses, as well as its extensive gas pipelines, performed about as expected. But the regulatory climate in a few states has raised the specter of zero profitability or even bankruptcy (an actual outcome at California’s largest utility and a current threat in Hawaii). In such jurisdictions, it is difficult to project both earnings and asset values in what was once regarded as among the most stable industries in America.
For more than a century, electric utilities raised huge sums to finance their growth through a state-by-state promise of a fixed return on equity (sometimes with a small bonus for superior performance). With this approach, massive investments were made for capacity that would likely be required a few years down the road. That forward-looking regulation reflected the reality that utilities build generating and transmission assets that often take many years to construct. BHE’s extensive multi-state transmission project in the West was initiated in 2006 and remains some years from completion. Eventually, it will serve 10 states comprising 30% of the acreage in the continental United States.
With this model employed by both private and public-power systems, the lights stayed on, even if population growth or industrial demand exceeded expectations. The “margin of safety” approach seemed sensible to regulators, investors and the public. Now, the fixed-but-satisfactory- return pact has been broken in a few states, and investors are becoming apprehensive that such ruptures may spread. Climate change adds to their worries. Underground transmission may be required but who, a few decades ago, wanted to pay the staggering costs for such construction?
At Berkshire, we have made a best estimate for the amount of losses that have occurred. These costs arose from forest fires, whose frequency and intensity have increased – and will likely continue to increase – if convective storms become more frequent.
It will be many years until we know the final tally from BHE’s forest-fire losses and can intelligently make decisions about the desirability of future investments in vulnerable western states. It remains to be seen whether the regulatory environment will change elsewhere.
Other electric utilities may face survival problems resembling those of Pacific Gas and Electric and Hawaiian Electric. A confiscatory resolution of our present problems would obviously be a negative for BHE, but both that company and Berkshire itself are structured to survive negative surprises. We regularly get these in our insurance business, where our basic product is risk assumption, and they will occur elsewhere. Berkshire can sustain financial surprises but we will not knowingly throw good money after bad.
Whatever the case at Berkshire, the final result for the utility industry may be ominous: Certain utilities might no longer attract the savings of American citizens and will be forced to adopt the public-power model. Nebraska made this choice in the 1930s and there are many public-power operations throughout the country. Eventually, voters, taxpayers and users will decide which model they prefer.
When the dust settles, America’s power needs and the consequent capital expenditure will be staggering. I did not anticipate or even consider the adverse developments in regulatory returns and, along with Berkshire’s two partners at BHE, I made a costly mistake in not doing so.

@WABAC:
Great comments about "stuff" and NVDA's stuff is clearly different and dominant at this point.
AMD is the other company that I note is being widely identified as the one company that may be the first to truly challenge NVDA's top spot. So we are watching AMD as a possible trade or LT holding.
Here's one of the most recent articles I've read on all that:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nvidia-is-the-magnificent-1-now-but-these-rivals-are-closing-in-3a382a8b?mod=home-page
Excerpt:
The competition isn’t singular either. While Advanced Micro Devices Inc. AMD, -2.94% CEO Lisa Su has launched the most direct competition to Nvidia’s high-performance GPUs — citing a forecast of around $4 billion for the AMD’s new MI300 GPU — the competition is coming from an array of places that include a number of Nvidia’s largest and most important customers.
See also:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/magnificent-seven-stock-poised-most-091400084.html
Excerpt:
Nvidia's success is also attracting competition. Advanced Micro Devices, for example, argues that its newest AI chips are as good as Nvidia's. "Magnificent Seven" members Meta and Microsoft are two large customers that plan to use AMD's chips to reduce their reliance on Nvidia. Several of Nvidia's big customers are developing their own AI chips as well.
=====================================
And thanks for the "dinky linky" comparing FSCSX to FSELX, two funds we know very well.
Both funds incepted on 07/29/85.
FWIW, we were enamored with both since their inceptions but at that time somewhat favored FSCSX. But unable to pick one at that time that we thought would be the best LT, we decided to venture into both as Core positions at about 5% each.
That was pretty much my MO for many years - if I couldn't decide between two options, BUY both. That resulted in us owning about 2x (and more) as many funds as we now own! That all began to change for us about a decade or so ago when we started to whittle down our funds to the current baker's dozen.
FSELX began to outpace FSCSX about 10 years ago. We decided to consolidate those two positions, and don't ask me exactly how!, chose FSELX for a 10% Core holding at about that time. In retrospect, truly one of my "blind squirrel" getting lucky moments!
If you adjust your chart for the past 10 and/or 5 years, you will see vastly different TR performance. That said, I was kicking and screaming as we dropped FSCSX, but our methodology/strategy had changed and we parted ways with it and several other old, LT favorite OEFs.
So, for better or worse between the two funds, we chose to ride with FSELX and are continuing that MO currently. When FSELX rises above 10%, we shave it and spread its gains to broader based tech holdings. On the flip side, after it suffers one of its inevitable BIG DROPS, we routinely ADD to it to bring it back to ~10%. The former has been happening a bunch more than the latter over those years!
While the other AI options noted in the OP article are intriguing to us, we just can't muster enough drive to ADD any of them. Really hoping for some more comments/analysis on them to get a better feel for which, if any, are worth venturing into. If/after you examine their holdings, please share your thoughts on them here! TIA!

