http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1217286/000119312516478119/d149787d497.htm
497 1 d149787d497.htm JPMORGAN TRUST I
J.P. MORGAN INTERNATIONAL EQUITY FUNDS
JPMorgan Asia Pacific Fund
(All Share Classes)
(a series of JPMorgan Trust I)
Supplement dated February 25, 2016
To the Prospectuses, Summary Prospectuses and Statement
of Additional Information dated March 1, 2015, as supplemented
NOTICE OF LIQUIDATION OF THE JPMORGAN ASIA PACIFIC FUND. The Board of Trustees of the JPMorgan Asia Pacific Fund (the “Fund”) has approved the liquidation and dissolution of the Fund on or about April 6, 2016 (the “Liquidation Date”). Effective immediately, the Fund may depart from its stated investment objective and strategies as it increases its cash holdings in preparation for its liquidation. Unless you have an individual retirement account (“IRA”) where the State Street Bank and Trust (“SSBT”) serves as the custodian, on the Liquidation Date, the Fund shall distribute pro rata to its shareholders of record all of the assets of the Fund in complete cancellation and redemption of all of the outstanding shares of beneficial interest, except for cash, bank deposits or cash equivalents in an estimated amount necessary to (i) discharge any unpaid liabilities and obligations of the Fund on the Fund’s books on the Liquidation Date, including, but not limited to, income dividends and capital gains distributions, if any, payable through the Liquidation Date, and (ii) pay such contingent liabilities as the officers of the Fund deem appropriate subject to ratification by the Board. Capital gain distributions, if any, may be paid on or prior to the Liquidation Date. If you have a Fund direct IRA account where SSBT serves as custodian, your shares will be exchanged for the corresponding class of shares of the JPMorgan Liquid Assets Money Market Fund as specified below, unless you provide alternative direction prior to the Liquidation Date. For all other IRA accounts, the proceeds will be invested based upon guidelines of the applicable Plan administrator.
Share Class of JPMorgan Asia Pacific Fund Share Class of JPMorgan Liquid AssetsMoney Market Fund
Class A Shares Morgan Shares
Class C Shares Morgan Shares
Select Class Morgan Shares
Upon liquidation, shareholders may purchase any class of another J.P. Morgan Fund for which they are eligible with the proceeds of the liquidating distribution. Shareholders holding Class A Shares or Select Class Shares will be permitted to use their proceeds from the liquidation to purchase Class A Shares of another J.P. Morgan Fund at net asset value within 90 days of the liquidating distribution. They may also purchase other share classes for which they are eligible. If Shareholders of Class C Shares purchase Class C Shares of another J.P. Morgan Fund within 90 days of the liquidating distribution, no contingent deferred sales charge will be imposed on those new Class C Shares.
FOR EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS OF RECORD OF THE FUND AS OF FEBRUARY 29, 2016, ADDITIONAL PURCHASES OF FUND SHARES WILL BE ACCEPTED UP TO AND INCLUDING MARCH 15, 2016 AFTER WHICH NO NEW PURCHASES WILL BE ACCEPTED. FOR ALL OTHER INVESTORS, PURCHASES OF FUND SHARES WILL NO LONGER BE ACCEPTED EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 2016.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT
WITH THE PROSPECTUS, SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

Andrew Foster dropped a note in my mailbox this afternoon to inform me that the 4th Qtr Portfolio review for SFGIX has been posted. As most know, Mr. Foster worked in Asia for some time before his days at Mathews and reacts (and doesn't react) to Asian events in uncharacteristic ways. Always worth a glance, IMO, even if one isn't prepared to have him work with your money just yet.
http://www.seafarerfunds.com/fund/portfolio-review
His current stance on Asia--- and on emerging market stocks in general--- has taken a turn, and I think it's worth a smoke in the pipe:

February 2016 – In his latest portfolio review, Andrew Foster discusses a shift in the Fund’s composition, away from the Asian region, and toward larger stocks at the expense of smaller ones. Next, he speculates as to the cause behind the collapse in China’s capital markets. While he does not offer a definitive explanation, he does suggest that circumstances may be serious enough to warrant attention from investors.

