# EDGAR Filing Document

**Accession Number:** 0001048702
**File Stem:** 0001193125-25-139133
**Filing Date:** 2025-6
**Character Count:** 59169
**Document Hash:** 2b8e580395d8d0af918c60fca1460f40
**Contains OCR:** False
**Source Format:** 

## Filing Content

## Filing Summary
**0001193125-25-139133.hdr.sgml**: 20250611

**ACCESSION NUMBER**: 0001193125-25-139133

**CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE**: 497

**PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT**: 3

**FILED AS OF DATE**: 20250611

**DATE AS OF CHANGE**: 20250611

**EFFECTIVENESS DATE**: 20250611

**FILER**: 

**COMPANY DATA:**
- **COMPANY CONFORMED NAME:** NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FUNDS
- **CENTRAL INDEX KEY:** 0001048702

**ORGANIZATION NAME:**
- **EIN:** 000000000
- **STATE OF INCORPORATION:** DE
- **FISCAL YEAR END:** 1031

**FILING VALUES:**
- **FORM TYPE:** 497
- **SEC ACT:** 1933 Act
- **SEC FILE NUMBER:** 333-40455
- **FILM NUMBER:** 251039904

**BUSINESS ADDRESS:**
- **STREET 1:** ONE NATIONWIDE PLAZA
- **STREET 2:** MAIL CODE 05-02-210
- **CITY:** COLUMBUS
- **STATE:** OH
- **ZIP:** 43215
- **BUSINESS PHONE:** 614-435-5749

**MAIL ADDRESS:**
- **STREET 1:** ONE NATIONWIDE PLAZA
- **STREET 2:** MAIL CODE 05-02-210
- **CITY:** COLUMBUS
- **STATE:** OH
- **ZIP:** 43215

**FORMER COMPANY:**
- **FORMER CONFORMED NAME:** GARTMORE MUTUAL FUNDS
- **DATE OF NAME CHANGE:** 20020125

**FORMER COMPANY:**
- **FORMER CONFORMED NAME:** NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FUNDS
- **DATE OF NAME CHANGE:** 19991015

**FORMER COMPANY:**
- **FORMER CONFORMED NAME:** NATIONWIDE INVESTING FOUNDATION III
- **DATE OF NAME CHANGE:** 19971029

## Series and Classes Contracts Data

### Nationwide Fund (Series ID: S000005012)

---

|  |  |  |
|:---|:---|:---|
| Class Name                  | Ticker Symbol | Class ID   |
| Class A                     | NWFAX         | C000013642 |
| Institutional Service Class | MUIFX         | C000013645 |
| Class R                     | GNWRX         | C000013646 |
| Class R6                    | NWABX         | C000200004 |

---

## Series and Classes Contracts Data

### Nationwide Fund (Series ID: S000005012)

| Class ID   | Class Name                  | Ticker Symbol   |
|:---|:---|:---|
| C000013642 | Class A                     | NWFAX           |
| C000013645 | Institutional Service Class | MUIFX           |
| C000013646 | Class R                     | GNWRX           |
| C000200004 | Class R6                    | NWABX           |

**NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FUNDS** 

Nationwide Amundi Strategic Income Fund

Nationwide Bailard Cognitive Value Fund

Nationwide Bailard International Equities Fund

Nationwide Bailard Technology & Science Fund

Nationwide BNY Mellon Dynamic U.S. Core Fund

Nationwide BNY Mellon Dynamic U.S. Equity

Income Fund

Nationwide Bond Index Fund

Nationwide Fund

Nationwide Geneva Mid Cap Growth Fund

Nationwide Geneva Small Cap Growth Fund

Nationwide Global Sustainable Equity Fund

Nationwide Government Money Market Fund

Nationwide GQG US Quality Equity Fund

Nationwide Inflation-Protected Securities Fund

Nationwide International Index Fund

Nationwide International Small Cap Fund

Nationwide Invesco Core Plus Bond Fund *(formerly, Nationwide BNY Mellon Core Plus Bond Fund)*

Nationwide Janus Henderson Overseas Fund

Nationwide Loomis All Cap Growth Fund

Nationwide Loomis Core Bond Fund

Nationwide Loomis Short Term Bond Fund

Nationwide Mid Cap Market Index Fund

Nationwide NYSE Arca Tech 100 Index Fund

Nationwide S&P 500 Index Fund

Nationwide Small Cap Index Fund

Nationwide Small Company Growth Fund

Nationwide WCM Focused Small Cap Fund

**Supplement dated June 11, 2025** 

**to the Statement of Additional Information dated February 28, 2025** 

*Capitalized terms and certain other terms used in this supplement, unless otherwise defined in this supplement, have the meanings assigned to them in the SAI.* 

**<u>Nationwide Fund</u>**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. At a meeting of the Board of Trustees (the "Board") of Nationwide Mutual Funds held on June 10, 2025,
the Board approved the termination of Wellington Management Company LLP ("Wellington") as the subadviser to the Nationwide Fund (the "Fund"), and the appointment of J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. ("JPMIM") as
the Fund's new subadviser, anticipated to occur during the third quarter of 2025 (the "Effective Date").

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. As of the Effective Date, the SAI is amended as follows:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;a. All references to, and information regarding, Jonathan G. White and Mary L Pryshlak as related to the Fund, are
hereby deleted in their entirety.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;b. The following replaces the information in the table regarding the Fund under the heading "Investment
Advisory and Other Services – Subadvisers" beginning on page 73 of the SAI:

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| **Fund** | **Subadviser** |
| Nationwide Fund | J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;c. The following supplements the information under the heading "Investment Advisory and Other Services –
Subadvisers" beginning on page 73 of the SAI:

J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. ("JPMIM") is located at 383 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10179. JPMIM is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co., a publicly traded corporation that is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (Ticker: JPM). JPMIM offers a wide range of investment management services and acts as investment adviser to corporate and institutional clients.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;d. The following supplements the information under the heading "Appendix B – Proxy Voting Guidelines
Summaries":

------

**<u>J.P. MORGAN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT INC.</u>**

J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (Sub-Adviser), as an investment sub-adviser to the Funds, has been granted the authority to vote the proxies of any voting securities held in each Fund's portfolio. In voting proxies, the Sub-Adviser's objective is to vote proxies in the best interests of its clients. To ensure that the proxies of portfolio companies are voted in the best interests of the Funds, the Fund's Board of Trustees has adopted the Sub-Adviser's detailed proxy voting procedures (the "Procedures") that incorporate guidelines ("Guidelines") for voting proxies on specific types of issues for the Funds.

The Sub-Adviser and its affiliated advisers ("JPMAM") are part of a global asset management organization with the capability to invest in securities of issuers located around the globe. Because the regulatory framework and the business cultures and practices vary from region to region, the Guidelines are customized for each region to take into ac count such variations. The Sub-Adviser has adopted a separate set of Guidelines that covers the regions each of (1) North America, (2) Europe, Middle East, Africa, Central America and South America ("EMEA"), (3) Asia (ex-Japan) and (4) Japan (each, a "Region"; collectively, the "Regions"). In addition, for each Region, the Sub-Adviser has adopted Sustainable Strategy Proxy Voting Guidelines ("Sustainable Proxy Guidelines") for certain sustainable strategies, which may apply to certain Funds as approved by the Board of Trustees. The Sustainable Proxy Guidelines for those sustainable strategies replace certain sections of the Guidelines for each of the Regions. Proposals for securities held in the sustainable strategies that are not covered by the Sustainable Proxy Guidelines will continue to be voted in accordance with the other provisions of the applicable Guidelines for each of the Regions.

Notwithstanding the variations among the Guidelines, all of the Guidelines have been designed with the uniform objective of encouraging corporate action that enhances shareholder value consistent with each Fund's objectives and strategies. As a general rule, in voting proxies of a particular security, the Sub-Adviser and its affiliated advisers will apply the Guidelines of the Region in which the issuer of such security is organized. Except as noted below, proxy voting decisions will be made in accordance with the Guidelines covering a multitude of both routine and non-routine matters that the Sub-Adviser and its affiliated advisers has encountered globally, based on many years of collective investment management experience.

To oversee the proxy voting process on an ongoing basis, the Sub-Adviser has established a proxy committee ("Proxy Committee") for each global location where proxy voting decisions are made. Each Proxy Committee is composed of members and invitees including a proxy administrator ("Proxy Administrator") and senior officers from among the investment, legal, compliance, and risk management departments. The primary functions of each Proxy Committee include: (1) reviewing and approving the Guidelines annually; (2) providing advice and recommendations on general proxy voting matters, including potential or material conflicts of interest escalated to it from time to time as well as on specific voting issues to be implemented by the Sub-Adviser; and (3) determining the independence of any third-party vendor to which it has delegated proxy voting responsibilities (such as, for example, delegation when the Sub-Adviser has identified a material conflict of interest) and to conclude that there are no conflicts of interest that would prevent such vendor from providing such proxy voting services prior to delegating proxy responsibilities.

The Guidelines are proprietary to the Sub-Adviser and reflect the Sub-Adviser's views on proxy voting matters as informed by its investment experience and research over many years of proxy voting. Certain guidelines are prescriptive ("Prescribed Guidelines") meaning they specify how the Sub-Adviser will vote a particular proxy proposal except where the Sub-Adviser, pursuant to its procedures, determines to vote in a manner contrary to its Prescribed Guidelines also known as an "Override". Other guidelines contemplate voting on a case-by-case basis. In addition, there will undoubtedly be proxy matters that are not contemplated by the Guidelines. Individual company facts and circumstances vary. In some cases, the Sub-Adviser may determine that, in the best interest of its clients, a particular proxy item should be voted in a manner that is not consistent with the Prescribed Guidelines. Where the Sub-Adviser chooses to vote in a manner contrary to its Prescribed Guideline or where the Proxy Administrator determines that such vote requires further escalation to certain portfolio management teams ("escalated votes"), the procedures include a review and, for certain votes, an attestation process. These processes are designed to identify actual or potential material conflicts of interest (between a Fund on the one hand, and the Fund's Sub-Adviser or an affiliate, on the other hand), ensure that relevant personnel were not in possession of material non-public information ("MNPI"), and ensure that the proxy vote is cast in the best interests of the Fund.

------

In order to maintain the integrity and independence of the Sub-Adviser's investment processes and decisions, including proxy voting decisions, and to protect the Sub-Adviser's decisions from influences that could lead to a vote other than in the Funds' best interests, JPMC (including the Sub-Adviser) has adopted policies and procedures that (i) address the handling of conflicts, (ii) establish information barriers, and (iii) restrict the use of MNPI. Material conflicts of interest are further avoided by voting in accordance with the Sub-Adviser's Prescribed Guidelines. A material conflict is deemed to exist when the proxy is for JPMorgan Chase & Co. stock or for a J.P. Morgan Fund, or when the Proxy Administrator has actual knowledge indicating that a JPMorgan affiliate is an investment banker or has rendered a fairness opinion with respect to the matter that is the subject of the proxy vote. When such conflicts are identified, the proxy will be voted by an independent third party using its own guidelines; provided, however, that the Sub-Adviser's investment professional(s) may request an exception to this process to vote against a proposal rather than referring it to an independent third party ("Exception Request") where the Proxy Administrator has actual knowledge indicating that a JPMorgan Chase affiliate is an investment banker or rendered a fairness opinion with respect to the matter that is the subject of the proxy vote. The applicable proxy committee shall review the Exception Request and shall determine whether the Sub-Adviser should vote against the proposal or whether such proxy should still be referred to an independent third party due to the potential for additional conflicts or otherwise.

Depending on the nature of the conflict, the Sub-Adviser may elect to take one or more of the following measures or other appropriate action: removing certain Sub-Adviser personnel from the proxy voting process or "walling off" personnel with knowledge of the conflict to ensure that such personnel do not influence the relevant proxy vote; voting in accordance with the applicable Prescribed Guidelines, if any, if the application of the Prescribed Guidelines would objectively result in the casting of a proxy vote in a predetermined manner, or delegating the vote to an independent third party, in which case the proxy will be voted by the independent third party in accordance with its own determination. In the event that the portion of the Fund managed by the Sub-Adviser, in the aggregate with other funds managed by JPMIM, holds more than 25% of the outstanding voting securities of an open-end registered investment company or registered unit investment trust that is not managed by JPMIM (a "Non-J.P. Morgan Fund"), the Fund will vote its respective securities in a Non-J.P. Morgan Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of such securities.

For securities held in Funds that seek to follow the investment returns of an underlying index, the Sub-Adviser may abstain from voting if it determines that casting a vote would not have a material effect on the value of the Fund's investments based on the size of the Fund's holdings, its ownership in the issuer, and/or its consideration of the importance of the proxy vote.

The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting policies of the North America Guidelines:

The Sub-Adviser considers votes on director nominees on a case-by-case basis. Votes generally will be withheld from directors who: (a) attend less than 75% of board and committee meetings without a valid excuse; (b) adopt or renew a poison pill without shareholder approval; (c) are affiliated outside directors who serve on audit, compensation or nominating committees or are affiliated outside directors and the full board serves on such committees or the company does not have such committees; (d) ignore a shareholder proposal that is approved by a majority of either the shares outstanding or the votes cast based on a review over a consecutive two year time frame; (e) are insiders and affiliated outsiders on boards that are not at least majority independent except, in the case of controlled companies, vote for non-independent directors who serve on committees other than the audit committee; or (f) are CEOs of publicly-traded companies who serve on more than two public boards (besides his or her own board) or for all other directors who serve on more than four public company boards. In addition, votes are generally withheld for directors who serve on committees in certain cases. For example, the Sub-Adviser generally withholds votes from audit committee members in circumstances in which there is evidence that there exists material weaknesses in the company's internal controls. Votes generally are also withheld from directors when there is a demonstrated history of poor performance or inadequate risk oversight or when the board adopts changes to the company's governing documents without shareholder approval if the changes materially diminish shareholder rights. Votes generally will be withheld from board chair, lead independent directors, or governance committee chairs of publicly traded companies where employees have departed for significant violation of code of conduct without claw back of compensation. In addition, the Sub-Adviser generally votes against the chair of the

------

nominating committee if one or more directors remain on the board after having received less than majority of votes cast in the prior election.

The Sub-Adviser generally votes for board declassification proposals and against board classification proposals.

The Sub-Adviser also considers management poison pill proposals on a case-by-case basis, looking for shareholder-friendly provisions before voting in favor.

The Sub-Adviser votes against proposals for a super-majority vote to approve a merger.

The Sub-Adviser considers proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan on a case-by-case basis, taking into account such factors as the extent of dilution and whether the transaction will result in a change in control.

The Sub-Adviser considers vote proposals with respect to stock-based incentive plans on a case-by-case basis. The analysis of compensation plans focuses primarily on the transfer of shareholder wealth (the dollar cost of pay plans to shareholders) and includes an analysis of the structure of the plan and pay practices of other companies in the relevant industry and peer companies.

The Sub-Adviser also considers on a case-by-case basis proposals to change an issuer's state of incorporation, mergers and acquisitions and other corporate restructuring proposals and certain social issue proposals.

The Sub-Adviser generally votes for management proposals which seek shareholder approval to make the state of incorporation the exclusive forum for disputes if the company is a Delaware corporation; otherwise, the Sub-Adviser votes on a case by case basis.

The Sub-Adviser supports board refreshment, independence, and a diverse skill set for directors as an important part of contributing to long-term shareholder value. The Sub-Adviser generally supports investee companies' consideration of equal employment opportunity and inclusiveness in their general recruitment policies as the Sub-Adviser believes such diversity contributes to the effectiveness of boards and further development of sound governance and risk oversight. The Sub-Adviser supports investee companies' disclosure of gender, racial and ethnic composition of the board so that the Sub-Adviser can include that information as one of the many data points used in its holistic assessment of the companies. As with all proxy votes, the Sub-Adviser seeks to vote in each Fund's best interests to enhance long-term shareholder value.

The Sub-Adviser will generally vote against a plan and/or withhold its vote from members of the compensation committee when there is a disconnect between the chief executive officer's pay and performance (an increase in pay and a decrease in performance). The Sub-Adviser reviews Say on Pay proposals on a case by case basis with additional review of proposals where the issuer's previous year's proposal received a low level of support.

The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting policies of **Section 12 Social and Environmental Issues** from the North America Guidelines:

The Sub-Adviser generally encourages a level of reporting on environmental matters that is not unduly costly or burdensome and which does not place the company at a competitive disadvantage, but which provides meaningful information to enable shareholders to evaluate the impact of the company's environmental policies and practices on its financial performance. In general, the Sub-Adviser supports management disclosure practices that are overall consistent with the goals and objective expressed above. Proposals with respect to companies that have been involved in controversies, fines or litigation are expected to be subject to heightened review and consideration.

------

In evaluating how to vote environmental proposals, key considerations may include, but are not limited to, issuer considerations such as asset profile of the company, including whether it is exposed to potentially declining demand for the company's products or services due to environmental considerations; cash deployments; cost structure of the company, including its position on the cost curve, expected impact of future carbon tax and exposure to high fixed operating costs; corporate behavior of the company; demonstrated capabilities of the company, its strategic planning process, and past performance; current level of disclosure of the company and consistency of disclosure across its industry; and whether the company incorporates environmental or social issues in a risk assessment or risk reporting framework. The Sub-Adviser may also consider whether adoption of the proposal would inform and educate shareholders; have companies that adopted the proposal provided insightful and meaningful information that would allow shareholders to evaluate the long-term risks and performance of the company; does the proposal require disclosure that is already addressed by existing and proposed mandated regulatory requirements or formal guidance at the local, state, or national level or the company's existing disclosure practices; and does the proposal create the potential for unintended consequences such as a competitive disadvantage.

The Sub-Adviser votes against the chair of the committee responsible for providing oversight of environmental matters and/or risk where the Sub-Adviser believes the company is lagging peers in terms of disclosure, business practices or targets. The Sub-Adviser also votes against committee members, lead independent director and/or board chair for companies that have lagged over several years.

With regard to social issues, among other factors, the Sub-Adviser considers the company's labor practices, supply chain, how the company supports and monitors those issues, what types of disclosure the company and its peers currently provide, and whether the proposal would result in a competitive disadvantage for the company.

The Sub-Adviser expects boards to provide oversight of human capital management which includes the company management of its workforce, use of full time versus part time employees, workforce cost, employee engagement and turnover, talent development, retention and training, compliance record and health and safety. As an engaged and diverse employee base is integral to a company's ability to innovate, respond to a diverse customer base and engage with diverse communities and deliver shareholder returns, the Sub-Adviser will generally support shareholder resolutions seeking the company to disclose data on workforce demographics, and release of EEO-1 or comparable data where such disclosure is deemed by the Sub-Adviser as inadequate.

**Non-U.S. Guidelines.** The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting policies of the EMEA, Asia (Ex-Japan) and Japan Guidelines (collectively, "Non-U.S. Guidelines"):

Corporate governance procedures differ among the countries. Because of time constraints and local customs, it is not always possible for the Sub-Adviser to receive and review all proxy materials in connection with each item submitted for a vote. Many proxy statements are in foreign languages. Proxy materials are generally mailed by the issuer to the sub-custodian which holds the securities for the client in the country where the portfolio company is organized, and there may not be sufficient time for such materials to be transmitted to the Sub-Adviser in time for a vote to be cast. In some countries, proxy statements are not mailed at all, and in some locations, the deadline for voting is two to four days after the initial announcement that a vote is to be solicited and it may not always be possible to obtain sufficient information to make an informed decision in good time to vote.

Certain markets require that shares being tendered for voting purposes are temporarily immobilized from trading until after the shareholder meeting has taken place. Elsewhere, notably emerging markets, it may not always be possible to obtain sufficient information to make an informed decision in good time to vote. Some markets require a local representative to be hired in order to attend the meeting and vote in person on our behalf, which can result in considerable cost. The Sub-Adviser also considers the cost of voting in light of the expected benefit of the vote. In certain instances, it may sometimes be in the Fund's best interests to intentionally refrain from voting in certain overseas markets from time to time.

------

The Non-U.S. Guidelines reflect the applicable Region's corporate governance or stewardship codes with respect to corporate governance and proxy voting. For example, JPMAM is a signatory to the UK Stewardship Code 2020 and believes that its existing stewardship policies meet the standards required under the Code. Additionally, for example, the EMEA Guidelines for UK companies are based on the revised UK Corporate Governance Code. If a portfolio company chooses to deviate from the provisions of the UK Corporate Governance Code, the Sub-Adviser takes the company's explanation into account as appropriate, based on the Sub-Adviser's overall assessment of the standards of corporate governance evidenced at the company. For Continental European markets, the Sub-Adviser expects companies to comply with local Corporate Governance Codes, where they exist. In markets where a comparable standard does not exist, the Sub-Adviser uses the EMEA Guidelines as the primary basis for voting, while taking local market practice into consideration where applicable. The Japan Guidelines reflect the 2020 revisions to the Japanese Stewardship Code. Likewise, the Asia (Ex-Japan) Guidelines endorse the stewardship principles promoted by different regulators and industry bodies in the region including the Singapore Stewardship Principles for Responsible Investors supported by Monetary Authority of Singapore and Singapore Exchange, the Principles for Responsible Ownership issued by the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong, and the Principles of Internal Governance and Asset Stewardship issued by the Financial Services Council of Australia.

Where proxy issues concern corporate governance, takeover defense measures, compensation plans, capital structure changes and so forth, the Sub-Adviser pays particular attention to management's arguments for promoting the prospective change.

The Non-U.S. Guidelines encourage transparency and disclosure with respect to remuneration reporting as well as processes and policies designed to align compensation with the long-term performance of portfolio companies.

In particular, the EMEA Guidelines indicate that the remuneration policy as it relates to senior management should ideally be presented to shareholders for approval with such votes normally occurring every third year. In addition, the EMEA Guidelines describe information that the Sub-Adviser expects to be included in remuneration reports including disclosure on amounts paid to executives, alignment between company performance and pay out to executives, disclosure of, among other things, variable incentive targets, levels of achievement and performance awards, information on the ratio of CEO pay to median employee pay.

With respect to the Japan Guidelines, the voting decision will be made taking into account matters such as recent trends in the company's earnings and performance, with the expectation that companies will have a remuneration system comprised of a reasonable mix of fixed and variable (based on short term and medium to long term incentives) compensation. Such Guidelines also support the introduction of clawback clauses in order to prevent excessive risk taking which can negatively impact shareholder value and excessive pay.

Where shareholders are able to exercise a binding vote on remuneration policies, the Asia (Ex-Japan) Guidelines reflect the Sub-Adviser's belief that such polices should stand the test of time. The Asia (Ex-Japan) Guidelines further encourage companies to provide information on the ratio of CEO pay to median employee pay and to explain the reasons for changes to the ratio as it unfolds year by year. The Asia (Ex-Japan) Guidelines also highlight information that companies should have with regard to gender pay gaps and indicate how this issue is being addressed.

The Sub-Adviser is in favor of a unitary board structure of the type found in the United Kingdom as opposed to tiered board structures. Thus, under the EMEA Guidelines, the Sub-Adviser will generally vote to encourage the gradual phasing out of tiered board structures, in favor of a unitary board structure. However, since tiered boards are still very prevalent in markets outside of the United Kingdom, the Non-U.S. Guidelines do not mandate a unitary board structure and local market practice will always be taken into account.

------

The Sub-Adviser will use its voting powers to encourage appropriate levels of board independence and diversity as an important part of contributing to long-term shareholder value, taking into account local market practice.

The EMEA Guidelines indicate that the Sub-Adviser expects boards to have a strategy to improve female representation in particular. The EMEA Guidelines generally support the target of one-third of board positions being held by women, as recommended by the UK Government's Women on Boards Report, the Davies Review and the FTSE Women Leaders Review (formerly the Hampton-Alexander Review).

The Japan Guidelines include provisions on board diversity and indicate that the Sub-Adviser believes directors with diverse backgrounds should make up a majority of a board over time. The Japan Guidelines provide that the current policy is to vote against the election of the representative directors, such as the president of the company, if there is only one or no female directors (at least 30% gender diversity before 2030).

The Asia ex Japan Guidelines reflect, as a minimum standard for all Asia ex Japan markets, that JPMAM would expect no single-gender boards and that such boards would have 25% gender diverse representation, with 30% gender diverse representation or such higher amounts as reflected by local market practice before 2030.

The Sub-Adviser will usually vote against discharging the board from responsibility in cases of pending litigation, or if there is evidence of wrongdoing for which the board must be held accountable.

The Sub-Adviser will vote in favor of increases in capital which enhance a company's long-term prospects. The Sub-Adviser will also vote in favor of the partial suspension of preemptive rights if they are for purely technical reasons (e.g., rights offers which may not be legally offered to shareholders in certain jurisdictions). However, the Sub-Adviser will vote against increases in capital which would allow the company to adopt "poison pill" takeover defense tactics, or where the increase in authorized capital would dilute shareholder value in the long term.

The Sub-Adviser will vote in favor of proposals which will enhance a company's long-term prospects. The Sub-Adviser will vote against an increase in bank borrowing powers which would result in the company reaching an unacceptable level of financial leverage, where such borrowing is expressly intended as part of a takeover defense, or where there is a material reduction in shareholder value.

The Sub-Adviser will generally vote against anti-takeover devices.

The Sub-Adviser considers social or environmental issues on a case-by-case basis under the Non-U.S. Guidelines, keeping in mind at all times the best economic interests of its clients. With respect to environmental proposals, the Non-U.S. Guidelines indicate that good corporate governance policies should consider the impact of company operations on the environment and the costs of compliance with laws and regulations relating to environmental matters, physical damage to the environment (including the costs of clean-ups and repairs), consumer preferences and capital investments related to climate change. The Non-U.S. Guidelines further encourage a level of environmental reporting that is not unduly costly or burdensome and which does not place the company at a competitive disadvantage, but which provides meaningful information to enable shareholders to evaluate the impact of the company's environmental policies and practices on its financial performance. With regard to social issues, among other factors, the Sub-Adviser considers the company's labor practices, supply chain, how the company supports and monitors those issues, what types of disclosure the company and its peers currently provide, and whether the proposal would result in a competitive disadvantage for the company.

**North America and Non-U.S. Guidelines.** The following describes certain elements that are common to the North America and Non-U.S. Guidelines:

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;● The North America and Non-U.S. Guidelines note that, in certain
markets, by-law changes have taken place to allow a company to hold virtual or hybrid general shareholder meetings and reflect that general shareholder meetings should be fair, constructive and foster dialogue
between company management and shareholders. In principle, the Sub-Adviser is supportive of proposals allowing shareholder meetings to be convened by electronic means so long as the flexibility in the format
of the meetings contributes to enhancing access to the meetings and where shareholder participation rights are protected, regardless of whether physical or virtual.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;● The North America and Non-U.S. Guidelines include climate risk
guidelines due to the Sub-Adviser's view that climate change has become a material risk to the strategy and financial performance of many companies. The Sub-Adviser may vote against directors of companies, that, in the Sub-Adviser's opinion, face material climate-related transition or asset risks, where such disclosures are not available or where the Sub-Adviser believes such disclosures are not meaningful. To provide shareholders with meaningful disclosures on how the company is addressing risks related to climate change, the Sub-Adviser encourages disclosure aligned with the reporting framework developed by the Task Force on Climate related Financial Disclosures ("TCFD"). In addition, for companies in industries where
the Sub-Adviser believes climate change risks pose material financial risks, the Sub-Adviser encourages more comprehensive reporting including scenario analysis to help
under the resilience of a company's strategy and disclosures of Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gases ("GHG") emission targets, where decarbonization of a company's operations and purchased energy has been identified by the company as a
key part of a company's strategy to manage climate change risks. In addition, for companies who have chosen to set long-term net zero targets, the Sub-Adviser encourages the company to make disclosures
including scope of emissions included in such targets in order to allow the Sub-Adviser to evaluate the long-term credibility of transition plans. The Sub-Adviser may
vote for shareholder resolutions requesting information where disclosure is unavailable or not meaningful.

**Securities Lending** 

Proxies for securities that are out on loan normally cannot be voted, as title passes to the borrower of the securities. The Sub-Adviser is not involved in a Fund's securities lending arrangements as it is not a party to a securities lending agreement involving the Fund and does not make the decision to lend a Fund's securities. As a result, to the extent that a Fund engages in securities lending, the Sub-Adviser's will not recall securities of the Fund on loan.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;e. The subsection "Investments in Each Fund" under the heading "Appendix C – Portfolio
Managers" is amended to include the following:

---

| | | |
|:---|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Name of Portfolio <br>Manager** | **Fund Name** | **Dollar Range of Investments in**<br> **Each Fund** *(as of March 31, 2025)* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ***J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. ("JPMIM")*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ***J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. ("JPMIM")*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ***J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. ("JPMIM")*** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Susan Bao | Nationwide Fund |  |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Andrew Stern | Nationwide Fund |  |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;f. The following supplements the information under subsection "Description of Compensation Structure"
under the heading "Appendix C – Portfolio Managers":

**<u>J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. ("JPMIM")</u>**

J.P. Morgan Investment Management's ("JPMIM") compensation programs are designed to align the behavior of employees with the achievement of its short- and long-term strategic goals, which revolve around client investment objectives. This is accomplished in part, through a balanced performance assessment process and total compensation program, as well as a clearly defined culture that rigorously and consistently promotes adherence to the highest ethical standards.

------

The compensation framework for JPMIM portfolio managers ("Portfolio Managers") participating in public market investing activities is based on several factors that drive alignment with client objectives, the primary of which is investment performance, alongside of the firm-wide performance dimensions. The framework focuses on Total Compensation – base salary and variable compensation. Variable compensation is in the form of cash incentives, and/or long-term incentives in the form of fund-tracking incentives (referred to as the "Mandatory Investment Plan" or "MIP") and/or equity-based JPMorgan Chase Restricted Stock Units ("RSUs") with defined vesting schedules and corresponding terms and conditions. Long-term incentive awards may comprise up to 60% of overall incentive compensation, depending on an employee's pay level.

The performance dimensions for Portfolio Managers are evaluated annually based on several factors that drive investment outcomes and value—aligned with client objectives—including, but not limited to:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;● Investment performance, generally weighted more to the long-term, with specific consideration for Portfolio Managers of investment performance relative to competitive indices or peers over one-, three-, five- and ten-year periods, or, in the case of funds designed to track the performance of a particular index, the Portfolio Managers success in tracking such index;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;● The scale and complexity of their investment responsibilities;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;● Individual contribution relative to the client's risk and return objectives;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;● Business results, as informed by investment performance; risk, controls and conduct objectives; client/customer/stakeholder objectives, teamwork and leadership objectives; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;● Adherence with JPMorgan's compliance, risk, regulatory and client fiduciary responsibilities, including, as applicable, adherence to the JPMorgan Asset Management Sustainability Risk Integration Policy, which contains relevant financially material Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance ("ESG") factors that are intended to be assessed in investment decision- making.

In addition to the above performance dimensions, the firm-wide pay-for-per performance framework is integrated into the final assessment of incentive compensation for an individual Portfolio Manager. Feedback from JPMorgan's risk and control professionals is considered in assessing performance and compensation.

Portfolio Managers are subject to a mandatory deferral of long-term incentive compensation under JPMorgan's "MIP". In general, the MIP provides for a rate of return equal to that of the particular fund(s), thereby aligning the Portfolio Manager's pay with that of the client's experience/return.

For Portfolio Managers participating in public market investing activities, 50% of their long-term incentives are subject to a mandatory deferral in the MIP, and the remaining 50% can be granted in the form of RSUs or additional participation in MIP at the election of the Portfolio Manager.

For the portion of long-term incentives subject to mandatory deferral in the MIP (50%), the incentives are allocated to the fund(s) the Portfolio Manager manages, as determined by the employee's respective manager and reviewed by senior management.

In addition, named Portfolio Managers on a sustainable fund(s) are required to allocate at least 25% of their mandatory deferral in at least one dedicated sustainable fund(s).

To hold individuals responsible for taking risks inconsistent with JPMorgan's risk appetite and to discourage future imprudent behavior, we have policies and procedures that enable us to take prompt and proportionate actions with respect to accountable individuals, including:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;● Reducing or altogether eliminating annual incentive compensation;

------

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;● Canceling unvested awards (in full or in part);

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;● Clawback/recovery of previously paid compensation (cash and / or equity);

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;● Demotion, negative performance rating or other appropriate employment actions; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;● Termination of employment.

The precise actions we take with respect to accountable individuals are based on circumstances, including the nature of their involvement, the magnitude of the event and the impact on JPMorgan.

In evaluating each Portfolio Manager's performance with respect to the accounts he or she manages, JPMorgan uses the following indices as benchmarks to evaluate the performance of the portfolio manager with respect to the accounts:

---

| |
|:---|
| **Name of Fund** |
| Nationwide Fund<br> S&P 500<sup>®</sup> Index |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;g. The subsection "Other Managed Accounts" under the heading "Appendix C – Portfolio
Managers" is amended to include the following:

---

| | |
|:---|:---|
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Name of Portfolio Manager** | **Number of Accounts Managed by Each Portfolio Manager and**<br> **Total Assets by Category**<br> *(As of March 31, 2025)* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ***J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.*** | &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ***J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.*** |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Susan Bao | Mutual Funds: 2 accounts, $2.9 billion total assets (0 accounts, $0 total assets for which the advisory fee is based on performance) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Susan Bao | Other Pooled Investment Vehicles: 5 accounts, $20.2 billion total assets (0 accounts, $0 total assets for which the advisory fee is based on performance) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Susan Bao | Other Accounts: 1,222 accounts, $2.2 billion total assets (0 accounts, $0 total assets for which the advisory fee is based on performance) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Andrew Stern | Mutual Funds: 7 accounts, $25.1 billion total assets (0 accounts, $0 total assets for which the advisory fee is based on performance) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Andrew Stern | Other Pooled Investment Vehicles: 3 accounts, $1.3 billion total assets (0 accounts, $0 total assets for which the advisory fee is based on performance) |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Andrew Stern | Other Accounts: 0 accounts, $0 total assets (0 accounts, $0 total assets for which the advisory fee is based on performance) |

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;h. The following supplements the information under subsection "Potential Conflicts of Interest" under
the heading "Appendix C – Portfolio Managers":

**<u>J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. - ("JPMIM")</u>**

J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. ("JPMIM") and/or its affiliates (the "Affiliates" or "JPMorgan") provide an array of discretionary and non-discretionary investment management services and products to institutional clients (including third-party registered investment companies ("Funds")) and individual investors. The following describes potential and actual conflicts of interest that JPMorgan can face in the operation of its investment management services. This section is not, and is not intended to be, a complete enumeration or explanation of all of the potential conflicts of interest that may arise. Additional information about potential conflicts of interest regarding JPMorgan is set forth in JPMorgan's Form ADV. A copy of Part 1 and Part 2A of JPMorgan's Form ADV is available on the SEC's website (<u>www.adviserinfo.sec.gov</u>).

------

**Acting for Multiple Clients**. The potential for conflicts of interest exists when portfolio managers manage a fund and other accounts with similar investment objectives and strategies as the fund ("Other Accounts"). Potential conflicts may include, for example, conflicts between investment strategies and conflicts in the allocation of investment opportunities. Responsibility for managing JPMIM's and its Affiliates clients' portfolios is organized according to investment strategies within asset classes. Generally, client portfolios with similar strategies are managed by portfolio managers in the same portfolio management group using the same objectives, approach and philosophy. Underlying sectors or strategy allocations within a larger portfolio are likewise managed by portfolio managers who use the same approach and philosophy as similarly managed portfolios. Therefore, portfolio holdings, relative position sizes and industry and sector exposures tend to be similar across similar portfolios and strategies, which minimize the potential for conflicts of interest.

In general, JPMIM faces conflicts of interest when it renders investment advisory services to several clients and, from time to time, provides dissimilar investment advice to different clients. For example, when Funds or Other Accounts engage in short sales of the same securities held by a Fund, JPMIM could be seen as harming the performance of a Fund for the benefit of the Other Accounts engaging in short sales, if the short sales cause the market value of the securities to fall. In addition, a conflict could arise when one or more Other Accounts invest in different instruments or classes of securities of the same issuer than those in which a Fund invests. In certain circumstances, Other Accounts have different investment objectives or could pursue or enforce rights with respect to a particular issuer in which a Fund has also invested and these activities could have an adverse effect on the Fund. For example, if a Fund holds debt instruments of an issuer and an Other Account holds equity securities of the same issuer, then if the issuer experiences financial or operational challenges, the Fund (which holds the debt instrument) may seek a liquidation of the issuer, whereas the Other Account (which holds the equity securities) may prefer a reorganization of the issuer. In addition, an issuer in which the Fund invests may use the proceeds of the Fund's investment to refinance or reorganize its capital structure which could result in repayment of debt held by JPMorgan or an Other Account. If the issuer performs poorly following such refinancing or reorganization, the Fund's results will suffer whereas the Other Account's performance will not be affected because the Other Account no longer has an investment in the issuer. Conflicts are magnified with respect to issuers that become insolvent. It is possible that in connection with an insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization, or similar proceeding, a Fund will be limited (by applicable law, courts or otherwise) in the positions or actions it will be permitted to take due to other interests held or actions or positions taken by JPMorgan or Other Accounts.

Positions taken by Other Accounts may also dilute or otherwise negatively affect the values, prices or investment strategies associated with positions held by a Fund. For example, this may occur when investment decisions for a Fund are based on research or other information that is also used to support portfolio decisions by JPMIM for Other Accounts following different investment strategies or by Affiliates in managing their clients' accounts. When an Other Account or an account managed by an Affiliate implements a portfolio decision or strategy ahead of, or contemporaneously with, similar portfolio decisions or strategies for a Fund (whether or not the portfolio decisions emanate from the same research analysis or other information), market impact, liquidity constraints, or other factors could result in the Fund receiving less favorable investment results, and the costs of implementing such portfolio decisions or strategies could be increased or the Fund could otherwise be disadvantaged.

Investment opportunities that are appropriate for a Fund may also be appropriate for Other Accounts and there is no assurance the Fund will receive an allocation of all or a portion of those investments it wishes to pursue. JPMIM's management of an Other Account that pays it a performance fee or a higher management fee and follows the same or similar strategy as a Fund or invests in substantially similar assets as a Fund, creates an incentive for JPMIM to favor the account paying it the potentially higher fee, e.g., in placing securities trades.

JPMIM and its Affiliates, and any of their directors, partners, officers, agents or employees, also buy, sell, or trade securities for their own accounts or the proprietary accounts of JPMorgan and/or an Affiliate. JPMorgan and/or an Affiliate, within their discretion, may make different investment decisions and take other actions with respect to their own proprietary accounts than those made for client accounts, including the timing or nature of such investment decisions or actions. Further, JPMorgan is not required to purchase or sell for any client account securities that it, an Affiliate or any of its employees may purchase or sell for their own

------

accounts or the proprietary accounts of JPMorgan, or an Affiliate or its clients. JPMIM, its Affiliates and their respective directors, officers and employees face a conflict of interest as they will have income or other incentives to favor their own accounts or proprietary accounts.

**Preferential Treatment.** JPMIM receives more compensation with respect to certain Funds or Other Accounts than it receives with respect to a Fund, or receives compensation based in part on the performance of certain accounts. This creates a conflict of interest for JPMIM and its portfolio managers by providing an incentive to favor those accounts. Actual or potential conflicts of interest also arise when a portfolio manager has management responsibilities to more than one account or Fund, such as devotion of unequal time and attention to the management of the Funds or accounts.

**Allocation and Aggregation.** Potential conflicts of interest also arise with both the aggregation of trade orders and allocation of securities transactions or investment opportunities. Allocations of aggregated trades, particularly trade orders that were only partially completed due to limited availability, and allocation of investment opportunities raise a potential conflict of interest because JP Morgan has an incentive to allocate trades or investment opportunities to certain accounts or Funds. For example, JPMorgan has an incentive to cause accounts it manages to participate in an offering where such participation could increase JPMorgan's overall allocation of securities in that offering. When JPMorgan serves as sub-adviser (or investment adviser) to an underlying Fund, as well as certain Funds-of-Funds, it faces certain potential conflicts of interest when allocating the assets of the sub-advised Funds-of-Fund among its underlying Funds. For example, JPMorgan has an incentive to allocate assets of the Fund-of-Funds to seed a new fund or to allocate to an underlying Fund that is small, pays higher fees to JPMorgan or to which JPMorgan has provided seed capital.

**Overall Position Limits.** Potential conflicts of interest also exist when JPMorgan maintains certain overall investment limitations on positions in securities or other financial instruments due to, among other things, investment restrictions imposed upon JPMorgan by law, regulation, contract or internal policies. These limitations have precluded and, in the future could preclude, a Fund from purchasing particular securities or financial instruments, even if the securities or financial instruments would otherwise meet the Fund's objectives. For example, there are limits on the aggregate amount of investments by affiliated investors in certain types of securities that may not be exceeded without additional regulatory or corporate consent. There also are limits on the writing of options by a Fund that could be triggered based on the number of options written by JPMIM on behalf of other investment advisory clients. If certain aggregate ownership thresholds are reached or certain transactions are undertaken, the ability of a Fund to purchase or dispose of investments, or exercise rights or undertake business transactions, will be restricted.

The goal of JPMIM and its Affiliates is to meet its fiduciary obligation with respect to all clients. JPMIM and its Affiliates have policies and procedures that seek to manage conflicts. JPMIM and its Affiliates monitor a variety of areas, including compliance with fund guidelines, review of allocation decisions and compliance with JP Morgan's Codes of Ethics and JPMC's Code of Conduct. With respect to the allocation of investment opportunities, JPMIM and its Affiliates also have certain policies designed to achieve fair and equitable allocation of investment opportunities among its clients over time. For example:

Orders received in the same security and within a reasonable time period from a market event (e.g., a change in a security rating) are continuously aggregated on the appropriate trading desk so that new orders are aggregated with current outstanding orders, consistent with JPMIM's duty of best execution for its clients. However, there are circumstances when it may be appropriate to execute the second order differently due to other constraints or investment objectives. Such exceptions often depend on the asset class. Examples of these exceptions, particularly in the fixed-income area, are sales to meet redemption deadlines or orders related to less liquid assets.

If aggregated trades are fully executed, accounts participating in the trade will typically be allocated their pro rata share on an average price basis. Partially filled orders generally will be allocated among the participating accounts on a pro-rata average price basis, subject to certain limited exceptions. Use of average price for execution of aggregated trade orders is particularly true in the equity area. However, certain investment strategies, such as the use of derivatives, or asset classes, such as fixed-income that use individual trade executions due to the nature of the strategy or supply of the security, may not be subject to average execution

------

price policy and would receive the actual execution price of the transaction. Additionally, some accounts may be excluded from pro rata allocations. Accounts that would receive a de minimis allocation relative to their size may be excluded from the order. Another exception may occur when thin markets or price volatility require that an aggregated order be completed in multiple executions over several days. Deviations from pro rata allocations are documented by the business. JPMorgan attempts to mitigate any potential unfairness by basing non-pro-rata allocations traded through a single trading desk or system upon an objective predetermined criteria for the selection of investments and a disciplined process for allocating securities with similar duration, credit quality and liquidity in the good faith judgment of JPMIM so that fair and equitable allocation will occur over time.

Purchases of money market instruments and fixed income securities cannot always be allocated pro-rata across the accounts with the same investment strategy and objective. However, JPMIM and its Affiliates attempt to mitigate any potential unfairness by basing non-pro rata allocations traded through a single trading desk or system upon objective predetermined criteria for the selection of investments and a disciplined process for allocating securities with similar duration, credit quality and liquidity in the good faith judgment of JPMIM or its affiliates so that fair and equitable allocation will occur over time.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Shareholders of the Fund will receive an Information Statement in the near future, as required under the
Trust's Manager of Managers Exemptive Order, with more detailed information about JPMIM.

**PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE**