This is not the first time this fund has done this:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1650149/000089418918006607/spt-equable_497e.htm
Equable Shares Small Cap Fund (Series 1)
(Class I EQSIX)
A Series of Series Portfolios Trust
December 3, 2018
Supplement to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated May 30, 2018
Effective December 17, 2018, shares of the Equable Shares Small Cap Fund (Series 1) (the “Fund”) will be offered for purchase.
Effective as of the close of business on December 19, 2018, the Fund will be closed to all new purchases. The Fund will remain open after December 19, 2018 to automatic reinvestment of dividends and capital gains distributions, as described under the section entitled “Distribution of Fund Shares – Dividends, Distributions and their Taxation” in the Prospectus.
The decision and timing for future opening or closing of the Fund will be at the discretion of the Fund’s investment adviser, Teramo Advisors, LLC.
For investor inquiries about the Fund, please call the Fund at (888) 898-2024.
Please retain this Supplement with your Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI for future reference.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1650149/000089418918004304/spt-equable_497e.htm
497 1 spt-equable_497e.htm SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
Equable Shares Small Cap Fund (Series 1)
(Class I EQSIX)
A Series of Series Portfolios Trust
August 10, 2018
Supplement to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated May 30, 2018
Effective as of the close of business on August 16, 2018, the Equable Shares Small Cap Fund (Series 1) (the “Fund”) will be closed to all new purchases. The Fund will remain open to automatic reinvestment of dividends and capital gains distributions, as described under the section entitled “Distribution of Fund Shares – Dividends, Distributions and their Taxation” in the Prospectus.
The decision and timing for future opening or closing of the Fund will be at the discretion of the Fund’s investment adviser, Teramo Advisors, LLC.
For investor inquiries about the Fund, please call the Fund at (888) 898-2024.
Please retain this Supplement with your Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI for future reference.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1650149/000089418919004102/eqsixsupplement792019.htm
497 1 eqsixsupplement792019.htm 497
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration Nos. 333-206240; 811-23084
equablelogocolora04.jpg
Equable Shares Small Cap Fund
(Class I EQSIX)
A Series of Series Portfolios Trust
July 9, 2019
Supplement to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated February 28, 2019
Effective July 15, 2019, shares of the Equable Shares Small Cap Fund (the “Fund”) will be offered for purchase.
Effective as of the close of business on July 17, 2019, the Fund will be closed to all new purchases. The Fund will remain open after July 17, 2019 to automatic reinvestment of dividends and capital gains distributions, as described under the section entitled “Distribution of Fund Shares – Dividends, Distributions and their Taxation” in the Prospectus.
Shares of the Fund are currently not available for new purchases and will remain closed until the above referenced date. The decision and timing for future opening or closing of the Fund will be at the discretion of the Fund’s investment adviser, Teramo Advisors, LLC.
For investor inquiries about the Fund, please call the Fund at (888) 898-2024.
Please retain this Supplement with your Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI for future reference.

Agreed, the markets have risen nicely this year.
But the widely-quoted rise in the markets since January 1 forgets about the steep drop in December. So we're working off a low base.
If we include the downs and ups, the past 12 months total return for the S&P 500 has been about 10%.
Which is still good, just not in the gangbusters neighborhood.
David

- https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/50869/are-airlines-in-america-among-the-world-s-worst
- https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/47011/they-own-the-system-amazon-rewrites-book-industry-by-marching-into-publishing
- https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/50230/george-will-is-the-individual-obsolete
@Ted - Did you really read the above book by George Will?
Ex-Republican and Washington Post columnist George Will appeared on The View Friday to promote his book and do the only thing right-leaning commentators are invited on television to do: bash President Trump and promote the left. Will got right to that, comparing “Trump Republicans” to cockroaches that had infested the party.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2019/06/21/george-will-tells-view-trump-republicans-are-cockroaches

This is not your father's Wheaton. I did not realize that the town had fallen off the wagon (three decades ago!).
https://www.oneillinois.com/stories/2019/1/7/wheaton-best-place-to-live-in-illinois
"'That has been a boom,' Gresk said of finally breaking Prohibition, adding that Wheaton used to be considered 'a sleepy little town' where 'the joke was the sidewalks used to roll up at 5 o’clock.'”
They even started an Ale Fest earlier this decade:
http://www.triblocal.com/wheaton/2011/08/03/once-dry-wheaton-ready-for-weekend-ale-fest/index.html

FYI: Welcome to Wheaton, Ill., a town with a surprising connection to many of the most-important figures in the world of exchange-traded funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-chicago-suburb-became-a-center-of-etfs-11562638621?mod=md_mf_news

FYI: The stock market keeps rising, and fund investors keep turning away.
The average U.S.-stock fund rose 3.4% in the second quarter and is now up 17% so far in 2019, according to Thomson Reuters Lipper data. International-stock funds were up a similar amount for the quarter, pushing the year-to-date advance to 14%.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-funds-are-up-17-so-far-in-2019-11562638500?mod=article_inline

It's sort of the latter - what strategy is the fund following? Except that intent is irrelevant. It's a matter of "watch what I do, not what I say." A momentum strategy fund is one that maintains a significant percentage of its portfolio in high momentum stocks over time, regardless of what the manager is thinking.
A four factor analysis is used to determine the style (strategy) of a fund. Carhart took Fama/French's three factor analysis and added momentum as a fourth factor. Funds that have a large momentum factor are deemed momentum funds. That's different from saying that a fund just happens to have a lot of high momentum stocks at the moment.
An absurd hypothetical may help to illustrate the latter. Consider a fund that invests in stocks beginning with 'A'. At a given moment, the 'A' stocks, like Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, etc. might have high momentum. A few months later, they might not. This fund is clearly not following a momentum strategy, because it's not trading in and out of stocks to maintain a high momentum factor. So it doesn't correlate well over time with momentum. Still, at the moment, it has the same type of portfolio as a momentum strategy fund.
From Carhart, p. 73 (pdf p. 18):

To test whether momentum managers earn consistently higher returns, I sort mutual funds into portfolios on their 4-factor model PR1YR loadings [look for the funds with high a PR1YR, i.e. momentum factor] and find that one-year momentum funds do not earn substantially higher returns than contrarian funds. ...
[Other] mutual funds [the ones that did well last year] don't follow the momentum strategy but are funds that accidentally end up holding last year's winners. Since the returns on these stocks are above average in the ensuing year, if these funds simply hold their winning stocks, they will enjoy higher one-year expected returns and incur no additional transaction costs for this portfolio. [Unlike momentum funds, that Carhart previously noted are high turnover, high expense funds.]

“Chasing these hot funds thus appears to be chasing funds that happen to have high momentum stocks, though not necessarily chasing momentum funds.”
- I think you mean the funds themselves aren’t moving in a fashion consistent with having significant momentum over meaningful periods of time, but they tend to own stocks that have a degree of momentum. Sounds reasonable to me.
- If, on the other hand, you mean that the managers of these funds don’t intentionally buy stocks having lots of momentum, than I’d suggest: (1) intent is difficult to establish and (2) quite possibly the “herd mentality” has misled these managers into not recognizing that they’re buying stocks which are rising due more to momentum than to underlying fundamentals.

If you continually monitor the M*, Lipper*, etc. charts and keep shifting money away from the poorer performing funds into the better performing ones in each “category” (as a good many do), than I’d say you are a “closet momentum player” - though probably unaware of it.

But allow me to attempt to explain. The fund manager who boosts returns by buying hot stocks (let’s assume “systematically”) is the real momentum player. He / she knows full well what they’re doing. The individual investor who moves money to that fund because it’s been “outperforming” its

peers is the unwitting victim of the momentum strategy - thus, a “closet momentum player”.

I'm skimming through a 2016 M* paper on the short term persistence of mutual fund performance. Like any responsible paper on the subject, it starts with Carhart's 1997 paper. " Carhart attributed this [short term persistence] effect to momentum, showing that recent outperformers happen to hold stocks with strong momentum on average, though they don’t necessarily follow a momentum strategy."
M* does its own data analysis, and reports thusly on momentum:

the positive and significant coefficient on the [momentum] factor [for large blend funds] suggests that the managers in the top quintile had greater exposure to stocks with positive momentum (or less exposure to stocks with negative momentum) than those in the bottom quintile during the holding periods. The adjusted R-squared indicates how well the model fit the data. In this case, the regression could explain 56% of the variance in the returns between the funds in the top and bottom quintiles. This means that the model explains a significant part of the story, but there is much it doesn’t capture.
[In plainer English, over half of the outperformance of hot large cap blend funds over the subsequent year is because they tend to hold more high momentum stocks. This effect doesn't last over longer periods.]
Overall, differences in momentum, rather than differences in skill, appear to explain return
persistence in the short term.

http://www.fwp.partners/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Performance-Persistence-Morningstar-2016.pdf
Chasing these hot funds thus appears to be chasing funds that happen to have high momentum stocks, though not necessarily chasing momentum funds.

@Mark
Yes, I forgot to mention that. You may drag the days bar from either end to shorten and also right click onto it for default ranges. Sometimes, like with this chart; I shorten the time period to 100 days or so, and then click and hold the day range slider and drag to left to see the 100 day periods going back. This allows for a nice tighter view.
1999 is the most rear view; perhaps otherwise if a subscriber, which I am not nor need more time.

Hi @Catch - Interesting.
If you click on the left side of the time block below the graph and drag it to the left you can go back in time to Nov. 2013.

Hi @Mark
I've monitored, but not invested in MTUM; and the below chart starts with 2018, as this will let you view the moves during the short market whack in early Feb. as well as the big down on Dec. 24, 2018. I included DSEEX as a pseudo momentum active fund.
ARGH. Chart will only set back to July at this time.
SPY MTUM DSEEX Jan 2018 to date
Take care,
Catch

@Edmond What I find ridiculous about arguments like the one you're making--basically that the elites are hypocrites about climate change--is that the earth's rapidly changing climate doesn't care one way or the other whether you're a liberal or conservative. So even if they're hypocrites, that still can mean it behooves everyone to try to reduce carbon emissions as best they can. Al Gore may fly around in a private jet and China may cheat on emission standards, and the climate still doesn't care one way or the other. It is an amoral force of nature that is getting worse for most life forms because of human behavior. Let's say someone told you cyanide was bad and then proceeded to take cyanide themselves. Somehow I don't think you would take the cyanide just because the person sounding the warning is a hypocrite. And the truth is everyone is a hypocrite to a certain degree. There's an old saying: Though my guru stumbles out of the tavern, still I will wash his feet. I assume many Catholics still believe abortion is wrong even though it was recently revealed priests were sexually abusing, impregnating and getting abortions for nuns:
https://nytimes.com/2019/02/05/world/europe/pope-nuns-sexual-abuse.html
Hypocrisy is everywhere in human endeavor. But science--the forces of nature--don't care. And what I find so hyprocritical or just plain lousy about the rightwing argument against reducing carbon emissions to reduce climate change is that they used to argue against the science itself. Almost no one who isn't a paid petrol industry shill does that anymore because the science is known to be rock solid and has existed in some fashion now for over a hundred years. Now that conservatives lost that battle against scientific facts, there is an attempt to behave like a child in the school yard saying "Well he started it or he does it too." Meanwhile coastal Florida will almost certainly disappear in our lifetime. Say goodbye to the Keys.

Every time I see one of these Wall Street guys bemoan "climate change" -- which itself is a marketing "rebranding" of "global warming", I am going to make a point :
The Wall Street types, the 1%-ers, and the Western MNCs have relentlessly offshored production from the North America and Europe, usually to lands across vast oceans. They did this to greedily confiscate profit margins from their local workforce.
Now these same cosmopolitan elites are pushing "climate change". And yet the export/import model which they created bears an enormous and wasteful carbon footprint: Each day, thousands of cargo containers filled to the brim depart East Asia for ports in the developed world. In doing so, the maritime vessels consume enormous sums of petroleum product releasing carbon into the atmosphere. The containers arrive at the periphery (i.e. harbors) of these vast develop markets, and thus enormous additional carbon will be unleashed to rail the containers across entire continents.
But then, the empty containers will again be loaded onto the maritime vessels and hauled across the oceans, AGAIN releasing more carbon -- in order to deliver air (and the containers which surround them) back to Asia.
And as so much of this production in East Asia is done with little/no enforceable pollution controls, the environmental devastation for producing in Asia for American/European consumption.
The refusal of Blackrock and other climate-change virtue-signaling investment firms to address the inherent contradictions/hypocrisy of refusing to highlight the climate costs of the export/import model and the offshoring of production, all the while speaking platitudes about "sustainability", unmasks them as nothing less than opportunistic liars.

@MikeM. I bought some PRPFX after the rest of you guys fled. Converted it to a Roth in January 2016. In the 3.5 years since the conversion it’s up 27.35%%. Not great - but not bad either for a fund so despised here. Represents 11.5% of invested assets. For contrast, I carry about 15% in cash and short-term stuff yielding very little.
Re: Doc Hussman - Yes. We’re both solidly in the “recovering” state now, having participated in the folly in our early years. So, it’s hard (for me anyway) not to look back and take an occasional jab at the humble fellow.

I struggle with this topic all the time. Taleb might argue that only pedestrian journalists would make an issue of such things, since most journalists untrained in probability can't recognize being "fooled by randomness." Instead, like M* claims, look at the process ... the "generator" of the return. If the process is good the numbers will follow, sooner or later. And ultimately, it is the investor that determines just how long is too long. Is Hussman's process good? Or Heebner's? Fund Alarm was established on the premise that 5 years was about as long as an investor should give a fund manager to prove whether the "generator" is worthy. I find fund managers these days, especially quants, would rather not talk about performance: "Need to give it 10 years," they say. And, maybe statistically, they are right ... and even 10 years may not be long enough. Some random thoughts on this cloudy morning ... from Orcas Island this summer.

FYI: When assigning Morningstar Analyst Ratings, we focus on managers with disciplined approaches that we think will outperform during a full market cycle. But that doesn't mean there won't be some dry spells along the way. Here are three Gold-rated funds that are struggling in this year.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/videos/934891/3-great-funds-having-a-lousy-year.html

Hi @hank
You noted: "looking at the situation I was trying to illustrate, at the end of 6 months the equity investor had a 20% gain in his pocket and the guy with the Treasury bond had a 1% gain"
>>> Uh, no on the 1% gain for 6 months (unless one is holding an individual bond and viewing yield only).
investment grade bonds LQD vs SPY 6 month chart
Many bond fund investors for the past 6 months have had decent returns, as yields have decreased.........meaning prices moving up, yes?.
A few selected choices for total returns for the past 6 months:
--- LTPZ, Pimco long term TIPS = +11.6%
--- ZROZ, Zero coupon bonds = +14,8%
--- LQD, corp. bond etf = +11.8%
--- EDV, Vanguard extended duration Treasury = +13.5%
--- IEF, intermediate duration Treasury = +6.4%
***bonds having a good start this Monday morning, July 8
Take care,
Catch

My, my, I don't find Mr. Carlson's questions too insightful. Presumably he gets paid for that column?
However, the topic of neg-yield debt is interesting. Here are my questions:
1. Is it possible to short neg-yield debt? If so, then presumably, the shorter would receive proceeds for the shorted instruments up-front, but would also be paid a (modest-) yield by the party who is holding the shorted bonds. Is that right? If so, I can see somebody like Pimco engaging in this activity with great effectiveness. The danger I suppose would be that neg-rates go even more negative..
2. Neg-rates seem to be the "new normal" in much of the developed world. That being so, why not use these rates to de-lever sovereigns globally, as follows: Sovereign govts and their respective CBs could agree the govt could issue "perpetual placement" bonds in 100 billion denominations (yen, dollars, Euros, etc), which would be purchased by the CB of each sovereign. These "PPP" bonds would yield interest of $1 (one dollar, yen RMB etc) per annum (effectivly zero interest). Being perpetual, there would never be any need to worry about maturing debt. The proceeds could be used to redeem public, interest-bearing debt. In this way, sovereigns could effectively de-lever.
Inflationary? Well, its the lack of inflation which seems to be the problem. I think issuing PPP debt makes more sense than paying premiums to private bond-holders (enriching them, but doing nothing to get money in circulation). And the reduction of most sovereign paper would push private investment into the productive sector.
3. "How did we get here?" - By that I mean persistent risk of deflation, There are many culprits: offshoring of jobs by MNCs from the developed world to EM has definitely suppressed incomes of those NOT in the top 5%. In fact "lower inflation" was one of the mantras pushed by the globalists. Well, they got it. In spades. Declining/negative birth rates are another factor. Feminism -- by disrupting household formation patterns which have existed for thousands of years and through "family planning" is killing the developed world both in the present and over the next several decades.
But I will say that debt is a major factor. Issuance of debt permits acceleration of consumption, which would otherwise be deferred. Global debt-to-GDP is ~ 230% and growing. So 230% of this years global consumption was already pulled forward (into prior years). We now sit in that future, where, what should have been today's consumption/demand was already satisfied. Of course there is insufficient demand --- the demand has long since been satisfied. Today's demand has been "robbed" by the past, just as we in turn are "robbing" economic vibrancy in the future to keep the music playing today.
Thoughts?