https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/908802/000139834421013371/fp0066221_497.htm
497 1 fp0066221_497.htm
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e) and Rule 497(k)
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
File Registration No.: 033-65632
SCHRODER SERIES TRUST
Schroder Core Bond Fund
(the “Schroder Fund”)
Supplement dated June 25, 2021 to
the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus,
each dated March 1, 2021 and as supplemented
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus and should be read in conjunction with the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus.
At a meeting held on June 23-24, 2021, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Schroder Series Trust (the “Trust”) approved the reorganization (“the Reorganization”) of the Schroder Fund into the Hartford Schroders Sustainable Core Bond Fund (the “New Hartford Fund”), a series of The Hartford Mutual Funds II, Inc.
The Reorganization is subject to a number of conditions, including approval of the Schroder Fund’s shareholders and approval of the terms of the agreement and plan of reorganization by the Board.
If the Reorganization is completed as proposed, each shareholder of the Schroder Fund would become a shareholder in the New Hartford Fund with a substantially similar investment objective and substantially similar principal investment strategies, except for the inclusion of additional sustainability criteria. Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC would serve as the investment adviser to the New Hartford Fund. Schroder Investment Management North America Inc. (“SIMNA”), the current investment adviser to the Schroder Fund, is proposed to serve as the sub-adviser to the New Hartford Fund, and the portfolio management team of the Schroder Fund is proposed to be unchanged in connection with the Reorganization.
The Reorganization is intended to be tax-free, meaning that the Schroder Fund’s shareholders would become shareholders of the New Hartford Fund without realizing any gain or loss for federal income tax purposes.
The Board’s decision to reorganize is subject to shareholder approval, though no shareholder action is necessary at this time. Shareholders of the Schroder Fund will receive a combined proxy statement/prospectus that contains important information about the Reorganization and the New Hartford Fund in which they would own shares upon closing of the Reorganization, including information about investment strategies and risks, fees and expenses. Prior to the Reorganization, Schroder Fund shareholders may continue to purchase, redeem and exchange their shares subject to the limitations described in the Schroder Fund’s Prospectus. If shareholders approve the Reorganization and other closing conditions are met, the Reorganization is anticipated to close in the fourth quarter of 2021.
The foregoing is not an offer to sell, nor a solicitation of an offer to buy, shares of the Schroder Fund or the New Hartford Fund, nor is it a solicitation of any proxy. When it is available, please read the combined proxy statement/prospectus carefully before making any decision to invest or when considering the Reorganization. It is currently expected that the combined proxy statement/prospectus will be sent in September or October 2021 to shareholders of record as of the record date applicable to the Reorganization. The combined prospectus/proxy statement also will be available for free on the SEC’s website (www.sec.gov).
Please retain this supplement for future reference.
SCH-SK-014-0100

Seems really dangerous and a path towards potential employee lawsuits against 401k plan sponsors and administrators.

If it's just an option, I don't get how you can file a lawsuit. Complete BS if you ask me. Just make it clear that it is a high risk investment. Nobody is being forced into selecting it... IMHO, as an employer, if you have cheap passive index options available for your employees then you're doing your job. You can offer other more costly active funds for employees that want that as well as high risk investments. The onus is on the employees when it comes to their allocation to the different instruments. The employer can't be responsible for everything..... People need to take some personal responsibility these days rather than just say everything wrong is someone else's problem.

Seems really dangerous and a path towards potential employee lawsuits against 401k plan sponsors and administrators.

Not to mention, with few exceptions, I have little faith in the competence of state pension investment boards. Hell, many of them are enamored w/the proprietary nature of PE and still projecting 7-8 percent annual growth thesre days.

Other than David Swensen of Yale's endowment who was the early adopter of private equity as part of the portfolio, many pension plans lagged significantly. CALPER, California teacher pension plan, is a good example.
Cryptocurrency is too new and carry even more risk than private equity. My 401(K) plan use inexpensive index funds and target date funds. Getting marketing return is good enough for me.

Thank you, bee.
I'm waiting for the Replicator, a la Star Trek.

Or, we could just start breeding tribbles to eat. Oops, bad idea. ;)

I prefer pit-BBQ'd Ewoks myself....

Thank you, bee.
I'm waiting for the Replicator, a la Star Trek.

Or, we could just start breeding tribbles to eat. Oops, bad idea. ;)

Certainly RPEIX is not the primary driver, even if we take its 1/6 naively at face value. (I had considered posting a link to an explanation of notional value somewhere else in this thread.)
RPIEX (retail class of RPEIX) serves as starting point for constructing a portfolio that emulates that of TMSRX. Replacing the remaining 5/6 of TMSRX with 4/6 RPIEX and 1/6 VTSAX produces a portfolio that performs pretty similarly (albeit with better figures) to the original TMSRX. That is, the two-fund portfolio tracks the ups and downs of TMSRX fairly well.
So regardless of how important the individual drivers in that exceedingly complex 5/6 are, in concert they seem to behave little different from a 4:1 mix of RPIEX and VTSAX.
VaR is primarily a measure of, to state the obvious, value at risk. It is concerned with the probability distribution of potential losses (and gains) over a fixed period of time. It is less concerned with how a portfolio gets to those points. Though it is concerned, at least implicitly, with variances (thus "volatility"), as you explained. But it's also concerned with covariances.
If I construct a portfolio that is 1/3 long in bitcoin, 1/3 short in bitcoin, and 1/3 in a short term bond fund, it's the bond fund with its low volatility, that is the primary driver. The other two highly volatile components cancel themselves out. That's why covariances matter as much as variances.
RPEIX has a near zero correlation with VTSAX (-0.14) and with IEF (0.01), per Portfolio Visualizer. One may not call that magical, but it's awfully impressive given its 3% annualized return. (One can get zero correlation with money under a mattress.)
Given that a combination of RPEIX and VTSAX can substantially reproduce TSMRX (at least based on the fund's performance to date), and that VTSAX is anything but magical, it seems fair to say that the "magic" of TSMRX is at least reflected by if not embodied in RPEIX.

Doximity going public news ipo..12p..my friend is buying...maybe good med long term hold...will set sell 27.5 or 28...now 26
Docs symbol
www.benzinga.com/money/how-to-buy-doximity-ipo-docs-stock

It’s not a bad idea at all. Yes, crypto is volatile, but the participants make the elections for their 401(k)s so if they are willing to take the risk then so be it.
I actually have a bigger issue with pensions investing in the space as they’re investing on behalf of others and the underlying frankly have no idea what’s going on with their money.

I have to say, the Beyond Meat sausage replacement they serve at Dunkins' isn't half-bad. Clearly it isn't 100% equivalent to sausage, but it's a decent replacement that to my surprise doesn't taste too bad.
That said, fake Italian Sausage from Beyond is repulsive to these Italian taste buds. For that, it's pork or nothing!

The largest single holding (1/6 of the portfolio) is T. Rowe Price Dynamic Global Bond (RPEIX / RPIEX). That's where the magic may be be coming from.
A simple 18/82 blend of VTSAX and RPIEX produces a portfolio with
- lower standard deviation (3.84% vs 5.06%),
- higher Sharpe ratio (1.18 vs. 0.81),
- double the Sortino ratio (2.51 vs 1.26),
- max drawdown 60% less (1.74% vs. 4.68%),
- virtually identical correlation with the US equity market (0.66 vs. 0.67)
and an annualized return ½% better: 6.09% vs 5.50%
See Portfolio Visualizer comparison.
So far, I haven't been able to come close to this performance when substituting a different bond fund. There are a variety of other factors to consider. Rotation to value could account for some recent underperformance by the growth leaning TMSRX. The somewhat higher volatility (compared with my custom portfolio) could account for its relative underperformance in 2018 (a down year for the fund and my portfolio) and its relative outperformance in 2019 and 2020 (up years).
Just quick observations. I haven't looked into RPIEX yet, or taken more than a cursory look at the Portfolio Visualizer data.

I figured since Giroux has touted the utilities sector as purchases for PRWCX , TRP could give him a separate utilities fund. Give him two assistant portfolio managers, put some of his utility picks from PRWCX in the new fund, and he could spend about 15 minutes a day running the fund! There probably wouldn't be many asset constraints. TRP had talked about Giroux running a 40/60 type balanced fund a few years ago, but it's never been launched.

IMO, a fund must be good at all times, based on YTD at 1.7% TMSRX failed. My bond funds made a lot more.

Where can I locate a list of your “no lose” holdings? Would like to buy all.
Thanks

As if that needed an explanation but here's what Michelle Singletary who writes for the WaPo Personal Finance column has to say.
Not a Good Idea

Interesting fund. Sharpe+Sortino looks good, but after looking a bit more, performance for 2020-21 is not good enough for me to get excited

IMO, a fund must be good at all times, based on YTD at 1.7% TMSRX failed. My bond funds made a lot more.

The above is a 7 year forecast by GMO from 12/31/2010. I have posted right after the above prediction that GMO would be very wrong about US LC(SPY), and they were hugely wrong. I haven't changed my mind about GMO. I said the same about Arnott (PAUIX) in 2010.
Models are nice, the real world works differently.
For me, cash was always trash. My bond funds made a lot more than cash. I have never had cash and even now as a retiree I don't believe in a lot of cash for long term hold.
IMO, a retiree needs maybe 3-6 months at most in cash. Most/all retirees have a cash flow (from SS + distribution + pension + can sell something, what is so difficult to sell 3-4 times per year), in good timed they can sell stocks and in bad times they can sell some bonds. Some of these bonds should be a ballast for stocks which means in market meltdown they will go up or have minimal losses.

Interesting take on the drop in value of Bitcoin / Crypto - currencies :

Not much moves cryptocurrency markets like Elon Musk tweets -- except, perhaps, the idea of another crackdown in China, the world’s second-largest economy. From a trading ban on domestic exchanges to squeezes on power-consuming digital currency miners, Chinese regulators have tried to tamp down risks related to the stratospheric rise of Bitcoin and its peers for years. Yet a recent flurry of official reminders has traders nervous about more possibly to come as President Xi Jinping seeks to reduce financial risk in the economy and meet the country’s ambitious goals for combating climate change.

how-china-rivals-elon-musk-in-rattling-crypto-markets

Some quotes from GMO's Peter Chappinelli:

Many have wondered aloud whether GMO is not giving enough credit to some of these high growth new-business-model “disruptors.” First, we have all sorts of models that take current optimistic growth forecasts into account. Many are deserving of their current high multiples --- we absolutely concede that somewhere in the Global Growth basket sits “the next Amazon.” Unfortunately, they’re ALL being priced that way, and that is a bridge too far.
We also remind ourselves that during the month of May, the S&P 500’s real earnings yield (the inverse of P/E minus inflation) dipped into negative territory, the lowest in 40 years. Even at the height of tech bubble mania this scary event did not occur.
Combine that sober statistic with the negative real yields being offered by sovereign bonds, and you may come to see why we are loathe to recommend a traditional 60/40 mix. There will come a day when global equities and government bonds are fairly valued and should deliver a “normal” real rate of return. Today, however, is not that day.

OK we have arrived...

An Israeli startup wants to replace chicken coops, barns and slaughterhouses with bioreactors to churn out cell-based meat for American diners.

I'll have mine medium rear:
https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-23/meat-grown-in-bioreactors-is-coming-to-american-diners-next-year?srnd=premium