Table of Contents

Annual Report

iMGP Equity Fund (FKA PartnerSelect Equity Fund)

iMGP International Fund (FKA PartnerSelect International Fund)

iMGP Oldfield International Value Fund (FKA PartnerSelect Oldfield International Value Fund)

iMGP SBH Focused Small Value Fund (FKA PartnerSelect SBH Focused Small Value Fund)

iMGP Alternative Strategies Fund (FKA PartnerSelect Alternative Strategies Fund)

iMGP High Income Alternatives Fund (FKA PartnerSelect High Income Alternatives Fund)

iMGP Dolan McEniry Corporate Bond Fund (FKA iM Dolan McEniry Corporate Bond Fund

iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (FKA iM DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF)

iMGP DBi Hedge Strategy ETF (FKA iM DBi Hedge Strategy ETF)

December 31, 2021

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Contents

This report is intended for shareholders of the funds and may not be used as sales literature unless preceded or accompanied by a current prospectus for the iMGP Funds. Statements and other information in this report are dated and are subject to change.

iM Global Partner Fund Management, LLC has ultimate responsibility for the funds’ performance due to its responsibility to oversee its investment managers and recommend their hiring, termination and replacement.

Table of Contents

iM Global Partner Fund Management

Commitment to Shareholders

We are deeply committed to making each iMGP Fund a highly satisfying long-term investment for shareholders. In following through on this commitment we are guided by our core values, which influence four specific areas of service:

First, we are committed to the IMGP concept.

Second, we will do all we can to ensure that the framework within which our stock pickers do their work further increases the odds of success.

Third, is our commitment to do all we can from an operational standpoint to maximize shareholder returns.

Fourth, is our commitment to communicate honestly about all relevant developments and expectations.

Our commitment to iMGP Funds is also evidenced by our own investment. Our retired founders and current employees have, collectively, substantial investments in the funds, as does our company retirement plan. In addition, we use the funds extensively in the client accounts of our investment advisor practice (through our affiliate Litman Gregory Wealth Management, LLC). We have no financial incentive to do so because the fees we receive from iMGPFunds held in client accounts are fully offset against the advisory fees paid by our clients. In fact, we have a disincentive to use the funds in our client accounts because each iMGP Fund is capacity constrained (they may be closed as mentioned above), and by using them in client accounts we are using up capacity for which we may not be paid. But we believe these funds offer value that we can’t get elsewhere and this is why we enthusiastically invest in them ourselves and on behalf of clients.

While we believe highly in the ability of the Funds’ sub-advisors, our commitments are not intended as guarantees of future results.

While the funds are no-load, there are management fees and operating expenses that do apply, as well as a 12b-1 fee that applies to Investor class shares. Please refer to the prospectus for further details.

Diversification does not assure a profit or protect against loss in a declining market.

Must be preceded or accompanied by a prospectus.

Table of Contents

Must be preceded or accompanied by a prospectus.

Effective December 16, 2021 the name of the PartnerSelect Funds was changed to iMGP Funds.

Effective October 1, 2021 the name of the Advisor to the Funds was changed from Litman Gregory Fund Advisors LLC to iM Global Partner Fund Management LLC.

On September 20, 2021 the iM Dolan McEniry Corporate Bond Fund, iM DBI Managed Future Strategy ETF and iMDBI Hedge Strategy EFT were acquired by the Litman Gregory Funds Trust by merger. Performance reported for each of these funds for periods prior to the merger date represents the performance of the Predecessor Funds.

Each of the funds may invest in foreign securities. Investing in foreign securities exposes investors to economic, political, and market risks and fluctuations in foreign currencies. Each of the funds may invest in the securities of small companies. Small-company investing subjects investors to additional risks, including security price volatility and less liquidity than investing in larger companies. Debt obligations of distressed companies typically are unrated, lower rated, in default or close to default and may become worthless. The International Fund will invest in emerging markets. Investments in emerging market countries involve additional risks such as government dependence on a few industries or resources, government-imposed taxes on foreign investment or limits on the removal of capital from a country, unstable government, and volatile markets. Investments in debt securities typically decrease when interest rates rise. This risk is usually greater for longer-term debt securities. Investments in mortgage-backed securities include additional risks that investor should be aware of including credit risk, prepayment risk, possible illiquidity, and default, as well as increased susceptibility to adverse economic developments. Investments in lower-rated and non-rated securities present a greater risk of loss to principal and interest than higher-rated securities. The funds may invest in master limited partnership units. Investing in MLP units may expose investors to additional liability and tax risks. Derivatives may involve certain costs and risks such as liquidity, interest rate, market, credit, management, and the risk that a position could not be closed when most advantageous. Investing in derivatives could lose more than the amount invested. The funds may make short sales of securities, which involves the risk that losses may exceed the original amount invested.

A commission may apply when buying or selling an ETF.

The Morningstar Rating for funds, or “star rating”, is calculated for managed products (including mutual funds, variable annuity and variable life subaccounts, exchange-traded funds, closed end funds, and separate accounts) with at least a three-year history. Exchange-traded funds and open ended mutual funds are considered a single population for comparative purposes. It is calculated based on a Morningstar Risk-Adjusted Return measure that accounts for variation in a managed products monthly excess performance, placing more emphasis on downward variations and rewarding consistent performance. The top 10% of products in each product category receive 5 stars, the next 22.5% receive 4 stars, the next 35% receive 3 stars the next 22.5% receive 2 stars, and the bottom 10% receive 1 star. The Overall Morningstar Rating for a managed product is derived from a weighted average of the performance figures associated with its three-, five, and 10-year (if applicable) Morningstar Rating metrics. The weights are 100% three-year rating for 36-59 months of total returns, 60% five-year rating/40% three-year rating for 60-119 months of total returns, and 50% 10-year rating/30% five-year rating/20% three-year rating for 120 or more months of total returns. While the 10 year overall rating formula seems to give the most weight to the 10-year period, the most recent three-year period actually has the greatest impact because it is included in all three rating periods. iMGP Alternative Strategies Fund was rated against the following numbers of Multistrategy funds over the following time periods as of 6/30/2021: 128 funds in the last three years, and 101 funds in the last five years. With respect to these Multistrategy funds, iMGP Alternative Strategies (MASFX) received a Morningstar Rating of 4 stars and 4 stars for the three- and five-year periods, respectively. Ratings for other share classes may be different. Morningstar rating is for the Institutional share class only; other classes may have different performance characteristics. The Investor share class received a rating of 3 stars and 4 stars for the three- and five-year periods, respectively.

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein: (1) is proprietary to Morningstar; (2) may not be copied or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor its content providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

The iMGP International Fund uses the iShares MSCI AWCI ex U.S. ETF for weightings comparisons because of its readily available information. We believe this particular ETF is the most relevant to our fund and is widely recognized by investors. The iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF seeks to track the investment results of an index composed of large- and mid-capitalization non-U.S. equities Its expenses are 0.34% gross and 0.32% net. It may invest up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its assets in illiquid investments. An investment in the ETF is not a bank deposit and it is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency, BFA or any of its affiliates. As with any investment, you could lose all or part of your investment in the ETF and the ETF’s performance could trail that of other investments. The ETF intends to make distributions that may be taxable to you as ordinary income or capital gains, unless you are investing through a tax-deferred arrangement such as a 401(k) plan or an IRA, in which case, your distributions generally will be taxed when withdrawn.

Merger arbitrage investments risk loss if a proposed reorganization in which the fund invests is renegotiated or terminated.

Investments in absolute return strategies are not untended to outperform stocks and bonds during strong market rallies.

Table of Contents

Multi-investment management styles may lead to higher transaction expenses compared to single investment management styles. Outcomes depend on the skill of the sub-advisors and advisor and the allocation of assets amongst them.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Mutual fund investing involves risk; loss of principal is possible.

Performance discussion for the Alternative Strategies and Dolan McEniry Corporate Bond Funds is specifically related to the Institutional share class.

Some of the comments are based on current management expectation and are considered “forward-looking statements”. Actual future results, however, may prove to be different from our expectations. You can identify forward-looking statement by words such as “estimate”, “may”, “expect”, “should”, “could”, “believe”, “plan”, and similar terms. We cannot promise future returns and our opinions are a reflection of our best judgment at the time this report is compiled.

Opinions expressed are subject to change, are not guaranteed and should not be considered recommendations to buy or sell any security.

Sharpe ratio is the measure of a fund’s return relative to its risk. The Sharpe ratio uses standard deviation to measure a fund’s risk-adjusted returns. The higher a fund’s Sharpe ratio, the better a fund’s returns have been relative to the risk it has taken on. Because it uses standard deviation, the Sharpe ratio can be used to compare risk-adjusted returns across all fund categories. The Fund’s Sharpe ratio ranked 1 out of 38 in its Peer Group, US OE Mulitstrategy Morningstar Category from 10/1/2011 to 12/31/2021. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

See pages 11, 17, and 26 for each equity fund’s top contributors. See pages 12, 19, 28, and 32 for each equity fund’s portfolio composition. See pages 45 for the Alternative Strategies Fund’s individual strategy portfolio allocations. See pages 92 for the High Income Alternative Fund’s individual strategy portfolio allocations. Fund holdings and/or sector allocations are subject to change at any time and are not recommendations to buy or sell any security.

Diversification does not assure a profit or protect against a loss in a declining market.

Leverage may cause the effect of an increase or decrease in the value of the portfolio securities to be magnified and the fund to be more volatile than if leverage was not used.

References to other mutual funds should not be interpreted as an offer of these securities.

iM Global Partner Fund Management LLC has ultimate responsibility for the performance of the iMGPFunds due to its responsibility to oversee the investment managers and recommend their hiring, termination and replacement.

Any tax or legal information provided is merely a summary of our understanding and interpretation of some of the current income tax regulations and it is not exhaustive. Investors must consult their tax advisor or legal counsel for advice and information concerning their particular situation. Neither the Funds nor any of their representatives may give legal or tax advice.

Please see page 190 for index definitions. You cannot invest directly in an index.

Please see page 193 for industry definitions.

Table of Contents

iM Global Funds Performance

Table of Contents

iM Global Funds Performance

Performance quoted represents past performance and does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance of the funds may be lower or higher than the performance quoted. To obtain standardized performance of the funds, and performance as of the most recently completed calendar month, please visit www.imgpfunds.com.

The iMGP DBI Hedge Strategy ETF, iMGP DBI Managed Futures ETF and iMGP Dolan McEniry Corporate Bond Fund were acquired by merger on 9/20/21. Performance for periods prior to the merger date represents the performance of the Predecessor Funds.

Performance quoted does not include a deduction for taxes that a shareholder would pay on distributions or the redemption of fund shares.

Gross and net expenses per the Prospectus dated 4/29/2021 as supplemented on 9/20/21. Please refer to the Financial Highlights section beginning on page 135 for the most current expense ratios of the funds. There are contractual fee waivers in effect through 4/30/23. Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested in directly.

MSCI Index returns source: MSCI. Neither MSCI nor any other party involved in or related to compiling, computing or creating the MSCI data makes any express or implied warranties or representations with respect to suc data( or the results to be obtained by the use thereof), and all such parties hereby expressly disclaim all warranties or originality, accuracy, completeness, merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose with respect to any of such data. Without limiting any of the foregoing, in no event shall MSCI, ani of its affiliates, or any third party involved in or related to compiling, computing or creating the data have any liability for any direct, indirect, special, punitive, consequential or any other damage (including lost profits) even if notified of the possibility of such damages. No further distribution or dissemination of the MSCI data is permitted without MSCI;s express written consent. Source note: Returns prior to 1999 are the MSIC ACQI EX US GR Index. Returns from onward are the MSCI ACQI ex US NR Index.

Table of Contents

Dear Fellow Shareholder,

It was another remarkable year for the S&P 500 Index. Not only did the index of large-cap U.S. stocks return a stunning 28.7%, nearly triple its long-term historical average, but for only the second time in market history the index reached a new high in each and every month.

The S&P 500 also dominated U.S. small-cap stocks (Russell 2000 Index, up 14.8%), developed international stocks (MSCI EAFE Index, up 11.3%), and emerging-market (EM) stocks (MSCI EM Index, down 2.5%) for the year. Much of this outperformance occurred in the fourth quarter, with the S&P 500 gaining 11.0%, compared to 2.1%, 2.7%, and -1.3% for small caps, developed international stocks, and EM stocks, respectively.

A strong dollar, the renewed surge in COVID-19 infections late in the year (particularly in Europe and emerging markets) and China’s policy-induced economic slowdown and stock market decline drove the disparity of returns. The MSCI China Index sank 21.7% for the year and lost 6.1% in the fourth quarter. Chinese stocks comprise roughly 35% of the MSCI EM Index. The MSCI EM ex-China Index gained 10.0% for the year.

Looking beneath the surface of the U.S. market, the large-cap Russell 1000 Value and Growth indexes both returned over 25% in 2021, but the strong rally in growth stocks in the second half of the year gave it a slight edge over value once again for the year. However, two of the three top-performing sectors were cyclical value sectors: energy (up 54.6%) and financials (up 35.0%). The other top-performing sectors were real estate (up 46.2%) and information technology (up 34.5%). The worst-performing sectors were traditional “defensive” sectors: utilities (up 17.7%) and consumer staples (up 18.6%).

Turning to the bond markets, the core bond index (Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index) lost 1.5% for the year, as interest rates rose moderately. The benchmark 10-year Treasury bond yield ended the year at 1.51%, compared to a 0.92% yield at the end of 2020. Given the very sharp rise in inflation, most pundits would not likely have predicted such a mild increase in bond yields.

Credit markets fared much better than core bonds in 2021. The U.S. high-yield bond index returned 5.4% (ICE BofA ML High Yield Cash Pay Index) and the floating-rate loan index gained 5.2% (S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan Index). These returns were consistent with our expectations for a recovering and growing economy.

The iMGP Funds posted the following results for 2021:

We strongly encourage shareholders to read the individual fund annual reports enclosed for additional performance details and portfolio commentary.

We believe the iMGP Funds can fill a valuable role within a diversified investment portfolio. Each of the Funds is sub-advised by highly disciplined, experienced, and skilled investors who we believe can outperform their benchmarks and peer groups over a market cycle.

As always, we thank you for your continued trust and confidence. Our commitment and confidence are reflected in the collective personal investments in the funds by iMGP management, employees, and the Funds’ trustees of over $15 million, as of December 31, 2021.

We wish everyone a healthy, happy, and prosperous new year.

Table of Contents

Sincerely,

Jeremy DeGroot, President and Portfolio Manager

Jack Chee, Portfolio Manager

Rajat Jain, Portfolio Manager

Jason Steuerwalt, Portfolio Manager

Table of Contents

iMGP Equity Fund Review

The iMGP Equity Fund returned 17.75% in 2021, underperforming the Russell 3000 Index gain of 25.66% return and the 25.27% return for the Morningstar Large Blend category. The Fund also underperformed the S&P 500 index, which was up 28.71% last year. Since the fund’s inception on December 31, 1996, its 9.11% annualized return slightly trails the Russell benchmark but is ahead of its peer group’s 8.20% return.

Performance of Managers

Performance across the sub-advisors was mixed in 2021—ranging from gains of 7.84% to 30.81% (net of sub-advisor management fees). Two of the six managers outperformed their respective benchmarks during the full calendar year. After a strong 2020, the fund’s sole growth manager, Sands Capital, trailed their growth benchmark by a wide margin last year. On the value side, of the three sub-advisors benchmarked to a value index only one outperformed in 2021. Performance of the two blend managers was mixed relative to their S&P 500 benchmark—with one outperforming and the other trailing.

Key Performance Drivers

For the 2021 calendar-year period, relative to the Russell 3000 Index, sector allocation was a mild detractor. The fund’s underweight to technology stocks detracted from relative performance, as did the fund’s average cash position of nearly 4% given the strong market return in 2021.

Stock selection was by far the primary driver of underperformance, and it mainly came from securities within the consumer discretionary and technology sectors. Stock selection within the communication services and industrials sectors were bright spots.

It is important to understand that the portfolio is built stock by stock and that sector weightings are a residual of the bottom-up fundamental stock-picking process employed by each sub-advisor. That said, we do report on the short-term relative performance of both sector weights and stock selection to help shareholders understand the drivers of recent performance. It is also important to remember that the performance of a stock over a relatively short period tells us nothing about whether it will be a successful position; that is only known at the point when the stock is sold.

The fund’s largest contributor in 2021 was Capital One Financial. The stock is owned by both the team from Davis Advisors and Bill Nygren of Harris Associates. The stock gained nearly 50% last year and is the fund’s second largest position (4.2%.) Chris Davis and Danton Goei of Davis Advisors say within financial services they continue to emphasize resiliency and strength of bottom-line fundamentals in their financial holdings. These businesses, comprised primarily of well-capitalized banks (in the U.S. and in select foreign jurisdictions), have durable economics according to their research and analysis in terms of current demonstrated earnings power, margin structures, and forward-looking prospects. The absolute level of revenues and profits generated by such companies are in fact so large that most of the major financial holdings they own produce enough annual operating income to, in theory, purchase entire businesses among hundreds of choices within the S&P 500 Index using just a year’s cash earnings without dipping into capital. This is theoretical as financial companies would not be in the business of buying healthcare or technology companies, for example, but Davis and Goei point out these facts to illustrate the sheer scale of the economics produced by single financial companies in a given year which is often a multiple of the cash earnings produced by companies in a host of other industries. Given this cash generation power, they are naturally drawn to what they believe are strong and profitable financial institutions when the price is right. Capital One Financial is an example. It is trading at 7x trailing earnings, and even if one assumes meaningfully higher credit losses in the future, it is still only trading at 9x 2023 earnings. Presently, Davis and Goei believe the valuations of their financial holdings are not only reasonable but extremely compelling and their portfolio composition reflects this view.

Table of Contents

Another key contributor in 2021 within the financials sector was Charles Schwab. This position is owned by Pat English and Jonathan Bloom of Fiduciary Management (FMI). Their initial thesis on Schwab was that the revenue mix shifting toward cash monetization would cause the business to be less cyclical while also driving lower competitive intensity. The team’s conviction in the thesis has only increased over the last year as rates have been volatile while Schwab’s cash balances continued to grow, driving growth in net interest revenue despite declining rates. At this point, Schwab has worked their way through much of the COVID-driven rate declines and it is their expectation that net interest margins are near trough levels. Organic net new asset growth remains strong as the company continues to take market share from competitors and executes well on the TD Ameritrade integration. This, combined with the prospect of inflation and higher rates, has helped investor sentiment and out-year earnings prospects. As such, the shares performed well during the year and FMI took advantage by modestly trimming the position in November. Even after the strong performance, English and Bloom still believe the shares are reasonably valued, well within the historical range despite what they believe will be accelerating earnings growth over the coming years.

With a gain of 73% in 2021, CBRE Group was also among the top contributors. This position is owned by Nygren. His team’s research indicates that CBRE is one of the most highly regarded brands in the commercial real estate industry and possesses meaningful scale advantages with top market positions across most of its business units. The company’s market share is expanding in almost all business segments, particularly in leasing services, and as the overall commercial real estate market remains fragmented, they think CBRE has ample opportunities to build market share going forward. CBRE delivered strong fourth-quarter earnings results in February 2021, highlighted by earnings per share ($1.45 vs. $0.94) that handily bested consensus expectations and increased 8% year-over-year, despite the decline in commercial real estate activity. An approximately 30% increase in earnings in outsourcing drove the earnings per share beat as modest revenue growth was bolstered by significant cost reductions. In addition, full-year earnings per share of $3.27 was down just 12% from the 2019 peak, pointing to the stability of the outsourcing business, in their estimation. Later, CBRE released an impressive earnings report for its second quarter, which excited investors and led to share price advancement throughout the quarter. The company’s adjusted earnings per share surpassed consensus expectations ($1.36 versus $0.78). Further, management increased guidance for 2021 full-year earnings per share from more than $3.71 to more than $5.00. In October, CBRE delivered a strong third-quarter earnings report. Revenues in property sales and leasing brokerage now exceed 2019 levels by 27% and 7%, respectively, as the company continues to gain market share in both segments. CBRE is also benefitting from the structural cost reductions it made over the past two years, with margins over 200 basis points above 2019 levels in most segments (one basis point equals one hundredth of one percent). All of the above resulted in third-quarter earnings per share beating consensus expectations. In December, shareholders of CBRE Acquisition Holdings, a special purpose acquisition company and subsidiary of CBRE Group, voted to approve a previously announced business combination with Altus Power, Inc. The Harris team appreciates the impressive operational execution and capital allocation shown by CBRE’s management in recent years and remain confident in the investment.

Atlassian, a leading software-application vendor that creates tools to enhance team productivity, was a bright spot within the technology sector. The position, owned by Mike Sramek of Sands Capital, gained 63% last year. The company is best known for its Jira tool, which enables developers to plan, track, and release software. Jira is specifically designed for a software-development method known as agile development, which involves frequent small deployments of code updates. Among its developer user base, Atlassian employs a “land and expand” cross-selling approach, in which most Jira users adopt additional tools aimed at both specific tasks and general team collaboration. All cross-selling is automated and built into the products, which not only reduces friction, but improves the company’s margin profile. Moreover, Atlassian offers transparent and low pricing, despite its position as a mission-critical application for its users. For this reason, Sramek believes Atlassian has strong long-term pricing power. Beyond software development, expansion potential for broader business use cases is the primary upside driver to their investment case. The company delivered strong business results last year. For the first quarter of its fiscal 2022 (ending September 30, 2021), Atlassian reported 57% year-over-year subscription revenue growth, reflecting a 14 percentage point growth acceleration over the past six months. Sands has long been confident that the business’s transition to a cloud-based offering would accelerate subscription revenue this year, but underestimated its impact on its new business pipeline. Atlassian is adding new customers faster than ever before (28,000 customers added in the past two quarters, versus 18,000 in all of fiscal 2020), while continuing to expand its product portfolio, giving these new customers more ways to spend. Sands believes the cloud transition will underpin above-average growth for many years, and for its fiscal 2027, they estimate the company to grow revenue in excess of 30% at a 40% free cash flow margin.

Two notable detractors in 2021 were positions in Chinese companies, Alibaba and New Oriental Education & Technology. Both were owned by the team at Davis Advisors. In early July, the Chinese government declared that elementary and middle school after-school tutoring services must be performed on a non-for-profit basis, significantly impairing the earnings power of New Oriental Education. The new policy led Davis and Goei to reassess the future of the for-profit education industry in China and they exited the position. While regulatory concerns in China have led to near-term market declines, they believe it has created a large investment opportunity. The MSCI China Index is at approximately a 40% discount to the S&P 500 Index on a price-to-earnings (P/E) basis, and Chinese holdings in the Davis sleeve, which also include Tencent Holdings and JD.com, are trading at extremely attractive valuations. Alibaba, the leader in both e-commerce and cloud computing, is trading at 14.5x 2022 normalized earnings, while the trailing three-year revenue CAGR is 42%, and over the next three years, expectations are for 30% revenue growth. As concerns of future China regulatory actions abate, Davis and Goei believe the market will refocus on the fundamentals, which for their portfolio holdings are very promising.

A fall of nearly 30% last year resulted in Koninklijke Philips being among the top detractors. The company, owned by English and Bloom, is a top-10 global MedTech company with a strong position in diagnostic imaging, patient monitoring, respiratory care, and personal health.

Table of Contents

In normal times, the business should be able to grow the top line in the mid-single-digits, with potential to drive several hundred basis points of margin improvement. However, a €500 million sleep device product recall (to be completed by Fall 2022) has weighed heavily on the stock. In limited circumstances, including when unapproved ozone cleaning is used, a sound abatement foam component may degrade. This foam is being extensively tested for potential harmful effects (including carcinogens). Relatedly, Philips Respironics’ facility in Pennsylvania has received a Form 483 letter from the FDA with several “observations” that need to be addressed. They believe the €13 billion hit to the market cap far exceeds virtually all worst-case fundamental scenarios. Sleep system hardware accounts for only ~7% of the company’s sales. Prior to the recall, the stock had been trading at a sizeable discount to MedTech peers, despite having a good chance of growing earnings faster than the sector. The gap has widened dramatically, creating an attractive setup for those who are willing to see through this bump in the road. English and Bloom added to the position over the course of the year.

Smith & Nephew is another healthcare company that was among the larger detractors last year. Scott Moore and Chad Baumler of Nuance Investments say this company is a leading manufacturer of advanced medical devices and a long-time Nuance holding. The company holds leading market-share positions in sports medicine, advanced wound care, knee replacement, hip replacement, and trauma devices. Moore and Baumler view these as advantaged product categories, with high barriers to entry and a customer base that values quality and innovation, and believe the company is well positioned to maintain or gain market share across most of these categories. During 2020, Smith & Nephew experienced a significant decline in revenues and profits as the COVID-19 pandemic led to the postponement of elective procedures. As of this writing, procedure volumes have partially recovered but remain below normal levels as ensuing COVID-19 variants have caused further disruption to surgical capacity amid widespread care provider labor shortages. This protracted return to normal earnings power has also contributed to the underperformance in the stock, but the co-managers continue to believe the decline is transitory and that procedure volumes are likely to revert back toward normal during the next several years. Specifically, Wall Street analysts expect the company to earn approximately $1.75 per share for 2021, well below the Nuance team’s estimate of $2.70-2.80 in normalized, mid-cycle earnings per share. As of December 31, 2021, the stock is trading at roughly 12-13x their internal view of normal earnings (mid-cycle). Moore and Baumler believe the company maintains a solid balance sheet at approximately 1.2x net debt to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, and rent expense (EBITDAR), which has allowed the company to navigate this trough earnings period, while continuing to invest internally and pursue tuck-in acquisitions. Trading at less than 13x their view of normal earnings on December 31, 2021, Smith & Nephew offers what Moore and Baumler consider a compelling risk/reward opportunity versus other stocks in the sector. They added to their position on the relative underperformance.

Table of Contents

Portfolio Mix

The Equity Fund is the result of six bottom-up stock pickers with diverse investment approaches each tasked with building highly concentrated portfolios. Therefore, the portfolio often looks quite different from its benchmark. It is common for the fund to have meaningful sector over- and/or underweights. At year-end, the fund was more than ten-percentage points overweight to the financials sector (21.7% vs. 11.3%) and had a twelve-percentage point underweight to the information technology sector (16.3% vs. 28.3%). The fund’s current sector over/under-weights are similar what they were at the start of 2021.

Over the year, the fund’s allocation to the financials sector decreased by over two percentage points. The selling of positions within the insurance industry was the main driver behind this small decrease in financials exposure. Capital One, Berkshire Hathaway, and Wells Fargo are among the larger positions within this sector. Two different sub-advisors own both Capital One and Berkshire Hathaway. Wells Fargo is owned by the team at Davis Advisors.

Over the course of the year, the fund’s market-cap exposure increased modestly. Mid- and smaller-cap companies account for about 23% of the portfolio (down from 30% at the end of 2020). Large-cap stocks make up roughly 77% of the portfolio. The fund’s weighted-average market cap increased from $260.3 billion at the end of 2020 to $303.9 billion at the end of 2021. Foreign holdings decreased over the course of the year—going from roughly 20% at the start of the year to 15% at year-end. This is still a meaningful overweight relative to the fund’s Russell 3000 Index and reflects the managers’ broad and flexible mandate to select their highest-conviction ideas, while focusing primarily but not exclusively on domestic issuers.

By Market Capitalization		By Domicile
Micro-Cap Less Than 1 Billion
Small Cap 1 Billion to 5.0 Billion Small-Mid Cap 5.0 Billion to 12.0 Billlion Mid-Cap 12.0 Billion to 35.5 Billion Large Cap 35.5 Billion to 974.2 Billion

Table of Contents

iMGP Equity Fund Managers

Equity Fund Value of Hypothetical $10,000

The value of a hypothetical $10,000 investment in the iMGP Equity Fund from December 31, 1996 to December 31, 2021 compared with the Russell 3000 Index and Morningstar Large Blend Category.

The hypothetical $10,000 investment at fund inception includes changes due to share price and reinvestment of dividends and capital gains. The chart does not imply future performance. Indexes are unmanaged, do not incur fees, expenses or taxes, and cannot be invested in directly.

Performance quoted does not include a deduction for taxes that a shareholder would pay on the redemption of fund shares.

Table of Contents

iMGP Equity Fund (formerly PartnerSelect Equity Fund)

SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS IN SECURITIES at December 31, 2021

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

Table of Contents

iMGP Equity Fund (formerly PartnerSelect Equity Fund)

SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS IN SECURITIES at December 31, 2021 (Continued)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

Table of Contents

iMGP International Fund Review

For the calendar year 2021, iMGP International Fund gained 11.75%, outperforming the MSCI ACWI ex US NET (+7.82%) and MSCI EAFE NET (+11.26%) indexes and its Morningstar Foreign Blend peer group (+9.78%). Since its inception on December 1, 1997 the fund has generated a 7.18% annualized return, versus 5.69% for the ACWI index, 5.39% for EAFE, and 4.63% for its Morningstar peer group.

MSCI index returns source: MSCI. Neither MSCI nor any other party involved in or related to compiling, computing, or creating the MSCI data makes any express or implied warranties or representations with respect to such data (or the results to be obtained by the use thereof), and all such parties hereby expressly disclaim all warranties of originality, accuracy, completeness, merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose with respect to any of such data. Without limiting any of the foregoing, in no event shall MSCI, any of its affiliates, or any third party involved in or related to compiling, computing, or creating the data have any liability for any direct, indirect, special, punitive, consequential, or any other damages (including lost profits) even if notified of the possibility of such damages. No further distribution or dissemination of the MSCI data is permitted without MSCI’s express written consent. Source note: Returns prior to 1999 are the MSCI ACWI ex-US GR index. Returns from 1999 onwards are MSCI ACWI ex-US NR index.

Performance of Managers

Of the three managers in the fund, two were subadvisors for the full calendar year. One of these two managers outperformed its benchmark by a significant margin, 1173 basis points (net of their fee), while the other manager lagged by 938 basis points (one basis point equals one hundredth of one percent). The underperformance of the second manager stems in good part from their portfolio being underweight energy and overweight cyclical stocks geared towards a post-pandemic recovery. With the Delta and Omicron variants surging last year, the latter group of stocks have continued to lag.

The third manager, Polen Capital, was added to the fund on September 30, 2021. For the fourth quarter they were ahead of their benchmark by 354 basis points.

Key Performance Drivers

Below we discuss some of the key drivers of both absolute and relative performance. It is important to understand that the portfolio’s sector and country weightings are a residual of the bottom-up, fundamental stock-picking process employed by each sub-advisor. That said, we do report on the relative performance contributions from stock selection, as well as sector and region weightings, to help shareholders better understand drivers of performance.

In 2021, stock selection was the primary driver of the fund’s outperformance versus the MSCI ACWI ex US index NET. We will discuss some of the leading contributors and detractors in greater detail later in the report.

Sector allocation was a negative contributor to relative performance: The fund’s underweight to energy (up roughly 30%), the best-performing sector after financials, and an overweight to communication services (down 6.8%) were the main drivers. The fund’s stock selection in both sectors, however, was strong and helped offset the broad sectoral headwinds.

From a regional perspective, the fund’s long-time overweight to Europe bore fruit as the region delivered strong absolute performance despite the pandemic-related headwinds. Japan, which the fund was on average underweight, was a laggard so that also helped performance. Last year we shared our optimism on Europe. The pandemic has spurred Europe into action. It is finally showing signs of some fiscal coordination and support necessary for growth and innovation across the European Union, such as in renewable energy.

Table of Contents

Discussion of Contributors and Detractors

Contributors

Daimler, the German auto company, saw its share price rise early in the year on the announcement it would spin off a majority stake in Daimler Truck. In portfolio manager David Herro’s view, this is momentous news and represents a fundamental change for the company as it will become a purely premium car company and separately a company that is the global leader in trucks and buses. In addition, Daimler released full-year 2020 results that were well above Herro and team’s forecasts. Notably, adjusted earnings improved dramatically and were 100% higher than their full-year estimates. Herro believes management’s recent efforts have materially improved the company’s overall cost structure. In addition, Daimler is investing heavily in future automotive technologies, which he thinks will provide significant advantages for some time to come.

Glencore, another Herro holding, was among the top ten contributors to performance. Herro says the company management is smart, competitive, and laser-focused on improving asset turns and profitability. For example, the company is exiting assets that require a lot of management’s time, are in high-risk jurisdictions, have limited mine-life or face other constraints while not being material financial contributors. In addition, Glencore’s trading business, which Herro believes has a high barrier to entry, generates high returns and cash flow with less cyclicality that one would associate with a mining business.

China Longyuan, owned by Lazard’s Mark Little, is China’s largest developer of renewable energy products, especially wind. During the year, the Chinese government committed to a very significant expansion of renewable energy, and this commitment translated into new project announcements and awards. Longyuan started the year at a low-teens multiple of earnings, giving substantial upside relative to its global peers, and part of this valuation gap was closed during 2021.

Israel Discount Bank was the fund’s top contributor to performance for the year, rising ~75%. Little’s outlook for the Israeli banking sector continues to improve. Loan growth is running at double digits, as the Israeli economy continues to benefit from growth in technology and other export sectors, alongside immigration. Meanwhile, cost growth should be constrained by the continuing opportunity to reduce headcount as the bank moves to digital delivery of services. A move towards higher interest rates would also be supportive of margins and profitability. Little believes this encouraging picture is not yet reflected in the valuation of the company.

In health care, ICON, an Irish contract research organization, performed strongly during the fourth quarter. It is a leading provider of high value-added services to the biopharma industry. According to the Polen Capital team, ICON provides outsourced services involving the planning, enrollment in and efficient execution of drug trials for biotech, pharmaceutical and medical-device companies. As it delivers positive trial outcomes to customers, those customers rely on ICON more and more. ICON continues to experience robust demand for its offerings and is now integrating a sizable acquisition completed in mid-2021. The pandemic created additional demand for ICON’s services, and this trend may persist for a few years. At 23x 2022 earnings, ICON remains Polen’s highest-conviction portfolio weighting. The Polen team believes the business is poised to grow earnings at a mid-teens rate for the next five years.

Table of Contents

Detractors

Turning to detractors for 2021, Siemens Gamesa, 2020’s top performer, is a Spain-based provider of onshore and offshore wind turbines. Little believes the transition to renewables is a long-term trend. In recent years the cost of renewables, such as solar and offshore wind solutions, has dropped considerably to a level where Little says it makes wind power extremely competitive in most markets without any need for subsidy. Demand for wind energy is set to increase manyfold over the next decade, driven by falling relative costs as well as material societal impetus. Siemens Gamesa is well-positioned to gain substantially from this growth in demand, operating in an oligopoly industry. However, in the short term the company was hurt by its historic weakness in contracting, especially in the onshore part of the business. 2021 saw material increases in raw material and logistics costs that the company was unable to recoup from its customers, pressuring margins. The onshore business at Gamesa represents around 40% of sales, but is currently loss-making so not contributing to profits. While the historic contracts will take time to flush through the income statement, Little and his team can already see early evidence of a sharp improvement in industry pricing, which should support longer-term profitability assumptions key to the share price in their view.

The share price of the Credit Suisse Group suffered during the year upon revelations about the company’s exposure to Greensill Capital followed by its association with Archegos Capital. Investors sold shares over concerns that an investment fund run by its asset-management division had exposure to the now-insolvent Greensill Capital, which specialized in supply chain finance. According to Herro and team, the drop in Credit Suisse’s market-cap far surpassed the company’s direct exposure to Greensill and ignored the fact that a large portion of its clients’ exposure was in cash, highly-rated securities or insured investments. The company ultimately executed a small capital raise in an effort to boost its CET1 ratio to 13.0%. Credit Suisse Group’s third-quarter earnings results tracked ahead of Herro and team’s estimated trend. Importantly, net new money inflected positively following second-quarter outflows related to the Archegos Capital and Greensill Capital incidents, suggesting that the potential reputational damage is less than feared. Following the company’s capital markets day and subsequent conversations with management, Herro and team learned that Credit Suisse planned to take additional capital from the lower-return/higher-risk investment bank and allocate capital towards the higher return/lower risk wealth-management segment, a strategy they fully support. The company is also looking to generate CHF 1 billion – CHF 1.5 billion in savings from procurement initiatives, along with a new organizational structure that will serve to simplify the organization, reduce costs and enhance risk functions. More recently, Herro was disappointed by the departure of Chairman Antonio Horta-Osario given his talents. Herro however is optimistic as in his short stint at the bank Horta-Osario initiated a sound restructuring plan and put in place “various management enhancements.” For example, David Wildermuth (formerly at Goldman Sachs with more than 30 years of banking experience) was appointed as chief risk officer in January, and Herro expects better governance and risk management going forward.

Another detractor was Nexon, a video games developer listed in Japan, but with significant sales in Korea and China. It suffered in 2021 from some loss of momentum against a very strong 2020 period aided by the pandemic. In addition, its China business struggled to regain traction, and the launch of a mobile version of its key game, Dungeon & Fighter, has been continuously delayed. The regulatory

environment kept deteriorating during the year, challenging the investment thesis, and the stock was sold in the period.

Portfolio Mix

Please see below for sector, regional, and market-cap allocations as of year-end.

The International Fund is built stock by stock from the bottom-up and can at times look very different from its benchmark. We believe this is key to generating excess long-term returns.

Table of Contents

Over the last 12 months, the overall portfolio mix changed, largely reflecting the subadvisor changes we executed at the end of the third quarter (see further discussion on the changes in the closing-comments section). Below are some noteworthy changes:

Taxes

At year-end the fund had $7.3 million in loss carryforwards that can be used to offset future realized capital gains. The fund did not distribute any capital gains for 2021.

Closing Thoughts

We added Polen Capital as a sub-advisor to the iMGP International Fund effective September 30, 2021. Concurrently, we removed Pictet Asset Management and Evermore Global Advisors. We believe Polen will be an excellent addition to the fund. We believe these changes help the fund achieve the desired investment style balance in line with its core international mandate. The fund had taken on a much stronger cyclical-value orientation than we intended. Both Pictet and Evermore have been great partners during their tenure as sub-advisors and we sincerely appreciate the care and diligence with which they have guided us through a very challenging macro environment—including the aftermath of the European debt crisis, trade wars, and the pandemic. We thank them for their contributions to the Fund.

Our analysis shows that not having a dedicated growth sleeve has been one of the primary drivers behind the fund’s disappointing performance the past several years, and especially around the pandemic. The Fund’s cyclical bias greatly hurt when the global economy virtually shut down. We have seen strong recovery in cyclical names over the past year and are now hearing from managers that the opportunity set looks more balanced in terms of value vs growth and cyclicality vs quality.

In Polen we believe we are getting both quality and growth. The portfolio managers, Todd Morris and Daniel Fields, are executing a proven philosophy and approach that has generated strong risk-adjusted returns over a long period. They invest in companies they believe are financially sound and competitively advantaged that they can own for many years and that in their view offer the best odds for attractive and sustained earnings growth. They bring a risk-management and value-conscious mindset. They have always managed relatively concentrated portfolios, and we believe they are ideally suited to running an iMGP International mandate of typically 15 stocks or less.

Polen joins our two other managers—David Herro of Harris Associates and Mark Little of Lazard Asset Management. We have known both investors for decades and have a very high level of confidence in them. Their performance since their respective inception dates on the Fund—Herro’s going back to the Fund’s inception in December 1997 and Little’s to February 2013—has been strong. They have executed the Fund’s concentrated mandate in an excellent manner. Herro is a value-oriented manager. Little is an all-cap eclectic blend manager. With Polen as our quality- and growth-oriented manager we believe the Fund is now very well balanced in terms of style. This combination will

Table of Contents

result in a focused yet diversified low-turnover portfolio of 40 to 50 stocks. Our analysis shows this mix of three managers improves the fund’s overall diversification. We also believe it increases our odds of generating great performance.

Coinciding with this change in subadvisor mix, effective January 1, 2022, we are changing the iMGP International Fund’s primary benchmark from MSCI ACWI ex US NET to MSCI EAFE NET. Historically we have believed the fund should beat both benchmarks over the long term and we continue to believe that. However, factoring our current subadvisors investment approaches and the relatively high bar they place in adding emerging-market stocks to the high-conviction portfolio they manage, we believe EAFE is a more appropriate primary benchmark for both the subadvisors and the fund looking forward. For Harris Associates and Polen Capital we will also continue to use a value and growth benchmark, respectively, as part of assessing their long-term performance.

We continue to believe that skilled stock pickers who focus on only their highest-conviction ideas and on generating great long-term performance, without worrying about shorter-term volatility and benchmark tracking error, have the potential to outperform indexes and their peers over full market cycles. This was the original premise of iMGP International Fund, launched in December 1997.

We thank our shareholders for their continued support.

Table of Contents

iMGP International Fund Managers

International Fund Value of Hypothetical $10,000

The value of a hypothetical $10,000 investment in the iMGP International Fund from December 1, 1997 to December 31, 2021 compared with the MSCI ACWI ex-U.S. Index and Morningstar Foreign Large Blend Category.

The hypothetical $10,000 investment at fund inception includes changes due to share price and reinvestment of dividends and capital gains. The chart does no imply future performance. Indexes are unmanaged, do not incur fees, expenses or taxes, and cannot be invested in directly.

Performance quoted does not include a deduction for taxes that a shareholder would pay on the redemption of fund shares.

Table of Contents

iMGP International Fund (formerly PartnerSelect International Fund)

SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS IN SECURITIES at December 31, 2021