update:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/908802/000139834421019444/fp0069092_497.htm
497 1 fp0069092_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
(the “Trust”)
Schroder Long Duration Investment-Grade Bond Fund
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated September 30, 2021
to the Fund’s Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (the “SAI”), each dated March 1, 2021, as supplemented
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI, and should be read in conjunction with the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI.
On July 6, 2021, the Trust filed a supplement (the “Original Supplement”) disclosing that the Board of Trustees of the Trust approved the liquidation of the Fund and that the liquidation was scheduled to occur on or about September 30, 2021. The Fund’s liquidation has been delayed to occur on or about October 21, 2021. Accordingly, the Original Supplement has been reproduced below with this new liquidation date.
The Board of Trustees of the Trust, at the recommendation of Schroder Investment Management North America Inc. (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser of the Fund, has approved a plan of liquidation providing for the liquidation of the Fund’s assets and the distribution of the net proceeds pro rata to the Fund’s shareholders. In connection therewith, the Fund is closed to new investments. The Fund is expected to cease operations and liquidate on or about October 21, 2021 (the “Liquidation Date”). The Liquidation Date may be changed without notice at the discretion of the Trust’s officers.
Prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem (sell) their shares in the manner described in the “How to Sell Shares” section of the Prospectus. For those shareholders that do not redeem (sell) their shares prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute to each such shareholder, on or promptly after the Liquidation Date, a liquidating cash distribution equal in value to the shareholder’s interest in the net assets of the Fund as of the Liquidation Date.
In anticipation of the liquidation of the Fund, the Adviser may manage the Fund in a manner intended to facilitate the Fund’s orderly liquidation, such as by holding 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.
The liquidation distribution amount will include any accrued income and capital gains, will be treated as a payment in exchange for shares and will generally be a taxable event for shareholders investing through taxable accounts. You should consult your personal tax advisor concerning your particular tax situation. Liquidation costs will be accrued on the date of this Supplement and shareholders remaining in the Fund on the Liquidation Date will not be charged any additional fees by the Fund associated with the liquidation. Shareholders will receive liquidation proceeds as soon as practicable after the Liquidation Date.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
SCH-SK-016-0100

I've sniffed around on the "net" for some clues; but also need to ask here, to tap the vast wealth of knowledge that exists among this group.
We've performed 3 real estate transactions (primary home) since 1976, and one raw land transaction.
The 3 primary home transactions were all local, so a face to face was always in place for all parties involved in the buy/sell.
The primary home transactions were buyer/seller transactions NOT using a real estate agent, being for sale by owner. All purchase agreements were reviewed by a fee only real estate attorney to clarify, verify and add/subtract any and all legal language to provide a legally sound document. The mortgage provider was the only other outside participant, which required that all involved signed the proper legal documents to close the deal.
The raw land purchase was from a large company selling parcels in a variety of locations. This purchase could be performed directly with their local, authorized agent. A fully straight forward, legal transaction.
So, we have exposure to the "old" DIY method of selling and NOT using a real estate agent.
NOW.....
We have been contacted by a (not a company) husband/wife for our consideration of selling the raw land, as they are looking at property in the area. Such a transaction would not be a face to face, as they live 1,600 miles from the property and we live a full overnight drive from the property.
The question(s) are now these:
--- Is there a common path of documents and processes to attempt a long distance, without face to face, property sale?
--- Is this a fully difficult transaction to consider, knowing the circumstances (distance) involved between seller/buyer?
NOTE 1: We have not yet responded to their query to sell our property.
NOTE 2: We have not contacted a local real estate attorney at this time, as to how to proceed; if we decide to sell.
NOTE 3: We know the one required document would be a Warranty Deed to ensure there are not liens on the property.
Surely, I've missed something in this thinking process. Your input is very much appreciated.
Thank you,
Catch

Basically, yes, it just amounts to a savings of a few basis points for retail investors.
I'm not sure why the cited article implies that all the retail target date fund ERs are the same 12 basis points when according to Vanguard they range from 12 to 15 basis points.
Here's Vanguard's list of retail target date funds (with ERs), followed by institutional target date funds (with ERs), followed by collective investment trust target date vehicles (no ERs).
https://institutional.vanguard.com/fund-list/?filters=trgDt,&sortBy=assetClass&viewType=quarterEndReturnsNAV

Yeah - I caught Wood on Bloomberg. Makes a certain amount of sense. Don’t rule it out if the stock market bubble were to pop. However, I’ll go with persistent inflation as the more likely future. Trip to area “Dollar” store yesterday. First time in a while. A small generic branded 9V battery (most smoke detectors) had increased from $1 to $3.50 over past 12-18 months. Similar 2X + increases in household cleaning supplies. Of course, isolated cases like this don’t a trend make. Just saying …
(Deleted)

Cathie Wood, Mohamed El-Erian and Scott Minerd share their views on deflation, inequality and cybersecurity.
CW - "we’re in a period today like we’ve never been in. You have to go back to the telephone, electricity and automobile to see three major technologically enabled sources of innovation evolving at the same time. Today, we have five platforms: DNA sequencing, robotics, energy storage, artificial intelligence and blockchain technology — all of which are deflationary."
Be on the right side of change...
ME- "The prescription is investing in human and physical infrastructure. It’s about enabling people to do more and to do better. It’s about providing people with transformational opportunities. It starts at a very early age, at pre-K, exposing bright minds to exciting education and opportunities. It continues throughout the middle school, high school, university, making elite universities more accessible to people who deserve to be there but may be held back because they come from the wrong zip code or because their parents have never had an education."

wall-street-titans-reveal-the-next-big-risks-deflation-inequality-hackers

Thanks for clarifying the matter. So there is a net saving of 3 basis point from 12 basis point.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1081400/000108140021001242/namedatechange.htm
497 1 namedatechange.htm
SUPPLEMENT TO THE
PROSPECTUSES, SUMMARY PROSPECTUSES AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF
WELLS FARGO ALTERNATIVE FUNDS
WELLS FARGO COREBUILDER SHARES
WELLS FARGO FIXED INCOME FUNDS
WELLS FARGO INTERNATIONAL AND GLOBAL EQUITY FUNDS
WELLS FARGO MONEY MARKET FUNDS
WELLS FARGO MULTI-ASSET FUNDS
WELLS FARGO MUNICIPAL FIXED INCOME FUNDS
WELLS FARGO SPECIALTY FUNDS
WELLS FARGO TARGET DATE RETIREMENT FUNDS
WELLS FARGO U.S. EQUITY FUNDS
WELLS FARGO VARIABLE TRUST FUNDS
(Each a “Fund”, together the “Funds”)
Wells Fargo Asset Management today announced that the Funds’ names will be changing from “Wells Fargo” to “Allspring” on December 6, 2021. This date for the name change replaces the previously announced date of October 11, 2021.
September 30, 2021
091MMR/P1201SP

Yes, there are dividends which are not much when being paid semi-annually. I re-invest on my shares held by Equiniti (transfer agent). I think last year I received around $42 on 14 shares when the stock was $600-$700 per share. Would have to check with the brokerage about re-investment on the stock,

For most investors, the main news of significance is the merger and lowering of ERs for the retail Target Retirement Funds. The Institutional Target Retirement Funds really are for institutions only. And the Target Retirement Income and Growth Trust is structured as a collective investment trust (CIT) "available to eligible defined contribution plans."
Here's the Vanguard page for VITRX (including the glide path for the institutional series). The Vanguard page for the corresponding acquiring fund, VTINX, can be found here.
A recent M* writeup of the Vanguard retail series TDFs.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1027981/vanguards-fine-target-date-retirement-series
Generally speaking, the institutional series use institutional (or admiral) class shares of underlying funds, while the retail series use the investor class^* shares of funds.
[* Though Vanguard closed investor class shares of index funds to retail investors when it lowered the admiral class min to $3K, it continues using the more expensive investor class shares in its funds of funds.]
By switching investor share classes of some of the retail series' underlying funds to institutional/admiral shares, retail investors will see a reduction in cost. But that won't have any effect on the 0.09% ER of the institutional series. I don't know what magic Vanguard has in mind to reduce this down to 0.08%.

The merger is expected to reduce the overall expense ratio to 8 basis points. The investor share-priced expense ratio has been 12 basis points, while the institutional expense ratio has been 9 basis points, [a Vanguard spokeswoman] wrote.

https://www.pionline.com/defined-contribution/vanguard-merges-target-date-series-lowers-fees

@Old_Joe,
I think I have 14 shares and a fraction in total. I am sure I picked up the 98% of them when I first purchased it with a $250 initial investment. I am sitting on a huge amount of capital gains but I am not going to sell it. I think I will wait until I see a split or huge pullback on it.

A different and more readable Section 138311 in the House document @msf cited says:
"this section prohibits all employee after-tax contributions in qualified plans and prohibits after-tax IRA contributions from being converted to Roth regardless of income level, effective for distributions, transfers, and contributions made after December 31, 2021." [Emphasis mine.]
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/SubtitleISxS.pdf
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/congress-is-about-to-kill-this-popular-retirement-tax-move-11632861718

This shows that there's more than price or profits that go into deciding when to sell.
As I recall, you were far from alone in reacting this way. So don't take the following data as a personal comment, or as something one could have predicted. Hindsight is great, but it only works for the past.
As of May 31, 2015, TPINX held 10 Ukrainian government or agency bonds with a face value of $2.919M, and a market value of $1.425M. That was 2.1% of the fund's assets. (In TTRCX these represented 1.6% of the fund's assets.)
Three months later, August 31, 2015, those same bonds (none were bought or sold) had a market value of $2.145M (50% appreciation), and now represented 3.5% of the fund.
Ukraine was in trouble, and what happened that November was that the bonds were swapped:

Ukraine’s other bondholders, led by Franklin Templeton, accepted a 20 percent principal writedown, a coupon increase to 7.75 percent, a four-year maturity extension and GDP warrants - additional annual payments linked to Ukraine’s future economic growth.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-debt/ukraine-completes-debt-restructuring-of-around-15-billion-idUSKCN0T12FT20151112
The haircut was on the face value, which had been way above the market value. So the fund wasn't hurt by this. After the swap, as of Nov 30, 2015, the replacement bonds and warrants had a market value of $2.831M, and constituted 4.8% of the portfolio.
As a M* analyst put it,

Hasenstab has also shown a willingness to buy what the rest of the market shuns: He loaded up on Irish bonds in the depths of the 2011 eurozone crisis and swooped in on even shakier Hungarian debt that same year. In early 2014, he added to the fund's single-digit stake in dollar-denominated Ukrainian bonds, a move that hurt throughout [2014] but paid off during the first nine months of 2015.

Looking at the holdings rather than the price, ISTM that taking flyers (even 5% positions) in distressed debt was not unusual. But the nearly total, long term move into purely EM debt in the mid 2010s was a fundamental shift. For me, that's what met observant1's third criterion for reevaluation: "Significant investment strategy modifications"

While @rono is a familiar and most welcome poster to us oldsters, newbies to the board during the past decade may not fully appreciate his experience and knowledge on this subject. In the days of MFO’s predecessor, Fund Alarn, rono regularly posted a daily early morning edition called “Asia and the Metals” summarizing recent developments in those areas along with point-on perspectives. Always a class act.
Personally, I’ve long held alternative type investments / inflation hedges which include a 1-3% exposure to a mining fund. That’s in addition to significant exposure to PRPFX which was earlier discussed. I don’t mind saying that even in picking my entry points carefully over the past 12-18 months I’ve ‘had my “bell rung” on the miners. The action over the past 6 months or so simply stinks. Likely some of the carnage stems from the “big boys” (hedge funds, etc) strategically pushing around the metal (playing both long and short) in what is a very thinly traded market and also trying to spook smaller investors and gain an edge. Rono mentions buying / selling by sovereign banks. And there’s the strong dollar plus the current crypto craze.
The thing to keep in mind is that the precious metals and miners can turn on a dime. It’s not unheard of for prices of either to double in a year or two - though the downside can be just as extreme. I suspect at some not too distant stage the precious metals will again be in vogue. All markets in recent years appear much more prone to running to the extremes along with public sentiment . Likely many have over-shot on both the up side and down side since the ‘07-‘09 crash. So, I continue to hold to a roughly 2% position in the p/m miners.

I sold TTRCX in 6/2015 when I discovered a sizeable allocation to Ukrainian debt, which scared the **** out of me ! At that point, return of capital outweighed return on capital . ( Templeton A shares still carried loads then)

There's a difference between liquidating a fund position because one has lost faith in the fund and adjusting the holding because of performance. (Part of the original question included the example: "sell 25% of holding for each 20% gain in a year".)
Performance based adjustments can be done mechanically, based on one's target allocations.
I generally concur with observant1's approach, though I'm more inclined to let a "loser" ride longer, say three years. How much history I use depends on how the fund is managed.
If a fund has a distinctive style, I'll tend to give it more slack. One reason is that it would be difficult to replace. Another more important reason is that because of its style, it may be more likely to do better, or worse, over extended (multi-year) periods.

---

Here's a good exercise, given that "everyone" thinks M* should have downgraded TPINX before now. When would you have sold it, and why?
The fund had great years through 2010, so let's look at the past decade. Here's a M* page with that data. Pay attention to the benchmark index (world gov bond index) rather than the category returns since the fund was not in that category until recently.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=TPINX
In relative terms it was only in 2017 that performance began to fall apart. While it beat its index by 2½% in 2018, it underperformed substantially in 2017 (-5%+), 2019 (-5%+), and hugely in 2020 (-14½%).
After its great 2012, in 2013 and 2014 the fund returned very little (2%, 1½%). Would you have sold even though on a relative basis it did great (2013) and average (2014)?
Would you have sold at the end of 2015 after those two low return years followed by 2015 when the fund landed squarely in the middle of the pack and fell just short of its benchmark?
Surely you would not have sold after 2016, which was a fine year (6%+ vs 1.6% for its benchmark).
Would you have sold after 2017 which was the first really clear bad year on a relative basis? Or would you have waited to see what would happen?
If you did wait, would you have felt comforted by the 2018 performance when the fund again beat most of its peers and beat its benchmark by over 2%? Or would you have looked at the absolute performance of 1.27% and said to yourself: this is even worse than 2017 where it returned just 2.35%. I don't care about relative performance, I'm out?
After 2019's relative disaster, would you have called it quits, perhaps because two of the previous three years (2017, 2019) were very bad (each 5%+ under the benchmark)?
Or would you have waited for two successive bad years relative to its benchmark? It took until 2019-2020 for that to happen.

SOXL QQQ or Asml could be good for intermediate to long term. Been trading these recently with good gains
Held QQQ since 2012 very happy with it
May add more ASML tomorrow/maybe on sale

Green today:
XOM +1.05%
CVX +0.38%
XLE +0.34%
IOFIX +0.17%
TOTL +0.04%
FLOT +0.04%
Freed up some cash today via sales of bond OEFs.
ADDing to some US & Foreign stock/allocation funds tomorrow & Thursday.
Disclaimer: Not sure if I'll be a Dipper or Diplet, or both.