JPMorgan Global Allocation Fund Class I GAOSX

The team managing JPM Global Allocation has undergone notable change over the past year. While several key attributes remain, the degree of manager turnover introduces uncertainty and warrants patience. In response, the strategy’s People and Process ratings have been downgraded to Average from Above Average. The newly reconfigured team is now tasked with rebuilding confidence and a more compelling track record following several underwhelming years of performance.

Portfolio managers Philip Camporeale and Michael Feser departed the strategy, as of April 2026 and March 2026, respectively. Both joined the fund as managers in 2020 and contributed to the fixed-income portions of the portfolio. Gary Herbert, CIO of North America, joined the group following Feser’s departure, bringing 30 years of experience as a fixed-income manager to this effort. These exits were preceded by the retirement of longtime lead manager Jeff Geller on April 1, 2026, who had been named on this fund since its 2011 inception.

Daniel Bloomgarden, global head of research for the multi-asset platform, was named as Geller’s successor in November 2025; this is Bloomgarden’s first stint as a multi-asset manager, which gives us pause, especially for a fund as flexible as this one.

On paper, this is a more balanced team with representation from equity, fixed-income, and quantitative strategies. The resources for this group to be successful are there, and the strategy will continue to leverage J.P. Morgan’s best thinking through their research groups. That said, the portfolio managers leave an indelible mark on their work to synthesize these inputs and apply them to the portfolio, and as a collective they have a short tenure managing a multi-asset portfolio together.

The team employs a flexible approach designed to outperform a custom 60/40 equity fixed-income benchmark. Portfolio construction begins with J.P. Morgan managers overseeing individual sleeves, after which the team layers in tactical adjustments that can meaningfully overweight—or in some cases fully exit—specific exposures. The prospectus affords wide latitude: Equity and bond allocations may each range from 10% to 90%, alternatives can make up to 60% of assets, and interest rate risk is unconstrained. In practice, however, implementation has been more measured, with equity exposure ranging between 43% and 78% since inception.

The new team inherits a process that has struggled recently. Over a trailing five-year period through March 2026, the fund’s R6 shares returned 3.5%, annualized, underperforming its custom index’s 5.8% annualized return and its average peer in the global moderate-allocation Morningstar Category. More time is needed to build conviction around this new management team’s ability to effectively leverage J.P. Morgan’s deep research and portfolio optimization capabilities toward a stronger long-term track record.

This flexible global mandate has J.P. Morgan’s solid investment teams, vast research and optimization tools at its disposal, but changes to the portfolio manager lineup lead to uncertainty in the approach and its execution going forward. The Process rating has been downgraded to Average from Above Average, as the new team establishes a consistent and longer-term track record together.

This strategy aims to beat a 60% MSCI All Country World Index/40% Bloomberg Global Aggregate ex-China Bond Index custom benchmark. To accomplish this, the team first allocates to almost a dozen well-regarded J.P. Morgan managers across global stocks, bonds, and alternatives. The managers then focus on a six- to 18-month horizon using inputs from the firm’s fundamental, quantitative, and manager research teams to implement tactical trades across asset classes.

The strategy has more flexibility than the average peer in the global moderate-allocation category. Over the trailing five years ended January 2026, the strategy’s equity exposure ranged from 51% to 71% of assets compared with the category average spread of 55% to 61%. While there is a collaborative element here, the high-conviction approach adds a degree of complexity for the managers of this strategy. This group has the resources to be successful, but more time is needed to build conviction in its ability to effectively execute this flexible mandate.

As of March 2026, the fund allocates to 11 J.P. Morgan strategies and their respective portfolio managers. A handful of the funds mirror off-the-shelf funds, but the global allocation team can customize the strategies to better fit this portfolio’s needs.

As of February 2026, the strategy’s overall equity allocation stood at 73.5%, exceeding that of the average global moderate-allocation peer by 12.4 percentage points. Within equities, the team maintains broad global diversification, with international stocks accounting for 38.8% of the equity sleeve, roughly 2 percentage points below the category average.

Within the fixed-income sleeve, the team has favored credit risk over interest rate risk, allocating 40% of its bond portfolio to high-yield bonds as of December 2025. When paired with equities, high-yield bonds can amplify volatility during periods of economic stress, but the team has a high-conviction view that stronger corporate earnings growth in 2026 should benefit its fixed-income positioning. The managers can also make incremental adjustments to the portfolio through duration, a key lever for managing interest rate risk. As of December 2025, the duration was 2.7 years.

Beyond those two asset classes, the team can also invest in alternatives and use options, single-security holdings, or swaps to generate an ideal portfolio. While these tools can add diversification, the trade-off is additional complexity. For example, in 2025, the team added a small position to a US small-cap equity strategy run by Don San Jose and Daniel Percella that also shorts the Russell 2000 Index to isolate the managers' stock-selection skill.

A series of manager changes in short order results in a downgrade of the People rating to Average from Above Average.

Three portfolio managers have exited this strategy since the beginning of 2026. The most recent departure was that of Philip Camporeale at the beginning of April 2026. Preceding Camporeale was Michael Feser, who left the strategy effective March 1, 2026. Finally, Jeff Geller, the fund’s lead manager since its inception in 2011, retired on April 1, 2026. While Camporeale and Feser’s departures were less anticipated, Geller’s retirement was announced in 2025.

Daniel Bloomgarden, Global Head of Research for the multi-asset platform, assumed Geller’s lead manager responsibilities here in November 2025 in preparation for the retirement. This strategy is the first multi-asset fund that Bloomgarden has been named on, as his prior portfolio management experience had been equity-focused. Gary Herbert, chief investment officer for North America, brings 30 years of fixed-income investing experience to the group and was named a portfolio manager following Feser’s departure. No replacement has been named for Camporeale as of April 2026. Longtime manager Grace Koo, who joined this strategy in February 2014 and focuses on quantitative approaches to asset allocation, rounds out this roster and provides some continuity to the effort.

On paper, the updated team appears more balanced, drawing on equity, fixed-income, and quantitative expertise, and the strategy continues to benefit from J.P. Morgan’s broader multi-asset solutions platform. However, this is still a relatively new group with a short track record managing a multi-asset strategy, which tempers our confidence.

J.P. Morgan continues to build a track record of strong stewardship, supporting a Parent rating upgrade to High from Above Average.

With more than USD 4 trillion in assets under management (including USD 1.3 trillion in money market funds) and a broad reach, J.P. Morgan is among the largest active asset managers in the US, Europe, and Asia. Although some multi-asset offerings have struggled over the past five years, prompting new leadership to make changes to investment teams, its equity and fixed-income teams boast long-tenured portfolio managers who practice repeatable investment processes that have generally produced strong long-term results. Most of its funds are core building blocks with long lifetimes, though its lineup around the world also includes more-specialized options: Two options-based equity-income exchange-traded funds, launched in 2020 and 2022, are now among the firm’s largest. J.P. Morgan has been an early mover in offering active ETFs, having converted 12 of its open-end mutual funds to the structure and launching others. It isn’t always at the forefront of emerging trends. While it has filed registration statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission for an interval fund and an ETF investing in private markets, it hasn’t yet introduced such an option for all investors, whether on its own or in partnership with another asset manager, unlike some of its closest competitors.

To support the firm’s diverse investment offerings, J.P. Morgan has invested heavily in both portfolio management tools and its client organization. Over the past 10 years, the firm has developed robust proprietary technology with advanced analytics and broad buy-in from investment analysts, portfolio traders, and portfolio managers, all of whom have easy access to the platform. The firm also stands apart for its demonstrated commitment to clients. In the early 2000s, J.P. Morgan began pivoting its engagement with financial advisors to adopt a more consultative approach, supported by its sought-after Guide to the Markets research series that focuses on investor education, not product pitches. This perspective can help clients stay the course, supporting positive investor outcomes.

Incentives reinforce alignment with fundholders. Beginning more than 10 years ago, investment team compensation is tied to three-, five-, and 10-year performance, and portfolio managers must invest at least half of their deferred compensation in J.P. Morgan strategies. Many firms encourage portfolio managers to invest alongside fundholders, but J.P. Morgan goes a step further in requiring client-facing individuals to invest substantial portions of their incentive compensation in the funds.

Although some funds still face high cost hurdles, more than half of share classes charge competitive fees relative to peers.

Long-term results have been middling, and short-term results have been a challenge.

Since the strategy's first full month of performance in June 2011, the R6 share class generated a 6.4% annualized return through March 2026 that lagged the 6.8% return of its custom benchmark (a 60% MSCI ACWI/ 40% Global Aggregate ex-China Index blend). However, it did outperform its average global moderate-allocation peer’s 6.1% annualized return over the same period. On a risk-adjusted basis, as measured by Sharpe ratio, the fund bested more than half its category rivals.

More recently, this fund has struggled to meet its objectives. Over a trailing three-year period through March 2026, the fund returned 9.0% annualized. While solid on an absolute basis, this result trailed the custom bogy’s 11.5% gain over the same period. The combination of high-yield credit and an overweight allocation to equity compared with the average category peer contributed to a rocky ride for investors that ultimately was not well compensated. During this period, the fund’s risk-adjusted returns fell behind roughly 90% of peers. Taken together, uneven long-term results and recent underperformance underscore the need for patience as the newly configured management team works to reestablish consistency and demonstrate improved execution.

JPMorgan Global Allocation I's Prospectus Adjusted Expense Ratio is 0.78% per year. It places it in the second-cheapest quintile of the Morningstar US Fund Global Moderate Allocation Category, where the median fee is 0.92% per year. This cost positioning translates into a Medalist Rating Price Score of 0.95, which reflects its relative price positioning within the category. The Price Score ranges from -2.50 (most expensive) to +2.50 (cheapest), with higher scores indicating better cost competitiveness.