heezafe,
Thanks for the information.
It sounds like you know a bit about the Matthews Funds as well a Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income.
If my research is correct and current, MAPIX is about 30% Japan and 35% China/Hong Kong, MACSX is about 36% China/Hong Kong and 6% Japan, and the last I looked SFGIX was about 17% China/Hong Kong and 3% Japan, with a total of 52% in Asia, so it is more diverse in the Asia space than MACSX or MAPIX. Also, SFGIX had a 13% position in Emerging Europe, 21% in Latin America, and 5% in South Africa.
Currently I own MACSX (seems to be the least risky of the three) in a retirement account and I am trying to figure out if owning SFGIX and or MAPIX gives me added diversification, or I just would be collecting funds.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Mona

Totally agree, MJG and Dex. The one thing I would add to any list of retirement planning scenarios, to-dos, best practices is to start retirement as debt-free as possible. As I have experienced on every occasion, no debt (especially no mortgage) in retirement is simply huge. For most middle-income folks, it is THE factor that allows them to have a positive lifetime cash flow experience.

Hi Dex, Hi BobC
Thanks for your commentary. Perhaps from this dialectic exchange a useful synergy will emerge. That often happens.
Best Wishes.

We probably don't differ as much as you might think. The difference is probably where you put the emphasis. The items I mentioned are the meat of the issue.
The monte carlo is a tool for evaluation and planning - but not high on my list.
If I were to expand upon my list:
- know how to budget
- track your spending
- pay yourself first
- spend less then you earn
I would add - understand cash flow in retirement investment planning:
- investment income
- pension
- SS
- 401K distribution requirements and taxes
- 'near cash' investments to cover stock/bond downturn periods
After that you can use the monte carlo to model you options.

Hi Dex, Hi BobC
Thanks for your commentary. Perhaps from this dialectic exchange a useful synergy will emerge. That often happens.
I take no issue with the general rules that you both advocate. I too use them. But they are motherhood and apple pie. If your mother and father did not lecture them as a practical gospel before teenage, your parents were delinquent. That advice is accepted wisdom; it just does not go far enough for retirement planning purposes.
Those guidelines simply do not yield a yardstick to measure retirement planning progress against, and do not help in a final retirement decision. Some metrics are needed. A Monte Carlo approach is a perfect tool given the uncertain nature of future portfolio performance. Monte Carlo methods were specifically developed during World War II to address uncertainty, especially when a boatload of data are accessible.
Napoleon said: “Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide”. Information gathering, data interpretation, hypotheses testing, and flexibility to adjust are essential elements in any ongoing retirement planning process.
Without numbers and expectation estimates, a potential retiree is lost at sea. Without credible estimates any retirement consultant is similarly lost at sea, and is not providing a full service. Convenient, easy to use, and fast Monte Carlo simulations fill many of the gaps, at least in a probabilistic sense. That’s as good as it gets.
For example, use the PortfolioVisualizer Monte Carlo tool. In a few minutes it runs 1000 random cases for the input parameters. Those input parameters are easily changed to explore what-if scenarios. Those what-if scenarios test the robustness of any assumptions. Time span is changed with a single input.
Output includes a likely median end wealth portfolio value, a portfolio survivable probability, and the 25 and 75 percentile portfolio value likelihoods. All this is good stuff and informs both the sagacity of the ongoing savings process and any final retirement date decision. These outputs can be updated over time, and yield retirement guidance. And it’s all free for the doing.
Note that the Monte Carlo simulators that I recommend do not operate in a vacuum. They are just one tool in a retirement planning toolkit. Adopting that tool does NOT preemptively require discarding all the other elements discussed in these exchanges. These are not mutually exclusive planning devices. They should be used in tandem.
Monte Carlo simulators have become a more or less standard tool in financial planning circles. An early version was developed by Nobel Laureate Bill Sharpe. He still runs that service as part of his Financial Engines website. Like all tools, the everyday American wisdom is to “use it or lose it”. I’m at a loss to construct an alternate way to generate any meaningful projections for the survivability of any retirement war-kiddy.
Your suggestions are welcomed and encouraged.
Best Wishes.

No word yet on why, but the merger will be a tax-free event and will occur around May 23rd. The US Value team runs both funds. Both have great long-term records and sucky recent ones. Measured by sector allocations, their portfolios are dissimilar. Small Cap has been hurt by an major overweight in energy, which was recently trimmed. Scott Satterwhite, the founding manager, has been phasing out for more than a year with retirement coming in fall.
None of which is an answer, but they're the pieces I've got so far.
For what interest that holds,
David

@DavidV & MFO Members Here are some suggestions.
Regards,
Ted
Suggested Bond Time Period Allocations:
25 Years + To Retirement:
11-25 " " "
1-10 " " ":
Retirement:
:
http://www.seninvest.com/article13.htm

Monte Carlo is ok to get a broad overview of the probability of maintaining the lifestyle you want until you die. For many people, however, the use of Monte Carlo is not so great. The majority of folks (not on this board) have never saved for retirement, or if so, have done a bare minimum. They spend a lot more than they make. And they approach retirement with more baggage than will fit in their assigned overhead bin. I still maintain that starting retirement with no mortgage and no credit card debt is huge, something a lot of people should work to achieve. There are a lot of basic principles that people should use, but two of the most important are 1) spend less than you earn and 2) pay yourself first - meaning have a goal of maxing out your retirement plan contributions.

Hi Dex,
You provide a fine list of glittering generalities.
What? - Very specific to anyone who reads it.
I do not understand your position that more information will somehow damage the preparation for retirement and a final retirement decision. Monte Carlo simulations add scale to a retirement roadmap.
Best Wishes.

Without what I wrote no need for a Monte Carlo - you probably won't have $.
Yes, what I wrote is obvious and simple - most great ideas are.

No magic recipe. Just keep the more exotic and high yield stuff small, particularly later during work and into retirement. I took a look at their recent "Bond Squad" entries in the Morningstar Discussions. There's a whole big menu, over there. At 61, I'm 43 stocks, 39 bonds. The rest is cash or "other," held in the funds. Some might say I'm too heavy in stocks. But I do believe I'm in the ballpark of what's not overly-risky. Don't over-think it. If you are high-income, use a lot of munis, but not exclusively. ...Actually, I've chosen three separate bond funds, and after that, I let the Fund Managers do the arranging. PREMX, PRSNX, DLFNX. But I have two "Balanced" funds holding both stocks and bonds, too. MAPOX and PRWCX. But PRWCX is closed right now, unless you're already into it. Look also at DODIX. MWTRX. But these are solely open-ended. Others can clue you in to closed-end funds. I even forget whether there is such a thing as a bond ETF..... There are indeed professionals here, and they can give you something "from the horse's mouth."

@Dex @MikeM @MJG
As noted by Dex.....these first four
- know how to budget
- track your spending
- pay yourself first
- spend less then you earn
>>>If the person can not be involved with or control any of these, there will be no need for anything related to the Monte Carol machine.
Probably more so today than with my generation, there is a high likelihood that a college graduate today, or anyone employed has not a clue as to where they will find their arse on retirement day.
But, one thing is written; in that if the 4 items in the list above can not be properly controlled, the retirement roadmap will not exist to any value.
I know from 2015 the same type of budget information I know from 1970; as to how much and where monies travel in the broad budget categories. Tis not difficult to track.
Catch

Hi Dex,
MikeM is exactly on-target.
You provide a fine list of glittering generalities. These are such motherhood concepts and values that they are typically acknowledged without careful scrutiny. They appeal to the emotions, but are they actionable in terms of retirement planning or a retirement decision?
My answer is a definite No. They are kindness and goodness, but are far too vague for decision making. It’s the kind of stuff we get from politicians. It sounds good and is even generically correct, but is it enough? No. We need hard numbers for the retirement process.
Your list provides soft (and admirable) guidelines. But they don’t come close to suggesting an answer to the quantity of needed savings. Suppose a worker saved one thousand dollars a year and invested with modest success for 40 years. Is that enough?
Likely not. Early Monte Carlo runs would inform that worker that he needs a more aggressive savings plan. A later Monte Carlo simulation might suggest that a longer work period is needed for a healthy retirement portfolio survival likelihood. That’s not pleasant news, but it helps for better decision making.
Why the reluctance to use accessible tools that will enhance the probability of a successful retirement? These “calculators” do not “make retirement complicated”. They put meat on the bones. They add numerical substance to pure guesswork and gross approximations.
I do not understand your position that more information will somehow damage the preparation for retirement and a final retirement decision. Monte Carlo simulations add scale to a retirement roadmap.
Best Wishes.

Simple heuristics (rules-of-thumb) are fine when making common everyday decisions like buying a hamburger or not, but are totally inadequate when making complex, significant decisions like those about retirement.

If there is one thing that rules of thumb work best - it is retirement planning especially when you are young:
- know how to budget
- track your spending
- pay yourself first
- spend less then you earn
- invest 100 (or 110) - age to stocks, rest to bonds
- understand cash flow thrown off by your investments and your retirement needs
Those simple rules of thumb and maybe a few others are the foundation for financial retirement planning.
While those calculators are interesting ( I've experimented) with them, they are useless without the basics.
Financial planners and stock salesmen like those calculators because they make retirement planning complicated and retirement a nearly impossible goal.

Hi Guys,
Simple heuristics (rules-of-thumb) are fine when making common everyday decisions like buying a hamburger or not, but are totally inadequate when making complex, significant decisions like those about retirement.
The retirement when, where, how much do I need, drawdown rate, portfolio size and placements seem hopelessly intertwined to permit a comfortable and confident decision. But a financial tool is readily accessible that significantly attenuates doubt, and it’s not rule-of-thumb based.
I’ve proposed this approach many times on MFO, but I don’t hesitate to do so once again. That tool is Monte Carlo simulation analyses. I do not apologize for being a broken record in this instance.
Many such tools are easily accessible for free on the Internet. Two such codes that I have previously recommended are the PortfolioVisualizer and the MoneyChimp codes. Here are direct Links to these Monte Carlo simulators:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation
http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/volatility/montecarlo.htm
Please give them a few tries. The inputs are self-explanatory, and the codes are fast. Many scenarios can be explored over a short commitment of time. Endless what-if scenarios can be examined with end portfolio average value and portfolio survival likelihoods as their primary outputs. Thousands of cases are randomly constructed for the projected market returns.
The PortfolioVisualizer tool has more user options, but the MoneyChimp version also does yeomen work. Since these are Monte Carlo-based codes, each time a simulation is made, expect slightly changed predictions. That somewhat captures the fragile nature of the uncertain future.
Retirement decisions will be dramatically improved by application of these simulators. Imperfect analyses (even estimating the range of possible market returns is risky business) almost always beats poorly informed guesstimates. Before making a retirement decision, give the Monte Carlo codes a test ride. They are powerful stuff for everyone.
And for normal circumstances and drawdown rates, a 2 million dollar portfolio is not necessary for a portfolio with some equity holdings. Do the analyses to challenge the robustness of that statement.
Best Wishes.

Using a 4-5% withdrawal rate, the 100-age allocation could be very problematic, as it always has been. Unless there is simply more savings/investments than will ever be used, folks could find they are eating up principal much faster than their longevity will allow. Of course, not having a mortgage when retiring is a game changer, as is receiving a public pension. No mortgage AND a pension are huge. There is no 'rule of thumb' that should be applied here. It is very individualistic, and each household should spend a good amount of time planning just what 'retirement' looks like, both in terms of cash flow and life activity.

Anything to back that up or is it from your life experience?

Using a 4-5% withdrawal rate, the 100-age allocation could be very problematic, as it always has been. Unless there is simply more savings/investments than will ever be used, folks could find they are eating up principal much faster than their longevity will allow. Of course, not having a mortgage when retiring is a game changer, as is receiving a public pension. No mortgage AND a pension are huge. There is no 'rule of thumb' that should be applied here. It is very individualistic, and each household should spend a good amount of time planning just what 'retirement' looks like, both in terms of cash flow and life activity.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13465544/1/you-ll-need-2-million-before-you-can-think-of-retirement.html
Retirement is really post WWII concept that people still believe is possible for them. But if you are 30 or under prepare for living on the street or in the boondocks (read up on BLM land) in your 60s.
Thank you for paying your SS taxes - I'll be enjoying them.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141819/000089418916007712/collins-tpm_497e.htm
497 1 collins-tpm_497e.htm SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS (497E - STICKER)
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration Nos. 333-62298; 811-10401
Collins Alternative Solutions Fund
A series of Trust for Professional Managers (the “Trust”)
Supplement dated February 19, 2016
to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated June 28, 2015
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Trust for Professional Managers (the “Trust”), based upon the recommendation of Collins Capital Investments, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Collins Alternative Solutions Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust, has determined to close and liquidate the Fund. The Board concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund be closed and liquidated as a series of the Trust effective as of the close of business on February 19, 2016.
The Board approved a Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) that determines the manner in which the Fund will be liquidated. Pursuant to the Plan and in anticipation of the Fund’s liquidation, the Fund will be closed to new purchases effective as of the close of business on February 19, 2016. However, any distributions declared to shareholders of the Fund after February 19, 2016 and until the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on February 26, 2016 will be automatically reinvested in additional shares of the Fund unless a shareholder specifically requests that such distributions be paid in cash. Although the Fund will be closed to new purchases as of February 19, 2016, you may continue to redeem your shares of the Fund after February 19, 2016, as provided in the Prospectus. Please note, however, that the Fund will be liquidating its assets as of the close of business on February 26, 2016.
Pursuant to the Plan, if the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the close of business on February 26, 2016, the effective time of the liquidation, your shares will be redeemed, and you will receive proceeds representing your proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund as of February 26, 2016, subject to any required withholdings. As is the case with any redemption of fund shares, these liquidation proceeds will generally be subject to federal and, as applicable, state and local income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account and the liquidation proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the shares redeemed. If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account such as an IRA, the liquidation proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation under certain conditions. You should consult with your tax adviser for further information regarding the federal, state and/or local income tax consequences of this liquidation that are relevant to your specific situation.
The Adviser will bear all of the expenses incurred in carrying out the Plan.
Shareholder inquiries should be directed to the Fund at 1-855-55-ALT-MF.
Please retain this Supplement with your Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information for reference.