I am sometimes reminded of something Bill Gates wrote in March of 2023: "The development of AI is as fundamental as the creation of the microprocessor, the personal computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone." NVDA's performance today suggests AI's investment story is continuing to unfold and that NVDA remains on its cutting edge. Like @PRESSmUP, I purchased a little AVGO during the dark days of 2020. It is the only semiconductor stock in my portfolio as my individual stock holdings have a dividend focus. I am hopeful that the AI boom is for real and that it will increase the productivity of the economy for the next several years. But, as a 74 year old retiree who is making withdrawals from his portfolio, the MAG-7 stocks included in a few of my OEFs and ETFs coupled with AVGO provides enough of that kind of high growth oomph for my portfolio.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318342/000139834424003425/fp0087296-1_497.htm
497 1 fp0087296-1_497.htm
Bernzott U.S. Small Cap Value Fund
(Ticker Symbol: BSCVX)
A series of Investment Managers Series Trust (the “Trust”)
Supplement dated February 22, 2024 to the currently effective
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.
The Board of Trustees of the Trust has approved a Plan of Liquidation for the Bernzott U.S. Small Cap Value Fund (the “Fund”). The Plan of Liquidation authorizes the termination, liquidation and dissolution of the Fund. In order to perform such liquidation, effective immediately the Fund is closed to all new investment.
The Fund will be liquidated on or about March 28, 2024 (the “Liquidation Date”), and shareholders may redeem their shares until the Liquidation Date. Redemptions made on or after the date of this Supplement will not be subject to any redemption fee that would otherwise be applicable. On or promptly after the Liquidation Date, the Fund will make a liquidating distribution to its remaining shareholders equal to each shareholder’s proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund, in complete redemption and cancellation of the Fund’s shares held by the shareholder, and the Fund will be dissolved. Any liquidation proceeds paid to a shareholder should generally be treated as received in exchange for shares and will therefore generally give rise to a capital gain or loss depending on the shareholder’s tax basis. Shareholders (including but not limited to shareholders holding shares through tax-deferred accounts) should contact their tax advisers to discuss the income tax consequences of the liquidation. Under certain circumstances, liquidation proceeds may be subject to withholding taxes.
In anticipation of the liquidation of the Fund, Bernzott Capital Advisors, the Fund’s advisor, may manage the Fund in a manner intended to facilitate its orderly liquidation, such as by raising 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.
Please contact the Fund at 1-877-998-9880 if you have any questions or need assistance.
Please file this Supplement with your records.

@rforno ..."I'm happy to let my funds hold MAG-7s in controlled quantities. I don't need more of them!"
indeed, and they pop up in unexpected places. They are a top holding in Rajiv Jain's international and EM funds for reasons I've yet to hear an explanation. I hold what's considered to be a secondary AI play to NVDA, and that's Broadcom (AVGO), which I bought as an "accidental high yielder" in 2020.

Very nice piece. One might add HSAs to the mix. They're sort of like Roths, in that growth is tax-free so long as you have accumulated medical expenses over the years (since the HSA was started) that exceed the amount withdrawn from the HSA.
Because of this qualification, they also resemble traditional IRAs. You don't want a T-IRA to grow too large because then RMDs can kick you into a higher bracket. You don't want HSAs to grow too fast, because if they outrun your medical expenses, some of the money you take out becomes taxable. For this reason, I allocate slower growing assets (e.g. bonds) to my HSA.
Regarding IRMAA, I don't see where the $5832 at $194,001 income level (joint) comes from in Table #2. A petty issue is that $194K is the 2023 threshold; for 2024 the threshold is $206K.
This minor point aside (and using 2023 figures for consistency), the monthly Part B IRMAA per person started at $65.90. That's $790.80/person per year. Throw in the starting level Part D IRMAA of $12.20/mo, and that brings the total annual IRMAA per person up to $943.20. Assuming both spouses are participating in Medicare, double the amount to $1886.40.
Cap gains - in 2016, cap gains didn't kick in until one hit the 25% tax bracket. The 2017 TCJA decoupled cap gains brackets from ordinary income tax brackets. Sunsetting reverses this - the 15% cap gains bracket will once again start at the 25% ordinary income tax bracket. Sunset minus cap gains should always be positive.
All of the numeric adjustments are noise. They don't change the points made. It's a formidable task to compress so many moving parts and levers into something clear and digestible. Bravo!
I haven't taken a close look at the funds yet, though I did notice a dearth of Fidelity MM to short term funds (bucket #1). It's hard to beat Vanguard on MMFs, but you might consider FCNVX as a peer to VUSFX.

Entered order today for next-to-last sliver of NEAGX per the same reasons as last BUY.
Also, could not resist starting position in NVDA today with first BUY while it was DOWN ~6%, a rare event indeed. Will be monitoring price action closely thru earnings announcement after the bell on Wed, in case anyone is not aware of it. It's carrying a +/-11% possible swing into the announcement. Today's DROP may be part of all that already, as many happy owners may be booking gains in advance. Plan here is same a recent GOOGL trade: If we can make a quick 5%-15%, may cash it in for a ST play, otherwise, will hold LT.

I have been in the decumulation phase for five years now. It’s not just a phase . The risk of loss of capital seems a bigger deal as the clock runs down. As someone who is not investing for future generations preserving capital must be balanced carefully against the risks that come with growing it. Just my 2 cents.

Since moving there in 2020, I have had nothing but excellent phone chats w/Schwab. Even when i got bounced around dealing w/a weird issue, they were professionl, positive, and never let me feel anything less than knowing my problems were being addressed.
(Never used their online chat, though)

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318342/000139834424003213/fp0087199-1_497.htm
497 1 fp0087199-1_497.htm
Knowledge Leaders Developed World ETF
Ticker: KLDW
(A series of Investment Managers Series Trust (the “Trust”)
Supplement dated February 14, 2024, to the Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), each dated September 1, 2023
*** Important Notice Regarding Proposed Fund Reorganizations ***
Based on the recommendation of Knowledge Leaders Capital, LLC (the “Advisor”), the investment advisor of the Knowledge Leaders Developed World ETF (the “Fund”), the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board”) has approved the reorganization of the Fund into the AXS Knowledge Leaders ETF (the “Acquiring Fund”), a newly created series of Investment Managers Series Trust II (the “Reorganization”). The Reorganization will occur pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”). The Plan provides for the Fund to transfer all of its assets to the Acquiring Fund in return for shares of the Acquiring Fund and cash in lieu of fractional Acquiring Fund shares (if any) and the Acquiring Fund’s assumption of the Fund’s liabilities. Each shareholder of the Fund will receive shares of the Acquiring Fund and cash in lieu of fractional Acquiring Fund shares (if any) equal to the value of the shares of the Fund owned by the shareholder prior to the Reorganization. The Reorganization is not generally expected to result in the recognition of gain or loss by the Fund or its shareholders for U.S. federal income tax purposes (except with respect to cash received by shareholders in lieu of fractional shares, if any). AXS Investments LLC will bear the costs related to the Reorganization.
The Acquiring Fund has an identical investment objective, investment strategy and fundamental investment restrictions as the Fund. If the Reorganization is completed, AXS Investments LLC (“AXS”) will become the investment advisor to the Acquiring Fund. The Fund’s current portfolio manager, Steven Vannelli, CFA, will become an employee of AXS and will continue to serve as a portfolio manager of the Acquiring Fund. The Advisor will not be involved in the management of the Acquiring Fund.
The Board will call a meeting of the shareholders of the Fund to vote on the Plan. Management of the Trust expects the shareholder meeting to be held on or about April 11, 2024, at the offices of Mutual Fund Administration, LLC, 2220 E. Route 66, Suite 226, Glendora, California 91740. If the Reorganization is approved by Fund shareholders, the Reorganization is expected to take effect at close of business on May 3, 2024.
Shareholders of the Fund will receive a combined prospectus/proxy statement with additional information about the shareholder meeting, the proposed Reorganization, and the Acquiring Fund, including information about the Acquiring Fund’s investment strategies, risks, fees and expenses. Please read the proxy materials carefully, as they will contain a more detailed description of the proposed Reorganization.
Please file this Supplement with your records.