Summary prospectuses typically state that the statutory prospectus and SAI are incorporated by reference. So these more complete documents are an integral part of what you are reading.
The change here concerned the closing and opening of funds. Rather than avoiding funds that make such changes (that affect their prospectuses), funds that diligently manage their level of assets would seem to be desirable.
Statutory prospectuses AFAIK always include the supplements (revisions) explicitly, so you can see clearly exactly what changed. For example, the Artisan Global Value statutory prospectus starts with a two page supplement (dated September 21st). Here's a copy of that supplement.
(In case you think you're seeing double in this SEC filing, the reason why the two pages appear twice is that the filing includes the supplement for the Investor/Institutional share class prospectus, and the supplement for the Advisor share class prospectus. Aside from the share class names and prospectus page numbers, the two versions appear identical.)

@Alban
It seems to vary from company to company. The specific revision which triggered my post says this at the top:
Summary Prospectus
February 1, 2015,
as supplemented September 21, 2015
It is a presumably revised or "supplemented" version, but contains all of the information in the previous version, with no highlighting to indicate which portions have been revised or supplemented.

Maybe of interest:
tracking-bruce-berkowitzs-fairholme-portfolio-q2-2015-update

https://www.google.com/search?q=barron's snowball funds Oct 2015 Overlooked

There are 173 funds with less than $100 million in them that have outperformed more than 80% of their peers in the past five years, according to Morningstar... (here are five)

Hybrid (asset allocation) funds make up between thirty five and forty percent of my overall portfolio which currently consist of ten investment plus two cash management sleeves; has an overall asset allocation of about 25% cash, 20% bonds, 50% equities & 5% other assets and is comprised of a total of forty seven funds.
There are a few reasons that I find value in hybrid type funds. One reason being that they can roam a wider field of investment choices over most other fund types and weight their holdings accordingly to where they are finding the most opportunity (stocks, bonds, cash and other assets). Two, should they have to sell down assets to meet redemptions in a major market decline then they have more than one asset class to choose from to do this. And, another reason is that they provide somewhat of a walking asset allocation for me within my own portfolio as their fund managers can, and do, make adjustments within their asset allocations from time-to-time due to changing market conditions and this automatically somewhat adjusts my portfolio’s asset allocation without me having to make adjustments myself unless I choose to do so.
In my income sleeve I currently have three funds that at times usually hold a small allocation to equities and other assets besides their main focus in bonds. These funds are LBNDX, NEFZX and TSIAX.
In my hybrid income sleeve I currently hold the following (mostly conservative allocation) funds. They are CTFAX, CAPAX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PGBAX.
In my growth and income global hybrid sleeve I currently hold the following (mostly world allocation) funds. They are BAICX, CAIBX & TIBAX.
In my growth and income domestic hybrid sleeve I currently hold the following (mostly moderate allocation) funds. They are ABALX, AMECX, DDIAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX.
In my specialty sleeve I currently hold the following hybrid type fund. It is LPEFX.
You might wish to do an Instant Xray on each of the funds as it will provide a view of how the fund managers have allocated.
Old_Skeet

Hi Guys,
Good grief, Charlie Brown! As I thought about what I plan to say in this posting, the frightening image of Harry Dent invaded my mind. I’m about to stress the significance of dynamic demographic changes that will strongly influence the marketplace in a negative way in the coming years.
Dent has been singing that same song for decades. I suppose this singular theory of Harry Dent is alive and well.
I few years ago I examined a bunch of broad market data to discover chief contributors to real (after inflation) GDP growth rate. I postulated that corporate profits would be loosely coupled with some time displacement to GDP growth.
My correlation efforts identified demographic growth and productivity increases as primary GDP growth rate factors, with the demographics component contributing one-third to the total picture. The correlation was very tight.
That outcome was not unexpected since consumer spending accounts for roughly 70% of our economy. And consumer spending changes as a function of age. Although his numbers have shifted a little as Dent accumulated more data and as our population ages, he finds that the average consumer reaches peak spending in the 45 to 55 age bracket.
Couple that relatively stable spending distribution with an increasing average lifespan and a decreasing child birth rate, and the makings of a shift in our overall spending profile definitely is possible. Potentially, that shift does not bode well for the stock markets. The same arguments are also valid in the developed nations. Potentially, trouble is everywhere.
I distrust forecasting since I really believe that forecasters can’t forecast. As John Kenneth Galbraith said: “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable”. With that warning, here is my analyses (yes, it’s a forecast by another name).
For the past few decades, a prosperous USA chose spending over savings. We bought what we wanted. With an aging population, our overarching policy will shift from buying what we want to only buying what we really need. Old folks do that. Consumer spending per person will contract. Working against that observation, our population will continue to increase, thus somewhat canceling and ameliorating the reduced spending trend.
Profits will still be positive, but somewhat attenuated. Market returns will be reduced to reflect lower positive levels of GDP growth rates. The markets will mirror lower GDP growth rates. So sad.
Good luck on this forecast being anywhere near what actually happens. The problem has far too many moving and interacting parts. But, nevertheless, it’s a fun task.
The Beatles song “When I’m 64” captures some of the issues of an aging population. Here is a Link to the original version of that song by The Fab Four:

Enjoy. It’s always a losing challenge to accurately project the future. Therefore, I’ll close on the success of the Beatles song.
I realize I failed to answer any of Professor Snowball’s tough questions, but my note does address some issues outlined by MFOer Bee. The questions are well beyond my pay-grade. But I do see a correlation between an aging USA population and muted market rewards for whatever that is worth.
Best Wishes.

Since reading this thread I've pinned the word "liquidity" to a few of my remaining brain cells. Here's David Fuller of Fullermoney commenting on the concept of "liquidity" and the recent closure of a highly leveraged etf:
"Generally speaking, a high level of liquidity reduces volatility because institutional investors can enter or exit that market more easily. You can see this when comparing a chart of the S&P 500 Index (arguably the most liquid stock market index in the world), over the medium to longer term with indices of most smaller developed countries such as Denmark or Ireland, not to mention any emerging markets such as Brazil or India.
However, the proliferation of hedge funds and particularly high-frequency trading (HFT) in many liquid markets certainly increases the intraday volatility, while producing occasional meltdowns, such as we last saw on 24th August. The HFT promoters and apologists frequently mention their contribution to liquidity. Yes, but on days when they account for most of the volume, and other investors are temporarily frightened into inactivity, we get either small meltups or much bigger meltdowns, usually caused by front running."
Related Bloomberg article he referenced:
world's biggest leveraged etf halts orders on liquidity concern

I'm considering swapping one MFO-profiled fund (HUSIX) for another, TDVFX. I can do this without tax consequences. Both have performed poorly over the past year, but I expect that now and then from a deep value fund, that doesn't bother me (much.)
My thoughts are: TDVFX has a lower expense ratio (1.20% vs 1.85%) and smaller asset base (about $500 million vs. $1 billion, including separate accounts), plus it seems more of a team-managed effort than one based on a star manager, and I rather prefer the idea of a management team based in St. Louis instead of Southern California.
HUSIX is overweight is financials and basic materials. TDVFX is overweight in energy and industrials. I'm not capable of deciding which overweight is a more likely bet.
One advantage to HUSIX is that it's remarkably tax efficient, only 3 basis points (0.03%) over the last 5 years, as opposed to TDVFX's still modest, but higher 0.73%, according to M*.
HUSIX also had a record of bouncing back really well from bad years like the one it's been having.
Any thoughts?

Yesterday (10/15/15), BAC was up 3.52% , AIG was up 2%, SHLD was up 3.89%
Meanwhile, FAIRX was only up .97%
May we fairly deduce from this that the portfolio must look a lot different now than it did when it was last reported?

The Thread has now been updated as of 10/16/2015 @ 7:00 AM

@hank You have that profligate seniors problem, too? Just looking at the way they drive tells you all you need to know about 'em, hogging 2 lanes instead of one whenever they take a hank-ering. :)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/15/us-retirement-medicare-cola-idUSKCN0S925S20151015?feedType=nl&feedName=PersonalFinance

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1590074/000143510915000941/outlook_497e.htm
497 1 outlook_497e.htm
3D PRINTING, ROBOTICS AND TECHNOLOGY FUND (the “Fund”)
Supplement dated October 15, 2015 to the Prospectus dated May 1, 2015, as supplemented July 9, 2015
On October 14, 2015, the Board of Trustees (“Board”) of Outlook Funds Trust (the “Trust”) approved a Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution (the “Plan”) pursuant to which the assets of the Fund will be liquidated and the proceeds remaining after payment of or provision for liabilities and obligations of the Fund will be distributed to shareholders. The Fund’s investment adviser (the “Adviser”) has recommended that the Board approve the Plan based on market conditions and economic factors adversely affecting the ability of the Fund to conduct its business operations in an economically efficient manner, and the Board concluded that it is in the best interest of the Fund’s shareholders to liquidate the Fund pursuant to the Plan.
In anticipation of the liquidation, the Fund will stop accepting purchases into the Fund on October 15, 2015. Thereafter, the Fund will begin its process of winding up and liquidating its portfolio assets as soon as reasonably practicable. As a result, the Fund will not be pursuing its investment objective after October 15, 2015. Reinvestment of dividends on existing shares in accounts which have selected that option will continue until the liquidation.
The Fund anticipates that it will complete the liquidation on or around the close of business on November 13, 2015 (the “Liquidation Date”). On the Liquidation Date, the Fund will make liquidating distributions to each remaining shareholder, equal to the 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 thereafter the Fund will be terminated and dissolved.
If you own Fund shares in a tax deferred account, such as an individual retirement account, 401(k) or 403(b) account, you should consult your tax adviser to discuss the Fund’s liquidation and determine its tax consequences.
* * *
For more information, please contact a Fund customer service representative toll free at
(855) 330-6225.
PLEASE RETAIN FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
255-PSA-1015
3D PRINTING, ROBOTICS AND TECHNOLOGY FUND (the “Fund”)
Supplement dated October 15, 2015 to the Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated May 1, 2015, as supplemented on July 9, 2015
On October 14, 2015, the Board of Trustees (“Board”) of Outlook Funds Trust (the “Trust”) approved a Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution (the “Plan”) pursuant to which the assets of the Fund will be liquidated and the proceeds remaining after payment of or provision for liabilities and obligations of the Fund will be distributed to shareholders. The Fund’s investment adviser (the “Adviser”) has recommended that the Board approve the Plan based on market conditions and economic factors adversely affecting the ability of the Fund to conduct its business operations in an economically efficient manner, and the Board concluded that it is in the best interest of the Fund’s shareholders to liquidate the Fund pursuant to the Plan.
In anticipation of the liquidation, the Fund will stop accepting purchases into the Fund on October 15, 2015. Thereafter, the Fund will begin its process of winding up and liquidating its portfolio assets as soon as reasonably practicable. As a result, the Fund will not be pursuing its investment objective after October 15, 2015. Reinvestment of dividends on existing shares in accounts which have selected that option will continue until the liquidation.
The Fund anticipates that it will complete the liquidation on or around the close of business on November 13, 2015 (the “Liquidation Date”). On the Liquidation Date, the Fund will make liquidating distributions to each remaining shareholder, equal to the 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 thereafter the Fund will be terminated and dissolved.
If you own Fund shares in a tax deferred account, such as an individual retirement account, 401(k) or 403(b) account, you should consult your tax adviser to discuss the Fund’s liquidation and determine its tax consequences.
* * *
For more information, please contact a Fund customer service representative toll free at
(855) 330-6225.
PLEASE RETAIN FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

An interesting speculation that comes from UBS via Bloomberg through David Stockman (long ago, Reagan's budget guy):
if there's a liquidity crunch in the bond market, e.g., some sort of panic in high-yield debt, investors will begin redeeming their hybrid funds. If the bond market was acting irrationally, managers who needed to meet redemptions would be tempted to sell their most liquid-stocks because that's where they could quickly and easily raise cash. Most 60/40ish funds (collectively they hold $1.4 trillion in assets) have large cap, blue chip portfolios (Microsoft is the #1 holding in the aggregate), so a bond crisis might trigger disproportionate selling in U.S. large cap stocks.
I have some unresolved questions about the argument:

• do 60/40 funds invest much in the most vulnerable bonds? They have a 15-20% corporate stake but that doesn't directly address credit quality or duration.
• do panics in low-quality bonds typically spread to higher-quality ones or does the "flight to quality" impulse make it a wash?
• assuming that hybrid funds sell $100 billion in blue chips over the course of a week, would that be unmanageable? Microsoft trades 35-80 million shares a day and is currently priced in the mid-40s so $2-3 billion/day is normal.

Not clear what one would do with this insight, even if true.
For what interest that holds,
David

I agree bonds usually protect value in bear markets and VWIAX has all of the advantages mentioned. As an acid test I look at the 2008 losses to see what happens in the "perfect storm" ... VWIAX lost about 18%. If this was the loss of your entire portfolio for a long term investor that is probably acceptable, but it would do little to mitigate the 45% loss of the SP500. The other unknown is what happens to the bonds in VWIAX going in a major downward trend starting at the prices most bonds command now

It's official
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-cost-of-living-increase-for-social-security-in-2016-2015-10-15

@TheShadow - I received a little less than my full requested allotment for a taxable account - so I assume I received the max they gave out unless they have some weird formula based on your current GP holdings. My allotment was $50k, which I was surprised to get that much.
@JoJo26 - it is a very small part of my portfolio, so it doesn't make it much more risky.

The Thread is now updated with 10/14 (Closing) & 10/15 (Opening & Mid Day) Data Links

a $25 dollar gift card will cost $4.95!! it's a 20% commission for a partial share! C'mon... it's cute, but not reasonable.

It's not good, but it is far better than the almost insane amount that services like giveashare are charging. There are a number of services like that where they are selling paper certificates and the end price is nuts. Abbott is about a $40 stock. The cheapest option on giveashare - registered share of Abbott in a paper frame - is $81.
http://gizmodo.com/5910225/buying-one-share-of-facebook-stock-is-a-total-rip-off
"Buying through a one-share site is generally more expensive for customers than buying through a broker. Both GiveAShare.com and OneShare.com charge a $39 fee for their services, which include buying the share and procuring the paper stock certificate."
So, while this isn't without issue, I think it's a far more appealing option than what already exists in terms of the "gift a share" services.

@briboe69
@jojo26
It is no different than someone allocating $5,500 a year ($458.33 per month(less than 50 yrs old)) or $6,500 a year ($541.67 per month(more than 50 years old)) for a roth retirement account. If you fully fund your self directed retirement account it amounts to about the same thing. It may be the poster's retirement account as he never mentioned what type of account he was subscribing for.
Plus, the poster mentioned that it was nice to invest up to $500 per month. If my memory serves me, Wasatch offered a similar option when it offered the International Opportunities fund years ago.
One of my retirement accounts is BRUSX.

$6,000/year seems kind of high for a micro cap allocation... Unless you have stockpiles of money that you don't know what to do with or like taking a lot of risk.

E.T.F. Specialist: A Closer Look at the New John Hancock ETFs | 10-14-2015
These funds effectively mimic Dimensional’s distinctive investment approach in an index format.
Morningstar's take: http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=717639