Fund now has $6B in assets, all classes. the A shares OSMAX is available load waived as NTF. I own OSMYX, institutional version. I called them and if fund is held with financial advisor, can still add. Nice fund.
January 29, 2016
OPPENHEIMER INTERNATIONAL SMALL-MID COMPANY FUND TO SOFT CLOSE ON APRIL 1, 2016
Dear Oppenheimer International Small-Mid Company Fund Shareholder:
In an effort to continue to provide our shareholders with a long-term strategy for success, we are placing limitations
on certain investor purchases into Oppenheimer International Small-Mid Company Fund. We believe
these new limitations will help position the Fund for continued sustainable long-term growth.
Effective as of the close of the New York Stock Exchange on April 1, 2016, the Fund will no longer accept
purchase orders from new investors and existing Fund shareholders will no longer be able to purchase new
shares or exchange shares of other funds into the Fund, subject to certain exceptions including:
• If you own shares in certain types of employer-sponsored retirement plans you can continue to purchase
shares and exchange into the Fund.
• If you own shares through an OppenheimerFunds Portfolio BuilderSM account you can continue to purchase
shares and exchange into the Fund.
• If you own shares in any 529 Plan that currently includes the Fund within one or more of their investment
options, those existing 529 portfolios are not affected.
Distribution and capital gains set to reinvest in Oppenheimer International Small-Mid Company Fund will continue
to reinvest after the close date. If you have automatic purchases established for this Fund and one of
the above exceptions does not apply, your auto purchase feature will be turned off before the effective
date. This will include purchases you make through Asset Builder, exchanges from another Oppenheimer fund
into this Fund (including dividend exchanges) and other automatic purchase methods. If you wish to continue
your automatic investments after the effective date, you will need to choose a different investment to receive
the purchases. Your financial advisor can help you make changes to your account.
We will continue to monitor the Fund to determine if we need to further modify these restrictions on investment
purchases. Please see the prospectus supplement, which is available on our website at oppenheimerfunds.com
for additional details on these and other changes to the purchase restrictions for the Fund.
If you have any questions, please speak with your financial advisor or contact us at 1 800 CALL OPP (225 5677)

Lipper puts VBINX in the Growth Allocation category. There are 113 such funds in its database ending January 2016, at least 10 years old, oldest share class only, open and closed.
VBINX stacks up pretty well. Here is list from top, sorted by 10 year annualized total return (APR), which includes expenses, reinvested dividends, and any max front load. (As always, no accounting for category drift or survivorship.)

It beat out Dodge & Cox Balanced DODBX, which has delivered 5% APR, placing it 41 out of 113.
Here is same list based a Martin Ratio, which is the risk return adjusted metric used to computed MFO Return Group ratings. Martin is excess total return over 90 day TBill divided by Ulcer Index, as described in the paper by Peter Martin, entitlded: An Alternative Approach to the Measurement of Investment Risk & Risk-Adjusted Performance.

If we look across all the asset allocation categories, VBINX ranks even better.
MFO groups the following categories as Asset Allocation (AA) type: Target Today, Target 2010, Target 2015, Target 2020, Target 2025, Target 2030, Target 2035, Target 2040, Target 2045, Target 2050, Target 2055+, Conservative Allocation, Moderate Allocation, Growth Allocation, Aggressive Growth Allocation, Absolute Return, Convertible Securities, Flexible Portfolio, Retirement Income.
There are 470 such funds ending January 2016, at least 10 years old, oldest share class only, open and closed.
Here's how VBINX stack up on that list, again, by APR: