485BPOS

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

October 27, 2023

Bridge Builder Trust

Bridge Builder Core Bond Fund

Ticker: BBTBX

Bridge Builder Core Plus Bond Fund

Ticker: BBCPX

Bridge Builder Municipal Bond Fund

Ticker: BBMUX

Bridge Builder Municipal High-Income Bond Fund

Ticker: BBMHX

Bridge Builder Large Cap Growth Fund

Ticker: BBGLX

Bridge Builder Large Cap Value Fund

Ticker: BBVLX

Bridge Builder Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund

Ticker: BBGSX

Bridge Builder Small/Mid Cap Value Fund

Ticker: BBVSX

Bridge Builder International Equity Fund

Ticker: BBIEX

12555 Manchester Road

St. Louis, MO 63131

1-855-823-3611

www.bridgebuildermutualfunds.com

This Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) is not a prospectus and it should be read in conjunction with the prospectus, dated October 27, 2023, as it may be revised from time to time (the “Prospectus”), related to the Bridge Builder Core Bond Fund (the “Core Bond Fund”), Bridge Builder Core Plus Bond Fund (the “Core Plus Bond Fund”), Bridge Builder Municipal Bond Fund (the “Municipal Bond Fund”), Bridge Builder Municipal High-Income Bond Fund (the “Municipal High-Income Bond Fund”), Bridge Builder Large Cap Growth Fund (the “Large Cap Growth Fund”), Bridge Builder Large Cap Value Fund (the “Large Cap Value Fund”), Bridge Builder Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund (the “Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund”), Bridge Builder Small/Mid Cap Value Fund (the “Small/Mid Cap Value Fund”) and Bridge Builder International Equity Fund (the “International Equity Fund”) (together, the “Funds”), each a series of Bridge Builder Trust (the “Trust”). The Funds are each advised by Olive Street Investment Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”).

Each Fund’s audited financial statements and notes thereto for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, are included in the Funds’ annual report to shareholders for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 (the “Annual Report”) and are incorporated by reference into this SAI. Each Fund’s Prospectus and annual or unaudited semi-annual shareholder reports may be obtained free of charge by contacting the Fund at the address and phone number written above or by visiting the Funds’ website at www.bridgebuildermutualfunds.com/literature.

The Adviser has retained certain investment managers as Sub-advisers (each a “Sub-adviser,” and, collectively, the “Sub-advisers”), each responsible for portfolio management of a portion of each of the Fund’s total assets.

 

B-1


 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

THE TRUST

    3  

INVESTMENT STRATEGIES, POLICIES, SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS, AND RISKS

    3  

INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS

    57  

PORTFOLIO TURNOVER

    60  

PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS INFORMATION

    61  

TRUSTEES AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

    63  

PROXY VOTING POLICIES

    73  

CONTROL PERSONS AND PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS

    73  

THE FUNDS’ INVESTMENT TEAMS

    74  

SERVICE PROVIDERS

    181  

EXECUTION OF PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS AND BROKERAGE

    183  

CAPITAL STOCK

    185  

DETERMINATION OF NET ASSET VALUE

    186  

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING PROGRAM

    187  

REDEMPTIONS AND PURCHASES IN-KIND

    188  

DISTRIBUTIONS AND TAX INFORMATION

    188  

DISTRIBUTOR

    200  

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

    201  

APPENDIX A

    202  

APPENDIX B

    209  

 

B-2


THE TRUST

The Trust is a Delaware statutory trust organized under the laws of the State of Delaware on December 19, 2012, and is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) as an open-end management investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust’s Agreement and Declaration of Trust permits the Trust’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”) to issue an unlimited number of full and fractional shares of beneficial interest, without par value, which may be issued in any number of series. The Trust may also issue separate classes of shares of any series. Currently, the Trust consists of fifteen series, six of which are offered in separate prospectuses and statements of additional information. Each Fund offers one class of shares. The Board may from time to time issue other series (and multiple classes of such series), the assets and liabilities of which will be separate and distinct from any other series.

The Funds’ Prospectus and this SAI are a part of the Trust’s registration statement filed with the SEC. Copies of the complete registration statement may be obtained from the SEC upon payment of the prescribed fee or may be accessed free of charge at the SEC’s website at sec.gov.

INVESTMENT STRATEGIES, POLICIES, SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS, AND RISKS

Each Fund is diversified. This means that with respect to 75% of its total assets, a Fund may not purchase securities of any issuer (other than obligations of, or guaranteed by, the U.S. government or its agencies, or instrumentalities or securities of other investment companies) if, as a result, more than 5% of the Fund’s total assets would be invested in the securities of such issuer, or more than 10% of the issuer’s voting securities would be held by the Fund. Under applicable federal securities laws, the diversification of a mutual fund’s holdings is measured at the time a fund purchases a security. However, if a fund purchases a security and holds it for a period of time, the security may become a larger percentage of the fund’s total assets due to movements in the financial markets. If the market affects several securities held by a fund, the fund may have a greater percentage of its assets invested in securities of fewer issuers. Accordingly, a fund would be subject to the risk that its performance may be hurt disproportionately by the poor performance of relatively few securities despite the fund qualifying as a diversified fund under applicable federal securities laws.

The investment objectives, policies, strategies, risks and limitations discussed in this SAI may be changed without shareholder approval unless otherwise noted.

The following are descriptions of the permitted investments and investment practices of the Funds and the associated risk factors. A Fund may purchase any of these instruments and/or engage in any of these investment practices unless such investment activity or practice is directly inconsistent with, or not permitted by, a specific Fund investment policy as stated below or in the Fund’s prospectus. A Fund is free to reduce or eliminate its activity in any of these areas. A Fund will only purchase an investment and/or engage in any of the below investment practices if such investment or investment practices is determined to be advantageous to the Fund by the Adviser and/or Sub-advisers. The table below identifies which investments, investment practices and risk factors, including those that may not be principal strategies or risks, apply to a Fund.

 

B-3


  Core Bond
Fund
Core Plus Bond
Fund
Municipal Bond
Fund
Municipal
High-Income
Bond Fund
Large Cap
Growth Fund
Large Cap
Value Fund
Small/Mid Cap
Growth Fund
Small/Mid Cap
Value Fund
International
Equity Fund
Equity Securities
Illiquid Investments
Liquidity Risk Management
Registered Investment Companies, including Exchange Traded Funds
Foreign Securities
Real Estate Securities
Borrowing and Other Forms of Leverage
Cash Position
Short-Term Investments
Corporate Debt Securities
Municipal Securities
Government Obligations - U.S. and Foreign
Variable Rate Demand Notes
Floating Rate Securities
Inverse Floaters
Zero-Coupon and Payment-in-Kind Bonds
LIBOR Risk
Fixed Income Securities Risks
Lower-Rated Debt Securities Risks
Distressed Companies Risks
Mezzanine Investments
Asset-Backed and Mortgage-Related and Mortgage-Backed Securities
When-Issued, Delayed Delivery, and Forward Commitment Transactions Risk

 

B-4


  Core Bond
Fund
Core Plus Bond
Fund
Municipal Bond
Fund
Municipal
High-Income
Bond Fund
Large Cap
Growth Fund
Large Cap
Value Fund
Small/Mid Cap
Growth Fund
Small/Mid Cap
Value Fund
International
Equity Fund
Sale-buyback Transactions
Bank Loans
Inflation-Protected Securities
Private Investments
Hybrid Securities
Derivatives
Repurchase Agreements
Environmental, Social and Governance Integration
Other Investment Risks
Market Risks
Multi-Manager and Multi-Style Risk
Temporary Defensive Investments
Cybersecurity Risk

Equity Securities

The Funds may purchase equity securities, including common stock. All investments in equity securities are subject to market risks that may cause their prices to fluctuate over time. Historically, the equity markets have moved in cycles, and the value of a Fund’s securities may fluctuate substantially from day-to-day. Owning an equity security that currently pays dividends can also subject a Fund to the risk that the issuer may discontinue paying dividends.

To the extent a Fund invests in the equity securities of small- or medium-sized companies, it will be exposed to the risks of small- and medium-sized companies. Such companies may have narrower markets for their goods and/or services and may have more limited managerial and financial resources than larger, more established companies. Furthermore, such companies may have limited product lines, or services, markets, or financial resources, or may be dependent on a small management group. In addition, because these stocks may not be well-known to the investing public, do not have significant institutional ownership and are typically followed by fewer security analysts, there will normally be less publicly available information concerning these securities compared to what is available for the securities of larger companies. Adverse publicity and investor perceptions can decrease the value and liquidity of securities held by a Fund. As a result, the performance of small- and medium-sized securities can be more volatile and they face greater risk of business failure, which could increase the volatility of a Fund and cause the Fund to lose money.

Common Stock. Common stocks represent a proportionate share of the ownership of a company and its value is based on the success of the company’s business, any income paid to stockholders, the value of its assets, and general market conditions. In addition to the general risks set forth above, investments in

 

B-5


common stocks are subject to the risk that in the event a company in which a Fund invests is liquidated, the holders of preferred stock and creditors of that company will be paid in full before any payments are made to the Fund as a holder of common stock. It is possible that all assets of that company will be exhausted before any payments are made to the Fund.

Preferred Stock. Preferred stocks represent an equity or ownership interest in an issuer but do not ordinarily carry voting rights, although they may carry limited voting rights. Preferred stocks also normally have preference over the corporation’s assets and earnings. For example, preferred stocks have preference over common stock in the payment of dividends. Preferred stocks normally pay dividends at a specified rate and may entitle the holder to acquire the issuer’s stock by exchange or purchase for a predetermined rate. However, preferred stock may be purchased where the issuer has omitted, or is in danger of omitting, payment of its dividend. Such investments would be made primarily for their capital appreciation potential. In the event an issuer is liquidated or declares bankruptcy, the claims of bond owners take precedence over the claims of preferred and common stock owners. Certain classes of preferred stock are convertible into shares of common stock of the issuer. By holding convertible preferred stock, a Fund can receive a steady stream of dividends and still have the option to convert the preferred stock to common stock. Preferred stock is subject to many of the same risks as common stock and debt securities.

Rights and Warrants. A right is a privilege granted to existing shareholders of a corporation to subscribe to shares of a new issue of common stock before it is issued. Rights normally have a short life, usually two to four weeks, are freely transferable and entitle the holder to buy the new common stock at a lower price than the public offering price. Warrants are securities that are usually issued together with a debt security or preferred stock and that give the holder the right to buy proportionate amounts of common stock at a specified price. Warrants are freely transferable and are traded on major exchanges. Unlike rights, warrants normally have a life that is measured in years and entitles the holder to buy common stock of a company at a price that is usually higher than the market price at the time the warrant is issued. Corporations often issue warrants to make the accompanying debt security more attractive.

An investment in warrants and rights may entail greater risks than certain other types of investments. Generally, rights and warrants do not carry the right to receive dividends or exercise voting rights with respect to the underlying securities, and they do not represent any rights in the assets of the issuer. In addition, their value does not necessarily change with the value of the underlying securities, and they cease to have value if they are not exercised on or before their expiration date. Investing in rights and warrants increases the potential profit or loss to be realized from the investment as compared with investing the same amount in the underlying securities.

Convertible Securities. Convertible securities are bonds, debentures, notes, preferred stocks or other securities that may be converted or exchanged (by the holder or by the issuer) into shares of the underlying common stock (or cash or securities of equivalent value) at a stated exchange ratio. A convertible security may also be called for redemption or conversion by the issuer after a particular date and under certain circumstances (including a specified price) established upon issue. If a convertible security held by a Fund is called for redemption or conversion, the Fund could be required to tender it for redemption, convert it into the underlying common stock, or sell it to a third party.

Convertible securities generally have less potential for gain or loss than common stocks. Convertible securities generally provide yields higher than the underlying common stocks, but generally lower than comparable non-convertible securities. Because of this higher yield, convertible securities generally sell at a price above their “conversion value,” which is the current market value of the stock to be received upon conversion. The difference between this conversion value and the price of convertible securities will vary over time depending on changes in the value of the underlying common stocks and interest rates. When the underlying common stocks decline in value, convertible securities will tend not to decline to the same extent because of the interest or dividend payments and the repayment of principal at maturity for certain

 

B-6


types of convertible securities. However, securities that are convertible other than at the option of the holder generally do not limit the potential for loss to the same extent as securities convertible at the option of the holder. When the underlying common stocks rise in value, the value of convertible securities may also be expected to increase. At the same time, however, the difference between the market value of convertible securities and their conversion value will narrow, which means that the value of convertible securities will generally not increase to the same extent as the value of the underlying common stocks. Because convertible securities may also be interest-rate sensitive, their value may increase as interest rates fall and decrease as interest rates rise. Convertible securities are also subject to credit risk, and are often lower-quality securities.

Depositary Receipts. American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”), as well as other “hybrid” forms of ADRs, including European Depositary Receipts (“EDRs”) and Global Depositary Receipts (“GDRs”), are certificates evidencing ownership of shares of a foreign issuer. Depositary receipts are securities that evidence ownership interests in a security or a pool of securities that have been deposited with a “depository” and may be sponsored or unsponsored. These certificates are issued by depository banks and generally trade on an established market in the United States or elsewhere. The underlying shares are held in trust by a custodian bank or similar financial institution in the issuer’s home country. The depository bank may not have physical custody of the underlying securities at all times and may charge fees for various services, including forwarding dividends and interest and corporate actions. ADRs are alternatives to directly purchasing the underlying foreign securities in their local markets and currencies. However, ADRs continue to be subject to many of the risks associated with investing directly in foreign securities, which are discussed below.

For ADRs, the depository is typically a U.S. financial institution and the underlying securities are issued by a foreign issuer. For other depositary receipts, the depository may be a foreign or a U.S. entity, and the underlying securities may have a foreign or a U.S. issuer. Depositary receipts will not necessarily be denominated in the same currency as their underlying securities. Generally, ADRs are issued in registered form, denominated in U.S. dollars, and designed for use in the U.S. securities markets. Other depositary receipts, such as GDRs and EDRs, may be issued in bearer form and denominated in other currencies, and are generally designed for use in securities markets outside the U.S. While the two types of depositary receipt facilities (unsponsored or sponsored) are similar, there are differences regarding a holder’s rights and obligations and the practices of market participants. A depository may establish an unsponsored facility without participation by (or acquiescence of) the underlying issuer; typically, however, the depository requests a letter of non-objection from the underlying issuer prior to establishing the facility. Holders of unsponsored depositary receipts generally bear all the costs of the facility. The depository usually charges fees upon deposit and withdrawal of the underlying securities, the conversion of dividends into U.S. dollars or other currency, the disposition of non-cash distributions, and the performance of other services. The depository of an unsponsored facility frequently is under no obligation to distribute shareholder communications received from the underlying issuer or to pass through voting rights to depositary receipt holders with respect to the underlying securities.

Sponsored depositary receipt facilities are created in generally the same manner as unsponsored facilities, except that sponsored depositary receipts are established jointly by a depository and the underlying issuer through a deposit agreement. The deposit agreement sets out the rights and responsibilities of the underlying issuer, the depository, and the depositary receipt holders. With sponsored facilities, the underlying issuer typically bears some of the costs of the depositary receipts (such as dividend payment fees of the depository), although most sponsored depositary receipts agree to distribute notices of shareholders meetings, voting instructions, and other shareholder communications and information to the depositary receipt holders at the underlying issuer’s request.

 

B-7


For purposes of a Fund’s investment policies, investments in depositary receipts will be deemed to be investments in the underlying securities. Thus, a depositary receipt representing ownership of common stock will be treated as common stock. Depositary receipts do not eliminate all of the risks associated with directly investing in the securities of foreign issuers, and depositary receipts are subject to many of the risks associated with investing directly in foreign securities, which are discussed below.

Initial Public Offerings (“IPOs”). A Fund may invest a portion of its assets in equity securities of companies offering shares in IPOs. Because IPO shares frequently are volatile in price, a Fund may hold IPO shares for a very short period of time. This may increase the turnover of a Fund’s portfolio and may lead to increased expenses for the Fund, such as commissions and transaction costs. If a Fund were to sell IPO shares, a Fund may realize taxable gains it will subsequently distribute to shareholders. In addition, the market for IPO shares can be speculative and/or inactive for extended periods of time. The limited number of shares available for trading in some IPOs may make it more difficult for a Fund to buy or sell significant amounts of shares without an unfavorable impact on prevailing prices. Holders of IPO shares can be affected by substantial dilution in the value of their shares, by sales of additional shares and by concentration of control in existing management and principal shareholders. The limited number of shares available may also mean that to the extent a Fund seeks to invest in IPOs, it could be unable to invest to the extent desired because, for example, only a small portion of the securities being offered in the IPO are available to a Fund.

A Fund’s investment in IPO shares may include the securities of unseasoned companies (companies with less than three years of continuous operations), which presents risks considerably greater than common stocks of more established companies. These companies may have limited operating histories and their prospects for profitability may be uncertain. These companies may be involved in new and evolving businesses and may be vulnerable to competition and changes in technology, markets and economic conditions. They may be more dependent on key managers and third parties and may have limited product lines.

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies. A Fund may invest in special purpose acquisition companies (“SPACs”) to the extent that the Adviser or a Sub-adviser believes that such investment will help the Fund to meet its investment objective. SPACs are collective investment structures that pool funds in order to seek potential acquisition opportunities. Unless and until an acquisition is completed, a SPAC generally invests its assets (less an amount to cover expenses) in U.S. Government securities, money market fund securities and cash. To the extent the SPAC is invested in cash or similar securities, this may impact a Fund’s ability to meet its investment objective. Because SPACs and similar entities may be “blank check companies” with no operating history or ongoing business other than to seek a potential acquisition, the value of their securities is particularly dependent on the ability of the entity’s management to identify and complete a profitable acquisition. Certain SPACs may seek acquisitions only in limited industries or regions, which may increase the volatility of their prices. In addition, these securities, which are typically traded in the over-the-counter market, may be considered illiquid and/or be subject to restrictions on resale.

Illiquid Investments

Under SEC rules, illiquid investments are investments that a Fund reasonably expects cannot be sold or otherwise disposed of in current market conditions in seven calendar days or less without the sale or disposition significantly changing the market value of the investment. No Fund may purchase an investment if, immediately after the acquisition, more than 15% of the value of its net assets would be invested in illiquid investments that are assets. The Adviser and Sub-advisers will monitor the amount of illiquid investments in each Fund, under the supervision of the Board, to ensure compliance with this requirement.

Certain investments or asset classes may be illiquid investments due to restrictions on trading or limitations on transfer that would affect a determination of liquidity. For example, securities subject to contractual or

 

B-8


legal restrictions on resale because they have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) may be illiquid investments. However, under certain circumstances, including Rule 144A under the Securities Act, institutional buyers may be able to facilitate transactions in investments otherwise restricted from resale.

Illiquid investments may be priced at fair value as determined in good faith pursuant to procedures approved by the Board. Despite such good faith efforts to determine fair value prices, each Fund’s illiquid investments are subject to the risk that the investment’s fair value price may differ from the actual price that a Fund may ultimately realize upon its sale or disposition. Difficulty in selling illiquid investments may result in a loss or may be costly to a Fund.

Liquidity Risk Management

The Trust has implemented a liquidity risk management program (the “Liquidity Program”) and related procedures to manage the liquidity risk of the Funds in accordance with Rule 22e-4 of the 1940 Act (the “Liquidity Rule”), and the Board has approved the administrator of the Liquidity Program (the “Liquidity Program Administrator”). Under the Liquidity Program, the Liquidity Program Administrator assesses, manages, and periodically reviews each Fund’s liquidity risk. The Liquidity Rule defines “liquidity risk” as the risk that a Fund could not meet requests to redeem shares issued by the Fund without significant dilution of the remaining investors’ interests in the Fund. The liquidity of a Fund’s portfolio investments is determined based on relevant market, trading and investment-specific considerations under the Liquidity Program. The adoption of the Liquidity Program is not a guarantee that a Fund will have sufficient liquidity to satisfy its redemption requests in all market conditions or that redemptions can be effected without diluting remaining investors in the Fund. The effect that the Liquidity Rule will have on the Funds, and on the open-end fund industry in general, is not yet fully known, but the Liquidity Rule may impact a Fund’s performance and its ability to achieve its investment objective.

Registered Investment Companies, including Exchange-Traded Funds (“ETFs”)

The Funds may invest in other investment companies, including ETFs.

ETFs are a type of fund bought and sold on a securities exchange. An ETF trades like common stock and represents, in most cases, a fixed portfolio of securities designed to track a particular market index. The risks of owning an ETF generally reflect the risks of owning the underlying securities they are designed to track, although lack of liquidity in an ETF could contribute to increased price volatility and ETFs have management fees that increase their costs. ETFs are also subject to other risks, including the risk that their prices may not correlate perfectly with changes in the underlying index and the risk of possible trading halts due to market conditions or other reasons that, in the view of the exchange upon which an ETF trades, would make trading in the ETF inadvisable. An exchange-traded sector fund may also be adversely affected by the performance of that specific sector or group of industries on which it is based. Investments in ETFs are generally subject to limits in the 1940 Act on investments in other investment companies, subject to certain exceptions.

Despite the possibility of greater fees and expenses, investments in other investment companies may nonetheless be attractive for several reasons, especially in connection with foreign investments. Investing indirectly in such countries (by purchasing shares of another fund that is permitted to invest in such countries) may be the most practical and efficient way for a Fund to invest in such countries. In other cases, when a portfolio manager desires to make only a relatively small investment in a particular country, investing through another fund that holds investments in that country may be more effective than investing directly in issuers in that country.

The 1940 Act generally prohibits the Funds from investing more than 5% of the value of their total assets in any one registered investment company or more than 10% of the value of its total assets in registered

 

B-9


investment companies as a group, and also restricts their investment in any registered investment company to 3% of the voting securities of such investment company. There are exceptions, however, to these limitations pursuant to various rules promulgated by the SEC. In particular, SEC rules allow the Funds to invest in money market funds in excess of the limits described above. In addition, Rule 12d1-4 under the 1940 Act permits the Funds to invest in other investment companies, including ETFs, in excess of the limits described above, subject to certain conditions.

The Funds may invest in other investment companies, including those managed by the Adviser or a Sub-adviser, to the extent permitted by any rule or regulation of the SEC or any order or interpretation thereunder.

Money Market Funds. The Funds may invest cash in, or hold as collateral for certain investments, shares of money market funds. An investment in a money market fund will involve payment by a Fund of its pro rata share of advisory and other fees charged by such fund. These funds are not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency. In addition, certain money market funds may impose liquidity fees and/or temporarily suspend redemptions, which may reduce the value of a Fund’s redemptions for the money market fund and impact the Fund’s ability to redeem from the money market fund during times of market volatility or otherwise.

Foreign Securities

The Funds may invest in securities issued by foreign governments and corporations, including emerging market securities. The Funds may invest in securities issued by foreign companies or governmental authorities either directly or through depository receipts or ETFs (generally “foreign securities”). Investing in foreign securities generally involves more risk than investing in U.S. securities. Other risks involved in investing in foreign securities include the following: there may be less publicly available information about foreign companies comparable to the reports and ratings that are published about companies in the United States; foreign companies are not generally subject to uniform accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards and requirements comparable to those applicable to U.S. companies; some foreign stock markets have substantially less volume than U.S. markets, and securities of some foreign companies are less liquid and more volatile than securities of comparable U.S. companies; there may be less or different government supervision and regulation of foreign stock exchanges, brokers and listed companies than exist in the United States; and there may be the possibility of expropriation or confiscatory taxation, political or social instability or diplomatic developments which could affect assets of the Funds held in foreign countries.

On January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom (the “UK”) formally withdrew from the European Union (the “EU”) (commonly referred to as “Brexit”). Following a transition period during which the EU and the UK Government engaged in a series of negotiations regarding the terms of the UK’s future relationship with the EU, the EU and the UK Government signed an agreement on December 30, 2020 regarding the economic relationship between the UK and the EU. This agreement became effective on a provisional basis on January 1, 2021 and formally entered into force on May 1, 2021. While the full impact of Brexit is unknown, Brexit has already resulted in volatility in European and global markets. There remains significant market uncertainty regarding the political, regulatory and economic consequences of Brexit, and the ultimate ramifications may not be known for some time. The effects of Brexit on the UK and EU economies and the broader global economy could be significant, resulting in negative impacts, such as business and trade disruptions, increased volatility and illiquidity, and potentially lower economic growth of markets in the UK, EU and globally, which could negatively impact the value of a Fund’s investments. Brexit could also lead to legal uncertainty and politically divergent national laws and regulations while the new relationship between the UK and EU is further defined and the UK determines which EU laws to replace or replicate. Additionally, depreciation of the British pound sterling and/or the euro in relation to the U.S. dollar following Brexit could adversely affect Fund investments denominated in the British pound sterling and/or the euro, regardless of the performance of the investment. Whether or not a Fund invests in

 

B-10


securities of issuers located in Europe or with significant exposure to European issuers or countries, these events could negatively affect the value and liquidity of the Fund’s investments due to the interconnected nature of the global economy and capital markets.

The rights of investors in certain foreign countries may be more limited than those of shareholders of U.S. issuers and the Funds may have greater difficulty taking appropriate legal action to enforce their rights in a foreign court than in a U.S. court. Investing in foreign securities also involves risks associated with government, economic, monetary, and fiscal policies (such as the adoption of protectionist trade measures). Furthermore, there is the risk of possible seizure, nationalization, or expropriation of the foreign issuers or foreign deposits and the possible adoption of foreign government restrictions such as exchange controls. Investments in foreign government debt obligations also involve special risks. The issuer of the debt may be unable or unwilling to pay interest or repay principal when due in accordance with the terms of such debt, and the Funds may have limited legal resources in the event of default. Political conditions, especially a sovereign entity’s willingness to meet the terms of its debt obligations, are of considerable significance.

Periodic U.S. Government prohibitions on investments in issuers from certain foreign countries may result in a Fund having to sell such prohibited securities at inopportune times. Such prohibited securities may have less liquidity as a result of such U.S. Government designation and the market price of such prohibited securities may decline, which may cause the Fund to incur losses.

Dividends and interest payable on the Funds’ foreign securities may be subject to foreign withholding tax. The Funds may also be subject to foreign taxes on their trading profits. Some countries may also impose a transfer or stamp duty on certain securities transactions. The imposition of these taxes will increase the cost to the Funds of investing in those countries that impose these taxes. To the extent such taxes are not offset by credits or deductions available to shareholders in the Fund, under U.S. tax law, they will reduce the net return to a Fund’s shareholders.

Foreign Securities Traded in the United States. The Funds may own foreign equity securities that are traded in the United States and denominated in United States dollars. They also may be issued originally in the United States. There may be a thin trading market for foreign securities that are traded in the United States, and in some cases such securities may be illiquid, since such securities may be restricted and traded principally among institutional investors.

Emerging Markets Securities. In addition, the Funds may invest in foreign securities of companies that are located in developing or emerging markets. Investing in securities of issuers located in these markets may pose greater risks not typically associated with investing in more established markets such as increased risk of social, political and economic instability. Emerging market countries typically have smaller securities markets than developed countries and therefore less liquidity and greater price volatility than more developed markets. Securities traded in emerging markets may also be subject to risks associated with the lack of modern technology, poor infrastructures, the lack of capital base to expand business operations and the inexperience of financial intermediaries, custodians and transfer agents. Emerging market countries are also more likely to impose restrictions on the repatriation of an investor’s assets, and even where there is no outright restriction on repatriation, the mechanics of repatriations may delay or impede a Fund’s ability to obtain possession of its assets. As a result, there may be an increased risk or price volatility associated with a Fund’s investments in emerging market countries, which may be magnified by currency fluctuations.

Investments in the People’s Republic of China (“China”). Investing in China is subject to the risks of investing in emerging markets and additional risks which are specific to the Chinese market.

China is an emerging market, and as a result, investments in securities of companies organized and listed in China may be subject to liquidity constraints and significantly higher volatility, from time to time, than investments in securities of more developed markets. China may be subject to considerable government

 

B-11


intervention and varying degrees of economic, political and social instability. These factors may result in, among other things, a greater risk of stock market, interest rate, and currency fluctuations, as well as inflation. Accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards in China are different from U.S. standards and, therefore, disclosure of certain material information may not be made, may be less available, or may be less reliable. It may also be difficult or impossible for a Fund to obtain or enforce a judgment in a Chinese court. In addition, periodically there may be restrictions on investments in Chinese companies. For example, on November 12, 2020, the President of the United States signed an Executive Order prohibiting U.S. persons from purchasing or investing in publicly-traded securities of companies identified by the U.S. Government as “Communist Chinese military companies” or in instruments that are derivative of, or are designed to provide investment exposure to, those companies. The universe of affected securities can change from time to time. As a result of an increase in the number of investors looking to sell such securities, or because of an inability to participate in an investment that the Adviser otherwise believes is attractive, a Fund may incur losses. Certain securities that are or become designated as prohibited securities may have less liquidity as a result of such designation and the market price of such prohibited securities may decline, potentially causing losses to a Fund. In addition, the market for securities of other Chinese-based issuers may also be negatively impacted, resulting in reduced liquidity and price declines.

A Fund may incur losses due to limited investment capabilities, or may not be able to fully implement or pursue its investment objective or strategy, due to local investment restrictions, illiquidity of the Chinese domestic securities market, and/or delay or disruption in execution and settlement of trades.

China A Shares. A Fund may invest in A Shares of companies based in China through the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect program or Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect program (collectively, “Stock Connect”) subject to any applicable regulatory limits. Stock Connect is a securities trading and clearing linked program developed by Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (“HKEx”), the Hong Kong Securities Clearing Company Limited (“HKSCC”), Shanghai Stock Exchange (“SSE”), Shenzhen Stock Exchange (“SZSE”) and China Securities Depository and Clearing Corporation Limited (“ChinaClear”) with the aim of achieving mutual stock market access between China and Hong Kong. This program allows foreign investors to trade certain SSE-listed or SZSE-listed China A Shares through their Hong Kong based brokers. All Hong Kong and overseas investors in Stock Connect will trade and settle SSE or SZSE securities in the offshore Renminbi (“CNH”) only. A Fund will be exposed to any fluctuation in the exchange rate between the U.S. Dollar and CNH in respect of such investments.

By seeking to invest in the domestic securities markets of China via Stock Connect a Fund is subject to the following additional risks:

General Risks of China A Shares. The relevant regulations are relatively untested and subject to change. There is no certainty as to how they will be applied, which could adversely affect the Fund. The program requires use of new information technology systems which may be subject to operational risk due to the program’s cross-border nature. If the relevant systems fail to function properly, trading in both Hong Kong and Chinese markets through the program could be disrupted.

Stock Connect will only operate on days when both the Chinese and Hong Kong markets are open for trading and when banks in both markets are open on the corresponding settlement days. There may be occasions when it is a normal trading day for the Chinese market but Stock Connect is not trading. As a result, the Fund may be subject to the risk of price fluctuations in China A Shares when the Fund cannot carry out any China A Shares trading.

 

   

Foreign Shareholding Restrictions. The trading, acquisition, disposal and holding of securities under Stock Connect are subject at all times to applicable law, which imposes purchasing and holding limits. These limitations and restrictions may have the effect of restricting an investor’s ability to purchase, subscribe for or hold any China A Shares or to take up any entitlements in

 

B-12


 

respect of such shares, or requiring an investor to reduce its holding in any securities, whether generally or at a particular point of time, and whether by way of forced sale or otherwise. As such, investors may incur loss arising from such limitations, restrictions and/or forced sale.

 

   

China A Shares Market Suspension Risk. China A Shares may only be bought from, or sold to, the Fund at times when the relevant China A Shares may be sold or purchased on the relevant Chinese stock exchange. SSE and SZSE typically have the right to suspend or limit trading in any security traded on the relevant exchange if necessary to ensure an orderly and fair market and that risks are managed prudently. In the event of the suspension, the Fund’s ability to access the Chinese market will be adversely affected.

 

   

Clearing and Settlement Risk. HKSCC and ChinaClear have established the clearing links and each will become a participant of each other to facilitate clearing and settlement of cross-boundary trades. For cross-boundary trades initiated in a market, the clearing house of that market will on one hand clear and settle with its own clearing participants and on the other hand undertake to fulfill the clearing and settlement obligations of its clearing participants with the counterparty clearing house.

In the event ChinaClear defaults, HKSCC’s liabilities under its market contracts with clearing participants may be limited to assisting clearing participants with claims. It is anticipated that HKSCC will act in good faith to seek recovery of the outstanding stocks and monies from ChinaClear through available legal channels or the liquidation of ChinaClear. Regardless, the process of recovery could be delayed and a Fund may not fully recover its losses or its Stock Connect securities.

 

   

Legal/Beneficial Ownership. Where securities are held in custody on a cross-border basis there are specific legal and beneficial ownership risks linked to the compulsory requirements of the local central securities depositaries, HKSCC and ChinaClear.

As in other emerging markets, the legislative framework is only beginning to develop the concept of legal/formal ownership and of beneficial ownership or interest in securities. In addition, HKSCC, as nominee holder, does not guarantee the title to Stock Connect securities held through it and is under no obligation to enforce title or other rights associated with ownership on behalf of beneficial owners. Consequently, the courts may consider that any nominee or custodian as registered holder of Stock Connect securities would have full ownership thereof, and that those Stock Connect securities would form part of the pool of assets of such entity available for distribution to creditors of such entities and/or that a beneficial owner may have no rights whatsoever in respect thereof. Consequently, neither a Fund nor its custodian can ensure that the Fund’s ownership of these securities or title thereto is assured.

To the extent that HKSCC is deemed to be performing safekeeping functions with respect to assets held through it, it should be noted that a Fund and its custodian will have no legal relationship with HKSCC and no direct legal recourse against HKSCC in the event that the Fund suffers losses resulting from the performance or insolvency of HKSCC. In the event that a Fund suffers losses due to the negligence, or willful default, or insolvency of HKSCC, the Fund may not be able to institute legal proceedings, file any proof of claim in any insolvency proceeding or take any similar action. In the event of the insolvency of HKSCC, a Fund may not have any proprietary interest in the China A Shares traded through the Stock Connect program and may be an unsecured general creditor in respect of any claim the Fund may have in respect of them. Consequently, the value of a Fund’s investment in China A Shares and the amount of its income and gains could be adversely affected.

 

   

Operational Risk. The HKSCC provides clearing, settlement, nominee functions and other related services in respect of trades executed by Hong Kong market participants. Chinese regulations which include certain restrictions on selling and buying will apply to all market participants. Trading via Stock Connect may require pre-delivery or pre-validation of cash or shares to or by a

 

B-13


 

broker. If the cash or shares are not in the broker’s possession before the market opens on the day of selling, the sell order will be rejected. As a result, a Fund may not be able to purchase and/or dispose of holdings of China A Shares in a timely manner.

 

   

Day Trading Restrictions. Day (turnaround) trading is not permitted through Stock Connect. Investors buying A Shares on day T can only sell the shares on and after day T+1 subject to any Stock Connect rules.

 

   

Quota Limitations. The Stock Connect program is subject to daily quota limitations which may restrict a Fund’s ability to invest in China A Shares through the program on a timely basis.

 

   

Investor Compensation. A Fund will not benefit from the China Securities Investor Protection Fund in mainland China. The China Securities Investor Protection Fund is established to pay compensation to investors in the event that a securities company in mainland China is subject to compulsory regulatory measures (such as dissolution, closure, bankruptcy, and administrative takeover by the China Securities Regulatory Commission). Since each Fund is carrying out trading of China A Shares through securities brokers in Hong Kong, but not mainland China brokers, therefore, it is not protected by the China Securities Investor Protection Fund.

That said, if a Fund suffers losses due to default matters of its securities brokers in Hong Kong in relation to the investment of China A Shares through the Stock Connect program, it would be compensated by Hong Kong’s Investor Compensation Fund.

Investments in the China Interbank Bond Market. A Fund may invest in the China Interbank Bond Market (the “CIBM”) through the Bond Connect program (the “Bond Connect”) subject to any applicable regulatory limits. Bond Connect is a bond trading and settlement linked program developed by the People’s Bank of China (“PBOC”), the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (“HKMA”), China Foreign Exchange Trade System & National Interbank Funding Centre (“CFETS”), China Central Depository & Clearing Co., Ltd. (“CCDC”), Shanghai Clearing House (“SHCH”), Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (“HKEx”) and Central Moneymarkets Unit (“CMU”), with the aim of achieving mutual bond market access between the PRC and Hong Kong. For the time being, this program allows eligible Hong Kong and overseas investors to invest in the bonds traded in the CIBM through the northbound trading of Bond Connect (the “Northbound Trade Link”) only.

Starting July 3, 2017, eligible Hong Kong and overseas investors may use their own sources of Renminbi in the PRC offshore market (“CNH”) or convert foreign currencies into the Renminbi to invest in CIBM bonds under Bond Connect. A Fund will be exposed to any fluctuation in the exchange rate between the U.S. Dollar and Renminbi in respect of such investments. Currently, there is no investment quota for the Northbound Trade Link.

By seeking to invest in the CIBM via Bond Connect, a Fund is subject to the following additional risks:

General Risk. The relevant regulations are relatively untested and subject to change. There is no certainty as to how they will be applied, which could adversely affect a Fund. Bond Connect requires use of new information technology systems which may be subject to operational risk due to Bond Connect’s cross-border nature. If the relevant systems fail to function properly, trading in the CIBM through Bond Connect could be disrupted.

Market Risk. A Fund investing in the CIBM is subject to liquidity and volatility risks. Market volatility and potential lack of liquidity due to possible low trading volume of certain bonds in the CIBM may result in prices of certain bonds traded in the CIBM fluctuating significantly. The bid and offer spreads of the prices of such bonds may be large, and the Fund may therefore incur significant trading and realization costs and may even suffer losses when selling such investments.

 

B-14


To the extent that a Fund transacts in the CIBM, the Fund may also be exposed to risks associated with settlement procedures and default of counterparties. The counterparty which has entered into a transaction with the Fund may default in its obligation to settle the transaction by failure to deliver relevant securities or to make payment.

Third Party Agent Risk. Under the Northbound Trading Link, CFETS or other institutions recognized by PBOC (as the registration agents) shall apply for registration with PBOC for the eligible Hong Kong and overseas investors. In addition, CMU (as the offshore custody agent recognized by the HKMA) shall open a nominee account with CCDC/SHCH (as the onshore custody agent) as nominee holder of the CIBM bonds purchased by Hong Kong and overseas investors through Bond Connect.

As the relevant filings, registration with PBOC, and account opening have to be carried out by an onshore settlement agent, offshore custody agent, registration agent or other third parties (as the case may be), a Fund is subject to the risks of default or errors on the part of such third parties.

Operational Risk. Bond Connect provides a new channel for investors from Hong Kong and overseas to access the CIBM directly. It is premised on the functioning of the operational systems of the relevant market participants. Market participants are able to participate in this program subject to meeting certain information technology capability, risk management and other requirements as may be specified by the relevant authorities.

The “connectivity” in Bond Connect requires routing of orders across the border. This requires the development of new information technology systems. There is no assurance that the systems of market participants will function properly or will continue to be adapted to changes and developments in both markets. In the event that the relevant systems fail to function properly, trading in the CIBM through Bond Connect could be disrupted. A Fund’s ability to access the CIBM (and hence to pursue its investment strategy) will be adversely affected.

Regulatory Risk. The PBOC Bond Connect rules are departmental regulations having legal effect in the PRC. However, the application of such rules is untested, and there is no assurance that PRC courts will recognize such rules.

Bond Connect is novel in nature and is subject to regulations promulgated by regulatory authorities and implementation rules made by the relevant authorities in the PRC and Hong Kong. Further, new regulations may be promulgated from time to time by the regulators in connection with operations and cross-border legal enforcement in connection with cross-border trades under Bond Connect.

The regulations are untested so far and there is no certainty as to how they will be applied. Moreover, the current regulations are subject to change. There can be no assurance that Bond Connect will not be abolished. A Fund which may invest in the CIBM through Bond Connect may be adversely affected as a result of such changes.

Legal/Beneficial Ownership Risk. Where CIBM bonds are held in custody on a cross-border basis there are specific legal and beneficial ownership risks linked to the compulsory requirements of CMU and CCDC/SHCH. CIBM bonds will be held by CMU as a nominee holder of the bonds purchased by foreign investors through Bond Connect. The PBOC has made it clear that the ultimate investors are the beneficial owners of the relevant bonds and shall exercise their rights against the bond issuer through CMU as the nominee holder. While the distinct concepts of nominee holder and beneficial owner are referred to under PBOC rules or regulations, as well as other laws and regulations in the PRC, the application of such rules is untested, and there is no assurance that PRC courts will recognize such concepts. Therefore, although a Fund’s ownership may be ultimately recognized, it may suffer difficulties or delays in enforcing its rights over CIBM bonds.

 

B-15


Tax within China. Uncertainties in Chinese tax rules governing taxation of income and gains from investments in A Shares via Stock Connect or CIBM bonds through Bond Connect could result in unexpected tax liabilities for the Funds. A Fund’s investments in securities, including A Shares and CIBM bonds, issued by Chinese companies may cause the Fund to become subject to withholding and other taxes imposed by China.

If a Fund were considered to be a tax resident of China, it would be subject to Chinese corporate income tax at the rate of 25% on its worldwide taxable income. If a Fund were considered to be a non-resident enterprise with a “permanent establishment” in China, it would be subject to Chinese corporate income tax of 25% on the profits attributable to the permanent establishment. The Adviser intends to operate the Funds in a manner that will prevent them from being treated as a tax resident of China and from having a permanent establishment in China. It is possible, however, that China could disagree with that conclusion, or that changes in Chinese tax law could affect the Chinese corporate income tax status of the Funds.

China generally imposes withholding income tax at a rate of 10% on dividends, premiums, interest and capital gains originating in China and paid to a company that is not a resident of China for tax purposes and that has no permanent establishment in China. The withholding is in general made by the relevant Chinese tax resident company making such payments. In the event the relevant Chinese tax resident company fails to withhold the relevant Chinese withholding income tax or otherwise fails to pay the relevant withholding income tax to Chinese tax authorities, the competent tax authorities may, at their sole discretion, impose tax obligations on a Fund.

The Funds may also potentially be subject to Chinese value added tax at the rate of 6% on capital gains derived from trading of A Shares, CIBM bonds and interest income (if any). Existing guidance provides a temporary value added tax exemption for Hong Kong and overseas investors in respect of their gains derived from the trading of Chinese securities through Stock Connect and Bond Connect. Because the exemption is on a temporary basis, the Funds may be subject to such value added tax in the future. In addition, urban maintenance and construction tax (currently at rates ranging from 1% to 7%), educational surcharge (currently at the rate of 3%) and local educational surcharge (currently at the rate of 2%) (collectively, the “surtaxes”) are imposed based on value added tax liabilities, so if a Fund were liable for value added tax it would also be required to pay the applicable surtaxes.

Taxation of A-Shares. The Ministry of Finance of China, the State Administration of Taxation of China and the China Securities Regulatory Commission issued Caishui [2014] No. 81 on October 31, 2014 (“Notice 81”) and Caishui [2016] No. 127 on November 5, 2016 (“Notice 127”), both of which state that the capital gain from disposal of China A Shares by foreign investors enterprises via Stock Connect will be temporarily exempt from withholding income tax. Notice 81 and Notice 127 also state that the dividends derived from A Shares by foreign investors enterprises is subject to a 10% withholding income tax.

There is no indication of how long the temporary exemption will remain in effect and the Funds may be subject to such withholding income tax in the future. If, in the future, China begins applying tax rules regarding the taxation of income from investments through Stock Connect and/or begins collecting capital gains taxes on such investments, a Fund could be subject to withholding income tax liability if the Fund determines that such liability cannot be reduced or eliminated by applicable tax treaties. The Chinese tax authorities may in the future issue further guidance in this regard and with potential retrospective effect. The negative impact of any such tax liability on a Fund’s return could be substantial.

In light of the uncertainty as to how gains or income that may be derived from a Fund’s investments in China will be taxed, the Fund reserves the right to provide for withholding tax on such gains or income and withhold tax for the account of the Fund. Withholding tax may already be withheld at a broker/custodian level.

 

B-16


Any tax provision, if made, will be reflected in the net asset value of a Fund at the time the provision is used to satisfy tax liabilities. If the actual applicable tax levied by the Chinese tax authorities is greater than that provided for by a Fund so that there is a shortfall in the tax provision amount, the net asset value of the Fund may suffer as the Fund will have to bear additional tax liabilities. In this case, then existing and new shareholders in the Fund will be disadvantaged. If the actual applicable tax levied by Chinese tax authorities is less than that provided for by a Fund so that there is an excess in the tax provision amount, shareholders who redeemed Fund shares before the Chinese tax authorities’ ruling, decision or guidance may have been disadvantaged as they would have borne any loss from the Fund’s overprovision. In this case, the then existing and new shareholders in the Fund may benefit if the difference between the tax provision and the actual taxation liability can be returned to the account of the Fund as assets thereof. Any excess in the tax provision amount shall be treated as property of the Fund, and shareholders who previously transferred or redeemed their Fund shares will not be entitled or have any right to claim any part of the amount representing the excess.

Stamp duty under the Chinese laws generally applies to the execution and receipt of taxable documents, which include contracts for the sale of A Shares traded on Chinese stock exchanges. In the case of such contracts, the stamp duty is currently imposed on the seller but not on the purchaser, at the rate of 0.1%. According to the announcement jointly issued by the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation of the PRC on August 27, 2023, starting from August 28, 2023, the stamp duty on securities transactions is reduced by half. The sale or other transfer by the Adviser of A Shares will accordingly be subject to Chinese stamp duty, but a Fund will not be subject to Chinese stamp duty when it acquires A Shares.

The Chinese rules for taxation of Stock Connect are evolving, and certain of the tax regulations to be issued by the State Administration of Taxation of China and/or Ministry of Finance of China to clarify the subject matter may apply retrospectively, even if such rules are adverse to the Funds and their shareholders. The imposition of taxes, particularly on a retrospective basis, could have a material adverse effect on a Fund’s returns. Before further guidance is issued and is well established in the administrative practice of the Chinese tax authorities, the practices of the Chinese tax authorities that collect Chinese taxes relevant to a Fund may differ from, or be applied in a manner inconsistent with, the practices with respect to the analogous investments described herein or any further guidance that may be issued. The value of a Fund’s investment in China and the amount of its income and gains could be adversely affected by an increase in tax rates or change in the taxation basis. The above information is only a general summary of the potential Chinese tax consequences that may be imposed on the Funds and their shareholders either directly or indirectly and should not be taken as a definitive, authoritative or comprehensive statement of the relevant matter. Shareholders should seek their own tax advice on their tax position with regard to their investment in the Funds.

The Chinese government has implemented a number of tax reform policies in recent years. The current tax laws and regulations may be revised or amended in the future. Any revision or amendment in tax laws and regulations may affect the after-taxation profit of Chinese companies and foreign investors in such companies, such as the Funds.

Taxation of CIBM Bonds. The Ministry of Finance of the PRC and the State Administration of Taxation of the PRC issued Caishui No. 108 on November 7, 2018 (“Notice 108”), which states that foreign investors will be temporarily exempt from the withholding income tax on their gains derived from CIBM bond interest.

The Ministry of Finance of the PRC and the State Administration of Taxation of the PRC issued Announcement [2021] No. 34 on November 22, 2021, which provides that the temporary exemption of withholding tax and value added tax will remain in effect until December 31, 2025. If, in the future, China begins to apply tax rules regarding the taxation of bond interest income derived by foreign investment in

 

B-17


CIBM, and/or begins to collect withholding tax and other taxes on such investment, the Adviser or a Fund could be subject to such withholding tax and value added tax.

Foreign Currency Risk. While the Funds denominate their net asset value in U.S. dollars, the securities of foreign companies are frequently denominated in foreign currencies. Thus, a change in the value of a foreign currency against the U.S. dollar will result in a corresponding change in value of securities denominated in that currency. Some of the factors that may impair the investments denominated in a foreign currency are:

 

   

It may be expensive to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars and vice versa;

   

Complex political and economic factors may significantly affect the values of various currencies, including U.S. dollars, and their exchange rates;

   

Government intervention may increase risks involved in purchasing or selling foreign currency options, forward contracts and futures contracts, since exchange rates may not be free to fluctuate in response to other market forces;

   

There may be no systematic reporting of last sale information for foreign currencies or regulatory requirement that quotations available through dealers or other market sources be firm or revised on a timely basis;

   

Available quotation information is generally representative of very large round-lot transactions in the inter-bank market and thus may not reflect exchange rates for smaller odd-lot transactions (less than $1 million) where rates may be less favorable; and

   

The inter-bank market in foreign currencies is a global, around-the-clock market. To the extent that a market is closed while the markets for the underlying currencies remain open, certain markets may not always reflect significant price and rate movements.

Foreign Currency Options. The Funds may buy or sell put and call options on foreign currencies either on exchanges or in the over-the-counter market. A put option on a foreign currency gives the purchaser of the option the right to sell a foreign currency at the exercise price until the option expires. A call option on a foreign currency gives the purchaser of the option the right to purchase the currency at the exercise price until the option expires. Currency options traded on U.S. or other exchanges may be subject to position limits that may limit the ability of a Fund to reduce foreign currency risk using such options, and are subject to other risks similar to options or securities on indexes.

Foreign Currency Transactions. The Funds may enter into foreign currency transactions. The Funds normally conduct foreign currency exchange transactions either on a spot (cash) basis at the spot rate prevailing in the foreign currencies or on a forward basis. A Fund generally will not enter into a forward contract with a term of greater than one year. Although forward contracts are used primarily to protect a Fund from adverse currency movements, they may also be used to increase exposure to a currency, and involve the risk that anticipated currency movements will not be accurately predicted and the Fund’s total return will be adversely affected as a result. Open positions in forward contracts are covered by the segregation with a Fund’s custodian of cash, U.S. government securities or other liquid obligations and are marked to market daily.

Forward currency contracts are traded directly between currency traders (usually large commercial banks) and their customers. The cost to a Fund of engaging in such contracts varies with factors such as the currency involved, the length of the contract period and the market conditions then prevailing. Because such contracts are entered into on a principal basis, no fees or commissions are involved.

Precise matching of the amount of forward currency contracts and the value of securities denominated in such currencies of a Fund will not generally be possible, since the future value of such securities in foreign currencies will change as a consequence of market movements in the value of those securities between the date the forward contract is entered into and the date it matures. Prediction of short-term currency market

 

B-18


movements is extremely difficult, and the successful execution of a short-term hedging strategy is highly uncertain. A Fund will not enter into such forward contracts or maintain a net exposure to such contracts where the consummation of the contracts would obligate a Fund to deliver an amount of foreign currency in excess of the value of the Fund’s portfolio securities or other assets denominated in that currency. Under normal circumstances, consideration of the prospect for currency parities will be incorporated into the longer term investment decisions made with regard to overall diversification strategies. However, the Adviser believes that it is important to have the flexibility to enter into such forward contracts when it, or a Sub-adviser, determines that the best interests of the Fund will be served by doing so.

At the maturity of a forward contract, a Fund may either sell the portfolio security, deliver the foreign currency or it may retain the security and terminate its contractual obligation to deliver the foreign currency by purchasing an “offsetting” contract obligating it to purchase, on the same maturity date, the same amount of the foreign currency.

It may be necessary for a Fund to purchase additional foreign currency on the spot market (and bear the expense of such purchase) if the market value of the security is less than the amount of foreign currency the Fund is obligated to deliver and if a decision is made to sell the security and make delivery of the foreign currency. Conversely, it may be necessary to sell on the spot market some of the foreign currency received upon the sale of the portfolio security if its market value exceeds the amount of foreign currency a Fund is obligated to deliver.

If a Fund retains a portfolio security and engages in an offsetting transaction, the Fund will incur a gain or a loss to the extent that there has been movement in forward contract prices. If a Fund engages in an offsetting transaction, it may subsequently enter into a new forward contract to sell the foreign currency. Should forward prices decline during the period between the date the Fund enters into a forward contract for the sale of a foreign currency and the date it enters into an offsetting contract for the purchase of the foreign currency, the Fund will realize a gain to the extent the price of the currency it has agreed to sell exceeds the price of the currency it has agreed to purchase. Should forward prices increase, the Fund will suffer a loss to the extent the price of the currency it has agreed to purchase exceeds the price of the currency it has agreed to sell.

A Fund’s dealings in forward foreign currency exchange contracts will generally be limited to the transactions described above. However, the Funds reserve the right to enter into forward foreign currency contracts for different purposes and under different circumstances. Use of forward currency contracts to hedge against a decline in the value of a currency does not eliminate fluctuations in the underlying prices of the securities. Additionally, although such contracts tend to minimize the risk of loss due to a decline in the value of the hedged currency, they also tend to limit any potential gain which might result from an increase in the value of that currency.

Although the Funds value their assets daily in terms of U.S. dollars, the Funds do not intend to convert any holdings of foreign currencies into U.S. dollars on a daily basis. Foreign exchange dealers do not charge a fee for conversion, but they do realize a profit based on the difference (the “spread”) between the prices at which they are buying and selling various currencies. Thus, a dealer may offer to sell a foreign currency to a Fund at one rate, while offering a lesser rate of exchange should the Fund desire to resell that currency to the dealer.

Lock In. When a Fund desires to lock in the U.S. dollar price on the purchase or sale of a security denominated in a foreign currency.

Cross Hedge. If a particular currency is expected to decrease against another currency, a Fund may sell the currency expected to decrease and purchase a currency which is expected to increase against the currency sold in an amount approximately equal to some or all of the Fund’s portfolio holdings denominated in the currency sold.

 

B-19


Direct Hedge. If a Fund wants to eliminate substantially all of the risk of owning a particular currency, and/or if a Fund thinks that it can benefit from price appreciation in a given country’s bonds but does not want to hold the currency, it may employ a direct hedge back into the U.S. dollar. In either case, a Fund would enter into a forward contract to sell the currency in which a portfolio security is denominated and purchase U.S. dollars at an exchange rate established at the time it initiated the contract. The cost of the direct hedge transaction may offset most, if not all, of the yield advantage offered by the foreign security, but a Fund would hope to benefit from an increase (if any) in value of the bond.

Proxy Hedge. A Fund might choose to use a proxy hedge, which may be less costly than a direct hedge. In this case, a Fund, having purchased a security, will sell a currency whose value is believed to be closely linked to the currency in which the security is denominated. Interest rates prevailing in the country whose currency was sold would be expected to be closer to those in the United States and lower than those of securities denominated in the currency of the original holding. This type of hedging entails greater risk than a direct hedge because it is dependent on a stable relationship between the two currencies paired as proxies and the relationships can be very unstable at times.

Costs of Hedging. When a Fund purchases a foreign bond with a higher interest rate than is available on U.S. bonds of a similar maturity, the additional yield on the foreign bond could be substantially reduced or lost if the Fund were to enter into a direct hedge by selling the foreign currency and purchasing the U.S. dollar. This is what is known as the “cost” of hedging. Proxy hedging attempts to reduce this cost through an indirect hedge back to the U.S. dollar.

Real Estate Securities

Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”). The Funds may invest in REITs. REITs are pooled investment vehicles that invest primarily in either real estate or real estate related loans. Like regulated investment companies (“RICs”) such as the Funds, U.S. REITs are not taxed on income distributed to shareholders provided that they comply with certain requirements under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). A Fund will indirectly bear its proportionate share of any expenses paid by REITs in which it invests in addition to the Fund’s own expenses. REITs involve certain unique risks in addition to those risks associated with investing in the real estate industry in general (such as possible declines in the value of real estate, lack of availability of mortgage funds, or extended vacancies of property). REITs are generally classified as equity REITs, mortgage REITs or a combination of equity and mortgage REITs. Equity REITs invest the majority of their assets directly in real property and derive income primarily from the collection of rents. Equity REITs can also realize capital gains by selling properties that have appreciated in value. Mortgage REITs invest the majority of their assets in real estate mortgages and derive income from the collection of interest payments. Equity REITs may be affected by changes in the value of the underlying property owned by the REITs, while mortgage REITs may be affected by the risk of borrower default. REITs, and mortgage REITs in particular, are also subject to interest rate risk.

Mortgage REITs receive principal and interest payments from the owners of the mortgaged properties. Accordingly, mortgage REITs are subject to the credit risk of the borrowers to whom they extend credit. Credit risk refers to the possibility that the borrower will be unable and/or unwilling to make timely interest payments and/or repay the principal on the loan to a mortgage REIT when due. Mortgage REITs are subject to significant interest rate risk. When the general level of interest rates goes up, the value of a mortgage REIT’s investment in fixed rate obligations goes down. When the general level of interest rates goes down, the value of a mortgage REIT’s investment in fixed rate obligations goes up. Mortgage REITs typically use leverage and many are highly leveraged, which exposes them to leverage risk. Leverage risk refers to the risk that leverage created from borrowing may impair a mortgage REIT’s liquidity, cause it to liquidate positions at an unfavorable time and increase the volatility of the values of securities issued by the mortgage REIT. Mortgage REITs are subject to prepayment risk, which is the risk that borrowers may prepay their mortgage loans at faster than expected rates. Prepayment rates generally increase when interest rates fall and decrease when interest rates rise. These faster than expected payments may adversely affect a

 

B-20


mortgage REIT’s profitability because the mortgage REIT may be forced to replace investments that have been redeemed or repaid early with other investments having a lower yield. Additionally, rising interest rates may cause the duration of a mortgage REIT’s investments to be longer than anticipated and increase such investments’ interest rate sensitivity.

REITs are dependent upon their operators’ management skills, are generally not diversified (except to the extent the Code requires), and are subject to heavy cash flow dependency and the risk of default by borrowers. REITs are also subject to the possibility of failing to qualify for tax-free pass-through of income under the Code or failing to maintain their exemptions from registration under the 1940 Act. REITs may have limited financial resources, may trade less frequently and in a limited volume, and may be subject to more abrupt or erratic price movements than more widely held securities.

A Fund’s investment in a REIT may result in the Fund making distributions that constitute a return of capital to Fund shareholders for federal income tax purposes or may require the Fund to accrue and distribute income not yet received. In addition, distributions attributable to REITs made by a Fund to Fund shareholders will not qualify for the corporate dividends-received deduction, or, generally, for treatment as qualified dividend income.

Borrowing and Other Forms of Leverage

The Funds may borrow money for investment purposes to the extent permitted by their investment policies and restrictions and applicable law. When a Fund borrows money or otherwise leverages its portfolio, the value of an investment in the Fund will be more volatile and other investment risks will tend to be compounded. This is because leverage tends to exaggerate the effect of any increase or decrease in the value of a Fund’s holdings. The Funds may also borrow money for temporary emergency purposes.

The Funds are not currently parties to a line of credit. However, the Funds may establish lines of credit with certain banks by which the Funds may borrow funds for temporary or emergency purposes. The Funds may use lines of credit to meet large or unexpected redemptions that would otherwise force a Fund to liquidate securities under circumstances which are unfavorable to the Fund’s remaining shareholders. Should the Funds become parties to a line of credit, they may be required to pay fees to the banks to maintain a line of credit, which would increase the cost of borrowing over the stated interest rate. Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“BBH”), in its capacity as the Funds’ custodian, will generally provide overdraft protection to the Funds in the event of a cash shortfall. Overdraft protection is provided on an uncommitted basis.

The Trust received an exemptive order from the SEC on June 1, 2016 (the “Order”), which permits the Funds to participate in an interfund lending program (the “Program”) with existing or future mutual funds that are advised by the Adviser and certain of its affiliates (the “Participating Funds”). The Program enables a Participating Fund to lend cash directly to and borrow money from other Participating Funds for temporary purposes. The Program is subject to a number of conditions set forth in the application for the exemptive order, as amended (the “Application”), and the Order, including the requirement that the interfund loan rate to be charged to a borrowing fund is (i) more favorable to the lending fund than the highest current overnight repurchase agreement rate available to the lending fund (the “Repo Rate”); and (ii) more favorable to the borrowing fund than the lowest interest rate at which a bank short-term loan would be available to the borrowing fund (the “Bank Loan Rate”). The Bank Loan Rate will be determined using a formula established by the Board. The interfund loan rate will be the average of the Repo Rate and the Bank Loan Rate. All interfund loans and borrowings must comply with the conditions set forth in the Application and the Order, which are designed to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all Participating Funds.

A Fund will participate in the Program only to the extent that its participation is consistent with the Fund’s investment objectives, limitations, and organizational documents. Upon implementation of the Program, the Adviser administers the Program according to procedures approved by the Board. The Board is responsible for overseeing and periodically reviewing the Program.

 

B-21


Cash Position

The Funds do not always stay fully invested in securities. When a Sub-adviser believes that market conditions are unfavorable for profitable investing, or when a Sub-adviser is otherwise unable to locate attractive investment opportunities, a Fund’s cash or similar investments may increase. Cash or similar investments generally are a residual - they represent the assets that remain after a portfolio manager has committed available assets to desirable investment opportunities. However, a Fund’s Adviser or Sub-adviser(s) may also temporarily increase the Fund’s cash position to protect assets, maintain liquidity, or during periods when transitioning Fund assets from one Sub-adviser to another Sub-adviser. Partly because each of the Sub-advisers acts independently of each other, the cash positions of the Funds may vary significantly.

When a Fund’s investments in cash or similar investments increase, the Fund may not participate in market advances or declines to the same extent that it would if the Fund remained more fully invested in stocks or bonds.

Short-Term Investments

The Funds may invest without limitation in any of the following short-term securities and instruments:

Bank Obligations. The Funds may invest in obligations including bankers’ acceptances, commercial paper and other debt obligations of banks and instruments secured by such obligations, not including obligations of foreign branches of domestic banks except as permitted below. Bankers’ acceptances are negotiable drafts or bills of exchange, normally drawn by an importer or exporter to pay for specific merchandise, which are “accepted” by a bank, meaning in effect that the bank unconditionally agrees to pay the face value of the instrument on maturity.

Certificates of Deposit and Time Deposits. The Funds may hold certificates of deposit and time deposits. Certificates of deposit are negotiable certificates issued against funds deposited in a commercial bank for a definite period of time and earning a specified return. Time deposits are non-negotiable receipts issued by a bank in exchange for the deposit of funds and, like a certificate of deposit, earns a specified return over a definitive period of time.

Commercial Paper and Short-Term Notes. The Funds may invest a portion of their assets in commercial paper and short-term notes. Commercial paper consists of unsecured promissory notes issued by corporations. Commercial paper and short-term notes will normally have maturities of less than nine months and fixed rates of return, although such instruments may have maturities of up to one year.

Commercial paper and short-term notes will generally consist of issues rated at the time of purchase “A-2” or higher by S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”), “Prime-1” or “Prime-2” by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc.© (“Moody’s”), or similarly rated by another nationally recognized statistical rating organization or, if unrated, will be determined by the Adviser to be of comparable quality. These rating symbols are described in Appendix A.

Other Short-Term Obligations. The Funds may invest in short-term obligations, which are debt securities initially issued with a remaining maturity of 397 days or less and that generally have a short-term rating within ratings categories of at least A-1 by S&P or P-1 by Moody’s.

Corporate Debt Securities

The Funds may invest in non-convertible debt securities of foreign and domestic companies over a cross-section of industries. The debt securities in which the Funds may invest will be of varying maturities and

 

B-22


may include corporate bonds, debentures, notes and other similar corporate debt instruments. The value of a longer-term debt security fluctuates more widely in response to changes in interest rates than do shorter-term debt securities.

Municipal Securities

The Funds may invest in securities issued by states, territories, possessions, municipalities and other political subdivisions, agencies, authorities and instrumentalities of states, territories, possessions and multi-state agencies or authorities, commonly referred to as municipal bonds.

Municipal bonds share the structural attributes of debt/fixed income securities in general, but are issued by states, municipalities and other political subdivisions, agencies, authorities and instrumentalities of states and multi-state agencies or authorities. Municipal bonds may be issued and traded through when-issued, delayed delivery, or forward commitment transactions. The municipal bonds which the Funds may purchase include general obligation bonds and limited obligation bonds (or revenue bonds); including industrial development bonds issued pursuant to former federal tax law. Under the Code, certain limited obligation bonds are considered “private activity bonds” and interest paid on such bonds is treated as an item of tax preference for purposes of calculating federal alternative minimum tax applicable to non-corporate taxpayers.

General obligation bonds are obligations involving the credit of an issuer possessing taxing power and are payable from such issuer’s general revenues and not from any particular source. Limited obligation bonds are payable only from the revenues derived from a particular facility or class of facilities or, in some cases, from the proceeds of a special excise or other specific revenue source. Tax-exempt private activity bonds and industrial development bonds generally are not payable from the issuing authority’s general revenues but instead the corporate user (and/or any guarantor) is responsible for payment of interest and principal. Accordingly, the credit and quality of private activity bonds and industrial development bonds are usually related to the credit of the corporate user of a particular facility or class of facilities.

The Funds may invest in municipal bonds that finance projects relating to education, health care, housing, transportation, and utilities, and may make significant investments in industrial development bonds. These types of bonds may be more sensitive to adverse economic, business or political developments than other types of municipal bonds.

The Funds may invest in pre-refunded municipal bonds or bonds that have been escrowed to maturity. These structures are generally employed by issuers of municipal bonds to effectively replace bonds issued at higher interest rates with bonds issued at lower interest rates. Proceeds of the newly issued, lower interest bonds are placed in an escrow account established by a municipality and an independent escrow agent and pledged to pay the principal and interest of the higher interest rate bonds. The principal for pre-refunded bonds is repaid at a specified early redemption date (i.e. call date) while the principal for escrowed-to-maturity bonds is paid at the bond’s original maturity date. Typically, the escrow account holds U.S. Treasury securities or other obligations of the U.S. Government (including its agencies and instrumentalities (“Agency Securities”)). The pledged securities fulfill the original pledge of payments by the municipality; however, the escrow account does not eliminate the potential for price movement of the pre-refunded or escrowed-to-maturity bond before redemption. Consequently, investments in pre-refunded or escrowed-to-maturity municipal bonds may subject the Fund to interest rate risk, market risk and credit risk. In addition, while a secondary market exists for pre-refunded municipal bonds, if a Fund sells pre-refunded or escrowed-to-maturity municipal bonds prior to redemption, the price received may be more or less than the Fund’s purchase cost, depending on market conditions at the time of sale. To the extent permitted by the SEC and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), a Fund’s investment in pre-refunded municipal bonds backed by U.S. Treasury and Agency securities in the manner described above, will, for purposes of diversification tests applicable to the Fund, be considered an investment in the respective U.S. Treasury and Agency securities.

 

B-23


The Funds may invest in municipal lease obligations. Municipal leases are instruments, or participations in instruments, issued in connection with lease obligations or installment purchase contract obligations of municipalities (“municipal lease obligations”). Although municipal lease obligations do not constitute general obligations of the issuing municipality, a lease obligation may be backed by the municipality’s covenant to budget for, appropriate funds for and make the payments due under the lease obligation.

However, certain municipal lease obligations contain “non-appropriation” clauses, which provide that the municipality has no obligation to make lease or installment purchase payments in future years unless money is appropriated for such purpose in the relevant years. In deciding whether to purchase a lease obligation, a Fund’s Sub-advisers may assess such factors as the financial condition of the borrower, the merits of the project, the level of public support for the project, and the legislative history of lease financing in the state. Municipal lease obligations may be less readily marketable than other municipal securities. Certain lease obligation bonds may be financed through a certificate of participation through which investors are entitled to receive a portion of the lease payments from the project being financed. Projects financed with certificates of participation generally are not subject to state constitutional debt limitations or other statutory requirements that may apply to other municipal securities. Payments by the public entity on the obligation underlying the certificates are derived from available revenue sources. That revenue might be diverted to the funding of other municipal service projects. Payments of interest and/or principal with respect to the certificates are not guaranteed and do not constitute an obligation of a state or any of its political subdivisions.

Municipal leases may also be subject to “abatement risk.” The leases underlying certain municipal lease obligations may state that lease payments are subject to partial or full abatement. That abatement might occur, for example, if material damage to or destruction of the leased property interferes with the lessee’s use of the property. However, in some cases that risk might be reduced by insurance covering the leased property, or by the use of credit enhancements such as letters of credit to back lease payments, or perhaps by the lessee’s maintenance of reserve monies for lease payments. While the obligation might be secured by the lease, it might be difficult to dispose of that property in case of a default.

A Fund may seek to enhance its yield through the purchase of municipal private placements. These securities are sold through private negotiations, usually to institutions or mutual funds, and generally have resale restrictions. Their yields are usually higher than comparable public securities to compensate the investor for their limited marketability. A Fund may not invest more than 15% of its net assets in illiquid investments that are assets, including unmarketable private placements.

The Funds may invest in municipal bonds with credit enhancements such as letters of credit, municipal bond insurance and Standby Bond Purchase Agreements (“SBPAs”). Letters of credit are issued by a third party, usually a bank, to enhance liquidity and ensure repayment of principal and any accrued interest if the underlying municipal bond should default. Municipal bond insurance, which is usually purchased by the bond issuer from a private, nongovernmental insurance company, provides an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee that the insured bond’s principal and interest will be paid when due. Insurance does not guarantee the price of the bond or the share price of any fund. The credit rating of an insured bond reflects the credit rating of the insurer, based on its claims-paying ability. The obligation of a municipal bond insurance company to pay a claim extends over the life of each insured bond. Although defaults on insured municipal bonds have been low to date and municipal bond insurers have met their claims, there is no assurance this will continue. A higher-than-expected default rate could strain the insurer’s loss reserves and adversely affect its ability to pay claims to bondholders. A significant portion of insured municipal bonds that have been issued and are outstanding are insured by a small number of insurance companies, an event involving one or more of these insurance companies, such as a credit rating downgrade, could have a significant adverse effect on the value of the municipal bonds insured by that insurance company and on the municipal bond markets as a whole. Downgrades of certain insurance companies have negatively impacted the price of certain insured municipal bonds. Given the large number of potential claims against

 

B-24


the insurers of municipal bonds, there is a risk that they will not be able to meet all future claims. An SBPA is a liquidity facility provided to pay the purchase price of bonds that cannot be re-marketed. The obligation of the liquidity provider (usually a bank) is only to advance funds to purchase tendered bonds that cannot be remarketed and does not cover principal or interest under any other circumstances. The liquidity provider’s obligations under the SBPA are usually subject to numerous conditions, including the continued creditworthiness of the underlying borrower.

Municipal bonds are subject to credit and market risk. Generally, prices of higher quality issues tend to fluctuate more with changes in market interest rates than prices of lower quality issues and prices of longer maturity issues tend to fluctuate more than prices of shorter maturity issues. The economic and revenue performance of states and their agencies and municipalities may be significantly impacted by trends in the national economy, particularly by factors such as unemployment and the housing market which may directly impact revenue production of certain issuers of municipal securities. Poor economic performance may increase the likelihood that issuers of securities in which the Fund may invest will be unable to meet their obligations, that the values of securities in which the Fund invests will decline significantly, and that the liquidity of such securities will be impaired. In addition, the value of municipal bonds may also be affected by uncertainties involving the taxation of Municipal Bonds or the rights of municipal bond holders in the event of a bankruptcy.

The Funds may purchase and sell portfolio investments to take advantage of changes or anticipated changes in yield relationships, markets or economic conditions. The Funds also may sell municipal bonds due to changes in a Sub-adviser’s evaluation of the issuer or cash needs resulting from redemption requests for Fund shares. The secondary market for municipal bonds typically has been less liquid than that for taxable debt/fixed income securities, and this may affect a Fund’s ability to sell particular municipal bonds at quoted market prices, especially in periods when other investors are attempting to sell the same securities. Additionally, municipal bonds rated below investment grade (i.e., high yield municipal bonds) may not be as liquid as higher-rated municipal bonds. Reduced liquidity in the secondary market may have an adverse impact on the market price of a municipal bond and on the Fund’s ability to sell a municipal bond in response to changes or anticipated changes in economic conditions or to meet the Fund’s cash needs. Reduced liquidity may also make it more difficult to obtain market quotations based on actual trades for purposes of valuing the Fund’s portfolio.

Prices and yields on municipal bonds are dependent on a variety of factors, including general financial market conditions, the financial condition of the issuer, general conditions of the municipal bond market, the size of a particular offering, the maturity of the obligation and the rating of the issue. A number of these factors, including the ratings of particular issues, are subject to change from time to time. Information about the financial condition of an issuer of municipal bonds may not be as extensive as that which is made available by corporations whose securities are publicly traded.

The Funds may purchase custodial receipts representing the right to receive either the principal amount or the periodic interest payments or both with respect to specific underlying municipal bonds. In a typical custodial receipt arrangement, an issuer or third party owner of municipal bonds deposits the bonds with a custodian in exchange for two classes of custodial receipts. The two classes have different characteristics, but, in each case, payments on the two classes are based on payments received on the underlying municipal bonds. In no event will the aggregate interest paid with respect to the two classes exceed the interest paid by the underlying municipal bond. Custodial receipts are sold in private placements. The value of a custodial receipt may fluctuate more than the value of a municipal bond of comparable quality and maturity.

The perceived increased likelihood of default among issuers of municipal bonds may result in constrained liquidity, increased price volatility and credit downgrades of issuers of municipal bonds. Local and national market forces—such as declines in real estate prices and general business activity—may result in

 

B-25


decreasing tax bases, fluctuations in interest rates, and increasing construction costs, all of which could reduce the ability of certain issuers of municipal bonds to repay their obligations. Certain issuers of municipal bonds have also been unable to obtain additional financing through, or must pay higher interest rates on, new issues, which may reduce revenues available for issuers of municipal bonds to pay existing obligations. In addition, events have demonstrated that the lack of disclosure rules in this area can make it difficult for investors to obtain reliable information on the obligations underlying municipal bonds. Adverse developments in the municipal bond market may negatively affect the value of all or a substantial portion of a fund’s holdings in municipal bonds.

Obligations of issuers of municipal bonds are subject to the provisions of bankruptcy, insolvency and other laws affecting the rights and remedies of creditors. Congress or state legislatures may seek to extend the time for payment of principal or interest, or both, or to impose other constraints upon enforcement of such obligations. There is also the possibility that as a result of litigation or other conditions, the power or ability of issuers to meet their obligations for the payment of interest and principal on their municipal bonds may be materially affected or their obligations may be found to be invalid or unenforceable. Such litigation or conditions may from time to time have the effect of introducing uncertainties in the market for municipal bonds or certain segments thereof, or of materially affecting the credit risk with respect to particular bonds. Adverse economic, business, legal or political developments might affect all or a substantial portion of a Fund’s municipal bonds in the same manner.

From time to time, proposals have been introduced before Congress for the purpose of restricting or eliminating the federal income tax exemption for interest on certain types of municipal bonds. Additionally, certain other proposals have been introduced that would have the effect of taxing a portion of exempt interest and/or reducing the tax benefits of receiving exempt interest. It can be expected that similar proposals may be introduced in the future. As a result of any such future legislation, the availability of such municipal bonds for investment by a Fund and the value of such municipal bonds held by the Fund may be affected. In addition, it is possible that events occurring after the date of a municipal bond’s issuance, or after a Fund’s acquisition of such obligation, may result in a determination that the interest paid on that obligation is taxable, in certain cases retroactively.

The Adviser or the Sub-advisers, as applicable, relies on the opinion of the issuer’s counsel, which is rendered at the time the security is issued, to determine whether the security is fit, with respect to its validity and tax status, to be purchased by a Fund. The Adviser, the Sub-advisers and the Funds do not guarantee this opinion is correct, and there is no assurance that the IRS will agree with such counsel’s opinion.

Government Obligations - U.S. and Foreign

The Funds may invest in U.S. Government obligations including Treasury bills, certificates of indebtedness, notes and bonds, and issues of such entities as the Government National Mortgage Association (“GNMA”), Export-Import Bank of the United States, Tennessee Valley Authority, Resolution Funding Corporation, Farmers Home Administration, Federal Home Loan Banks, Federal Intermediate Credit Banks, Federal Farm Credit Banks, Federal Land Banks, Federal Housing Administration, Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”), and the Student Loan Marketing Association (“SLMA”).

Some of these obligations, such as those of the GNMA, are supported by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury; others, such as those of the Export-Import Bank of United States, are supported by the right of the issuer to borrow from the Treasury; others, such as those of the FNMA, are supported by the discretionary authority of the U.S. Government to purchase the agency’s obligations; still others, such as those of the SLMA, are supported only by the credit of the instrumentality. No assurance can be given that the U.S. Government would provide financial support to U.S. Government-sponsored instrumentalities if it is not obligated to do so by law.

 

B-26


The Funds may invest in sovereign debt obligations of foreign countries. A sovereign debtor’s willingness or ability to repay principal and interest in a timely manner may be affected by a number of factors, including its cash flow situation, the extent of its foreign reserves, the availability of sufficient foreign exchange on the date a payment is due, the relative size of the debt service burden to the economy as a whole, the sovereign debtor’s policy toward principal international lenders and the political constraints to which it may be subject. A government could default on its sovereign debt obligations. This risk of default is higher in emerging markets. Such sovereign debtors also may be dependent on expected disbursements from foreign governments, multilateral agencies and other entities abroad to reduce principal and interest arrearages on their debt. The commitments on the part of these governments, agencies and others to make such disbursements may be conditioned on a sovereign debtor’s implementation of economic reforms and/or economic performance and the timely service of such debtor’s obligations. Failure to meet such conditions could result in the cancellation of such third parties’ commitments to lend funds to the sovereign debtor, which may further impair such debtor’s ability or willingness to service its debt in a timely manner.

The total public debt of the U.S. government as a percentage of gross domestic product has grown rapidly since the beginning of the 2008 financial downturn and has accelerated in connection with the U.S. government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although high debt levels do not necessarily indicate or cause economic problems, they may create certain systemic risks if sound debt management practices are not implemented. A high national debt level may increase market pressures to meet government funding needs, which may increase borrowing costs and cause a government to issue additional debt, thereby increasing the risk of refinancing. A high national debt also raises concerns that a government may be unable or unwilling to repay the principal or interest on its debt. Unsustainable debt levels can decline the valuation of currencies, and can prevent a government from implementing effective counter-cyclical fiscal policy during economic downturns. Government spending in response to COVID-19 may further increase the U.S. government’s debt burden, which could heighten these associated risks.

An increase in the U.S. national debt levels has also necessitated the need for the U.S. Congress to negotiate adjustments to the statutory debt ceiling to increase the cap on the amount the U.S. government is permitted to borrow to meet its existing obligations and finance current budget deficits. In August 2011, a major rating agency lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating of the U.S. government. In explaining the downgrade at that time, the rating agency cited, among other reasons, controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and growth in public spending. In August 2023, a major rating agency downgraded the U.S.’s long-term foreign-currency issuer default rating to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA’. At the time of issuing the downgrade, the rating agency cited the expected fiscal deterioration over the next three years, a high and growing general government debt burden, and the erosion of governance relative to ‘AA’ and ‘AAA’ rated peers over the last two decades that has manifested in repeated debt limit standoffs and last-minute resolutions. Similar downgrades in the future could increase volatility in domestic and foreign financial markets, result in higher interest rates, lower prices of U.S. Treasury securities and increase the costs of different kinds of debt. Any controversy or ongoing uncertainty regarding the statutory debt ceiling negotiations may impact the U.S. long-term sovereign credit rating and may cause market uncertainty. As a result, market prices and yields of securities supported by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government may be adversely affected. Although remote, it is at least theoretically possible that under certain scenarios the U.S. government could default on its debt, including U.S. Treasury securities.

Variable Rate Demand Notes

The Funds may purchase taxable or tax-exempt variable rate demand notes for short-term cash management or other investment purposes. Variable rate demand notes may have a stated maturity in excess of one year, but may have features that permit a holder to demand payment of principal plus accrued interest upon a specified number of days’ notice. Frequently, such obligations are secured by letters of credit or other credit support arrangements provided by banks. The issuer has a corresponding right, after a given period, to prepay in its discretion the outstanding principal of the obligation plus accrued interest

 

B-27


upon a specific number of days’ notice to the holders. The interest rate of a variable demand note may be based on a known lending rate, such as a bank’s prime rate, and is reset whenever such rate is adjusted. The interest rate on a variable rate demand note is reset at specified intervals at a market rate.

Floating Rate Securities

The Funds may purchase floating rate securities. A floating rate debt security has a rate of interest which is usually established as the sum of a base lending rate plus a specified margin. A floating rate instrument’s interest rate resets periodically according to its terms. While, because of the interest rate reset feature, floaters provide the Fund with a certain degree of protection against rises in interest rates, the Funds will participate in any declines in interest rates as well. In addition to the risks associated with the floating nature of interest payments, investors remain exposed to other underlying risks associated with the issuer of the floating rate security, such as credit risk.

Inverse Floaters

The Funds may purchase inverse floaters. An inverse floater is a type of instrument that bears a floating or variable interest rate that moves in the opposite direction to interest rates generally or the interest rate on another security or index. Inverse floaters are typically created by a broker depositing an income-producing instrument, which may be a mortgage-backed security, in a trust. The trust in turn issues a variable rate security and inverse floaters. The interest rate for the variable rate security is typically determined by an index or an auction process, while the inverse floater holder receives the balance of the income from the underlying income-producing instrument less an auction fee. Because inverse floaters may be considered to be leveraged, including if their interest rates vary by a magnitude that exceeds the magnitude of the change in a reference rate of interest (typically a short term interest rate) the market prices of inverse floaters may be highly sensitive to changes in interest rates and in prepayment rates on the underlying securities, and may decrease significantly when interest rates increase or prepayment rates change. The returns on inverse floaters may be leveraged, increasing substantially the volatility and interest rate sensitivity.

Zero-Coupon and Payment-in-Kind Bonds

The Funds may invest in so-called zero-coupon bonds and payment-in-kind bonds. Zero-coupon bonds are issued at a significant discount from their principal amount in lieu of paying interest periodically. Payment-in-kind bonds allow the issuer, at its option, to make current interest payments on the bonds either in cash or in additional bonds. Because zero-coupon and payment-in-kind bonds do not pay current interest in cash, their value is subject to greater fluctuation in response to changes in market interest rates than bonds that pay interest currently. Both zero-coupon and payment-in-kind bonds allow an issuer to avoid the need to generate cash to meet current interest payments. Accordingly, such bonds may involve greater credit risks than bonds paying interest currently in cash. The Funds are required to accrue interest income on such investments and to distribute such amounts at least annually to shareholders even though the investments do not make any current interest payments. Thus, it may be necessary at times for a Fund to liquidate other investments in order to satisfy its distribution requirements under the Code.

LIBOR Risk

The London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) is intended to represent the rate at which contributing banks may obtain short-term borrowings from each other in the London interbank market. The publication of LIBOR on a representative basis ceased for the one-week and two-month U.S. dollar LIBOR settings immediately after December 31, 2021 and ceased for the remaining U.S. dollar LIBOR settings immediately after June 30, 2023. The U.S. Federal Reserve, based on the recommendations of the New York Federal Reserve’s Alternative Reference Rate Committee (which consist of major derivative market participants and their regulators), has begun publishing a Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”), that

 

B-28


is intended to replace U.S. dollar LIBOR. Alternative reference rates for other currencies have also been announced or have already begun publication. Markets are slowly developing in response to these new rates.

Neither the effect of the LIBOR transition process nor its ultimate success can yet be known. Not all existing LIBOR-based instruments may have alternative rate-setting provisions and there remains uncertainty regarding the willingness and ability of issuers to add alternative rate-setting provisions in certain existing instruments. Global regulators have advised market participants to cease entering into new contracts using LIBOR as a reference rate, and it is possible that investments in LIBOR-based instruments could invite regulatory scrutiny. In addition, a liquid market for newly-issued instruments that use a reference rate other than LIBOR still may be developing. Accordingly, it is difficult to predict the full impact of the transition away from LIBOR on the Funds until new reference rates and fallbacks for both legacy and new products, instruments and contracts are commercially accepted.

Fixed Income Securities Risks

There are a number of risks generally associated with a Fund’s investments in fixed income securities (including convertible securities). Yields on short-, intermediate-, and long-term securities depend on a variety of factors, including the general condition of the money and bond markets, the size of a particular offering, the maturity of the obligation, and the rating of the issue.

Debt securities with longer maturities tend to produce higher yields and are generally subject to potentially greater capital appreciation and depreciation than obligations with short maturities and lower yields. The market prices of debt securities usually vary, depending upon available yields. An increase in interest rates will generally reduce the value of such portfolio investments, and a decline in interest rates will generally increase the value of such portfolio investments. The ability of a Fund to achieve its investment objective also depends on the continuing ability of the issuers of the debt securities in which the Fund invests to meet their obligations for the payment of interest and principal when due.

Taxes. The Funds may purchase fixed income securities (such as zero coupon or pay-in-kind securities) that contain original issue discount. Original issue discount that accrues in a taxable year is treated as earned by the Funds and therefore is subject to the distribution requirements applicable to RICs under Subchapter M of the Code. Because the original issue discount earned by a Fund in a taxable year may not be represented by cash income, the Fund may have to dispose of other securities and use the proceeds to make distributions to shareholders.

Interest Rate Risk. All fixed income securities are subject to interest rate risk, the risk that the value of a security may fall when interest rates rise or the risk of needing to purchase securities at lower interest rates as rates decline. If interest rates move steeply in a manner that is not anticipated by the Adviser or Sub-advisers, fixed income securities could be adversely affected and the Fund could lose money or the Fund’s yield may decrease. A low or negative interest rate environment may present greater interest rate risk, because there may be a greater likelihood of rates increasing and rates may increase more rapidly. Alternatively, a general rise in interest rates has the potential to cause investors to move out of fixed-income securities on a large scale, which may increase redemptions from certain Funds. Heavy redemptions could cause a Fund to sell investments at a time when it is not advantageous to do so, which could result in losses. In general, the market price of fixed income securities with longer maturities will be more greatly affected by changes in interest rates than will the market price of shorter-term fixed income securities. Interest rate changes can be sudden and unpredictable, and a wide variety of factors can cause interest rates to rise or fall. Changes in monetary policy made by central banks and/or their governments or changes in economic conditions may affect the level of interest rates, which could have sudden or unpredictable effects on the markets. A sudden or unpredictable rise or decline in interest rates may cause

 

B-29


volatility and reduced liquidity in the markets, which could make it more difficult for a Fund to sell its investments at a time when it may be advantageous to do so and could cause the value of the Fund’s investments to decline, potentially suddenly and significantly.

Lower-Rated Debt Securities Risks

The Funds may invest in securities deemed to be below investment grade (“lower-rated” or “junk bonds”). The Core Bond Fund may invest up to 5% of its assets (measured at the time of purchase) in securities deemed to be below investment grade (“lower-rated” or “junk bonds”). If securities held by the Core Bond Fund were investment grade at the time of purchase but are subsequently downgraded to below investment grade, causing the Core Bond Fund to hold more than 5% in non-investment grade securities, the Core Bond Fund is not required to sell non-investment grade securities; however, the Core Bond Fund is prohibited from making further purchases of non-investment grade securities. Similarly, if the market value of non-investment grade securities in the Core Bond Fund exceeds 5% of the Core Bond Fund’s total assets due to market fluctuation, the Core Bond Fund is not required to sell non-investment grade securities, although it is prohibited from making further purchases of non-investment grade securities.

Sensitivity to Interest Rate and Economic Changes. The economy and interest rates affect lower-rated debt securities differently from other securities. For example, the prices of lower-rated bonds have often been found to be less sensitive to interest rate changes than higher-rated investments, but more sensitive to adverse economic changes or individual corporate developments. Also, during an economic downturn or substantial period of rising interest rates, highly leveraged issuers may experience financial stress which would adversely affect their ability to service their principal and interest obligations, to meet projected business goals, and to obtain additional financing. If the issuer of a bond defaults, a Fund may incur additional expenses to seek recovery. In addition, periods of economic uncertainty and changes can be expected to result in increased volatility of market prices of lower-rated bonds and the Fund’s asset values.

Payment Expectations. Lower-rated bonds present certain risks based on payment expectations. For example, lower-rated bonds may contain redemption and call provisions. If an issuer exercises these provisions in a declining interest rate market, a Fund would have to replace the security with a lower yielding security, resulting in a decreased return for investors. Conversely, a lower-rated bond’s value will decrease in a rising interest rate market, as will the value of a Fund’s assets. If a Fund experiences unexpected net redemptions, it may be forced to sell its lower-rated bonds without regard to their investment merits, thereby decreasing the asset base upon which the Fund’s expenses can be spread and possibly reducing the Fund’s rate of return.

Liquidity and Valuation. To the extent that there is no established secondary market, there may be thin trading of lower-rated bonds, and this may impact a Sub-adviser’s ability to accurately value lower-rated bonds and a Fund’s assets and hinder a Fund’s ability to dispose of the bonds. Adverse publicity and investor perceptions, whether or not based on fundamental analysis, may decrease the values and liquidity of lower-rated bonds, especially in a thinly traded market.

Credit Ratings. Credit ratings evaluate the safety of principal and interest payments, not the market value risk of lower-rated bonds. However, credit ratings are not absolute measures of credit quality and do not reflect all potential market risks. Also, since credit rating agencies may fail to timely change the credit ratings to reflect subsequent events, a Sub-adviser must monitor the issuers of lower-rated bonds in a Fund’s portfolio to determine if the issuers will have sufficient cash flow and profits to meet required principal and interest payments, and to assure the bonds’ liquidity so the Fund can meet redemption requests. A Fund will not necessarily dispose of a portfolio security when its rating has been changed.

Distressed Companies Risk

From time to time, the Funds may purchase the direct indebtedness of various companies (“Indebtedness”) or participation interests in Indebtedness (“Participations”), including Indebtedness and Participations of

 

B-30


reorganizing companies. Indebtedness can be distinguished from traditional debt securities in that debt securities are part of a large issue of securities to the general public which is typically registered with a securities registration organization, such as the SEC, and which is held by a large group of investors. Indebtedness may not be a security, but rather, may represent a specific commercial loan or portion of a loan which has been given to a company by a financial institution such as a bank or insurance company. The company is typically obligated to repay such commercial loan over a specified time period. By purchasing the Indebtedness of companies, a Fund in effect steps into the shoes of the financial institution which made the loan to the company prior to its restructuring or refinancing. Indebtedness purchased by a Fund may be in the form of loans, notes or bonds.

The length of time remaining until maturity on the Indebtedness is one factor the Sub-advisers consider in purchasing a particular Indebtedness. Indebtedness which represents a specific Indebtedness of the company to a bank is not considered to be a security issued by the bank selling it. A Fund may purchase loans from national and state chartered banks as well as foreign banks, and they normally invest in the Indebtedness of a company which has the highest priority in terms of payment by the company, although on occasion lower priority Indebtedness also may be acquired.

Participations represent fractional interests in a company’s Indebtedness. The financial institutions that typically make Participations available are banks or insurance companies, governmental institutions, such as the Resolution Trust Corporation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or certain organizations such as the World Bank, which are known as “supranational organizations.” Supranational organizations are entities established or financially supported by the national governments of one or more countries to promote reconstruction or development. Indebtedness and Participations may be illiquid as described below.

Mezzanine Investments

The Funds may invest in certain high yield securities known as mezzanine securities, which are subordinated debt securities generally issued in private placements in connection with an equity security (e.g., with attached warrants). Mezzanine investments may be issued with or without registration rights. Similar to other high yield securities, maturities of mezzanine investments are typically seven to ten years, but the expected average life is significantly shorter at three to five years. Mezzanine investments are usually unsecured and subordinate to other obligations of the issuer.

Asset-Backed Securities (“ABS”) and Mortgage-Related and Mortgage-Backed Securities (“MBS”)

The Funds may purchase asset-backed, mortgage-related and MBS. MBS, including collateralized mortgage obligations (“CMOs”) and certain stripped MBS, represent a participation in, or are secured by, mortgage loans. ABS are structured like MBS, but instead of mortgage loans or interests in mortgage loans, the underlying assets may include such items as motor vehicle installment sales or installment loan contracts, leases of various types of real and personal property, receivables from credit card agreements, company receivables or other assets. The cash flow generated by the underlying assets is applied to make required payments on the securities and to pay related administrative expenses. The amount of residual cash flow resulting from a particular issue of asset-backed or MBS depends on, among other things, the characteristics of the underlying assets, the coupon rates on the securities, prevailing interest rates, the amount of administrative expenses, and the actual prepayment experience on the underlying assets. Each Fund may invest in any such instruments or variations as may be developed, to the extent consistent with its investment objectives and policies and applicable regulatory requirements. In general, the collateral supporting ABS is of a shorter maturity than mortgage loans and is likely to experience substantial prepayments.

Mortgage-backed securities have yield and maturity characteristics corresponding to the underlying assets. Unlike traditional debt securities, which may pay a fixed rate of interest until maturity, when the entire

 

B-31


principal amount comes due, payments on certain mortgage-backed securities include both interest and a partial repayment of principal. Besides the scheduled repayment of principal, repayments of principal may result from the voluntary prepayment, refinancing or foreclosure of the underlying mortgage loans. If property owners make unscheduled prepayments of their mortgage loans, these prepayments will result in early payment of the applicable mortgage-backed securities. In that event, the Fund may be unable to invest the proceeds from the early payment of the mortgage-backed securities in an investment that provides as high a yield as the MBS. Consequently, early payment associated with MBS may cause these securities to experience significantly greater price and yield volatility than that experienced by traditional fixed-income securities. The occurrence of mortgage prepayments is affected by factors including the level of interest rates, general economic conditions, the location and age of the mortgage and other social and demographic conditions. During periods of falling interest rates, the rate of mortgage prepayments tends to increase, thereby tending to decrease the life of MBS. During periods of rising interest rates, the rate of mortgage prepayments usually decreases, thereby tending to increase the life of MBS. If the life of a mortgage-backed security is inaccurately predicted, the Fund may not be able to realize the expected rate of return.

Adjustable rate mortgage securities (“ARMs”), like traditional MBS, are interests in pools of mortgage loans that provide investors with payments consisting of both principal and interest as mortgage loans in the underlying mortgage pool are paid off by the borrowers. Unlike fixed-rate MBS, ARMs are collateralized by or represent interests in mortgage loans with variable rates of interest. These interest rates are reset at periodic intervals, usually by reference to an interest rate index or market interest rate. Although the rate adjustment feature may act as a buffer to reduce sharp changes in the value of adjustable rate securities, these securities are still subject to changes in value based on, among other things, changes in market interest rates or changes in the issuer’s creditworthiness. Because the interest rates are reset only periodically, changes in the interest rate on ARMs may lag changes in prevailing market interest rates. Also, some ARMs (or the underlying mortgages) are subject to caps or floors that limit the maximum change in the interest rate during a specified period or over the life of the security. As a result, changes in the interest rate on an ARM may not fully reflect changes in prevailing market interest rates during certain periods.

The Funds may also invest in hybrid ARMs, whose underlying mortgages combine fixed-rate and adjustable rate features.

Mortgage-backed and ABS are less effective than other types of securities as a means of locking in attractive long-term interest rates. One reason is the need to reinvest prepayments of principal; another is the possibility of significant unscheduled prepayments resulting from declines in interest rates. These prepayments would have to be reinvested at lower rates. The automatic interest rate adjustment feature of mortgages underlying ARMs likewise reduces the ability to lock-in attractive rates. As a result, mortgage-backed and ABS may have less potential for capital appreciation during periods of declining interest rates than other securities of comparable maturities, although they may have a similar risk of decline in market value during periods of rising interest rates. Prepayments may also significantly shorten the effective maturities of these securities, especially during periods of declining interest rates. Conversely, during periods of rising interest rates, a reduction in prepayments may increase the effective maturities of these securities, subjecting them to a greater risk of decline in market value in response to rising interest rates than traditional debt securities, and, therefore, potentially increasing the volatility of a Fund.

At times, some mortgage-backed and ABS will have higher than market interest rates and therefore will be purchased at a premium above their par value. Prepayments may cause losses on securities purchased at a premium.

CMOs may be issued by a U.S. Government agency or instrumentality or by a private issuer. Although payment of the principal of, and interest on, the underlying collateral securing privately issued CMOs may

 

B-32


be guaranteed by the U.S. Government or its agencies or instrumentalities, these CMOs represent obligations solely of the private issuer and are not insured or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, its agencies or instrumentalities or any other person or entity.

Prepayments could cause early retirement of CMOs. CMOs are designed to reduce the risk of prepayment for certain investors by issuing multiple classes of securities, each having different maturities, interest rates and payment schedules, and with the principal and interest on the underlying mortgages allocated among the several classes in various ways. Payment of interest or principal on some classes or series of CMOs may be subject to contingencies or some classes or series may bear some or all of the risk of default on the underlying mortgages. CMOs of different classes or series are generally retired in sequence as the underlying mortgage loans in the mortgage pool are repaid. If enough mortgages are repaid ahead of schedule, the classes or series of a CMO with the earliest maturities generally will be retired prior to their maturities. Thus, the early retirement of particular classes or series of a CMO would have the same effect as the prepayment of mortgages underlying other MBS. Conversely, slower than anticipated prepayments can extend the effective maturities of CMOs, subjecting them to a greater risk of decline in market value in response to rising interest rates than traditional debt securities, and, therefore, potentially increasing their volatility.

Subprime mortgage loans, which typically are made to less creditworthy borrowers, have a higher risk of default than conventional mortgage loans. Therefore, MBS backed by subprime mortgage loans may suffer significantly greater declines in value due to defaults or the increased risk of default.

The risks associated with other ABS (including in particular the risks of issuer default and of early prepayment) are generally similar to those described for CMOs. In addition, because ABS generally do not have the benefit of a security interest in the underlying assets comparable to a mortgage, ABS present certain additional risks that are not present with MBS. The ability of an issuer of ABS to enforce its security interest in the underlying assets may be limited. For example, revolving credit receivables are generally unsecured and the debtors on such receivables are entitled to the protection of a number of state and federal consumer credit laws, many of which give debtors the right to set-off certain amounts owed, thereby reducing the balance due. Automobile receivables generally are secured, but by automobiles, rather than by real property.

ABS may be collateralized by the fees earned by service providers. The values of ABS may be substantially dependent on the servicing of the underlying asset and are therefore subject to risks associated with the negligence or malfeasance by their servicers and to the credit risk of their servicers. In certain circumstances, the mishandling of related documentation may also affect the rights of the security holders in and to the underlying collateral. The insolvency of entities that generate receivables or that utilize the assets may result in added costs and delays in addition to losses associated with a decline in the value of the underlying assets. For the purposes of each Fund’s concentration policy, ABS (a) do not represent interests in any particular “industry”; and (b) will be classified in a consistent manner deemed reasonable by the Fund.

Credit Risk Transfer Securities. Another type of mortgage security is one issued by agencies or instrumentalities of the U.S. Government, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but without any government guaranty, including “credit risk transfer securities.” Credit risk transfer securities are fixed- or floating rate unsecured general obligation mortgage securities issued from time to time by Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae or other government sponsored entities (each, a “GSE”). Typically, such securities are issued at par and have stated final maturities. The credit risk transfer securities are structured so that: (i) interest is paid directly by the issuing GSE; and (ii) principal is paid by the issuing GSE in accordance with the principal payments and default performance of a certain pool of residential mortgage loans acquired by the GSE. The issuing GSE selects the pool of mortgage loans based on that GSE’s eligibility criteria. The performance of the credit risk transfer securities will be directly affected by the selection of the underlying mortgage loans by the GSE. Credit risk transfer securities are issued in tranches to which are allocated

 

B-33


certain principal repayments and credit losses corresponding to the seniority of the particular tranche. Each tranche will have credit exposure to the underlying mortgage loans and the yield to maturity will be directly related to the amount and timing of certain defined credit events on the underlying mortgage loans, any prepayments by borrowers and any removals of a mortgage loan from the pool.

Credit risk transfer securities are unguaranteed and unsecured debt securities issued by the GSE and therefore are not directly linked to or backed by the underlying mortgage loans. Thus, although the payment of principal and interest on such securities is tied to the performance of the pool of underlying mortgage loans, the holders of the credit risk transfer securities will have no interest in the underlying mortgage loans. As a result, in the event that a GSE fails to pay principal or interest on its credit risk transfer securities or goes through a bankruptcy, insolvency or similar proceeding, holders of such credit risk transfer securities have no direct recourse to the underlying mortgage loans. Such holders will receive recovery on par with other unsecured note holders (agency debentures) in such a scenario.

A Fund may also invest in credit risk transfer securities that are issued by private entities, such as banks or other financial institutions. Credit risk transfer securities issued by private entities are structured similarly to those issued by a GSE and are generally subject to the same types of risks, including credit (risk of non-payment of principal and interest when due), prepayment, extension, interest rate and market risks.

The risks associated with an investment in credit risk transfer securities will be different than the risks associated with an investment in mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or other GSEs or issued by a private issuer because some or all of the mortgage default or credit risk associated with the underlying mortgage loans is transferred to investors, such as the Fund. As a result, investors in these securities could lose some or all of their investment in these securities if the underlying mortgage loans default.

Collateralized Bond Obligations (“CBOs”), Collateralized Loan Obligations (“CLOs”), and Other Collateralized Debt Obligations (“CDOs”). The Funds may invest in each of CBOs, CLOs, other CDOs, and other similarly structured securities. CBOs, CLOs, and CDOs are types of asset-backed securities. A CBO is a trust which is often backed by a pool of high risk, below investment grade fixed income securities, such as high yield bonds, privately issued mortgage-related securities, commercial mortgage-related securities, trust preferred securities, or emerging market debt. A CLO is a trust typically backed by a pool of loans, which may include senior secured loans, senior unsecured loans, and subordinate corporate loans, including loans that may be below investment grade, and mezzanine investments. Other CDOs are trusts backed by other types of assets. The assets backing a CBO, CLO, or CDO trust may be referred to as “the collateral.” CBOs, CLOs and other CDOs may charge management fees and administrative expenses. The cash flows from the trust are split into two or more portions, called tranches, varying in risk and yield. Senior tranches can often be rated investment grade. CBO, CLO or other CDO tranches can experience substantial losses due to defaults, deterioration of protecting tranches, market participants’ perception of credit risk, as well as aversion to these securities generally. The risks of an investment in a CBO, CLO or other CDO often depend on the collateral securities and the particular tranche in which the Fund invests. These securities are often privately offered and not registered under securities laws. In addition to the normal risks associated with fixed income securities (e.g., interest rate risk and credit risk), CBOs, CLOs and other CDOs carry additional risks including the possibility that distributions from collateral securities will not be adequate to make interest or other payments, the possibility that the quality of the collateral may decline in value or default, the risk that the Fund may invest in CBOs, CLOs or other CDOs that are subordinate to other tranches, as well as risks related to the complexity of the security and its structure.

Federal, state and local government officials and representatives as well as certain private parties have proposed actions to assist homeowners who own or occupy property subject to mortgages. Certain of those proposals involve actions that would affect the mortgages that underlie or relate to certain mortgage-related securities, including securities or other instruments which a Fund may hold or in which it may invest. Some

 

B-34


of those proposals include, among other things, lowering or forgiving principal balances; forbearing, lowering or eliminating interest payments; or utilizing eminent domain powers to seize mortgages, potentially for below market compensation. The prospective or actual implementation of one or more of these proposals may significantly and adversely affect the value and liquidity of securities held by a Fund and could cause the Fund’s net asset value to decline, potentially significantly. Considerable uncertainty remains in the market concerning the resolution of these issues; the range of proposals and the potential implications of any implemented solution are impossible to predict.

Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (“CMOs”) and Multiclass Pass-Through Securities. CMOs are debt obligations collateralized by mortgage loans or mortgage pass-through securities. CMOs may be collateralized by Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”), Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), or Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) certificates, but also may be collateralized by whole loans or private mortgage pass-through securities (such collateral is collectively hereinafter referred to as “Mortgage Assets”). Mortgage Assets may be collateralized by commercial or residential uses. Multiclass pass-through securities are equity interests in a trust composed of Mortgage Assets. Payments of principal of and interest on the Mortgage Assets, and any reinvestment income thereon, may require the Fund to pay debt service on the CMOs or make scheduled distributions on the multiclass pass-through securities. CMOs may be issued by Federal Agencies, or by private originators of, or investors in, mortgage loans, including savings and loan associations, mortgage banks, commercial banks, investment banks and special purpose subsidiaries of the foregoing. The issuer of a series of mortgage pass-through securities may elect to be treated as a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (“REMIC”). REMICs include governmental and/or private entities that issue a fixed pool of mortgages secured by an interest in real property. REMICs are similar to CMOs in that they issue multiple classes of securities, but unlike CMOs, which are required to be structured as debt securities, REMICs may be structured as indirect ownership interests in the underlying assets of the REMICs themselves. Although CMOs and REMICs differ in certain respects, characteristics of CMOs described below apply in most cases to REMICs, as well.

In a CMO, a series of bonds or certificates is issued in multiple classes. Each class of CMOs, often referred to as a tranche, is issued at a specific fixed or floating coupon rate and has a stated maturity or final distribution date. Principal prepayments on the Mortgage Assets may cause the CMOs to be retired substantially earlier than their stated maturities or final distribution dates. Interest is paid or accrues on all classes of the CMOs on a monthly, quarterly or semiannual basis. Certain CMOs may have variable or floating interest rates and others may be stripped mortgage securities. For more information on stripped mortgage securities, see “Stripped Mortgage Securities” below.

The principal of and interest on the Mortgage Assets may be allocated among the several classes of a CMO series in a number of different ways. Generally, the purpose of the allocation of the cash flow of a CMO to the various classes is to obtain a more predictable cash flow to certain of the individual tranches than exists with the underlying collateral of the CMO. As a general rule, the more predictable the cash flow is on a CMO tranche, the lower the anticipated yield will be on that tranche at the time of issuance relative to prevailing market yields on other MBS. As part of the process of creating more predictable cash flows on most of the tranches in a series of CMOs, one or more tranches generally must be created that absorb most of the volatility in the cash flows on the underlying mortgage loans. The yields on tranches with more volatile cash flows are generally higher than prevailing market yields on MBS with similar maturities. As a result of the uncertainty of the cash flows of these tranches, the market prices of and yield on these tranches generally are more volatile.

As CMOs have evolved, some classes of CMO bonds have become more common. For example, the Funds may invest in parallel-pay and planned amortization class (“PAC”) CMOs and multi-class pass through certificates. Parallel-pay CMOs and multi-class pass through certificates are structured to provide payments of principal on each payment date to more than one class. These simultaneous payments are taken into

 

B-35


account in calculating the stated maturity date or final distribution date of each class, which, as with other CMO and multi-class pass-through structures, must be retired by its stated maturity date or final distribution date but may be retired earlier. PACs generally require payments of a specified amount of principal on each payment date. PACs are parallel-pay CMOs with the required principal amount on such securities having the highest priority after interest has been paid to all classes. Any CMO or multi-class pass through structure that includes PAC securities must also have support tranches—known as support bonds, companion bonds or non-PAC bonds—which lend or absorb principal cash flows to allow the PAC securities to maintain their stated maturities and final distribution dates within a range of actual prepayment experience. These support tranches are subject to a higher level of maturity risk compared to other mortgage-related securities, and usually provide a higher yield to compensate investors. If principal cash flows are received in amounts outside a pre-determined range such that the support bonds cannot lend or absorb sufficient cash flows to the PAC securities as intended, the PAC securities are subject to heightened maturity risk. Consistent with a Fund’s investment objectives and policies, a Fund may invest in various tranches of CMO bonds, including support bonds.

CMO Residuals. CMO residuals are mortgage securities issued by agencies or instrumentalities of the U.S. Government or by private originators of, or investors in, mortgage loans, including savings and loan associations, homebuilders, mortgage banks, commercial banks, investment banks and special purpose entities of the foregoing. The cash flow generated by the Mortgage Assets underlying a series of a CMO is applied first to make required payments of principal and interest on the securities or certificates issued by the CMO and second to pay the related administrative expenses and any management fee of the issuer. The residual in a CMO structure generally represents the interest in any excess cash flow remaining after making the foregoing payments. The amount of residual cash flow resulting from a CMO will depend on, among other things, the characteristics of the Mortgage Assets, the coupon rate of each class of CMO, prevailing interest rates, the amount of administrative expenses and the pre-payment experience on the Mortgage Assets. The yield to maturity on CMO residuals is extremely sensitive to pre-payments on the related underlying Mortgage Assets. In addition, if a series of a CMO includes a class that bears interest at an adjustable rate, the yield to maturity on the related CMO residual will be extremely sensitive to changes in the level of the index upon which interest rate adjustments are based. A Fund may fail to recoup fully its initial investment in a CMO residual. CMO residuals may or, pursuant to an exemption therefrom, may not have been registered under the Securities Act. CMO residuals, whether or not registered under the Securities Act, may be subject to certain restrictions on transferability, and may be deemed “illiquid.”

Government Mortgage Pass-Through Securities. The Funds may invest in mortgage pass-through securities representing participation interests in pools of residential mortgage loans purchased from individual lenders by an agency, instrumentality or sponsored corporation of the United States government (“Federal Agency”) or originated by private lenders and guaranteed, to the extent provided in such securities, by a Federal Agency. Such securities, which are ownership interests in the underlying mortgage loans, differ from conventional debt securities, which provide for periodic payment of interest in fixed amounts (usually semiannually) and principal payments at payments (not necessarily in fixed amounts) that are a pass-through of the monthly interest and principal payments (including any prepayments) made by the individual borrowers on the pooled mortgage loans, net of any fees paid to the guarantor of such securities and the servicer of the underlying mortgage loans.

The government mortgage pass-through securities in which the Funds may invest include those issued or guaranteed by Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Ginnie Mae certificates are direct obligations of the U.S. Government and, as such, are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Fannie Mae is a federally chartered, privately owned corporation and Freddie Mac is a corporate instrumentality of the United States. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac certificates are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States but the issuing agency or instrumentality has the right to borrow, to meet its obligations, from an existing line of credit with the U.S. Treasury. The U.S. Treasury has no legal obligation to provide such line of credit and may choose not to do so.

 

B-36


Certificates for these types of MBS evidence an interest in a specific pool of mortgages. These certificates are, in most cases, modified pass-through instruments, wherein the issuing agency guarantees the payment of principal and interest on mortgages underlying the certificates, whether or not such amounts are collected by the issuer on the underlying mortgages.

The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (“HERA”) authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to support Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks (“FHLBs”) (collectively, the “GSEs”) by purchasing obligations and other securities from those government-sponsored enterprises. HERA gave the Secretary of the Treasury broad authority to determine the conditions and amounts of such purchases.

On September 6, 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. As the conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles, powers and privileges of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and of any stockholder, officer or director of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with respect to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the assets of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. FHFA selected a new chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In connection with the conservatorship, the U.S. Treasury, exercising powers granted to it under HERA, entered into a Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) with each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pursuant to which the U.S. Treasury will purchase up to an aggregate of $100 billion of each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to maintain a positive net worth in each enterprise. This agreement contains various covenants that severely limit each enterprise’s operations. In exchange for entering into these agreements, the U.S. Treasury received $1 billion of each enterprise’s senior preferred stock and warrants to purchase 79.9% of each enterprise’s common stock. On February 18, 2009, the U.S. Treasury announced that it was doubling the size of its commitment to each enterprise under the Senior Preferred Stock Program to $200 billion. The U.S. Treasury’s obligations under the Senior Preferred Stock Program are for an indefinite period of time for a maximum amount of $200 billion per enterprise. On December 24, 2009, the U.S. Treasury announced further amendments to the SPAs which included additional financial support for each GSE through the end of 2012 and changes to the limits on their retained mortgage portfolios. Although legislation has been enacted to support certain GSEs, including the FHLBs, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, there is no assurance that GSE obligations will be satisfied in full, or that such obligations will not decrease in value or default. It is difficult, if not impossible, to predict the future political, regulatory or economic changes that could impact the GSEs and the values of their related securities or obligations.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are continuing to operate as going concerns while in conservatorship and each remain liable for all of its obligations, including its guaranty obligations, associated with its MBS. The SPA is intended to enhance each of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s ability to meet its obligations.

On August 17, 2012, the U.S. Treasury announced that it was again amending the SPA to terminate the requirement that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac each pay a 10% dividend annually on all amounts received under the funding commitment. Instead, the companies will transfer to the U.S. Treasury on a quarterly basis all profits earned during a quarter that exceed a capital reserve amount. The capital reserve amount was $3 billion in 2013, and decreased by $600 million in each subsequent year through 2017. It is believed that this amendment puts Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a better position to service their debt because it eliminated the need for the companies to have to borrow from the U.S. Treasury to make fixed dividend payments. As part of the new terms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also will be required to reduce their investment portfolios over time. On December 21, 2017, the U.S. Treasury announced that it was again amending the SPA to reinstate the $3 billion capital reserve amount. On September 30, 2019, the U.S. Treasury announced that it was further amending the SPA, now permitting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to retain earnings beyond the $3 billion capital reserves previously allowed through the 2017 amendment. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now permitted to maintain capital reserves of $25 billion and $20 billion, respectively.

 

B-37


Under the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008 (the “Reform Act”), which was included as part of HERA, FHFA, as conservator or receiver, has the power to repudiate any contract entered into by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac prior to FHFA’s appointment as conservator or receiver, as applicable, if FHFA determines, in its sole discretion, that performance of the contract is burdensome and that repudiation of the contract promotes the orderly administration of Fannie Mae’s or Freddie Mac’s affairs. The Reform Act requires FHFA to exercise its right to repudiate any contract within a reasonable period of time after its appointment as conservator or receiver.

FHFA, in its capacity as conservator, has indicated that it has no intention to repudiate the guaranty obligations of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac because FHFA views repudiation as incompatible with the goals of the conservatorship. However, in the event that FHFA, as conservator or if it is later appointed as receiver for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, were to repudiate any such guaranty obligation, the conservatorship or receivership estate, as applicable, would be liable for actual direct compensatory damages in accordance with the provisions of the Reform Act. Any such liability could be satisfied only to the extent of Fannie Mae’s or Freddie Mac’s available assets. The future financial performance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is heavily dependent on the performance of the U.S. housing market.

In the event of repudiation, the payments of interest to holders of Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac MBS would be reduced if payments on the mortgage loans represented in the mortgage loan groups related to such MBS are not made by the borrowers or advanced by the servicer. Any actual direct compensatory damages for repudiating these guaranty obligations may not be sufficient to offset any shortfalls experienced by such mortgage-backed security holders.

Further, in its capacity as conservator or receiver, FHFA has the right to transfer or sell any asset or liability of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac without any approval, assignment or consent. Although FHFA has stated that it has no present intention to do so, if FHFA, as conservator or receiver, were to transfer any such guaranty obligation to another party, holders of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac MBS would have to rely on that party for satisfaction of the guaranty obligation and would be exposed to the credit risk of that party.

In addition, certain rights provided to holders of MBS issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the operative documents related to such securities may not be enforced against FHFA, or enforcement of such rights may be delayed, during the conservatorship or any future receivership. The operative documents for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac MBS may provide (or with respect to securities issued prior to the date of the appointment of the conservator may have provided) that upon the occurrence of an event of default on the part of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, in its capacity as guarantor, which includes the appointment of a conservator or receiver, holders of such MBS have the right to replace Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac as trustee if the requisite percentage of mortgage-backed security holders consent. The Reform Act prevents mortgage-backed security holders from enforcing such rights if the event of default arises solely because a conservator or receiver has been appointed. The Reform Act also provides that no person may exercise any right or power to terminate, accelerate or declare an event of default under certain contracts to which Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac is a party, or obtain possession of or exercise control over any property of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or affect any contractual rights of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, without the approval of FHFA, as conservator or receiver, for a period of 45 or 90 days following the appointment of FHFA as conservator or receiver, respectively.

The FHFA recently announced plans to consider taking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out of conservatorship. Should Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be taken out of conservatorship, it is unclear whether the U.S. Treasury would continue to enforce its rights or perform its obligations under the SPAs. It is also unclear how the capital structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be constructed post-conservatorship, and what effects, if any, the privatization of the enterprises will have on their creditworthiness and guarantees of certain securities in which a Fund may invest. Accordingly, should the FHFA take the enterprises out of conservatorship, there could be an adverse impact on the value of their securities, which could cause a Fund to lose value.

 

B-38


On June 3, 2019, under the FHFA’s “Single Security Initiative,” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started issuing uniform mortgage-backed securities (“UMBS”). The Single Security Initiative seeks to align the characteristics of certain Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage-based securities and to support the overall liquidity in certain markets. In addition, Freddie Mac has offered investors the opportunity to exchange outstanding legacy mortgage-backed securities for mirror UMBS. The effects that the Single Security Initiative may have on the market and other mortgage-backed securities are uncertain.

Private Mortgage Pass-Through Securities. Private mortgage pass-through securities are structured similarly to the Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage pass-through securities and are issued by United States and foreign private issuers such as originators of and investors in mortgage loans, including savings and loan associations, mortgage banks, commercial banks, investment banks and special purpose subsidiaries of the foregoing. These securities usually are backed by a pool of conventional fixed rate or adjustable rate mortgage loans. Private mortgage pass-through securities typically are not guaranteed by an entity having the credit status of Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and are subject to greater complexity and risk of loss.

Mortgage Assets often consist of a pool of assets representing the obligations of a number of different parties. There are usually fewer properties in a pool of assets backing commercial MBS than in a pool of assets backing residential MBS hence they may be more sensitive to the performance of fewer Mortgage Assets. To lessen the effect of failures by obligors on underlying assets to make payments, those securities may contain elements of credit support, which fall into two categories: (i) liquidity protection and (ii) protection against losses resulting from ultimate default by an obligor on the underlying assets. Liquidity protection refers to the provision of advances, generally by the entity administering the pool of assets, to ensure that the receipt of payments on the underlying pool occurs in a timely fashion. Protection against losses resulting from default ensures ultimate payment of the obligations on at least a portion of the assets in the pool. This protection may be provided through guarantees, insurance policies or letters of credit obtained by the issuer or sponsor from third parties, through various means of structuring the transaction or through a combination of such approaches. The degree of credit support provided for each issue is generally based on historical information respecting the level of credit risk associated with the underlying assets. Delinquencies or losses in excess of those anticipated could adversely affect the return on an investment in a security.

Stripped Mortgage Securities. Stripped mortgage securities may be issued by Federal Agencies, or by private originators of, or investors in, mortgage loans, including savings and loan associations, mortgage banks, commercial banks, investment banks and special purpose subsidiaries of the foregoing. Although stripped mortgage securities are purchased and sold by institutional investors through several investment banking firms acting as brokers or dealers, the market for such securities has not yet been fully developed. As a result, the secondary market for stripped mortgage-backed securities may be more volatile and less liquid than that for other mortgage-backed securities. Accordingly, stripped mortgage securities may be illiquid at certain times and a Fund may have difficulty in buying and selling such securities during such times. In general, stripped mortgage securities issued by Federal Agencies are typically more liquid than privately issued stripped mortgage securities.

Stripped mortgage securities usually are structured with two classes that receive different proportions of the interest and principal distribution of a pool of mortgage assets. A common type of stripped mortgage security will have one class receiving some of the interest and most of the principal from the mortgage assets, while the other class will receive most of the interest and the remainder of the principal. In the most extreme case, one class will receive all of the interest (the interest-only or “IO” class), while the other class will receive all of the principal (the principal-only or “PO” class). PO classes generate income through the accretion of the deep discount at which such securities are purchased, and, while PO classes do not receive periodic payments of interest, they receive monthly payments associated with scheduled amortization and principal prepayment from the mortgage assets underlying the PO class. The yield to maturity on a PO or

 

B-39


an IO class security is extremely sensitive to the rate of principal payments (including prepayments) on the related underlying mortgage assets. A slower than expected rate of principal payments may have an adverse effect on a PO class security’s yield to maturity. If the underlying mortgage assets experience slower than anticipated principal repayment, the Fund may fail to fully recoup its initial investment in these securities. Conversely, a rapid rate of principal payments may have a material adverse effect on an IO class security’s yield to maturity. If the underlying mortgage assets experience greater than anticipated prepayments of principal, the Fund may fail to fully recoup its initial investment in these securities.

A Fund may purchase stripped mortgage securities for income, or for hedging purposes to protect the Fund’s portfolio against interest rate fluctuations. For example, since an IO class will tend to increase in value as interest rates rise, it may be utilized to hedge against a decrease in value of other fixed-income securities in a rising interest rate environment.

Mortgage Dollar Rolls. The Funds may enter into mortgage dollar rolls with a bank or a broker-dealer. A mortgage dollar roll is a transaction in which a Fund sells mortgage-related securities for immediate settlement and simultaneously purchases the same type of securities for forward settlement at a discount. While a Fund begins accruing interest on the newly purchased securities from the purchase or trade date, it is able to invest the proceeds from the sale of its previously owned securities, which will be used to pay for the new securities. The use of mortgage dollar rolls is a speculative technique involving leverage, and can have an economic effect similar to borrowing money for investment purposes.

Municipal Housing Revenue Bonds. A Fund may invest in municipal housing revenue bonds, which like mortgage-backed securities are secured by a pool of mortgages. Borrowers may default on the obligations that underlie investments in Municipal Housing Revenue bonds. The resulting risk is that the impairment of the value of the collateral underlying a security in which a Fund invests may result in a reduction in the value of the security. The structure of some of these securities may be complex and there may be less available information than other types of debt securities.

Forward Commitments. A Fund may enter into forward commitments, which are contracts to purchase mortgage securities for a fixed price at a future date beyond customary settlement time, if a Fund sets aside on its books liquid assets in an amount sufficient to meet the purchase price, or if a Fund enters into offsetting contracts for the forward sale of other securities it owns. In the case of to-be-announced (“TBA”) mortgage purchase commitments, the unit price and the estimated principal amount are established when a Fund enters into a contract, with the actual principal amount being within a specified range of the estimate. Forward commitments may be considered securities in themselves, and involve a risk of loss if the value of the security to be purchased declines prior to the settlement date, which risk is in addition to the risk of decline in the value of a Fund’s other assets. Where such purchases are made through dealers, a Fund relies on the dealer to consummate the sale. The dealer’s failure to do so may result in the loss to a Fund of an advantageous yield or price. Although the Funds will generally enter into forward commitments with the intention of acquiring securities for its portfolio, a Fund may dispose of a commitment prior to settlement if a Sub-Adviser deems it appropriate to do so. A Fund may realize short-term profits or losses upon the sale of forward commitments. A Fund may enter into TBA sale commitments to hedge its portfolio positions or to sell securities it owns under delayed delivery arrangements. Proceeds of TBA sale commitments are not received until the contractual settlement date. Unsettled TBA sale commitments are valued at current market value of the underlying securities. If the TBA sale commitment is closed through the acquisition of an offsetting purchase commitment, the Fund realizes a gain or loss on the commitment without regard to any unrealized gain or loss on the underlying security. If a Fund delivers securities under the commitment, the Fund realizes a gain or loss from the sale of the securities based upon the unit price established at the date the commitment was entered into.

 

B-40


When-Issued, Delayed–Delivery and Forward Commitment Transactions

A when-issued security is one whose terms are available and for which a market exists, but which has not been issued. In a forward commitment transaction, the Funds may contract to purchase securities for a fixed price at a future date beyond customary settlement time. “Delayed-delivery” refers to securities transactions on the secondary market where settlement occurs in the future. In each of these transactions, the parties fix the payment obligation and the interest rate that they will receive on the securities at the time the parties enter the commitment; however, they do not pay money or deliver securities until a later date. Typically, no income accrues on securities a Fund has committed to purchase before the securities are delivered. The Funds will only enter into these types of transactions with the intention of actually acquiring the securities, but may sell them before the settlement date.

The Funds may use when-issued, delayed-delivery and forward commitment transactions to secure what it considers an advantageous price and yield at the time of purchase. When a Fund engages in when-issued, delayed-delivery or forward commitment transactions, it relies on the other party to consummate the sale. If the other party fails to complete the sale, a Fund may miss the opportunity to obtain the security at a favorable price or yield.

When purchasing a security on a when-issued, delayed-delivery, or forward commitment basis, a Fund assumes the rights and risks of ownership of the security, including the risk of price and yield changes. At the time of settlement, the market value of the security may be more or less than the purchase price. The yield available in the market when the delivery takes place also may be higher than those obtained in the transaction itself. Because a Fund does not pay for the security until the delivery date, these risks are in addition to the risks associated with its other investments.

Rule 18f-4 under 1940 Act permits a Fund to enter into when-issued or forward-settling securities and non-standard settlement cycle securities notwithstanding the limitation on the issuance of senior securities in Section 18 of the 1940 Act, provided that the Fund intends to physically settle the transaction and the transaction will settle within 35 days of its trade date (the “Delayed-Settlement Securities Provision”). If a when-issued, forward-settling or non-standard settlement cycle security does not satisfy the Delayed-Settlement Securities Provision, then it is treated as a derivatives transaction under Rule 18f-4. See “Derivatives” below.

Sale-buyback Transactions

A Fund may effect simultaneous purchase and sale transactions that are known as “sale-buybacks.” A sale-buyback financing transaction consists of a sale of a security by a Fund to a counterparty, with a simultaneous agreement to repurchase the same or substantially the same security at an agreed-upon price and date. A Fund is not entitled to receive principal and interest payments, if any, made on the security sold to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. A Fund will recognize net income represented by the price differential between the price received for the transferred security and the agreed-upon repurchase price. This is commonly referred to as the “price drop”. A price drop consists of (i) the foregone interest and inflationary income adjustments, if any, a Fund would have otherwise received had the security not been sold and (ii) the negotiated financing terms between the Fund and counterparty. In periods of increased demand for the security, a Fund may receive a fee for use of the security by the counterparty, which may result in interest income to the Fund. Sale-buyback transactions are governed by Master Securities Forward Transaction Agreements (“Master Forward Agreements”), which are agreements between a Fund and select counterparties. The Master Forward Agreements maintain provisions for, among other things, transaction initiation and confirmation, payment and transfer, events of default, termination and maintenance of collateral.

 

B-41


Bank Loans

The Funds may invest in bank loans, including term loans and floating rate loans. The Funds may invest in loans where a company is in uncertain financial condition, where the borrower has defaulted in the payment of interest or principal or performance of its covenants or agreements, or is involved in bankruptcy proceedings, reorganizations, or financial restructurings.

A term loan is a loan that has a specified repayment schedule. A delayed draw loan is a special feature in a term loan that permits the borrower to withdraw predetermined portions of the total amount borrowed at certain times. A bridge loan is a short-term loan arrangement typically made by a borrower in anticipation of longer-term permanent financing. Most bridge loans are structured so that their interest rates rise the longer the loans remain outstanding. A letter of credit is a guarantee by a bank that the borrower’s payment to the lender will be received on time and for the correct amount. If a Fund enters into a commitment with a borrower regarding a delayed draw term loan or bridge loan, the Fund will be obligated on one or more dates in the future to lend the borrower monies (up to an aggregate stated amount) if called upon to do so by the borrower.

Floating rate loans may be senior or subordinated obligations of the borrower and may be unsecured or secured by collateral of the borrower. The proceeds of floating rate loans are used by the borrower for a variety of purposes, including financing leveraged buyouts, recapitalizations, mergers, acquisitions, stock repurchases, dividends, and to finance internal growth.

Loans are traded in a private, unregulated inter-dealer or inter-bank resale market and are generally subject to contractual restrictions that must be satisfied before a loan can be bought or sold. These restrictions may impede a Fund’s ability to buy or sell loans (thus affecting their liquidity) and may negatively impact the transaction price. It may take longer than seven days for transactions in loans to settle.

Inflation-Protected Securities

The Funds may invest in U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (“U.S. TIPS”), which are fixed income securities issued by the U.S. Department of Treasury, the principal amounts of which are adjusted daily based upon changes in the rate of inflation. The Funds may also invest in other inflation-protected securities issued by non-U.S. governments or by private issuers. U.S. TIPS pay interest on a semi-annual basis, equal to a fixed percentage of the inflation-adjusted principal amount. The interest rate on these bonds is fixed at issuance, but over the life of the bond this interest may be paid on an increasing or decreasing principal value that has been adjusted for inflation.

Repayment of the original bond principal upon maturity (as adjusted for inflation) is guaranteed for U.S. TIPS, even during a period of deflation. However, because the principal amount of U.S. TIPS would be adjusted downward during a period of deflation, a Fund will be subject to deflation risk with respect to its investments in these securities. In addition, the current market value of the bonds is not guaranteed, and will fluctuate. If a Fund purchases in the secondary market U.S. TIPS whose principal values have been adjusted upward due to inflation since issuance, the Fund may experience a loss if there is a subsequent period of deflation. A Fund may also invest in other inflation-related bonds which may or may not provide a guarantee of principal and, therefore, subject the Fund to counterparty risk with respect to the issuer. If a guarantee of principal is not provided, the adjusted principal value of the bond repaid at maturity may be less than the original principal amount.

The periodic adjustment of U.S. TIPS is calculated by the U.S. Treasury and is currently tied to the CPI-U. The CPI-U is a measurement of changes in the cost of living, made up of components such as housing, food, transportation and energy. Inflation-protected bonds issued by a non-U.S. Government are generally adjusted to reflect a comparable inflation index, calculated by that government. There can be no assurance

 

B-42


that the CPI-U or any non-U.S. inflation index will accurately measure the real rate of inflation in the prices of goods and services. If interest rates rise due to reasons other than inflation (for example, due to changes in currency exchange rates), investors in these securities may not be protected to the extent that the increase is not reflected in the bond’s inflation measure. In addition, there can be no assurance that the rate of inflation in a non-U.S. country will be correlated to the rate of inflation in the United States.

In general, the value of inflation-protected bonds is expected to fluctuate in response to changes in real interest rates, which are in turn tied to the relationship between nominal interest rates and the rate of inflation. Therefore, if inflation were to rise at a faster rate than nominal interest rates, real interest rates might decline, leading to an increase in value of inflation-protected bonds. In contrast, if nominal interest rates increased at a faster rate than inflation, real interest rates might rise, leading to a decrease in value of inflation-protected bonds. If inflation is lower than expected during the period a Fund holds the security, the Fund may earn less on the security than on a conventional bond. Any increase in principal value is taxable in the year the increase occurs, even though holders do not receive cash representing the increase at that time. As a result, if a Fund invests in inflation-protected securities, it could be required at times to liquidate other investments, including when it is not advantageous to do so, in order to satisfy its distribution requirements as a RIC and to eliminate any fund-level income tax liability under the Code.

Private Investments

Private Placement and Restricted Securities. The Funds may invest in securities that are purchased in private placements and, accordingly, are subject to restrictions on resale as a matter of contract or under federal securities laws. Because there may be relatively few potential purchasers for such investments, especially under adverse market or economic conditions or in the event of adverse changes in the financial condition of the issuer, a Fund could find it more difficult to sell such securities when a Sub-adviser believes it advisable to do so or may be able to sell such securities only at prices lower than if such securities were more widely held. At times, it may also be more difficult to determine the fair value of such securities for purposes of computing a Fund’s net asset value.

While such private placements may offer attractive opportunities for investment not otherwise available on the open market, the securities so purchased are often restricted securities, i.e., securities which cannot be sold to the public without registration under the Securities Act or the availability of an exemption from registration (such as Rules 144 or 144A), or which are not readily marketable because they are subject to other legal or contractual delays in or restrictions on resale.

The absence of a trading market can make it difficult to ascertain a market value for illiquid investments. Disposing of illiquid investments may involve time-consuming negotiation and legal expenses, and it may be difficult or impossible for a Fund to sell them promptly at an acceptable price. A Fund may have to bear the extra expense of registering such securities for resale and the risk of substantial delay in effecting such registration. In addition, market quotations are less readily available. The judgment of the Adviser’s Valuation Committee will play a greater role in valuing these securities than in the case of publicly traded securities.

Generally speaking, restricted securities may be sold only to qualified institutional buyers, or in a privately negotiated transaction to a limited number of purchasers, or in limited quantities after they have been held for a specified period of time and other conditions are met pursuant to an exemption from registration, or in a public offering for which a registration statement is in effect under the Securities Act. A Fund may be deemed to be an underwriter for purposes of the Securities Act when selling restricted securities to the public, and in such event a Fund may be liable to purchasers of such securities if the registration statement prepared by the issuer, or the prospectuses forming a part of it, is materially inaccurate or misleading.

 

B-43


Redeemable Securities. Certain securities held by the Funds may permit the issuer at its option to call or redeem its securities. If an issuer were to redeem securities held by a Fund during a time of declining interest rates, the Fund may not be able to reinvest the proceeds in securities providing the same investment return as the securities redeemed.

Hybrid Securities

The Funds may hold hybrid securities. A third party may create a hybrid security by combining an income-producing debt security (“income producing component”) and the right to receive payment based on the change in the price of an equity security (“equity component”). The income-producing component is achieved by investing in non-convertible, income-producing securities such as bonds, preferred stocks and money market instruments, which may be represented by derivative instruments. The equity component is achieved by investing in securities or instruments such as cash-settled warrants to receive a payment based on whether the price of a common stock surpasses a certain exercise price. A hybrid security comprises two or more separate securities, each with its own market value. Therefore, the market value of a hybrid security is the sum of the values of its income-producing component and its equity component.

Derivatives

Rule 18f-4 under the 1940 Act. Rule 18f-4 under the 1940 Act permits a Fund, subject to various conditions, to enter into derivatives transactions (as defined below) and certain other transactions notwithstanding the restrictions on the issuance of “senior securities” under Section 18 of the 1940 Act. Section 18 of the 1940 Act, among other things, prohibits open-end funds, including the Funds, from issuing or selling any “senior security,” other than borrowing from a bank (subject to a requirement to maintain 300% “asset coverage”). In connection with the adoption of Rule 18f-4, the SEC eliminated the asset segregation framework arising from prior SEC guidance for covering derivatives transactions and certain financial instruments.

Under Rule 18f-4, “derivatives transactions” include the following: (1) any swap, security-based swap, futures contract, forward contract, option, any combination of the foregoing, or any similar instrument, under which a Fund is or may be required to make any payment or delivery of cash or other assets during the life of the instrument or at maturity or early termination, whether as margin or settlement payment or otherwise; (2) any short sale borrowing; (3) reverse repurchase agreements and similar financing transactions, if a Fund elects to treat these transactions as derivatives transactions under Rule 18f-4; and (4) when-issued or forward-settling securities and non-standard settlement cycle securities, unless such transactions meet the Delayed-Settlement Securities Provision.

Unless a fund qualifies as a “limited derivatives user” as defined below, pursuant to Rule 18f-4, a fund is required to, among other things, adopt and implement a derivatives risk management program (“DRMP”) and new testing requirements, comply with a relative or absolute limit on fund leverage risk calculated based on value-at-risk (“VaR”), and comply with new requirements related to Board and SEC reporting. The DRMP is administered by a “derivatives risk manager,” who is appointed by the Board and periodically reviews the DRMP and reports to the Board.

Rule 18f-4 provides an exception from the DRMP, VaR limit and certain other requirements for a fund that limits its “derivatives exposure” to no more than 10% of its net assets (as calculated in accordance with Rule 18f-4) (a “limited derivatives user”), provided that the fund establishes appropriate policies and procedures reasonably designed to manage derivatives risks, including the risk of exceeding the 10% “derivatives exposure” threshold.

The requirements of Rule 18f-4 may limit a Fund’s ability to engage in derivatives transactions as part of its investment strategies. These requirements may also increase the cost of a Fund’s investments and cost of doing business, which could adversely affect the value of the Fund’s investments and/or the performance of

 

B-44


the Fund. The rule also may not be effective to limit a Fund’s risk of loss. In particular, measurements of VaR rely on historical data and may not accurately measure the degree of risk reflected in a Fund’s derivatives or other investments. There may be additional regulation of the use of derivatives transactions by registered investment companies, which could significantly affect their use. The ultimate impact of the regulations remains unclear. Additional regulation of derivatives transactions may make them more costly, limit their availability or utility, otherwise adversely affect their performance or disrupt markets.

Hedging. Investing for hedging purposes or to increase a Fund’s return may result in certain additional transaction costs that may reduce a Fund’s performance. In addition, when used for hedging purposes, no assurance can be given that each derivative position will achieve a close correlation with the security or currency that is the subject of the hedge, or that a particular derivative position will be available when sought by the Sub-adviser. While hedging strategies involving derivatives can reduce the risk of loss, they can also reduce the opportunity for gain or even result in losses by offsetting favorable price movements in other Fund investments. Increases and decreases in the value of a Fund’s portfolio may be magnified when the Fund uses leverage. Certain derivatives may create a risk of loss greater than the amount invested.

Forward Contracts. The Funds may invest in forward contracts for speculative or hedging purposes. A forward contract involves a negotiated obligation to purchase or sell a specific asset at a future date (with or without delivery required), which may be any fixed number of days from the date of the contract agreed upon by the parties, at a price set at the time of the contract. Risks associated with forwards include: (i) there may be an imperfect correlation between the movement in prices of forward contracts and the securities underlying them; (ii) there may not be a liquid market for forwards; and (iii) forwards may be difficult to accurately value. Forwards are also subject to credit risk, liquidity risk and leverage risk, each of which is further described elsewhere in this section.

The Funds may engage in non-deliverable forward transactions. A non-deliverable forward transaction is a transaction that represents an agreement between a Fund and a counterparty (usually a commercial bank) to buy or sell a specified (notional) amount of a particular currency at an agreed upon foreign exchange rate on an agreed upon future date. The non-deliverable forward transaction position is closed using a fixing rate, as defined by the central bank in the country of the currency being traded, that is generally publicly stated within one or two days prior to the settlement date. Unlike other currency transactions, there is no physical delivery of the currency on the settlement of a non-deliverable forward transaction. Rather, the Fund and the counterparty agree to net the settlement by making a payment in U.S. dollars or another fully convertible currency that represents any differential between the foreign exchange rate agreed upon at the inception of the non-deliverable forward agreement and the actual exchange rate on the agreed upon future date. Thus, the actual gain or loss of a given non-deliverable forward transaction is calculated by multiplying the transaction’s notional amount by the difference between the agreed upon forward exchange rate and the actual exchange rate when the transaction is completed. Under definitions adopted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and SEC, many non-deliverable foreign currency forwards will be considered swaps for certain purposes, including determination of whether such instruments need to be exchange-traded and centrally cleared. These changes are expected to reduce counterparty/credit risk as compared to bi-laterally negotiated contracts.

Futures Contracts and Options on Futures. The Funds may enter into futures contracts and options on futures contracts. An option on a futures contract gives the purchaser the right, in exchange for a premium, to assume a position in a futures contract at a specified exercise price during the term of the option. There are special risks associated with entering into futures contracts and related options. The skills needed to use financial futures contracts effectively are different from those needed to select a Fund’s other investments. There may be an imperfect correlation between the price movements of futures contracts and the price movements of the securities in which each Fund invests. There is also a risk that a Fund will be unable to close a futures position when desired because there is no liquid secondary market for it.

 

B-45


The risk of loss in trading futures contracts can be substantial due to the low margin deposits required and the extremely high degree of leverage involved in futures pricing. Relatively small price movements in a futures contract could have an immediate and substantial impact, which may be favorable or unfavorable to a Fund. It is possible for a price-related loss to exceed the amount of a Fund’s margin deposit.

Although some futures contracts by their terms call for the actual delivery or acquisition of securities at expiration, in most cases the contractual commitment is closed out before expiration. The offsetting of a contractual obligation is accomplished by purchasing (or selling as the case may be) on a commodities or futures exchange an identical futures contract calling for delivery in the same month. Such a transaction, if effected through a member of an exchange, cancels the obligation to make or take delivery of the securities. A Fund will incur brokerage fees when it purchases or sells financial futures contracts, and will be required to maintain margin deposits. If a liquid secondary market does not exist when a Fund wishes to close out a futures contract, it will not be able to do so and will continue to be required to make daily cash payments of variation margin in the event of adverse price movements. There is no assurance that a Fund will be able to enter into closing transactions.

The Funds may enter into futures contracts and related options on other underlying assets or indexes, including physical commodities and indexes of physical commodities.

At any time prior to expiration of a futures contract, a Fund may seek to close the position by taking an opposite position which would typically operate to terminate the Fund’s position in the futures contract. A final determination of any variation margin is then made, additional cash is required to be paid by or released to the Fund and the Fund realizes a loss or gain.

When purchasing a futures contract, a Fund will maintain with its custodian (and mark-to-market on a daily basis) assets determined to be liquid that, when added to the amounts deposited with a futures commission merchant as margin, are equal to the market value of the futures contract. When selling a futures contract, a Fund will maintain with its custodian (and mark-to-market on a daily basis) assets determined to be liquid that are equal to the market value of the futures contract.

Equity Index Futures Risk. An equity index future is a cash-settled futures contract on the value of a particular stock market index.

The use of equity index futures involves additional risks and transaction costs that could leave a Fund in a worse position than if it had not used these instruments. Equity index futures may entail investment exposures that are greater than their cost would suggest. As a result, a small investment in equity index futures could have a meaningful impact on performance.

Currency Futures Contracts and Options. The Funds may invest in currency futures contracts (or options thereon) as a hedge against changes in prevailing levels of currency exchange rates. Such contracts may be traded on U.S. or foreign exchanges. The Funds will not use such contracts or options for leveraging purposes. The value of a futures contract tends to increase and decrease in tandem with the value of the underlying instrument. The price of futures can be highly volatile; using them could lower total return, and the potential loss from futures can exceed a Fund’s initial investment in such contracts. In addition, the value of the futures contract may not accurately track the value of the underlying instrument.

Interest Rate or Financial Futures Contracts. The Funds may invest in interest rate or financial futures contracts. Bond prices are established in both the cash market and the futures market. In the cash market, bonds are purchased and sold with payment for the full purchase price of the bond being made in cash, generally within five business days after the trade. In the futures market, a contract is made to purchase or sell a bond in the future for a set price on a certain date. Historically, the prices for bonds established in the futures markets have generally tended to move in the aggregate in concert with cash market prices, and the prices have maintained fairly predictable relationships.

 

B-46


The sale of an interest rate or financial futures contract by a Fund would create an obligation by the Fund, as seller, to deliver the specific type of financial instrument called for in the contract at a specific future time for a specified price. A futures contract purchased by a Fund would create an obligation by the Fund, as purchaser, to take delivery of the specific type of financial instrument at a specific future time at a specific price. The specific securities delivered or taken, respectively, at settlement date, would not be determined until at or near that date. The determination would be in accordance with the rules of the exchange on which the futures contract sale or purchase was made.

Although interest rate or financial futures contracts by their terms call for actual delivery or acceptance of securities, in most cases the contracts are closed out before the settlement date without delivery of securities. Closing out of a futures contract sale is effected by a Fund’s entering into a futures contract purchase for the same aggregate amount of the specific type of financial instrument and the same delivery date. If the price in the sale exceeds the price in the offsetting purchase, a Fund is paid the difference and thus realizes a gain. If the offsetting purchase price exceeds the sale price, the Fund pays the difference and realizes a loss. Similarly, the closing out of a futures contract purchase is effected by the Fund’s entering into a futures contract sale. If the offsetting sale price exceeds the purchase price, the Fund realizes a gain, and if the purchase price exceeds the offsetting sale price, the Fund realizes a loss.

The Funds will deal only in standardized contracts on recognized exchanges. The exchange typically guarantees performance under contract provisions through a clearing corporation, a nonprofit organization managed by the exchange membership. Domestic interest rate futures contracts may be traded in an auction environment on the floor of an exchange, such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. A public market now exists in domestic futures contracts covering various financial instruments including long-term United States Treasury bonds and notes, GNMA modified pass-through MBS, three-month United States Treasury bills, and 90-day commercial paper. The Funds may trade in any futures contract for which there exists a public market, including, without limitation, the foregoing instruments. International interest rate futures contracts are traded on various international exchanges. Engaging in futures contracts on international exchanges may involve additional risks, including varying regulatory standards and supervision, fewer laws to protect investors, greater counterparty risk, greater transaction costs, greater volatility, and less liquidity, which could make it difficult for the Fund to transact.

Special Risks of Transactions in Futures Contracts. Financial futures contracts entail risks. If the Adviser’s or Sub-adviser’s judgment about the general direction of interest rates or markets is wrong, a Fund’s overall performance may be poorer than if no financial futures contracts had been entered into. For example, in some cases, securities called for by a financial futures contract may not have been issued at the time the contract was written. In addition, the market prices of financial futures contracts may be affected by certain factors.

 

   

Liquidity Risks. Positions in futures contracts may be closed out only on an exchange or board of trade which provides a secondary market for such futures. Although a Fund may intend to purchase or sell futures only on exchanges or boards of trade where there appears to be an active secondary market, there is no assurance that a liquid secondary market on an exchange or board of trade will exist for any particular contract or at any particular time. If there is not a liquid secondary market at a particular time, it may not be possible to close a futures position at such time and, in the event of adverse price movements, a Fund would continue to be required to make daily cash payments of variation margin. However, in the event financial futures are used to hedge portfolio securities, such securities will not generally be sold until the financial futures can be terminated. In such circumstances, an increase in the price of the portfolio securities, if any, may partially or completely offset losses on the financial futures.

 

   

Hedging risks. There are several risks in connection with the use by a Fund of futures contracts as a hedging device. One risk arises because of the imperfect correlation between movements in the prices of the futures contracts and movements in the underlying securities or index or movements in

 

B-47


 

the prices of a Fund’s securities which are the subject of a hedge. The Sub-advisers will, however, attempt to reduce this risk by purchasing and selling, to the extent possible, futures contracts and indexes the movements of which will, in the Sub-advisers’ judgment, correlate closely with movements in the prices of the underlying securities or index and a Fund’s portfolio securities sought to be hedged.

 

   

Successful use of futures contracts by a Fund for hedging purposes is also subject to the Sub-adviser’s ability to predict correctly movements in the direction of the market. In addition, the prices of futures, for a number of reasons, may not correlate perfectly with movements in the underlying securities or index due to certain market distortions. First, all participants in the futures market are subject to margin deposit requirements. Such requirements may cause investors to close futures contracts through offsetting transactions which could distort the normal relationship between the underlying security or index and futures markets. Second, the margin requirements in the futures markets are less onerous than margin requirements in the securities markets in general, and as a result the futures markets may attract more speculators than the securities markets do. Increased participation by speculators in the futures markets may also cause temporary price distortions. Due to the possibility of price distortion, even a correct forecast of general market trends by a Sub-adviser still may not result in a successful hedging transaction over a very short time period.

 

   

Other Risks. The Funds will incur brokerage fees in connection with futures transactions. In addition, while futures contracts will be purchased and sold to reduce certain risks, those transactions themselves entail certain other risks. Thus, while a Fund may benefit from the use of futures, unanticipated changes in interest rates or stock price movements may result in a poorer overall performance for the Fund than if it had not entered into any futures contracts. Moreover, in the event of an imperfect correlation between the futures position and the portfolio position that is intended to be protected, the desired protection may not be obtained and a Fund may be exposed to risk of loss.

Congress, various exchanges and regulatory and self-regulatory authorities have undertaken reviews of futures trading in light of market volatility. Among the actions that have been taken or are proposed to be taken are new limits and reporting requirements for speculative positions, particularly in the energy markets, new or more stringent daily price fluctuation limits for futures transactions, and increased margin requirements for various types of futures transactions. Additional measures are under active consideration and as a result there may be further actions that adversely affect the regulation of the instruments in which a Fund invests. Subject to certain limitations, a Fund may enter into futures contracts on such contracts to attempt to protect against possible changes in the market value of securities held in or to be purchased by a Fund resulting from interest rate or market fluctuations, to protect a Fund’s unrealized gains in the value of its portfolio securities, to facilitate the sale of such securities for investment purposes, to manage its effective maturity or duration, or to establish a position in the derivatives markets as a temporary substitute for purchasing or selling particular securities.

 

   

The Funds may purchase or sell interest rate futures for the purpose of hedging some or all of the value of their portfolio securities against changes in prevailing interest rates or to manage their duration or effective maturity. If a Sub-adviser anticipates that interest rates may rise and, concomitantly, the price of certain of its portfolio securities may fall, a Fund may sell futures contracts. If declining interest rates are anticipated, a Fund may purchase futures contracts to protect against a potential increase in the price of securities the Fund intends to purchase. Subsequently, appropriate securities may be purchased by a Fund in an orderly fashion; as securities are purchased, corresponding futures positions would be terminated by offsetting sales of contracts.

 

B-48


Options. The Funds may invest in options. An option is a contract between two parties for the purchase and sale of a financial instrument for a specified price (known as the “strike price” or “exercise price”) at a specified date. Unlike a futures contract, an option grants a right (not an obligation) to buy or sell a financial instrument. Generally, a seller of an option can grant a buyer two kinds of rights: a “call” (the right to buy the security) or a “put” (the right to sell the security). Options have various types of underlying instruments, including specific securities, indices of securities prices, foreign currencies, interest rates and futures contracts. Options may be traded on an exchange (exchange-traded options) or may be customized agreements between the parties (over-the-counter or “OTC” options). Like futures, a financial intermediary, known as a clearing corporation, financially backs exchange-traded options. However, OTC options have no such intermediary and are subject to the risk that the counterparty will not fulfill its obligations under the contract. The principal factors affecting the market value of an option include supply and demand, interest rates, the current market value of the underlying instrument relative to the exercise price of the option, the volatility of the underlying instrument, and the time remaining until the option expires.

Purchasing Put and Call Options. When a Fund purchases a put option, it buys the right to sell the instrument underlying the option at a fixed strike price. In return for this right, the Fund pays the current market price for the option (known as the “option premium”). A Fund may purchase put options to offset or hedge against a decline in the market value of its securities (“protective puts”) or to benefit from a decline in the price of securities that it does not own. A Fund would ordinarily realize a gain if, during the option period, the value of the underlying securities decreased below the exercise price sufficiently to cover the premium and transaction costs. However, if the price of the underlying instrument does not fall enough to offset the cost of purchasing the option, a put buyer would lose the premium and related transaction costs.

Call options are similar to put options, except that a Fund obtains the right to purchase, rather than sell, the underlying instrument at the option’s strike price. A Fund would normally purchase call options in anticipation of an increase in the market value of securities it owns or wants to buy. A Fund would ordinarily realize a gain if, during the option period, the value of the underlying instrument exceeded the exercise price plus the premium paid and related transaction costs. Otherwise, a Fund would realize either no gain or a loss on the purchase of the call option.

The purchaser of an option may terminate its position by:

 

   

Allowing it to expire and losing its entire premium;

   

Exercising the option and either selling (in the case of a put option) or buying (in the case of a call option) the underlying instrument at the strike price; or

   

Closing it out in the secondary market at its current price.

Selling (Writing) Put and Call Options. When a Fund writes a call option it assumes an obligation to sell specified securities to the holder of the option at a fixed strike price if the option is exercised at any time before the expiration date. Similarly, when a Fund writes a put option it assumes an obligation to purchase specified securities from the option holder at a fixed strike price if the option is exercised at any time before the expiration date. A Fund may terminate its position in an exchange-traded put option before exercise by buying an option identical to the one it has written. Similarly, it may cancel an OTC option by entering into an offsetting transaction with the counterparty to the option.

A Fund could try to hedge against an increase in the value of securities it would like to acquire by writing a put option on those securities. If security prices rise, a Fund would expect the put option to expire and the premium it received to offset the increase in the security’s value. If security prices remain the same over time, a Fund would hope to profit by closing out the put option at a lower price. If security prices fall, a Fund may lose an amount of money equal to the difference between the value of the security and the premium it received. Writing covered put options may deprive a Fund of the opportunity to profit from a decrease in the market price of the securities it would like to acquire.

 

B-49


The characteristics of writing call options are similar to those of writing put options, except that call writers expect to profit if prices remain the same or fall. A Fund could try to hedge against a decline in the value of securities it already owns by writing a call option. If the price of that security falls as expected, the Fund would expect the option to expire and the premium it received to offset the decline of the security’s value. However, a Fund must be prepared to deliver the underlying instrument in return for the strike price, which may deprive it of the opportunity to profit from an increase in the market price of the securities it holds.

The Funds are permitted to write only “covered” options. At the time of selling a call option, a Fund may cover the option by owning, among other things:

 

   

The underlying security (or securities convertible into the underlying security without additional consideration), index, interest rate, foreign currency or futures contract;

   

A call option on the same security or index with the same or lesser exercise price;

   

Cash or liquid securities equal to at least the market value of the optioned securities, interest rate, foreign currency or futures contract; or

   

In the case of an index, the portfolio of securities that corresponds to the index.

At the time of selling a put option, a Fund may cover the option by, among other things:

 

   

Entering into a short position in the underlying security;

   

Purchasing a put option on the same security, index, interest rate, foreign currency or futures contract with the same or greater exercise price; or

   

Maintaining the entire exercise price in liquid securities.

Options on Securities Indices. Options on securities indices are similar to options on securities, except that the exercise of securities index options requires cash settlement payments and does not involve the actual purchase or sale of securities. In addition, securities index options are designed to reflect price fluctuations in a group of securities or segment of the securities market rather than price fluctuations in a single security.

Options on Credit Default Swaps. An option on a credit default swap (“CDS”) gives the holder the right to enter into a CDS at a specified future date and under specified terms in exchange for a purchase price or premium. The writer of the option bears the risk of any unfavorable move in the value of the CDS relative to the market value on the exercise date, while the purchaser may allow the option to expire unexercised.

Combined Positions. The Funds may purchase and write options in combination with each other, or in combination with futures or forward contracts or swap agreements, to adjust the risk and return characteristics of the overall position. For example, a Fund could construct a combined position whose risk and return characteristics are similar to selling a futures contract by purchasing a put option and writing a call option on the same underlying instrument. Alternatively, a Fund could write a call option at one strike price and buy a call option at a lower price to reduce the risk of the written call option in the event of a substantial price increase. Because combined options positions involve multiple trades, they result in higher transaction costs and may be more difficult to open and close out.

Structured Notes. The Funds may invest in structured notes. Structured notes are securities on which the amount of principal repayment and interest payment is based on the movement of one or more specified factors. These factors may include equity indexes, a single equity security, a basket of equity securities, interest rates, referenced bonds, commodities, or foreign currencies. Some of the factors may correlate to the total rate of return on one or more underlying instruments of the notes. The value of structured notes can be significantly affected by changes in interest rates and security-specific factors. Structured notes and indexed securities may be positively or negatively indexed, so that appreciation of the unrelated factor may produce an increase or a decrease in the interest rate or the value of the structured note or indexed security at maturity may be calculated as a specified multiple of the change in the value of the unrelated factor.

 

B-50


Structured notes can also be less liquid than other types of securities and more volatile than the reference factor(s) underlying the note. If the issuer of the note defaults, a Fund may lose money if it is not able to readily close out its investment in such notes without incurring losses. Investing in structured notes can involve counterparty risk, credit risk, interest rate risk, and market risk.

Interest Rate and Total Return Swap Agreements. The Funds may enter into interest rate swaps. The Funds may use interest rate swaps to increase or decrease exposure to a particular interest rate or rates, which may result in the Funds experiencing a gain or loss depending on whether the interest rates increased or decreased during the term of the agreement. For temporary, defensive purposes only, the Funds may also engage in total return swaps, in which payments made by a Fund or a counterparty are based on the total return of a particular reference asset or assets (such as a fixed-income security, a combination of securities, or an index). The value of a Fund’s swap positions would increase or decrease depending on the changes in value of the underlying rates, currency values, volatility or other indices or measures. Caps and floors have an effect similar to buying or writing options. Depending on how they are used, swap agreements may increase or decrease the overall volatility of a Fund’s investments and its share price. A Fund’s ability to engage in certain swap transactions may be limited by tax considerations.

A Fund’s ability to realize a profit from such transactions will depend on the ability of the financial institutions with which it enters into the transactions to meet their obligations to the Fund. If a counterparty’s creditworthiness declines, the value of the agreement would be likely to decline, potentially resulting in losses. If a default occurs by the other party to such transaction, a Fund will have contractual remedies pursuant to the agreements related to the transaction, which may be limited by applicable law in the case of a counterparty’s insolvency. Under certain circumstances, suitable transactions may not be available to a Fund, or a Fund may be unable to close out its position under such transactions at the same time, or at the same price, as if it had purchased comparable publicly traded securities. Swaps carry counterparty risks that cannot be fully anticipated. Also, because, in some cases, swap transactions involve a contract between the two parties, such swap investments can be extremely illiquid, as it is uncertain as to whether another counterparty would wish to take assignment of the rights under the swap contract at a price acceptable to a Fund.

The Funds may enter into swap agreements that would calculate the obligations of the parties to the agreement on a “net basis.” Consequently, a Fund’s current obligations (or rights) under a swap agreement will generally be equal only to the net amount to be paid or received under the agreement based on the relative values of the positions held by each party to the agreement (the “net amount”). A Fund’s current obligations under a swap agreement will be accrued daily (offset against any amounts owed to the Fund).

Credit Default Swaps. The Funds may enter into credit default swaps. A credit default swap is an agreement between a Fund and a counterparty that enables a Fund to buy or sell protection against a credit event related to a particular issuer. One party, acting as a protection buyer, makes periodic payments, which may be based on, among other things, a fixed or floating rate of interest, to the other party, a protection seller, in exchange for a promise by the protection seller to make a payment to the protection buyer if a negative credit event (such as a delinquent payment or default) occurs with respect to a referenced bond or group of bonds. Credit default swaps may also be structured based on the debt of a basket of issuers, rather than a single issuer, and may be customized with respect to the default event that triggers purchase or other factors, or defaults by a particular combination of issuers within the basket, may trigger a payment obligation). As a credit protection seller in a credit default swap contract, a Fund would be required to pay the par (or other agreed-upon) value of a referenced debt obligation to the counterparty following certain negative credit events as to a specified third-party debtor, such as default by a U.S. or non-U.S. corporate issuer on its debt obligations. In return for its obligation, a Fund would receive from the counterparty a periodic stream of payments, which may be based on, among other things, a fixed or floating rate of interest, over the term of the contract provided that no event of default has occurred. If no default occurs, a

 

B-51


Fund would keep the stream of payments, and would have no payment obligations to the counterparty. The Funds may sell credit protection in order to earn additional income and/or to take a synthetic long position in the underlying security or basket of securities.

A Fund may enter into credit default swap contracts as protection buyer in order to hedge against the risk of default on the debt of a particular issuer or basket of issuers or attempt to profit from a deterioration or perceived deterioration in the creditworthiness of the particular issuer(s) (also known as buying credit protection). This would involve the risk that the investment may expire worthless and would only generate gain in the event of an actual default by the issuer(s) of the underlying obligation(s) (or, as applicable, a credit downgrade or other indication of financial instability). It would also involve the risk that the seller may fail to satisfy its payment obligations to the Fund. The purchase of credit default swaps involves costs, which will reduce a Fund’s return.

Credit default swaps involve a number of special risks. A Fund may enter into credit default swap contracts as a protection seller. A protection seller may have to pay out amounts following a negative credit event greater than the value of the reference obligation delivered to it by its counterparty and the amount of periodic payments previously received by it from the counterparty. When a Fund acts as a seller of a credit default swap, it is exposed to, among other things, leverage risk because if an event of default occurs the seller must pay the buyer the full notional value of the reference obligation. Each party to a credit default swap is subject to the credit risk of its counterparty (the risk that its counterparty may be unwilling or unable to perform its obligations on the swap as they come due). The value of the credit default swap to each party will change based on changes in the actual or perceived creditworthiness of the underlying issuer.

A protection buyer may lose its investment and recover nothing should an event of default not occur. A Fund may seek to realize gains on its credit default swap positions, or limit losses on its positions, by selling those positions in the secondary market. There can be no assurance that a liquid secondary market will exist at any given time for any particular credit default swap or for credit default swaps generally.

The market for credit default swaps has become more volatile in recent years as the creditworthiness of certain counterparties has been questioned and/or downgraded. The parties to a credit default swap may be required to post collateral to each other. If a Fund posts initial or periodic collateral to its counterparty, it may not be able to recover that collateral from the counterparty in accordance with the terms of the swap. In addition, if a Fund receives collateral from its counterparty, it may be delayed or prevented from realizing on the collateral in the event of the insolvency or bankruptcy of the counterparty. A Fund may exit its obligations under a credit default swap only by terminating the contract and paying applicable breakage fees, or by entering into an offsetting credit default swap position, which may cause the Fund to incur more losses.

A Fund’s obligations under a credit default swap agreement will be accrued daily (offset against any amounts owing to the Fund).

The CFTC regulates the trading of commodity interests, including commodity futures contracts, options on commodity futures, and swaps (which includes cash-settled currency forwards and swaps). A Fund that invests in commodity interests is subject to certain CFTC regulatory requirements, including certain limits on its trading of commodity interests to qualify for certain exclusions or exemptions from registration requirements. The Adviser, on behalf of the Funds, has filed a notice of eligibility for exclusion from the definition of the term “commodity pool operator” (“CPO”) under the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (“CEA”), pursuant to CFTC Rule 4.5, with respect to each Fund’s operation. Therefore, the Funds and the Adviser are not subject to regulation as a commodity pool or CPO under the CEA and the Adviser is not subject to registration as a CPO. If a Fund were no longer able to claim the exclusion, the Adviser may be required to register as a CPO and the Fund and the Adviser would be subject to regulation as a commodity pool or CPO under the CEA. If a Fund or the Adviser is subject to CFTC regulation, it may incur additional expenses.

 

B-52


Repurchase Agreements

The Funds may enter into repurchase agreements. Under such agreements, the seller of the security agrees to repurchase it at a mutually agreed upon time and price. The repurchase price may be higher than the purchase price, the difference being income to a Fund, or the purchase and repurchase prices may be the same, with interest at a stated rate due to a Fund together with the repurchase price on repurchase. In either case, the income to a Fund is unrelated to the interest rate on the security itself. The Funds will generally enter into repurchase agreements of short durations, from overnight to one week, although the underlying securities generally have longer maturities. The Funds may not enter into a repurchase agreement with more than seven days to maturity if, as a result, more than 15% of the value of its net assets would be invested in illiquid investments that are assets, including such repurchase agreements.

It is not clear whether a court would consider the security acquired by a Fund subject to a repurchase agreement as being owned by the Fund or as being collateral for a loan by the Fund to the seller. In the event of the commencement of bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings with respect to the seller of the security before its repurchase under a repurchase agreement, a Fund may encounter delays and incur costs before being able to sell the security. Delays may involve loss of interest or a decline in price of the security. If a court characterizes the transaction as a loan, and a Fund has not perfected a security interest in the security, the Fund may be required to return the security to the seller’s estate and be treated as an unsecured creditor of the seller. As an unsecured creditor, a Fund would be at risk of losing some or all of the principal and income involved in the transaction. As with any unsecured debt instrument purchased for a Fund, the Adviser or Sub-Adviser seeks to minimize the risk of loss through repurchase agreements by analyzing the creditworthiness of the other party, in this case the seller of the security.

Apart from the risk of bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, there is also the risk that the seller may fail to repurchase the security. However, each Fund will always receive as collateral for any repurchase agreement to which it is a party, securities acceptable to it, the market value of which is equal to at least 102% of the amount invested by the Fund plus accrued interest, and the Fund will make payment against such securities only upon physical delivery or evidence of book entry transfer to the account of its custodian. If the market value of the security subject to the repurchase agreement becomes less than the repurchase price (including interest), a Fund will direct the seller of the security to deliver additional securities so that the market value of all securities subject to the repurchase agreement will equal or exceed the repurchase price. It is possible that a Fund will be unsuccessful in seeking to impose on the seller a contractual obligation to deliver additional securities.

The acquisition of a repurchase agreement may be deemed to be an acquisition of the underlying securities as long as the obligation of the seller to repurchase the securities is collateralized fully, as such term is defined in the 1940 Act and the Rules thereunder.

A reverse repurchase agreement involves the sale of a portfolio-eligible security by a Fund to another party, such as a bank or broker-dealer, coupled with its agreement to repurchase the instrument at a specified time and price. Under a reverse repurchase agreement, a Fund continues to receive any principal and interest payments on the underlying security during the term of the agreement.

Rule 18f-4 under the 1940 Act permits a Fund to enter into reverse repurchase agreements and similar financing transactions notwithstanding the limitation on the issuance of senior securities in Section 18 of the 1940 Act, provided that the Fund either (i) complies with the 300% asset coverage ratio with respect to such transactions and any other borrowings in the aggregate, or (ii) treats such transactions as derivatives transactions under Rule 18f-4. As of the date of this SAI, the Funds have elected to treat reverse repurchase agreements as derivatives transactions.

 

B-53


Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) Integration

Certain Sub-advisers may consider ESG characteristics as part of the investment process for their allocated portion of a Fund. These considerations will vary depending on a Fund’s particular investment strategies and may include consideration of third-party research as well as consideration of proprietary research across the ESG risks and opportunities regarding an issuer. A Sub-adviser may consider those ESG characteristics it deems relevant or additive when making investment decisions for a Fund. The ESG characteristics utilized in a Fund’s investment process are anticipated to evolve over time and one or more characteristics may not be relevant with respect to all issuers that are eligible for investment.

ESG characteristics are not the sole considerations when making investment decisions for a Fund. Further, investors can differ in their views of what constitutes positive or negative ESG characteristics. As a result, a Fund may invest in issuers that do not reflect the beliefs and values with respect to ESG of any particular investor. ESG considerations may affect a Fund’s exposure to certain companies or industries and a Fund may forego certain investment opportunities. While certain Sub-advisers may view ESG considerations as having the potential to contribute to a Fund’s long-term performance, there is no guarantee that such results will be achieved.

Certain Funds may incorporate specific ESG, impact or sustainability considerations into their investment objectives, strategies, and/or processes, as described in the Prospectus.

Other Investment Risks

The following risk considerations relate to investment practices undertaken by the Funds. Generally, since shares of each Fund represent an investment in securities with fluctuating market prices, shareholders should understand that the value of their Fund shares will vary as the value of a Fund’s portfolio securities increases or decreases. Therefore, the value of an investment in the Funds could go down as well as up. You can lose money by investing in a Fund. There is no guarantee of successful performance, that a Fund’s objective can be achieved or that an investment in a Fund will achieve a positive return. An investment in a Fund should be considered as a means of diversifying an investment portfolio and is not in itself a balanced investment program. Prospective investors should consider the following risks.

Market Risks

Various market risks can affect the price or liquidity of an issuer’s securities. Adverse events occurring with respect to an issuer’s performance or financial position can depress the value of the issuer’s securities. The liquidity in a market for a particular security will affect its value and may be affected by factors relating to the issuer, as well as the depth of the market for that security.

Other market risks that are not specifically related to an issuer of the security or other asset, or that affect a particular issuer or issuers, exchange, country, group of countries, region, market, industry, group of industries, sector or asset class that can affect value include a market’s current attitudes about type of security, general market conditions, market reactions to political or economic events, and tax and regulatory effects (including lack of adequate regulations for a market or particular type of instrument). Local, regional, or global events such as government defaults, government shutdowns, war, regional conflicts, acts of terrorism, social unrest, the spread of infectious illness or other public health issue, recessions, natural disaster, and other events, or widespread fear that such events may occur, could have a significant impact on the Fund and its investments. Market restrictions on trading volume can also affect price and liquidity.

Certain risks exist because of the composition and investment horizon of a particular portfolio of securities. Prices of many securities tend to be more volatile in the short-term and lack of diversification in a portfolio can also increase volatility.

 

B-54


Recent Events

Legal, tax and regulatory changes could occur that may adversely affect the Funds and their ability to pursue their investment strategies and/or increase the costs of implementing such strategies. Government regulation may change the manner in which the Funds are regulated or affect the Funds’ expenses and/or the value of the Funds’ investments. Government regulation may change frequently and may have significant adverse consequences for the Funds or their investments.

An outbreak of respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus was first detected in China in December 2019 and spread internationally. Since then, the number of cases has fluctuated and new “variants” have been confirmed around the world. This coronavirus resulted in closing borders, enhanced health screenings, healthcare service preparation and delivery, quarantines, cancellations, disruptions to supply chains and customer activity, as well as general concern and uncertainty. The impact of this coronavirus, and other epidemics and pandemics that may arise in the future, could affect the economies of many nations, individual companies and the market in general in ways that cannot necessarily be foreseen at the present time. In addition, the impact of infectious diseases in developing or emerging market countries may be greater due to less established health care systems. Health crises caused by infectious diseases may exacerbate other pre-existing political, social and economic risks in certain countries.

Certain political, social, and economic conditions that existed prior to the coronavirus outbreak include uncertainties regarding Federal Reserve rate setting policy, trade tensions, and the threat of tariffs imposed by the U.S. and other countries. These conditions could still result in further market volatility and negatively affect financial asset prices and the liquidity of certain securities.

In addition, Russia launched a large-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, significantly amplifying already existing geopolitical tensions. Russia’s actions and the resulting responses by the United States and other countries could increase volatility and uncertainty in the financial markets and adversely affect regional and global economies. The United States and other countries have imposed broad-ranging economic sanctions on Russia, certain Russian individuals, banking entities and corporations, and Belarus as a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and may impose sanctions on other countries that provide military or economic support to Russia. In addition, the United States and the United Kingdom have banned oil and other energy imports from Russia, and the European Union has banned most Russian crude oil imports and refined petroleum products, with limited exceptions. The extent and duration of Russia’s military actions or future escalation of such hostilities, and the extent and impact of the resulting sanctions (including any retaliatory actions or countermeasures that may be taken by those subject to sanctions, including cyber-attacks) are impossible to predict, but could result in significant market disruptions, including in certain industries or sectors, such as the oil and natural gas markets, and may negatively affect global supply chains, inflation and global growth. These and any related events could have a significant impact on a Fund’s performance and the value of a Fund’s investments, even if the Fund does not have direct exposure to Russian issuers or issuers in other countries affected by the invasion.

Additionally, in March 2023, several financial institutions experienced a larger than expected decline in deposits and two regional banks, Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, were placed into receivership in response to their rapidly declining financial condition. Although the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Department of Treasury, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have taken measures to stabilize the financial system, uncertainty and liquidity concerns for small and regional banks remain. Additionally, should there be additional systemic pressure on the financial system and capital markets, there can be no assurances of the response of any government or regulator, and any response may not be as favorable to industry participants as the measures currently being pursued. The events related to Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and other regional banks could in the future lead to further rules and regulations for public companies, banks, financial institutions and other participants in the U.S. and global capital markets, and complying with the requirements of any such rules or regulations may be burdensome. These and any related events could have a significant impact on certain sectors in which a Fund may invest.

 

B-55


Multi-Manager and Multi-Style Management Risk

Fund performance is dependent upon the success of the Adviser and the Sub-advisers in implementing the Funds’ investment strategies in pursuit of their goals. To a significant extent, the Funds’ performance will depend on the success of the Adviser’s methodology in allocating the Funds’ assets to Sub-advisers and the selection and oversight of the Sub-advisers and on a Sub-adviser’s skill in executing the relevant strategy and selecting investments for the Funds. There can be no assurance that the Adviser or Sub-advisers will be successful in this regard.

In addition, because portions of a Fund’s assets are managed by different Sub-advisers using different styles/strategies, a Fund could experience overlapping security transactions. Certain Sub-advisers may be purchasing securities at the same time that other Sub-advisers may be selling those same securities, which may lead to higher transaction expenses compared to a Fund using a single investment management style. The Adviser’s and the Sub-advisers’ judgments about the attractiveness, value and potential appreciation of a particular asset class or individual security in which a Fund invests may prove to be incorrect, and there is no guarantee that the Adviser’s or a Sub-adviser’s judgment will produce the desired results. In addition, a Fund may allocate its assets so as to under- or over-emphasize certain strategies or investments under market conditions that are not optimal, in which case a Fund’s value may be adversely affected.

Temporary Defensive Investments

The Funds may, from time to time, take temporary defensive positions that are inconsistent with their principal investment strategies in attempting to respond to adverse market, economic, political or other conditions. For example, during such period, 100% of a Fund’s assets may be invested in short-term, high-quality fixed income securities, cash or cash equivalents. Temporary defensive positions may be initiated by the individual Sub-advisers or by the Adviser when a Sub-adviser and/or the Adviser judges that market conditions make pursuing a Fund’s investment strategies inconsistent with the best interests of its shareholders. A Sub-adviser and/or the Adviser then may temporarily use these alternative strategies that are mainly designed to limit a Fund’s losses or to create liquidity in anticipation of redemptions. When a Fund takes temporary defensive positions, it may not achieve its investment objective.

Cybersecurity Risk

The Funds and their service providers may be susceptible to operational, information security, and related risks. In general, cyber incidents can result from deliberate attacks or unintentional events. Cyber-attacks include, but are not limited to, gaining unauthorized access to digital systems to misappropriate assets or sensitive information, corrupt data, or otherwise disrupt operations. Cyber incidents affecting the Adviser, a Sub-adviser, or other service providers (including, but not limited to, fund accountants, fund administrators, custodians, transfer agents, and financial intermediaries) have the ability to disrupt and impact business operations, potentially resulting in financial losses, by interfering with the Funds’ ability to calculate their NAV, corrupting data or preventing parties from sharing information necessary for the Funds’ operation, preventing or slowing trades, stopping shareholders from making transactions, potentially subjecting the Funds or the Adviser to regulatory fines and penalties, and creating additional compliance costs. Similar types of cyber security risks are also present for issuers or securities in which the Funds may invest, which could result in material adverse consequences for such issuers and may cause the Funds’ investments in such companies to lose value.

The Funds and their service provides are also subject to risks related to disasters and other events, such as storms, earthquakes, fires, outbreaks of infectious diseases (such as COVID-19), utility failures, terrorist acts, political and social developments, and military and governmental actions. These risks are often collectively referred to as “business continuity” risks. For instance, the global spread of COVID-19 has caused the Funds and their service providers to implement business continuity plans, including widespread

 

B-56


use of work-from-home arrangements. Recent global events, such as the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine and resulting economic sanctions by the U.S. and other countries against certain Russian individuals and companies, could also drive a rise in retaliatory cyber-events in Europe and other parts of the world, including the U.S. While the Funds’ service providers have established business continuity plans to mitigate cybersecurity risks, there are inherent limitations in such plans and systems. Additionally, the Funds cannot control the cybersecurity plans and systems put in place by their service providers or any other third parties whose operations may affect the Funds or their shareholders. Although each Fund attempts to minimize such failures through controls and oversight, it is not possible to identify all of the operational risks that may affect a Fund or to develop processes and controls that completely eliminate or mitigate the occurrence of such failures or other disruptions in service. The value of an investment in a Fund’s shares may be adversely affected by the occurrence of the operational errors or failures or technological issues or other similar events and a Fund and its shareholders may bear costs tied to these risks.

INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS

The Funds have adopted the following policies as fundamental policies (unless otherwise noted), which may not be changed without the affirmative vote of the holders of a “majority” of the outstanding voting securities of the Funds. Under the 1940 Act, the “vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding voting securities” means the vote of the holders of the lesser of (i) 67% of the shares of a Fund represented at a meeting at which the holders of more than 50% of the Fund’s outstanding shares are represented or (ii) more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the Fund.

Fundamental Policies

The investment policies below have been adopted as fundamental policies for the Funds.

 

  1.

Each Fund may make loans, except as prohibited under the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom; as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time.

 

  2.

Each Fund may borrow money, except as prohibited under the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom; as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time.

 

  3.

No Fund may issue senior securities, as such term is defined under the 1940 Act, the rules or regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom as amended or interpreted from time to time, except as permitted under the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time.

 

  4.

No Fund may concentrate its investments in a particular industry, as concentration is defined under the 1940 Act, the rules or regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time, except that the Funds may invest without limitation in: (i) securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, its agencies or instrumentalities; and (ii) tax-exempt obligations of state or municipal governments and their political subdivisions.

 

  5.

Each Fund may purchase or sell commodities and real estate, except as prohibited under the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time.

 

B-57


  6.

Each Fund may purchase securities of an issuer, except if such purchase is inconsistent with the maintenance of its status as an open-end diversified company under the 1940 Act, the rules or regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time.

 

  7.

Each Fund may underwrite securities issued by other persons, except as prohibited under the 1940 Act, the rules and regulations thereunder or any exemption therefrom, as such statute, rules or regulations may be amended or interpreted from time to time.

In addition, the Municipal Bond Fund and the Municipal High-Income Bond Fund shall:

 

  1.

Under normal market conditions, invest at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) in municipal securities of any maturity or duration whose interest is exempt from federal income tax.

The following descriptions of the 1940 Act may assist investors in understanding the above policies and restrictions.

BORROWING. The 1940 Act restricts an investment company from borrowing in excess of 33 1/3% of its total assets (including the amount borrowed, but excluding temporary borrowings not in excess of 5% of its total assets). Transactions that are fully collateralized in a manner that does not involve the prohibited issuance of a “senior security” within the meaning of Section 18(f) of the 1940 Act, shall not be regarded as borrowings for the purposes of a Fund’s investment restriction.

CONCENTRATION. The SEC has defined concentration as investing 25% or more of an investment company’s total assets in any particular industry or group of industries, with certain exceptions such as with respect to investments in obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or its agencies and instrumentalities, or tax-exempt obligations of state or municipal governments and their political subdivisions. For purposes of a Fund’s concentration policy, the Fund may classify and re-classify companies in a particular industry and define and re-define industries in any reasonable manner, consistent with SEC guidance.

DIVERSIFICATION. Under the 1940 Act and the rules, regulations and interpretations thereunder, a “diversified company,” as to 75% of its total assets, may not purchase securities of any issuer (other than obligations of, or guaranteed by, the U.S. government or its agencies, or instrumentalities or securities of other investment companies) if, as a result, more than 5% of its total assets would be invested in the securities of such issuer, or more than 10% of the issuer’s voting securities would be held by a Fund. For purposes of each Fund’s diversification policy, the identification of the issuer of a security may be determined in any reasonable manner, consistent with SEC guidance.

LENDING. Under the 1940 Act, an investment company may only make loans if expressly permitted by its investment policies.

COMMODITIES AND REAL ESTATE. The 1940 Act does not directly restrict an investment company’s ability to invest in commodities or real estate, but does require that every investment company have the fundamental investment policy governing such investments. Each Fund has adopted a fundamental policy that would permit direct investment in commodities and real estate. However, each Fund has a non-fundamental investment limitation that prohibits it from investing directly in real estate. This non-fundamental policy may be changed by vote of the Board.

SENIOR SECURITIES. Senior securities may include any obligation or instrument issued by an investment company evidencing indebtedness. The 1940 Act generally prohibits a fund from issuing senior

 

B-58


securities, although it provides allowances for certain borrowings. In addition, Rule 18f-4 under the 1940 Act permits a fund to enter into derivatives transactions, notwithstanding the prohibitions and restrictions on the issuance of senior securities under the 1940 Act, provided that the fund complies with the conditions of Rule 18f-4.

UNDERWRITING. Under the 1940 Act, underwriting securities involves an investment company purchasing securities directly from an issuer for the purpose of selling (distributing) them or participating in any such activity either directly or indirectly. Under the 1940 Act, a diversified fund may not make any commitment as underwriter, if immediately thereafter the amount of its outstanding underwriting commitments, plus the value of its investments in securities of issuers (other than investment companies) of which it owns more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities, exceeds 25% of the value of its total assets.

Non-Fundamental Policies

The Funds observe the following policies, which are not deemed fundamental and which may be changed by the Board without shareholder vote.

 

  1.

Each Fund may not borrow money in an amount exceeding 33 1/3% of the value of its total assets (including the amount borrowed, but excluding temporary borrowings not in excess of 5% of its total assets), provided that investment strategies that either obligate the Fund to purchase securities or require the Fund to cover a position by segregating assets or entering into an offsetting position shall not be subject to this limitation.

 

  2.

Each Fund may not lend any security or make any other loan if, as a result, more than 33 1/3% of its total assets (including the loan collateral) would be lent to other parties (this restriction does not apply to purchases of debt securities or repurchase agreements).

 

  3.

Each Fund may not purchase an investment if, as a result, more than 15% of the value of its net assets would be invested in illiquid investments (as such term is defined in Rule 22e-4 of the 1940 Act). Rule 22e-4 defines an “illiquid investment” to mean any investment that a Fund reasonably expects cannot be sold or disposed of in current market conditions in seven calendar days or less without the sale or disposition significantly changing the market value of the investment, as determined pursuant to the Rule.

 

  4.

Each Fund may not invest in unmarketable interests in real estate limited partnerships or invest directly in real estate. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing policy does not prevent the Funds from, among other things; purchasing marketable securities of companies that deal in real estate or interests therein (including REITs).

 

  5.

Each Fund may purchase or sell financial and physical commodities, commodity contracts based on (or relating to) physical commodities or financial commodities and securities and derivative instruments whose values are derived from (in whole or in part) physical commodities or financial commodities.

In addition:

 

  1.

Under normal circumstances, the Core Bond Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) in fixed income securities and other instruments, such as derivatives and certain investment companies, with economic characteristics similar to fixed income securities.

 

B-59


  2.

Under normal circumstances, the Core Plus Bond Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) in fixed income securities of any maturity or duration and other instruments, such as derivatives, with economic characteristics similar to fixed income securities, and certain investment companies that seek to track the performance of fixed income securities.

 

  3.

Under normal circumstances, the Large Cap Growth Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) in the securities of large capitalization companies and other instruments, such as certain investment companies that seek to track the performance of securities of large capitalization companies.

 

  4.

Under normal circumstances, the Large Cap Value Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) in the securities of large capitalization companies and other instruments, such as certain investment companies, that seek to track the performance of securities of large capitalization companies.

 

  5.

Under normal circumstances, the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) in the securities of small and mid-capitalization companies and other instruments, such as certain investment companies, that seek to track the performance of securities of small and mid-capitalization companies.

 

  6.

Under normal circumstances, the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) in the securities of small and mid-capitalization companies and other instruments, such as certain investment companies, that seek to track the performance of securities of small and mid-capitalization companies.

 

  7.

Under normal circumstances, the International Equity Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of borrowings for investment purposes) in equity securities and other instruments, such as derivative instruments, with economic characteristics similar to equity securities, and certain investment companies that seek to track the performance of equity securities.

Except with respect to borrowing, if a percentage restriction set forth in the Prospectus or in this SAI is adhered to at the time of investment, a subsequent increase or decrease in a percentage resulting from a change in the values of assets will not constitute a violation of that restriction. A Fund will reduce its borrowing amount within three days (not including Sundays and holidays), if its asset coverage falls below the amount required by the 1940 Act. With respect to the limitation on illiquid investments, in the event that a subsequent change in net assets or other circumstances causes a Fund to exceed its limitation, the Fund will take steps to bring the aggregate amount of illiquid investments back within the limitations as soon as reasonably practicable.

PORTFOLIO TURNOVER

The frequency of portfolio transactions of the Funds (the portfolio turnover rate) will vary from year to year depending on many factors. From time to time, the Funds may engage in active short-term trading to take advantage of price movements affecting individual issues, groups of issues or markets. An annual portfolio turnover rate of 100% would occur if all the securities in a Fund were replaced once in a period of one year. Higher portfolio turnover rates may result in increased brokerage costs to the Funds and a possible increase in short-term capital gains or losses. The Funds’ annual portfolio turnover rates for the last five years will be included in the “Financial Highlights” section of the Funds’ prospectus.

 

B-60


The following table sets forth the portfolio turnover rates of the Funds as of the two most recently completed fiscal years ended June 30, 2022 and June 30, 2023.

 

  Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2022
Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2023
Core Bond Fund 157% 151%
Core Plus Bond Fund 283% 228%
Municipal Bond Fund 22% 26%
Municipal High-Income Bond Fund N/A 6%*
Large Cap Growth Fund 23% 21%
Large Cap Value Fund 24% 21%
Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund 84% 63%
Small/Mid Cap Value Fund 33% 41%
International Equity Fund 23% 19%
*

Reflects the period from April 13, 2023 (commencement of Fund operations) to June 30, 2023.

PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS INFORMATION

The Trust, on behalf of the Funds, has adopted a portfolio holdings disclosure policy that governs the timing and circumstances of disclosure of the holdings of the Funds. The policy was developed in consultation with the Adviser and has been adopted by the Adviser. Information about a Fund’s holdings will not be distributed to any third party except in accordance with this policy. The Board considered the circumstances under which a Fund’s holdings may be disclosed under this policy and the actual and potential material conflicts that could arise in such circumstances between the interests of the Funds’ shareholders and the interests of the Adviser, the principal underwriter or any affiliated person of the Fund. After due consideration, the Board determined that, when approved by the Trust’s CCO, the Funds have a legitimate business purpose for disclosing holdings to persons described in the policy, including mutual fund rating or statistical agencies, or persons performing similar functions, and internal parties involved in the investment process, or custody of the Funds. Pursuant to the policy, the Trust’s CCO is authorized to consider and authorize dissemination of portfolio holdings information to additional third parties, after considering the best interests of the shareholders and potential conflicts of interest in making such disclosures.

The Board exercises continuing oversight of the disclosure of the Funds’ holdings by (1) overseeing the implementation and enforcement of the portfolio holding disclosure policy, Codes of Ethics and other relevant policies of the Funds and their service providers by the Trust’s CCO, (2) by considering reports and recommendations by the Trust’s CCO concerning any material compliance matters (as defined in Rule 38a-1 under the 1940 Act), and (3) by considering to approve any amendment to this policy. The Board reserves the right to amend the policy at any time without prior notice in its sole discretion.

Disclosure of the Funds’ complete holdings is required to be made quarterly within 60 days of the end of each period covered by the Annual Report and Semiannual Report to shareholders and in the quarterly holdings report on Form N-PORT. These reports are available, free of charge, on the EDGAR database on the SEC’s website at sec.gov. The Funds may provide complete portfolio holdings at the same time reports are filed with the SEC.

In the event of a conflict between the interests of the Funds and the interests of the Adviser or an affiliated person of the Adviser, the Adviser’s CCO, in consultation with the Trust’s CCO, shall make a

 

B-61


determination in the best interests of the Fund, and shall report such determination to the Board at the end of the quarter in which such determination was made. Any employee of the Adviser who suspects a breach of this obligation must report the matter immediately to the Adviser’s CCO, the Trust’s CCO or to his or her supervisor.

In addition, material non-public holdings information may be provided without lag as part of the normal investment activities of the Funds to each of the following entities which, by explicit agreement or by virtue of their respective duties to the Funds, are required to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed, including a duty not to trade on non-public information: the Adviser, the Sub-advisers, the fund administrator (“Administrator”), the fund accountant, the custodian (the “Custodian”), the transfer agent (the “Transfer Agent”), pricing vendors, proxy voting service providers, auditors, counsel to the Funds or the Trustees, broker-dealers (in connection with the purchase or sale of securities or requests for price quotations or bids on one or more securities), and regulatory authorities.

Holdings information not publicly available with the SEC or through the Funds’ website may only be provided to additional third parties, including mutual fund ratings or statistical agencies, in accordance with the policy, when a Fund has a legitimate business purpose and when the third-party recipient is subject to a confidentiality agreement that includes a duty not to trade on non-public information. The Funds may disclose portfolio holdings to transition managers, provided that the relevant Fund or the Adviser has entered into a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement with the transition manager.

In no event shall the Adviser, its affiliates or employees, the Funds, or any other party in connection with any arrangement receive any direct or indirect compensation in connection with the disclosure of information about the Funds’ holdings.

There can be no assurance that the policy and these procedures will protect the Funds from potential misuse of that information by individuals or entities to which it is disclosed.

From time to time, the Adviser may make additional disclosure of the Funds’ portfolio holdings on the Funds’ website. Shareholders can access the Funds’ website at www.bridgebuildermutualfunds.com for additional information about the Funds, including, without limitation, the periodic disclosure of its portfolio holdings.

The Funds may also disclose certain commentary and analytical, statistical, performance or similar information relating to the Funds or their portfolio holdings if certain conditions are met. The information must be for legitimate business purposes and must be deemed to be non-material non-public information based on a good faith review of the particular facts and circumstances. Examples of such non-material non-public information may include, but are not limited to, the following types of information: allocation of a Fund’s portfolio securities and other investments among various asset classes, sectors, industries, market capitalizations, countries and regions; the characteristics of the stock or fixed income components and other investments of a Fund; the attribution of a Fund’s returns by asset class, sector, industry, market capitalization, country and region; certain volatility characteristics of a Fund; certain valuation metrics of a Fund (such as average price to earnings ratio and average earnings growth); and maturity and credit quality statistics for a Fund’s fixed income holdings. From time to time, the Adviser may make these additional disclosures on the Funds’ website. Shareholders can access the Funds’ website at www.bridgebuildermutualfunds.com.

 

B-62


TRUSTEES AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The Board oversees the overall management of the Trust, including general oversight of the investment activities of the Funds. The Board, in turn, elects the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the day-to-day operations of the Trust and each of its separate series, including the Funds. The current Trustees and officers of the Trust, their year of birth, position with the Trust, term of office with the Trust and length of time served, and their principal occupation and other directorships for the past five years are set forth below. The address of each Trustee and officer is c/o Bridge Builder Trust, 12555 Manchester Road, St. Louis, MO 63131.

 

Name and Year
of Birth
 

Position
with

the Trust

 

Term of

Office and

Length of

Time

Served

 

Principal

Occupation

During Past

Five Years

 

Number
of

Portfolios

in Fund

Complex(4)

Overseen

by
Trustees

 

Other

Directorships

Held During

Past Five
Years

Independent Trustees of the Trust(1)

Jean E. Carter

(Born: 1957)

  Trustee  

Indefinite Term;

Since Inception

  Retired; Director of Investment Management Group for Russell Investment Group (1982-2005).   16   Trustee, Brandes U.S. registered mutual funds (2008-2020).

Craig A. Griffith

(Born: 1958)

  Trustee  

Indefinite Term;

Since April 2022

  Retired; Partner at Sidley Austin LLP (1998-2019).   16   None.

Timothy J. Jacoby

(Born: 1952)

  Trustee  

Indefinite Term;

Since April 2022

  Retired; Partner at Deloitte & Touche LLP (2000-2014).   16   Audit Committee Chair, Perth Mint Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) (2018-2020); Independent Trustee, Exchange Traded Concepts Trust (18 funds) (2014-present); Exchange Listed Funds Trust (19 funds) (2014-present).

Michelle M. Keeley

(Born: 1964)

  Trustee  

Indefinite Term;

Since August 2015

  Retired; Executive Vice President, Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. (2002-2010).   16   Independent Director, American Equity Life Holding Company (2020-2022); Independent Director, Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines (2015-2021).

 

B-63


Name and Year
of Birth
 

Position
with

the Trust

 

Term of

Office and

Length of

Time

Served

 

Principal

Occupation

During Past

Five Years

 

Number
of

Portfolios

in Fund

Complex(4)

Overseen

by
Trustees

 

Other

Directorships

Held During

Past Five
Years

Heidi Stam

(Born: 1956)

  Trustee   Indefinite Term; Since April 2022   Retired; Managing Director and General Counsel, Vanguard (2005-2016).   16   Trustee, CBRE Global Real Estate Income Fund (2021-present); Vice Chair, Investor Advisory Committee, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2020-2021); Committee Member, Investor Advisory Committee, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2017-2021); Council Member, National Adjudicatory Council, FINRA (2017-2021).

David D. Sylvester

(Born: 1950)

  Trustee   Indefinite Term; Since April 2022  

Retired; Portfolio Manager at Wells, Fargo & Co.

(1979-2015).

  16   Trustee, Minnehaha Academy (2017-2022).

John M. Tesoro

(Born: 1952)

  Chairman (since April 2022) and Trustee  

Indefinite Term;

Since Inception

  Retired; Partner, KPMG LLP (2002-2012).   16   Independent Trustee, BBH Trust (8 funds) (2014-present); Director, Teton Advisors, Inc., registered investment adviser (2013-2021).
Non-Edward Jones Interested Trustee of the Trust(2)

Maureen Leary-Jago

(Born: 1957)

  Trustee  

Indefinite Term; Since

April 2022

  Retired; Senior Global Advisor at MFS (2004-2016).   16   None.

 

B-64


Name and Year
of Birth
 

Position
with

the Trust

 

Term of

Office and

Length of

Time

Served

 

Principal

Occupation

During Past

Five Years

 

Number
of

Portfolios

in Fund

Complex(4)

Overseen

by
Trustees

 

Other

Directorships

Held During

Past Five
Years

Interested Trustees of the Trust(3)

Lena Haas

(Born: 1975)

  Trustee  

Indefinite Term;

Since April 2022

  Principal, Wealth Management Advice and Solutions, Edward Jones, and General Partner, The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (January 2022-present), Principal, Products (March 2020-December 2021) and Principal, Banking and Trust Services (November 2017-March 2020) at Edward Jones; Senior Vice President, Head of Investing Product Management and Retirement, E*TRADE Financial and President of E*TRADE Capital Management (2011-2017).   16   Director, Craft Alliance Center of Art and Design.

Merry L. Mosbacher

(Born: 1958)

  Trustee  

Indefinite Term;

Since

January 2020

  Subordinated Limited Partner, The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (since 2020); Principal, Edward Jones, and General Partner, The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (1986-2019); Associate, Edward Jones (1982-1985).   16   None.
Officers of the Trust

Colleen R. Dean

(Born: 1980)

  President   Indefinite Term; Since June 2022   Director of Proprietary Funds Strategy and Management at Edward Jones (since 2022); Senior Vice President, PIMCO, and Assistant Treasurer or Deputy Treasurer for various PIMCO-sponsored mutual funds (2013-2022); Vice President, Cohen & Steers Capital Management (2006-2013).   N/A   N/A

 

B-65


Name and Year
of Birth
 

Position
with

the Trust

 

Term of

Office and

Length of

Time

Served

 

Principal

Occupation

During Past

Five Years

 

Number
of

Portfolios

in Fund

Complex(4)

Overseen

by
Trustees

 

Other

Directorships

Held During

Past Five
Years

Aaron J. Masek

(Born: 1974)

  Treasurer  

Indefinite Term;

Since July 2016

 

Director, Finance, Edward Jones (since 2015); Vice President and Treasurer, AQR Funds

(2010-2015).

  N/A   N/A

Alan J. Herzog

(Born: 1973)

  Chief Compliance Officer, Vice President and Anti-Money Laundering Officer  

Indefinite Term;

Since March 2022

  Principal, Compliance, Edward Jones, and General Partner, The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (since 2013); Chief Compliance Officer, Anti-Money Laundering Officer and Vice President of the Trust (2015-2019).   N/A   N/A

Evan S. Posner

(Born: 1979)

  Secretary   Indefinite Term; Since July 2021   Associate General Counsel at Edward Jones (since 2018); Assistant Secretary of the Trust (2019-2021); Vice President, Counsel at Voya Investment Management (2012-2018).   N/A   N/A

Gregory M. Rees

(Born: 1987)

  Assistant Secretary   Indefinite Term; Since December 2022   Associate General Counsel at Edward Jones (since 2021); Assistant Vice President at State Street Bank & Trust Company (2019-2021); Fund Administration Legal Contractor for State Street Bank & Trust Company (2017-2019)   N/A   N/A
(1)

The Trustees of the Trust who are not “interested persons” of the Trust as defined under the 1940 Act (“Independent Trustees”).

(2)

Ms. Leary-Jago is treated as an “interested person” of the Trust as defined by the 1940 Act by virtue of the fact that she has an immediate family member who is considered an affiliated person of an existing investment sub-adviser to one of the portfolios of the Trust. However, Ms. Leary-Jago is not an affiliated person of Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (“Edward Jones”) or any of its affiliates and, therefore, serves as an independent trustee of the Edward Jones Money Market Fund, which is also advised by Olive Street.

(3)

Ms. Haas and Ms. Mosbacher are “interested persons” of the Trust as defined by the 1940 Act by virtue of the fact that they are affiliated persons of the Adviser’s parent company, The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.

(4)

The “Fund Complex” consists of each series offered by the Trust, six of which are offered in separate prospectuses and statements of additional information, and the Edward Jones Money Market Fund. Each Trustee also serves as a Trustee of the Edward Jones Money Market Fund.

 

B-66


Additional Information Concerning the Board of Trustees

The Role of the Board. The Board oversees the management and operations of the Trust. Like all mutual funds, the day-to-day management and operation of the Trust is the responsibility of the various service providers to the Trust, such as the Adviser, each of the Sub-advisers, the Distributor, the Administrator, the Custodian, and the Transfer Agent, each of which is discussed in greater detail in this SAI. The Board has appointed various senior employees of the Adviser as officers of the Trust, with responsibility to monitor and report to the Board on the Trust’s operations. In conducting this oversight, the Board receives regular reports from these officers and the service providers. For example, the Treasurer reports as to financial reporting matters.

In addition, the Adviser and the Sub-advisers provide regular reports on the investment strategy and performance of the Funds. The Board has appointed a Chief Compliance Officer who administers the Trust’s compliance program and regularly reports to the Board as to compliance matters. These reports are provided as part of formal Board meetings which are typically held quarterly and involve the Board’s review of recent operations. In addition, various members of the Board also meet with management in less formal settings, between formal Board meetings, to discuss various topics. In all cases, however, the role of the Board and of any individual Trustee is one of oversight and not of management of the day-to-day affairs of the Trust and its oversight role does not make the Board a guarantor of the Trust’s investments, operations or activities.

Board Structure, Leadership. The Board has structured itself in a manner that it believes allows it to perform its oversight function effectively. It has established two standing committees, a Governance and Nominating Committee and an Audit Committee (which also serves as the Qualified Legal Compliance Committee (“QLCC”)), which are discussed in greater detail below. At least a majority of the Board is comprised of Trustees who are Independent Trustees, which generally are Trustees who are not affiliated with the Adviser, the Sub-advisers, the principal underwriter, or their affiliates. In addition, the Chairman of the Board is an Independent Trustee. The Board has determined not to combine the Chairman position and the principal executive officer position and has appointed a senior employee of the Adviser as the President of the Trust. The Board reviews its structure and the structure of its committees annually. The Board has determined that its leadership structure, the composition of the Board, and the function and composition of its various committees are appropriate means to address any potential conflicts of interest that may arise. The leadership structure of the Board may be changed, at any time and in the discretion of the Board, including in response to changes in circumstances or the characteristics of the Trust.

Michelle Keeley, an Independent Trustee, serves as Chair of the Governance and Nominating Committee of the Trust. The Governance and Nominating Committee is comprised of all of the Independent Trustees of the Trust. As set forth in its charter, the Governance and Nominating Committee assists the Board in fulfilling its governance-related responsibilities, including making recommendations regarding the Board’s size, composition, leadership structure, committees, compensation, retirement and self-assessment, among other things. The Governance and Nominating Committee makes recommendations regarding nominations for Independent Trustees and will consider candidates properly submitted by shareholders to fill vacancies on the Board, if any, which must be sent to the attention of the President of the Trust in writing together with the appropriate biographical information concerning each such proposed candidate. For a candidate to be properly submitted by a shareholder, the submission must comply with the notice provisions set forth in the Governance and Nominating Committee Charter and the Trust’s By-Laws. In general, to be considered by the Governance and Nominating Committee, such nominations, together with all required biographical information, any information required to be disclosed about a candidate in the Trust proxy statement or other regulatory filing for the election of Trustees, and any other information requested by the Governance and Nominating Committee that it deems reasonable to its evaluation of the candidate, must be delivered to and received by the President of the Trust at the principal executive offices of the Trust not later than 120

 

B-67


days prior to the shareholder meeting at which any such nominee would be voted on. Submission of a Trustee candidate recommendation by a shareholder does not guarantee such candidate will be nominated as a Trustee.

The Governance and Nominating Committee identifies and screens Independent Trustee candidates for nomination and appointment to the Board and submits final recommendations to the full Board for approval. In doing so, the Governance and Nominating Committee takes into account such factors as it considers relevant, including without limitation, educational background, strength of character, mature judgment, career specialization, relevant technical skills or financial acumen, diversity of viewpoint, industry knowledge, experience, demonstrated capabilities, independence, commitment, reputation, background, diversity, understanding of the investment business and understanding of business and financial matters generally. No one factor is controlling, either with respect to the group or any individual.

In addition to the above, each candidate must: (i) display the highest personal and professional ethics, integrity and values; (ii) have the ability to exercise sound business judgment; (iii) be highly accomplished in his or her respective field; (iv) have relevant expertise and experience; (v) be able to represent all shareholders and be committed to enhancing long-term shareholder value; and (vi) have sufficient time available to devote to activities of the Board and to enhance his or her knowledge of the Trust’s business. The Governance and Nominating Committee reviews its process for identifying and evaluating nominees for trustees annually in connection with the Committee’s review of its charter. The Governance and Nominating Committee met five times during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023.

Timothy Jacoby, an Independent Trustee, serves as Chair of the Audit Committee of the Trust. The Audit Committee is comprised of all of the Independent Trustees of the Trust. The Audit Committee meets twice a year or more frequently as circumstances dictate. The function of the Audit Committee, with respect to each series of the Trust, is to assist the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities relating to the accounting and financial reporting policies and practices of the Trust, including by providing independent and objective oversight over the Trust’s accounting policies, financial reporting and internal control system, as well as the work of the independent registered public accounting firm retained by the Trust (the “independent auditors”). The Audit Committee also serves to provide an open avenue of communication among the independent auditors, Trust management and the Board. As part of the Audit Committee, the function of the QLCC is to receive reports from an attorney retained by the Trust of evidence of a material violation by the Trust or by any officer, director, employee or agent of the Trust. The Audit Committee met four times during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023.

Pursuant to Rule 2a-5 under the 1940 Act, the Board has designated the Adviser as the valuation designee for the Funds responsible for determining the fair value of Fund investments that do not have readily available market quotations, subject to Board oversight and certain reporting and other requirements. The Adviser has established a Valuation Committee with members from relevant departments within the Adviser to assist the Adviser in carrying out its responsibilities under Rule 2a-5 and in accordance with the Adviser’s valuation policy and procedures. The function of the Valuation Committee is to assess and manage any material risks associated with the determination of the fair value of the Funds’ investments, review the appropriateness and accuracy of fair value methodologies and monitor for circumstances that may necessitate the use of fair value pricing or a change in fair value methodologies, and to determine fair value for the Funds’ investments. The Valuation Committee typically meets on a monthly basis and more frequently as necessary.

Board Oversight of Risk Management. As part of its oversight function, the Board receives and reviews various risk management reports and discusses these matters with appropriate management and other personnel. Because risk management is a broad concept comprised of many elements (e.g., investment risk, issuer and counterparty risk, liquidity risk, compliance risk, operational risks, business continuity risks, etc.), the oversight of different types of risks is handled in different ways. For example, the Audit

 

B-68


Committee meets with the Treasurer and the Trust’s independent auditors to discuss, among other things, the internal control structure of the Trust’s financial reporting function. The Board meets quarterly, and otherwise as needed, with the Chief Compliance Officer to discuss compliance, operational and other risks and how they are managed. The Board also receives reports from the Adviser as to investment risks of the Funds. In addition to these reports, from time to time the Board receives reports from the Administrator and the Adviser as to enterprise risk management.

The Board recognizes that not all risks that may affect a Fund can be identified and/or quantified, that it may not be practical or cost-effective to eliminate or mitigate certain risks, that it may be necessary for a Fund to bear certain risks (such as investment-related risks) to achieve the Fund’s goals and that the processes, procedures and controls employed to address certain risks may be limited in their effectiveness.

Information about Each of the Trustee’s Qualifications, Experience, Attributes or Skills. The Trust has concluded that each of the Trustees should serve on the Board because of their ability to review and understand information about the Funds provided to them by management, to identify and request other information they may deem relevant to the performance of their duties, to question management and other service providers regarding material factors bearing on the management and administration of the Funds, and to exercise their business judgment in a manner that serves the best interests of the Trust’s shareholders. The Trust has concluded that each of the Trustees should serve as a Trustee based on their own experience, qualifications, attributes and skills as described below.

In its periodic assessment of the effectiveness of the Board, the Board considers the complementary individual skills and experience of the individual Trustees primarily in the broader context of the Board’s overall composition so that the Board, as a body, possesses the appropriate (and appropriately diverse) skills and experience to oversee the business of the Funds. Moreover, references to the qualifications, attributes and skills of trustees are pursuant to requirements of the SEC, and do not constitute holding out of the Board or any trustee as having any special expertise or experience.

Ms. Haas has held a variety of leadership roles at Edward Jones and other financial services firms, in which she gained extensive experience with mutual funds and other investment products. She also currently serves on the board of a non-profit organization.

Ms. Leary-Jago has gained experience with multiple aspects of the investment management industry, including operations, risk management and compliance, through various leadership roles at investment management firms and with industry associations.

Ms. Mosbacher has significant financial services and mutual fund experience as a Principal of Edward Jones for over 33 years. Prior to her retirement in December 2019, she served as a Principal in the following areas at Edward Jones: Branch Team Inclusion & Diversity; Packaged Products Strategy; Insurance & Annuity Products; and Investment Banking. She also has experience as a director on several non-profit boards and the Insured Retirement Institute.

Ms. Carter has significant investment advisory experience as a senior executive of Russell Investment Group, serving as a managing director, member of the corporate operating committee and a member of the investment management group’s fund strategy committee. She joined Russell Investment Group in 1982. Ms. Carter has also served as an Independent Trustee on the board of another registered investment company overseeing multiple funds. She is a previous Chair of that board. These positions over the course of 23 years involved oversight of over 140 funds and the development of a mutual fund business joint venture.

Mr. Griffith has substantial experience with the financial services industry and with federal securities laws and regulations. Mr. Griffith was a partner in the Global Finance Group of Sidley Austin LLP. His practice

 

B-69


focused on securitization and structured finance, which encompassed term and conduit executions involving a variety of assets. Mr. Griffith worked on large, complex industrial/consumer transactions, including direct asset purchases, master trusts, and whole business securitizations for clients that included commercial and investment banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions.

Mr. Jacoby has over 40 years of combined public accounting and investment management industry experience, which he has gained through various leadership roles at audit and investment management firms, with industry associations and on the boards of other registered funds. Mr. Jacoby has been determined to qualify as an Audit Committee Financial Expert for the Trust and the Edward Jones Money Market Fund. The Board believes Mr. Jacoby’s experience, qualifications, attributes or skills on an individual basis and in combination with those of the other Trustees, lead to the conclusion that he possesses the requisite skills and attributes to carry out oversight responsibilities as Audit Committee Financial Expert for the Trust and the Edward Jones Money Market Fund.

Ms. Keeley has significant financial services and mutual fund experience as an executive vice president for Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. where she was responsible for managerial oversight for fixed income portfolio management, research and trading as well as the value and mid-cap growth equity portfolio management and research teams. As an Executive Vice President at Ameriprise, Ms. Keeley also served on the Balance Sheet Management Committee and Capital Markets Committee. She has over 25 years of experience in the mutual fund industry. Ms. Keeley also has experience as a director on several corporate and non-profit boards, including currently serving as a director of Graywolf Press. She previously served as a director of American Equity Life Holding Company (“American Equity Life”) and served on the Executive Compensation and Talent Committee, and as Chair of the Investment Committee, of the board of directors of American Equity Life. Ms. Keeley also previously served as a director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines (“FHLB”), Chair of the FHLB Board’s Finance and Planning Committee and Chair of the FHLB Board’s Human Resources and Compensation Committee.

Ms. Stam has significant experience as a managing executive and general counsel of Vanguard, a registered investment adviser, and the Vanguard mutual funds, and as an Associate Director of the SEC’s Division of Investment Management. She also serves as a trustee of the CBRE Global Real Estate Income Fund, a closed-end fund listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Ms. Stam has substantial experience in and knowledge of the investment management industry, investment company and investment adviser regulation and operations, shareholder relations and fund governance, which provides her with important perspectives on the operation and management of the Trust.

Mr. Sylvester managed short-term funds and money market funds for over 40 years. During that time, he was responsible for a large money market fund complex, and played a lead role in the complex’s response to money market fund reform, as well as numerous money market fund acquisitions and mergers.

Mr. Tesoro has extensive experience in internal control and risk assessments, including compliance issues related to the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Investment Advisers Act of 1940. He worked in public accounting for 38 years, primarily auditing mutual funds and registered investment advisers. From 1995-2002, he was the Partner-in-Charge of Arthur Andersen LLP’s US Investment Management Industry Program. Mr. Tesoro joined KPMG LLP in 2002 as a partner and continued to work with numerous financial institutions. Mr. Tesoro serves as an Independent Trustee and Audit Committee Chair on the Board of Trustees of the BBH Trust (a mutual fund complex). Mr. Tesoro has been determined to qualify as an Audit Committee Financial Expert for the Trust and the Edward Jones Money Market Fund. The Board believes Mr. Tesoro’s experience, qualifications, attributes or skills on an individual basis and in combination with those of the other Trustees, lead to the conclusion that he possesses the requisite skills and attributes to carry out oversight responsibilities as Audit Committee Financial Expert for the Trust and the Edward Jones Money Market Fund.

 

B-70


Trustee Ownership of Portfolio Shares

The following table provides information, as of December 31, 2022, regarding the dollar range of beneficial ownership by each Trustee (i) in each series of the Trust and (ii) on an aggregate basis, in the Edward Jones family of investment companies, which includes each series of the Trust and the Edward Jones Money Market Fund. Dollar amount ranges disclosed are established by the SEC. “Beneficial ownership” is determined in accordance with Rule 16a-1(a)(2) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “1934 Act”).

 

  Core Bond
Fund
Core Plus
Bond Fund
Municipal
Bond Fund
Municipal
High-Income
Bond Fund
Large Cap
Growth Fund
Jean E. Carter $1-$10,000 None None None2 $10,001-$50,000
Craig A. Griffith None $10,001-$50,000 None None2 $1-$10,000
Timothy Jacoby None $50,001-$100,000 None None2 None
Michelle M. Keeley None $10,001-$50,000 None None2 Over $100,000
Heidi Stam None None $10,001-$50,000 None2 None
David D. Sylvester None $1-$10,000 None None2 $1-$10,000
John M. Tesoro $50,001-$100,000 None None None2 $50,001-$100,000
Maureen Leary-Jago None None None None2 None
Lena Haas $10,001-$50,000 $50,001-$100,000 None None2 Over $100,000
Merry L. Mosbacher Over $100,000 Over $100,000 Over $100,000 None2 Over $100,000

 

  Large Cap
Value Fund
Small/Mid
Cap
Growth Fund
Small/Mid
Cap Value
Fund
International
Equity Fund
Aggregate
Ownership in
the Family of
Investment
Companies (1)
Jean E. Carter $10,001-$50,000 None Over $100,000 Over $100,000 Over $100,000
Craig A. Griffith $1-$10,000 $1-$10,000 $1-$10,000 None Over $100,000
Timothy Jacoby $10,001-$50,000 None $10,001-$50,000 $10,001-$50,000 Over $100,000
Michelle M. Keeley Over $100,000 $10,001-$50,000 $50,001-$100,000 $50,001-$100,000 Over $100,000
Heidi Stam $10,001-$50,000 None $10,001-$50,000 $10,001-$50,000 Over $100,000
David D. Sylvester $1-10,000 None None None $50,001-$100,000
John M. Tesoro $50,001-$100,000 $50,001-$100,000 $50,001-$100,000 $10,001-$50,000 Over $100,000
Maureen Leary-Jago None None None None None
Lena Haas $50,001-$100,000 $10,001-$50,000 $10,001-$50,000 $50,001-$100,000 Over $100,000
Merry L. Mosbacher Over $100,000 Over $100,000 Over $100,000 Over $100,000 Over $100,000

 

  1. 

The family of investment companies includes all series of the Trust (six of which are offered in separate prospectuses and statements of additional information) and the Edward Jones Money Market Fund.

  2. 

The Municipal High-Income Bond Fund had not commenced operations as of December 31, 2022.

 

B-71


Compensation

The Trustees who are not affiliated with Edward Jones each receive from the Trust an annual retainer and per meeting fees (plus reimbursement of expenses) for Board meeting attendance. In addition, each Committee Chair and the Board Chair receives an additional annual retainer. This compensation (and reimbursement of expenses) is allocated pro rata among the various series comprising the Trust and the Edward Jones Money Market Fund based on the relative net assets of each series of the Trust and the Edward Jones Money Market Fund. The Trustees who are not affiliated with Edward Jones each also receive additional per meeting fees from the applicable series of the Trust and the Edward Jones Money Market Fund for any special Board or Committee meetings at rates depending on the length and format of the meeting. The Trust has no pension or retirement plan.

Set forth below is the compensation earned by the Trustees from the Trust and, in the aggregate, from the Trust and the Edward Jones Money Market Fund (together, the “Fund Complex”). Compensation information is provided for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023 with respect to the Trust and February 28, 2023 with respect to the Edward Jones Money Market Fund.

 

Name of

Person/Position

Aggregate

Compensation

From the Trust

Pension or
Retirement

Benefits Accrued
as Part of

Funds Expenses

Estimated Annual
Benefits Upon

Retirement

Total
Compensation

from the Trust and

Fund Complex(2)
Paid to Trustees

Jean E. Carter,

Independent Trustee

$249,402 N/A N/A $315,000

Craig Griffith,

Independent Trustee

$249,402 N/A N/A $315,000

Timothy Jacoby,

Independent Trustee

$269,182 N/A N/A $340,000

Michelle M. Keeley,

Independent Trustee

$269,182 N/A N/A $340,000

Heidi Stam,

Independent Trustee

$249,402 N/A N/A $315,000

David D. Sylvester,

Independent Trustee

$249,402 N/A N/A $315,000

John M. Tesoro,

Independent Trustee

$288,962 N/A N/A $365,000

Maureen Leary-Jago,

Non-Edward Jones Interested Trustee(3)

$249,402 N/A N/A $315,000

Lena Haas,

Interested Trustee(1)

None N/A N/A None

Merry L. Mosbacher,

Interested Trustee(1)

None N/A N/A None

 

  (1)

Mses. Haas and Mosbacher do not receive compensation from the Trust for their service as Trustees. Mses. Haas and Mosbacher receive compensation from Edward Jones or an affiliate of Edward Jones for their service as Trustees.

  (2)

The “Fund Complex” consists of each series offered by the Trust, six of which are offered in separate prospectuses and statements of additional information, and the Edward Jones Money Market Fund.

  (3)

Ms. Leary-Jago is treated as an “interested person” of the Trust as defined by the 1940 Act by virtue of the fact that she has an immediate family member who is considered an affiliated person of an existing investment sub-adviser to one of the portfolios of the Trust. However, Ms. Leary-Jago is not an affiliated person of Edward Jones or any of its affiliates and, therefore, serves as an independent trustee of the Edward Jones Money Market Fund.

 

B-72


Code of Ethics

The Trust, the Adviser, the Sub-advisers, and the principal underwriter have each adopted Codes of Ethics under Rule 17j-1 of the 1940 Act. These Codes permit, subject to certain conditions, personnel of the Adviser, the Sub-advisers and the principal underwriter to invest in securities that may be purchased or held by the Funds.

PROXY VOTING POLICIES

The Board has delegated responsibility for decisions regarding proxy voting for securities held by the Funds to the Adviser, which, in turn, has delegated such responsibility to the Sub-advisers. Each Sub-adviser will vote such proxies in accordance with its proxy policies and procedures, which are included as Appendix B to this SAI. Information about how the Funds voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30 may be obtained (1) without charge, upon request, by calling 1-855-823-3611 and (2) on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

CONTROL PERSONS AND PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS

A principal shareholder is any person who owns of record or beneficially 5% or more of the outstanding shares of a Fund. A control person is one who owns beneficially or through controlled companies more than 25% of the voting securities of the Fund or acknowledges the existence of control. Shareholders controlling a Fund could have the ability to vote a majority of the shares of the Fund on any matter requiring the approval of Fund shares. The control person of the Adviser, is The Jones Financial Companies, a Missouri L.L.L.P.

As of September 30, 2023, the Trustees and officers as a group owned less than 1% of each Fund’s outstanding shares. As of September 30, 2023, the following shareholders were considered to be either a control person or principal shareholder of the Funds:

 

Fund Name Name and Address % Ownership Type of Ownership
Core Bond Fund Edward D. Jones & Co. FBO Customers
12555 Manchester Road St. Louis, MO 63131-3729
99.998% Record
Core Plus Bond Fund

Edward D. Jones & Co.

FBO Customers 12555 Manchester Road

St. Louis, MO 63131-3729

99.999% Record
Municipal Bond Fund

Edward D. Jones & Co.

FBO Customers

12555 Manchester Road

St. Louis, MO 63131-3729

99.9998% Record
Municipal High-Income Bond Fund

Edward D. Jones & Co.

FBO Customers

12555 Manchester Road

St. Louis, MO 63131-3729

100% Record
Large Cap Growth Fund

Edward D. Jones & Co.

FBO Customers

12555 Manchester Road

St. Louis, MO 63131-3729

99.998% Record

 

B-73


Fund Name Name and Address % Ownership Type of Ownership
Large Cap Value Fund

Edward D. Jones & Co.

FBO Customers

12555 Manchester Road

St. Louis, MO 63131-3729

99.998% Record

Small/Mid Cap Growth

Fund

Edward D. Jones & Co.

FBO Customers

12555 Manchester Road

St. Louis, MO 63131-3729

99.996% Record
Small/Mid Cap Value Fund

Edward D. Jones & Co.

FBO Customers

12555 Manchester Road

St. Louis, MO 63131-3729

99.992% Record
International Equity Fund

Edward D. Jones & Co.

FBO Customers

12555 Manchester Road

St. Louis, MO 63131-3729

99.998% Record

THE FUNDS’ INVESTMENT TEAMS

Olive Street Investment Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), 12555 Manchester Road, St. Louis, MO 63131, acts as investment adviser to the Funds pursuant to an investment advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement”) with the Trust. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. controls the Adviser. Under the Advisory Agreement, the Adviser furnishes, at its own expense, all services, facilities and personnel necessary in connection with managing the Funds’ investments.

The Adviser shall (i) provide the Trust through investment Sub-advisers with such investment research, advice and supervision as the Trust may from time to time consider necessary for the proper management of the assets of the Funds, (ii) furnish continuously an investment program for the Funds, and (iii) determine from time to time which securities or other investments shall be purchased, sold or exchanged for the Funds, including providing or obtaining such services as may be necessary in managing, acquiring or disposing of securities, cash or other investments.

In consideration of the services to be provided by the Adviser pursuant to the Advisory Agreement, the Adviser is entitled to receive an investment management fee from the Funds as follows:

 

Fund

  

Annual Management Fee

     (calculated daily and paid monthly)

Core Bond Fund

   0.32%

Core Plus Bond Fund

   0.36%

Municipal Bond Fund

   0.36%

Municipal High-Income Bond Fund

   0.36%

Large Cap Growth Fund

   0.44%

Large Cap Value Fund

   0.44%

Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund

   0.64%

Small/Mid Cap Value Fund

   0.64%

International Equity Fund

   0.60%

 

B-74


After its initial two year term, the Advisory Agreement continues in effect for successive annual periods so long as such continuation is specifically approved at least annually by the vote of (1) the Board (or a majority of the outstanding shares of the Funds), and (2) a majority of the Trustees who are not interested persons of any party to the Advisory Agreement, in each case, cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval. The Advisory Agreement may be terminated at any time, without penalty, by either party to the Advisory Agreement upon a 60-day written notice and is automatically terminated in the event of its “assignment,” as defined in the 1940 Act.

With respect to each Fund, the Adviser has contractually agreed to waive its management fees through at least October 28, 2024, to the extent management fees to be paid to the Adviser exceed the aggregate management fees payable by a Fund to the Fund’s Sub-advisers. Such waivers are not subject to reimbursement by the Fund.

 

B-75


In addition, pursuant to an operating expense limitation agreement between the Adviser and the Funds, the Adviser has contractually agreed to waive its fees and/or reimburse Fund expenses (excluding acquired fund fees and expenses, portfolio transaction expenses, interest expense in connection with investment activities, taxes and extraordinary or non-routine expenses) to the extent necessary to limit a Fund’s total annual fund operating expenses after fee waivers and/or expense reimbursements to the amount shown below (“Expense Cap”):

 

Fund

  

Expense Cap

     (as a percentage of average daily net assets)

Core Bond Fund

   0.48%

Core Plus Bond Fund

   0.42%

Municipal Bond Fund

   0.48%

Municipal High-Income Bond Fund

   0.48%

Large Cap Growth Fund

   0.51%

Large Cap Value Fund

   0.51%

Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund

   0.73%

Small/Mid Cap Value Fund

   0.73%

International Equity Fund

   0.67%

Any fee reductions or expense payments made by the Adviser pursuant to the operating expenses limitation agreement are subject to reimbursement by a Fund, if requested by the Adviser, in the thirty six (36) month period following such fee waiver and/or expense payment, if the aggregate amount actually paid by a Fund toward operating expenses, as accrued each month (taking into account any reimbursements) does not exceed the Expense Cap accrued for such month (i) at the time of the fee waiver and/or expense payment and (ii) at the time of the reimbursement. Each Fund must pay its current ordinary operating expenses before the Adviser is entitled to any reimbursement of expenses.

Under the Advisory Agreement, for the purposes of compensation payable to each Sub-adviser, each Fund will be deemed to have paid the Adviser, and the Adviser will be deemed to have received an amount, equal to any advisory fee payment made by a Fund directly to a Sub-adviser under a Sub-advisory Agreement. For the fiscal years ended June 30, 2021, 2022 and 2023, the management fees payable by the Funds, the amounts waived by the Adviser, the net fees paid to the Adviser, the advisory fees paid to the Funds’ Sub-advisers and the advisory fees retained by the Adviser were as follows. All figures are presented in thousands and are rounded to the nearest thousand.

 

    2021 2022 2023
Core Bond Fund Fees Accrued $51,421 $58,125 $52,203
Fees Waived $33,300 $37,795 $34,663
Net Advisory Fee Paid $18,121 $20,330 $17,540
Advisory Fees Paid to Sub-advisers $18,121 $20,330 $17,540
Advisory Fees Retained by Adviser $0 $0 $0
Core Plus Bond Fund Fees Accrued $93,123 $119,774 $106,446
Fees Waived $60,420 $76,665 $67,264
Net Advisory Fee Paid $32,703 $43,109 $39,182
Advisory Fees Paid to Sub-advisers $32,703 $43,109 $39,182
Advisory Fees Retained by Adviser $0 $0 $0

 

B-76


Municipal Bond Fund Fees Accrued $29,730 $38,457 $42,022
Fees Waived $18,506 $24,676 $27,443
Net Advisory Fee Paid $11,223 $13,781 $14,579
Advisory Fees Paid to Sub-advisers $11,223 $13,781 $14,579
Advisory Fees Retained by Adviser $0 $0 $0
Municipal High-Income Bond Fund Fees Accrued N/A N/A $1,669*
Fees Waived N/A N/A $1,045*
Net Advisory Fee Paid N/A N/A $624*
Advisory Fees Paid to Sub-advisers N/A N/A $624*
Advisory Fees Retained by Adviser N/A N/A $0*
Large Cap Growth Fund Fees Accrued $67,631 $78,276 $82,478
Fees Waived $39,637 $46,762 $49,578
Net Advisory Fee Paid $27,994 $31,514 $32,900

Advisory Fees Paid to

Sub-advisers

$27,994 $31,514 $32,900
Advisory Fees Retained by Adviser $0 $0 $0
Large Cap Value Fund Fees Accrued $65,885 $80,037 $72,211
Fees Waived $32,547 $40,740 $36,347
Net Advisory Fee Paid $33,338 $39,297 $35,864

Advisory Fees Paid to

Sub-advisers

$33,338 $39,297 $35,864
Advisory Fees Retained by Adviser $0 $0 $0
Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund Fees Accrued $34,337 $38,187 $38,431
Fees Waived $15,395 $17,167 $17,136
Net Advisory Fee Paid $18,942 $21,020 $21,295
Advisory Fees Paid to Sub-advisers $18,942 $21,020 $21,295
Advisory Fees Retained by Adviser $0 $0 $0
Small/Mid Cap Value Fund Fees Accrued $39,394 $44,872 $39,766
Fees Waived $15,863 $18,412 $15,880
Net Advisory Fee Paid $23,531 $26,460 $23,886
Advisory Fees Paid to Sub-advisers $23,531 $26,460 $23,886
Advisory Fees Retained by Adviser $0 $0 $0
International Equity Fund Fees Accrued $79,692 $86,370 $88,981
Fees Waived $40,802 $38,688 $39,996
Net Advisory Fee Paid $38,890 $47,682 $48,985
Net Advisory Fees Paid to Sub-advisers $38,890 $47,682 $48,985
Advisory Fees Retained by Adviser $0 $0 $0
  *

Reflects the period from April 13, 2023 (commencement of Fund operations) to June 30, 2023.

 

B-77


Under certain circumstances, the Adviser may engage one or more third-party transition management service providers to execute transactions on behalf of a Fund where the Adviser has allocated a portion of the Fund’s assets away from a particular Sub-adviser, but the Board has not yet approved an advisory agreement with a replacement Sub-adviser or such replacement Sub-adviser has not yet begun managing Fund assets. During such time, the Adviser will instruct the transition manager(s) as to what transactions to effect on behalf of a Fund’s portfolio. The duration of any such transition management services will be determined by the Adviser’s ability to identify an appropriate replacement Sub-adviser and when such replacement Sub-adviser can begin managing Fund assets.

Reliance on Manager of Managers Orders

The Adviser and the Trust have obtained an exemptive order from the SEC to operate under a manager of managers structure that permits the Adviser, with the approval of the Board of Trustees, to appoint and replace sub-advisers, enter into sub-advisory agreements, and materially amend and terminate sub-advisory agreements on behalf of the Funds without shareholder approval (the “Manager of Managers Structure”). Under the Manager of Managers Structure, the Adviser has ultimate responsibility, subject to oversight of the Board of Trustees, for overseeing the Trust’s Sub-advisers and recommending to the Board their hiring, termination, or replacement. The SEC order does not apply to any Sub-adviser that is affiliated with the Adviser. The adoption of the Manager of Managers Structure by the Funds also requires prior shareholder approval. Such approval was obtained for each Fund from its initial shareholder. Thus, each Fund is currently operating under the Manager of Managers Structure. The exemptive order provides that amounts payable by each Fund to its Sub-advisers under the Funds’ sub-advisory agreements need not be disclosed to shareholders. In accordance with a separate exemptive order that the Trust and the Adviser have obtained from the SEC, the Board may approve a new sub-advisory agreement or a material amendment to an existing sub-advisory agreement at a meeting that is not in person, subject to certain conditions, including that the Trustees are able to participate in the meeting using a means of communication that allows them to hear each other simultaneously during the meeting.

The Manager of Managers Structure enables the Trust to operate with greater efficiency by not incurring the expense and delays associated with obtaining shareholder approvals for matters relating to Sub-advisers or sub-advisory agreements. Operation of the Funds under the Manager of Managers Structure does not permit management fees paid by the Fund to the Adviser to be increased without shareholder approval. Shareholders will be notified of any changes made to Sub-advisers or material changes to sub-advisory agreements within 90 days of the change.

The Adviser and its affiliates may have other relationships, including significant financial relationships, with current or potential Sub-advisers or their affiliates, which may create a conflict of interest. However, in making recommendations to the Board to appoint or to change a Sub-adviser, or to change the terms of a sub-advisory agreement, the Adviser considers the Sub-adviser’s investment process, risk management, and historical performance with the goal of retaining Sub-advisers for the Fund that the Adviser believes are skilled and can deliver appropriate risk-adjusted returns over a full market cycle. The Adviser does not consider any other relationship it or its affiliates may have with a Sub-adviser or its affiliates, and the Adviser discloses to the Board the nature of any material relationships it has with a Sub-adviser or its affiliates when making recommendations to the Board to appoint or to change a Sub-adviser, or to change the terms of a sub-advisory agreement.

The Adviser has ultimate responsibility for the investment performance of the Funds due to its responsibility to oversee the Sub-advisers and recommend their hiring, termination and replacement to the Board.

 

B-78


The Sub-advisers

Each Sub-adviser has agreed to furnish continuously an investment program for its assigned portion of each Fund that it sub-advises and shall determine from time to time in its discretion the securities and other investments to be purchased or sold or exchanged and what portions of a Fund shall be held in various securities, cash or other investments. In this connection, each Sub-adviser shall provide the Adviser and the officers and trustees of the Trust with such reports and documentation as the latter shall reasonably request regarding the Sub-adviser’s management of each Fund’s assets. Each Sub-adviser shall carry out its responsibilities in compliance with: (a) each Fund’s investment objective, policies and restrictions as set forth in the Trust’s current registration statement, (b) such policies or directives as the Trust’s trustees may from time to time establish or issue and communicate to the Sub-advisers in writing, and (c) applicable law and related regulations.

For the fiscal years shown below, the respective Fund paid the Sub-advisers the following aggregate fees. All figures are presented in thousands and are rounded to the nearest thousand.

 

Fund 2021 2022

2023

Core Bond Fund $18,121 $20,330 $17,540
Core Plus Bond Fund $32,703 $43,109 $39,182
Municipal Bond Fund $11,223 $13,781 $14,579
Municipal High-Income Bond Fund N/A N/A $624*
Large Cap Growth Fund $27,994 $31,514 $32,900
Large Cap Value Fund $33,338 $39,297 $35,864
Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund $18,942 $21,020 $21,295
Small/Mid Cap Value Fund $23,531 $26,460 $23,886
International Equity Fund $38,890 $47,682 $48,985

 

  *

Reflects the period from April 13, 2023 (commencement of Fund operations) to June 30, 2023.

The following section provides information regarding each portfolio manager’s compensation, other accounts managed, material conflicts of interest, and any ownership of securities in the Funds for which he or she sub-advises. Each portfolio manager or team member is referred to as a portfolio manager below. The portfolio managers are shown together in this section only for ease in presenting the information and should not be viewed for purposes of comparing the portfolio managers or their firms against one another. Each firm is a separate entity that may employ different compensation structures and may have different management requirements, and each portfolio manager may be affected by different conflicts of interest.

 

Core Bond Fund

Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (“Baird”), 777 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Baird is a privately held, employee-owned firm. Active employees own more than 95% and Northwestern Mutual owns the remaining equity interest in the firm. More than 80% of Baird’s 5,000+ associates own firm stock and no single associate owns more than 5%. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Baird is entitled to receive a fee from the Core Bond Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager of the Fund, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based

 

B-79


advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information in all tables is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
    All Accounts      
Mary Ellen Stanek, CFA 10 $92.6 billion 1 $527 million 144 $24.4 billion
Warren D. Pierson, CFA 10 $92.6 billion 1 $527 million 144 $24.4 billion
Jay E. Schwister, CFA 10 $92.6 billion 1 $527 million 144 $24.4 billion
Meghan H. Dean, CFA 10 $92.6 billion 1 $527 million 144 $24.4 billion
Jeffrey L. Schrom, CFA 10 $92.6 billion 1 $527 million 144 $24.4 billion
  Accounts Subject to Performance Fees    
Mary Ellen Stanek, CFA 0 $0 0 $0 1 $1.2 billion
Warren D. Pierson, CFA 0 $0 0 $0 1 $1.2 billion
Jay E. Schwister, CFA 0 $0 0 $0 1 $1.2 billion
Meghan H. Dean, CFA 0 $0 0 $0 1 $1.2 billion
Jeffrey L. Schrom, CFA 0 $0 0 $0 1 $1.2 billion

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Conflicts of Interest. The portfolio management team manages money for the Baird Funds, Baird and other direct separate account relationships.

Baird manages potential conflicts of interest between a mutual fund it manages and other types of accounts through formal trade allocation policies and oversight by Baird’s investment management department and compliance department.

Allocation policies are designed to address potential conflicts of interest in situations where two or more mutual funds and/or other accounts participate in investment transactions involving the same securities.

Potential conflicts of interest that might arise from managing multiple portfolios are lessened by ensuring that equitable treatment of advisory clients both in priority of execution of orders and in the allocation of price (and commission, if applicable for situations other than step-outs and directed brokerage arrangements) is obtained in the execution of aggregated orders for the accounts of two or more advisory clients.

Compensation. Baird’s portfolio managers are compensated through a base salary and an annual incentive bonus. A portfolio manager’s base salary is generally a fixed amount based on level of experience and

 

B-80


responsibilities. A portfolio manager’s bonus is determined primarily by investment performance of the accounts, including the Fund, and the revenues and overall profitability of Baird. Before-tax performance is measured relative to the appropriate benchmark’s long and short-term performance, measured on a one-three-five-year and since inception basis as applicable, with greater weight given to long-term performance. Portfolio managers may own and may be offered an opportunity to purchase or sell common stock in Baird’s parent company, Baird Financial Corporation. Portfolio managers may also own and may be offered an opportunity to purchase or sell shares in private equity offerings sponsored by Baird.

J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc., 383 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10179 (“JPMIM”) is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. JPMIM is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Asset Management Holdings, Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co., a bank holding company. For its services as a Sub-adviser, JPMIM is entitled to receive a fee from the Core Bond Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager of the Fund, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information in all tables is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s) *
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
    All Accounts      
Richard Figuly 26 $79,411
million
15 $23,237 million 17 $4,330 million
Steven Lear ** 14 $76,255
million
10 $22,050 million 10 $1,784 million
Justin Rucker 12 $52,675
million
12 $18,382 million 23 $16,442 million
Andrew Melchiorre 11 $56,988
million
10 $20,386 million 23 $5,834 million
Edward Fitzpatick III 4 $42,095
million
9 $16,917 million 3 $3,437 million
    Accounts Subject to Performance Fees    
Richard Figuly 0 $0 0 $0 1 $1,794 million
Steven Lear ** 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Justin Rucker 0 $0 0 $0 1 $1,794 million
Andrew Melchiorre 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Edward Fitzpatick III 0 $0 0 $0 1 $138 million
*

The total value and number of accounts managed by a portfolio manager may include sub-accounts of asset allocation, multi-managed and other accounts.

**

Effective March 1, 2024, Mr. Lear will no longer serve as a portfolio manager to the portion of the assets of the Core Bond Fund managed by JPMIM.

 

B-81


As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Conflicts of Interest. The potential for conflicts of interest exists when portfolio managers manage other accounts with similar investment objectives and strategies as the Fund (“Similar Accounts”). Potential conflicts may include, for example, conflicts between investment strategies and conflicts in the allocation of investment opportunities.

Responsibility for managing the 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 minimizes the potential for conflicts of interest.

JPMIM and/or its affiliates perform investment services, including rendering investment advice, to varied clients. JPMIM and/or its affiliates and its or their directors, officers, agents, and/or employees may render similar or differing investment advisory services to clients and may give advice or exercise investment responsibility and take such other action with respect to any of its other clients that differs from the advice given or the timing or nature of action taken with respect to another client or group of clients. It is JPMIM’s policy, to the extent practicable, to allocate, within its reasonable discretion, investment opportunities among clients over a period of time on a fair and equitable basis. One or more of JPMIM’s other client accounts may at any time hold, acquire, increase, decrease, dispose, or otherwise deal with positions in investments in which another client account may have an interest from time-to-time.

JPMIM and/or its affiliates, and any of its or their directors, partners, officers, agents or employees, may also buy, sell, or trade securities for their own accounts or the proprietary accounts of JPMIM and/or its affiliates, within their discretion, may make different investment decisions and 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, JPMIM is not required to purchase or sell for any client account securities that it, and/or its affiliates, and any of its or their employees, principals, or agents may purchase or sell for their own accounts or the proprietary accounts of JPMIM and/or its affiliates or its clients.

JPMIM and/or its affiliates may receive more compensation with respect to certain Similar Accounts than that received with respect to the Fund or may receive compensation based in part on the performance of certain Similar Accounts. This may create a potential conflict of interest for JPMIM and its affiliates or the portfolio managers by providing an incentive to favor these Similar Accounts when, for example, placing securities transactions. In addition, JPMIM or its affiliates could be viewed as having a conflict of interest to the extent that JPMIM or an affiliate has a proprietary investment in Similar Accounts, the portfolio managers have personal investments in Similar Accounts or the Similar Accounts are investment options in JPMIM’s or its affiliates’ employee benefit plans. Potential conflicts of interest may arise with both the aggregation and allocation of securities transactions and allocation of investment opportunities because of market factors or investment restrictions imposed upon JPMIM and its affiliates by law, regulation, contract or internal policies. Allocations of aggregated trades, particularly trade orders that were only partially completed due to limited availability and allocation of investment opportunities generally, could raise a potential conflict of interest, as JPMIM or its affiliates may have an incentive to allocate securities that are expected to increase in value to favored accounts. Initial public offerings, in particular, are frequently of very limited availability. JPMIM and its affiliates may be perceived as causing accounts they manage to participate in an offering to increase JPMIM’s and its affiliates’ overall allocation of securities in that offering. A potential conflict of interest also may be perceived to arise if transactions in one account closely follow related transactions in a different account, such as when a purchase increases the value of securities previously purchased by another account, or when a sale in one account lowers the sale price

 

B-82


received in a sale by a second account. If JPMIM or its affiliates manage accounts that engage in short sales of securities of the type in which the Fund invests, JPMIM or its affiliates could be seen as harming the performance of the Fund for the benefit of the accounts engaging in short sales if the short sales cause the market value of the securities to fall.

As an internal policy matter, JPMIM or its affiliates may from time to time maintain certain overall investment limitations on the securities positions or positions in other financial instruments JPMIM or its affiliates will take on behalf of its various clients due to, among other things, liquidity concerns and regulatory restrictions. Such policies may preclude the Fund from purchasing particular securities or financial instruments, even if such securities or financial instruments would otherwise meet the Fund’s objectives.

The goal of JPMIM and its affiliates is to meet their 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 JPMIM’s Codes of Ethics and JPMorgan Chase and Co.’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.

One example of a policy design to achieve fair and equitable allocation of investment opportunities is that 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. JPMIM 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.

Compensation. JPMIM’s 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.

In determining portfolio manager compensation, JPMIM uses a balanced discretionary approach to assess performance against four broad categories: (1) business results; (2) risk and control; (3) customers and clients; and (4) people and leadership.

 

B-83


These performance categories consider short-, medium- and long-term goals that drive sustained value for clients, while accounting for risk and control objectives. Specifically, portfolio manager performance is evaluated against various factors including the following: (1) blended pre-tax investment performance relative to competitive indices, generally weighted more to the long-term; (2) individual contribution relative to the client’s risk/return objectives; and (3) adherence with JPMIM’s compliance, risk and regulatory procedures.

Feedback from JPMIM’s risk and control professionals is considered in assessing performance.

JPMIM maintains a balanced total compensation program comprised of a mix of fixed compensation (including a competitive base salary and, for certain employees, a fixed cash allowance), variable compensation in the form of cash incentives, and long-term incentives in the form of equity based and/or fund-tracking incentives that vest over time. Long-term awards comprise up to 60% of overall incentive compensation, depending on an employee’s pay level.

Long-term awards are generally in the form of time-vested JPMorgan Chase & Co. Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”). However, portfolio managers are subject to a mandatory deferral of long-term incentive compensation under JPMorgan’s Mandatory Investor Plan (“MIP”). The MIP provides for a rate of return equal to that of the Fund(s) that the portfolio managers manage, thereby aligning portfolio manager’s pay with that of their client’s experience/return. 100% of the portfolio manager’s long-term incentive compensation is eligible for MIP with 50% allocated to the specific Fund(s) they manage, as determined by their respective manager. The remaining portion of the overall amount is electable and may be treated as if invested in any of the other funds available in the plan or can take the form of RSUs.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. (“Loomis Sayles”), One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111 is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Core Bond Fund pursuant to a Sub-Advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Loomis Sayles is a Delaware limited partnership. Loomis Sayles’ sole general partner, Loomis, Sayles & Company, Inc. is directly owned by Natixis Investment Managers, LLC. (“Natixis LLC”). Natixis LLC is an indirect subsidiary of Natixis Investment Managers, an international asset management group based in Paris, France, that is in turn owned by Natixis, a French investment banking and financial services firm. Natixis is wholly-owned by BPCE, France’s second largest banking group. BPCE is owned by banks comprising two autonomous and complementary retail banking networks consisting of the Caisse d’Epargne regional savings banks and the Banque Populaire regional cooperative banks. The registered address of Natixis is 30, avenue Pierre Mendès France, 75013 Paris, France. The registered address of BPCE is 50, avenue Pierre Mendès France, 75013 Paris, France. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Loomis Sayles is entitled to receive a fee from the Core Bond Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager of the Fund, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information in all tables is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

B-84


  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

    All Accounts      
Lynne A. Royer 0 $0 7 $3.27 billion 46 $10.56 billion
Seth J. Timen 0 $0 7 $3.27 billion 44 $10.55 billion
  Accounts Subject to Performance Fees    
Lynne A. Royer 0 $0 0 $0 4 $1.56 billion
Seth J. Timen 0 $0 0 $0 4 $1.56 billion

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts of interest may arise in the allocation of investment opportunities and the allocation of aggregated orders among the Fund and other accounts managed by the portfolio managers. A portfolio manager potentially could give favorable treatment to some accounts for a variety of reasons, including favoring larger accounts, accounts that pay higher fees, accounts that pay performance-based fees, accounts of affiliated companies and accounts in which the portfolio manager has an interest. In addition, due to differences in the investment strategies or restrictions among the Fund and a portfolio manager’s other accounts, the portfolio manager may take action with respect to another account that differs from the action taken with respect to the Fund. Although such favorable treatment could lead to more favorable investment opportunities or allocations for some accounts and may appear to create additional conflicts of interest for the portfolio manager in the allocation of management time and resources, Loomis Sayles strives to ensure that portfolio managers endeavor to exercise their discretion in a manner that is equitable to all interested persons. Furthermore, Loomis Sayles makes investment decisions for all accounts (including institutional accounts, mutual funds, hedge funds and affiliated accounts) based on each account’s investment objective, investment guidelines and restrictions, the availability of other comparable investment opportunities and Loomis Sayles’ desire to treat all accounts fairly and equitably over time. Loomis Sayles maintains Trade Aggregation and Allocation Policies and Procedures to mitigate the effects of these potential conflicts as well as other types of conflicts of interest. However, there is no guarantee that such procedures will detect each and every situation where a conflict arises or that Loomis Sayles will treat all accounts identically. Conflicts of interest also arise to the extent a portfolio manager short sells a stock or otherwise takes a short position in one client account but holds that stock long in other accounts, including the Fund, or sells a stock for some accounts while buying the stock for others, and through the use of “soft dollar arrangements.”

Compensation. Loomis Sayles believes that portfolio manager compensation should be driven primarily by the delivery of consistent and superior long-term performance for its clients. Although portfolio manager compensation is not directly tied to assets under management, a portfolio manager’s base salary and/or bonus potential may reflect the amount of assets for which the manager is responsible relative to other portfolio managers. The annual bonus is incentive-based and generally represents a significant multiple of base salary. The bonus is based on three factors: investment performance, profit growth of the firm, and personal conduct. Investment performance is the primary component of the annual bonus and generally represents at least 60% of the total for fixed-income managers. The other factors are used to determine the remainder of the annual incentive bonus, subject to the discretion of the Firm’s Chief Investment Officer (“CIO”) and senior management. The firm’s CIO and senior management evaluate these other factors annually.

 

B-85


The investment performance component of the annual incentive bonus depends primarily on investment performance against benchmark and/or against peers within similar disciplines. The score is based upon the product’s institutional composite performance; however, adjustments may be made if there is significant dispersion among the returns of the composite and accounts not included in the composite. For most products, the product investment score compares the product’s rolling three-year performance over the past nine quarters (a five year view) against both a benchmark and a peer group established by the CIO. The scoring rewards both the aggregate excess performance of the product against a benchmark and the product’s relative rank within a peer group. In addition, for fixed income products, the performance score rewards for the consistency of that outperformance and is enhanced if over the past five years it has kept its rolling three-year performance ahead of its benchmark. Portfolio managers working on several product teams receive a final score based on the relative revenue weight of each product.

Portfolio managers may also participate in the three segments of the long-term incentive program. The amount of the awards for each segment are dependent upon role, industry experience, team and Firm profitability, and/or investment performance.

General

The core elements of the Loomis Sayles compensation plan include a base salary, an annual incentive bonus, and, for senior investor and leadership roles, a long-term incentive bonus. The base salary is a fixed amount based on a combination of factors, including industry experience, Firm experience, job performance and market considerations. The annual incentive bonus and long term incentive bonus is driven by a variety of factors depending upon the specific role. Factors include investment performance, individual performance, team and Firm profitability, role, and industry experience. Both the annual and long term bonus have a deferral component. Loomis Sayles has developed and implemented three long-term incentive plan segments to attract and retain investment talent.

For the senior-most investment roles, a Long Term Incentive Plan provides annual grants relative to the role, and includes a post retirement payment feature to incentivize effective succession management. Participation is contingent upon signing an award agreement, which includes a non-compete covenant.

The second and third Long Term Incentive Plans are constructed to create mid- term alignment for key positions, including a two year deferral feature. The second plan is role-based, and the third is team based which is more specifically dependent upon team profitability and/or investment performance.

In addition, Loomis Sayles also offers a profit sharing plan for all employees and a defined benefit plan for employees who joined the Firm prior to May 3, 2003. The profit sharing contribution to the retirement plan of each employee is based on a percentage of base salary (up to a maximum amount). The defined benefit plan is based on years of service and base compensation (up to a maximum amount).

PGIM, Inc., 655 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102 (“PGIM”) is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. PGIM is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Prudential Financial, Inc. For its services as a Sub-adviser, PGIM is entitled to receive a fee from the Core Bond Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager of the Fund, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment

 

B-86


vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected below. Information in all tables is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
    All Accounts      
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Richard Piccirillo 40 $80.4 billion 17 $25.5 billion 103 $54.1 billion
Gregory Peters 53 $88.0 billion 25 $36.9 billion 139 $73.5 billion
Michael Collins, CFA 27 $73.1 billion 16 $25.4 billion 103 $54.1 billion
  Accounts Subject to Performance Fees    
Richard Piccirillo 0 $0 1 $0.1 billion 4 $0.5 billion

Gregory Peters

0 $0 1 $0.1 billion 9 $2.8 billion
Michael Collins, CFA 0 $0 0 $0 4 $0.5 billion

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Conflicts of Interest. Like other investment advisers, PGIM Fixed Income is subject to various conflicts of interest in the ordinary course of its business. PGIM Fixed Income strives to identify potential risks, including conflicts of interest, that are inherent in its business, and PGIM Fixed Income conducts annual conflict of interest reviews. However, PGIM does not believe that it is possible to identify every potential conflict that can arise. When actual or potential conflicts of interest are identified, PGIM Fixed Income seeks to address such conflicts through one or more of the following methods:

 

  -

elimination of the conflict;

  -

disclosure of the conflict; or

  -

management of the conflict through the adoption of appropriate policies, procedures or other mitigants.

PGIM Fixed Income follows the policies of Prudential Financial, Inc. on business ethics, personal securities trading, and information barriers. PGIM Fixed Income has adopted a code of ethics, allocation policies and conflicts of interest policies, among others, and has adopted supervisory procedures to monitor compliance with its policies. PGIM Fixed Income cannot guarantee, however, that its policies and procedures will detect and prevent, or result in the disclosure of, each and every situation in which a conflict arises or could potentially arise.

Side-by-Side Management of Accounts and Related Conflicts of Interest. PGIM Fixed Income’s side-by-side management of multiple accounts can create conflicts of interest. Examples are detailed below, followed by a discussion of how PGIM Fixed Income addresses these conflicts.

 

   

Performance Fees - PGIM Fixed Income manages accounts with asset-based fees alongside accounts with performance-based fees. This side-by-side management creates an incentive for PGIM Fixed Income and its investment professionals to favor one account over another. Specifically, PGIM Fixed Income or its affiliates have an incentive to favor accounts for which PGIM Fixed Income or an affiliate receives performance fees, and possibly take greater investment risks in those accounts, in order to bolster performance and increase its fees.

 

B-87


   

Affiliated accounts - PGIM Fixed Income manages accounts on behalf of its affiliates as well as unaffiliated accounts. PGIM Fixed Income has an incentive to favor accounts of affiliates over others. Additionally, at times, PGIM Fixed Income’s affiliates provide initial funding or otherwise invest in vehicles managed by it, for example by providing “seed capital” for a fund or account. Managing “seeded” accounts alongside “non-seeded” accounts creates an incentive to favor the “seeded” accounts to establish a track record for a new strategy or product. Additionally, PGIM Fixed Income’s affiliated investment advisers from time to time allocate their asset allocation clients’ assets to PGIM Fixed Income. PGIM Fixed Income has an incentive to favor accounts used by its affiliates for their asset allocation clients to receive more assets from its affiliates.

 

   

Larger accounts/higher fee strategies - larger accounts and clients typically generate more revenue than do smaller accounts or clients and certain of PGIM Fixed Income’s strategies have higher fees than others. As a result, a portfolio manager could have an incentive when allocating scarce investment opportunities to favor accounts that pay a higher fee or generate more income for PGIM Fixed Income (or which it believes would generate more revenue in the future).

 

   

Long only and long/short accounts - PGIM Fixed Income manages accounts that only allow it to hold securities long as well as accounts that permit short selling. As a result, there are times when PGIM Fixed Income sells a security short in some client accounts while holding the same security long in other client accounts. These short sales could reduce the value of the securities held in the long only accounts. Conversely, purchases for long only accounts could have a negative impact on the short positions in long/short accounts. Consequently, PGIM Fixed Income has conflicts of interest in determining the timing and direction of investments.

 

   

Securities of the same kind or class - PGIM Fixed Income sometimes buys or sells, or directs or recommends, that a client buy or sell, securities of the same kind or class that are purchased or sold for another client at prices that may be different. Although such pricing differences could appear as preferences for one client over another, PGIM Fixed Income’s trade execution in each case is driven by its consideration of a variety of factors consistent with its duty to seek best execution. There are times when PGIM Fixed Income executes trades in securities of the same kind or class in one direction for an account and in the opposite direction for another account, or it determines not to trade securities in one or more accounts while trading for others. While such trades (or a decision not to trade) could appear inconsistent in how PGIM Fixed Income views or treats a security for one client versus another, they generally result from differences in investment strategy, portfolio composition or client direction.

 

   

Investment at different levels of an issuer’s capital structure—There are times when PGIM Fixed Income invests client assets in the same issuer, but at different levels in the issuer’s capital structure. This could occur, for instance, when a client holds private securities or loans of an issuer and other clients hold publicly traded securities of the same issuer. In addition, there are times when PGIM Fixed Income invest client assets in a class or tranche of securities of a securitized finance vehicle (such as a collateralized loan obligation, asset-backed security or mortgage-backed security) and also, at the same or different time, invests the assets of another client (including affiliated clients) in a different class or tranche of securities of the same vehicle. These different securities can have different voting rights, dividend or repayment priorities, rights in bankruptcy or other features that conflict with one another. For some of these securities (particularly private securitized product investments for which clients own all or a significant portion of the outstanding securities or obligations), PGIM Fixed Income has had, input regarding the characteristics and the relative rights and priorities of the various classes or tranches.

 

   

When PGIM Fixed Income invests client assets in different levels of an issuer’s capital structure, it is permitted to take actions with respect to the assets held by one client (including affiliated clients)

 

B-88


 

that are potentially adverse to other clients, for example, by foreclosing on loans or by putting an issuer into default. In negotiating the terms and conditions of any such investments, or any subsequent amendments or waivers, PGIM Fixed Income could find that the interests of a client and the interests of one or more other clients (including affiliated clients) could conflict. In these situations, decisions over proxy voting, corporate reorganizations, how to exit an investment, bankruptcy matters (including, for example, whether to trigger an event of default or the terms of any workout) or other actions or inactions can result in conflicts of interest. Similarly, if an issuer in which a client and one or more other clients directly or indirectly hold different classes of securities encounters financial problems, decisions over the terms of any workout will raise conflicts of interest (including potential conflicts over proposed waivers and amendments to debt covenants). For example, a senior bond holder or lender might prefer a liquidation of the issuer in which it could be paid in full, whereas an equity or junior bond holder might prefer a reorganization that holds the potential to create value for the equity holders or junior bond holders. There will be times where PGIM Fixed Income refrains from taking certain actions (including participating in workouts and restructurings) or making investments on behalf of certain clients or where PGIM Fixed Income determine to sell investments for certain clients, in each case in order to mitigate conflicts of interest or legal, regulatory or other risks to PGIM Fixed Income This could potentially disadvantage the clients on whose behalf the actions are not taken, investments are not made, or investments are sold. Conversely, in other cases, PGIM Fixed Income will not refrain from taking such actions or making investments on behalf of some clients (including affiliated clients), which could potentially disadvantage other clients. Any of the foregoing (or similar) conflicts of interest will be resolved or managed on a case-by-case basis (including, where determined to be required, by escalating matters to, and seeking direction and guidance from, senior management). Any such resolution will take into consideration the interests of the relevant clients, the circumstances giving rise to the conflict and applicable laws.

 

   

Financial interests of investment professionals - PGIM Fixed Income investment professionals from time to time invest in certain investment vehicles that it manages, including exchanged-traded funds (“ETFs”), mutual funds and (through a retirement plan) collective investment trusts. Also, certain of these investment vehicles are options under the 401(k) and deferred compensation plans offered by Prudential Financial, Inc. In addition, the value of grants under PGIM Fixed Income’s long-term incentive plan and targeted long-term incentive plan is affected by the performance of certain client accounts. As a result, PGIM Fixed Income investment professionals have financial interests in accounts managed by PGIM Fixed Income and/or that are related to the performance of certain client accounts.

 

   

Non-discretionary/limited discretion accounts - PGIM Fixed Income provides non-discretionary and limited discretion investment advice to some clients and manages others on a fully discretionary basis. Trades in non-discretionary accounts or accounts where discretion is limited could occur before, in concert with, or after PGIM Fixed Income executes similar trades in its discretionary accounts. The non-discretionary/limited discretion clients may be disadvantaged if PGIM Fixed Income delivers investment advice to them after it initiates trading for the discretionary clients, or vice versa. Furthermore, a non-discretionary/limited discretion client may not be able to participate in trades if there is a delay in receiving such client’s consent. In some cases, when such a client requests additional information prior to giving its consent, PGIM Fixed Income is prohibited from sharing information because, for example, the information is non-public.

How PGIM Fixed Income Addresses These Conflicts of Interest. PGIM Fixed Income has developed policies and procedures reasonably designed to address the conflicts of interest with respect to its different types of side-by-side management described above.

 

   

Each quarter, the head of PGIM Fixed Income holds a series of meetings with the senior portfolio manager and team responsible for the management of each of PGIM Fixed Income’s investment

 

B-89


 

strategies. At each of these quarterly investment strategy review meetings, the head of PGIM Fixed Income and the strategy’s portfolio management team review and discuss the investment performance and performance attribution for client accounts managed in the strategy. These meetings generally are also attended by one or both of the co-chief investment officers, the head of quantitative analysis and risk management or his designee and a member of the compliance group, among others.

 

   

In keeping with PGIM Fixed Income’s fiduciary obligations, its policy with respect to trade aggregation and allocation is to treat all of its client accounts fairly and equitably over time. PGIM Fixed Income’s trade management oversight committee, which generally meets quarterly, is responsible for providing oversight with respect to trade aggregation and allocation. Its compliance group periodically reviews a sampling of new issue allocations and related documentation to confirm compliance with the trade aggregation and allocation policy. In addition, the compliance and investment risk management groups review forensic reports regarding new issue and secondary trade activity on a quarterly basis. This forensic analysis includes such data as the: number of new issues allocated in the strategy; size of new issue allocations to each portfolio in the strategy; profitability of new issue transactions; portfolio turnover; and metrics related to large and block trade activity. The results of these analyses are reviewed and discussed at PGIM Fixed Income’s trade management oversight committee meetings. The procedures above are designed to detect patterns and anomalies in PGIM Fixed Income’s side-by-side management and trading so that it may assess and improve its processes.

 

   

PGIM Fixed Income has procedures that specifically address its side-by-side management of certain long/short and long only portfolios. These procedures address potential conflicts that could arise from differing positions between long/short and long only portfolios. In addition, lending opportunities with respect to securities for which the market is demanding a slight premium rate over normal market rates are allocated to long only accounts prior to allocating the opportunities to long/short accounts.

Conflicts Related to PGIM Fixed Income’s Affiliations. As a business unit of PGIM, Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Prudential Financial, Inc., PGIM Fixed Income is part of a diversified, global financial services organization. PGIM Fixed Income is affiliated with many types of U.S. and non-U.S. financial service providers, including insurance companies, broker-dealers, commodity trading advisors, commodity pool operators and other investment advisers. Some of its employees are officers of and/or provide services to some of these affiliates.

 

   

Conflicts Related to Investment of Client Assets in Affiliated Funds. PGIM Fixed Income invests client assets in funds that it manages or subadvises for one or more affiliates. PGIM Fixed Income also invests cash collateral from securities lending transactions in some of these funds. These investments benefit PGIM Fixed Income and/or its affiliate through increasing assets under management and/or fees.

 

   

Conflicts Related to Referral Fees to Affiliates. From time to time, PGIM Fixed Income has arrangements where PGIM Fixed Income compensates affiliated parties for client referrals. PGIM Fixed Income also has arrangements with an affiliated entity which provide for payments to an affiliate if certain investments by others are made in certain of PGIM Fixed Income’s products or if PGIM Fixed Income establishes certain other advisory relationships. These investments benefit both PGIM Fixed Income and its affiliates through increasing assets under management and fees.

 

   

Conflicts Related to Co-investment by Affiliates. PGIM Fixed Income affiliates provide initial funding to or otherwise invest in certain vehicles it manages. When certain of its affiliates provide “seed capital” or other capital for a fund, they generally do so with the intention of redeeming all or

 

B-90


 

part of their interest at a future point in time or when they deem that sufficient additional capital has been invested in that fund.

 

   

The timing of a redemption by an affiliate could benefit the affiliate. For example, the fund may be more liquid at the time of the affiliate’s redemption than it is at times when other investors may wish to withdraw all or part of their interests.

 

   

In addition, a consequence of any withdrawal of a significant amount, including by an affiliate, is that investors remaining in the fund will bear a proportionately higher share of fund expenses following the redemption.

 

   

PGIM Fixed Income could also face a conflict if the interests of an affiliated investor in a fund it manages diverge from those of the fund or other investors. For example, PGIM Fixed Income affiliates, from time to time, hedge some or all of the risks associated with their investments in certain funds PGIM Fixed Income manages. PGIM Fixed Income may provide assistance in connection with this hedging activity.

 

   

Insurance Affiliate General Accounts. Because of the substantial size of the general accounts of PGIM Fixed Income’s affiliated insurance companies (the “Insurance Affiliates”), trading by these general accounts, including PGIM Fixed Income’s trades on behalf of the accounts, may affect the market prices or limit the availability of the securities or instruments transacted. Although PGIM Fixed Income does not expect that the general accounts of affiliated insurers will execute transactions that will move a market frequently, and generally only in response to unusual market or issuer events, the execution of these transactions could have an adverse effect on transactions for or positions held by other clients.

PGIM Fixed Income believes that the conflicts related to its affiliations described above are mitigated by its allocation policies and procedures, its supervisory review of accounts and its procedures with respect to side-by-side management, including of long only and long/short accounts.

Conflicts Related to Financial Interests and the Financial Interests of Affiliates

Prudential Financial, the general accounts of the Insurance Affiliates, PGIM Fixed Income and other affiliates of PGIM at times have financial interests in, or relationships with, companies whose securities or related instruments PGIM Fixed Income holds, purchases or sells in its client accounts. Certain of these interests and relationships are material to PGIM Fixed Income or to the Prudential enterprise. At any time, these interests and relationships could be inconsistent or in potential or actual conflict with positions held or actions taken by PGIM Fixed Income on behalf of PGIM Fixed Income’s client accounts.

For example:

 

   

PGIM Fixed Income invests in the securities of one or more clients for the accounts of other clients.

   

PGIM Fixed Income’s affiliates sell various products and/or services to certain companies whose securities PGIM Fixed Income purchases and sells for PGIM Fixed Income clients.

   

PGIM Fixed Income invests in the debt securities of companies whose equity is held by its affiliates.

   

PGIM Fixed Income’s affiliates hold public and private debt and equity securities of a large number of issuers. PGIM Fixed Income invests in some of the same issuers for other client accounts. For example:

   

Affiliated accounts have held and can in the future hold the senior debt of an issuer whose subordinated debt is held by PGIM Fixed Income’s clients or hold secured debt of an issuer whose public unsecured debt is held in client accounts. See “Investment at different levels of an issuer’s capital structure” above for additional information regarding conflicts of interest resulting from investment at different levels of an issuer’s capital structure.

 

B-91


   

To the extent permitted by applicable law, PGIM Fixed Income can also invest client assets in offerings of securities the proceeds of which are used to repay debt obligations held in affiliated accounts or other client accounts. PGIM Fixed Income’s interest in having the debt repaid creates a conflict of interest. PGIM Fixed Income has adopted a refinancing policy to address this conflict.

   

Certain of PGIM Fixed Income’s affiliates’ directors or officers are directors, or officers of issuers in which PGIM Fixed Income invests from time to time. These issuers could also be service providers to PGIM Fixed Income or its affiliates.

   

In addition, PGIM Fixed Income can invest client assets in securities backed by commercial mortgage loans that were originated or are serviced by an affiliate.

In general, conflicts related to the financial interests described above are addressed by the fact that PGIM Fixed Income makes investment decisions for each client independently considering the best economic interests of such client, under the circumstances.

Conflicts Arising Out of Legal and Regulatory Restrictions.

 

   

At times, PGIM Fixed Income is restricted by law, regulation, executive order, contract or other constraints as to how much, if any, of a particular security it can purchase or sell on behalf of a client, and as to the timing of such purchase or sale. Sometimes these restrictions apply as a result of its relationship with Prudential Financial and other affiliates. For example, PGIM Fixed Income does not purchase securities issued by Prudential Financial or other affiliates for client accounts.

   

In certain instances, PGIM Fixed Income’s ability to buy or sell or transact for one or more client accounts will be constrained as a result of its voluntary or involuntary receipt of material, non-public information, various insider trading laws and related legal requirements. For example, PGIM Fixed Income would generally be unable to invest in, divest securities of or share investment analyses regarding companies for which it possesses material, non-public information, and such inability (which could last for an uncertain period of time until the information is no longer deemed material or non-public) can result in it being unable to buy, sell or transact for one or more client accounts or to take other actions that would otherwise be to the benefit of one or more clients.

   

PGIM Fixed Income faces conflicts of interest in determining whether to accept material, non-public information. For example, PGIM Fixed Income has sought with respect to the management of investments in certain loans for clients, to retain the ability to purchase and sell other securities in the borrower’s capital structure by remaining “public” on the loan. In such cases, PGIM Fixed Income will seek to avoid receiving material, non-public information about the borrowers to which an account can or expects to lend or has lent (through assignments, participations or otherwise), which could place an account at an information disadvantage relative to other accounts and lenders. Conversely, PGIM Fixed Income has chosen to receive material, non-public information about certain borrowers for its clients that invest in bank loans, which has restricted its ability to trade in other securities of the borrowers for its clients that invest in corporate bonds.

   

PGIM Fixed Income’s holdings of a security on behalf of its clients are required, under certain regulations, to be aggregated with the holdings of that security by other Prudential Financial affiliates. These holdings could, on an aggregate basis, exceed certain reporting or ownership thresholds. These aggregated holdings are centrally tracked and PGIM Fixed Income or Prudential Financial can choose to restrict purchases, sell existing positions, or otherwise restrict, forgo, or limit the exercise of rights to avoid crossing such thresholds because of the potential consequences to PGIM Fixed Income or Prudential Financial if such thresholds are exceeded.

Conflicts Related to Investment Consultants. Many of PGIM Fixed Income’s clients and prospective clients retain investment consultants (including discretionary investment managers and OCIO providers) to advise them on the selection and review of investment managers (including with respect to the selection of investment funds). PGIM Fixed Income has dealings with these investment consultants in their roles as discretionary managers or non-discretionary advisers to their clients. PGIM Fixed Income also has independent business relationships with investment consultants.

 

B-92


PGIM Fixed Income provides investment consultants with information about accounts that it manages for the consultant’s clients (and similarly, PGIM Fixed Income provides information about funds in which such clients are invested), in each case pursuant to authorization from the clients. PGIM Fixed Income also provides information regarding its investment strategies to investment consultants, who use that information in connection with searches that they conduct for their clients. PGIM Fixed Income often responds to requests for proposals in connection with those searches.

Other interactions PGIM Fixed Income has with investment consultants include the following:

 

   

it provides advisory services to the proprietary accounts of investment consultants and/or their affiliates, and advisory services to funds offered by investment consultants and/or their affiliates;

   

it invites investment consultants to events or other entertainment hosted by PGIM Fixed Income;

   

it purchases software applications, market data, access to databases, technology services and other products or services from certain investment consultants; and

   

it sometimes pays for the opportunity to participate in conferences organized by investment consultants.

PGIM Fixed Income will provide clients with information about its relationship with the client’s investment consultant upon request. In general, PGIM Fixed Income relies on the investment consultant to make the appropriate disclosure to its clients of any conflict that the investment consultant believes to exist due to its business relationships with PGIM Fixed Income.

A client’s relationship with an investment consultant could result in restrictions in the eligible securities or trading counterparties for the client’s account. For example, accounts of certain clients (including clients that are subject to ERISA) can be restricted from investing in securities issued by the client’s consultant or its affiliates and from trading with, or participating in transactions involving, counterparties that are affiliated with the investment consultant. In some cases, these restrictions could have a material impact on account performance.

Conflicts Related to Service Providers. PGIM Fixed Income retains third party advisors and other service providers to provide various services for PGIM Fixed Income as well as for funds that PGIM Fixed Income manages or subadvises. Some service providers provide services to PGIM Fixed Income or one of PGIM Fixed Income’s funds while also providing services to other PGIM units, other PGIM-advised funds, or affiliates of PGIM, and negotiate rates in the context of the overall relationship. PGIM Fixed Income can benefit from negotiated fee rates offered to its funds and vice versa. There is no assurance, however, that PGIM Fixed Income will be able to obtain or maintain advantageous fee rates from a given service provider negotiated by its affiliates based on their relationship with the service provider, or that PGIM Fixed Income will know of such negotiated fee rates.

Conflicts Related to Valuation and Fees. When client accounts hold illiquid or difficult to value investments, PGIM Fixed Income faces a conflict of interest when making recommendations regarding the value of such investments since its fees are generally based on the value of assets under management. PGIM Fixed Income could be viewed as having an incentive to value investments at higher valuations. PGIM Fixed Income believes that its valuation policies and procedures mitigate this conflict effectively and enable it to value client assets fairly and in a manner that is consistent with the client’s best interests. In addition, unless otherwise instructed by clients often, fees are calculated from custodian and/or administrator pricing and not our internal valuations.

Conflicts Related to Securities Lending and Reverse Repurchase Fees. When PGIM Fixed Income manages a client account and also serves as securities lending agent and/or engages in reverse repurchase transactions for the account, PGIM Fixed Income is compensated for its securities lending and reverse repurchase services by receiving a portion of the proceeds generated from the securities lending and reverse repurchase activities of the account. PGIM Fixed Income could, therefore, be considered to have an incentive to invest in securities that would generate higher securities lending and reverse repurchase

 

B-93


returns, even if these investments were not otherwise in the best interest of the client account. In addition, if PGIM Fixed Income is acting as securities lending agent and providing reverse repurchase services, PGIM Fixed Income may be incented to select the less costly alternative to increase its revenues.

Conflicts Related to Long-Term Compensation. As a result of the long-term incentive plan and targeted long-term incentive plan, PGIM Fixed Income’s portfolio managers from time to time have financial interests related to the investment performance of some, but not all, of the accounts they manage. For example, the performance of some client accounts is not reflected in the calculation of changes in the value of participation interests under PGIM Fixed Income’s long-term incentive plan. This may be because the composite representing the strategy in which the account is managed is not one of the composites included in the calculation or because the account is excluded from a specified composite due to guideline restrictions or other factors. In addition, the performance of only a small number of its investment strategies is covered under PGIM Fixed Income’s targeted long-term incentive plan. Further, for certain PGIM Fixed Income investment professionals, participation interests in the targeted long-term incentive plan constitute a significant percentage of their total long-term compensation. To address potential conflicts related to these financial interests, PGIM Fixed Income has procedures, including trade allocation and supervisory review procedures, designed to confirm that each of its client accounts is managed in a manner that is consistent with PGIM Fixed Income’s fiduciary obligations, as well as with the account’s investment objectives, investment strategies and restrictions. For example, the head of PGIM Fixed Income reviews performance among similarly managed accounts on a quarterly basis during a series of meetings with the senior portfolio manager and team responsible for the management of each investment strategy. These quarterly investment strategy review meetings generally are also attended by one or both of PGIM Fixed Income’s co-chief investment officers, the head of quantitative analysis and risk management or his designee and a member of the compliance group, among others.

Conflicts Related to the Offer and Sale of Securities. Certain of PGIM Fixed Income’s employees offer and sell securities of, and interests in, commingled funds that it manages or subadvises. Employees offer and sell securities in connection with their roles as registered representatives of an affiliated broker-dealer, officers of an affiliated trust company, agents of the Insurance Affiliates, approved persons of an affiliated investment adviser or other roles related to such commingled funds. There is an incentive for PGIM Fixed Income’s employees to offer these securities to investors regardless of whether the investment is appropriate for such investor since increased assets in these vehicles will result in increased advisory fees to it. In addition, such sales could result in increased compensation to the employee.

Conflicts Related to Employee/Investment Professional Trading. Personal trading by PGIM Fixed Income employees creates a conflict when they are trading the same securities or types of securities as PGIM Fixed Income trades on behalf of its clients. This conflict is mitigated by PGIM Fixed Income’s personal trading standards and procedures.

Conflicts Related to Outside Business Activity. From time to time, certain of PGIM Fixed Income employees or officers engage in outside business activity, including outside directorships. Any outside business activity is subject to prior approval pursuant to PGIM Fixed Income’s personal conflicts of interest and outside business activities policy. Actual and potential conflicts of interest are analyzed during such approval process. PGIM Fixed Income could be restricted in trading the securities of certain issuers in client portfolios in the unlikely event that an employee or officer, as a result of outside business activity, obtains material, non-public information regarding an issuer.

Compensation. The base salary of an investment professional in the PGIM Fixed Income unit of PGIM is primarily based on market data relative to similar positions as well as the past performance, years of experience and scope of responsibility of the individual. PGIM Fixed Income is allocated an overall incentive pool based on the investment and financial performance of the business. Incentive compensation for investment professionals, including the annual cash bonus, the long-term equity grant and grants under PGIM Fixed Income’s long-term incentive plans, is primarily based on such person’s contribution to PGIM

 

B-94


Fixed Income’s goal of providing investment performance to clients consistent with portfolio objectives, guidelines, risk parameters, and its compliance risk management and other policies, as well as market-based data such as compensation trends and levels of overall compensation for similar positions in the asset management industry. In addition, an investment professional’s qualitative contributions to the organization and its commercial success are considered in determining incentive compensation. Incentive compensation is not solely based on the performance of, or value of assets in, any single account or group of client accounts.

The PGIM Fixed Income unit within PGIM Limited (“PGIM Fixed Income (U.K.)”) has adopted a remuneration policy in relation to activities conducted through the entities authorized and regulated by the FCA in the United Kingdom. The remuneration policy is intended to be compliant with the United Kingdom’s Investment Firms Prudential Regime (“IFPR”) and governs the remuneration of PGIM Fixed Income (U.K.) staff and “material risk takers” of PGIM Fixed Income (U.K.) including those that are based outside the United Kingdom.

An investment professional’s annual cash bonus is paid from an annual incentive pool. The pool is developed as a percentage of PGIM Fixed Income’s operating income and the percentage used to calculate the pool may be refined by factors such as:

 

   

business initiatives;

   

the number of investment professionals receiving a bonus and related peer group compensation;

   

financial metrics of the business relative to those of appropriate peer groups; and

   

investment performance of portfolios: relative to appropriate peer groups; and/or as measured against relevant investment indices.

Long-term compensation consists of Prudential Financial, Inc. restricted stock and grants under the long-term incentive plan and targeted long-term incentive plan. The long-term incentive plan is intended to align compensation with investment performance. The targeted long-term incentive plan is intended to align the interests of certain of PGIM Fixed Income’s investment professionals with the performance of the particular alternative investment strategies or commingled investment vehicles they manage. Grants under the long-term incentive plan and targeted long-term incentive plan are participation interests in notional accounts with a beginning value of a specified dollar amount. For the long-term incentive plan, the value attributed to these notional accounts increases or decreases over a defined period of time based on the performance of investment composites representing a number of PGIM Fixed Income’s investment strategies. With respect to targeted long-term incentive awards, the value attributed to the notional accounts increases or decreases over a defined period of time based (as applicable) on the performance of either a composite of particular alternative investment strategies or a commingled investment vehicle. An investment composite is an aggregation of accounts with similar investment strategies. The head of PGIM Fixed Income also receives performance shares which represent the right to receive shares of Prudential Financial, Inc. common stock conditioned upon, and subject to, the achievement of specified financial performance goals by Prudential Financial, Inc. Each of the restricted stock, grants under the long-term incentive plans, and performance shares is subject to vesting requirements.

 

Core Plus Bond Fund

BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (“BlackRock”), located at 1 University Square Drive, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Core Plus Bond Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. BlackRock is a wholly owned subsidiary of BlackRock, Inc. For its services as a Sub-adviser, BlackRock is entitled to receive a fee from the Core Plus Bond Fund. BlackRock has entered into a sub-sub-advisory agreement with each of BlackRock International Limited (“BIL”), a U.K.-based affiliate of BlackRock, and BlackRock (Singapore) Limited (“BRS” and together with BIL the “Sub-Sub-Advisers”), a Singapore-based affiliate of BlackRock, to facilitate the provision of advice and trading out of non-U.S. jurisdictions pursuant to which, with respect to the portion of the Core Plus Bond Fund’s assets allocated to BlackRock, the Sub-Sub-Advisers are entitled to receive a fee for their services from BlackRock.

 

B-95


Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

 

Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)

Other Pooled

Investment Vehicles

Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)

Number
of
Accounts

Total
Assets in
the
Accounts

Number
of
Accounts

Total
Assets in
the
Accounts

Number
of
Accounts

Total
Assets in

the
Accounts

All Accounts
Rick Rieder 25 $96.51 billion 38 $36.90 billion 18 $3.83 billion
David Rogal 19 $69.19 billion 12 $17.81 billion 19 $8.64 billion
Chi Chen 8 $29.07 billion 10 $11.48 billion 13 $4.89 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Rick Rieder 0 $0 7 $363.1 million 2 $226.6 million
David Rogal 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Chi Chen 0 $0 0 $0 7 $3.92 billion

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Portfolio Manager Potential Material Conflicts of Interest. BlackRock has built a professional working environment, firm-wide compliance culture and compliance procedures and systems designed to protect against potential incentives that may favor one account over another. BlackRock has adopted policies and procedures that address the allocation of investment opportunities, execution of portfolio transactions, personal trading by employees and other potential conflicts of interest that are designed to ensure that all client accounts are treated equitably over time. Nevertheless, BlackRock furnishes investment management and advisory services to numerous clients in addition to the Fund, and BlackRock may, consistent with applicable law, make investment recommendations to other clients or accounts (including accounts which are hedge funds or have performance or higher fees paid to BlackRock, or in which portfolio managers have a personal interest in the receipt of such fees), which may be the same as or different from those made to the Fund. In addition, BlackRock, its affiliates and significant shareholders and any officer, director, shareholder or employee may or may not have an interest in the securities whose purchase and sale BlackRock recommends to the Fund. BlackRock, or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders, or any officer, director, shareholder, employee or any member of their families may take different actions than those recommended to the Fund by BlackRock with respect to the same securities. Moreover, BlackRock may refrain from rendering any advice or services concerning securities of companies of which any of BlackRock’s (or its affiliates’ or significant shareholders’) officers, directors or employees are directors or officers, or companies as to which BlackRock or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders or the officers, directors and employees of any of them has any substantial economic interest or possesses material non-public information. Certain portfolio managers also may manage accounts whose investment strategies may at times be opposed to the strategy utilized for a fund. It should also be noted that Messrs. Rieder and Rogal and Ms. Chen may be managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts, or may be part of a team managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts, subject to incentive fees. Messrs. Rieder and Rogal and Ms. Chen may therefore be entitled to receive a portion of any incentive fees earned on such accounts.

 

B-96


As a fiduciary, BlackRock owes a duty of loyalty to its clients and must treat each client fairly. When BlackRock purchases or sells securities for more than one account, the trades must be allocated in a manner consistent with its fiduciary duties. BlackRock attempts to allocate investments in a fair and equitable manner among client accounts, with no account receiving preferential treatment. To this end, BlackRock has adopted policies that are intended to ensure reasonable efficiency in client transactions and provide BlackRock with sufficient flexibility to allocate investments in a manner that is consistent with the particular investment discipline and client base, as appropriate.

Portfolio Manager Compensation Overview. The discussion below describes the portfolio managers’ compensation as of June 30, 2023.

BlackRock’s financial arrangements with its portfolio managers, its competitive compensation and its career path emphasis at all levels reflect the value senior management places on key resources. Compensation may include a variety of components and may vary from year to year based on a number of factors. The principal components of compensation include a base salary, a performance-based discretionary bonus, participation in various benefits programs and one or more of the incentive compensation programs established by BlackRock.

Base Compensation. Generally, portfolio managers receive base compensation based on their position with the firm.

Discretionary Incentive Compensation – Ms. Chen and Messrs. Rieder and Rogal. Discretionary incentive compensation is a function of several components: the performance of BlackRock, Inc., the performance of the portfolio manager’s group within BlackRock, the investment performance, including risk-adjusted returns, of the firm’s assets under management or supervision by that portfolio manager relative to predetermined benchmarks, and the individual’s performance and contribution to the overall performance of these portfolios and BlackRock. In most cases, these benchmarks are the same as the benchmark or benchmarks against which the performance of the Funds or other accounts managed by the portfolio managers are measured. Among other things, BlackRock’s Chief Investment Officers make a subjective determination with respect to each portfolio manager’s compensation based on the performance of the Funds and other accounts managed by each portfolio manager relative to the various benchmarks. Performance of fixed income funds is measured on a pre-tax and/or after-tax basis over various time periods including 1-, 3- and 5- year periods, as applicable. With respect to these portfolio managers, the benchmark for the Funds and other accounts are:

 

Portfolio Manager    Benchmarks
   

Chi Chen

  

A combination of market-based indices (e.g., Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index), certain customized indices and certain fund industry peer groups.

Rick Rieder

David Rogal

Distribution of Discretionary Incentive Compensation. Discretionary incentive compensation is distributed to portfolio managers in a combination of cash, deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards, and/or deferred cash awards that notionally track the return of certain BlackRock investment products.

Portfolio managers receive their annual discretionary incentive compensation in the form of cash. Portfolio managers whose total compensation is above a specified threshold also receive deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards annually as part of their discretionary incentive compensation. Paying a portion of discretionary incentive compensation in the form of deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock puts compensation earned by a portfolio manager for a given year “at risk” based on BlackRock’s ability to sustain and

 

B-97


improve its performance over future periods. In some cases, additional deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock may be granted to certain key employees as part of a long-term incentive award to aid in retention, align interests with long-term shareholders and motivate performance. Deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards are generally granted in the form of BlackRock, Inc. restricted stock units that vest pursuant to the terms of the applicable plan and, once vested, settle in BlackRock, Inc. common stock. The portfolio managers of these Funds have deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards.

For certain portfolio managers, a portion of the discretionary incentive compensation is also distributed in the form of deferred cash awards that notionally track the returns of select BlackRock investment products they manage, which provides direct alignment of portfolio manager discretionary incentive compensation with investment product results. Deferred cash awards vest ratably over a number of years and, once vested, settle in the form of cash. Only portfolio managers who manage specified products and whose total compensation is above a specified threshold are eligible to participate in the deferred cash award program.

Other Compensation Benefits. In addition to base salary and discretionary incentive compensation, portfolio managers may be eligible to receive or participate in one or more of the following:

Incentive Savings Plans — BlackRock, Inc. has created a variety of incentive savings plans in which BlackRock employees are eligible to participate, including a 401(k) plan, the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan (RSP), and the BlackRock Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). The employer contribution components of the RSP include a company match equal to 50% of the first 8% of eligible pay contributed to the plan capped at $5,000 per year, and a company retirement contribution equal to 3-5% of eligible compensation up to the Internal Revenue Service limit ($330,000 for 2023). The RSP offers a range of investment options, including registered investment companies and collective investment funds managed by the firm. BlackRock contributions follow the investment direction set by participants for their own contributions or, absent participant investment direction, are invested into a target date fund that corresponds to, or is closest to, the year in which the participant attains age 65. The ESPP allows for investment in BlackRock common stock at a 5% discount on the fair market value of the stock on the purchase date. Annual participation in the ESPP is limited to the purchase of 1,000 shares of common stock or a dollar value of $25,000 based on its fair market value on the purchase date. All of the eligible portfolio managers are eligible to participate in these plans.

Pacific Investment Management Company LLC (“PIMCO”), 650 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Core Plus Bond Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. PIMCO, a Delaware limited liability company, is a majority owned subsidiary of Allianz Asset Management of America LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“AAM LLC”), with minority interests held by Allianz Asset Management U.S. Holding II LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and certain current and former officers of PIMCO. Allianz of America, Inc., a Delaware corporation, holds a non-managing majority interest in AAM LLC. Allianz Europe B.V. wholly-owns Allianz of America, Inc. Allianz SE wholly-owns Allianz Europe B.V. Allianz Asset Management GmbH wholly owns Allianz Asset Management of America Holdings Inc., which is the sole managing member of AAM LLC. Allianz Asset Management GmbH is wholly owned by Allianz SE. For its services as a Sub-adviser, PIMCO is entitled to receive a fee from the Core Plus Bond Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager of the Fund, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment

 

B-98


vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information in all tables is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio
Managers

Number

of

Accounts

Total
Assets in
the

Accounts

Number
of
Accounts

Total
Assets in
the

Accounts

Number

of

Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

Alfred Murata 21 $160.64 billion 22 $45.38 billion 5 $1.01 billion
Daniel Ivascyn 20 $156.81 billion 23 $92.05 billion 29 $37.57 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Alfred Murata 0 $0 5 $9.57 billion 0 $0
Daniel Ivascyn 0 $0 10 $18.13 billion 1 $314.95 million

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Conflicts of Interest. From time to time, potential and actual conflicts of interest may arise between a portfolio manager’s management of the investments of a Fund, on the one hand, and the management of other accounts, on the other. Potential and actual conflicts of interest may also arise as a result of PIMCO’s other business activities and PIMCO’s possession of material non-public information (“MNPI”) about an issuer. Other accounts managed by a portfolio manager might have similar investment objectives or strategies as the Funds, track the same index a Fund tracks or otherwise hold, purchase, or sell securities that are eligible to be held, purchased or sold by the Funds. The other accounts might also have different investment objectives or strategies than the Funds. Potential and actual conflicts of interest may also arise as a result of PIMCO serving as investment adviser to accounts that invest in the Funds. In this case, such conflicts of interest could in theory give rise to incentives for PIMCO to, among other things, vote proxies or redeem shares of a Fund in a manner beneficial to the investing account but detrimental to the Fund. Conversely, PIMCO’s duties to the Funds, as well as regulatory or other limitations applicable to the Funds, may affect the courses of action available to PIMCO-advised accounts (including certain Funds) that invest in the Funds in a manner that is detrimental to such investing accounts.

Because PIMCO is affiliated with Allianz SE, a large multi-national financial institution (together with its affiliates, “Allianz”), conflicts similar to those described below may occur between the Funds or other accounts managed by PIMCO and PIMCO’s affiliates or accounts managed by those affiliates. Those affiliates (or their clients), which generally operate autonomously from PIMCO, may take actions that are adverse to the Funds or other accounts managed by PIMCO. In many cases, PIMCO will not be in a position to mitigate those actions or address those conflicts, which could adversely affect the performance of the Funds or other accounts managed by PIMCO (each, a “Client,” and collectively, the “Clients”). In addition, because certain Clients (as defined below) are affiliates of PIMCO or have investors who are affiliates or employees of PIMCO, PIMCO may have incentives to resolve conflicts of interest in favor of these Clients over other Clients.

Knowledge and Timing of Fund Trades. A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of a portfolio manager’s day-to-day management of a Fund. Because of their positions with the Funds, the portfolio managers know the size, timing and possible market impact of a Fund’s trades. It is theoretically possible that the portfolio managers could use this information to the advantage of other accounts they manage and to the possible detriment of a Fund.

 

B-99


Investment Opportunities. A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of a portfolio manager’s management of a number of accounts with varying investment guidelines. Often, an investment opportunity may be suitable for one or more Clients, but may not be available in sufficient quantities for all accounts to participate fully. Similarly, there may be limited opportunity to sell an investment held by a Fund and another Client. PIMCO has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to allocate investment opportunities on a fair and equitable basis over time.

PIMCO seeks to allocate orders across eligible Client accounts with similar investment guidelines and investment styles fairly and equitably, taking into consideration relevant factors including, among others, applicable investment restrictions and guidelines, regulatory requirements, risk tolerances and available cash. As part of PIMCO’s trade allocation process, portions of new fixed income investment opportunities are distributed among Client account categories where the relevant portfolio managers seek to participate in the investment. Those portions are then further allocated among the Client accounts within such categories pursuant to PIMCO’s trade allocation policy. Portfolio managers managing quantitative strategies and specialized accounts, such as those focused on international securities, mortgage-backed securities, bank loans, or other specialized asset classes, will likely receive an increased distribution of new fixed income investment opportunities where the investment involves a quantitative strategy or specialized asset class that matches the investment objective or focus of the Client account category.

Any particular allocation decision among Client accounts may be more or less advantageous to any one Client or group of Clients, and certain allocations will, to the extent consistent with PIMCO’s fiduciary obligations, deviate from a pro rata basis among Clients in order to address for example, differences in legal, tax, regulatory, risk management, concentration, exposure, Client guideline limitations and/or mandate or strategy considerations for the relevant Clients. PIMCO may determine that an investment opportunity or particular purchases or sales are appropriate for one or more Clients, but not appropriate for other Clients, or are appropriate or suitable for, or available to, Clients but in different sizes, terms, or timing than is appropriate or suitable for other Clients. For example, some Clients have higher risk tolerances than other Clients, such as private funds, which, in turn, allows PIMCO to allocate a wider variety and/or greater percentage of certain types of investments (which may or may not outperform other types of investments) to such Clients. Those Clients receiving an increased allocation as a result of the effect of their respective risk tolerance may be Clients that pay higher investment management fees or that pay incentive fees. In addition, certain Client account categories focusing on certain types of investments or asset classes will be given priority in new issue distribution and allocation with respect to the investments or asset classes that are the focus of their investment mandate. Legal, contractual, or regulatory issues and/or related expenses applicable to PIMCO or one or more Clients may result in certain Clients not receiving securities that may otherwise be appropriate for them or may result in PIMCO selling securities out of Client accounts even if it might otherwise be beneficial to continue to hold them. Additional factors that are taken into account in the distribution and allocation of investment opportunities to Client accounts include, without limitation: ability to utilize leverage and risk tolerance of the Client account; the amount of discretion and trade authority given to PIMCO by the Client; availability of other similar investment opportunities; the Client account’s investment horizon and objectives; hedging, cash and liquidity needs of the portfolio; minimum increments and lot sizes; and underlying benchmark factors. Given all of the foregoing factors, the amount, timing, structuring, or terms of an investment by a Client, including a Fund, may differ from, and performance may be lower than, investments and performance of other Clients, including those that may provide greater fees or other compensation (including performance-based fees or allocations) to PIMCO. PIMCO has also adopted additional procedures to complement the general trade allocation policy that are designed to address potential conflicts of interest due to the side-by-side management of the Funds and certain pooled investment vehicles, including investment opportunity allocation issues.

From time to time, PIMCO may take an investment position or action for one or more Clients that may be different from, or inconsistent with, an action or position taken for one or more other Clients having similar

 

B-100


or differing investment objectives. These positions and actions may adversely impact, or in some instances may benefit, one or more affected Clients (including Clients that are PIMCO affiliates) in which PIMCO has an interest, or which pays PIMCO higher fees or a performance fee. For example, a Client may buy a security and another Client may establish a short position in that same security. The subsequent short sale may result in a decrease in the price of the security that the other Client holds. Similarly, transactions or investments by one or more Clients may have the effect of diluting or otherwise disadvantaging the values, prices or investment strategies of another Client.

When PIMCO implements for one Client a portfolio decision or strategy ahead of, or contemporaneously with, similar portfolio decisions or strategies of another Client, market impact, liquidity constraints or other factors could result in one or more Clients receiving less favorable trading results, the costs of implementing such portfolio decisions or strategies could be increased or such Clients could otherwise be disadvantaged. On the other hand, potential conflicts may also arise because portfolio decisions regarding a Client may benefit other Clients. For example, the sale of a long position or establishment of a short position for a Client may decrease the price of the same security sold short by (and therefore benefit) other Clients, and the purchase of a security or covering of a short position in a security for a Client may increase the price of the same security held by (and therefore benefit) other Clients.

Under certain circumstances, a Client may invest in a transaction in which one or more other Clients are expected to participate, or already have made or will seek to make, an investment. In addition, to the extent permitted by applicable law, a Client may also engage in investment transactions that may result in other Clients being relieved of obligations, or that may cause other Clients to divest certain investments (e.g., a Client may make a loan to, or directly or indirectly acquire securities or indebtedness of, a company that uses the proceeds to refinance or reorganize its capital structure, which could result in repayment of debt held by another Client). Such Clients (or groups of Clients) may have conflicting interests and objectives in connection with such investments, including with respect to views on the operations or activities of the issuer involved, the targeted returns from the investment and the timeframe for, and method of, exiting the investment. When making such investments, PIMCO may do so in a way that favors one Client over another Client, even if both Clients are investing in the same security at the same time. Certain Clients may invest on a “parallel” basis (i.e., proportionately in all transactions at substantially the same time and on substantially the same terms and conditions). In addition, other accounts may expect to invest in many of the same types of investments as another account. However, there may be investments in which one or more of such accounts does not invest (or invests on different terms or on a non-pro rata basis) due to factors such as legal, tax, regulatory, business, contractual or other similar considerations or due to the provisions of a Client’s governing documents. Decisions as to the allocation of investment opportunities among such Clients present numerous conflicts of interest, which may not be resolved in a manner that is favorable to a Client’s interests. To the extent an investment is not allocated pro rata among such entities, a Client could incur a disproportionate amount of income or loss related to such investment relative to such other Client. In addition, Clients may invest alongside one another in the same underlying investments or otherwise pursuant to a substantially similar investment strategy as one or more other Clients. In such cases, certain Clients may have preferential liquidity and information rights relative to other Clients holding the same investments, with the result that such Clients will be able to withdraw/redeem their interests in underlying investments in priority to Clients who may have more limited access to information or more restrictive withdrawal/redemption rights. Clients with more limited information rights or more restrictive liquidity may therefore be adversely affected in the event of a downturn in the markets.

Further, potential conflicts may be inherent in PIMCO’s use of multiple strategies. For example, conflicts will arise in cases where different Clients invest in different parts of an issuer’s capital structure, including circumstances in which one or more Clients may own private securities or obligations of an issuer and other Clients may own or seek to acquire private securities of the same issuer. For example, a Client may acquire

 

B-101


a loan, loan participation or a loan assignment of a particular borrower in which one or more other Clients have an equity investment, or may invest in senior debt obligations of an issuer for one Client and junior debt obligations or equity of the same issuer for another Client.

PIMCO may also, for example, direct a Client to invest in a tranche of a structured finance vehicle, such as a CLO or CDO, where PIMCO is also, at the same or different time, directing another Client to make investments in a different tranche of the same vehicle, which tranche’s interests may be adverse to other tranches. PIMCO may also cause a Client to purchase from, or sell assets to, an entity, such as a structured finance vehicle, in which other Clients may have an interest, potentially in a manner that will have an adverse effect on the other Clients. There may also be conflicts where, for example, a Client holds certain debt or equity securities of an issuer, and that same issuer has issued other debt, equity or other instruments that are owned by other Clients or by an entity, such as a structured finance vehicle, in which other Clients have an interest.

In each of the situations described above, PIMCO may take actions with respect to the assets held by one Client that are adverse to the other Clients, for example, by foreclosing on loans, by putting an issuer into default, or by exercising rights to purchase or sell to an issuer, causing an issuer to take actions adverse to certain classes of securities, or otherwise. In negotiating the terms and conditions of any such investments, or any subsequent amendments or waivers or taking any other actions, PIMCO may find that the interests of a Client and the interests of one or more other Clients could conflict. In these situations, decisions over items such as whether to make the investment or take an action, proxy voting, corporate reorganization, how to exit an investment, or bankruptcy or similar matters (including, for example, whether to trigger an event of default or the terms of any workout) may result in conflicts of interest. Similarly, if an issuer in which a Client and one or more other Clients directly or indirectly hold different classes of securities (or other assets, instruments or obligations issued by such issuer or underlying investments of such issuer) encounters financial problems, decisions over the terms of any workout will raise conflicts of interests (including, for example, conflicts over proposed waivers and amendments to debt covenants). For example, a debt holder may be better served by a liquidation of the issuer in which it may be paid in full, whereas an equity or junior bond holder might prefer a reorganization that holds the potential to create value for the equity holders. In some cases PIMCO may refrain from taking certain actions or making certain investments on behalf of Clients in order to avoid or mitigate certain conflicts of interest or to prevent adverse regulatory or other effects on PIMCO, or may sell investments for certain Clients (in each case potentially disadvantaging the Clients on whose behalf the actions are not taken, investments not made, or investments sold). In other cases, PIMCO may not refrain from taking actions or making investments on behalf of certain Clients that have the potential to disadvantage other Clients. In addition, PIMCO may take actions or refrain from taking actions in order to mitigate legal risks to PIMCO or its affiliates or its Clients even if disadvantageous to a Client’s account. Moreover, a Client may invest in a transaction in which one or more other Clients are expected to participate, or already have made or will seek to make, an investment.

Additionally, certain conflicts may exist with respect to portfolio managers who make investment decisions on behalf of several different types of Clients. Such portfolio managers may have an incentive to allocate trades, time or resources to certain Clients, including those Clients who pay higher investment management fees or that pay incentive fees or allocations, over other Clients. These conflicts may be heightened with respect to portfolio managers who are eligible to receive a performance allocation under certain circumstances as part of their compensation.

From time to time, PIMCO personnel may come into possession of MNPI which, if disclosed, might affect an investor’s decision to buy, sell or hold a security. Should a PIMCO employee come into possession of MNPI with respect to an issuer, he or she generally will be prohibited from communicating such information to, or using such information for the benefit of, Clients, which could limit the ability of Clients to buy, sell or hold certain investments, thereby limiting the investment opportunities or exit strategies available to Clients. In addition, holdings in the securities or other instruments of an issuer by PIMCO or its

 

B-102


affiliates may affect the ability of a Client to make certain acquisitions of or enter into certain transactions with such issuer. PIMCO has no obligation or responsibility to disclose such information to, or use such information for the benefit of, any person (including Clients).

PIMCO maintains one or more restricted lists of companies whose securities are subject to certain trading prohibitions due to PIMCO’s business activities. PIMCO may restrict trading in an issuer’s securities if the issuer is on a restricted list or if PIMCO has MNPI about that issuer. In some situations, PIMCO may restrict Clients from trading in a particular issuer’s securities in order to allow PIMCO to receive MNPI on behalf of other Clients. A Client may be unable to buy or sell certain securities until the restriction is lifted, which could disadvantage the Client. PIMCO may also be restricted from making (or divesting of) investments in respect of some Clients but not others. In some cases PIMCO may not initiate or recommend certain types of transactions, or may otherwise restrict or limit its advice relating to certain securities if a security is restricted due to MNPI or if PIMCO is seeking to limit receipt of MNPI.

PIMCO may conduct litigation or engage in other legal actions on behalf of one or more Clients. In such cases, Clients may be required to bear certain fees, costs, expenses and liabilities associated with the litigation. Other Clients that are or were investors in, or otherwise involved with, the subject investments may or may not (depending on the circumstances) be parties to such litigation actions, with the result that certain Clients may participate in litigation actions in which not all Clients with similar investments may participate, and such non-participating Clients may benefit from the results of such litigation actions without bearing or otherwise being subject to the associated fees, costs, expenses and liabilities. PIMCO, for example, typically does not pursue legal claims on behalf of its separate accounts. Furthermore, in certain situations, litigation or other legal actions pursued by PIMCO on behalf of a Client may be brought against or be otherwise adverse to a portfolio company or other investment held by a Client.

The foregoing is not a complete list of conflicts to which PIMCO or Clients may be subject. PIMCO seeks to review conflicts on a case-by-case basis as they arise. Any review will take into consideration the interests of the relevant Clients, the circumstances giving rise to the conflict, applicable PIMCO policies and procedures, and applicable laws. Clients (and investors in Portfolios) should be aware that conflicts will not necessarily be resolved in favor of their interests and may in fact be resolved in a manner adverse to their interests. PIMCO will attempt to resolve such matters fairly, but even so, matters may be resolved in favor of other Clients which pay PIMCO higher fees or performance fees or in which PIMCO or its affiliates have a significant proprietary interest. There can be no assurance that any actual or potential conflicts of interest will not result in a particular Client or group of Clients receiving less favorable investment terms in or returns from certain investments than if such conflicts of interest did not exist.

Conflicts like those described above may also occur between Clients, on the one hand, and PIMCO or its affiliates, on the other. These conflicts will not always be resolved in favor of the Client. In addition, because PIMCO is affiliated with Allianz, a large multi-national financial institution, conflicts similar to those described above may occur between clients of PIMCO and PIMCO’s affiliates or accounts managed by those affiliates. Those affiliates (or their clients), which generally operate autonomously from PIMCO, may take actions that are adverse to PIMCO’s Clients. In many cases PIMCO will have limited or no ability to mitigate those actions or address those conflicts, which could adversely affect Client performance. In addition, certain regulatory restrictions may prohibit PIMCO from using certain brokers or investing in certain companies (even if such companies are not affiliated with Allianz) because of the applicability of certain laws and regulations applicable to PIMCO, Allianz SE or their affiliates. An account’s willingness to negotiate terms or take actions with respect to an investment may also be, directly or indirectly, constrained or otherwise impacted to the extent Allianz SE, PIMCO, and/or their affiliates, directors, partners, managers, members, officers or personnel are also invested therein or otherwise have a connection to the subject investment (e.g., serving as a trustee or board member thereof).

Performance Fees. A portfolio manager may advise certain accounts with respect to which the advisory fee is based entirely or partially on performance. Performance fee arrangements may create a conflict of

 

B-103


interest for the portfolio manager in that the portfolio manager may have an incentive to allocate the investment opportunities that he or she believes might be the most profitable to such other accounts instead of allocating them to a Fund. PIMCO has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to allocate investment opportunities between the Funds and such other accounts on a fair and equitable basis over time.

PIMCO has implemented policies and procedures relating to, among other things, portfolio management and trading practices, personal investment transactions, insider trading, gifts and entertainment, and political contributions that seek to identify, manage and/or mitigate actual or potential conflicts of interest and resolve such conflicts appropriately if they occur. PIMCO seeks to resolve any actual or potential conflicts in each client’s best interest. For more information regarding PIMCO’s actual or potential conflicts of interest, please refer to Item 10 and Item 11 in PIMCO’s Form ADV, Part 2A.

Compensation. PIMCO and its affiliates approach to compensation seeks to provide professionals with a compensation process that is driven by values of collaboration, openness, responsibility and excellence.

Generally, compensation packages consist of three components. The compensation program for portfolio managers is designed to align with clients’ interests, emphasizing each portfolio manager’s ability to generate long-term investment success for clients, among other factors. A portfolio manager’s compensation is not based solely on the performance of the Fund or any other account managed by that portfolio manager:

Base Salary – Base salary is determined based on core job responsibilities, positions/levels and market factors. Base salary levels are reviewed annually, when there is a significant change in job responsibilities or position, or a significant change in market levels.

Variable Compensation –In addition to a base salary, portfolio managers have a varaiable component of their compensation, which is based on a combination of individual and company performance and includes both qualitative and quantitative factors. The following non-exhaustive list of qualitative and quantitative factors is considered when determining total compensation for portfolio managers:

 

   

performance measured over a variety of longer-and shorter-term periods, including 5-year, 4-year, 3-year, 2-year and 1-year dollar-weighted and account-weighted, pre-tax total and risk-adjusted investment performance as judged against the applicable benchmarks (which may include internal investment performance-related benchmarks) for each account managed by a portfolio manager (including the Fund(s)) and relative to applicable industry peer groups; amount and nature of assets managed by the portfolio manager.

The variable compensation component of an employee’s compensation may include a deferred component. The deferred portion will generally be subject to vesting and may appreciate or depreciate based on the performance of PIMCO and/or its affiliates. PIMCO’s Long-Term Incentive Plan provides participants with deferred cash awards that appreciate or depreciate based on PIMCO’s operating earnings over a rolling three-year period. Portfolio managers who are Managing Directors of PIMCO receive compensation from a non-qualified profit sharing plan consisting of a portion of PIMCO’s net profits. Portfolio managers who are Managing Directors receive an amount determined by the Compensation Committee, based upon an individual’s overall contribution to the firm.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. (“Loomis Sayles”), One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111 is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Core Plus Bond Fund pursuant to a Sub-Advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Loomis Sayles is a Delaware limited partnership. Loomis Sayles’ sole general partner, Loomis, Sayles & Company, Inc. is directly owned by Natixis Investment Managers, LLC. (“Natixis LLC”). Natixis LLC is an indirect subsidiary of Natixis Investment Managers, an international

 

B-104


asset management group based in Paris, France, that is in turn owned by Natixis, a French investment banking and financial services firm. Natixis is wholly-owned by BPCE, France’s second largest banking group. BPCE is owned by banks comprising two autonomous and complementary retail banking networks consisting of the Caisse d’Epargne regional savings banks and the Banque Populaire regional cooperative banks. The registered address of Natixis is 30, avenue Pierre Mendès France, 75013 Paris, France. The registered address of BPCE is 50, avenue Pierre Mendès France, 75013 Paris, France. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Loomis Sayles is entitled to receive a fee from the Core Plus Bond Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager of the Fund, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information in all tables is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts

Portfolio

Manager(s)

Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in
the
Accounts

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
All Accounts
Matthew J. Eagan 19 $20.45 billion 24 $10.55 billion 109 $23.89 billion
Brian P. Kennedy 18 $26.02 billion 24 $10.55 billion 111 $23.89 billion
Elaine M. Stokes* 18 $26.02 billion 24 $10.55 billion 122 $24.02 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Matthew J. Eagan, CFA 0 $0 0 $0 5 $375 million
Brian P. Kennedy 0 $0 0 $0 5 $375 million
Elaine M. Stokes* 0 $0 0 $0 5 $375 million

 

*

Effective December 31, 2023, Ms. Stokes will no longer serve as a portfolio manager to the portion of the assets of the Fund managed by Loomis Sayles.

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts of interest may arise in the allocation of investment opportunities and the allocation of aggregated orders among the Fund and other accounts managed by the portfolio managers. A portfolio manager potentially could give favorable treatment to some accounts for a variety of reasons, including favoring larger accounts, accounts that pay higher fees, accounts that pay performance-based fees, accounts of affiliated companies and accounts in which the portfolio manager has an interest. In addition, due to differences in the investment strategies or restrictions among the Fund and a portfolio manager’s other accounts, the portfolio manager may take action with respect to another account that differs from the action taken with respect to the Fund(s). Although such favorable treatment could lead to more favorable investment opportunities or allocations for some accounts and may appear to create additional conflicts of interest for the portfolio manager in the allocation of management time and resources, Loomis Sayles strives to ensure that portfolio managers endeavor to exercise their discretion in a manner that is equitable to all interested persons. Furthermore, Loomis Sayles makes investment decisions for all accounts (including institutional accounts, mutual funds, hedge funds and affiliated accounts) based on each account’s investment objective, investment guidelines and restrictions, the availability of other comparable investment opportunities and Loomis Sayles’ desire to treat all accounts fairly and equitably

 

B-105


over time. Loomis Sayles maintains Trade Aggregation and Allocation Policies and Procedures to mitigate the effects of these potential conflicts as well as other types of conflicts of interest. However, there is no guarantee that such procedures will detect each and every situation where a conflict arises or that Loomis Sayles will treat all accounts identically. Conflicts of interest also arise to the extent a portfolio manager short sells a stock or otherwise takes a short position in one client account but holds that stock long in other accounts, including the Fund(s), or sells a stock for some accounts while buying the stock for others, and through the use of “soft dollar arrangements.”

Compensation. Loomis Sayles believes that portfolio manager compensation should be driven primarily by the delivery of consistent and superior long-term performance for its clients. Although portfolio manager compensation is not directly tied to assets under management a portfolio manager’s base salary and/or bonus potential may reflect the amount of assets for which the manager is responsible relative to other portfolio managers. The annual bonus is incentive-based and generally represents a significant multiple of base salary. The bonus is based on three factors: investment performance, profit growth of the Firm and personal conduct. Investment performance is the primary component of the annual bonus and generally represents at least 60% of the total for fixed-income managers. The other two factors are used to determine the remainder of the annual incentive bonus, subject to the discretion of the firm’s Chief Investment Officer (“CIO”) and senior management. The firm’s CIO and senior management evaluate these other factors annually.

The investment performance component of the annual incentive bonus depends primarily on investment performance against benchmark and/or against peers within similar disciplines. The score is based upon the product’s institutional composite performance; however, adjustments may be made if there is significant dispersion among the returns of the composite and accounts not included in the composite. For most products, the product investment score compares the product’s rolling three year performance over the past nine quarters (a five year view) against both a benchmark and a peer group established by the CIO. The scoring rewards both the aggregate excess performance of the product against a benchmark and the product’s relative rank within a peer group. In addition, for fixed income products, the performance score rewards for the consistency of that outperformance and is enhanced if over the past five years it has kept its rolling three-year performance ahead of its benchmark. Portfolio managers working on several product teams receive a final score based on the relative revenue weight of each product.

Portfolio managers may also participate in the three segments of the long-term incentive program. The amount of the awards for each segment are dependent upon role, industry experience, team and Firm profitability, and/or investment performance.

General

The core elements of the Loomis Sayles compensation plan include a base salary, an annual incentive bonus, and, for senior investor and leadership roles, a long-term incentive bonus. The base salary is a fixed amount based on a combination of factors, including industry experience, Firm experience, job performance and market considerations. The annual incentive bonus and long term incentive bonus is driven by a variety of factors depending upon the specific role. Factors include investment performance, individual performance, team and Firm profitability, role, and industry experience. Both the annual and long term bonus have a deferral component. Loomis Sayles has developed and implemented three long-term incentive plan segments to attract and retain investment talent.

For the senior-most investment roles, a Long Term Incentive Plan provides annual grants relative to the role, and includes a post retirement payment feature to incentivize effective succession management. Participationis contingent upon signing an award agreement, which includes a non-compete covenant.

 

B-106


The second and third Long Term Incentive Plans are constructed to create mid- term alignment for key positions, including a two year deferral feature. The second plan is role based, and the third is team based which is more specifically dependent upon team profitability and/or investment performance.

In addition, Loomis Sayles also offers a profit sharing plan, for all employees and a defined benefit plan for employees who joined the Firm prior to May 3, 2003. The profit sharing contribution to the retirement plan of each employee is based on a percentage of base salary (up to a maximum amount). The defined benefit plan is based on years of service and base compensation (up to a maximum amount).

Metropolitan West Asset Management, LLC (“MetWest”), 865 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles California 90017, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Core Plus Bond Fund pursuant to a Sub-Advisory Agreement with the Adviser. MetWest is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TCW Asset Management Company LLC, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The TCW Group, Inc. (“TCW”). For its services as a Sub-adviser, MetWest is entitled to receive a fee from the Core Plus Bond Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager of the Fund, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information in all tables is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)

Other Pooled

Investment Vehicles

Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts

Total
Assets in
the

Accounts

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
All Accounts
Laird Landmann* 29 $89.3 billion 45 $19.7 billion 200 $54 billion
Stephen Kane 32 $86.4 billion 22 $15.7 billion 183 $45.8 billion
Bryan Whalen 29 $88.4 billion 40 $18 billion 222 $59.9 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Laird Landmann* 0 $0 22 $3.6 billion 8 $5.8 billion
Stephen Kane 0 $0 3 $437.1 million 9 $4.2 billion
Bryan Whalen 0 $0 15 $609.1 million 11 $6.8 billion

 

*

Effective December 31, 2023, Mr. Landmann will no longer serve as a portfolio manager to the portion of the assets of the Fund managed by MetWest.

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Conflicts of Interest. MetWest follows TCW’s policies and processes to handle conflicts of interest. TCW’s approach to handling conflicts of interest is multi-layered starting with its policies and procedures, reporting and pre-clearance processes and oversight by various committees.

TCW and MetWest have policies and controls to avoid and/or mitigate conflicts of interest across its businesses. The policies and procedures in TCW’s Code of Ethics (the “Code”), which is followed by MetWest, serve to address or mitigate both conflicts of interest and the appearance of any conflict of interest. The Code contains several restrictions and procedures designed to eliminate conflicts of interest relating to personal investment transactions, including (i) reporting account openings, changes, or closings

 

B-107


(including accounts in which an Access Person has a “beneficial interest”), (ii) pre-clearance of non-exempt personal investment transactions (make a personal trade request for Securities) and (iii) the completion of timely required reporting (Initial Holdings Report, Quarterly Transactions Report, Annual Holdings Report and Annual Certificate of Compliance).

In addition, the Code addresses potential conflicts of interest through its policies on insider trading, anti-corruption, an employee’s outside business activities, political activities and contributions, confidentiality and whistleblower provisions.

Conflicts of interest may also arise in the management of accounts and investment vehicles. These conflicts may raise questions that would allow TCW to allocate investment opportunities in a way that favors certain accounts or investment vehicles over other accounts or investment vehicles, or incentivize a TCW portfolio manager to receive greater compensation with regard to the management of certain account or investment vehicles. TCW may give advice or take action with certain accounts or investment vehicles that could differ from the advice given or action taken on other accounts or investment vehicles.

When an investment opportunity is suitable for more than one account or investment vehicle, such investments will be allocated in a manner that is fair and equitable under the circumstances to all TCW clients. As such, TCW has adopted compliance policies and procedures in its Portfolio Management Policy that helps to identify a conflict of interest and then specifies how a conflict of interest is managed. TCW’s Trading and Brokerage Policy also discusses the process of timing and method of allocations, and addresses how the firm handles affiliate transactions.

The respective Equity and Fixed Income Trading and Allocation Committees review trading activities on behalf of client accounts, including the allocation of investment opportunities and address any issues with regard to side-by-side management in order to ensure that all of TCW’s clients are treated on a fair and equitable basis. Further, the Portfolio Analytics Committee reviews TCW’s investment strategies, evaluates various analytics to facilitate risk assessment, changes to performance composites and benchmarks and monitors the implementation and maintenance of the Global Investment Performance Standards or GIPS® compliance.

TCW’s approach to handling conflicts of interest is multi-layered starting with its policies and procedures, reporting and pre-clearance processes and oversight by various committees.

Compensation. The overall objective of MetWest’s compensation program for portfolio managers is to attract experienced and expert investment professionals and to retain them over the long-term. Compensation is comprised of several components which, in the aggregate, are designed to achieve these objectives and to reward the portfolio managers for their contributions to the successful performance of the accounts they manage. Portfolio managers are compensated through a combination of base salary, fee sharing based compensation (“fee sharing”), bonus and equity incentive participation in MetWest’s parent company (“equity incentives”). Fee sharing and equity incentives generally represent most of the portfolio managers’ compensation. In some cases, portfolio managers are eligible for discretionary bonuses.

Salary. Salary is agreed to with portfolio managers at the time of employment and is reviewed from time to time. It does not change significantly and often does not constitute a significant part of a portfolio manager’s compensation.

Fee Sharing. Fee sharing for investment professionals is based on revenues generated by accounts in the investment strategy area for which the investment professionals are responsible. In most cases, revenues are allocated to a pool and fee sharing compensation is allocated among members of the investment team after the deduction of certain expenses (including compensation over a threshold level) related to the strategy group. The allocations are based on the investment professionals’ contribution to TCW and its clients, including qualitative and quantitative contributions.

 

B-108


In general, the same fee sharing percentage is used to compensate a portfolio manager for investment services related to the Fund as that used to compensate portfolio managers for other client accounts in the same strategy managed by MetWest or one of the other TCW-affiliated advisers (collectively, the “TCW Advisors”). In some cases, the fee sharing pool includes revenues related to more than one product, in which case each participant in the pool is entitled to fee sharing derived from his or her contributions to all the included products.

Investment professionals are not directly compensated for generating performance fees. In some cases, the overall fee sharing pool is subject to fluctuation based on the relative pre-tax performance of the investment strategy composite returns, net of fees and expenses, to that of the benchmark. The measurement of performance relative to the benchmark can be based on single year or multiple year metrics, or a combination thereof. The benchmark used is the one associated with the Fund managed by the portfolio manager as disclosed in the prospectus. Benchmarks vary from strategy to strategy but, within a given strategy, the same benchmark applies to all accounts, including the Fund.

Discretionary Bonus/Guaranteed Minimums. Discretionary bonuses may be paid out of an investment team’s fee sharing pool, as determined by the supervisor(s) in the department. In other cases where portfolio managers do not receive fee sharing or where it is determined that the combination of salary and fee sharing does not adequately compensate the portfolio manager, discretionary bonuses may be paid by the applicable TCW Advisor. Also, pursuant to contractual arrangements, some portfolio managers received minimum bonuses.

Equity Incentives. Management believes that equity ownership aligns the interests of portfolio managers with the interests of the firm and its clients. Accordingly, TCW’s key investment professionals participate in equity incentives through ownership or participation in restricted unit plans that vest over time or unit appreciation plans of MetWest’s parent company. The plans include the Fixed Income Retention Plan, Restricted Unit Plan and 2013 Equity Unit Incentive Plan.

Under the Fixed Income Retention Plan, certain portfolio managers in the fixed income area were awarded cash and/or partnership units in MetWest’s parent company, either on a contractually-determined basis or on a discretionary basis. Awards under this plan were made in 2010 that vest over time.

Under the Restricted Unit Plan, certain portfolio managers in the fixed income and equity areas may be awarded partnership units in MetWest’s parent company. Awards under this plan have vested over time, subject to satisfaction of performance criteria.

Under the 2013 Equity Unit Incentive Plan, certain portfolio managers in the fixed income and equity areas may be awarded options to acquire partnership units in MetWest’s parent company with a strike price equal to the fair market value of the option at the date of grant. The options granted under this plan are subject to vesting and other conditions.

Other Plans and Compensation Vehicles. Portfolio managers may also elect to participate in the applicable TCW Advisor’s 401(k) plan, to which they may contribute a portion of their pre- and post-tax compensation to the plan for investment on a tax-deferred basis.

 

Municipal Bond Fund

BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (“BlackRock”), located at 1 University Square Drive, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Municipal Bond Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. BlackRock is a wholly owned subsidiary of BlackRock, Inc. For its services as a Sub-adviser, BlackRock is entitled to receive a fee from the Municipal Bond Fund.

 

B-109


Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

 

Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)

Other Pooled

Investment Vehicles

Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)

Number
of
Accounts

Total
Assets in
the
Accounts

Number
of
Accounts

Total
Assets in
the
Accounts

Number
of
Accounts

Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
All Accounts
Walter O’Connor,
CFA
33 $29.39 billion 0 $0 0 $0
Michael Kalinoski,
CFA
34 $33.27 billion 0 $0 0 $0
Kevin Maloney,
CFA
36 $35.52 billion 0 $0 0 $0

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Portfolio Manager Potential Material Conflicts of Interest. BlackRock has built a professional working environment, firm-wide compliance culture and compliance procedures and systems designed to protect against potential incentives that may favor one account over another. BlackRock has adopted policies and procedures that address the allocation of investment opportunities, execution of portfolio transactions, personal trading by employees and other potential conflicts of interest that are designed to ensure that all client accounts are treated equitably over time. Nevertheless, BlackRock furnishes investment management and advisory services to numerous clients in addition to the Fund, and BlackRock may, consistent with applicable law, make investment recommendations to other clients or accounts (including accounts which are hedge funds or have performance or higher fees paid to BlackRock, or in which portfolio managers have a personal interest in the receipt of such fees), which may be the same as or different from those made to the Fund. In addition, BlackRock, its affiliates and significant shareholders and any officer, director, shareholder or employee may or may not have an interest in the securities whose purchase and sale BlackRock recommends to the Fund. BlackRock, or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders, or any officer, director, shareholder, employee or any member of their families may take different actions than those recommended to the Fund by BlackRock with respect to the same securities. Moreover, BlackRock may refrain from rendering any advice or services concerning securities of companies of which any of BlackRock’s (or its affiliates’ or significant shareholders’) officers, directors or employees are directors or officers, or companies as to which BlackRock or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders or the officers, directors and employees of any of them has any substantial economic interest or possesses material non-public information. Certain portfolio managers also may manage accounts whose investment strategies may at times be opposed to the strategy utilized for a fund. It should also be noted that a portfolio manager may be managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts, or may be part of a team managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts, subject to incentive fees. Such portfolio managers may therefore be entitled to receive a portion of any incentive fees earned on such accounts. Currently, the portfolio managers of these funds are not entitled to receive a portion of incentive fees of other accounts.

As a fiduciary, BlackRock owes a duty of loyalty to its clients and must treat each client fairly. When BlackRock purchases or sells securities for more than one account, the trades must be allocated in a manner

 

B-110


consistent with its fiduciary duties. BlackRock attempts to allocate investments in a fair and equitable manner among client accounts, with no account receiving preferential treatment. To this end, BlackRock has adopted policies that are intended to ensure reasonable efficiency in client transactions and provide BlackRock with sufficient flexibility to allocate investments in a manner that is consistent with the particular investment discipline and client base, as appropriate.

Portfolio Manager Compensation Overview. The discussion below describes the portfolio managers’ compensation as of June 30, 2023.

BlackRock’s financial arrangements with its portfolio managers, its competitive compensation and its career path emphasis at all levels reflect the value senior management places on key resources. Compensation may include a variety of components and may vary from year to year based on a number of factors. The principal components of compensation include a base salary, a performance-based discretionary bonus, participation in various benefits programs and one or more of the incentive compensation programs established by BlackRock.

Base Compensation. Generally, portfolio managers receive base compensation based on their position with the firm.

Discretionary Incentive Compensation – Messrs. Kalinoski, Maloney and O’Connor. Discretionary incentive compensation is a function of several components: the performance of BlackRock, Inc., the performance of the portfolio manager’s group within BlackRock, the investment performance, including risk-adjusted returns, of the firm’s assets under management or supervision by that portfolio manager relative to predetermined benchmarks, and the individual’s performance and contribution to the overall performance of these portfolios and BlackRock. In most cases, these benchmarks are the same as the benchmark or benchmarks against which the performance of the Funds or other accounts managed by the portfolio managers are measured. Among other things, BlackRock’s Chief Investment Officers make a subjective determination with respect to each portfolio manager’s compensation based on the performance of the Funds and other accounts managed by each portfolio manager relative to the various benchmarks. Performance of fixed income funds is measured on a pre-tax and/or after-tax basis over various time periods including 1-, 3- and 5- year periods, as applicable. With respect to these portfolio managers, the benchmark for the Funds and other accounts are:

 

Portfolio Manager

  

Benchmarks

   

Michael Kalinoski

  

A combination of market-based indices (e.g., Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index), certain customized indices and certain fund industry peer groups.

Kevin Maloney

Walter O’Connor

Distribution of Discretionary Incentive Compensation. Discretionary incentive compensation is distributed to portfolio managers in a combination of cash, deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards, and/or deferred cash awards that notionally track the return of certain BlackRock investment products.

Portfolio managers receive their annual discretionary incentive compensation in the form of cash. Portfolio managers whose total compensation is above a specified threshold also receive deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards annually as part of their discretionary incentive compensation. Paying a portion of discretionary incentive compensation in the form of deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock puts compensation earned by a portfolio manager for a given year “at risk” based on BlackRock’s ability to sustain and improve its performance over future periods. In some cases, additional deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock may be granted to certain key employees as part of a long-term incentive award to aid in retention, align interests with long-term shareholders and motivate performance. Deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards

 

B-111


are generally granted in the form of BlackRock, Inc. restricted stock units that vest pursuant to the terms of the applicable plan and, once vested, settle in BlackRock, Inc. common stock. The portfolio managers of these Funds have deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards.

For certain portfolio managers, a portion of the discretionary incentive compensation is also distributed in the form of deferred cash awards that notionally track the returns of select BlackRock investment products they manage, which provides direct alignment of portfolio manager discretionary incentive compensation with investment product results. Deferred cash awards vest ratably over a number of years and, once vested, settle in the form of cash. Only portfolio managers who manage specified products and whose total compensation is above a specified threshold are eligible to participate in the deferred cash award program.

Other Compensation Benefits. In addition to base salary and discretionary incentive compensation, portfolio managers may be eligible to receive or participate in one or more of the following:

Incentive Savings Plans — BlackRock, Inc. has created a variety of incentive savings plans in which BlackRock employees are eligible to participate, including a 401(k) plan, the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan (RSP), and the BlackRock Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). The employer contribution components of the RSP include a company match equal to 50% of the first 8% of eligible pay contributed to the plan capped at $5,000 per year, and a company retirement contribution equal to 3-5% of eligible compensation up to the Internal Revenue Service limit ($330,000 for 2023). The RSP offers a range of investment options, including registered investment companies and collective investment funds managed by the firm. BlackRock contributions follow the investment direction set by participants for their own contributions or, absent participant investment direction, are invested into a target date fund that corresponds to, or is closest to, the year in which the participant attains age 65. The ESPP allows for investment in BlackRock common stock at a 5% discount on the fair market value of the stock on the purchase date. Annual participation in the ESPP is limited to the purchase of 1,000 shares of common stock or a dollar value of $25,000 based on its fair market value on the purchase date. All of the eligible portfolio managers are eligible to participate in these plans.

FIAM LLC (“FIAM”), 900 Salem Street, Smithfield, RI 02917, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Municipal Bond Fund pursuant to a Sub-Advisory Agreement with the Adviser. FIAM is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC and was founded in 2005. For its services as a Sub-adviser, FIAM is entitled to receive a fee from the Municipal Bond Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected below. Unless otherwise stated, information in all tables is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the
Accounts

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Cormac Cullen 29 $40.9 million 0 $0 7 $1.4 million
Michael Maka 31 $41.1 million 0 $0 7 $1.4 million
Elizah McLaughlin 29 $40.9 million 0 $0 7 $1.4 million

 

B-112


As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts. A portfolio manager’s compensation plan may give rise to potential conflicts of interest. A portfolio manager’s compensation is linked to the pre-tax performance of the Fund, rather than its after-tax performance. A portfolio manager’s base pay tends to increase with additional and more complex responsibilities that include increased assets under management and a portion of the bonus relates to marketing efforts, which together indirectly link compensation to sales. When a portfolio manager takes over a fund or an account, the time period over which performance is measured may be adjusted to provide a transition period in which to assess the portfolio. The management of multiple funds and accounts (including proprietary accounts) may give rise to potential conflicts of interest if the funds and accounts have different objectives, benchmarks, time horizons, and fees as a portfolio manager must allocate his time and investment ideas across multiple funds and accounts. In addition, a fund’s trade allocation policies and procedures may give rise to conflicts of interest if the fund’s orders do not get fully executed due to being aggregated with those of other accounts managed by FIAM or an affiliate. A portfolio manager may execute transactions for another fund or account that may adversely impact the value of securities held by the Fund. Securities selected for other funds or accounts may outperform the securities selected for the Fund. Portfolio managers may be permitted to invest in the funds they manage, even if a fund is closed to new investors. Trading in personal accounts, which may give rise to potential conflicts of interest, is restricted by a fund’s Code of Ethics.

Portfolio managers may receive interests in certain funds or accounts managed by FMR or one of its affiliated advisers (collectively, “Proprietary Accounts”). A conflict of interest situation is presented where a portfolio manager considers investing a client account in securities of an issuer in which FMR, its affiliates or their (or their fund clients’) respective directors, officers or employees already hold a significant position for their own account, including positions held indirectly through Proprietary Accounts. Because the 1940 Act, as well as other applicable laws and regulations, restricts certain transactions between affiliated entities or between an advisor and its clients, client accounts managed by FIAM or its affiliates, including accounts sub-advised by third parties, are, in certain circumstances, prohibited from participating in offerings of such securities (including initial public offerings and other offerings occurring before or after an issuer’s initial public offering) or acquiring such securities in the secondary market. For example, ownership of a company by Proprietary Accounts has, in certain situations, resulted in restrictions on FMR’s and its affiliates’ client accounts’ ability to acquire securities in the company’s initial public offering and subsequent public offerings, private offerings, and in the secondary market, and additional restrictions could arise in the future; to the extent such client accounts acquire the relevant securities after such restrictions are subsequently lifted, the delay could affect the price at which the securities are acquired.

A conflict of interest situation is presented when FIAM or its affiliates acquire, on behalf of their client accounts, securities of the same issuers whose securities are already held in Proprietary Accounts, because such investments could have the effect of increasing or supporting the value of the Proprietary Accounts.

A conflict of interest situation also arises when FIAM investment advisory personnel consider whether client accounts they manage should invest in an investment opportunity that they know is also being considered by an affiliate of FIAM for a Proprietary Account, to the extent that not investing on behalf of such client accounts improves the ability of the Proprietary Account to take advantage of the opportunity. FIAM and its affiliates have adopted policies and procedures and maintain a compliance program designed to help manage such actual and potential conflicts of interest.

Compensation. Ms. McLaughlin and Messrs. Cullen and Maka, are portfolio managers for FIAM and receive compensation for their services managing an allocated portion of the Fund. Portfolio manager compensation generally consists of a fixed base salary determined periodically (typically annually), a bonus, and in certain cases, participation in several types of equity-based compensation plans. A portion of

 

B-113


each portfolio manager’s compensation may be deferred based on criteria established by FIAM or an affiliate or at the election of the portfolio manager.

Each portfolio manager’s base salary is determined by level of responsibility and tenure at FIAM or its affiliates. The primary components of each portfolio manager’s bonus are based on (i) the pre-tax investment performance of the portfolio manager’s fund(s) and account(s) measured against a benchmark index assigned to each fund or account, and (ii) the investment performance of other FIAM or its affiliate’s municipal bond funds and accounts. The pre-tax investment performance of each portfolio manager’s fund(s) and account(s) is weighted according to his tenure on those fund(s) and account(s) and the average asset size of those fund(s) and account(s) over his tenure. Each component is calculated separately over the portfolio manager’s tenure on those fund(s) and account(s) over a measurement period that initially is contemporaneous with his tenure, but that eventually encompasses rolling periods of up to three years for the comparison to a benchmark index. A smaller, subjective component of each portfolio manager’s bonus is based on the portfolio manager’s overall contribution to management of FIAM or its affiliates. The portion of each portfolio manager’s bonus that is linked to the investment performance of the allocated portion of the Fund is based on the pre-tax investment performance of the allocated portion of the Fund measured against the Bloomberg Year Municipal Bond Index (1-17). Each portfolio manager also is compensated under equity-based compensation plans linked to increases or decreases in the net asset value of the stock of FMR LLC, FIAM’s ultimate parent company. FMR LLC is a diverse financial services company engaged in various activities that include fund management, brokerage, retirement, and employer administrative services.

MacKay Shields LLC (“MacKay Shields”), 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10105, is a Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Municipal Bond Fund pursuant to a sub-advisory agreement with the Adviser. MacKay Shields is wholly-owned by New York Life Investment Management Holdings LLC, which is wholly-owned by New York Life Insurance Company, MacKay Shields’ ultimate parent. MacKay Shields’ primary business location is in New York, and MacKay Shields provides sub-advisory services to the Municipal Bond Fund primarily from offices at 1960 East Grand Avenue, Suite 370 El Segundo, CA 90245, and 506 Carnegie Center Drive, Suite 200 Princeton, NJ 08540. For its services as a Sub-adviser, MacKay Shields is entitled to receive a fee from the Municipal Bond Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers and Ownership of Fund Shares. The table below identifies, for the portfolio managers, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
All Accounts
Robert DiMella 17 $28.05 billion 9 $10.86 billion 85 $25.16 billion
David Dowden 18 $28.81 billion 9 $10.86 billion 85 $25.16 billion
Michael Denlinger 14 $19.10 billion 9 $10.86 billion 85 $25.16 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Robert DiMella 0 $0 2 $793.71 million 2 $604.08 million
David Dowden 0 $0 2 $793.71 million 2 $604.08 million
Michael Denlinger 0 $0 2 $793.71 million 2 $604.08 million

 

B-114


As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Conflicts of Interest. MacKay Shields does not favor the interest of one client over another and it has adopted a Trade Allocation Policy designed so that all client accounts will be treated fairly and no one client account will receive, over time, preferential treatment over another.

MacKay Shields maintains investment teams with their own distinct investment process that operate independent of each other when making portfolio management decisions. Certain investment teams consist of Portfolio Managers, Research Analysts, and Traders, while certain other investment teams share Research Analysts and/or Traders. MacKay Shields’ investment teams may compete with each other for the same investment opportunities and/or take contrary positions. At times, two or more of MacKay Shields’ investment teams may jointly manage the assets of a single client portfolio (“Crossover Mandate”). In such instances, the asset allocation decisions will be discussed amongst the various investment teams, but the day-to-day investment decision-making process will typically be made independently by each team for the portion of the Crossover Mandate that team is responsible for managing. Orders within an investment team will typically be aggregated or bunched to reduce the costs of the transactions. Orders are typically not aggregated across investment teams even though there may be orders by separate investment teams to execute the same instrument on the same trading day; provided, however, that orders for the same instrument are typically aggregated across investment teams that are supported by a shared trading desk.

MacKay Shields’ clients have held, and it is expected that in the future they will at times hold, different segments of the capital structure of the same issuer that have different priorities. These investments create conflicts of interest, particularly because MacKay Shields can take certain actions for clients that can have an adverse effect on other clients. For example, certain MacKay Shields clients may hold instruments that are senior or subordinated relative to instruments of the same issuer held by other clients, and any action that the portfolio managers were to take on behalf of the issuer’s senior instrument, for instance, could have an adverse effect on the issuer’s junior instrument held by other clients, and vice versa, particularly in distressed or default situations. To the extent MacKay Shields or any of its employees were to serve on a formal or informal creditor or similar committee on behalf of a client, such conflicts of interest may be exacerbated.

MacKay Shields engages in transactions and investment strategies for certain clients that differ from the transactions and strategies executed on behalf of other clients, including clients that have retained the services of the same investment team. MacKay Shields may make investments for certain clients that they conclude are inappropriate for other clients. For instance, clients within one investment strategy may take short positions in the debt or equity instruments of certain issuers, while at the same time those instruments or other instruments of that issuer are acquired or held long by clients in another investment strategy, or within the same strategy, and vice versa.

Additionally, MacKay Shields’ investment strategies are available through a variety of investment products, including, without limitation, separately managed accounts, private funds, mutual funds and ETFs. Given the different structures of these products, certain clients are subject to terms and conditions that are materially different or more advantageous than available under different products. For example, mutual funds offer investors the ability to redeem from the fund daily, while private funds offer less frequent liquidity. Similarly a client with a separately managed account may have more transparency regarding the positions held in its account than would be available to an investor in a collective investment vehicle. Further, separately managed account clients have the ability to terminate their investment management agreement with little or no notice (subject to the terms of the investment advisory agreement or similar agreement).

 

B-115


As a result of these differing liquidity and other terms, MacKay Shields may acquire and/or dispose of investments for a client either prior to or subsequent to the acquisition and/or disposition of the same or similar securities held by another client. In certain circumstances, purchases or sales of securities by one client could adversely affect the value of the same securities held in another client’s portfolio. In addition, MacKay Shields has caused, and expects in the future to cause, certain clients to invest in opportunities with different levels of concentration or on different terms than that to which other clients invest in the same securities. These differences in terms and concentration could lead to different investment outcomes among clients investing in the same securities. MacKay Shields seeks to tailor its investment advisory services to meet each client’s investment objective, constraints and investment guidelines and MacKay Shields’ judgments with respect to a particular client will at times differ from its judgments for other clients, even when such clients pursue similar investment strategies.

MacKay Shields permits its personnel, including portfolio managers and other investment personnel, to engage in personal securities transactions, including buying or selling securities that it has recommended to, or purchased or sold on behalf of, clients. These transactions raise potential conflicts of interest, including when they involve securities owned or considered for purchase or sale by or on behalf of a client account. MacKay Shields has adopted a Code of Ethics to assist and guide the portfolio managers and other investment personnel when faced with a conflict. MacKay Shields’ services to each client are not exclusive. The nature of managing accounts for multiple clients creates a conflict of interest with regard to time available to serve clients. MacKay Shields and its portfolio managers will devote as much of their time to the activities of each client as they deem necessary and appropriate. Although MacKay Shields strives to identify and mitigate all conflicts of interest, and seeks to treat its clients in a fair and reasonable manner consistent with its fiduciary duties, there may be times when conflicts of interest are not resolved in a manner favorable to a specific client.

Additional material conflicts of interest are presented within Part 2A of MacKay Shields’ Form ADV.

Compensation. Salaries are set by reference to a range of factors, taking into account each individual’s seniority and responsibilities and the market rate of pay for the relevant position. Annual salaries are set at competitive levels to attract and maintain the best professional talent. Variable or incentive compensation, both cash bonus and deferred awards, are a significant component of total compensation for portfolio managers at MacKay Shields. Incentive compensation received by portfolio managers is generally based on both quantitative and qualitative factors. The quantitative factors include, but are not limited to: (i) investment performance; (ii) assets under management; (iii) revenues and profitability; and (iv) industry benchmarks. The qualitative factors may include, among others: leadership, adherence to the firm’s policies and procedures, and contribution to the firm’s goals and objectives.

MacKay Shields maintains a phantom equity plan for those employees who qualify whereby awards vest and pay out after several years, to attract, retain, motivate and reward key personnel. Portfolio managers that participate in the phantom equity plan share in the results and success of the firm as the value of award tracks the operating revenue and operating profit of Mackay Shields. This approach helps to instill a strong sense of commitment towards the overall success of the firm.

MacKay Shields maintains an employee benefit program, including health and non-health insurance and a 401(k) defined contribution plan for all of its employees regardless of their job title, responsibilities or seniority.

 

B-116


Municipal High-Income Bond Fund

Capital International, Inc. (“Capital International”), located at 333 S. Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071, is a Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Municipal High-Income Bond Fund pursuant to a Sub-Advisory Agreement with the Adviser. As of June 30, 2023, Capital International had approximately $37.1 billion in assets under management. Capital International, incorporated in California in 1987, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Capital Group International, Inc., which is owned by Capital Research and Management Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Capital Group Companies, Inc., (collectively, “Capital Group”). Capital International is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Capital International is entitled to receive a fee from the Municipal High-Income Bond Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager of the Fund, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected below. Information in all tables is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)1
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles2
Other Accounts3,4
Portfolio
Managers
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
All Accounts
Chad M. Rach 3 $34.07 billion 0 $0 0 $0
Jerome H. Solomon 2 $11.10 billion 0 $0 0 $0
Courtney W. Wolf 3 $34.07 billion 0 $0 0 $0

 

1

Assets noted represent the total net assets of registered investment companies and are not indicative of the total assets managed by the individual which will be a substantially lower amount.

2

Assets noted represent the total net assets of other pooled investment vehicles and are not indicative of the total assets managed by the individual which will be a substantially lower amount.

3

Assets noted represent the total net assets of other accounts and are not indicative of the total assets managed by the individual which will be a substantially lower amount.

4

Reflects other professionally managed accounts held at Capital or companies affiliated with Capital. Personal brokerage accounts of portfolio manager and their families are not reflected.

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Conflicts of Interest. Capital International has adopted policies and procedures that address potential conflicts of interest that may arise between a portfolio manager’s management of a fund and his or her management of other funds and accounts, such as conflicts relating to the allocation of investment opportunities, personal investing activities, portfolio manager compensation and proxy voting of portfolio securities. While there is no guarantee that such policies and procedures will be effective in all cases, Capital International believes that its policies and procedures are reasonably designed to address potential material conflicts of interest involving this portfolio and its other managed accounts.

 

B-117


Compensation. Capital International uses a system of multiple portfolio managers. In addition, investment analysts may make investment decisions for portfolios within their research coverage. Portfolio managers and investment analysts are paid competitive salaries by Capital International or its affiliates, and they may receive bonuses based on their individual portfolio results. Investment professionals also may participate in profit-sharing plans. The relative mix of compensation represented by bonuses, salary and profit-sharing plans will vary depending on the individual’s portfolio results, contributions to the organization and other factors. Bonuses based on investment results are principally determined by comparing pre-tax total returns to appropriate benchmarks over the most recent one-, three-, five- and eight-year periods, with increasing weight placed on each successive measurement period. For portfolio managers, the benchmarks generally include a combination of indexes that reflect the markets in which a client portfolio invests, and industry peer group measures of comparable funds or strategies. Investment analysts’ results are also evaluated against indexes reflecting both their areas of focus and the broader market. The qualitative portion of each analyst’s bonus is based on a subjective, broad-based evaluation of contributions to the investment process and overall investment results.

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (“T. Rowe Price”), 100 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD 21202, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Municipal High-Income Bond Fund pursuant to a Sub-Advisory Agreement with the Adviser. T. Rowe Price is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC and was founded in 1937. For its services as a Sub-adviser, T. Rowe Price is entitled to receive a fee from the Municipal High-Income Bond Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected below. Information in all tables is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
James M. Murphy, CFA 4 $4.3 billion 0 $0 0 $0

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio manager did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Conflicts of Interest. Portfolio managers at T. Rowe Price and its affiliates may manage multiple accounts. These accounts may include, among others, mutual funds, exchanged-traded funds, separate accounts (assets managed on behalf of institutions such as pension funds, colleges and universities, and foundations), offshore funds, and common trust funds. T. Rowe Price also provides non-discretionary advice to institutional investors in the form of delivery of model portfolios. Portfolio managers make investment decisions for each portfolio based on the investment objectives, policies, practices, and other relevant investment considerations that the managers believe are applicable to that portfolio. Consequently, portfolio managers may purchase (or sell) securities for one portfolio and not another portfolio. T. Rowe Price and its affiliates have adopted brokerage and trade allocation policies and procedures that they believe are reasonably designed to address any potential conflicts associated with managing multiple accounts for multiple clients. The portfolio managers’ compensation is determined in the same manner with respect to all portfolios managed by the portfolio manager.

 

B-118


The T. Rowe Price Funds may, from time to time, own shares of Morningstar, Inc. Morningstar is a provider of investment research to individual and institutional investors, and publishes ratings on mutual funds, including the T. Rowe Price Funds. T. Rowe Price acts as subadviser to two mutual funds offered by Morningstar. T. Rowe Price and its affiliates pay Morningstar for a variety of products and services. Morningstar may provide investment consulting and investment management services to clients of T. Rowe Price or its affiliates. The T. Rowe Price Funds may generally not purchase shares of stock issued by T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. However, a T. Rowe Price Index Fund is permitted to make such purchases to the extent T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. is represented in the benchmark index the fund is designed to track. Additional potential conflicts may be inherent in our use of multiple strategies. For example, conflicts will arise in cases where different clients invest in different parts of an issuer’s capital structure, including circumstances in which one or more clients may own private securities or obligations of an issuer and other clients may own or seek to acquire securities of the same issuer. For example, a client may acquire a loan, loan participation or a loan assignment of a particular borrower in which one or more other clients have an equity investment or may invest in senior debt obligations of an issuer for one client and junior debt obligations or equity of the same issuer for another client. Similarly, if an issuer in which a client and one or more other clients directly or indirectly hold different classes of securities (or other assets, instruments or obligations issued by such issuer or underlying investments of such issuer) encounters financial problems, is involved in a merger or acquisition or a going private transaction, decisions over the terms of any workout or transaction will raise conflicts of interests. While it is appropriate for different clients to hold investments in different parts of the same issuer’s capital structure under normal circumstances, the interests of stockholders and debt holders may conflict, as the securities they hold will likely have different voting rights, dividend or repayment priorities or other features that could be in conflict with one another. Clients should be aware that conflicts will not necessarily be resolved in favor of their interests.

In some cases, T. Rowe Price or its affiliates may refrain from taking certain actions or making certain investments on behalf of clients in order to avoid or mitigate certain conflicts of interest or to prevent adverse regulatory actions or other implications for T. Rowe Price or its affiliates, or may sell investments for certain clients, in such case potentially disadvantaging the clients on whose behalf the actions are not taken, investments not made, or investments sold. In other cases, T. Rowe Price or its affiliates may take actions in order to mitigate legal risks to T. Rowe Price or its affiliates, even if disadvantageous to a client.

Conflicts such as those described above may also occur between clients on the one hand, and T. Rowe Price or its affiliates, on the other. These conflicts will not always be resolved in the favor of the client. In addition, conflicts may exist between different clients of T. Rowe Price or its affiliates. T. Rowe Price and one or more of its affiliates may operate autonomously from each other and may take actions that are adverse to other clients managed by an affiliate. In some cases, T. Rowe Price or its affiliates will have limited or no ability to mitigate those actions or address those conflicts, which could adversely affect T. Rowe Price or its affiliates’ clients. In addition, certain regulatory restrictions may prohibit clients of T. Rowe Price or its affiliates from investing in certain companies because of the applicability of certain laws and regulations to T. Rowe Price, its affiliates, or the T. Rowe Price Funds. T. Rowe Price or its affiliates’ willingness to negotiate terms or take actions with respect to an investment for its clients may be directly or indirectly, constrained or impacted to the extent that an affiliate or the T. Rowe Price Funds and/or their respective directors, partners, managers, members, officers or personnel are also invested therein or otherwise have a connection to the subject investments.

Investment personnel are mindful of potentially conflicting interests of our clients with investments in different parts of an issuer’s capital structure and take appropriate measures to ensure that the interests of all clients are fairly represented.

Compensation. Portfolio manager compensation consists primarily of a base salary, a cash bonus, and an equity incentive that usually comes in the form of restricted stock grants. Compensation is variable and is determined based on the following factors.

 

 

B-119


Investment performance over 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods is the most important input. The weightings for these time periods are generally balanced and are applied consistently across similar strategies. T. Rowe Price (and T. Rowe Price Hong Kong, T. Rowe Price Singapore, T. Rowe Price Japan, T. Rowe Price International, T. Rowe Price Investment Management, as appropriate) evaluates performance in absolute, relative, and risk-adjusted terms. Relative performance and risk-adjusted performance are typically determined with reference to the broad-based index (e.g., S&P 500 Index) and the Lipper average or index (e.g., Large-Cap Growth Index) set forth in the total returns table in the fund’s prospectus, although other benchmarks may be used as well. Investment results are also measured against comparably managed funds of competitive investment management firms. The selection of comparable funds is approved by the applicable investment steering committee and is the same as the selection presented to the directors of the T. Rowe Price funds in their regular review of fund performance. Performance is primarily measured on a pre-tax basis, although tax efficiency is considered and is especially important for certain T. Rowe Price funds.

Compensation is viewed with a long-term time horizon. The more consistent a portfolio manager’s performance over time, the higher the compensation opportunity. The increase or decrease in a fund’s assets due to the purchase or sale of fund shares is not considered a material factor. In reviewing relative performance for fixed income funds, a fund’s expense ratio is usually taken into account. Contribution to T. Rowe Price’s overall investment process is an important consideration as well. Leveraging ideas and investment insights across applicable investment platforms; working effectively with and mentoring others; and other contributions to our clients, the firm, or our culture are important components of T. Rowe Price’s long-term success and are generally taken into consideration.

All employees of T. Rowe Price, including portfolio managers, participate in a 401(k) plan sponsored by T. Rowe Price Group. In addition, all employees are eligible to purchase T. Rowe Price common stock through an employee stock purchase plan that features a limited corporate matching contribution. Eligibility for and participation in these plans is on the same basis for all employees. Finally, all vice presidents of T. Rowe Price Group, including all portfolio managers, receive supplemental medical/hospital reimbursement benefits and are eligible to participate in a supplemental savings plan sponsored by T. Rowe Price Group.

This compensation structure is used when evaluating the performance of all portfolios (including the T. Rowe Price funds) managed by the portfolio manager.

 

Large Cap Growth Fund

Lazard Asset Management LLC (“Lazard”), 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10112, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Large Cap Growth Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Lazard Asset Management LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lazard Frères & Co. LLC. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Lazard is entitled to receive a fee from the Large Cap Growth Fund.

 

B-120


Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information in all tables is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Bridge Builder
Trust)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

All Accounts
Andrew Lacey 13 $20.74 billion 8 $3.06 billion 92 $7.53 billion
Ross Seiden 6 $20.33 billion 4 $1.62 billion 70 $4.11 billion

Louis

Florentin-Lee

11 $21.49 billion 14 $2.94 billion 108 $7.79 billion
Martin Flood 15 $21.44 billion 18 $4.12 billion 192 $12.97 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Andrew Lacey 2 $20.23 billion 2 $947 million 0 $0
Ross Seiden 2 $20.23 billion 2 $947 million 0 $0

Louis

Florentin-Lee

2 $20.23 billion 0 $0 2 $75 million
Martin Flood 2 $20.23 billion 2 $947 million 4 $614 million

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts. Although the potential for conflicts of interest exists when an investment adviser and portfolio managers manage other accounts that invest in securities in which the Fund may invest or that may pursue a strategy similar to the Fund’s investment strategies implemented by Lazard (collectively, “Similar Accounts”), Lazard has procedures in place that are designed to ensure that all accounts are treated fairly and that the Fund is not disadvantaged, including procedures regarding trade allocations and “conflicting trades” (e.g., long and short positions in the same or similar securities). In addition, the Fund is subject to different regulations than certain of the Similar Accounts, and, consequently, may not be permitted to engage in all the investment techniques or transactions, or to engage in such techniques or transactions to the same degree, as the Similar Accounts.

Potential conflicts of interest may arise because of Lazard’s management of the Fund and Similar Accounts, including the following:

 

1.

Similar Accounts may have investment objectives, strategies and risks that differ from those of the Fund. In addition, the Fund is an open-end investment company and “diversified” as defined in the Investment Company Act, subject to different regulations than certain of the Similar Accounts and, consequently, may not be permitted to invest in the same securities, exercise rights to exchange or convert securities or engage in all the investment techniques or transactions, or to invest, exercise or engage to the same degree, as the Similar Accounts. For these or other reasons, the portfolio managers may purchase different securities for the Fund and the corresponding Similar Accounts, and the performance of securities purchased for the Fund may vary from the performance of securities purchased for Similar Accounts, perhaps materially.

 

B-121


2.

Conflicts of interest may arise with both the aggregation and allocation of securities transactions and allocation of limited investment opportunities. Lazard may be perceived as causing accounts it manages to participate in an offering to increase Lazard’s overall allocation of securities in that offering, or to increase Lazard’s ability to participate in future offerings by the same underwriter or issuer. Allocations of bunched trades, particularly trade orders that were only partially filled due to limited availability, and allocation of investment opportunities generally, could raise a potential conflict of interest, as Lazard may have an incentive to allocate securities that are expected to increase in value to preferred accounts. Initial public offerings, in particular, are frequently of very limited availability. A potential conflict of interest may be perceived to arise if transactions in one account closely follow related transactions in a different account, such as when a purchase increases the value of securities previously purchased by the other account, or when a sale in one account lowers the sale price received in a sale by a second account.

 

3.

Portfolio managers may be perceived to have a conflict of interest because of the large number of Similar Accounts, in addition to the Fund, that they are managing on behalf of Lazard. Although Lazard does not track each individual portfolio manager’s time dedicated to each account, Lazard periodically reviews each portfolio manager’s overall responsibilities to ensure that he or she is able to allocate the necessary time and resources to effectively manage the Fund. As illustrated in the table above, most of the portfolio managers manage a significant number of Similar Accounts in addition to the Fund.

 

4.

Generally, Lazard and/or its portfolio managers have investments in Similar Accounts. This could be viewed as creating a potential conflict of interest, since certain of the portfolio managers do not invest in the Fund.

 

5.

The table above notes the portfolio managers who manage Similar Accounts with respect to which the advisory fee is based on the performance of the account, which could give the portfolio managers and Lazard an incentive to favor such Similar Accounts over the Fund.

 

6.

Portfolio managers may place transactions on behalf of Similar Accounts that are directly or indirectly contrary to investment decisions made for the Fund, which could have the potential to adversely impact the Fund, depending on market conditions. In addition, if the Fund’s investment in an issuer is at a different level of the issuer’s capital structure than an investment in the issuer by Similar Accounts, in the event of credit deterioration of the issuer, there may be a conflict of interest between the Fund’s and such Similar Accounts’ investments in the issuer. If Lazard sells securities short, including on behalf of a Similar Account, it may be seen as harmful to the performance of the Fund to the extent it invests “long” in the same or similar securities whose market values fall as a result of short-selling activities.

 

7.

Investment decisions are made independently from those of the Similar Accounts. If, however, such Similar Accounts desire to invest in, or dispose of, the same securities as the Fund, available investments or opportunities for sales will be allocated equitably to each. In some cases, this procedure may adversely affect the size of the position obtained for or disposed of by the Fund or the price paid or received by the Fund.

 

8.

Under Lazard’s trade allocation procedures applicable to domestic and foreign initial and secondary public offerings and Rule 144A transactions (collectively herein a “Limited Offering”), Lazard will generally allocate Limited Offering shares among client accounts, including the Fund, pro rata based upon the aggregate asset size (excluding leverage) of the account. Lazard may also allocate Limited Offering shares on a random basis, as selected electronically, or other basis. It is often difficult for the Adviser to obtain a sufficient number of Limited Offering shares to provide a full allocation to each account. Lazard’s allocation procedures are designed to allocate Limited Offering securities in a fair and equitable manner.

Compensation. Lazard’s portfolio managers are generally responsible for managing multiple types of accounts that may, or may not, invest in securities in which the Fund may invest or pursue a strategy similar to the Fund’s strategies. Portfolio managers responsible for managing the Fund may also manage

 

B-122


sub-advised registered investment companies, collective investment trusts, unregistered funds and/or other pooled investment vehicles, separate accounts, separately managed account programs (often referred to as “wrap accounts”) and model portfolios.

Lazard compensates portfolio managers by a competitive salary and bonus structure, which is determined both quantitatively and qualitatively. Salary and bonus are paid in cash, stock and restricted interests in funds managed by Lazard or its affiliates. Portfolio managers are compensated on the performance of the aggregate group of portfolios managed by the teams of which they are a member rather than for a specific fund or account. Various factors are considered in the determination of a portfolio manager’s compensation. All of the portfolios managed by a portfolio manager are comprehensively evaluated to determine his or her positive and consistent performance contribution over time. Further factors include the amount of assets in the portfolios as well as qualitative aspects that reinforce Lazard’s investment philosophy.

Total compensation is generally not fixed, but rather is based on the following factors: (i) leadership, teamwork and commitment, (ii) maintenance of current knowledge and opinions on companies owned in the portfolio; (iii) generation and development of new investment ideas, including the quality of security analysis and identification of appreciation catalysts; (iv) ability and willingness to develop and share ideas on a team basis; and (v) the performance results of the portfolios managed by the investment teams of which the portfolio manager is a member.

Variable bonus is based on the portfolio manager’s quantitative performance as measured by his or her ability to make investment decisions that contribute to the pre-tax absolute and relative returns of the accounts managed by the teams of which the portfolio manager is a member, by comparison of each account to a predetermined benchmark, generally as set forth in the Prospectus or other governing document, over the current fiscal year and the longer-term performance of such account, as well as performance of the account relative to peers. The portfolio manager’s bonus also can be influenced by subjective measurement of the manager’s ability to help others make investment decisions. A portion of a portfolio manager’s variable bonus is awarded under a deferred compensation arrangement pursuant to which the portfolio manager may allocate certain amounts awarded among certain portfolios, in shares that vest in two to three years. Certain portfolio managers’ bonus compensation may be tied to a fixed percentage of revenue or assets generated by the accounts managed by such portfolio management teams.

Sustainable Growth Advisers, LP (“SGA”), 301 Tresser Blvd., Suite 1310, Stamford, Connecticut 06901, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Large Cap Growth Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. SGA is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC and was founded in July 2003. SGA is an independent affiliate of Virtus Investment Partners Inc., (“Virtus”), a publicly traded company listed on the NASDAQ that utilizes a multi-boutique structure. Virtus owns a 69% majority equity interest in SGA, with the remaining 31% equity interest held by SGA’s 20 individual equity owners. For its services as a Sub-adviser, SGA is entitled to receive a fee from the Large Cap Growth Fund.

 

B-123


Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Robert L. Rohn 10 $11.62 billion 33 $8.85 billion 55 $3.73 billion
Hrishikesh (HK) Gupta 10 $11.62 billion 33 $8.85 billion 55 $3.73 billion
Kishore Rao 11 $11.68 billion 36 $9.09 billion 57 $3.75 billion

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts

SGA has adopted policies and procedures that address potential conflicts of interest that may arise between a portfolio manager’s management of the Fund and his or her management of other funds and accounts, such as conflicts relating to the allocation of investment opportunities, personal investing activities, portfolio manager compensation and proxy voting of portfolio securities. While there is no guarantee that such policies and procedures will be effective in all cases, SGA believes that all issues relating to potential material conflicts of interest involving the Fund and its other managed accounts have been addressed.

Compensation

SGA’s portfolio manager compensation program consists of a base salary and participation in a company-funded retirement plan. In addition, all of SGA’s portfolio managers are equity owners of SGA, which entitles them to share in the firm’s profits and the long-term growth of the firm. Additionally, SGA’s employees including the portfolio managers and the investment team may participate in SGA’s performance shares program whereby a certain designated portion of SGA’s profits are allocated for distribution. Participation in the performance shares program and the percentage allocations to SGA’s employees is determined by SGA’s Executive Committee and reset annually within certain established guidelines.

Jennison Associates LLC (“Jennison”), 466 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10017, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Large Cap Growth Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Jennison is organized under the laws of Delaware as a single member limited liability company whose sole member is PGIM, Inc., which is a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of PGIM Holding Company LLC, which is a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Prudential Financial, Inc. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Jennison is entitled to receive a fee from the Large Cap Growth Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this

 

B-124


information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
All Accounts
Kathleen A. McCarragher 19 $57.3 billion 9 $12.6 billion 11 $1.6 billion
Blair A. Boyer 19 $57.3 billion 9 $12.7 billion 29 $8.9 billion
Natasha Kuhlkin, CFA 18 $45.8 billion 11 $12.9 billion 28 $2.6 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Kathleen A. McCarragher 1 $11.5 billion 0 $0 0 $0
Blair A. Boyer 1 $11.5 billion 0 $0 0 $0
Natasha Kuhlkin 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts. Jennison manages accounts with asset-based fees alongside accounts with performance-based fees. This side-by-side management can create an incentive for Jennison and its investment professionals to favor one account over another. Specifically, Jennison has the incentive to favor accounts for which it receives performance fees, and possibly take greater investment risks in those accounts, in order to bolster performance and increase its fees.

Other types of side-by-side management of multiple accounts can also create incentives for Jennison to favor one account over another. Examples are detailed below, followed by a discussion of how Jennison addresses these conflicts.

 

   

Long only accounts/long-short accounts: Jennison manages accounts in strategies that hold only long securities positions as well as accounts in strategies that are permitted to sell securities short. As a result, Jennison may hold a long position in a security in some client accounts while selling the same security short in other client accounts. For example, Jennison permits quantitatively hedged strategies to short securities that are held long in other strategies. Jennison also permits securities that are held long by one fundamental portfolio manager to be held short by another fundamental portfolio manager. Additionally, Jennison permits securities that are held long in quantitatively derived strategies to be shorted by other strategies. The strategies that sell a security short held long by another strategy could lower the price for the security held long. Similarly, if a strategy is purchasing a security that is held short in other strategies, the strategies purchasing the security could increase the price of the security held short. By the same token, sales in a long only account can increase the value of a short position while shorting could create an opportunity to purchase a long position at a lower price. As a result, Jennison has conflicts of interest in determining the timing and direction of investments.

 

   

Multiple strategies: Jennison may buy or sell, or may direct or recommend that one client buy or sell, securities of the same kind or class that are purchased or sold for another client, at prices that may be different. Jennison may also, at any time, execute trades of securities of the same kind or

 

B-125


 

class in one direction for an account and in the opposite direction for another account, due to differences in investment strategy or client direction. Different strategies effecting trading in the same securities or types of securities may appear as inconsistencies in Jennison’s management of multiple accounts side-by-side.

 

   

Investments at different levels of an issuer’s capital structure: To the extent different clients invest across multiple strategies or asset classes, Jennison may invest client assets in the same issuer, but at different levels in the capital structure. Interests in these positions could be inconsistent or in potential or actual conflict with each other.

 

   

Affiliated accounts/unaffiliated accounts and seeded/nonseeded accounts and accounts receiving asset allocation assets from affiliated investment advisers: Jennison manages accounts for its affiliates and accounts in which it has an interest alongside unaffiliated accounts. Jennison could have an incentive to favor its affiliated accounts over unaffiliated accounts. Additionally, at times Jennison’s affiliates provide initial funding or otherwise invest in vehicles managed by Jennison. When an affiliate provides “seed capital” or other capital for a fund or account, it may do so with the intention of redeeming all or part of its interest at a particular future point in time or when it deems that sufficient additional capital has been invested in that fund or account. Jennison typically requests seed capital to start a track record for a new strategy or product. Managing “seeded” accounts alongside “non-seeded” accounts can create an incentive to favor the “seeded” accounts to establish a track record for a new strategy or product. Additionally, Jennison’s affiliated investment advisers could allocate their asset allocation clients’ assets to Jennison. Jennison could have an incentive to favor accounts used by its affiliate for their asset allocation clients to receive more assets from the affiliate.

 

   

Non-discretionary accounts or models: Jennison provides non-discretionary model portfolios to some clients and manages other portfolios on a discretionary basis. Recommendations for some non-discretionary models that are derived from discretionary portfolios are communicated after the discretionary portfolio has traded. The non-discretionary clients could be disadvantaged if Jennison delivers the model investment portfolio to them after Jennison initiates trading for the discretionary clients. Discretionary clients could be disadvantaged if the non-discretionary clients receive their model investment portfolio and start trading before Jennison has started trading for the discretionary clients.

 

   

Higher fee paying accounts or products or strategies: Jennison receives more revenues from (1) larger accounts or client relationships than smaller accounts or client relationships and from (2) managing discretionary accounts than advising non-discretionary models and from (3) non-wrap fee accounts than from wrap fee accounts and from (4) charging higher fees for some strategies than others. The differences in revenue that Jennison receives could create an incentive for Jennison to favor the higher fee paying or higher revenue generating account or product or strategy over another.

 

   

Personal interests: The performance of one or more accounts managed by Jennison’s investment professionals is taken into consideration in determining their compensation. Jennison also manages accounts that are investment options in its employee benefit plans such as its defined contribution plans or deferred compensation arrangements and where its employees may have personally invested alongside other accounts where there is no personal interest. These factors could create an incentive for Jennison to favor the accounts where it has a personal interest over accounts where Jennison does not have a personal interest.

How Jennison Addresses These Conflicts of Interest

The conflicts of interest described above could create incentives for Jennison to favor one or more accounts or types of accounts over others in the allocation of investment opportunities, aggregation and timing of

 

B-126


investments. Portfolios in a particular strategy with similar objectives are managed similarly to the extent possible. Accordingly, portfolio holdings and industry and sector exposure tend to be similar across a group of accounts in a strategy that have similar objectives, which tends to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest among accounts within a product strategy. While these accounts have many similarities, the investment performance of each account will be different primarily due to differences in guidelines, individual portfolio manager’s decisions, timing of investments, fees, expenses and cash flows.

Additionally, Jennison has developed policies and procedures that seek to address, mitigate and assess these conflicts of interest.

 

   

Jennison has adopted trade aggregation and allocation procedures that seek to treat all clients (including affiliated accounts) fairly. These policies and procedures address the allocation of limited investment opportunities, such as initial public offerings (IPOs) and new issues, the allocation of transactions across multiple accounts.

   

Jennison has policies that limit the ability to short securities in portfolios that primarily rely on its fundamental research and investment processes (fundamental portfolios) if the security is held long in other fundamental portfolios by the same portfolio manager.

   

Jennison has adopted procedures to review allocations or performance dispersion between accounts with performance fees and non-performance fee based accounts and to review overlapping long and short positions among long accounts and long-short accounts.

   

Jennison has adopted a code of ethics and policies relating to personal trading.

   

Jennison has adopted a conflicts of interest policy and procedures.

   

Jennison provides disclosure of these conflicts as described in its Form ADV brochure.

Compensation Jennison seeks to maintain a highly competitive compensation program designed to attract and retain outstanding investment professionals, which include portfolio managers and research analysts, and to align the interests of its investment professionals with those of its clients and overall firm results. Jennison recognizes individuals for their achievements and contributions and continues to promote those who exemplify the same values and level of commitment that are hallmarks of the organization.

Jennison sponsors a profit sharing retirement plan for all eligible employees. The contribution to the profit sharing retirement plan for portfolio managers is based on a percentage of the portfolio manager’s total compensation, subject to a maximum determined by applicable law. In addition to eligibility to participate in retirement and welfare plans, senior investment professionals, including portfolio managers and senior research analysts, are eligible to participate in a voluntary deferred compensation program where all or a portion of the cash bonus can be deferred. Participants in the deferred compensation plan are permitted to allocate the deferred amounts among various options that track the gross-of-fee pre-tax performance of accounts or composites of accounts managed by Jennison.

Investment professionals are compensated with a combination of base salary and cash bonus. Overall firm profitability determines the size of the investment professional compensation pool. In general, the discretionary cash bonus represents the majority of an investment professional’s compensation.

Investment professionals’ total compensation is determined through a process that evaluates numerous qualitative and quantitative factors. Not all factors are applicable to every investment professional, and there is no particular weighting or formula for considering the factors.

The factors reviewed for the portfolio managers are listed below.

The quantitative factors reviewed for the portfolio managers may include:

 

   

One-, three-, five-year and longer term pre-tax investment performance for groupings of accounts managed in the same strategy (composite) relative to market conditions, pre-determined passive indices and industry peer group data for the product strategy (e.g., large cap growth, large cap

 

B-127


 

value). Some portfolio managers may manage or contribute ideas to more than one product strategy, and the performance of the other product strategies is also considered in determining the portfolio manager’s overall compensation.

   

The investment professional’s contribution to client portfolio’s pre-tax one-, three-, five-year and longer-term performance from the investment professional’s recommended stocks relative to market conditions, the strategy’s passive benchmarks, and the investment professional’s respective coverage universes.

The qualitative factors reviewed for the portfolio managers may include:

 

   

The quality of the portfolio manager’s investment ideas and consistency of the portfolio manager’s judgment;

   

Qualitative factors such as teamwork and responsiveness;

   

Individual factors such as years of experience and responsibilities specific to the individual’s role such as being a team leader or supervisor are also factored into the determination of an investment professional’s total compensation; and

   

Historical and long-term business potential of the product strategies.

 

Large Cap Value Fund

Artisan Partners Limited Partnership (“Artisan Partners”), 875 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Large Cap Value Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Artisan Partners is a Delaware limited partnership, founded in March 2009, and succeeded to the investment management business of Artisan Partners Holdings LP during 2009. Artisan Partners Holdings LP was founded in December 1994 and began providing investment management services in March 1995. Artisan Partners is managed by its general partner, Artisan Investments GP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company wholly-owned by Artisan Partners Holdings LP. Artisan Partners Holdings LP is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware whose sole general partner is Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. (“APAM”), a publicly traded Delaware corporation. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Artisan Partners is entitled to receive a fee from the Large Cap Value Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts

Portfolio

Manager(s)

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

Thomas A. Reynolds IV 4 $2.3 billion 2 $4.4 million 4 $843.3 million
Daniel L. Kane 4 $2.3 billion 2 $4.4 million 4 $843.3 million
Craig Inman 4 $2.3 billion 2 $4.4 million 4 $843.3 million
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Thomas A. Reynolds IV 0 $0 0 $0 1 $690.2 million
Daniel L. Kane 0 $0 0 $0 1 $690.2 million
Craig Inman 0 $0 0 $0 1 $690.2 million

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

 

B-128


Material Conflicts. There are a number of ways in which the interests of Artisan Partners’ portfolio managers and its other personnel might conflict with the interests of the Large Cap Value Fund (the “Fund) and/or the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund (each, a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”) and their shareholders, including:

Sharing of Personnel, Services, Research and Advice among Clients. Because all client accounts within each of Artisan Partners’ strategies including the Funds’ accounts, are managed similarly, substantially all of the research and portfolio management activities conducted by the investment teams with respect to a given strategy benefit all clients within the strategy. Artisan Partners’ administrative and operational personnel divide their time among services to the Funds and other client accounts.

Restrictions on Activities. Artisan Partners generally does not tailor its investment management services to the individual needs of clients, but rather invests all of the accounts in a particular strategy in a similar manner. To prevent the potentially negative impact that the restrictions of one client account or multiple client accounts may have on the manner in which Artisan Partners invests on behalf of all of its client accounts, Artisan Partners generally does not accept accounts subject to restrictions that Artisan Partners believes would cause it to deviate from its stated investment strategy or adversely affect its ability to manage client accounts. However, under certain circumstances, Artisan Partners does accept accounts subject to certain limitations on specific types of investments or transactions (for example, derivatives or short selling) or certain markets (for example, India), which can result in such accounts having different exposures and/or having a different risk profile compared to other accounts in the strategy, including the Funds.

Investments in Issuers with Business Relationships with Artisan Partners. From time to time, clients in a particular investment strategy, including the Funds, will invest in a security issued by a company, or an affiliate of a company, that is also a client of or has another business relationship with Artisan Partners or its affiliates. Artisan Partners has written policies designed to prevent the misuse of material non-public information. The operation of those policies and of applicable securities laws may prevent the execution of an otherwise desirable purchase or sale in a public securities transaction in a client account if Artisan Partners believes that it is or may be in possession of material non-public information regarding the issuer or security that would be the subject of that transaction.

With prior written approval, Artisan Partners will allow its personnel to serve as a director of a public company. Because of the heightened risk of misuse, or allegations of misuse, of material non-public information, Artisan Partners does not generally permit investment by client accounts or persons covered by Artisan Partners’ Code of Ethics in securities of any issuer of which an Artisan Partners staff member is a director, except that such staff member may purchase and sell that company’s securities for his or her own account or for the account of his or her immediate family members. This prohibition may foreclose investment opportunities that would be available to the Funds if the staff member were not a director.

Side-by-Side Management. Potential conflicts of interest may arise in the management of multiple investment strategies by a single investment team. For instance, an investment team can provide advice to accounts in one investment strategy that differs from advice given to accounts in another investment strategy, including the Funds. If an investment team identifies a limited investment opportunity that is suitable for more than one strategy, a strategy may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity. There also are circumstances when an investment team has an incentive to devote more time or resources to, or to implement different ideas in, one strategy over another. An investment team has a potential conflict of interest when it manages accounts that are charged a performance-based fee (including private investment funds) and accounts that are charged an asset-based fee because the fees earned from accounts with performance-based fees have the potential to exceed the fees earned from other accounts. An investment team may also execute transactions for one strategy that may adversely impact the value of securities held by a different strategy or team. For example, an investment team may engage in short sales of securities of an issuer in which a fund it manages also invests. In such a case, the investment team could

 

B-129


harm the performance of the fund for the benefit of the account engaging in short sales if the short sales cause the market value of the securities to fall. Artisan Partners maintains policies and procedures and internal review processes designed to mitigate potential conflicts of interest arising from side-by-side investment management. Artisan Partners’ compliance and trade operations teams periodically perform side-by-side reviews of accounts with the highest level of risk as determined by Artisan Partners to help ensure all clients are being treated fairly and that the policies and procedures are being followed. Fee arrangements are not considered when allocating trades among clients.

Trade Aggregation and Allocation. Artisan Partners can, to the extent permitted by law, aggregate trades and allocate investment opportunities among clients, including the Funds. Artisan Partners seeks to treat all of its similarly situated clients fairly when allocating investment opportunities among clients. Artisan Partners does not consider its own interests when allocating trades, which includes, for example, the fees of a client or whether the client is a proprietary account. Artisan Partners has compliance policies and procedures intended to address conflicts of interest relating to the allocation of investment opportunities, which are reviewed regularly by Artisan Partners and modified from time to time. Allocations of aggregated trades, particularly trade orders that were only partially completed due to limited availability (for example, initial public offerings or private placements), and allocation of investment opportunities generally, particularly opportunities that have a required minimum investment, could raise a potential conflict of interest. The potential conflicts among clients in the same strategy are mitigated because Artisan Partners’ investment teams generally try to keep all client portfolios in the same strategy invested in the same securities (excluding private investments) with approximately the same weightings (subject to certain exceptions and limitations). Investment opportunities will be allocated differently among clients in a strategy under Artisan Partners’ trading procedures due to, for example, the particular characteristics of a client, such as size of the client, cash position, liquidity needs and timing, tax status, risk tolerance and investment restrictions, or with respect to private investments, the client’s willingness and ability to invest in private investments, or for other reasons in Artisan Partners’ reasonable discretion.

Additionally, private investments and certain other investment opportunities will not be allocated pro-rata among clients in different strategies due to, among other reasons, difference in the strategic focus or objective of each strategy, including the intended concentration, exposure to different investment factors, themes or sectors, risk tolerance and desired weighting of investments. Additional factors that Artisan Partners may consider in allocating these investment opportunities between clients in different strategies, or even within the same strategy, include, without limitation: the inability to divide the investment among multiple clients; Artisan Partners’ perception of the liquidity of each client at the time of the investment and on a going-forward basis; relative exposure to market trends; the remaining term or time remaining in the investment period of each such client; the terms, structure and availability of financing in respect of an investment; the representations and diligence required for each client; the small size of an opportunity or the structure of an investment; the perceived relative value of the investment opportunity relative to other investment opportunities available to each client; the geographic focus of the investment programs of each client; the location of the investment opportunity; the credit quality and/or expected yield of the investment; and the investment programs and portfolio positions of each client for which participation is appropriate. To the extent an opportunity cannot, or in Artisan Partners’ discretion should not, be allocated among multiple clients, such opportunities may be allocated among the different clients on a basis that Artisan Partners considers fair and equitable over time.

In addition, there are instances where a particular security is held by, or appropriate for, more than one client (“cross holdings”) managed by an investment team or different investment teams due to the overlap of their investment universes; however, investment decisions for each strategy and client are generally made by the relevant investment team independently of investment decisions for another strategy or client, such that investment opportunities likely will be allocated differently among clients across such applicable investment strategies. An investment strategy or client with a higher risk tolerance, for example, may substantially outperform or underperform an investment strategy or client with a lower risk tolerance even when managed by the same investment team in a similar strategy.

 

B-130


As a result of the allocation of investment opportunities (and the investment focus of certain clients), the investments made for a Fund and other clients managed by the same investment team may be significantly different, and, consequently, the respective performances of such clients are expected to differ even when managed in the same strategy.

“Same way” transactions (that is, all buys or all sells) in a security held by more than one client in a strategy are generally aggregated across all participating clients in the strategy and same way transactions may be aggregated across clients in different strategies when Artisan Partners considers doing so appropriate and practicable under the circumstances (for example, Artisan Partners has established certain information barriers and policies between certain of its investment teams that would make trade aggregation impracticable). The portfolio manager of one strategy may impose a price limit or some other differing instruction and so may decide not to participate in an aggregated order. In those cases, a trader works both trades in the market at the same time, subject to the requirements of Artisan Partners’ trading procedures. When orders for a trade in a security are opposite to one another (that is, one client is buying a security, while another is selling the security) and the trader receives a buy order while a sell order is pending (or vice versa), the traders will seek to mitigate the risk of inadvertent cross trades by (i) utilizing different brokers or venues, or (ii) utilizing brokers or venues that maintain crossing prevention controls.

Artisan Partners may sell a security short on behalf of one client even if the same security, or another security of the same issuer, is held long by another client. Similarly, Artisan Partners is permitted to purchase a security long on behalf of one client even if the same security, or another security of the same issuer, is, or has been, sold short by another client. Artisan Partners could be viewed as having a potential conflict of interest if it sells short certain securities in a client while holding the same securities long in other clients. Conversely, Artisan Partners could be viewed as harming the performance of a client that holds a long position in the same security or other similar securities (e.g. securities in the same sector as the security sold short) for the benefit of its clients who are selling the security short if the short-selling transactions cause the market value of the security or similar securities to decline. Artisan Partners has in place policies and procedures that it believes are reasonably designed to identify and resolve actual and potential conflicts of interest related to short selling securities.

Certain clients have restrictions prohibiting the execution of transactions through one or more designated broker-dealers or they may maintain other restrictions or account limitations (e.g., instrument restrictions) that impact Artisan Partners’ ability to aggregate a given trade. As a result, Artisan Partners might be required to separate a client’s transaction from the aggregated transactions for other clients and send the client’s transaction for execution to a different broker-dealer or at a different point in time. A transaction being executed separately as a result of the client’s restriction is typically placed in the market after the aggregated transaction for all other clients is placed in the market. In addition, substitute transactions may be placed in a different instrument before or after the aggregated transaction (e.g., physical shares rather than options) and/or may not be placed at all. As a result, the trade or substitute trade for the restricted client is likely to be executed at a different point in time as compared to the aggregated transaction, which is likely to result in the restricted client receiving different returns than other clients.

Waivers to Artisan Partners’ allocation procedures may be made with approval in advance by one of certain designated members of Artisan Partners’ management who are not part of the portfolio management process.

Model Delivery. Artisan Partners provides non-discretionary model portfolios to certain institutional clients and sponsors of managed account programs. Artisan Partners provides the sponsor with a model portfolio that represents the securities Artisan Partners recommends for a particular strategy and the sponsor uses the model portfolio to assist in developing one or more portfolios for itself or its clients (the model delivery programs). In a model delivery program, the frequency and timing of the model portfolio delivery is agreed upon with each sponsor and the model portfolio is typically provided on a delayed basis after Artisan

 

B-131


Partners trades for its discretionary clients. Artisan Partners may also sequence or rotate the delivery of the model portfolio when it is being delivered to multiple sponsors. As a result, the sponsors of these programs typically receive different prices for their clients given, for example, price movements caused by market activity (including trades placed by Artisan Partners and other sponsors) and that the trades are not aggregated with Artisan Partners’ trades.

Fees. Like the fees Artisan Partners receives from the Funds, the fees Artisan Partners receives as compensation from other client accounts are typically calculated as a percentage of the client’s assets under management. Artisan Partners or its affiliates receive performance-based allocations or fees from the private funds it sponsors and expects to receive performance-based fees from accounts in its other strategies. In addition, Artisan Partners will, under certain circumstances, negotiate performance-based fee arrangements with other accounts. Artisan Partners had fourteen accounts with performance-based fees as of June 30, 2023. None of those separate accounts was in Artisan Partners’ value equity strategy or U.S. mid-cap growth strategy. Although Artisan Partners may have an incentive to manage the assets of accounts with performance–based fees differently from its other accounts, Artisan Partners maintains policies and procedures and internal review processes designed to mitigate such conflicts.

Investing in Different Parts of an Issuer’s Capital Structure. Conflicts potentially limiting a Fund’s investment opportunities may also arise when a Fund and other Artisan Partners’ clients invest in different parts of an issuer’s capital structure, such as when a Fund owns senior debt obligations of an issuer and other clients own junior tranches or equity securities of the same issuer. In such circumstances, decisions over whether to trigger an event of default, over the terms of any workout, or how to exit an investment may result in conflicts of interest. In order to minimize such conflicts, a portfolio manager may avoid certain investment opportunities and negotiations with issuers that would potentially give rise to conflicts with other Artisan Partners’ clients or Artisan Partners may enact internal procedures designed to minimize such conflicts, which could have the effect of limiting a Fund’s investment opportunities. Additionally, if Artisan Partners acquires material non-public confidential information in connection with its business activities for other clients, a portfolio manager may be restricted from purchasing securities or selling securities for a Fund. When making investment decisions where a conflict of interest may arise, Artisan Partners will endeavor to act in a fair and equitable manner as between a Fund and other clients; however, in certain instances the resolution of the conflict may result in Artisan Partners acting on behalf of another client in a manner that may not be in the best interest, or may be opposed to the best interest, of the Funds.

Confidential Information Access. From time to time, employees of Artisan Partners may receive material non-public information (referred to herein as “Confidential Information”). Employees may obtain Confidential Information, voluntarily or involuntarily, through Artisan Partners’ management activities or the employee’s outside activities. Confidential Information may be received under varying circumstances, including, but not limited to, upon execution of a non-disclosure agreement with an issuer, as a result of serving on a creditors’ committee or through conversations with a company’s management team. Under applicable law, Artisan Partners’ employees are generally prohibited from disclosing or using Confidential Information in effecting purchases and sales in public securities transactions for their personal benefit or for the benefit of any other person (including clients). Accordingly, should an employee receive Confidential Information, the employee is generally prohibited from communicating that information or using that information in public securities transactions, which could limit the ability to buy or sell certain investments even when the limitation is detrimental to Artisan Partners, the employee or the client, including the Fund.

Artisan Partners may seek to avoid the receipt of Confidential Information when it determines that the receipt of Confidential Information would restrict the Funds or other clients of Artisan Partners from trading in securities they hold or in which they may invest. In circumstances when Artisan Partners declines to receive Confidential Information from an issuer, an account, such as the Funds, may be disadvantaged in comparison to other investors, including with respect to evaluating the issuer and the price the account would pay or receive when it buys or sells those investments. Further, in situations when the account is

 

B-132


asked, for example, to grant consents, waivers or amendments with respect to such investments, Artisan Partners’ ability to assess such consents, waivers and amendments may be impacted by its lack of access to Confidential Information.

Artisan Partners has adopted policies that establish an information barrier between the Credit Team and its other investment teams to minimize the likelihood that Confidential Information received by the Credit Team will be shared with another team. In addition, Artisan Partners also creates information barriers around other persons having access to Confidential Information (“walled-off personnel”) to prevent access to Confidential Information, and therefore to limit the restrictions on others at Artisan Partners.

From time to time, Artisan Partners uses paid expert networks. Artisan Partners has adopted specific procedures to prevent and address the inadvertent receipt of Confidential Information from the expert networks.

Portfolio Transactions and Soft Dollars. As an investment adviser, Artisan Partners has an obligation to seek best execution for clients – that is, execution of trades in a manner intended, considering the circumstances, to secure that combination of net price and execution that will maximize the value of Artisan Partners’ investment decisions for the benefit of its clients. Artisan Partners uses client commissions to pay for brokerage and research services (often referred to as “soft dollars”) if Artisan Partners determines that such items meet the criteria outlined in its commission management policy and do not impair its duty to seek best execution. Artisan Partners does not consider, in selecting broker-dealers to be used in effecting securities transactions for a Fund, whether Artisan Partners or its affiliates received client referrals from the broker-dealer. Artisan Partners has potential conflicts of interest arising from its execution of portfolio transactions and use of soft dollars. Artisan Partners has adopted procedures with respect to soft dollars, which are included in Artisan Partners’ compliance program.

Proprietary and Personal Investments and Code of Ethics. Artisan Partners’ proprietary accounts also present potential conflicts of interest with Artisan Partners’ clients, including the Funds. Artisan Partners from time to time uses a proprietary account to evaluate the viability of an investment strategy or bridge what would otherwise be a gap in a performance track record. Proprietary accounts are, in general, treated like client accounts for purposes of allocation of investment opportunities. To the extent there is overlap between the investments of one or more proprietary accounts and the accounts of the firm’s clients managed in the same strategy, all portfolio transactions in the strategy are aggregated, where practicable, and allocated in accordance with Artisan Partners’ written allocation procedures among participating accounts. Artisan Partners believes that aggregation and allocation of trades as described in its written procedures mitigates conflicts of interest arising from proprietary investments in the same securities held by clients and the market impact that could result from such proprietary trading activity if conducted on a stand-alone basis.

Personal transactions are subject to Artisan Partners’ Code of Ethics, which generally provides that personnel of Artisan Partners may not take personal advantage of any information that they may have concerning Artisan Partners’ current investment program. The Code of Ethics requires pre-approval of most personal securities transactions believed to present potentially meaningful risk of conflict of interest (including acquisitions of securities as part of an initial public offering or private placement). The Code of Ethics provides that Artisan Partners’ compliance team will review such personal securities transactions and determine, among other things, whether the acquisition is consistent with applicable regulatory requirements and the purposes of the Code of Ethics and its underlying policies.

In addition, the Code of Ethics requires reports of personal securities transactions (which generally are in the form of duplicate confirmations and brokerage account statements) to be filed with Artisan Partners’ compliance department at least quarterly. Those reports are reviewed for conflicts, or potential conflicts, with client transactions.

 

B-133


The Code of Ethics also contains policies designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information and to protect the confidential information of Artisan Partners’ clients.

Artisan Partners, its affiliates and its employees can give advice or take action for their own accounts that differ from, conflict with or is adverse to advice given or action taken for a Fund. These activities may adversely affect the prices and availability of other investments held by, or potentially considered for purchase by, a Fund.

Artisan Partners, its affiliates and their employees are permitted to, and frequently do, invest in Artisan Partners Funds and other pooled investment vehicles sponsored by Artisan Partners often at reduced or no fees when allowed by applicable law. Artisan Partners also provides certain cash-based awards to its investment professionals (referred to by Artisan Partners as franchise capital awards) that, prior to vesting, Artisan Partners will generally invest such amounts in one or more of the investment strategies managed by the investment professional (including by investing in the Funds). Artisan Partners believes that investments made in these pooled investment vehicles and franchise capital awards help align Artisan Partners’ and its employees’ financial interests with those of Artisan Partners’ clients. These pooled investment vehicles, even if they are proprietary accounts of Artisan Partners, are treated like a client account for purposes of allocation of investment opportunities.

Proxy Voting. Artisan Partners or its affiliate may have a relationship with an issuer that could pose a conflict of interest when voting the shares of that issuer on a Fund’s behalf. As described in its proxy voting policy, Artisan Partners will be deemed to have a potential conflict voting proxies of an issuer if: (i) Artisan Partners or its affiliate manages assets for the issuer or an affiliate of the issuer and also recommends that a Fund invest in such issuer’s securities; (ii) a director, trustee or officer of the issuer or an affiliate of the issuer is a director of Artisan Partners Funds, Inc. or an employee of Artisan Partners or its affiliate; (iii) Artisan Partners or its affiliate is actively soliciting that issuer or an affiliate of the issuer as a client and the Artisan Partners employees who recommend, review or authorize a vote have actual knowledge of such active solicitation; (iv) a director or executive officer of the issuer has a personal relationship with an Artisan Partners employee who recommends, reviews or authorizes the vote; or (v) another relationship or interest of Artisan Partners or an affiliate, or an employee of Artisan Partners or an affiliate, exists that may be affected by the outcome of the proxy vote and that is deemed to represent an actual or potential conflict for the purposes of the proxy voting policy. Artisan Partners’ proxy voting policy contains procedures that must be followed in the event such relationships are identified in order to minimize the conflicts of interest that otherwise may result in voting proxies for Artisan Partners’ clients, including the Funds.

Compensation. Artisan Partners’ portfolio managers are compensated through a fixed base salary or similar payment and a subjectively determined incentive bonus or payment that is a portion of a bonus pool, the aggregate amount of which is tied to the firm’s fee revenues generated by all accounts included within the manager’s investment strategies, including the Large Cap Value Fund and the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund. Artisan Partners also provides certain cash-based awards to its investment professionals (referred to by Artisan Partners as franchise capital awards) that, prior to vesting, Artisan Partners will generally invest such award amounts in one or more of the investment strategies managed by the investment professional (including by investing in Artisan Partners Funds. Portfolio managers may also receive a portion of the performance fee revenues or allocations from private funds sponsored by Artisan Partners. Performance fee accounts (including private funds) are managed by certain portfolio managers of the Funds using strategies not offered in any Fund. Allocations to and weightings in these accounts will differ from allocations to and weightings in the Funds managed by these portfolio managers because they use different strategies. An investment strategy with a higher risk tolerance may substantially outperform or underperform an investment strategy with a lower risk tolerance even when managed by the same portfolio managers in a similar strategy. Artisan Partners’ portfolio managers also participate in group life, health, medical reimbursement and retirement plans that are generally available to all of Artisan Partners’ salaried associates.

 

B-134


Barrow, Hanley, Mewhinney & Strauss, LLC (“Barrow Hanley”), 2200 Ross Avenue, Floor 31, Dallas, Texas 75201, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Large Cap Value Fund pursuant to a Sub-Advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Perpetual Limited (“Perpetual”) (ASX:PPT), an Australian financial services company, holds an interest of approximately 75% in Barrow Hanley. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Barrow Hanley is entitled to receive a fee from the Large Cap Value Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

 

Registered Investment
Companies (excluding

the Fund)

Other Pooled

Investment Vehicles

Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the
Accounts

Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the
Accounts

All Accounts
Mark Giambrone 7 $2,440.3 million 1 $184.7 million 28 $5,207 million
Terry Pelzel, CFA 2 $109 million 0 $0 5 $1,080.1 million
Michael Nayfa, CFA 2 $109 million 0 $0 4 $854.2 million

Mr. Giambrone is a member of various other equity value teams managing 41 other accounts and approximately $7.2 billion.

Mr. Pelzel is a member of various other equity value teams managing 17 other accounts and approximately $3.3 billion.

Mr. Nayfa is a member of various other equity value teams managing 15 other accounts and approximately $2.9 billion.

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts. Actual or potential conflicts of interest may arise when a portfolio manager has management responsibilities for more than one account including mutual fund or private commingled fund accounts. Barrow Hanley manages potential conflicts between funds and/or types of accounts through trade allocation policies and procedures, internal review processes, and oversight by the chief compliance officer, directors and independent third parties, to ensure that no client/account, regardless of type or fee structure, is intentionally favored or disfavored at the expense of another. Barrow Hanley’s investment management and trading policies are designed to address potential conflicts in situations where two or more funds or accounts participate in investment decisions involving the same securities or issuer.

Compensation. Compensation of our investment professionals is tied to their overall contribution to the success of Barrow Hanley. In addition to base salary, all portfolio managers and analysts are eligible to participate in a bonus pool. The amount of bonus compensation is based on quantitative and qualitative factors and may be substantially higher than an investment professional’s base compensation. Portfolio managers and analysts are evaluated on the value each adds to the overall investment process and performance, and their contributions in other areas, such as meetings with clients and consultants. Bonus compensation for analysts is directly tied to their investment recommendations, which are evaluated every six months versus the appropriate industry group/sector benchmark based on trailing one-year and three-year relative performance.

 

B-135


The final component of compensation of key employees, including portfolio managers and analysts, is their interest in our equity plan. Each quarter, equity owners receive a share of the firm’s profits in the form of a dividend, which is related to the performance of the entire firm.

LSV Asset Management (“LSV”), 155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4600, Chicago, IL 60606, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Large Cap Value Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. LSV is a Delaware general partnership between LSV’s management team and current and retired employee and non-active partners, owners of a majority position and SEI Funds, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of SEI Investments Company and the owner of a minority position. Both SEI Funds, Inc. and SEI Investments Company are located at 1 Freedom Valley Drive, Oaks, Pennsylvania 19456. For its services as a Sub-adviser, LSV is entitled to receive a fee from the Large Cap Value Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers and Ownership of Fund Shares. The table below identifies, for the portfolio managers, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts

Portfolio

Managers

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
All Accounts
Josef Lakonishok 33 $13.8 billion 64 $22.5 billion 316 $55.4 billion
Menno Vermeulen, CFA 33 $13.8 billion 64 $22.5 billion 316 $55.4 billion
Puneet Mansharamani, CFA 33 $13.8 billion 64 $22.5 billion 316 $55.4 billion
Greg Sleight 33 $13.8 billion 64 $22.5 billion 316 $55.4 billion
Guy Lakonishok, CFA 33 $13.8 billion 64 $22.5 billion 316 $55.4 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Josef Lakonishok 0 0 6* $1.8 billion 69 $13.2 billion
Menno Vermeulen, CFA 0 0 6* $1.8 billion 69 $13.2 billion
Puneet Mansharamani, CFA 0 0 6* $1.8 billion 69 $13.2 billion
Greg Sleight 0 0 6* $1.8 billion 69 $13.2 billion
Guy Lakonishok, CFA 0 0 6* $1.8 billion 69 $13.2 billion
*

These accounts are limited partnerships to which LSV acts as General Partner and are an aggregation of underlying investors who have negotiated a performance fee.

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

 

B-136


Material Conflicts. The same team of portfolio managers is responsible for the day-to-day management of all of LSV’s accounts. LSV uses a proprietary quantitative investment model to manage all of LSV’s accounts. LSV relies extensively on its quantitative investment model regarding the advisability of investing in a particular company. Any investment decisions are generally made based on whether a buy or sell signal is received from the proprietary quantitative investment model. Accounts or funds with performance-based fees and accounts or funds in which employees may be invested could create an incentive to favor those accounts or funds over other accounts or funds in the allocation of investment opportunities. In addition, it is possible that a short position may be taken on a security that is held long in another portfolio. LSV seeks to make allocations of investment opportunities in a manner that it considers fair, reasonable and equitable without favoring or disfavoring, consistently or consciously, any particular client. LSV has procedures designed to ensure that all clients are treated fairly and to prevent these potential conflicts from influencing the allocation of investment opportunities among clients. On a quarterly basis, the Forensic Testing Committee, consisting of the CCO, Compliance Officer, Chief Operating Officer and Compliance Analyst, reviews, among other things, allocations of investment opportunities among clients and the allocation of partially-filled block trades, including allocations to accounts or funds with performance-based fees or which employees may be invested, to confirm consistency with LSV’s policies and procedures.

Compensation. Dr. Lakonishok and Messrs. Vermeulen, Mansharamani, Sleight and G. Lakonishok receive a fixed base salary and bonus which is a function of overall firm profitability and individual performance. Individual performance is subjective and may be based on a number of factors, such as the individual’s leadership and contribution to the strategic planning and development of the investment group. In addition, each of the portfolio managers is a partner of LSV and thereby receives a portion of the overall profit of the firm as part of his ownership interests.

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (“T. Rowe Price”), 100 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Large Cap Value Fund pursuant to a Sub-Advisory Agreement with the Adviser. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., a publicly-traded (NASDAQ: TROW) financial services holding company, owns 100% of the stock of T. Rowe Price and all of its subsidiaries. For its services as a Sub-adviser, T. Rowe Price is entitled to receive a fee from the Large Cap Value Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager of the Fund, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected below. Information in all tables is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts

Portfolio

Manager(s)

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
John D. Linehan 17 $32.6 billion 32 $19.5 billion 13 $2.3 billion

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio manager did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Conflicts of Interest. Portfolio managers at T. Rowe Price and its affiliates may manage multiple accounts. These accounts may include, among others, mutual funds, exchanged-traded funds, separate accounts

 

B-137


(assets managed on behalf of institutions such as pension funds, colleges and universities, and foundations), offshore funds, and common trust funds. T. Rowe Price also provides non-discretionary advice to institutional investors in the form of delivery of model portfolios. Portfolio managers make investment decisions for each portfolio based on the investment objectives, policies, practices, and other relevant investment considerations that the managers believe are applicable to that portfolio. Consequently, portfolio managers may purchase (or sell) securities for one portfolio and not another portfolio. T. Rowe Price and its affiliates have adopted brokerage and trade allocation policies and procedures that they believe are reasonably designed to address any potential conflicts associated with managing multiple accounts for multiple clients. The portfolio managers’ compensation is determined in the same manner with respect to all portfolios managed by the portfolio manager.

The T. Rowe Price Funds may, from time to time, own shares of Morningstar, Inc. Morningstar is a provider of investment research to individual and institutional investors, and publishes ratings on mutual funds, including the T. Rowe Price Funds. T. Rowe Price acts as subadviser to two mutual funds offered by Morningstar. T. Rowe Price and its affiliates pay Morningstar for a variety of products and services. Morningstar may provide investment consulting and investment management services to clients of T. Rowe Price or its affiliates. The T. Rowe Price Funds may generally not purchase shares of stock issued by T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. However, a T. Rowe Price Index Fund is permitted to make such purchases to the extent T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. is represented in the benchmark index the fund is designed to track. Additional potential conflicts may be inherent in our use of multiple strategies. For example, conflicts will arise in cases where different clients invest in different parts of an issuer’s capital structure, including circumstances in which one or more clients may own private securities or obligations of an issuer and other clients may own or seek to acquire securities of the same issuer. For example, a client may acquire a loan, loan participation or a loan assignment of a particular borrower in which one or more other clients have an equity investment or may invest in senior debt obligations of an issuer for one client and junior debt obligations or equity of the same issuer for another client. Similarly, if an issuer in which a client and one or more other clients directly or indirectly hold different classes of securities (or other assets, instruments or obligations issued by such issuer or underlying investments of such issuer) encounters financial problems, is involved in a merger or acquisition or a going private transaction, decisions over the terms of any workout or transaction will raise conflicts of interests. While it is appropriate for different clients to hold investments in different parts of the same issuer’s capital structure under normal circumstances, the interests of stockholders and debt holders may conflict, as the securities they hold will likely have different voting rights, dividend or repayment priorities or other features that could be in conflict with one another. Clients should be aware that conflicts will not necessarily be resolved in favor of their interests.

In some cases, T. Rowe Price or its affiliates may refrain from taking certain actions or making certain investments on behalf of clients in order to avoid or mitigate certain conflicts of interest or to prevent adverse regulatory actions or other implications for T. Rowe Price or its affiliates, or may sell investments for certain clients, in such case potentially disadvantaging the clients on whose behalf the actions are not taken, investments not made, or investments sold. In other cases, T. Rowe Price or its affiliates may take actions in order to mitigate legal risks to T. Rowe Price or its affiliates, even if disadvantageous to a client.

Conflicts such as those described above may also occur between clients on the one hand, and T. Rowe Price or its affiliates, on the other. These conflicts will not always be resolved in the favor of the client. In addition, conflicts may exist between different clients of T. Rowe Price or its affiliates. T. Rowe Price and one or more of its affiliates may operate autonomously from each other and may take actions that are adverse to other clients managed by an affiliate. In some cases, T. Rowe Price or its affiliates will have limited or no ability to mitigate those actions or address those conflicts, which could adversely affect T. Rowe Price or its affiliates’ clients. In addition, certain regulatory restrictions may prohibit clients of T. Rowe Price or its affiliates from investing in certain companies because of the applicability of certain laws and regulations to T. Rowe Price, its affiliates, or the T. Rowe Price Funds. T. Rowe Price or its affiliates’ willingness to negotiate terms or take actions with respect to an investment for its clients may be directly or

 

B-138


indirectly, constrained or impacted to the extent that an affiliate or the T. Rowe Price Funds and/or their respective directors, partners, managers, members, officers or personnel are also invested therein or otherwise have a connection to the subject investments.

Investment personnel are mindful of potentially conflicting interests of our clients with investments in different parts of an issuer’s capital structure and take appropriate measures to ensure that the interests of all clients are fairly represented.

Compensation. Portfolio manager compensation consists primarily of a base salary, a cash bonus, and an equity incentive that usually comes in the form of restricted stock grants. Compensation is variable and is determined based on the following factors.

Investment performance over 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods is the most important input. The weightings for these time periods are generally balanced and are applied consistently across similar strategies. T. Rowe Price (and T. Rowe Price Hong Kong, T. Rowe Price Singapore, T. Rowe Price Japan, T. Rowe Price International, T. Rowe Price Investment Management, as appropriate) evaluates performance in absolute, relative, and risk-adjusted terms. Relative performance and risk-adjusted performance are typically determined with reference to the broad-based index (e.g., S&P 500 Index) and the Lipper average or index (e.g., Large-Cap Growth Index) set forth in the total returns table in the fund’s prospectus, although other benchmarks may be used as well. Investment results are also measured against comparably managed funds of competitive investment management firms. The selection of comparable funds is approved by the applicable investment steering committee and is the same as the selection presented to the directors of the T. Rowe Price funds in their regular review of fund performance. Performance is primarily measured on a pre-tax basis, although tax efficiency is considered and is especially important for certain T. Rowe Price funds.

Compensation is viewed with a long-term time horizon. The more consistent a portfolio manager’s performance over time, the higher the compensation opportunity. The increase or decrease in a fund’s assets due to the purchase or sale of fund shares is not considered a material factor. In reviewing relative performance for fixed income funds, a fund’s expense ratio is usually taken into account. Contribution to T. Rowe Price’s overall investment process is an important consideration as well. Leveraging ideas and investment insights across applicable investment platforms; working effectively with and mentoring others; and other contributions to our clients, the firm, or our culture are important components of T. Rowe Price’s long-term success and are generally taken into consideration.

All employees of T. Rowe Price, including portfolio managers, participate in a 401(k) plan sponsored by T. Rowe Price Group. In addition, all employees are eligible to purchase T. Rowe Price common stock through an employee stock purchase plan that features a limited corporate matching contribution. Eligibility for and participation in these plans is on the same basis for all employees. Finally, all vice presidents of T. Rowe Price Group, including all portfolio managers, receive supplemental medical/hospital reimbursement benefits and are eligible to participate in a supplemental savings plan sponsored by T. Rowe Price Group.

This compensation structure is used when evaluating the performance of all portfolios (including the T. Rowe Price funds) managed by the portfolio manager.

Wellington Management Company LLP (“Wellington Management”), 280 Congress Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02210, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Large Cap Value Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Wellington Management is a professional investment counseling firm which provides investment services to investment companies, employee benefit plans, endowments, foundations, and other institutions. Wellington Management and its predecessor organizations have provided investment advisory services for over 80 years. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Wellington Management is entitled to receive a fee from the Large Cap Value Fund.

 

B-139


Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)

Other Pooled

Investment Vehicles

Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the
Accounts

Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

All Accounts
Donald Kilbride* 10 $61.28 billion 9 $657.5 million 19 $3.0 billion
Peter C. Fisher 5 $311.9 million 5 $531.7 million 5 $377.6 million
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Donald Kilbride* 2 $53.7 billion 3 $223.6 million 3 $714.6 million
Peter C. Fisher 0 $0 1 $68.4 million 0 $0

* Effective January 1, 2024, Mr. Kilbride will no longer serve as a portfolio manager to the portion of the assets of the Fund managed by Wellington Management.

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts. Individual investment professionals at Wellington Management manage multiple accounts for multiple clients. These accounts may include mutual funds, separate accounts (assets managed on behalf of institutions, such as pension funds, insurance companies, foundations, or separately managed account programs sponsored by financial intermediaries), bank common trust accounts, and hedge funds. Messrs. Kilbride and Fisher, who are primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of an allocated portion of the Large Cap Value Fund, generally manage accounts in several different investment styles. These accounts may have investment objectives, strategies, time horizons, tax considerations and risk profiles that differ from those of their allocated portion of the Large Cap Value Fund. Messrs. Kilbride and Fisher make investment decisions for each account, including their allocated portion of the Large Cap Value Fund, based on the investment objectives, policies, practices, benchmarks, cash flows, tax and other relevant investment considerations applicable to that account. Consequently, Messrs. Kilbride and Fisher may purchase or sell securities, including IPOs, for one account and not another account, and the performance of securities purchased for one account may vary from the performance of securities purchased for other accounts. Alternatively, these accounts may be managed in a similar fashion to their allocated portion of the Large Cap Value Fund and thus the accounts may have similar, and in some cases nearly identical, objectives, strategies and/or holdings to that of their allocated portion of the Large Cap Value Fund.

Messrs. Kilbride and Fisher or other investment professionals at Wellington Management may place transactions on behalf of other accounts that are directly or indirectly contrary to investment decisions made on behalf of their allocated portion of the Large Cap Value Fund, or make investment decisions that are similar to those made for their allocated portion of the Large Cap Value Fund, both of which have the potential to adversely impact their allocated portion of the Large Cap Value Fund depending on market conditions. For example, an investment professional may purchase a security in one account while appropriately selling that same security in another account. Similarly, Messrs. Kilbride and Fisher may

 

B-140


purchase the same security for their allocated portion of the Large Cap Value Fund and one or more other accounts at or about the same time. In those instances, the other accounts will have access to their respective holdings prior to the public disclosure of the Large Cap Value Fund’s holdings. In addition, some of these accounts have fee structures, including performance fees, which are or have the potential to be higher, in some cases significantly higher, than the fees Wellington Management receives for managing its allocated portion of the Large Cap Value Fund. Messrs. Kilbride and Fisher also manage accounts which pay performance allocations to Wellington Management or its affiliates. Because incentive payments paid by Wellington Management to Messrs. Kilbride and Fisher are tied to revenues earned by Wellington Management and, where noted, to the performance achieved by the manager in each account, the incentives associated with any given account may be significantly higher or lower than those associated with other accounts managed by Messrs. Kilbride and Fisher. Finally, Messrs. Kilbride and Fisher may hold shares or investments in the other pooled investment vehicles and/or other accounts identified above.

Wellington Management’s goal is to meet its fiduciary obligation to treat all clients fairly and provide high quality investment services to all of its clients. Wellington Management has adopted and implemented policies and procedures, including brokerage and trade allocation policies and procedures, which it believes address the conflicts associated with managing multiple accounts for multiple clients. In addition, Wellington Management monitors a variety of areas, including compliance with primary account guidelines, the allocation of IPOs, and compliance with the firm’s Code of Ethics, and places additional investment restrictions on investment professionals who manage hedge funds and certain other accounts. Furthermore, senior investment and business personnel at Wellington Management periodically review the performance of Wellington Management’s investment professionals. Although Wellington Management does not track the time an investment professional spends on a single account, Wellington Management does periodically assess whether an investment professional has adequate time and resources to effectively manage the investment professional’s various client mandates.

Compensation. Wellington Management receives a fee based on the assets under management of the Large Cap Value Fund as set forth in the investment sub-advisory agreement among Wellington Management, the Adviser, and the Large Cap Value Fund. Wellington Management pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the advisory fees earned with respect to the Large Cap Value Fund. The following information is as of June 30, 2023.

Wellington Management’s compensation structure is designed to attract and retain high-caliber investment professionals necessary to deliver high quality investment management services to its clients. Wellington Management’s compensation of the Large Cap Value Fund’s managers listed in the prospectus who are primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Large Cap Value Fund (the “Investment Professionals”) includes a base salary and incentive components. The base salary for each Investment Professional who is a partner (a “Partner”) of Wellington Management Group LLP, the ultimate holding company of Wellington Management, is generally a fixed amount that is determined by the managing partners of Wellington Management Group LLP. Each Investment Professional is eligible to receive an incentive payment based on the revenues earned by Wellington Management from the Large Cap Value Fund and generally each other account managed by such Investment Professional. Each Investment Professional’s incentive payment relating to the Large Cap Value Fund is linked to the gross pre-tax performance of the portion of the Large Cap Value Fund compared to the Russell 1000® Index over one, three and five year periods, with an emphasis on five year results. Wellington Management applies similar incentive compensation structures (although the benchmarks or peer groups, time periods and rates may differ) to other accounts managed by the Investment Professionals, including accounts with performance fees.

Portfolio-based incentives across all accounts managed by an investment professional can, and typically do, represent a significant portion of an investment professional’s overall compensation; incentive compensation varies significantly by individual and can vary significantly from year to year. The

 

B-141


Investment Professionals may also be eligible for bonus payments based on their overall contribution to Wellington Management’s business operations. Senior management at Wellington Management may reward individuals as it deems appropriate based on other factors. Each Partner is eligible to participate in a Partner-funded tax qualified retirement plan, the contributions to which are made pursuant to an actuarial formula. Messrs. Kilbride and Fisher are Partners.

 

Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund

Artisan Partners Limited Partnership (“Artisan Partners”), 875 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Artisan Partners is a Delaware limited partnership, founded in March 2009, and succeeded to the investment management business of Artisan Partners Holdings LP during 2009. Artisan Partners Holdings LP was founded in December 1994 and began providing investment management services in March 1995. Artisan Partners is managed by its general partner, Artisan Investments GP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company wholly-owned by Artisan Partners Holdings LP. Artisan Partners Holdings LP is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware whose sole general partner is Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. (“APAM”), a publicly traded Delaware corporation. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Artisan Partners is entitled to receive a fee from the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)

Other Pooled

Investment Vehicles

Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total Assets
in the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Craigh A. Cepukenas 4 $9.7 billion 21 $13.5 billion 74 $13.8 billion
James D. Hamel 4 $9.7 billion 21 $13.5 billion 74 $13.8 billion
Matthew H. Kamm 4 $9.7 billion 21 $13.5 billion 74 $13.8 billion
Jason L. White 4 $9.7 billion 21 $13.5 billion 74 $13.8 billion
Jay C. Warner 4 $9.7 billion 21 $13.5 billion 74 $13.8 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Craigh A. Cepukenas 0 $0 1 $283.2 million 4 $1.4 billion
James D. Hamel 0 $0 1 $283.2 million 4 $1.4 billion
Matthew H. Kamm 0 $0 1 $283.2 million 4 $1.4 billion
Jason L. White 0 $0 1 $283.2 million 4 $1.4 billion
Jay C. Warner 0 $0 1 $283.2 million 4 $1.4 billion

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

 

B-142


There are a number of ways in which the interests of Artisan Partners’ portfolio managers and its other personnel might conflict with the interests of the Large Cap Value Fund (the “Fund) and/or the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund (each, a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”) and their shareholders, including:

Sharing of Personnel, Services, Research and Advice among Clients. Because all client accounts within each of Artisan Partners’ strategies including the Funds’ accounts, are managed similarly, substantially all of the research and portfolio management activities conducted by the investment teams with respect to a given strategy benefit all clients within the strategy. Artisan Partners’ administrative and operational personnel divide their time among services to the Funds and other client accounts.

Restrictions on Activities. Artisan Partners generally does not tailor its investment management services to the individual needs of clients, but rather invests all of the accounts in a particular strategy in a similar manner. To prevent the potentially negative impact that the restrictions of one client account or multiple client accounts may have on the manner in which Artisan Partners invests on behalf of all of its client accounts, Artisan Partners generally does not accept accounts subject to restrictions that Artisan Partners believes would cause it to deviate from its stated investment strategy or adversely affect its ability to manage client accounts. However, under certain circumstances, Artisan Partners does accept accounts subject to certain limitations on specific types of investments or transactions (for example, derivatives or short selling) or certain markets (for example, India), which can result in such accounts having different exposures and/or having a different risk profile compared to other accounts in the strategy, including the Funds.

Investments in Issuers with Business Relationships with Artisan Partners. From time to time, clients in a particular investment strategy, including the Funds, will invest in a security issued by a company, or an affiliate of a company, that is also a client of or has another business relationship with Artisan Partners or its affiliates. Artisan Partners has written policies designed to prevent the misuse of material non-public information. The operation of those policies and of applicable securities laws may prevent the execution of an otherwise desirable purchase or sale in a public securities transaction in a client account if Artisan Partners believes that it is or may be in possession of material non-public information regarding the issuer or security that would be the subject of that transaction.

With prior written approval, Artisan Partners will allow its personnel to serve as a director of a public company. Because of the heightened risk of misuse, or allegations of misuse, of material non-public information, Artisan Partners does not generally permit investment by client accounts or persons covered by Artisan Partners’ Code of Ethics in securities of any issuer of which an Artisan Partners staff member is a director, except that such staff member may purchase and sell that company’s securities for his or her own account or for the account of his or her immediate family members. This prohibition may foreclose investment opportunities that would be available to the Funds if the staff member were not a director.

Side-by-Side Management. Potential conflicts of interest may arise in the management of multiple investment strategies by a single investment team. For instance, an investment team can provide advice to accounts in one investment strategy that differs from advice given to accounts in another investment strategy, including the Funds. If an investment team identifies a limited investment opportunity that is suitable for more than one strategy, a strategy may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity. There also are circumstances when an investment team has an incentive to devote more time or resources to, or to implement different ideas in, one strategy over another. An investment team has a potential conflict of interest when it manages accounts that are charged a performance-based fee (including private investment funds) and accounts that are charged an asset-based fee because the fees earned from accounts with performance-based fees have the potential to exceed the fees earned from other accounts. An investment team may also execute transactions for one strategy that may adversely impact the value of securities held by a different strategy or team. For example, an investment team may engage in short sales of securities of an issuer in which a fund it manages also invests. In such a case, the investment team could harm the performance of the fund for the benefit of the account engaging in short sales if the short sales

 

B-143


cause the market value of the securities to fall. Artisan Partners maintains policies and procedures and internal review processes designed to mitigate potential conflicts of interest arising from side-by-side investment management. Artisan Partners’ compliance and trade operations teams periodically perform side-by-side reviews of accounts with the highest level of risk as determined by Artisan Partners to help ensure all clients are being treated fairly and that the policies and procedures are being followed. Fee arrangements are not considered when allocating trades among clients.

Trade Aggregation and Allocation. Artisan Partners can, to the extent permitted by law, aggregate trades and allocate investment opportunities among clients, including the Funds. Artisan Partners seeks to treat all of its similarly situated clients fairly when allocating investment opportunities among clients. Artisan Partners does not consider its own interests when allocating trades, which includes, for example, the fees of a client or whether the client is a proprietary account. Artisan Partners has compliance policies and procedures intended to address conflicts of interest relating to the allocation of investment opportunities, which are reviewed regularly by Artisan Partners and modified from time to time. Allocations of aggregated trades, particularly trade orders that were only partially completed due to limited availability (for example, initial public offerings or private placements), and allocation of investment opportunities generally, particularly opportunities that have a required minimum investment, could raise a potential conflict of interest. The potential conflicts among clients in the same strategy are mitigated because Artisan Partners’ investment teams generally try to keep all client portfolios in the same strategy invested in the same securities (excluding private investments) with approximately the same weightings (subject to certain exceptions and limitations). Investment opportunities will be allocated differently among clients in a strategy under Artisan Partners’ trading procedures due to, for example, the particular characteristics of a client, such as size of the client, cash position, liquidity needs and timing, tax status, risk tolerance and investment restrictions, or with respect to private investments, the client’s willingness and ability to invest in private investments, or for other reasons in Artisan Partners’ reasonable discretion.

Additionally, private investments and certain other investment opportunities will not be allocated pro-rata among clients in different strategies due to, among other reasons, difference in the strategic focus or objective of each strategy, including the intended concentration, exposure to different investment factors, themes or sectors, risk tolerance and desired weighting of investments. Additional factors that Artisan Partners may consider in allocating these investment opportunities between clients in different strategies, or even within the same strategy, include, without limitation: the inability to divide the investment among multiple clients; Artisan Partners’ perception of the liquidity of each client at the time of the investment and on a going-forward basis; relative exposure to market trends; the remaining term or time remaining in the investment period of each such client; the terms, structure and availability of financing in respect of an investment; the representations and diligence required for each client; the small size of an opportunity or the structure of an investment; the perceived relative value of the investment opportunity relative to other investment opportunities available to each client; the geographic focus of the investment programs of each client; the location of the investment opportunity; the credit quality and/or expected yield of the investment; and the investment programs and portfolio positions of each client for which participation is appropriate. To the extent an opportunity cannot, or in Artisan Partners’ discretion should not, be allocated among multiple clients, such opportunities may be allocated among the different clients on a basis that Artisan Partners considers fair and equitable over time.

In addition, there are instances where a particular security is held by, or appropriate for, more than one client (“cross holdings”) managed by an investment team or different investment teams due to the overlap of their investment universes; however, investment decisions for each strategy and client are generally made by the relevant investment team independently of investment decisions for another strategy or client, such that investment opportunities likely will be allocated differently among clients across such applicable investment strategies. An investment strategy or client with a higher risk tolerance, for example, may substantially outperform or underperform an investment strategy or client with a lower risk tolerance even when managed by the same investment team in a similar strategy.

 

B-144


As a result of the allocation of investment opportunities (and the investment focus of certain clients), the investments made for a Fund and other clients managed by the same investment team may be significantly different, and, consequently, the respective performances of such clients are expected to differ even when managed in the same strategy.

“Same way” transactions (that is, all buys or all sells) in a security held by more than one client in a strategy are generally aggregated across all participating clients in the strategy and same way transactions may be aggregated across clients in different strategies when Artisan Partners considers doing so appropriate and practicable under the circumstances (for example, Artisan Partners has established certain information barriers and policies between certain of its investment teams that would make trade aggregation impracticable). The portfolio manager of one strategy may impose a price limit or some other differing instruction and so may decide not to participate in an aggregated order. In those cases, a trader works both trades in the market at the same time, subject to the requirements of Artisan Partners’ trading procedures. When orders for a trade in a security are opposite to one another (that is, one client is buying a security, while another is selling the security) and the trader receives a buy order while a sell order is pending (or vice versa), the traders will seek to mitigate the risk of inadvertent cross trades by (i) utilizing different brokers or venues, or (ii) utilizing brokers or venues that maintain crossing prevention controls.

Artisan Partners may sell a security short on behalf of one client even if the same security, or another security of the same issuer, is held long by another client. Similarly, Artisan Partners is permitted to purchase a security long on behalf of one client even if the same security, or another security of the same issuer, is, or has been, sold short by another client. Artisan Partners could be viewed as having a potential conflict of interest if it sells short certain securities in a client while holding the same securities long in other clients. Conversely, Artisan Partners could be viewed as harming the performance of a client that holds a long position in the same security or other similar securities (e.g. securities in the same sector as the security sold short) for the benefit of its clients who are selling the security short if the short-selling transactions cause the market value of the security or similar securities to decline. Artisan Partners has in place policies and procedures that it believes are reasonably designed to identify and resolve actual and potential conflicts of interest related to short selling securities.

Certain clients have restrictions prohibiting the execution of transactions through one or more designated broker-dealers or they may maintain other restrictions or account limitations (e.g., instrument restrictions) that impact Artisan Partners’ ability to aggregate a given trade. As a result, Artisan Partners might be required to separate a client’s transaction from the aggregated transactions for other clients and send the client’s transaction for execution to a different broker-dealer or at a different point in time. A transaction being executed separately as a result of the client’s restriction is typically placed in the market after the aggregated transaction for all other clients is placed in the market. In addition, substitute transactions may be placed in a different instrument before or after the aggregated transaction (e.g., physical shares rather than options) and/or may not be placed at all. As a result, the trade or substitute trade for the restricted client is likely to be executed at a different point in time as compared to the aggregated transaction, which is likely to result in the restricted client receiving different returns than other clients.

Waivers to Artisan Partners’ allocation procedures may be made with approval in advance by one of certain designated members of Artisan Partners’ management who are not part of the portfolio management process.

Model Delivery. Artisan Partners provides non-discretionary model portfolios to certain institutional clients and sponsors of managed account programs. Artisan Partners provides the sponsor with a model portfolio that represents the securities Artisan Partners recommends for a particular strategy and the sponsor uses the model portfolio to assist in developing one or more portfolios for itself or its clients (the model delivery programs). In a model delivery program, the frequency and timing of the model portfolio delivery is agreed upon with each sponsor and the model portfolio is typically provided on a delayed basis after Artisan

 

B-145


Partners trades for its discretionary clients. Artisan Partners may also sequence or rotate the delivery of the model portfolio when it is being delivered to multiple sponsors. As a result, the sponsors of these programs typically receive different prices for their clients given, for example, price movements caused by market activity (including trades placed by Artisan Partners and other sponsors) and that the trades are not aggregated with Artisan Partners’ trades.

Fees. Like the fees Artisan Partners receives from the Funds, the fees Artisan Partners receives as compensation from other client accounts are typically calculated as a percentage of the client’s assets under management. Artisan Partners or its affiliates receive performance-based allocations or fees from the private funds it sponsors and expects to receive performance-based fees from accounts in its other strategies. In addition, Artisan Partners will, under certain circumstances, negotiate performance-based fee arrangements with other accounts. Artisan Partners had fourteen accounts with performance-based fees as of June 30, 2023. None of those separate accounts was in Artisan Partners’ value equity strategy or U.S. mid-cap growth strategy. Although Artisan Partners may have an incentive to manage the assets of accounts with performance–based fees differently from its other accounts, Artisan Partners maintains policies and procedures and internal review processes designed to mitigate such conflicts.

Investing in Different Parts of an Issuer’s Capital Structure. Conflicts potentially limiting a Fund’s investment opportunities may also arise when a Fund and other Artisan Partners’ clients invest in different parts of an issuer’s capital structure, such as when a Fund owns senior debt obligations of an issuer and other clients own junior tranches or equity securities of the same issuer. In such circumstances, decisions over whether to trigger an event of default, over the terms of any workout, or how to exit an investment may result in conflicts of interest. In order to minimize such conflicts, a portfolio manager may avoid certain investment opportunities and negotiations with issuers that would potentially give rise to conflicts with other Artisan Partners’ clients or Artisan Partners may enact internal procedures designed to minimize such conflicts, which could have the effect of limiting a Fund’s investment opportunities. Additionally, if Artisan Partners acquires material non-public confidential information in connection with its business activities for other clients, a portfolio manager may be restricted from purchasing securities or selling securities for a Fund. When making investment decisions where a conflict of interest may arise, Artisan Partners will endeavor to act in a fair and equitable manner as between a Fund and other clients; however, in certain instances the resolution of the conflict may result in Artisan Partners acting on behalf of another client in a manner that may not be in the best interest, or may be opposed to the best interest, of the Funds.

Confidential Information Access. From time to time, employees of Artisan Partners may receive material non-public information (referred to herein as “Confidential Information”). Employees may obtain Confidential Information, voluntarily or involuntarily, through Artisan Partners’ management activities or the employee’s outside activities. Confidential Information may be received under varying circumstances, including, but not limited to, upon execution of a non-disclosure agreement with an issuer, as a result of serving on a creditors’ committee or through conversations with a company’s management team. Under applicable law, Artisan Partners’ employees are generally prohibited from disclosing or using Confidential Information in effecting purchases and sales in public securities transactions for their personal benefit or for the benefit of any other person (including clients). Accordingly, should an employee receive Confidential Information, the employee is generally prohibited from communicating that information or using that information in public securities transactions, which could limit the ability to buy or sell certain investments even when the limitation is detrimental to Artisan Partners, the employee or the client, including the Fund.

Artisan Partners may seek to avoid the receipt of Confidential Information when it determines that the receipt of Confidential Information would restrict the Funds or other clients of Artisan Partners from trading in securities they hold or in which they may invest. In circumstances when Artisan Partners declines to receive Confidential Information from an issuer, an account, such as the Funds, may be disadvantaged in comparison to other investors, including with respect to evaluating the issuer and the price the account would pay or receive when it buys or sells those investments. Further, in situations when the account is

 

B-146


asked, for example, to grant consents, waivers or amendments with respect to such investments, Artisan Partners’ ability to assess such consents, waivers and amendments may be impacted by its lack of access to Confidential Information.

Artisan Partners has adopted policies that establish an information barrier between the Credit Team and its other investment teams to minimize the likelihood that Confidential Information received by the Credit Team will be shared with another team. In addition, Artisan Partners also creates information barriers around other persons having access to Confidential Information (“walled-off personnel”) to prevent access to Confidential Information, and therefore to limit the restrictions on others at Artisan Partners.

From time to time, Artisan Partners uses paid expert networks. Artisan Partners has adopted specific procedures to prevent and address the inadvertent receipt of Confidential Information from the expert networks.

Portfolio Transactions and Soft Dollars. As an investment adviser, Artisan Partners has an obligation to seek best execution for clients – that is, execution of trades in a manner intended, considering the circumstances, to secure that combination of net price and execution that will maximize the value of Artisan Partners’ investment decisions for the benefit of its clients. Artisan Partners uses client commissions to pay for brokerage and research services (often referred to as “soft dollars”) if Artisan Partners determines that such items meet the criteria outlined in its commission management policy and do not impair its duty to seek best execution. Artisan Partners does not consider, in selecting broker-dealers to be used in effecting securities transactions for a Fund, whether Artisan Partners or its affiliates received client referrals from the broker-dealer. Artisan Partners has potential conflicts of interest arising from its execution of portfolio transactions and use of soft dollars. Artisan Partners has adopted procedures with respect to soft dollars, which are included in Artisan Partners’ compliance program.

Proprietary and Personal Investments and Code of Ethics. Artisan Partners’ proprietary accounts also present potential conflicts of interest with Artisan Partners’ clients, including the Funds. Artisan Partners from time to time uses a proprietary account to evaluate the viability of an investment strategy or bridge what would otherwise be a gap in a performance track record. Proprietary accounts are, in general, treated like client accounts for purposes of allocation of investment opportunities. To the extent there is overlap between the investments of one or more proprietary accounts and the accounts of the firm’s clients managed in the same strategy, all portfolio transactions in the strategy are aggregated, where practicable, and allocated in accordance with Artisan Partners’ written allocation procedures among participating accounts. Artisan Partners believes that aggregation and allocation of trades as described in its written procedures mitigates conflicts of interest arising from proprietary investments in the same securities held by clients and the market impact that could result from such proprietary trading activity if conducted on a stand-alone basis.

Personal transactions are subject to Artisan Partners’ Code of Ethics, which generally provides that personnel of Artisan Partners may not take personal advantage of any information that they may have concerning Artisan Partners’ current investment program. The Code of Ethics requires pre-approval of most personal securities transactions believed to present potentially meaningful risk of conflict of interest (including acquisitions of securities as part of an initial public offering or private placement). The Code of Ethics provides that Artisan Partners’ compliance team will review such personal securities transactions and determine, among other things, whether the acquisition is consistent with applicable regulatory requirements and the purposes of the Code of Ethics and its underlying policies.

In addition, the Code of Ethics requires reports of personal securities transactions (which generally are in the form of duplicate confirmations and brokerage account statements) to be filed with Artisan Partners’ compliance department at least quarterly. Those reports are reviewed for conflicts, or potential conflicts, with client transactions.

 

B-147


The Code of Ethics also contains policies designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information and to protect the confidential information of Artisan Partners’ clients.

Artisan Partners, its affiliates and its employees can give advice or take action for their own accounts that differ from, conflict with or is adverse to advice given or action taken for a Fund. These activities may adversely affect the prices and availability of other investments held by, or potentially considered for purchase by, a Fund.

Artisan Partners, its affiliates and their employees are permitted to, and frequently do, invest in Artisan Partners Funds and other pooled investment vehicles sponsored by Artisan Partners often at reduced or no fees when allowed by applicable law. Artisan Partners also provides certain cash-based awards to its investment professionals (referred to by Artisan Partners as franchise capital awards) that, prior to vesting, Artisan Partners will generally invest such amounts in one or more of the investment strategies managed by the investment professional (including by investing in the Funds). Artisan Partners believes that investments made in these pooled investment vehicles and franchise capital awards help align Artisan Partners’ and its employees’ financial interests with those of Artisan Partners’ clients. These pooled investment vehicles, even if they are proprietary accounts of Artisan Partners, are treated like a client account for purposes of allocation of investment opportunities.

Proxy Voting. Artisan Partners or its affiliate may have a relationship with an issuer that could pose a conflict of interest when voting the shares of that issuer on a Fund’s behalf. As described in its proxy voting policy, Artisan Partners will be deemed to have a potential conflict voting proxies of an issuer if: (i) Artisan Partners or its affiliate manages assets for the issuer or an affiliate of the issuer and also recommends that a Fund invest in such issuer’s securities; (ii) a director, trustee or officer of the issuer or an affiliate of the issuer is a director of Artisan Partners Funds, Inc. or an employee of Artisan Partners or its affiliate; (iii) Artisan Partners or its affiliate is actively soliciting that issuer or an affiliate of the issuer as a client and the Artisan Partners employees who recommend, review or authorize a vote have actual knowledge of such active solicitation; (iv) a director or executive officer of the issuer has a personal relationship with an Artisan Partners employee who recommends, reviews or authorizes the vote; or (v) another relationship or interest of Artisan Partners or an affiliate, or an employee of Artisan Partners or an affiliate, exists that may be affected by the outcome of the proxy vote and that is deemed to represent an actual or potential conflict for the purposes of the proxy voting policy. Artisan Partners’ proxy voting policy contains procedures that must be followed in the event such relationships are identified in order to minimize the conflicts of interest that otherwise may result in voting proxies for Artisan Partners’ clients, including the Funds.

Compensation. Artisan Partners’ portfolio managers are compensated through a fixed base salary or similar payment and a subjectively determined incentive bonus or payment that is a portion of a bonus pool, the aggregate amount of which is tied to the firm’s fee revenues generated by all accounts included within the manager’s investment strategies, including the Large Cap Value Fund and the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund. Artisan Partners also provides certain cash-based awards to its investment professionals (referred to by Artisan Partners as franchise capital awards) that, prior to vesting, Artisan Partners will generally invest such award amounts in one or more of the investment strategies managed by the investment professional (including by investing in Artisan Partners Funds. Portfolio managers may also receive a portion of the performance fee revenues or allocations from private funds sponsored by Artisan Partners. Performance fee accounts (including private funds) are managed by certain portfolio managers of the Funds using strategies not offered in any Fund. Allocations to and weightings in these accounts will differ from allocations to and weightings in the Funds managed by these portfolio managers because they use different strategies. An investment strategy with a higher risk tolerance may substantially outperform or underperform an investment strategy with a lower risk tolerance even when managed by the same portfolio managers in a similar strategy. Artisan Partners’ portfolio managers also participate in group life, health, medical reimbursement and retirement plans that are generally available to all of Artisan Partners’ salaried associates.

 

B-148


Champlain Investment Partners, LLC (“Champlain”), 180 Battery Street, Suite 400, Burlington, Vermont 05401, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Champlain is 100% owned by current and retired employees. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Champlain is entitled to receive a fee from the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

All Accounts
Scott Brayman 7 $10.1 billion 4 $1.1 billion 106 $4.2 billion
Corey Bronner 7 $10.1 billion 4 $1.1 billion 106 $4.2 billion
Joseph Caligiuri 7 $10.1 billion 4 $1.1 billion 106 $4.2 billion
Joseph Farley 7 $10.1 billion 4 $1.1 billion 106 $4.2 billion
Robert Hallisey 7 $10.1 billion 4 $1.1 billion 106 $4.2 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Scott Brayman 0 $0 0 $0 13 $682.9 million
Corey Bronner 0 $0 0 $0 13 $682.9 million
Joseph Caligiuri 0 $0 0 $0 13 $682.9 million
Joseph Farley 0 $0 0 $0 13 $682.9 million
Robert Hallisey 0 $0 0 $0 13 $682.9 million

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts. Research. Champlain obtains research and information services in exchange for client brokerage commissions; these services include third-party research, Champlain attendance at broker-sponsored industry conferences, corporate access and soft dollar payments for data feeds and other analytical services. All clients receive the benefit of these services and all trading is done under best execution protocols. Clients may pay commissions higher than those obtainable from other brokers in return for these products and services. Client accounts generate varying amounts of commissions and soft dollar credits based on account size, cash flows, participation in commission recapture programs, and other factors that arise in the management of individual accounts. There may be some clients that receive soft dollar benefits that, during certain periods, do not generate any soft dollar credits themselves.

Trade Allocation. Champlain seeks to manage potential conflicts of interest via the following: (i) when a potential transaction would benefit more than one client, trades will be bunched where advantageous and allocated pro rata until all participating accounts have been satisfied, or by some other means deemed fair under the circumstances. The firm uses a trading system that facilitates the automated accomplishment of this fair allocation. Allocations may not be pro-rata due to individual account restrictions or guidelines.

 

B-149


This will result in a slightly larger allocation in permitted securities to those accounts than would otherwise be warranted by the account assets or no allocation at all if the security violates account guidelines. Also, cash flows in particular accounts are often considered when allocating investment opportunities; and (ii) the firm ensures its Code of Ethics provisions on personal securities trading are followed so that personal trading by employees does not interfere with trading on behalf of clients.

Compensation. Compensation for all employees, including the investment team, is comprised of both a salary, as well as a qualitatively-focused discretionary bonus tied to progress against both the individual’s goals and the firm’s performance as a whole; some employees may participate in a long-term incentive plans and partners in the firm also receive profit distributions. The majority of compensation for partners is the distribution of profits and the discretionary bonus, aligning both short and long term interests with those of clients. Messrs. Brayman, Bronner, Caligiuri, Farley, and Hallisey are partners.

Driehaus Capital Management LLC (“Driehaus”), 25 East Erie Street, Chicago, IL 60611, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Driehaus is a Delaware limited liability company owned by Driehaus Capital Holdings LLLP and RHD Holdings LLC. The principal nature of Driehaus’ business is investment advisory services. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Driehaus is entitled to receive a fee from the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers and Ownership of Fund Shares. The table below identifies, for the portfolio managers, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. None of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts

Portfolio

Manager(s)

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
All Accounts
Jeff James 3 $724 million 0 $0 55 $3.89 billion
Michael Buck 3 $724 million 0 $0 55 $3.89 billion
Prakash Vijayan 3 $724 million 0 $0 55 $3.89 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Jeff James 0 $0 0 $0 5 $732 million
Michael Buck 0 $0 0 $0 5 $732 million
Prakash Vijayan 0 $0 0 $0 5 $732 million

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts: The portfolio managers manage the assets of more than one registered investment company (each a “fund”), other pooled investment vehicles and/or other accounts (collectively, the

 

B-150


“Accounts”). Both clients and affiliated persons of Driehaus, including the portfolio managers, may own interests in one or more Accounts. The same or related securities may be appropriate and desirable investments for one or more of the Accounts (including another fund) and they may compete in the marketplace for the same investment opportunities, which may be limited. In addition, transactions by one or more Accounts in securities held by one or more other Accounts or that an Account is seeking to buy or sell (or transactions in related securities) may have an adverse impact on the prices that an Account pays for those securities or can realize upon sale, or on the ability of Driehaus to buy or sell the desired amount of such securities for an Account at favorable prices. This is particularly true when the Accounts’ transactions occur at a point in time close to when trades in the same or related securities are affected for one or more other Accounts. This presents a conflict between the interests of one Account and the interests of the other Accounts as well as the affiliates of Driehaus who invest in the Accounts.

Conflicts also may arise between the interests of one Account and the interests of Driehaus and its affiliates, including the portfolio managers. These conflicts can occur as one or more of the Accounts pay advisory fees to Driehaus, including performance-based compensation, at a higher rate than the rate of fees paid by one or more of the other Accounts. In addition, Driehaus’ affiliates, including the portfolio managers, may personally own interests in the Accounts or have other financial incentives (including that a portfolio manager’s compensation is based, in part, on assets under management). For example, portfolio managers could favor an Account over another Account when dividing their time and attention between them or when presented with limited investment opportunities that would be desirable and suitable for both an Account and other Accounts or when making trading decisions.

Driehaus, through trade allocation and other policies and procedures, seeks to manage these conflicts of interest to reduce any adverse effects on the Accounts. These policies and procedures include requirements that transactions by the Accounts in the same securities that occur on the same day are average priced per execution venue when feasible and allocated on a fair and equitable basis. In addition, Driehaus conducts periodic reviews of transactions in and holdings of the same or related securities by the Accounts for compliance with Driehaus’ policies and procedures.

Compensation: Each lead portfolio manager, portfolio manager and assistant portfolio manager is paid a fixed salary plus a bonus. Bonuses are determined based on the terms of a Revenue Sharing Plan for each team and include a base amount calculated as a percentage of management fees paid by the accounts managed. In addition, if the performance of a given strategy exceeds certain percentile benchmarks when compared to its peer group (primarily using Morningstar rankings) and/or certain risk adjusted return formulas, the bonus pool increases as a percentage of the management fees paid by the accounts managed. Messrs. Buck and Vijayan also receive a bonus based on a percentage of their salary, which has both subjective and objective components. If Driehaus declares a profit-sharing plan contribution, the lead portfolio managers, portfolio managers and assistant portfolio managers also would receive such contribution. Each lead portfolio manager, portfolio manager and assistant portfolio manager participates in a deferred compensation plan.

Eagle Asset Management, Inc. (“Eagle”), 880 Carillon Parkway, St Petersburg, Florida 33716, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Eagle is a wholly owned subsidiary of Raymond James Financial, Inc. (NYSE “RJF”). For its services as a Sub-adviser, Eagle is entitled to receive a fee from the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this

 

B-151


information is reflected below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts

Portfolio

Manager(s)

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts

All Accounts

Matthew McGeary, CFA 0
$0 1 $147 million 2,623 $815 million
E.G. Woods, CFA 0 $0 1 $147 million 2,623 $815 million
Jason Wulff, CFA 0 $0 1 $147 million 2,623 $815 million
Matthew Spitznagle, CFA 0 $0 1 $147 million 2,623 $815 million

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts. When a portfolio manager has responsibility for managing more than one account, potential conflicts of interest may arise. Those conflicts could include preferential treatment of one account over others in terms of allocation of resources or of investment opportunities. Eagle has adopted policies and procedures designed to address these potential material conflicts. For instance, portfolio managers within Eagle are normally responsible for all accounts within a certain investment discipline, and do not, absent special circumstances, differentiate among the various accounts when allocating resources. Additionally, Eagle and its advisory affiliates utilize a system for allocating investment opportunities among portfolios that is designed to provide a fair and equitable allocation.

The officers and employees of Eagle and accounts in which affiliated persons have an investment interest, may at times buy or sell and have positions in securities which may be those recommended for purchase or sale to investment advisory clients. In addition, Eagle and its related persons may also give advice and take action in the performance of their duties to clients, which may differ from, or be similar to the advice given, or the timing and nature of action taken, with respect to their own accounts. Eagle may combine transaction orders placed on behalf of clients, including accounts in which affiliated persons of Eagle have an investment interest. Eagle seeks to ensure that the firm and its employees do not personally benefit from the short-term market effects of recommendations to or actions for clients through personal securities policies and procedures under the firm’s Code of Ethics.

Compensation. Eagle seeks to maintain a compensation program that is competitively positioned to attract and retain high caliber investment professionals. Portfolio Manager compensation is reviewed and may be modified periodically as appropriate to reflect changes in the market, as well as to adjust the factors used to determine variable compensation. Investment professionals receive a base salary and deferred compensation along with a variable bonus based on revenues on accounts under management and various other variable forms of compensation, including stock options and an executive benefit plan. Eagle has created a compensation plan that provides its investment professionals with long-term financial incentives and encourages them to develop their careers at Eagle. The investment professionals are compensated as follows:

 

   

All portfolio managers are paid base salaries,

 

B-152


   

Portfolio managers participate in a revenue-sharing program that provides incentives to build a successful investment program over the long term,

 

   

Additional deferred compensation plans, including restricted stock awards and stock option programs, may be provided to key investment professionals, and

 

   

All portfolio managers generally are eligible to receive benefits from Eagle’s parent company including health care and other insurance benefits, a 401(k) plan, profit sharing, Long-Term Incentive Plan, Employee Stock Option Plan and Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

Eagle typically compensates its portfolio managers based primarily on the scale and complexity of their portfolio responsibilities and the performance of funds and managed accounts relative to benchmarks and peer groups. Each portfolio manager is evaluated based on the composite performance of funds and accounts in each strategy for which the individual serves on the portfolio management team. Periods evaluated include the 1, 3, 5 and 10 year (or since inception) periods for relevant strategies. This evaluation may afford differing weights to specific funds, accounts or products based on a portfolio manager’s contribution or responsibility to the team. This weighting process may be based on the overall size of a given fund or investment product and portfolio manager responsibility and/or contribution and may provide incentive for a portfolio manager to favor another account over their fund(s). A portfolio manager may manage a separate account or other pooled investment vehicle which may have materially higher fee arrangements than their fund(s). Eagle has established procedures to mitigate these conflicts, including review of performance dispersion across all firm managed accounts and policies to monitor trading and best execution for all managed accounts and funds.

Portfolio Manager benchmarks for evaluation purposes include Lipper and Morningstar rankings for mutual fund performance and the Russell 2000® Index for separate accounts along with peer group rankings such as those from Callan Associates and Mercer Investment Consulting.

Stephens Investment Management Group, LLC (“SIMG”), 111 Center Street, Suite 2110, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. SIMG is a subsidiary of Stephens Investments Holdings LLC. For its services as a Sub-adviser, SIMG is entitled to receive a fee from the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for the portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts

Portfolio

Manager(s)

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the
Accounts

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
All Accounts
Ryan Crane, CFA 3 $4 billion 1 $22.6 million 58 $1.8 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Ryan Crane, CFA 1 $3.1 billion 0 $0 0 $0

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio manager did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

 

B-153


Material Conflicts. SIMG manages a number of separate accounts and three other registered investment companies that utilize similar investment strategies as the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund. Most of these separate accounts are charged an asset-based fee by SIMG, but one of the accounts is charged a performance fee. This account is an investment company account which pays SIMG an asset-based fee plus or minus a performance adjustment. The performance adjustment is based on the cumulative total return of the assets managed by SIMG relative to the fund’s benchmark.

The firm has established policies and procedures to address the potential conflicts of interest inherent in managing portfolios for multiple clients. These policies and procedures are designed to prevent and detect favorable treatment of one account over another and include policies for allocating trades equitably across multiple accounts, monitoring the composition of client portfolios to ensure that each reflects the investment profile of the client, and reviewing the performance of accounts of similar styles. Additionally, each employee of SIMG is bound by its Code of Ethics, which establishes policies and procedures designed to ensure the clients’ interests are placed before those of an individual or the firm.

Compensation. All SIMG portfolio managers receive compensation in the form of a fixed salary and performance bonus. The performance bonus can represent a significant portion of the total compensation. The amount of a portfolio manager’s bonus is a function of SIMG products’ asset-weighted one-, three-, and five-year pre-tax performance relative to the appropriate benchmark and peer group. Portfolio managers with sector specific responsibilities receive a portion of their bonus based on performance contribution and attribution analysis based on each individual’s performance within their respective sectors. Mr. Crane’s bonus as team leader is more a function of the product’s performance (in the manner described above) and less sensitive to individual stock picks. His bonus also has a subjective portion that is related in part to SIMG’s level of profitability. Additionally, SIMG portfolio managers and SIMG’s CEO own phantom shares in SIMG which entitles them to receive a portion of the overall net profits of SIMG. Performance is measured over the most recent calendar year.

Victory Capital Management Inc. (“Victory Capital”), 15935 La Cantera Parkway, San Antonio, TX 78256, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund pursuant to a Sub- advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Victory Capital is wholly-owned by Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. Victory Capital is a New York corporation. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Victory Capital is entitled to receive a fee from the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers and Ownership of Fund Shares. The table below identifies, for the portfolio managers, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other

 

B-154


pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)

Other Pooled

Investment Vehicles

Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager(s) Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

All Accounts
D. Scott Tracy 12 $5.12 billion 4 $240.98 million 4 $70.37 million
Stephen J. Bishop 14 $6.16 billion 4 $240.98 million 2 $25.81 million
Melissa Chadwick-Dunn 12 $5.12 billion 4 $240.98 million 2 $25.81 million
Christopher W. Clark 14 $6.16 billion 5 $259.43 million 2 $25.81 million
Paul Leung 14 $6.16 billion 4 $240.98 million 2 $25.81 million
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
D. Scott Tracy 3 $2.92 billion 0 $0 2 $44.56 million
Stephen J. Bishop 4 $3.78 billion 0 $0 0 $0
Melissa Chadwick-Dunn 3 $2.92 billion 0 $0 0 $0
Christopher W. Clark 4 $3.78 billion 1 $18.45 million 0 $0
Paul Leung 4 $3.78 billion 0 $0 0 $0

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts: Victory Capital’s portfolio managers are often responsible for managing one or more accounts, such as funds, separate accounts, and other pooled investment vehicles, such as collective trust funds or unregistered hedge funds. A portfolio manager may manage accounts which have materially higher fee arrangements than another account and may, in the future, manage other accounts which have a performance-based fee. A portfolio manager also may make personal investments in accounts he or she manages or supports. The side-by-side management of accounts may raise potential conflicts of interest by incenting a portfolio manager to direct a disproportionate amount of: (1) their attention; (2) limited investment opportunities, such as less liquid securities or initial public offering; and/or (3) desirable trade allocations, to such other accounts. In addition, certain trading practices, such as cross-trading between accounts, raise conflict of interest issues. Victory Capital has adopted numerous compliance policies and procedures, including a Code of Ethics, and brokerage and trade allocation policies and procedures, which seek to address the conflicts associated with managing multiple accounts for multiple clients. In addition, Victory Capital has a designated a Chief Compliance Officer (selected in accordance with the federal securities laws) and compliance staff whose activities are focused on monitoring the activities of Victory Capital’s investment franchises and employees in order to detect and address potential and actual conflicts of interest. However, there can be no assurance that Victory Capital’s compliance program will achieve its intended result.

Compensation: Victory Capital has designed the structure of its portfolio managers’ compensation to (1) align portfolio managers’ interests with those of Victory Capital’s clients with an emphasis on long-term, risk-adjusted investment performance, (2) help Victory Capital attract and retain high-quality investment professionals, and (3) contribute to Victory Capital’s overall financial success. Each of the portfolio managers receives a base salary plus an annual incentive bonus for managing accounts (including any accounts for which Victory Capital receives a performance fee). A portfolio manager’s base salary is dependent on the manager’s level of experience and expertise. Victory Capital monitors each manager’s

 

B-155


base salary relative to salaries paid for similar positions with peer firms by reviewing data provided by various independent third-party consultants that specialize in competitive salary information. Such data, however, is not considered to be a definitive benchmark.

Each of Victory Capital’s investment franchises may earn incentive compensation based on a percentage of Victory Capital’s revenue attributable to fees paid by accounts managed by the team. The chief investment officer of each team, in coordination with Victory Capital, determines the allocation of the incentive compensation earned by the team among the team’s portfolio managers by establishing a “target” incentive for each portfolio manager based on the manager’s level of experience and expertise in the manager’s investment style. Individual performance is based on objectives established annually using performance metrics such as portfolio structure and positioning, research, stock selection, asset growth, client retention, presentation skills, marketing to prospective clients and contribution to Victory Capital’s philosophy and values, such as leadership, risk management and teamwork. The annual incentive bonus also factors in individual investment performance of each portfolio manager’s portfolio or account relative to a selected peer group(s). The overall performance results for a manager are based on the composite performance of all accounts managed by that manager on a combination of one-, three-, and five-year rolling performance periods as compared to the performance information of a peer group of similarly-managed competitors.

Victory Capital’s portfolio managers may participate in the equity ownership plan of Victory Capital’s parent company. There is an ongoing annual equity pool granted to certain employees based on their contribution to the firm. Eligibility for participation in these incentive programs depends on the manager’s performance and seniority.

 

Small/Mid Cap Value Fund

American Century Investment Management, Inc. (“American Century”), is a Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. American Century is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Century Companies, Inc. (“ACC”), a privately held corporation. The Stowers Institute for Medical Research (“SIMR”) controls ACC by virtue of its beneficial ownership of more than 25% of the voting securities of ACC. American Century and ACC are located at 4500 Main Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64111, and SIMR is located at 1000 E. 50th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64110. For its services as a Sub-adviser, American Century is entitled to receive a fee from the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers and Ownership of Fund Shares. The table below identifies, for the portfolio managers, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. None of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled Investment
Vehicles
Other Accounts

Portfolio

Manager(s)

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

All Accounts
Jeff John 6 $5.79 billion 2 $764.4 million 6 $470.9 million
Ryan Cope 6 $5.79 billion 2 $764.4 million 6 $470.9 million

 

B-156


As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Potential Conflicts of Interest. Certain conflicts of interest may arise in connection with the management of multiple portfolios. Potential conflicts include, for example, conflicts among investment strategies, such as one portfolio buying or selling a security while another portfolio has a differing, potentially opposite position in such security. This may include one portfolio taking a short position in the security of an issuer that is held long in another portfolio (or vice versa). Other potential conflicts may arise with respect to the allocation of investment opportunities, which are discussed in more detail below. American Century has adopted policies and procedures that are designed to minimize the effects of these conflicts.

Responsibility for managing American Century client portfolios is organized according to investment discipline. Investment disciplines include, for example, disciplined equity, global growth equity, global value equity, global fixed income, multi-asset strategies, exchange traded funds, and Avantis Investors funds. Within each discipline are one or more portfolio teams responsible for managing specific client portfolios. Generally, client portfolios with similar strategies are managed by the same team using the same objective, approach, and philosophy. Accordingly, portfolio holdings, position sizes, and industry and sector exposures tend to be similar across similar portfolios, which minimizes the potential for conflicts of interest. In addition, American Century maintains an ethical wall that restricts real time access to information regarding any portfolio’s transaction activities and positions to team members that have responsibility for a given portfolio or are within the same equity investment discipline. The ethical wall is intended to aid in preventing the misuse of portfolio holdings information and trading activity in the other disciplines.

For each investment strategy, one portfolio is generally designated as the “policy portfolio.” Other portfolios with similar investment objectives, guidelines and restrictions, if any, are referred to as “tracking portfolios.” When managing policy and tracking portfolios, a portfolio team typically purchases and sells securities across all portfolios that the team manages. American Century’s trading systems include various order entry programs that assist in the management of multiple portfolios, such as the ability to purchase or sell the same relative amount of one security across several funds. In some cases, a tracking portfolio may have additional restrictions or limitations that cause it to be managed separately from the policy portfolio. Portfolio managers make purchase and sale decisions for such portfolios alongside the policy portfolio to the extent the overlap is appropriate, and separately, if the overlap is not.

American Century may aggregate orders to purchase or sell the same security for multiple portfolios when it believes such aggregation is consistent with its duty to seek best execution on behalf of its clients. Orders of certain client portfolios may, by investment restriction or otherwise, be determined not available for aggregation. American Century has adopted policies and procedures to minimize the risk that a client portfolio could be systematically advantaged or disadvantaged in connection with the aggregation of orders. To the extent equity trades are aggregated, shares purchased or sold are generally allocated to the participating portfolios pro rata based on order size. Because initial public offerings (IPOs) are usually available in limited supply and in amounts too small to permit across-the-board pro rata allocations, American Century has adopted special procedures designed to promote a fair and equitable allocation of IPO securities among clients over time. A centralized trading desk executes all fixed income securities transactions for Avantis ETFs and mutual funds. For all other funds in the American Century complex, portfolio teams are responsible for executing fixed income trades with broker/dealers in a predominantly dealer marketplace. Trade allocation decisions are made by the portfolio manager at the time of trade execution and orders entered on the fixed income order management system. There is an ethical wall between the Avantis trading desk and all other American Century traders. American Century’s Global Head of Trading monitors all trading activity for best execution and to make sure no set of clients is being systematically disadvantaged.

Finally, investment of American Century’s corporate assets in proprietary accounts may raise additional conflicts of interest. To mitigate these potential conflicts of interest, American Century has adopted policies

 

B-157


and procedures intended to provide that trading in proprietary accounts is performed in a manner that does not give improper advantage to American Century to the detriment of client portfolios.

Compensation. American Century Investments portfolio manager compensation is structured to align the interests of portfolio managers with those of the shareholders whose assets they manage. It includes the components described below, each of which is determined with reference to a number of factors such as overall performance, market competition, and internal equity.

Base Salary

Portfolio managers receive base pay in the form of a fixed annual salary.

Bonus

A significant portion of portfolio manager compensation takes the form of an annual incentive bonus which is determined by a combination of factors. One factor is investment performance of funds a portfolio manager manages. The mutual funds’ investment performance is generally measured by a combination of one-, three- and five-year pre-tax performance relative to various benchmarks and/or internally customized peer groups. The performance comparison periods may be adjusted based on a fund’s inception date or a portfolio manager’s tenure on the fund.

Portfolio managers may have responsibility for multiple American Century Investments products. In such cases, the performance of each is assigned a percentage weight appropriate for the portfolio manager’s relative levels of responsibility.

Portfolio managers also may have responsibility for other types of managed portfolios or ETFs. If the performance of a managed account or ETF is considered for purposes of compensation, it is generally measured via the same criteria as an American Century Investments mutual fund (i.e., relative to the performance of a benchmark and/or peer group).

A second factor in the bonus calculation relates to the performance of a number of American Century products managed according to one of the following investment disciplines: global growth equity, global value equity, disciplined equity, global fixed-income, and multi-asset strategies. The performance of American Century ETFs may also be included for certain investment disciplines. Performance is measured for each product individually as described above and then combined to create an overall composite for the product group. These composites may measure one-year performance (equal weighted) or a combination of one-, three- and five-year performance (equal or asset weighted) depending on the portfolio manager’s responsibilities and products managed, and the composite for certain portfolio managers may include multiple disciplines. This feature is designed to encourage effective teamwork among portfolio management teams in achieving long-term investment success for similarly styled portfolios.

A portion of portfolio managers’ bonuses may be discretionary and may be tied to factors such as profitability, or individual performance goals, such as research projects and the development of new products.

Restricted Stock Plans

Portfolio managers are eligible for grants of restricted stock of ACC. These grants are discretionary, and eligibility and availability can vary from year to year. The size of an individual’s grant is determined by individual and product performance as well as other product-specific considerations such as profitability. Grants can appreciate/depreciate in value based on the performance of the ACC stock during the restriction period (generally three to four years).

 

B-158


Deferred Compensation Plans

Portfolio managers are eligible for grants of deferred compensation. These grants are used in very limited situations, primarily for retention purposes. Grants are fixed and can appreciate/depreciate in value based on the performance of the American Century mutual funds in which the portfolio manager chooses to invest them.

Boston Partners Global Investors, Inc. (“Boston Partners”), One Beacon Street, 30th Floor, Boston, MA 02108, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Boston Partners is an autonomous subsidiary of ORIX Corporation, a financial services holding company based in Japan. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Boston Partners is entitled to receive a fee from the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the
Accounts

All Accounts
Steven Pollack, CFA 4 $21.7 billion 1 $625 million 44 $4.7 billion
Timothy P. Collard 4 $21.7 billion 1 $625 million 44 $4.7 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Steven Pollack, CFA 0 $0 0 $0 1 $26.1 million
Timothy P. Collard 0 $0 0 $0 1 $26.1 million

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Potential Conflicts of Interest. Investment decisions for the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund’s portfolio are made in conjunction with decisions for other accounts and/or funds for the same strategy. Boston Partners recognizes that potential conflicts may arise with respect to the side-by-side management of registered investment companies and “investment accounts,” which include privately offered funds, separately managed accounts of high net worth individuals and institutional investors, and the other funds. These risks include, but may not be limited to: differing fee structures (including performance based fees), differing investments selected for various vehicles, and inequitable allocation and aggregation trading practices. Private investment partnerships, registered funds and separately managed accounts are generally invested pari passu thus mitigating many of the perceived risks associated with simultaneous management if possible. Additionally, the Compliance Department has developed comprehensive monitoring policies and procedures designed to mitigate any actual or perceived conflicts.

Compensation. All investment professionals receive a compensation package comprised of an industry competitive base salary, a discretionary bonus and long-term incentives. Through the bonus program

 

B-159


offered at Boston Partners, key investment professionals are rewarded primarily for strong investment performance. Boston Partners believes this aligns its team firmly with its clients’ objectives and provides the financial and work environment incentives which keep its teams in place.

Typically, bonuses are based upon a combination of one or more of the following four criteria:

 

   

Individual Contribution: an evaluation of the professional’s individual contribution based on the expectations established at the beginning of each year;

   

Product Investment Performance: performance of the investment product(s) with which the individual is involved versus the pre-designed index, based on the excess return;

   

Investment Team Performance: the financial results of the investment group with client assets;

   

Firm-Wide Performance: the overall financial performance of Boston Partners.

The long-term incentive program offered by Boston Partners effectively confers a significant 20-30% ownership interest in the value of the business to key employees. Annual awards are made by the Compensation Committee and are meant to equate to an additional 10-20% of the participants cash bonus awards.

The compensation program focuses on long term performance with an emphasis on 3- and 5-year results. The timing of receiving deferred compensation reinforces this emphasis. Roughly 50% of compensation is based on qualitative measures and roughly 50% is based on quantitative measures. These compensation percentages can vary based on an individual’s role in the firm.

Boston Partners retains professional compensation consultants with asset management expertise to periodically review its practices to ensure that they remain highly competitive.

Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc. (“Diamond Hill”), 325 John H. McConnell Blvd, Suite 200, Columbus, OH 43215, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Diamond Hill is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Diamond Hill is entitled to receive a fee from the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)

Other Pooled

Investment Vehicles

Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

All Accounts
Christopher Welch, CFA 6 $2.8 billion 4 $153.2 million 4 $183.6 million
Christopher Bingaman, CFA 3 $2.0 billion 1 $35.9 million 0 $0

 

B-160


As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts. Diamond Hill’s portfolio managers are also responsible for managing other account portfolios in addition to the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund. Management of other accounts in addition to the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund can present certain conflicts of interest, and Diamond Hill has implemented specific policies and procedures to address any potential conflicts. Diamond Hill’s Form ADV Part 2A contains a complete description of its policies and procedures to address conflicts of interest. Below are material conflicts of interest that have been identified and mitigated when managing other account portfolios as well as the Fund.

Performance Fees: Diamond Hill manages certain accounts for which part of its fee is based on the performance of the account (“Performance Fee Accounts”). As a result of the performance-based fee component, Diamond Hill may receive additional revenue related to the Performance Fee Accounts. None of the portfolio managers receive any direct incentive compensation related to their management of the Performance Fee Accounts; however, revenues from Performance Fee Accounts management will impact the resources available to compensate portfolio managers and all staff.

Personal Trading: Diamond Hill has adopted a Code of Ethics designed to: (1) demonstrate Diamond Hill’s duty at all times to place the interest of clients first; (2) align the interests of the portfolio managers with clients, and (3) mitigate inherit conflicts of interest associated with personal securities transactions. The Code of Ethics prohibits all employees of Diamond Hill, including the portfolio managers, from purchasing any individual equity or fixed income securities that are eligible to be purchased in a client account. The Code of Ethics also prohibits the purchase of third-party mutual funds in the primary Morningstar categories with which Diamond Hill competes. As a result, each of the portfolio managers are significant owners in the Diamond Hill strategies, thus aligning their interest with clients.

Trade Allocation: Diamond Hill manages numerous accounts in addition to the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund. When the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund and another of Diamond Hill’s clients seek to purchase or sell the same security at or about the same time, Diamond Hill may execute the transactions with the same broker on a combined or “blocked” basis. Blocked transactions can produce better execution for the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund because of increased volume of the transaction. However, when another of Diamond Hill’s clients specifies that trades be executed with a specific broker (“Directed Brokerage Accounts”), a potential conflict of interest exists related to the order in which those trades are executed and allocated. As a result, Diamond Hill has adopted a trade allocation policy in which all trade orders occurring simultaneously among the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund and one or more other accounts where Diamond Hill has the discretion to choose the execution broker are blocked and executed first. After the blocked trades have been completed, the remaining trades for the Directed Brokerage Accounts are then executed in random order, through Diamond Hill’s portfolio management software. When a trade is partially filled, the number of filled shares is allocated on a pro-rata basis to the appropriate client accounts. Trades are not segmented by investment product.

Best Execution and Research Services: Diamond Hill has controls in place for monitoring execution in its clients’ portfolio transactions, including reviewing trades for best execution. Certain broker-dealers that Diamond Hill uses to execute client trades are also clients of Diamond Hill and/or refer clients to Diamond Hill creating a conflict of interest. To mitigate this conflict, Diamond Hill adopted a policy that prohibits it from considering any factor other than best execution when a client trade is placed with a broker-dealer.

Receipt of research from brokers who execute client trades involves conflicts of interest. Since Diamond Hill uses client brokerage commissions to obtain research, it receives a benefit because it does not have to produce or pay for the research, products, or services itself. Consequently, Diamond Hill has an incentive to select or recommend a broker based on its desire to receive research, products, or services rather than a desire to obtain the most favorable execution. Diamond Hill attempts to mitigate these potential conflicts through oversight of the use of commissions by its Best Execution Committee.

 

B-161


Compensation. All of the portfolio managers, and research analysts, are paid by Diamond Hill a competitive base salary based on experience, external market comparisons to similar positions, and other business factors. To align their interests with those of Diamond Hill’s clients, all portfolio managers also participate in an annual cash and equity incentive compensation program that is based on:

 

   

The long-term pre-tax investment performance of the strategies that they manage,

   

Diamond Hill’s assessment of the investment contribution they make to strategies they do not manage,

   

Diamond Hill’s assessment of each portfolio manager’s overall contribution to the development of the investment team through ongoing discussion, interaction, feedback and collaboration, and

   

Diamond Hill’s assessment of each portfolio manager’s contribution to client service, marketing to prospective clients and investment communication activities.

Long-term performance is defined as the trailing five years (performance of less than five years is judged on a subjective basis). Incentive compensation is paid annually from an incentive pool that is determined based on several factors including investment results in client portfolios, revenues, employee performance, and industry operating margins. Portfolio manager compensation is not directly tied to product asset growth or revenue; however, both of these factors influence the size of the incentive pool and therefore indirectly contribute to portfolio manager compensation. Incentive compensation is subject to review and oversight by the compensation committee of Diamond Hill’s parent firm, Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. The compensation committee is comprised of independent outside members of the board of directors. The portfolio managers are also eligible to participate in the Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. 401(k) plan and related company match. Diamond Hill also offers a Deferred Compensation Plan, whereby each portfolio manager may voluntarily elect to defer a portion of their incentive compensation. Any deferral of incentive compensation must be invested in Diamond Hill Funds for the entire duration of the deferral.

LSV Asset Management (“LSV”), 155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4600, Chicago, IL 60606, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. LSV is a Delaware general partnership between LSV’s management team and current and retired employee and non-active partners, owners of a majority position, and SEI Funds, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of SEI Investments Company and the owner of a minority position. Both SEI Funds, Inc. and SEI Investments Company are located at 1 Freedom Valley Drive, Oaks, Pennsylvania 19456. For its services as a Sub-adviser, LSV is entitled to receive a fee from the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund.

 

B-162


Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers and Ownership of Fund Shares. The table below identifies, for the portfolio managers, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts

Portfolio

Managers

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
All Accounts
Josef Lakonishok, Ph.D. 33 $14.5 billion 64 $22.5 billion 316 $55.4 billion
Menno Vermeulen, CFA 33 $14.5 billion 64 $22.5 billion 316 $55.4 billion
Puneet Mansharamani, CFA 33 $14.5 billion 64 $22.5 billion 316 $55.4 billion
Greg Sleight 33 $14.5 billion 64 $22.5 billion 316 $55.4 billion
Guy Lakonishok, CFA 33 $14.5 billion 64 $22.5 billion 316 $55.4 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Josef Lakonishok, Ph.D. 0 0 6* $1.8 billion 69 $13.2 billion
Menno Vermeulen, CFA 0 0 6* $1.8 billion 69 $13.2 billion
Puneet Mansharamani, CFA 0 0 6* $1.8 billion 69 $13.2 billion
Greg Sleight 0 0 6* $1.8 billion 69 $13.2 billion
Guy Lakonishok, CFA 0 0 6* $1.8 billion 69 $13.2 billion

*These accounts are limited partnerships to which LSV acts as General Partner and are an aggregation of underlying investors who have negotiated a performance fee.

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts. The same team of portfolio managers is responsible for the day-to-day management of all of LSV’s accounts. LSV uses a proprietary quantitative investment model to manage all of LSV’s accounts. LSV relies extensively on its quantitative investment model regarding the advisability of investing in a particular company. Any investment decisions are generally made based on whether a buy or sell signal is received from the proprietary quantitative investment model. Accounts or funds with performance-based fees and accounts or funds in which employees may be invested could create an incentive to favor those accounts or funds over other accounts or funds in the allocation of investment opportunities. In addition, it is possible that a short position may be taken on a security that is held long in another portfolio. LSV seeks to make allocations of investment opportunities in a manner that it considers fair, reasonable and equitable without favoring or disfavoring, consistently or consciously, any particular client. LSV has procedures designed to ensure that all clients are treated fairly and to prevent these potential conflicts from influencing the allocation of investment opportunities among clients. On a quarterly basis, the Forensic Testing Committee, consisting of the CCO, Compliance Officer, Chief Operating Officer and Compliance Analyst, reviews, among other things, allocations of investment opportunities among clients and the allocation of partially-filled block trades, including allocations to accounts or funds with performance-based fees or which employees may be invested, to confirm consistency with LSV’s policies and procedures.

 

B-163


Compensation. Dr. Lakonishok and Messrs. Vermeulen, Mansharamani, Sleight and G. Lakonishok receive a fixed base salary and bonus which is a function of overall firm profitability and individual performance. Individual performance is subjective and may be based on a number of factors, such as the individual’s leadership and contribution to the strategic planning and development of the investment group. In addition, each of the portfolio managers is a partner of LSV and thereby receives a portion of the overall profit of the firm as part of his ownership interests.

Massachusetts Financial Services Company (d/b/a MFS Investment Management) (“MFS”), 111 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02199, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. MFS is a majority-owned subsidiary of Sun Life of Canada (U.S.) Financial Services Holdings, Inc., which in turn is an indirect majority-owned subsidiary of Sun Life Financial Inc., a diversified financial services company. For its services as a Sub-adviser, MFS is entitled to receive a fee from the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Manager. The table below identifies, for the portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio
Managers
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

All Accounts
Richard Offen 8 $23.1 billion 1 $1.0 billion 5 $659.3 million
Kevin Schmitz* 8 $23.1 billion 1 $1.0 billion 5 $659.3 million

* Effective December 31, 2023, Mr. Schmitz will no longer serve as a portfolio manager to the portion of the assets of the Fund managed by MFS.

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts. MFS seeks to identify potential conflicts of interest resulting from a portfolio manager’s management of both the Fund and other accounts and has adopted policies and procedures designed to address such potential conflicts. There is no guarantee that MFS will be successful in identifying or mitigating conflicts of interest.

The management of multiple funds and accounts (including accounts in which MFS or an affiliate has an interest) gives rise to conflicts of interest if the funds and accounts have different objectives and strategies, benchmarks, time horizons, and fees, as a portfolio manager must allocate his or her time and investment ideas across multiple funds and accounts. In certain instances, there are securities which are suitable for the Fund’s portfolio as well as for one or more other accounts advised by MFS or its subsidiaries (including accounts in which MFS or an affiliate has an interest) with similar investment objectives. MFS’ trade allocation policies could have a detrimental effect on the Fund if the Fund’s orders do not get fully executed or are delayed in getting executed due to being aggregated with those of other accounts advised

 

B-164


by MFS or its subsidiaries. A portfolio manager may execute transactions for another fund or account that may adversely affect the value of the Fund’s investments. Investments selected for funds or accounts other than the Fund may outperform investments selected for the Fund.

When two or more accounts are simultaneously engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security, the securities are allocated among clients in a manner believed by MFS to be fair and equitable to each over time. Allocations may be based on many factors and may not always be pro rata based on assets managed. The allocation methodology could have a detrimental effect on the price or availability of a security with respect to the Fund.

MFS and/or a portfolio manager may have a financial incentive to allocate favorable or limited opportunity investments or structure the timing of investments to favor accounts other than the Fund; for instance, those that pay a higher advisory fee and/or have a performance adjustment, those that include an investment by the portfolio manager, and/or those in which MFS, its officers and/or employees, and/or its affiliates own or have an interest.

To the extent permitted by applicable law, certain accounts may invest their assets in other accounts advised by MFS or its affiliates, including accounts that are advised by one or more of the same portfolio manager(s), which could result in conflicts of interest relating to asset allocation, timing of purchases and redemptions, and increased profitability for MFS, its affiliates, and/or its personnel, including portfolio managers.

Compensation. MFS’ philosophy is to align portfolio manager compensation with the goal to provide shareholders with long-term value through a collaborative investment process. Therefore, MFS uses long-term investment performance as well as contribution to the overall investment process and collaborative culture as key factors in determining portfolio manager compensation. In addition, MFS seeks to maintain total compensation programs that are competitive in the asset management industry in each geographic market where it has employees. MFS uses competitive compensation data to ensure that compensation practices are aligned with its goals of attracting, retaining, and motivating the highest-quality professionals.

MFS reviews portfolio manager compensation annually. In determining portfolio manager compensation, MFS uses quantitative means and qualitative means to help ensure a durable investment process. As of December 31, 2022, portfolio manager total cash compensation is a combination of base salary and performance bonus:

Base Salary – Base salary generally represents a smaller percentage of portfolio manager total cash compensation than performance bonus.

Performance Bonus – Generally, the performance bonus represents more than a majority of portfolio manager total cash compensation.

The performance bonus is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors, generally with more weight given to the former and less weight given to the latter.

The quantitative portion is primarily based on the pre-tax performance of accounts managed by the portfolio manager over a range of fixed-length time periods, intended to provide the ability to assess performance over time periods consistent with a full market cycle and a strategy’s investment horizon. The fixed-length time periods include the portfolio manager’s full tenure on each fund and, when available, 10-, 5-, and 3-year periods. For portfolio managers who have served for less than three years, shorter-term periods, including the one-year period, will also be considered, as will performance in previous roles, if any, held at the firm. Emphasis is generally placed on longer performance periods when multiple performance periods are available. Performance is evaluated across the full set of strategies and portfolios managed by a given portfolio manager, relative to appropriate peer group universes and/or representative indices (“benchmarks”).

 

B-165


As of December 31, 2022, the Russell 2000® Value Index was the benchmark used to measure the performance of Messrs. Schmitz and Offen for the portion of the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund allocated to MFS.

Benchmarks may include versions and components of indices, custom indices, and linked indices that combine performance of different indices for different portions of the time period, where appropriate. The qualitative portion is based on the results of an annual internal peer review process (where portfolio managers are evaluated by other portfolio managers, analysts, and traders) and management’s assessment of overall portfolio manager contribution to the MFS investment process and the client experience (distinct from fund and other account performance).

The performance bonus is generally a combination of cash and a deferred cash award. A deferred cash award is issued for a cash value and becomes payable over a three-year vesting period if the portfolio manager remains in the continuous employ of MFS or its affiliates. During the vesting period, the value of the unfunded deferred cash award will fluctuate as though the portfolio manager had invested the cash value of the award in an MFS Fund(s) selected by the portfolio manager.

MFS Equity Plan –Portfolio managers also typically benefit from the opportunity to participate in the MFS Equity Plan. Equity interests are awarded by management, on a discretionary basis, taking into account tenure at MFS, contribution to the investment process, and other factors.

Finally, portfolio managers also participate in benefit plans (including a defined contribution plan and health and other insurance plans) and programs available generally to other employees of MFS. The percentage such benefits represent of any portfolio manager’s compensation depends upon the length of the individual’s tenure at MFS and salary level, as well as other factors.

Silvercrest Asset Management Group LLC (“Silvercrest”), 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Fl., New York, New York 10019, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Silvercrest is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Silvercrest L.P., which is a limited partnership minority-owned by Silvercrest employees and a majority-interest owned by publicly-held Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Silvercrest is entitled to receive a fee from the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts

Portfolio

Manager(s)

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the
Accounts

All Accounts
Roger W. Vogel 0 $0 0 $0 2,947 $10.9 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Roger W. Vogel 0 $0 0 $0 1 $90.7 million

 

B-166


As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio manager did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts. The portfolio manager for the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund manages multiple accounts, including the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund. Conflicts of interest may arise where the structure of financial or other benefits available to the portfolio manager differs among these accounts. The portfolio manager may advise other pooled investment vehicles that pay a performance-based advisory fee. This may create an incentive to favor such vehicles over other accounts advised by the portfolio manager. In addition, the portfolio manager may devote unequal time and attention to the funds and accounts for which he provides investment advice. As a result, the portfolio manager may not be able to formulate as complete a strategy or identify equally attractive investment opportunities for each of those funds and accounts as might be the case if he were to devote substantially more attention to a single fund. The portfolio manager makes decisions for each account based on the investment objectives, policies, practices and other relevant investment considerations that the portfolio manager believes are applicable to that account. Consequently, the portfolio manager may purchase securities for one account and not another account, and the performance of securities purchased for one account may vary from the performance of securities purchased for other accounts. The portfolio manager may place transactions on behalf of other accounts that are contrary to investment decisions made on behalf of the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund, or make investment decisions that are similar to those made for the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund, both of which have the potential to adversely affect the price paid or received by the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund or the size of the security position obtainable for the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund. If the portfolio manager identifies a limited investment opportunity that may be suitable for multiple funds and/or accounts, the opportunity may be allocated among these several funds or accounts, which may limit the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund’s ability to take full advantage of the investment opportunity. Silvercrest has adopted policies and procedures that it believes are reasonably designed to address the conflicts associated with managing multiple accounts for multiple clients, although there can be no assurance that such policies and procedures will adequately address such conflicts.

Compensation. Compensation for the portfolio manager listed above includes an annual fixed based salary and potential incentive compensation up to a pre-determined fixed rate. The incentive compensation is primarily based on assets under management and composite portfolio performance relative to the relevant benchmark index over a rolling two-year period. The relevant index for the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund is the Russell 2000® Value Index. Additional incentive consideration may be awarded for professional development and contribution to the organization’s broader performance metrics.

Vaughan Nelson Investment Management, L.P. (“Vaughan Nelson”), located at 600 Travis Street, Houston, Texas 77002, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Vaughan Nelson is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Natixis Investment Managers, L.P. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Vaughan Nelson is entitled to receive a fee from the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this

 

B-167


information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts

Portfolio

Manager(s)

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
All Accounts
Dennis G. Alff, CFA 3 $264 million 0 $0 33 $535 million
Chad D. Fargason, Ph.D. 3 $264 million 0 $0 33 $535 million
Chris D. Wallis, CFA 10 $1.26 billion 5 $283
million
305 $8.14 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Dennis G. Alff, CFA 0 $0 0 $0 1 $8 million
Chad D. Fargason, Ph.D. 0 $0 0 $0 1 $8 million
Chris D. Wallis, CFA 0 $0 0 $0 18 $856 million

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts. At Vaughan Nelson, conflicts of interest may arise in the allocation of investment opportunities and the allocation of aggregated orders among the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund and other accounts managed by the portfolio managers. A portfolio manager potentially could give favorable treatment to some accounts for a variety of reasons, including favoring larger accounts, accounts that pay higher fees, accounts that pay performance-based fees, accounts of affiliated companies and accounts in which the portfolio manager has an interest. Such favorable treatment could lead to more favorable investment opportunities or allocations for some accounts. Vaughan Nelson has adopted policies and procedures to mitigate the effects of these conflicts. A conflict of interest also may arise to the extent a portfolio manager short sells a stock or otherwise takes a short position in one client account but holds that stock long in other accounts, including the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund, or sells a stock for some accounts while buying the stock for others. Another conflict which exists is the use of client commissions where a commission is paid to a broker or dealer that provides brokerage and/or research services in excess of the commission that would be charged by another broker or dealer for merely executing the same transaction (“soft dollar arrangements”).

Compensation. The compensation program at Vaughan Nelson is designed to align the interests of portfolio management professionals with the interests of clients and Vaughan Nelson by retaining top-performing employees and creating incentives to enhance Vaughan Nelson’s long-term success.

Compensation of portfolio management professionals includes a fixed base salary, a variable bonus and deferral plan and a contribution to the firm’s retirement plan.

All portfolio management professionals (at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Vaughan Nelson Board) participate in the variable bonus and deferral plan component which, as a whole, is based upon a percentage of Vaughan Nelson’s net profit. Each portfolio management professional’s participation in the variable bonus and deferral plan is based upon many factors, including but not limited to:

 

   

Performance of the strategy managed (both absolute and relative to peers)

   

Amount of revenue derived from the strategy managed

   

Contribution to the development and execution of the firm’s investment philosophy and process

   

Participation and effectiveness in performing client service activities and marketing initiatives

 

B-168


The degree to which any one factor influences participation in the bonus pool will vary between individuals and over time. A portion of the variable bonus is subject to deferral and each participant has the option to invest the deferral into Vaughan Nelson managed product(s) while it vests. Each year’s deferral is paid out over a period of three years. Payments are conditioned upon compliance with non-compete and non-solicitation arrangements.

The contribution to the firm’s retirement plan is based on a percentage (at the discretion of the Vaughan Nelson Board) of total cash compensation (subject to the IRS limits) and such percentage is the same for all firm personnel. Compensation at Vaughan Nelson is determined by the Compensation Committee at the recommendation of the Chief Executive Officer.

There is no distinction for purposes of compensation between the Small/Mid Cap Value Fund and any other accounts managed.

 

International Equity Fund

Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited (“Baillie Gifford Overseas”), Calton Square, 1 Greenside Row, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH1 3AN, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the International Equity Fund pursuant to a Sub-Advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Baillie Gifford Overseas is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baillie Gifford & Co. (“Baillie Gifford”), which is a partnership controlled by its working partners. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Baillie Gifford Overseas is entitled to receive a fee from the International Equity Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager of the Fund, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts

Portfolio

Manager(s)

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
All Accounts
Iain Campbell 5 $1.9 billion 4 $435 million 37 $9.7 billion
Joe Faraday 5 $1.9 billion 3 $301 million 35 $9.6 billion
Sophie Earnshaw 8 $2.2 billion 11 $2.4 billion 43 $16.4 billion
Milena Mileva 5 $1.9 billion 7 $1.7 billion 41 $11.4 billion
Stephen Paice 5 $1.9 billion 7 $1.8 billion 37 $9.8 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Iain Campbell 0 $0 0 $0 2 $377 million
Joe Faraday 0 $0 0 $0 2 $377 million
Sophie Earnshaw 0 $0 0 $0 3 $2.6 billion
Milena Mileva 0 $0 0 $0 2 $377 million
Stephen Paice 0 $0 0 $0 2 $377 million

 

B-169


As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Conflicts of Interest. Baillie Gifford Overseas’ individual portfolio managers may manage multiple accounts for multiple clients, including the Fund. In addition to mutual funds, these other accounts may include separate accounts, collective investment schemes, or offshore funds. Baillie Gifford Overseas manages potential conflicts between the Fund and other types of accounts through allocation policies and procedures, and internal review processes. Baillie Gifford Overseas has developed trade allocation systems and controls to ensure that no one client, regardless of type, is intentionally favored at the expense of another. Allocation policies are designed to address potential conflicts in situations where two or more funds or accounts participate in investment decisions involving the same securities.

Compensation. The remuneration for non-partner Investment Managers (Portfolio Managers and Researchers) at Baillie Gifford has three key elements ( i) base salary, ( ii) an Annual Performance Award and ( iii) a Long-Term Profit Award. In addition, portfolio managers are eligible for the standard retirement benefits and health and welfare benefits available to all Baillie Gifford employees.

The Annual Performance Award (APA) for non-partner Investment Managers is determined as follows:-

 

   

80% of the APA arrangement is determined by the investment performance of the investment team, the Portfolio Construction Groups (PCGs), or a combination of both that the individual has been part of, over the specified investment time horizon, reflecting Baillie Gifford’s emphasis on long term investing.

   

20% of the APA arrangement is determined by the firms Net Promoter Score, emphasizing the importance of client service and the role all staff play in this.

Within the firm each Investment Team and the PCG have pre-determined performance targets. These targets, along with the relevant portfolios being measured, are established and agreed with each Head of Department following consultation with the Remuneration Committee and the Investment Leadership Groups.

 

B-170


The Long-Term Profit Award (LTPA) element delivers a share of the firm’s profitability to each member of staff. The level of award each individual receives is determined by their role and contribution to the long-term performance of the firm.

All Investment Managers defer between 20% and 40% of their total annual variable remuneration (both APA and LTPA elements). Awards deferred are held for a period of three years and are invested in a range of funds managed by Baillie Gifford that broadly reflect the firm’s investment policy.

Iain Campbell and Milena Mileva are partners of Baillie Gifford. Partner remuneration comprises a fixed base salary and a share of the partnership profits. The profit share is calculated as a percentage of total partnership profits based on seniority, role within Baillie Gifford and length of service. The basis of the profit share is detailed in the Baillie Gifford Partnership Agreement. The main staff benefits, such as pension benefits, are not available to partners, who therefore provide for benefits from their own personal funds

Marathon Asset Management Limited (“Marathon-London”), Orion House, 5 Upper St Martin’s Lane, London, United Kingdom, WC2H 9EA is a Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the International Equity Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Marathon-London is predominantly owned by its founders, with the remaining equity shared between a number of key employees. Marathon-London was founded in London in 1986 and is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Marathon-London is entitled to receive a fee from the International Equity Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers and Ownership of Fund Shares. The table below identifies, for the portfolio managers, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts

Portfolio

Manager(s)

Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
All Accounts
Neil M. Ostrer 2 $4.5 billion 10 $11.4 billion 27 $13.2 billion
William J. Arah 2 $4.5 billion 9 $11.6 billion 26 $14.9 billion
Charles Carter 2 $4.5 billion 12 $12.4 billion 35 $15.7 billion
Nick Longhurst 2 $4.5 billion 9 $11.0 billion 27 $13.2 billion
Simon Somerville 2 $4.5 billion 11 $12.8 billion 34 $17.4 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Neil M. Ostrer 0 $0 10 $11.4 billion 3 $1.9 billion
William J. Arah 0 $0 9 $11.6 billion 3 $1.9 billion
Charles Carter 0 $0 12 $12.4 billion 6 $3.0 billion
Nick Longhurst 0 $0 9 $11.0 billion 3 $1.9 billion
Simon Somerville 0 $0 11 $12.8 billion 3 $3.0 billion

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

 

B-171


Material Conflicts. The identification and management of conflicts of interest are commitments that Marathon has made to each of its clients, and are fundamental considerations in all of Marathon-London’s investment advisory activities. Likewise, all Marathon personnel have an obligation to act in the best interests of our clients and in accordance with Marathon’s processes, procedures and control framework, both from a professional and regulatory perspective. Conflicts can occur between interests of Marathon-London and its clients or between the interests of different clients. For example, Marathon-London may be viewed as having a conflict of interest when: (i) making decisions about whether and how to allocate limited investment opportunities among clients; (ii) causing a client to enter into a transaction with another client; (iii) making decisions for one client that appear inconsistent with decisions made for another (i.e., buying an asset for one client while selling the same asset for another or selling an asset of one client while continuing to hold the same asset for another); (iv) Marathon may effect transactions between clients or in which it, its directors or employees or its associates has directly or indirectly, a material interest or a relationship; (v) Marathon-London’s investment approach incorporates a multi-counsellor model, this could see different portfolio managers express different views on securities and they may manage separate models with similar strategies; or (vi) where different clients have competing interests or (vii) where the portfolio managers are responsible for managing other accounts that charge performance-based compensation and accounts that charge only an asset-based fee (i.e. a non-performance-based fee).

Performance based fee arrangements may create an incentive for a portfolio manager to favor higher fee-paying accounts over other accounts in the allocation of investment opportunities.

Marathon-London has adopted policies and procedures to attempt to manage its conflicts of interests.

Compensation. Marathon’s overall compensation model has been designed to provide alignment between individual and company performance, and ultimately client outcomes. The two founding portfolio managers (Arah and Ostrer) that remain with the firm receive the largest part of their income through their majority of ownership of the firm. Key elements of compensation for other non-founding portfolio managers for the Fund include: a competitive base salary and benefits; portfolio incentive scheme (an objective bonus based on individual 5-year rolling performance); participation in the Marathon Profit Share Scheme (including a deferred element); and an Executive Equity Plan (share award with an extended, multi-year deferral schedule). This ensures that compensation, whilst not directly linked, is aligned to the success of the Sleeve and other clients.

Mondrian Investment Partners Limited (“Mondrian”), Sixty London Wall, Floor 10, London, United Kingdom, EC2M 5TQ is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the International Equity Fund pursuant to a Sub-Advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Mondrian is employee-owned. Ownership of the partnership is widely spread among employees. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Mondrian is entitled to receive a fee from the International Equity Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager of the Fund, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based

 

B-172


advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager(s) Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
Number
of
Accounts
Total
Assets in
the
Accounts
All Accounts
Elizabeth Desmond, CFA 3 $2.0 billion 4 $4.0 billion 3 $2.0 billion
Nigel Bliss 3 $2.0 billion 3 $3.9 billion 14 $11.2
billion*
Alex Simcox, CFA 1 $1.0 billion 4 $4.0 billion 14 $6.8 billion
Steven Dutaut, CFA 1 $274 million 3 $3.9 billion 13 $8.0 billion

*This figure includes $4.1 billion of non-regulatory model assets under advisement.

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Mondrian does not foresee any material conflicts of interest that may arise in the management of the Fund and any other accounts managed with similar investment guidelines. Mondrian acts solely as an investment manager and does not engage in any other business activities. The following is a list of some potential conflicts of interest that can arise in the course of normal investment management business activities:

 

   

Access to non-public information

   

Allocation of aggregated trades

   

Allocation of investment opportunities

   

Allocation of new issue opportunities

   

“Cherry picking” (inappropriate attempts to improve the appearance of portfolio performance)

   

Client Priority – advisory

   

Client order priority – trading across mandates

   

Client order priority – directed and restricted brokers

   

Dealing in investments as agent for more than one party

   

Dealing in investments as principal in connection with the provision of seed capital for Mondrian sponsored Limited Partnerships and other Mondrian Funds

   

Directorships and external business arrangements

   

Dual agency (cross trades)

   

Employee remuneration

   

Employee personal account dealing

   

Employee personal charitable giving

   

Employee personal political giving

   

Error resolution

   

Execution related services

   

Gifts and entertainment

   

Integration of sustainability risks

   

Investment in shares issued by companies who are clients of Mondrian

   

Management of investment capacity

   

Marketing materials

 

B-173


   

Most favored nation fee arrangements

   

Performance fees

   

Personal conflicts of interest

   

Placement agents and pay to play

   

Portfolio holdings disclosure

   

Portfolio pumping (price manipulation to improve portfolio performance)

   

Pricing and valuation

   

Product allocation

   

Proxy voting and shareholder activism

   

Relationships with consultants

   

Research Related Services

   

“Step out trades” (where a broker shares commission with a third party)

   

Transactions with affiliated brokers (Mondrian does not have any affiliated brokers)

   

“Window dressing” (inappropriate attempts to improve the appearance of portfolio performance)

Mondrian has separately documented policies and procedures in place to address each of these potential conflicts of interest.

If Mondrian’s arrangements are not sufficient to ensure with reasonable confidence that the risks of damage to the interests of a client will be prevented, Mondrian will clearly disclose with sufficient details the nature and sources of the conflict to the client.

The disclosure will be made prior to the conclusion of a contract, and in a durable medium to the client. It will include sufficient detail of the conflict and the steps undertaken to mitigate these risks in order to enable the client to take an informed decision.

Compensation

Mondrian’s compensation program is designed to enable it to retain and motivate a team of high-quality employees with both attractive shorter-term remuneration and long-term equity incentives that are appropriately competitive, well-structured and which help align the aspirations of individuals with those of clients and the company. Compensation is not based on the performance of specific funds or accounts managed. Mondrian has the following compensation programs in place:

1) Competitive Salary. All Mondrian staff are remunerated with a competitive base salary.

2) Profit Sharing Bonus Pool. All Mondrian staff qualify for participation in an annual profit-sharing pool determined by the company’s profitability (approximately 30% of profits).

3) Equity Ownership. Mondrian is employee owned. A high proportion of senior Mondrian staff (investment professionals and other support functions) are shareholders in the business. Equity value is built up over many years with long vesting periods and the value of any individual’s equity is normally paid out in instalments over a number of years after an agreed retirement from the firm. This is a long-term incentive plan directly tied to the long term equity value of the firm.

Incentives (Bonus and Equity Programs) focus on the key areas of a) research, b) long- term and short-term stock performance, c) teamwork, d) contributions to client service and business development.

At Mondrian, the investment management of portfolios is not based around “star managers”but relies on a team system. This means that Mondrian’s investment professionals are assessed on their contribution to the team’s effort and results, though with an important element of their assessment being focused on the quality of their individual research contribution.

 

B-174


Remuneration Committee

In determining the amount of bonus and equity awarded, Mondrian’s Board of Directors consults with the company’s Remuneration Committee, who will make recommendations based on a number of factors including investment research, investment performance contribution, organization management, teamwork, contribution to client service and business development.

Defined Contribution Pension Plan

All portfolio managers are members of the Mondrian defined contribution pension plan to which Mondrian pays a regular monthly contribution and the member may pay additional voluntary contributions if they wish. The plan is governed by trustees who have responsibility for the trust fund and payments of benefits to members. In addition, the plan provides death benefits for death in service and a spouse’s or dependent’s pension may also be payable.

Mondrian remuneration philosophy

The guiding principle of the company’s compensation programs is to enable it to retain and motivate a team of high-quality employees with both attractive shorter-term remuneration and long-term equity incentives that are appropriately competitive, well-structured and which help align the aspirations of individuals with those of the company and its clients. Through widespread equity ownership, we believe that Mondrian as an owner operated business provides an excellent incentive structure that is highly likely to continue to attract, hold and motivate a talented team.

Mondrian believes that this compensation structure, coupled with the opportunities that exist within a successful and growing business, should enable us to attract and retain high-caliber employees.

Pzena Investment Management, LLC (“Pzena”) 320 Park Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the International Equity Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. Pzena is a Delaware limited liability company controlled by its Chairman, Richard S. Pzena, due to his greater than 25% ownership of Pzena. For its services as a Sub-adviser, Pzena is entitled to receive a fee from the International Equity Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers and Ownership of Fund Shares. The table below identifies, for the portfolio managers, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a

 

B-175


performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

 

Registered

Investment Companies
(Excluding the Fund)

Other Pooled

Investment Vehicles

Other Accounts

Portfolio

Managers

Number

of
Accounts

Total
Assets in

the

Accounts

Number

of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

Number
of

Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

All Accounts
Rakesh Bordia 11 $5.5 billion 23 $2.2 billion 37 $7.3 billion
Caroline Cai 12 $7.3 billion 47 $16.7 billion 56 $10.9 billion
Allison Fisch 11 $5.5 billion 23 $2.2 billion 37 $7.3 billion
John Goetz 9 $5.7 billion 49 $16.8 billion 43 $8.4 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Rakesh Bordia 1 $197.9 million 0 $0 0 $0
Caroline Cai 2 $2,005.6 million 3 $236.8 million 0 $0
Allison Fisch 1 $197.9 million 0 $0 0 $0
John Goetz 1 $1,807.7 million 3 $236.8 million 2 $297.1 million

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Material Conflicts. Pzena does not foresee any conflicts of interest in the management of the Fund and its other accounts. Pzena applies the same value minded philosophy across all of its strategies. Pzena, as a matter of policy and practice, acts as a fiduciary in all client matters, seeks to avoid or resolve conflicts of interest, and meets all regulatory requirements. Standards of business conduct are detailed in Pzena’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (“Code of Ethics”). Each employee is responsible to have read, be familiar with, and annually certify compliance with Pzena’s Code of Ethics. There is no conflict of the duties necessary for the Fund and other products. In all cases, Pzena acts as a fiduciary of client assets and accounts and follows its trading policies and procedures.

Compensation. Pzena’s portfolio managers are compensated through a combination of a fixed base salary, performance bonus, and equity ownership, if appropriate, due to superior personal performance. Eligibility for bonus compensation is examined annually by Pzena. Pzena considers both quantitative and qualitative factors when determining performance bonuses; however, performance bonuses are not based on Fund performance or assets of the Fund. For investment professionals, Pzena examines such things as effort, efficiency, ability to focus on the correct issues, stock modeling ability, and ability to successfully interact with company management. However, Pzena always looks at the person as a whole and the contributions that they have made and are likely to make in the future. Pzena avoids a compensation model that is driven by individual security performance, as this can lead to short-term thinking, which is contrary to the firm’s value investment philosophy. Ultimately, the equity ownership is the primary tool used by Pzena for attracting and retaining the best people. This ties personnel to long-term performance as the value of their ownership stake depends on Pzena delivering superior long-term results to investors. All portfolio managers listed are equity owners of Pzena.

WCM Investment Management, LLC (“WCM”), 281 Brooks Street, Laguna Beach, California 92651, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of the International Equity Fund pursuant to a Sub-Advisory Agreement with the Adviser. WCM is a limited liability company organized in the state of Delaware. WCM is independently controlled by its employees. For its services as a sub-adviser, WCM is entitled to receive a fee from the International Equity Fund.

 

B-176


Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager of the Fund, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Fund) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent that any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

  Registered Investment
Companies (excluding
the Fund)
Other Pooled Investment
Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio
Manager(s)

Number

of

Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

Number

of

Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

Number

of

Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

All Accounts
Paul R. Black 19 $22.9 billion 26 $8.8 billion 496 $39.5 billion
Michael B. Trigg 22 $24.8 billion 30 $9.2 billion 496 $39.5 billion
Sanjay Ayer 25 $25.4 billion 35 $9.9 billion 503 $39.8 billion
Jon Tringale 19 $22.9 billion 25 $8.6 billion 496 $39.5 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Paul R. Black 0 $0 4 $681.8 million 7 $1.8 billion
Michael B. Trigg 0 $0 4 $681.8 million 7 $1.8 billion
Sanjay Ayer 0 $0 5 $736.0 million 7 $1.8 billion
Jon Tringale 0 $0 3 $520.7 million 7 $1.8 billion

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Fund.

Conflicts of Interest. Actual or apparent conflicts of interest may arise when a portfolio manager has day-to-day management responsibilities with respect to more than one fund or other account. Where conflicts of interest arise between the Fund and other accounts managed by the portfolio manager, WCM will proceed in a manner that ensures that the Fund will not be treated less favorably. There may be instances where similar portfolio transactions may be executed for the same security for numerous accounts managed by the portfolio managers. In such instances, securities will be allocated in accordance with WCM’s trade allocation policy.

Compensation. WCM’s compensation practices employ a multi-pronged approach and play an important role in rewarding and retaining key professionals, whether investment (research), sales, or operations. To be clear, compensation arrangements are not determined on the basis of the number of accounts managed or the performance of specific funds.

For investment (research) professionals, compensation breakdown includes:

 

   

Base Salaries: all investment professionals receive competitive base salaries reflective of their role and contribution to the investment (research) team.

 

   

Bonuses: Additional compensation comes in the form of periodic (nominally semi-annual) bonuses. WCM employs a qualitative, discretionary bonus system to incentivize and reward our team members based primarily on their performance in contributing to team results. This springs from WCM’s belief (supported by various academic studies) that small, cohesive, collaborative teams can and do provide better results than “star systems” or “armies of analysts”. Although WCM

 

B-177


 

subscribes to that old aphorism, “the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts,” individual performance is not ignored – it simply plays a subordinate role to team success. These evaluations are made on a regular basis by the investment (research) team leaders, utilizing a review system that begins with a “return-on-time” assessment for each investment (research) team member and is then supplemented, reviewed, and approved by the firm’s Leadership Team.

 

   

Profit-Sharing: WCM does not utilize a cash profit-sharing plan, but WCM does include a profit-sharing component in the Employee Benefit Plan (see below).

 

   

Employee Benefit Plan: All employees are eligible to participate in the WCM Employee Savings Plan (401(k)) after six full months of employment. Besides the normal employee pre-tax deferral, the 401(k) has two possible employer components: 1) discretionary employer match, and 2) discretionary employer profit-sharing contribution. Currently, the only employer component being utilized is the profit sharing component, which is determined annually and contributes a substantial amount to each employee’s retirement account. There is no vesting period for employer contributions.

 

   

Equity Ownership: All employees, upon completing three years of full-time employment, are eligible to be offered (and purchase) ownership. Further, WCM groups its partners into two categories: Principal Partners (owners of more than 1% of outstanding interest), and Regular Partners (owners of less than 1% outstanding interest).

WCM categorizes its non-investment (non-research) personnel into two groups: Sales, and Operations. Compensation breakdown for these non-investment (non-research) personnel is identical in form and structure to that for investment (research) personnel with two differences:

 

  1.

Evaluations forming the basis for WCM’s qualitative, discretionary bonus system are made by the apropos team leaders, but are still supplemented, reviewed, and approved by the firm’s Leadership Team;

  2.

For Sales personnel only, an additional component in compensation is an ongoing revenue share intended to incentivize both sales and client service.

 

Large Cap Growth Fund, Large Cap Value Fund, Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund, Small/Mid Cap Value Fund, and International Equity Fund

BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (“BlackRock”), located at 1 University Square Drive, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, is the Sub-adviser for an allocated portion of each of the Large Cap Growth Fund, Large Cap Value Fund, Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund, Small/Mid Cap Value Fund and International Equity Fund pursuant to a Sub-advisory Agreement with the Adviser. BlackRock is a wholly owned subsidiary of BlackRock, Inc. For its services as a Sub-adviser, BlackRock is entitled to receive a fee from each of the Large Cap Growth Fund, Large Cap Value Fund, Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund, Small/Mid Cap Value Fund and International Equity Fund.

Other Accounts Managed by Portfolio Managers. The table below identifies, for each portfolio manager, the number of accounts managed (excluding the Funds) and the total assets in such accounts, within each of the following categories: registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles, and other accounts. To the extent any of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee, this

 

B-178


information is reflected in the table below. Information is shown as of June 30, 2023. Asset amounts are approximate and have been rounded.

 

 

Registered

Investment Companies
(excluding the Funds)

Other Pooled

Investment Vehicles

Other Accounts

Portfolio

Manager(s)

Number
of
Accounts

Total
Assets in
the
Accounts

Number
of
Accounts

Total
Assets in

the
Accounts

Number
of
Accounts

Total

Assets in

the

Accounts

All Accounts
Jennifer Hsui 336 $1.97 trillion 0 $0 1 $185.2 million
Peter Sietsema 67 $190.4 billion 270 $859.9 billion 106 $599.0 billion
Paul Whitehead 342 $1.97 trillion 347 $983.0 billion 140 $621.8 billion
Accounts Subject to Performance Fees
Jennifer Hsui 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Peter Sietsema 0 $0 0 $0 1 $2.32 billion
Paul Whitehead 0 $0 0 $0 1 $2.32 billion

As of June 30, 2023, the above-listed portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Funds.

Portfolio Manager Potential Material Conflicts of Interest. BlackRock has built a professional working environment, firm-wide compliance culture and compliance procedures and systems designed to protect against potential incentives that may favor one account over another. BlackRock has adopted policies and procedures that address the allocation of investment opportunities, execution of portfolio transactions, personal trading by employees and other potential conflicts of interest that are designed to ensure that all client accounts are treated equitably over time. Nevertheless, BlackRock furnishes investment management and advisory services to numerous clients in addition to the Fund, and BlackRock may, consistent with applicable law, make investment recommendations to other clients or accounts (including accounts which are hedge funds or have performance or higher fees paid to BlackRock, or in which portfolio managers have a personal interest in the receipt of such fees), which may be the same as or different from those made to the Fund. In addition, BlackRock, its affiliates and significant shareholders and any officer, director, shareholder or employee may or may not have an interest in the securities whose purchase and sale BlackRock recommends to the Fund. BlackRock, or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders, or any officer, director, shareholder, employee or any member of their families may take different actions than those recommended to the Fund by BlackRock with respect to the same securities. Moreover, BlackRock may refrain from rendering any advice or services concerning securities of companies of which any of BlackRock’s (or its affiliates’ or significant shareholders’) officers, directors or employees are directors or officers, or companies as to which BlackRock or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders or the officers, directors and employees of any of them has any substantial economic interest or possesses material non-public information. Certain portfolio managers also may manage accounts whose investment strategies may at times be opposed to the strategy utilized for a fund. It should also be noted that a portfolio manager may be managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts or may be part of a team managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts, subject to incentive fees. Such portfolio managers may therefore be entitled to receive a portion of any incentive fees earned on such accounts. Currently, the portfolio managers of these funds are not entitled to receive a portion of incentive fees of other accounts.

As a fiduciary, BlackRock owes a duty of loyalty to its clients and must treat each client fairly. When BlackRock purchases or sells securities for more than one account, the trades must be allocated in a manner

consistent with its fiduciary duties. BlackRock attempts to allocate investments in a fair and equitable

 

B-179


manner among client accounts, with no account receiving preferential treatment. To this end, BlackRock has adopted policies that are intended to ensure reasonable efficiency in client transactions and provide BlackRock with sufficient flexibility to allocate investments in a manner that is consistent with the particular investment discipline and client base, as appropriate.

The discussion below describes the portfolio managers’ compensation as of June 30, 2023.

BlackRock’s financial arrangements with its portfolio managers, its competitive compensation and its career path emphasis at all levels reflect the value senior management places on key resources. Compensation may include a variety of components and may vary from year to year based on a number of factors. The principal components of compensation include a base salary, a performance-based discretionary bonus, participation in various benefits programs and one or more of the incentive compensation programs established by BlackRock.

Base Compensation. Generally, portfolio managers receive base compensation based on their position with the firm.

Discretionary Incentive Compensation – Ms. Hsui and Messrs. Sietsema and Whitehead. Discretionary incentive compensation is a function of several components: the performance of BlackRock, Inc., the performance of the portfolio manager’s group within BlackRock, the investment performance, including risk-adjusted returns, of the firm’s assets under management or supervision by that portfolio manager relative to predetermined benchmarks, and the individual’s performance and contribution to the overall performance of these portfolios and BlackRock. In most cases, these benchmarks are the same as the benchmark or benchmarks against which the performance of the Funds or other accounts managed by the portfolio managers are measured. Among other things, BlackRock’s Chief Investment Officers make a subjective determination with respect to each portfolio manager’s compensation based on the performance of the Funds and other accounts managed by each portfolio manager relative to the various benchmarks. Performance of fixed income and multi-asset class funds is measured on a pre-tax and/or after-tax basis over various time periods including 1-, 3- and 5- year periods, as applicable. Performance of index funds is based on the performance of such funds relative to pre-determined tolerance bands around a benchmark, as applicable. The performance of Ms. Hsui and Messrs. Sietsema and Whitehead is not measured against a specific benchmark.

Distribution of Discretionary Incentive Compensation. Discretionary incentive compensation is distributed to portfolio managers in a combination of cash, deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards, and/or deferred cash awards that notionally track the return of certain BlackRock investment products.

Portfolio managers receive their annual discretionary incentive compensation in the form of cash. Portfolio managers whose total compensation is above a specified threshold also receive deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards annually as part of their discretionary incentive compensation. Paying a portion of discretionary incentive compensation in the form of deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock puts compensation earned by a portfolio manager for a given year “at risk” based on BlackRock’s ability to sustain and improve its performance over future periods. In some cases, additional deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock may be granted to certain key employees as part of a long-term incentive award to aid in retention, align interests with long-term shareholders and motivate performance. Deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards are generally granted in the form of BlackRock, Inc. restricted stock units that vest pursuant to the terms of the applicable plan and, once vested, settle in BlackRock, Inc. common stock. The portfolio managers of these Funds have deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards.

For certain portfolio managers, a portion of the discretionary incentive compensation is also distributed in the form of deferred cash awards that notionally track the returns of select BlackRock investment products

 

B-180


they manage, which provides direct alignment of portfolio manager discretionary incentive compensation with investment product results. Deferred cash awards vest ratably over a number of years and, once vested, settle in the form of cash. Only portfolio managers who manage specified products and whose total compensation is above a specified threshold are eligible to participate in the deferred cash award program.

Other Compensation Benefits. In addition to base salary and discretionary incentive compensation, portfolio managers may be eligible to receive or participate in one or more of the following:

Incentive Savings Plans — BlackRock, Inc. has created a variety of incentive savings plans in which BlackRock employees are eligible to participate, including a 401(k) plan, the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan (RSP), and the BlackRock Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). The employer contribution components of the RSP include a company match equal to 50% of the first 8% of eligible pay contributed to the plan capped at $5,000 per year, and a company retirement contribution equal to 3-5% of eligible compensation up to the Internal Revenue Service limit ($330,000 for 2023). The RSP offers a range of investment options, including registered investment companies and collective investment funds managed by the firm. BlackRock contributions follow the investment direction set by participants for their own contributions or, absent participant investment direction, are invested into a target date fund that corresponds to, or is closest to, the year in which the participant attains age 65. The ESPP allows for investment in BlackRock common stock at a 5% discount on the fair market value of the stock on the purchase date. Annual participation in the ESPP is limited to the purchase of 1,000 shares of common stock or a dollar value of $25,000 based on its fair market value on the purchase date. All of the eligible portfolio managers are eligible to participate in these plans.

SERVICE PROVIDERS

Administrator

Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“BBH”), 50 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02110, acts as Administrator to the Trust pursuant to an Administrative Agency Agreement. As Administrator, BBH provides certain services to the Trust, including, among other responsibilities, administrative, tax, legal, accounting services, portfolio compliance monitoring, and financial reporting for the maintenance and operations of the Funds. In addition, BBH makes available the personnel and facilities to provide such services. In its capacity as Administrator, BBH does not have any responsibility or authority for the portfolio management of the Funds, the determination of investment policy, or for any matter pertaining to the distribution of Fund shares. Pursuant to the Administrative Agency Agreement, the Trust has agreed to pay such compensation as is mutually agreed from time to time and such out-of-pocket expenses as incurred by BBH in the performance of its duties.

 

B-181


For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, 2022 and 2023, the Funds paid the following amounts to BBH for administrative and fund accounting services. All figures are presented in thousands and are rounded to the nearest thousand.

 

Fund 2021 2022

2023

Core Bond Fund $1,154 $1,201 $1,106
Core Plus Bond Fund $1,548 $1,869 $1,684
Municipal Bond Fund $669 $880 $939
Municipal High-Income Bond Fund N/A N/A $4*
Large Cap Growth Fund $645 $682 $698
Large Cap Value Fund $616 $699 $624
Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund $256 $267 $258
Small/Mid Cap Value Fund $288 $309 $271
International Equity Fund $651 $684 $672

* Reflects the period from April 13, 2023 (commencement of Fund operations) to June 30, 2023.

Custodian

BBH also acts as Custodian to the Trust. In this capacity, BBH holds all cash and, directly or through a book entry system or an agent, securities of each Fund, delivers and receives payment for securities sold by such Fund, collects income from investments of each Fund and performs other duties as set forth in the Custodian Agreement between the Trust, on behalf of the Funds, and BBH. BBH does not participate in decisions relating to the purchase and sale of securities by the Funds.

Transfer Agent

ALPS Fund Services, Inc., 1290 Broadway, Suite 1100 Denver, Colorado 80203, acts as the Funds’ Transfer Agent and dividend disbursing agent pursuant to a Transfer Agency and Services Agreement with the Trust. ALPS Fund Services, Inc. is an affiliate of ALPS Distributors, Inc., the Funds’ principal underwriter.

Legal Counsel

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921, serves as legal counsel to the Trust.

Goodwin Procter LLP, 1900 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036, serves as legal counsel to the Independent Trustees.

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, One North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606, is the Funds’ independent registered public accounting firm, providing audit services, tax services and assistance with respect to filings with the SEC.

 

B-182


EXECUTION OF PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS AND BROKERAGE

Each Sub-Advisory Agreement states that, with respect to the portion of a Fund managed by each of the Sub-advisers, that Sub-adviser shall be responsible for broker-dealer selection and for negotiation of brokerage commission rates, provided that each Sub-adviser shall only direct orders to an affiliated person of that Sub-adviser in accordance with Board-adopted procedures and/or the 1940 Act. In general, a Sub-adviser’s primary consideration in effecting a securities transaction will be execution at the most favorable cost or proceeds under the circumstances. In selecting a broker-dealer to execute each particular transaction, a Sub-adviser may take the following into consideration, among other things: the best net price available; the reliability, integrity and financial condition of the broker-dealer; the size of and difficulty of executing the order; and the value of the expected contribution of the broker-dealer to the investment performance of the relevant Fund on a continuing basis. The price to a Fund in any transaction may be less favorable than that available from another broker-dealer if the difference is reasonably justified by other aspects of the portfolio execution services offered. In seeking to determine the reasonableness of brokerage commissions paid in any transaction, each Sub-Adviser will rely upon its experience and knowledge regarding commissions generally charged by various brokers and on its judgment in evaluating the brokerage services received from the broker effecting the transaction.

Subject to such policies as the Adviser and the Board may determine, a Sub-adviser shall not be deemed to have acted unlawfully or to have breached any duty created by its Sub-Advisory Agreement with the Fund or otherwise solely by reason of its having caused the Fund to pay a broker or dealer that provides (directly or indirectly) brokerage or research services to a Sub-adviser a commission for effecting a portfolio transaction in excess of the amount of commission another broker or dealer would have charged for effecting that transaction, if a Sub-adviser determines in good faith that such amount of commission was reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services provided by such broker or dealer, viewed in terms of either that particular transaction or each Sub-adviser’s or the Adviser’s overall responsibilities with respect to the applicable Fund or other advisory clients. Each Sub-adviser is further authorized to allocate the orders placed by it on behalf of the applicable Fund to such brokers or dealers who also provide research or statistical material, or other services, to the Trust, the Adviser or any affiliate of either. Such allocation shall be in such amounts and proportions as a Sub-adviser shall determine. Each Sub-adviser shall report on such allocations regularly to the Adviser and the Trust, indicating the broker-dealers to whom such allocations have been made and the basis for such allocations. The Sub-advisers may use research services furnished by brokers in servicing all client accounts and not all services may necessarily be used in connection with the account that paid commissions to the broker providing such services. Information so received by the Sub-advisers will be in addition to and not in lieu of the services required to be performed by the Sub-advisers under the Sub-Advisory Agreements.

On occasions when a Sub-adviser deems the purchase or sale of a security to be in the best interest of the relevant Fund as well as other clients of a Sub-adviser, each Sub-adviser, to the extent permitted by applicable laws and regulations, may aggregate the securities to be so purchased or sold in order to obtain the most favorable price or lower brokerage commissions and the most efficient execution. In such event, allocation of the securities so purchased or sold, as well as the expenses incurred in the transaction, will be made by a Sub-adviser in the manner it considers to be the most equitable and consistent with its fiduciary obligations to the Fund and to such other clients.

 

B-183


For the fiscal years ended June 30, 2021, 2022 and 2023, the Funds paid the following aggregate brokerage commissions on portfolio transactions. All figures are presented in thousands and are rounded to the nearest thousand.

 

Fund 2021 2022

2023

Core Bond Fund $0 $137 $137
Core Plus Bond Fund $444 $676 $1,143
Municipal Bond Fund $0 $33 $50
Municipal High-Income Bond Fund N/A N/A $1*
Large Cap Growth Fund $1,666 $1,362 $1,960
Large Cap Value Fund $2,698 $3,268 $2,586
Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund $1,022 $3,465 $3,387
Small/Mid Cap Value Fund $2,106 $2,076 $2,149
International Equity Fund $5,983 $3,642 $2,866

* Reflects the period from April 13, 2023 (commencement of Fund operations) to June 30, 2023.

Material increases or decreases in aggregate commissions paid by a Fund were primarily attributable to an increase or decrease in the number of trades placed by the Fund. The number of trades placed reflects many factors, including market conditions, changes in a Fund’s assets, and changes in the allocation of a Fund’s assets amongst the Sub-Advisers of the Fund.

For the fiscal years ended June 30, 2021, 2022 and 2023, the Funds did not pay any underwriting commissions to their principal underwriters.

For the fiscal years ended June 30, 2021, 2022 and 2023, the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund paid the following aggregate brokerage commissions on portfolio transactions effected by an affiliated broker, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., of the Sub-Adviser directing the transactions, Eagle Asset Management, Inc. Raymond James & Associates, Inc., is an affiliated broker of the Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund by virtue of the fact that it and Eagle Asset Management, Inc., are under the common control of Raymond James Financial, Inc.

 

Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund 2021 2022 2023
Aggregate Dollar Amount of Brokerage Commissions Paid to Affiliated
Brokers
$0 $945 $0
Percentage of Total Brokerage Commissions Paid to Affiliated Brokers 0.00% 0.81% 0.00%

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, the Funds entered into transactions directed to broker-dealers because of research services provided in the following amounts. All figures are presented in thousands and are rounded to the nearest thousand.

 

Fund

Total Commissions
Paid to Broker-Dealers

for Research Services

Amount of Related
Transactions
Large Cap Growth Fund $520 $3,683,565
Large Cap Value Fund $971 $2,338,782
Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund $1,508 $3,761,230
Small/Mid Cap Value Fund $774 $1,887,844
International Equity Fund $617 $1,710,143

 

B-184


For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, the Funds held the securities of their “regular broker-dealers” (as such term is defined in the 1940 Act) in the following amounts. All figures are presented in thousands and are rounded to the nearest thousand.

 

Fund Regular Broker or Dealer

Aggregate Holdings

as of June 30, 2023

Core Bond Fund JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. $77,267
MORGAN STANLEY $91,247
GOLDMAN SACHS AND CO. LLC $91,861
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC. $117,557
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. $176,467
WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC $38,340
BARCLAYS BANK PLC $24,324
MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC. $26,321
Core Plus Bond Fund BNP PARIBAS $35,991
MORGAN STANLEY AND CO., LLC $206,849
GOLDMAN SACHS AND CO. LLC $136,683
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION $279,302
BARCLAYS BK PLC LONDON BRANCH $98,287
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. $153,296
NOMURA SECURITIES/FIXED INCOME $16,198
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC. $90,093
WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC $142,924
Large Cap Growth Fund GOLDMAN SACHS AND CO. LLC $166,266
MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL $211,640

Large Cap Value Fund

JEFFERIES LLC. $69,085
GOLDMAN SACHS AND CO. LLC $92,475
MORGAN STANLEY AND CO., LLC $118,887
JPMORGAN SECURITIES LLC $63,522
Small/Mid Cap Value Fund JEFFERIES LLC. $186

CAPITAL STOCK

Shares issued by the Funds have no preemptive, conversion, or subscription rights. Shares issued and sold by the Funds are deemed to be validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable by the Trust. Shareholders have equal and exclusive rights as to dividends and distributions as declared by a Fund and to the net assets of a Fund upon liquidation or dissolution. Each Fund votes on all matters solely affecting the Fund (e.g., approval of the Advisory Agreement). All series of the Trust vote as a single class on matters affecting those series jointly or the Trust as a whole (e.g., election or removal of Trustees). Voting rights are not cumulative, so that the holders of more than 50% of the shares voting in any election of Trustees can, if

 

B-185


they so choose, elect all of the Trustees. While the Trust is not required and does not intend to hold annual meetings of shareholders, such meetings may be called by the Board in its discretion, or upon demand by the holders of 10% or more of the outstanding shares of the Trust, for the purpose of electing or removing Trustees.

Any series of the Trust may reorganize or merge with one or more other series of the Trust or another investment company. Any such reorganization or merger shall be pursuant to the terms and conditions specified in an agreement and plan of reorganization authorized and approved by the Trustees and entered into by the relevant series in connection therewith. In addition, such reorganization or merger may be authorized by vote of a majority of the Trustees then in office and, to the extent permitted by applicable law, without the approval of shareholders of any series.

DETERMINATION OF NET ASSET VALUE

The net asset value per share (NAV) of each Fund is determined as of the close of regular trading on the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) (generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time), each day the NYSE is open for trading. The NYSE annually announces the days on which it will not be open for trading. It is expected that the NYSE will not be open for trading on the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Juneteenth National Independence Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. The NAV of each Fund is determined by dividing the value of the Fund’s total net assets by the total number of shares outstanding. For purposes of calculating the NAV, portfolio securities and derivative instruments are valued using valuation methods adopted by the Board.

Pursuant to Rule 2a-5 under the 1940 Act, the Board has designated the Adviser as the valuation designee for the Funds. The Adviser performs the fair value determination relating to the Funds’ investments that do not have readily available market quotations, subject to Board oversight and certain reporting and other requirements. The Adviser monitors the continual appropriateness of valuation methods applied and determines if adjustments should be made in light of market factor changes and events affecting issuers.

The Adviser has established a Valuation Committee to assist the Adviser in carrying out its responsibilities under Rule 2a-5. The Committee meets monthly, or more frequently as necessary, to assess and manage any material risks associated with the determination of the fair value of the Funds’ investments, review the appropriateness and accuracy of fair value methodologies, and monitor for circumstances that may necessitate the use of fair value pricing or a change in fair value methodologies, and to determine fair value for the Funds’ investments. In establishing a fair value for an investment, the Adviser uses valuation methodologies established by the Adviser and may consider inputs and methodologies provided by, among others, third-party independent pricing services and/or independent broker dealers.

In using fair value pricing, a Fund attempts to establish the price that it might reasonably have expected to receive upon a sale of the security at 4:00 p.m. Eastern time. Valuing securities at fair value involves greater reliance on judgment than valuation of securities based on readily available market quotations. When using fair value to price securities, a Fund may value those securities higher or lower than another fund using market quotations or fair value to price the same securities. Further, there can be no assurance that the Fund could obtain the fair value assigned to a security if it were to sell the security at approximately the same time at which the Fund determines its net asset value.

Foreign securities, currencies and other assets denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars are translated to dollars using exchange rates obtained from independent pricing services. All assets denominated in foreign currencies will be converted to U.S. dollars using the applicable currency exchange rates as of the close of the NYSE. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain common and preferred stocks that are solely traded on a foreign exchange to account for the market movement between the close

 

B-186


of the foreign market and the close of the NYSE. These securities are generally valued using pricing service providers that consider the correlation of the trading patterns of the foreign securities to the intraday trading in the U.S. markets for investments.

Fixed-income securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes, U.S. government agencies, U.S. Treasury obligations, sovereign issues, bank loans, convertible preferred securities and non-U.S. bonds (other than short-term securities) are valued using that day’s bid price provided by an independent pricing service, where such a bid price is available. The independent pricing service’s internal models use inputs that are observable such as, among other things, issuer details, interest rates, yield curves, prepayment speeds, trade information, market color, credit risks/spreads, default rates and quoted prices for similar assets and the securities’ terms and conditions. Mortgage- and asset-backed securities are also normally valued by pricing service providers that use broker-dealer quotations or valuation estimates from their internal pricing models. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche level attributes, estimated cash flows and market-based yield spreads for each tranche and current market data and packaged collateral performance, as available. Short-term securities with 60 days or less remaining to maturity when acquired by a Fund are generally valued on an amortized cost basis, which approximates fair value.

Equity securities traded on a national securities exchange are valued at the last reported sale price at the close of regular trading on each day the exchange is open for trading. Securities listed on the NASDAQ National Market System for which market quotations are readily available are valued using the NASDAQ Official Closing Price. Securities traded on an exchange on which there have been no sales may be fair valued using a methodology determined by the Valuation Committee. Securities and financial instruments for which prices are not available from an independent pricing service may be fair valued using market quotations obtained from one or more dealers that make markets in the respective securities in accordance with the Adviser’s fair value procedures which were approved by the Board.

Exchange traded financial derivative instruments, such as futures contracts or options contracts that are traded on a national securities or commodities exchange, are fair valued at the last reported sales or settlement price. If there was no sale activity, the financial derivative is fair valued at the mean between the highest bid and lowest ask price on the relevant exchange closest to the close of the NYSE. Swap contracts are marked to market daily based on quotations provided by an independent pricing service.

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING PROGRAM

The Trust has established an Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program (the “Program”) as required by the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (“USA PATRIOT Act”). To ensure compliance with this law, the Trust’s Program provides for the development of internal practices, procedures and controls, designation of anti-money laundering compliance officers, an ongoing training program and an independent audit function to determine the effectiveness of the Program.

Procedures to implement the Program include, but are not limited to, determining that the Distributor and the Funds’ Transfer Agent have established proper anti-money laundering procedures, reporting suspicious and/or fraudulent activity and conducting a complete and thorough review of all new opening account applications. The Funds will not transact business with any person or entity whose identity cannot be adequately verified under the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.

As a result of the Program, the Trust may be required to “freeze” the account of a shareholder if the shareholder appears to be involved in suspicious activity or if certain account information matches information on government lists of known terrorists or other suspicious persons, or the Trust may be required to transfer the account or proceeds of the account to a governmental agency.

 

B-187


REDEMPTIONS AND PURCHASES IN-KIND

The information provided below supplements the information contained in the Funds’ Prospectuses regarding the purchase and redemption of Fund shares.

Redemptions In-Kind

The Funds have reserved the right to pay the redemption price of its shares, either totally or partially, by a distribution in kind of portfolio securities (instead of cash). The securities so distributed would be valued at the same amount as that assigned to them in calculating the NAV for the shares being sold. If a shareholder receives a distribution in kind, the shareholder could incur brokerage or other charges in converting the securities to cash. A redemption in-kind is treated as a taxable transaction and a sale of the redeemed shares, generally resulting in capital gain or loss to you, subject to certain loss limitation rules. Each Fund does not intend to hold more than 15% of its portfolio in illiquid investments that are assets. In the unlikely event a Fund were to elect to make an in-kind redemption, the Fund expects that it would follow the normal protocol of making such distribution by way of a pro rata distribution based on its entire portfolio. If a Fund held illiquid investments, such distribution may contain a pro rata portion of such illiquid investments or the Fund may determine, based on a materiality assessment, not to include illiquid investments in the in-kind redemption. Under normal circumstances, the Funds do not anticipate that they would selectively distribute a greater than pro rata portion of any illiquid investments to satisfy a redemption request. If such investments are included in the distribution, shareholders may not be able to liquidate such investments and may be required to hold such investments indefinitely. Shareholders’ ability to liquidate such investments distributed in-kind may be restricted by resale limitations or substantial restrictions on transfer imposed by the issuers of the investments or by law. Shareholders may only be able to liquidate such investments distributed in-kind at a substantial discount from their value, and there may be higher brokerage costs associated with any subsequent disposition of these investments by the recipient.

Purchases In-Kind

Subject to the approval of the applicable Fund, an investor may purchase shares of the Fund with securities and other assets that are eligible for purchase by the Fund (consistent with the Fund’s investment policies and restrictions) and that have a value that is readily ascertainable in accordance with the Fund’s valuation policies. These transactions will be effected only if the Adviser or Sub-adviser deems the security to be an appropriate investment for the Fund. Assets purchased by the Fund in such a transaction will be valued in accordance with procedures adopted by the Fund. The Funds reserve the right to amend or terminate this practice at any time.

DISTRIBUTIONS AND TAX INFORMATION

Distributions

Each Fund will make distributions of dividends and capital gains, if any, at least annually. A Fund may make an additional payment of dividends or other distributions if it deems it to be desirable or necessary at other times during any year.

All distributions will be reinvested in shares of the relevant Fund. Generally, distributions are taxable events for shareholders whether the distributions are received in cash or reinvested. In January of each year, each Fund will issue to each shareholder a statement of the U.S. federal income tax status of all distributions to each shareholder.

 

B-188


Tax Information

The following is only a summary of certain additional U.S. federal income tax considerations generally affecting the Funds and their shareholders that is intended to supplement the discussion contained in the Funds’ Prospectus. No attempt is made to present a detailed explanation of the tax treatment of the Funds or their shareholders, and the discussion here and in the Funds’ Prospectus is not intended as a substitute for careful tax planning. The summary is very general, and except as expressly discussed below, does not address investors subject to special rules, such as non-U.S. investors and investors who hold shares through an individual retirement account, 401(k) or other tax-advantaged account. Shareholders are urged to consult their tax advisors with specific reference to their own tax situations, including their state, local, and foreign tax liabilities.

The following general discussion of certain federal income tax consequences is based on the Code and the regulations issued thereunder as in effect on the date of this SAI. New legislation, as well as administrative changes or court decisions, may significantly change the conclusions expressed herein, and may have a retroactive effect with respect to the transactions contemplated herein.

You are urged to consult your own tax advisor regarding your investment in the Funds.

Qualification as a Regulated Investment Company

Each Fund has elected or will elect and intends to continue to qualify each year to be taxed as a regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Code, provided it complies with all applicable requirements regarding the source of its income, diversification of its assets and timing and amount of distributions. Each Fund’s policy is to distribute to its shareholders all of its investment company taxable income and any net realized long-term capital gains for each fiscal year in a manner that complies with the distribution requirements applicable to RICs under the Code, so that the Fund will not be subject to any federal income or excise taxes. However, no Fund can give assurances that its distributions will be sufficient to eliminate all taxes. If a Fund fails to qualify as a RIC under Subchapter M of the Code and to qualify for certain relief provisions, it will be taxed as a regular corporation.

In order to qualify as a RIC, each Fund must, among other things, derive at least 90% of its gross income each year from dividends, interest, payments with respect to certain loans of stock and securities, gains from the sale or other disposition of stock or securities or foreign currency, or other income (generally including but not limited to gains from options, futures or forward contracts) derived with respect to its business of investing in such stock, securities or currency, and net income derived from an interest in a qualified publicly traded partnership (the “Qualifying Income Test”). Each Fund must also satisfy the following two asset diversification tests. At the end of each quarter of the Funds’ taxable year: (i) at least 50% of the value of the Fund’s total assets must be represented by cash and cash items (including receivables), U.S. Government securities, the securities of other RICs, and other securities, with such other securities being limited in respect of any one issuer to an amount not greater than 5% of the value of the Fund’s total assets and not more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer, and (ii) not more than 25% of the value of the Fund’s total assets may be invested, including through corporations in which the Fund owns a 20% or more voting stock interest, in the securities of any one issuer (other than U.S. Government securities or the securities of other RICs), the securities of any two or more issuers (other than the securities of other RICs) that the Fund controls (by owning 20% of the total combined voting power of all classes or stock entitled to vote of such issuers) and that are determined to be engaged in the same or similar trades or businesses or related trades or businesses, or the securities of one or more qualified publicly traded partnerships (the “Asset Test”). Each Fund must also distribute each taxable year to its shareholders at least the sum of 90% of the Fund’s net investment income (which generally includes dividends, taxable interest, and the excess of net short-term capital gains over net long-term capital losses, less operating expenses) and at least 90% of the Fund’s net tax-exempt interest income, if any (the “Distribution Requirement”).

 

B-189


Although the Funds intend to distribute substantially all of their net investment income and may distribute their capital gains for any taxable year, the Funds will be subject to federal income taxation to the extent any such income or gains are not distributed. Each Fund is treated as a separate corporation for federal income tax purposes. A Fund therefore is considered to be a separate entity in determining its treatment under the rules for RICs described herein. Losses in one Fund do not offset gains in another and the requirements (other than certain organizational requirements) for qualifying RIC status are determined at the Fund level rather than at the Trust level.

If a Fund fails to satisfy the Qualifying Income or Asset Test in any taxable year, the Fund may be eligible for relief provisions if the failures are due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect and if a penalty tax is paid with respect to each failure to satisfy the applicable requirements. Additionally, relief is provided for certain de minimis failures of the diversification requirements where the Fund corrects the failure within a specified period. If a Fund fails to maintain qualification as a RIC for a tax year, and the relief provisions are not available, the Fund will be subject to federal income tax at the regular corporate rate (currently 21%) without any deduction for distributions to shareholders. In such case, its shareholders would be taxed as if they received ordinary dividends to the extent of the Fund’s earnings and profits, although corporate shareholders could be eligible for the dividends received deduction (subject to certain limitations) and individuals may be able to benefit from the lower tax rates available to qualified dividend income. In addition, the Fund could be required to recognize unrealized gains, pay substantial taxes and interest, and make substantial distributions before requalifying as a RIC. The Board reserves the right not to maintain the qualification of any Fund as a RIC if it determines such course of action to be beneficial to shareholders.

Each Fund may elect to treat part or all of any “qualified late year loss” as if it had been incurred in the succeeding taxable year in determining the Fund’s taxable income, net capital gain, net short-term capital gain, and earnings and profits. The effect of this election is to treat any such “qualified late year loss” as if it had been incurred in the succeeding taxable year in characterizing Fund distributions for any calendar year. A “qualified late year loss” generally includes net capital loss, net long-term capital loss, or net short-term capital loss incurred after October 31 of the current taxable year (commonly referred to as “post-October losses”) and certain other late-year losses.

The treatment of capital loss carryovers for the Funds is similar to the rules that apply to capital loss carryovers of individuals, which provide that such losses are carried over indefinitely. If a Fund has a “net capital loss” (that is, capital losses in excess of capital gains), the excess of the Fund’s net short-term capital losses over its net long-term capital gains is treated as a short-term capital loss arising on the first day of the Fund’s next taxable year, and the excess (if any) of the Fund’s net long-term capital losses over its net short-term capital gains is treated as a long-term capital loss arising on the first day of the Fund’s next taxable year. The carryover of capital losses may be limited under the general loss limitation rules if a Fund experiences an ownership change as defined in the Code.

Federal Excise Tax

Notwithstanding the Distribution Requirement described above, which generally requires a Fund to distribute at least 90% of its annual investment company taxable income and the excess of its exempt interest income (but does not require any minimum distribution of net capital gain), a Fund will be subject to a nondeductible 4% federal excise tax to the extent it fails to distribute by the end of the calendar year at least 98% of its ordinary income for that year and 98.2% of its capital gain net income (the excess of short- and long-term capital gains over short- and long-term capital losses) for the one-year period ending on October 31 of such year (including any retained amount from the prior calendar year on which a Fund paid no federal income tax). The Funds intend to make sufficient distributions to avoid liability for federal excise tax, but can make no assurances that such tax will be completely eliminated. The Funds may in certain circumstances be required to liquidate Fund investments in order to make sufficient distributions to

 

B-190


avoid federal excise tax liability at a time when the investment adviser might not otherwise have chosen to do so, and liquidation of investments in such circumstances may affect the ability of the Funds to satisfy the requirement for qualification as a RIC.

Distributions to Shareholders

Each Fund’s ordinary income generally consists of interest on investments and dividend income. This income, plus net short-term capital gains, if any, less expenses incurred in the operation of a Fund, constitutes a Fund’s net investment income from which dividends may be paid to you.

Distributions of net investment income (other than distributions of exempt-interest dividends) and net short-term capital gains are taxable to shareholders at ordinary income tax rates or at the lower capital gains rates that apply to individuals receiving qualified dividend income, whether you take them in cash or in additional shares. Distributions by the Funds are currently eligible for the reduced maximum tax rate to individuals of 20% (lower rates apply to individuals in lower tax brackets) to the extent that the Funds receive qualified dividend income on the securities they hold and the Funds report the distributions as qualified dividend income.

Qualified dividend income is, in general, dividend income from taxable domestic corporations and certain foreign corporations (e.g., foreign corporations incorporated in a possession of the United States or in certain countries with a comprehensive tax treaty with the United States, or the stock of which is readily tradable on an established securities market in the United States). A dividend will not be treated as qualified dividend income to the extent that: (i) the shareholder has not held the shares on which the dividend was paid for more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins on the date that is 60 days before the date on which the shares become “ex-dividend” (which is the day on which declared distributions (dividends or capital gains) are deducted from the Fund’s assets before it calculates the net asset value) with respect to such dividend, (ii) the Fund has not satisfied similar holding period requirements with respect to the securities it holds that paid the dividends distributed to the shareholder, (iii) the shareholder is under an obligation (whether pursuant to a short sale or otherwise) to make related payments with respect to substantially similar or related property, or (iv) the shareholder elects to treat such dividend as investment income under Section 163(d)(4)(B) of the Code. Therefore, if you lend your shares in the Funds, such as pursuant to securities lending arrangement, you may lose the ability to treat dividends (paid while the shares are held by the borrower) as qualified dividend income. Distributions that a Fund receives from an underlying fund taxable as a RIC or a REIT will be treated as qualified dividend income only to the extent so reported by such underlying fund or REIT. In view of the investment policy of the Core Bond Fund, Core Plus Bond Fund, Municipal Bond Fund and Municipal High-Income Bond Fund, it is generally not expected that dividends from domestic corporations will be part of the gross income of those Funds and that, accordingly, part of the distributions by such Funds are unlikely to be eligible for the reduced tax rates applicable to qualified dividend income received by individual shareholders. In addition, certain of the other Funds’ investment strategies may limit their ability to make distributions that are treated as qualified dividend income.

Distributions by the Funds of their net short-term capital gains will be taxable as ordinary income. Capital gain distributions consisting of a Fund’s net capital gains will be taxable as long-term capital gains for individual shareholders, currently set at a maximum rate of 20%, regardless of the length of time they have held their shares. Distributions from capital gains are generally made after applying any available capital loss carryforwards.

In the case of corporate shareholders of some Funds, a Fund’s distributions (other than capital gain distributions) generally qualify for the dividends received deduction to the extent such distributions are so reported and do not exceed the gross amount of qualifying dividends received by such Fund for the year. Generally, and subject to certain limitations (including certain holding period limitations), a dividend will

 

B-191


be treated as a qualifying dividend if it has been received from a domestic corporation. In view of the investment policy of the Core Bond Fund, Core Plus Bond Fund, Municipal Bond Fund, Municipal High-Income Bond Fund and International Equity Fund, it is generally not expected that dividends from domestic corporations will be part of the gross income of those Funds and that, accordingly, part of the distributions by such Funds are unlikely to be eligible for the dividends received deduction for corporate shareholders. In addition, certain of the other Funds’ investment strategies may limit their ability to make distributions eligible for the dividends received deduction.

To the extent that a Fund makes a distribution of income received by the Fund in lieu of dividends (a “substitute payment”) with respect to securities on loan pursuant to a securities lending transaction, such income will not constitute qualified dividend income to individual shareholders and will not be eligible for the dividends received deduction for corporate shareholders.

If a Fund’s distributions exceed its taxable income and capital gains realized during a taxable year, all or a portion of the distributions made in the same taxable year may be re-characterized as a return of capital to the shareholders. A return of capital distribution will generally not be taxable, but will reduce each shareholder’s cost basis in the Fund and result in a higher reported capital gain or lower reported capital loss when those shares on which the distribution was received are sold.

Capital gains distributions are not eligible for the dividends received deduction for corporate shareholders. There is no requirement that a Fund take into consideration any tax implications when implementing its investment strategy. Distributions of any ordinary income and net realized capital gains will be taxable as described above, whether received in shares or in cash. Shareholders who choose to receive distributions in the form of additional shares will have a cost basis for federal income tax purposes in each share so received equal to the NAV of a share on the reinvestment date.

Distributions of capital gain and distributions of net investment income received shortly after the purchase of shares reduce the NAV of a Fund’s shares by the amount of the distribution. If you purchase shares just prior to a distribution, the purchase price would reflect the amount of the upcoming distribution. In this case, you are taxed on the distribution even though, as an economic matter, the distribution represents a return of your investment. This is known as “buying a dividend” and should be avoided by taxable investors.

A RIC that receives business interest income may pass through its net business interest income for purposes of the tax rules applicable to the interest expense limitations under Section 163(j) of the Code. A RIC’s total “Section 163(j) Interest Dividend” for a tax year is limited to the excess of the RIC’s business interest income over the sum of its business interest expense and its other deductions properly allocable to its business interest income. A RIC may, in its discretion, designate all or a portion of ordinary dividends as Section 163(j) Interest Dividends, which would allow the recipient shareholder to treat the designated portion of such dividends as interest income for purposes of determining such shareholder’s interest expense deduction limitation under Section 163(j). This can potentially increase the amount of a shareholder’s interest expense deductible under Section 163(j). In general, to be eligible to treat a Section 163(j) Interest Dividend as interest income, you must have held your shares in a Fund for more than 180 days during the 361-day period beginning on the date that is 180 days before the date on which the share becomes ex-dividend with respect to such dividend. Section 163(j) Interest Dividends, if so designated by a Fund, will be reported to your financial intermediary or otherwise in accordance with the requirements specified by the IRS.

Distributions are generally taxable when received. However, distributions declared in October, November or December to shareholders of record on a date in such a month and paid the following January are taxable as if received on December 31 of the calendar year in which declared. Under this rule, therefore, a shareholder may be taxed in one year on dividends or distributions actually received in January of the following year.

 

B-192


A Fund (or its administrative agent) will inform you of the amount of your ordinary income dividends, qualified dividend income, exempt-interest dividends, and capital gain distributions, if any, and will advise you of their tax status for federal income tax purposes shortly after the close of each calendar year. If you have not held Fund shares for a full year, a Fund may report and distribute to you, as ordinary income, qualified dividend income or capital gain, a percentage of income that is not equal to the actual amount of such income earned during the period of your investment in the Fund.

Sales, Exchanges or Redemptions

Any gain or loss recognized on a sale, exchange, or redemption of shares of a Fund by a shareholder who holds shares as a capital asset will generally be treated as a long-term capital gain or loss if the shares have been held for more than twelve months and otherwise will be treated as a short-term capital gain or loss. However, if shares on which a shareholder has received a net capital gain or a tax-exempt interest dividend distribution are subsequently sold, exchanged, or redeemed and such shares have been held for six months or less, any loss recognized will be treated as a long-term capital loss to the extent of the net capital gain distribution or disallowed to the extent of tax-exempt interest dividend distributions. In addition, the loss realized on a sale or other disposition of shares will be disallowed to the extent a shareholder repurchases (or enters into a contract to or option to repurchase) shares within a period of 61 days (beginning 30 days before and ending 30 days after the disposition of the shares). This loss disallowance rule will apply to shares received through the reinvestment of dividends during the 61-day period. For tax purposes, an exchange of Fund shares for shares of a different fund is the same as a sale.

Each Fund (or its administrative agent) must report to the IRS and furnish to its shareholders cost basis information for purchases of Fund shares. Each Fund is also required to report whether these shares had a short-term or long-term holding period. For each sale of Fund shares, a Fund will permit shareholders to elect from among several IRS-accepted cost basis methods, including the average cost basis method. In the absence of an election, a Fund will use the default cost basis method which, if applicable, will be provided to you by your financial adviser in a separate communication. The cost basis method elected by the Fund shareholder (or the cost basis method applied by default) for each sale of Fund shares may not be changed after the settlement date of each such sale of Fund shares. Fund shareholders should consult with their tax advisors to determine the best IRS-accepted cost basis method for their tax situation and to obtain more information about how the cost basis reporting law applies to them. Shareholders also should carefully review the cost basis information provided to them by the Funds and make any additional basis, holding period or other adjustments that are required when reporting these amounts on their federal income tax returns.

U.S. individuals with income exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 if married and filing jointly) are subject to a 3.8% tax on their “net investment income,” including interest, dividends, and capital gains (including capital gains realized on the sale or exchange of shares of the Fund).

Backup Withholding

Pursuant to the backup withholding provisions of the Code, distributions of any taxable income and capital gains and proceeds from the redemption of Fund shares may be subject to withholding of federal income tax at the rate of 24% in the case of a non-exempt shareholder who: (1) has failed to provide a correct taxpayer identification number (usually the shareholder’s social security number); (2) is subject to back-up withholding by the IRS for failure to properly report payments of interest or dividends; (3) has failed to provide the Fund with the certifications required by the IRS to document that the shareholder is not subject to back-up withholding; or (4) has failed to certify that he or she is a U.S. person (including a U.S. resident alien). If the withholding provisions are applicable, any such distributions and proceeds, whether taken in cash or reinvested in additional shares, will be reduced by the amounts required to be withheld. Corporate

 

B-193


and other exempt shareholders should provide the Funds with their taxpayer identification numbers or certify their exempt status in order to avoid possible erroneous application of backup withholding. Backup withholding is not an additional tax and any amounts withheld may be credited against a shareholder’s ultimate federal tax liability if proper documentation is provided. The Funds reserve the right to refuse to open an account for any person failing to provide a certified taxpayer identification number.

Foreign Taxes

Each Fund (other than the Municipal Bond Fund and Municipal High-Income Bond Fund) may invest in foreign securities and therefore may be subject to foreign withholding taxes on dividends and interest earned with respect to securities of foreign corporations. Tax conventions between certain countries and the U.S. may reduce or eliminate these taxes. Foreign countries generally do not impose taxes on capital gains with respect to investments by foreign investors.

If more than 50% in value of the total assets of a Fund at the end of its fiscal year is invested in stock or securities of foreign corporations, the Fund may elect to pass through to its shareholders the pro rata share of all foreign income taxes paid by the Fund, subject to certain exceptions. If this election is made, shareholders will be (i) required to include in their gross income their pro rata share of the Fund’s foreign source income (including any foreign income taxes paid by the Fund) and must treat the amounts so included as if the shareholder had paid the foreign tax directly. The shareholder is then entitled either to deduct their share of such foreign taxes in computing their taxable income or to claim a credit for such taxes against their U.S. income tax, subject to certain limitations under the Code, including certain holding period requirements. In this case, shareholders will be informed in writing by the Fund at the end of each calendar year regarding the availability of any credits on and the amount of foreign source income (including or excluding foreign income taxes paid by the Fund) to be included in their income tax returns. If not more than 50% in value of the Fund’s total assets at the end of its fiscal year is invested in stock or securities of foreign corporations, the Fund will not be entitled under the Code to pass through to its shareholders their pro rata share of the foreign taxes paid by the Fund, subject to certain exceptions. In this case, these taxes will be taken as a deduction by the Fund.

A shareholder’s ability to claim a foreign tax credit or deduction in respect of foreign taxes paid by a Fund may be subject to certain limitations imposed by the Code, which may result in a shareholder not receiving a full credit or deduction (if any) for the amount of such taxes. In particular, shareholders must hold their Fund shares (without protection from risk of loss) on the ex-dividend date and for at least 15 additional days during the 30-day period surrounding the ex-dividend date to be eligible to claim a foreign tax credit with respect to a given dividend. Shareholders who do not itemize on their federal income tax returns may claim a credit (but no deduction) for such foreign taxes. Even if a Fund were eligible to make such an election for a given year, it may determine not to do so. Shareholders that are not subject to U.S. federal income tax, and those who invest in a Fund through tax-advantaged accounts (including those who invest through individual retirement accounts or other tax-advantaged retirement plans), generally will receive no benefit from any tax credit or deduction passed through by a Fund.

Under certain circumstances, if a Fund receives a refund of foreign taxes paid in respect of a prior year, the value of Fund shares could be affected or any foreign tax credits or deductions passed through to shareholders in respect of the Fund’s foreign taxes for the current year could be reduced.

Tax Treatment of Complex Securities

The Funds may invest in complex securities and these investments may be subject to numerous special and complex rules that will determine the character and timing of recognition of the income received in connection therewith by the Fund. These rules could affect a Fund’s ability to qualify as a RIC, affect whether gains and losses recognized by the Fund are treated as ordinary income or capital gain, accelerate

 

B-194


the recognition of income to the Fund and/or defer the Fund’s ability to recognize losses, and, in limited cases, subject the Fund to federal income tax on income from certain of its foreign securities. In turn, these rules may affect the amount, timing or character of the income distributed to you by the Fund. To the extent a Fund invests in an underlying fund that is taxable as a RIC, the following discussion regarding the tax treatment of complex securities will also apply to the underlying funds that also invest in such complex securities and investments.

With respect to investments in STRIPS, TRs, and other zero coupon securities which are sold at original issue discount and thus do not make periodic cash interest payments, each Fund will be required to include as part of its current income the imputed interest on such obligations even though the Fund has not received any interest payments on such obligations during that period. Because each Fund intends to distribute all of its net investment income to its shareholders, the Funds may have to sell Fund securities to distribute such imputed income which may occur at a time when the Adviser would not have chosen to sell such securities and which may result in taxable gain or loss.

Any market discount recognized on a bond is taxable as ordinary income. A market discount bond is a bond acquired in the secondary market at a price below redemption value or adjusted issue price if issued with original issue discount. Absent an election by a Fund to include the market discount in income as it accrues, gain on the Fund’s disposition of such an obligation will be treated as ordinary income rather than capital gain to the extent of the accrued market discount.

A Fund may invest in inflation-linked debt securities. Any increase in the principal amount of an inflation-linked debt security will be original interest discount, which is taxable as ordinary income and is required to be distributed, even though the Fund will not receive the principal, including any increase thereto, until maturity. As noted above, if a Fund invests in such securities it may be required to liquidate other investments, including at times when it is not advantageous to do so, in order to satisfy its distribution requirements and to eliminate any possible taxation at the Fund level.

Any security or other position entered into or held by a Fund that substantially diminishes the Fund’s risk of loss from any other position held by the Fund may constitute a “straddle” for federal income tax purposes. In general, straddles are subject to certain rules that may affect the amount, character and timing of a Fund’s gains and losses with respect to straddle positions by requiring, among other things, that the loss realized on disposition of one position of a straddle be deferred until gain is realized on disposition of the offsetting position; that the Fund’s holding period in certain straddle positions not begin until the straddle is terminated (possibly resulting in the gain being treated as short–term capital gain rather than long–term capital gain); and that losses recognized with respect to certain straddle positions, which would otherwise constitute short–term capital losses, be treated as long–term capital losses. Different elections are available to the Fund that may mitigate the effects of the straddle rules.

Certain forward and options contracts that are subject to Section 1256 of the Code (“Section 1256 Contracts”) and that are held by the Fund at the end of their taxable year generally will be required to be “marked-to-market” for federal income tax purposes and deemed to have been sold at market value. Sixty percent of any net gain or loss recognized on these deemed sales and 60% of any net gain or loss realized from any actual sales of Section 1256 Contracts will be treated as long-term capital gain or loss, and the balance will be treated as short–term capital gain or loss. A Fund may be required to defer the recognition of losses on Section 1256 Contracts to the extent of any unrecognized gains on offsetting positions held by the Fund. These provisions may also require the Funds to mark-to-market certain types of positions in their portfolios (i.e., treat them as if they were closed out), which may cause a Fund to recognize income without receiving cash with which to make distributions in amounts necessary to satisfy the Distribution Requirement and for avoiding the excise tax discussed above. Accordingly, in order to avoid certain income and excise taxes, a Fund may be required to liquidate its investments at a time when an adviser might not otherwise have chosen to do so.

 

B-195


Section 988 of the Code contains special tax rules applicable to certain foreign currency transactions that may affect the amount, timing and character of income, gain or loss recognized by each Fund. Under these rules, foreign exchange gain or loss realized with respect to debt securities and certain foreign currency forward contracts is treated as ordinary income or loss. Some part of a Fund’s gain or loss on the sale or other disposition of shares of a foreign corporation may, because of changes in foreign currency exchange rates, be treated as ordinary income or loss under Section 988 of the Code rather than as capital gain or loss. These provisions also may require a Fund to mark-to-market certain types of positions in its portfolio (i.e., treat them as if they were closed out) which may cause the Fund to recognize income without receiving cash with which to make distributions in amounts necessary to satisfy the distribution requirements and for avoiding the excise tax described above. The Funds intend to monitor their transactions, intend to make the appropriate tax elections, and intend to make the appropriate entries in their books and records when they acquire any foreign currency or forward any foreign currency contract in order to mitigate the effect of these rules so as to prevent disqualification of a Fund as a RIC and minimize the imposition of income and excise taxes.

If a Fund owns shares in certain foreign investment entities, referred to as “passive foreign investment companies” or “PFICs,” the Fund will generally be subject to one of the following special tax regimes: (i) the Fund may be liable for U.S. federal income tax, and an additional interest charge, on a portion of any “excess distribution” from such foreign entity or any gain from the disposition of such shares, even if the entire distribution or gain is paid out by the Fund as a dividend to its shareholders; (ii) if the Fund were able and elected to treat a PFIC as a “qualified electing fund” or “QEF,” the Fund would be required each year to include in income, and distribute to shareholders in accordance with the distribution requirements set forth above, the Fund’s pro rata share of the ordinary earnings and net capital gains of the PFIC, whether or not such earnings or gains are distributed to the Fund; or (iii) the Fund may be entitled to mark-to-market annually shares of the PFIC, and in such event would be required to distribute to shareholders any such mark-to-market gains in accordance with the distribution requirements set forth above. A Fund may have to distribute to its shareholders certain “phantom” income and gain the Fund accrues with respect to its investment in a PFIC in order to satisfy the Fund’s distribution requirement and to avoid imposition of the 4% excise tax described above. A Fund will make the appropriate tax elections, if possible, and take any additional steps that are necessary to mitigate the effect of these rules. Amounts included in income each year by a Fund arising from a QEF election, will be “qualifying income” under the Qualifying Income Test (as described above) even if not distributed to the Fund, if the Fund derives such income from its business of investing in stock, securities or currencies.

A Fund may invest in U.S. REITs. Investments in REIT equity securities may require the Fund to accrue and distribute income not yet received. To generate sufficient cash to make the requisite distributions, the Fund may be required to sell securities in its portfolio (including when it is not advantageous to do so) that it otherwise would have continued to hold. A Fund’s investments in REIT equity securities may at other times result in the Fund’s receipt of cash in excess of the REIT’s earnings; if the Fund distributes these amounts, these distributions could constitute a return of capital to the Fund’s shareholders for federal income tax purposes. Dividends paid by a REIT, other than capital gain distributions, will be taxable as ordinary income up to the amount of the REIT’s current and accumulated earnings and profits. Capital gain dividends paid by a REIT to a Fund will be treated as long-term capital gains by the Fund and, in turn, may be distributed by the Fund to its shareholders as a capital gain distribution. Dividends received by a Fund from a REIT generally will not constitute qualified dividend income and will not qualify for the dividends received deduction. If a REIT is operated in a manner such that it fails to qualify as a REIT, an investment in the REIT would become subject to double taxation, meaning the taxable income of the REIT would be subject to federal income tax at the regular corporate rate without any deduction for dividends paid to shareholders and the dividends would be taxable to shareholders as ordinary income (or possibly as qualified dividend income) to the extent of the REIT’s current and accumulated earnings and profits.

 

B-196


“Qualified REIT dividends” (i.e., ordinary REIT dividends other than capital gain dividends and portions of REIT dividends designated as qualified dividend income eligible for capital gain tax rates) are eligible for a 20% deduction by non-corporate taxpayers. This deduction, if allowed in full, equates to a maximum effective tax rate of 29.6% (37% top rate applied to income after 20% deduction). Distributions by a Fund to its shareholders that are attributable to qualified REIT dividends received by the Fund and which the Fund properly reports as “section 199A dividends,” are treated as “qualified REIT dividends” in the hands of non-corporate shareholders. A section 199A dividend is treated as a qualified REIT dividend only if the shareholder receiving such dividend holds the dividend-paying RIC shares for at least 46 days of the 91-day period beginning 45 days before the shares become ex-dividend, and is not under an obligation to make related payments with respect to a position in substantially similar or related property. A Fund is permitted to report such part of its dividends as section 199A dividends as are eligible, but is not required to do so. Unless later extended or made permanent, this 20% deduction will no longer be available for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.

REITs in which a Fund invests often do not provide complete and final tax information to the Funds until after the time that the Funds issue a tax reporting statement. As a result, a Fund may at times find it necessary to reclassify the amount and character of its distributions to you after it issues your tax reporting statement. When such reclassification is necessary, a Fund (or its administrative agent) will send you a corrected, final Form 1099-DIV to reflect the reclassified information. If you receive a corrected Form 1099-DIV, use the information on this corrected form, and not the information on the previously issued tax reporting statement, in completing your tax returns.

Non-U.S. Investors

Any non-U.S. investors in the Funds may be subject to U.S. withholding and estate tax and are encouraged to consult their tax advisors prior to investing in the Funds. Foreign shareholders (i.e., nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations, partnerships, trusts and estates) are generally subject to U.S. withholding tax at a 30% rate (or a lower treaty rate) on distributions derived from taxable ordinary income. A Fund may, under certain circumstances, report all or a portion of a dividend as an “interest-related dividend” or a “short-term capital gain dividend,” which would generally be exempt from this 30% U.S. withholding tax, provided certain other requirements are met. Short-term capital gain dividends received by a nonresident alien individual who is present in the U.S. for a period or periods aggregating 183 days or more during the taxable year are not exempt from this 30% withholding tax. Gains realized by foreign shareholders from the sale or other disposition of shares of a Fund generally are not subject to U.S. taxation, unless the recipient is an individual who is physically present in the U.S. for 183 days or more per year. Foreign shareholders who fail to provide an applicable IRS form may be subject to backup withholding on certain payments from a Fund. Backup withholding will not be applied to payments that are subject to the 30% (or lower applicable treaty rate) withholding tax described in this paragraph. Different tax consequences may result if the foreign shareholder is engaged in a trade or business within the United States. In addition, the tax consequences to a foreign shareholder entitled to claim the benefits of a tax treaty may be different than those described above.

Under legislation generally known as “FATCA” (the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act), the Funds are required to withhold 30% of certain ordinary dividends they pay to shareholders that fail to meet prescribed information reporting or certification requirements. In general, no such withholding will be required with respect to a U.S. person or non-U.S. person that timely provides the certifications required by a Fund or its agent on a valid IRS Form W-9 or applicable series of IRS Form W-8, respectively. Shareholders potentially subject to withholding include foreign financial institutions (“FFIs”), such as non-U.S. investment funds, and non-financial foreign entities (“NFFEs”). To avoid withholding under FATCA, an FFI generally must enter into an information sharing agreement with the IRS in which it agrees to report certain identifying information (including name, address, and taxpayer identification number) with respect to its U.S. account holders (which, in the case of an entity shareholder, may include its direct and indirect

 

B-197


U.S. owners), and an NFFE generally must identify and provide other required information to the fund or other withholding agent regarding its U.S. owners, if any. Such non-U.S. shareholders also may fall into certain exempt, excepted or deemed compliant categories as established by regulations and other guidance. A non-U.S. shareholder resident or doing business in a country that has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. to implement FATCA will be exempt from FATCA withholding provided that the shareholder and the applicable foreign government comply with the terms of the agreement.

A non-U.S. entity that invests in a Fund will need to provide such Fund with documentation properly certifying the entity’s status under FATCA in order to avoid FATCA withholding. Non-U.S. investors in the Funds should consult their tax advisors in this regard.

Tax Shelter Reporting Obligations

Under U.S. Treasury regulations, generally, if a shareholder recognizes a loss of $2 million or more for an individual shareholder or $10 million or more for a corporate shareholder, the shareholder must file with the IRS a disclosure statement on Form 8886. Direct shareholders of portfolio securities are in many cases excepted from this reporting requirement, but under current guidance, shareholders of RICs are not excepted. Future guidance may extend the current exception from this reporting requirement to shareholders of most or all RICs. The fact that a loss is reportable under these regulations does not affect the legal determination of whether the taxpayer’s treatment of the loss is proper. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors to determine the applicability of these regulations in light of their individual circumstances.

Tax-Exempt Shareholders

Certain tax-exempt shareholders, including qualified pension plans, individual retirement accounts, salary deferral arrangements, 401(k)s, and other tax-exempt entities, generally are exempt from federal income taxation except with respect to their unrelated business taxable income (“UBTI”). Tax-exempt entities are not permitted to offset losses from one trade or business against the income or gain of another trade or business. Certain net losses incurred prior to January 1, 2018 are permitted to offset gain and income created by an unrelated trade or business, if otherwise available. Under current law, the Funds generally serve to block UBTI from being realized by their tax-exempt shareholders. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax-exempt shareholder could realize UBTI by virtue of an investment in a Fund where, for example: (i) the Fund invests in residual interests of Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (“REMICs”), (ii) the Fund invests in a REIT that is a taxable mortgage pool (“TMP”) or that has a subsidiary that is a TMP or that invests in the residual interest of a REMIC, or (iii) shares in the Fund constitute debt-financed property in the hands of the tax-exempt shareholder within the meaning of section 514(b) of the Code. Charitable remainder trusts are subject to special rules and should consult their tax advisor. The IRS has issued guidance with respect to these issues and prospective shareholders, especially charitable remainder trusts, are strongly encouraged to consult their tax advisors regarding these issues.

The Funds’ shares held in a tax-qualified retirement account will generally not be subject to federal taxation on income and capital gains distributions from a Fund until a shareholder begins receiving payments from their retirement account.

Additional Considerations for the Municipal Bond Fund and Municipal High-Income Bond Fund

Shares of the Municipal Bond Fund and Municipal High-Income Bond Fund (collectively, the “Municipal Funds”) may not be suitable for tax-exempt shareholders since such shareholders generally would not benefit from the tax-exempt status of distributions from the Municipal Funds. Tax-exempt shareholders should contact their tax advisers and financial planners regarding the tax consequences to them of an investment in a Municipal Fund.

 

B-198


If at least 50% of the value of a Municipal Fund’s total assets at the close of each quarter of its taxable years consists of debt obligations that generate interest exempt from U.S. federal income tax, then such Municipal Fund may qualify to pass through to its shareholders the tax-exempt character of its income from such debt obligations by paying tax-exempt interest dividends. Each Municipal Fund intends to qualify and to provide shareholders with income exempt from U.S. federal income tax in the form of exempt-interest dividends. “Tax exempt-interest dividends” are dividends (other than capital gain dividends) paid by a RIC that are properly reported as such in a written statement furnished to shareholders. An underlying fund taxable as a RIC will generally be eligible to distribute exempt-interest dividends if at least 50% of its total assets at the close of each quarter of its taxable year consist of tax-exempt obligations. Each Municipal Fund will report to its shareholders the portion of the distributions for the taxable year that constitutes tax-exempt interest dividends. The reported portion generally cannot exceed the excess of the amount of interest excludable from gross income under the Code received by such Municipal Fund during the taxable year over any amounts disallowed with respect to deductions for interest expense incurred to purchase or carry tax-exempt obligations. Similarly, interest on indebtedness incurred to purchase or carry shares of a Municipal Fund by shareholders will not be deductible to the extent that the Municipal Fund’s distributions are exempt from the U.S. federal income tax. In addition, an investment in a Municipal Fund may result in federal alternative minimum tax (“Federal AMT”) liability for certain shareholders. In the case of non-corporate taxpayers, certain deductions and exemptions have been designated an “item of tax preference” which must be added back to taxable income for purposes of calculating the Federal AMT. Tax preference items generally include tax-exempt interest on certain “private activity bonds.” To the extent a Municipal Fund invests in certain private activity bonds, its non-corporate shareholders subject to the Federal AMT will be required to report that portion of such Municipal Fund’s distributions attributable to income from the bonds as a tax preference item in determining their Federal AMT, if any. Exempt-interest dividends may affect the federal corporate alternative minimum tax for certain corporations. Shareholders will be notified of the tax status of distributions made by a Municipal Fund. Interest paid on a municipal bond issued after December 31, 2017 to advance or refund another municipal bond is subject to federal income tax.

Persons who may be “substantial users” (or “related persons” of substantial users) of facilities financed by private activity bonds should consult their tax advisers before purchasing shares in a Municipal Fund. Furthermore, non-corporate shareholders subject to the Federal AMT will not be permitted to deduct any of their share of a Municipal Fund’s expenses in computing their Federal AMT.

Shareholders with questions or concerns about the Federal AMT should consult own their own tax advisers.

Ordinarily, a Municipal Fund relies on opinions from the issuer’s bond counsel that interest on the issuer’s debt obligation will be exempt from U.S. federal income tax. However, no assurance can be given that the IRS will not successfully challenge such exemption, which could cause interest on the debt obligation to be taxable and could jeopardize a Municipal Fund’s ability to pay any tax-exempt interest dividends. Similar challenges may occur as to state specific exemptions.

A shareholder who receives Social Security or railroad retirement benefits should consult the shareholder’s own tax adviser to determine what effect, if any, an investment in a Municipal Fund may have on the U.S. Federal taxation of such benefits. Tax-exempt interest dividends are included in income for purposes of determining the amount of benefits that are taxable.

Distributions of a Municipal Fund’s income other than tax-exempt interest dividends generally will be taxable to shareholders. Gains realized by a Municipal Fund on the sale or exchange of investments that generate tax-exempt income will also be taxable to shareholders.

Although tax-exempt interest dividends are generally exempt from U.S. federal income tax (except for certain shareholders subject to the Federal AMT), there may not be a similar exemption under the laws of a

 

B-199


particular state or local taxing jurisdiction. Thus, tax-exempt interest dividends may be subject to state and local taxes. You should consult your own tax advisor to discuss the tax consequences of your investment in a Municipal Fund.

State Taxes

Depending upon state and local law, distributions by a Fund to its shareholders and the ownership of such shares may be subject to state and local taxes. Rules of state and local taxation of dividend and capital gains distributions from RICs often differ from the rules for federal income taxation described above. It is expected that a Fund will not be liable for any corporate excise, income or franchise tax in Delaware if it qualifies as a RIC for federal income tax purposes.

The foregoing discussion regarding federal and state income taxation is for general information only. It is based on tax laws and regulations as in effect on the date of this SAI and is subject to change by legislative or administrative action. Shareholders should consult their tax advisor concerning the federal, state, local, and foreign tax consequences of an investment in a Fund.

DISTRIBUTOR

ALPS Distributors, Inc. (“ALPS Distributors”), 1290 Broadway, Suite 1100, Denver Colorado 80203, acts as principal underwriter in a continuous public offering of the Funds’ shares. Pursuant to a distribution agreement (the “Distribution Agreement”) between ALPS Distributors and the Trust, on behalf of the Funds, ALPS Distributors acts as the Trust’s principal underwriter and distributor (the “Distributor”) and provides certain administration services and promotes and arranges for the sale of the Funds’ shares. ALPS Distributors is a registered broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

After its two year initial term, the Distribution Agreement between the Trust and ALPS Distributors continues in effect only if such continuance is specifically approved at least annually by the Board or the vote of a majority of each Fund’s outstanding voting securities and, in either case, by a majority of the Independent Trustees. The Distribution Agreement is terminable without penalty by the Trust on behalf of the Funds on a 60-day written notice when authorized by a majority vote of the Fund’s shareholders or by a vote of a majority of the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, or by ALPS Distributors on a 180-day written notice, and will automatically terminate in the event of its “assignment” (as defined in the 1940 Act).

 

B-200


FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The audited financial statements, accompanying notes and report of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Funds’ independent registered public accounting firm, appearing in the Annual Report are incorporated by reference in this SAI and are so incorporated by reference in reliance upon such report of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP given upon the authority of such firm as experts in auditing and accounting.

Copies of the Annual Report are available, upon request and without charge, by calling the applicable Funds at 1-855-823-3611, by visiting www.bridgebuildermutualfunds.com, or by writing to the following address:

Mailing Address:

Bridge Builder Trust

P.O. Box 219062

Kansas City, MO 64121-9062

Overnight Address:

Bridge Builder Trust

430 W 7th Street Suite 219062

Kansas City, MO 64105-1407

The Annual Report to shareholders includes a summary portfolio schedule. The full portfolio schedule for the Funds from their Form N-CSR filing with the SEC is incorporated by reference into this SAI.

 

B-201


APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF CREDIT RATINGS

The following summarizes the descriptions for some of the general ratings referred to in the Funds’ prospectus and this SAI. Ratings represent only the opinions of the rating organizations about the safety of principal and interest payments, not market value. The rating of an issuer is heavily influenced by past developments and does not necessarily reflect probable future conditions. A lag frequently occurs between the time a rating is assigned and the time it is updated. Ratings are therefore general and are not absolute standards of quality.

MOODY’S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC.

Ratings assigned on Moody’s global long-term and short-term rating scales are forward-looking opinions of the relative credit risks of financial obligations issued by non-financial corporates, financial institutions, structured finance vehicles, project finance vehicles, and public sector entities. Long-term ratings are assigned to issuers or obligations with an original maturity of eleven months or more and reflect both on the likelihood of a default or impairment on contractual financial obligations and the expected financial loss suffered in the event of default or impairment. Short-term ratings are assigned to obligations with an original maturity of thirteen months or less and reflect both on the likelihood of a default or impairment on contractual financial obligations and the expected financial loss suffered in the event of default or impairment.

Description of Moody’s Global Long-Term Rating Scale

Aaa: Obligations rated Aaa are judged to be of the highest quality, subject to the lowest level of credit risk.

Aa: Obligations rated Aa are judged to be of high quality and are subject to very low credit risk.

A: Obligations rated A are judged to be upper-medium grade and are subject to low credit risk.

Baa: Obligations rated Baa are judged to be medium-grade and subject to moderate credit risk and as such may possess certain speculative characteristics.

Ba: Obligations rated Ba are judged to be speculative and are subject to substantial credit risk.

B: Obligations rated B are considered speculative and are subject to high credit risk.

Caa: Obligations rated Caa are judged to be speculative of poor standing and are subject to very high credit risk.

Ca: Obligations rated Ca are highly speculative and are likely in, or very near, default, with some prospect of recovery of principal and interest.

C: Obligations rated C are the lowest rated and are typically in default, with little prospect for recovery of principal or interest.

Note: Moody’s appends numerical modifiers 1, 2, and 3 to each generic rating classification from Aa through Caa. The modifier 1 indicates that the obligation ranks in the higher end of its generic rating category; the modifier 2 indicates a mid-range ranking; and the modifier 3 indicates a ranking in the lower end of that generic rating category.

 

B-202


Hybrid Indicator (hyb)

The hybrid indicator (hyb) is appended to all ratings of hybrid securities issued by banks, insurers, finance companies, and securities firms. By their terms, hybrid securities allow for the omission of scheduled dividends, interest, or principal payments, which can potentially result in impairment if such an omission occurs. Hybrid securities may also be subject to contractually allowable write-downs of principal that could result in impairment. Together with the hybrid indicator, the long-term obligation rating assigned to a hybrid security is an expression of the relative credit risk associated with that security.

Description of Moody’s Global Short-Term Rating Scale

P-1 Ratings of Prime-1 reflect a superior ability to repay short-term obligations.

P-2 Ratings of Prime-2 reflect a strong ability to repay short-term obligations.

P-3 Ratings of Prime-3 reflect an acceptable ability to repay short-term obligations.

NP Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Not Prime do not fall within any of the Prime rating categories.

Description of Moody’s U.S. Municipal Short-Term Debt and Demand Obligation Ratings

The Municipal Investment Grade (“MIG”) scale is used to rate U.S. municipal cash flow notes, bond anticipation notes and certain other short-term obligations, which typically mature in three years or less.

Moody’s U.S. municipal short-term obligation ratings are as follows:

MIG 1 This designation denotes superior credit quality. Excellent protection is afforded by established cash flows, highly reliable liquidity support, or demonstrated broad-based access to the market for refinancing.

MIG 2 This designation denotes strong credit quality. Margins of protection are ample, although not as large as in the preceding group.

MIG 3 This designation denotes acceptable credit quality. Liquidity and cash-flow protection may be narrow, and market access for refinancing is likely to be less well-established.

SG This designation denotes speculative-grade credit quality. Debt instruments in this category may lack sufficient margins of protection.

Description of Moody’s Demand Obligation Ratings

In the case of variable rate demand obligations (“VRDOs”), Moody’s assigns both a long-term rating and a short-term payment obligation rating. The long-term rating addresses the issuer’s ability to meet scheduled principal and interest payments. The short-term payment obligation rating addresses the ability of the issuer or the liquidity provider to meet any purchase price payment obligation resulting from optional tenders (“on demand”) and/or mandatory tenders of the VRDO. The short-term payment obligation rating uses the Variable Municipal Investment Grade (“VMIG”) scale. VMIG ratings with liquidity support use as an input the short-term counterparty risk assessment of the support provider, or the long-term rating of the underlying obligor in the absence of third party liquidity support. Transitions of VMIG ratings with conditional liquidity support differ from transitions of Prime ratings reflecting the risk that external liquidity support will terminate if the issuer’s long-term rating drops below investment grade.

 

B-203


For VRDOs, Moody’s typically assigns a VMIG rating if the frequency of the payment obligation is less than every three years. If the frequency of the payment obligation is less than three years, but the obligation is payable only with remarketing proceeds, the VMIG short-term rating is not assigned and it is denoted as “NR”.

Moody’s demand obligation ratings are as follows:

VMIG 1 This designation denotes superior credit quality. Excellent protection is afforded by the superior short-term credit strength of the liquidity provider and structural and legal protections.

VMIG 2 This designation denotes strong credit quality. Good protection is afforded by the strong short-term credit strength of the liquidity provider and structural and legal protections.

VMIG 3 This designation denotes acceptable credit quality. Adequate protection is afforded by the satisfactory short-term credit strength of the liquidity provider and structural and legal protections.

SG This designation denotes speculative-grade credit quality. Demand features rated in this category may be supported by a liquidity provider that does not have a sufficiently strong short-term rating or may lack the structural or legal protections.

Description of Moody’s Commercial Paper Ratings

The global short-term Prime rating scale described elsewhere in this section is used to rate commercial paper issued by U.S. municipalities and non-profits. These commercial paper programs may be backed by external letters of credit or liquidity facilities, or by an issuer’s self-liquidity.

S&P GLOBAL RATINGS

An S&P issue credit rating is a forward-looking opinion about the creditworthiness of an obligor with respect to a specific financial obligation, a specific class of financial obligations, or a specific financial program (including ratings on medium-term note programs and commercial paper programs). It takes into consideration the creditworthiness of guarantors, insurers, or other forms of credit enhancement on the obligation and takes into account the currency in which the obligation is denominated. The opinion reflects S&P’s view of the obligor’s capacity and willingness to meet its financial commitments as they come due, and this opinion may assess terms, such as collateral security and subordination, which could affect ultimate payment in the event of default.

Issue credit ratings can be either long-term or short-term. Short-term issue credit ratings are generally assigned to those obligations considered short-term in the relevant market, typically with an original maturity of no more than 365 days. Short-term issue credit ratings are also used to indicate the creditworthiness of an obligor with respect to put features on long-term obligations. S&P would typically assign a long-term issue credit rating to an obligation with an original maturity of greater than 365 days. However, the ratings S&P assigns to certain instruments may diverge from these guidelines based on market practices. Medium-term notes are assigned long-term ratings.

Issue credit ratings are based, in varying degrees, on S&P’s analysis of the following considerations:

 

   

The likelihood of payment—the capacity and willingness of the obligor to meet its financial commitments on an obligation in accordance with the terms of the obligation;

   

The nature and provisions of the financial obligation, and the promise S&P imputes; and

 

B-204


   

The protection afforded by, and relative position of, the financial obligation in the event of a bankruptcy, reorganization, or other arrangement under the laws of bankruptcy and other laws affecting creditors’ rights.

An issue rating is an assessment of default risk but may incorporate an assessment of relative seniority or ultimate recovery in the event of default. Junior obligations are typically rated lower than senior obligations, to reflect lower priority in bankruptcy, as noted above. (Such differentiation may apply when an entity has both senior and subordinated obligations, secured and unsecured obligations, or operating company and holding company obligations.)

NR indicates that a rating has not been assigned or is no longer assigned.

Description of S&P’s Long-Term Issue Credit Ratings

AAA: An obligation rated ‘AAA’ has the highest rating assigned by S&P. The obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is extremely strong.

AA: An obligation rated ‘AA’ differs from the highest-rated obligations only to a small degree. The obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is very strong.

A: An obligation rated ‘A’ is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligations in higher-rated categories. However, the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is still strong.

BBB: An obligation rated ‘BBB’ exhibits adequate protection parameters. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to weaken the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation.

Obligations rated ‘BB’, ‘B’, ‘CCC’, ‘CC’, and ‘C’ are regarded as having significant speculative characteristics. ‘BB’ indicates the least degree of speculation and ‘C’ the highest. While such obligations will likely have some quality and protective characteristics, these may be outweighed by large uncertainties or major exposure to adverse conditions.

BB: An obligation rated ‘BB’ is less vulnerable to nonpayment than other speculative issues. However, it faces major ongoing uncertainties or exposure to adverse business, financial, or economic conditions that could lead to the obligor’s inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation.

B: An obligation rated ‘B’ is more vulnerable to nonpayment than obligations rated ‘BB’, but the obligor currently has the capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. Adverse business, financial, or economic conditions will likely impair the obligor’s capacity or willingness to meet its financial commitments on the obligation.

CCC: An obligation rated ‘CCC’ is currently vulnerable to nonpayment and is dependent upon favorable business, financial, and economic conditions for the obligor to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. In the event of adverse business, financial, or economic conditions, the obligor is not likely to have the capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation.

CC: An obligation rated ‘CC’ is currently highly vulnerable to nonpayment. The ‘CC’ rating is used when a default has not yet occurred but S&P expects default to be a virtual certainty, regardless of the anticipated time to default.

 

B-205


C: An obligation rated ‘C’ is currently highly vulnerable to nonpayment, and the obligation is expected to have lower relative seniority or lower ultimate recovery compared with obligations that are rated higher.

D: An obligation rated ‘D’ is in default or in breach of an imputed promise. For non-hybrid capital instruments, the ‘D’ rating category is used when payments on an obligation are not made on the date due, unless S&P Global Ratings believes that such payments will be made within the next five business days in the absence of a stated grace period or within the earlier of the stated grace period or the next 30 calendar days. The ‘D’ rating also will be used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of similar action and where default on an obligation is a virtual certainty, for example due to automatic stay provisions. A rating on an obligation is lowered to ‘D’ if it is subject to a distressed debt restructuring.

Ratings from ‘AA’ to ‘CCC’ may be modified by the addition of a plus (+) or minus (-) sign to show relative standing within the rating categories.

Description of S&P’s Short-Term Issue Credit Ratings

A-1 A short-term obligation rated ‘A-1’ is rated in the highest category by S&P. The obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is strong. Within this category, certain obligations are designated with a plus sign (+). This indicates that the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on these obligations is extremely strong.

A-2 A short-term obligation rated ‘A-2’ is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligations in higher rating categories. However, the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is satisfactory.

A-3 A short-term obligation rated ‘A-3’ exhibits adequate protection parameters. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to weaken an obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation.

B A short-term obligation rated ‘B’ is regarded as vulnerable and has significant speculative characteristics. The obligor currently has the capacity to meet its financial commitments; however, it faces major ongoing uncertainties that could lead to the obligor’s inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitments.

C A short-term obligation rated ‘C’ is currently vulnerable to nonpayment and is dependent upon favorable business, financial, and economic conditions for the obligor to meet its financial commitments on the obligation.

D A short-term obligation rated ‘D’ is in default or in breach of an imputed promise. For non-hybrid capital instruments, the ‘D’ rating category is used when payments on an obligation are not made on the date due, unless S&P believes that such payments will be made within any stated grace period. However, any stated grace period longer than five business days will be treated as five business days. The ‘D’ rating also will be used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of a similar action and where default on an obligation is a virtual certainty, for example due to automatic stay provisions. A rating on an obligation is lowered to ‘D’ if it is subject to a distressed debt restructuring.

Description of S&P’s - Municipal Bond Ratings

AAA — Prime Grade: These are obligations of the highest quality. They have the strongest capacity for timely payment of debt service.

 

B-206


General Obligations Bonds: In a period of economic stress, the issuers will suffer the smallest declines in income and will be least susceptible to autonomous decline. Debt burden is moderate. A strong revenue structure appears more than adequate to meet future expenditure requirements. Quality of management appears superior.

Revenue Bonds: Debt service coverage has been, and is expected to remain, substantial, stability of the pledged revenues is also exceptionally strong due to the competitive position of the municipal enterprise or to the nature of the revenues. Basic security provisions (including rate covenant, earnings test for issuance of additional bonds and debt service reserve requirements) are rigorous. There is evidence of superior management.

AA — High Grade: The investment characteristics of bonds in this group are only slightly less marked than those of the prime quality issues. Bonds rated AA have the second strongest capacity for payment of debt service.

A — Good Grade: Principal and interest payments on bonds in this category are regarded as safe although the bonds are somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than bonds in higher rated categories. This rating describes the third strongest capacity for payment of debt service. Regarding municipal bonds, the rating differs from the two higher ratings because:

General Obligation Bonds: There is some weakness, either in the local economic base, in debt burden, in the balance between revenues and expenditures, or in quality of management. Under certain adverse circumstances, any one such weakness might impair the ability of the issuer to meet debt obligations at some future date.

Revenue Bonds: Debt service coverage is good, but not exceptional. Stability of the pledged revenues could show some variations because of increased competition or economic influences on revenues. Basic security provisions, while satisfactory, are less stringent. Management performance appearance appears adequate.

Rating Refinements: Standard & Poor’s letter ratings may be modified by the addition of a plus (+) or a minus (-) sign, which is used to show relative standing within the major rating categories, except in the AAA rating category.

Description of S&P’s Municipal Short-Term Note Ratings

An S&P U.S. municipal note rating reflects S&P’s opinion about the liquidity factors and market access risks unique to the notes. Notes due in three years or less will likely receive a note rating. Notes with an original maturity of more than three years will most likely receive a long-term debt rating. In determining which type of rating, if any, to assign, S&P’s analysis will review the following considerations:

 

   

Amortization schedule—the larger the final maturity relative to other maturities, the more likely it will be treated as a note; and

   

Source of payment—the more dependent the issue is on the market for its refinancing, the more likely it will be treated as a note.

S&P’s municipal short-term note ratings are as follows:

SP-1 Strong capacity to pay principal and interest. An issue determined to possess a very strong capacity to pay debt service is given a plus (+) designation.

 

B-207


SP-2 Satisfactory capacity to pay principal and interest, with some vulnerability to adverse financial and economic changes over the term of the notes.

SP-3 Speculative capacity to pay principal and interest.

D ‘D’ is assigned upon failure to pay the note when due, completion of a distressed debt restructuring, or the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of similar action and where default on an obligation is a virtual certainty, for example due to automatic stay provisions.

Description of S&P’s Commercial Paper Ratings

A-1: A short-term obligation rated A-1 is rated in the highest category by Standard & Poor’s. The obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation is strong. Within this category, certain obligations are designated with a plus sign (+). This indicates that the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitment on these obligations is extremely strong.

A-2: A short-term obligation rated A-2 is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligations in higher rating categories. However, the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation is satisfactory.

A-3: A short-term obligation rated A-3 exhibits adequate protection parameters. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity of the obligor to meet its financial commitment on the obligation.

B: A short-term obligation rated B is regarded as having significant speculative characteristics. Ratings of B-1, B-2, and B-3 may be assigned to indicate finer distinctions within the B category. The obligor currently has the capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation; however, it faces major ongoing uncertainties which could lead to the obligor’s inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation.

 

B-208


APPENDIX B

PROXY VOTING POLICIES

The following information is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines for the Adviser and the Sub-advisers.

OLIVE STREET INVESTMENT ADVISERS, LLC (the “Adviser”)

AMERICAN CENTURY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC.

ARTISAN PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

BAILLIE GIFFORD OVERSEAS LIMITED

ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO., INC.

BARROW, HANLEY, MEWHINNEY & STRAUSS, LLC

BLACKROCK INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC

BOSTON PARTNERS GLOBAL INVESTORS, INC.

CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL, INC.

CHAMPLAIN INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC

DIAMOND HILL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC.

DRIEHAUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC

EAGLE ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.

FIAM LLC

JENNISON ASSOCIATES LLC

J.P. MORGAN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT INC.

LAZARD ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC

LOOMIS, SAYLES & COMPANY, L.P.

LSV ASSET MANAGEMENT

MACKAY SHIELDS LLC

MARATHON ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED

MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY

METROPOLITAN WEST ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC

MONDRIAN INVESTMENT PARTNERS LIMITED

PACIFIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC

PGIM, INC.

PZENA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC

SILVERCREST ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC

STEPHENS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC

SUSTAINABLE GROWTH ADVISERS, LP

T. ROWE PRICE ASSOCIATES, INC.

VAUGHAN NELSON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, L.P.

VICTORY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT INC.

WCM INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC

WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLP

(collectively, the “Sub-advisers”)

 

B-209


I. BACKGROUND

In accordance with Rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”), each registered investment adviser should adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that it is voting proxies in the best interest of its clients, describe how material conflicts that arise between the investment adviser and clients are resolved, disclose how clients may obtain information on how the investment adviser voted proxies, and describe its proxy voting procedures and furnish a copy of such upon request. Furthermore, Rule 204-2 requires certain books and records related to proxy voting to be maintained by the investment adviser.

II. POLICY

The Adviser has contractually delegated the Funds’ proxy voting authority to each of its respective Sub-advisers, as applicable. The Adviser’s Chief Compliance Officer, or his or her designee, monitors proxy voting guidelines and performs an annual review of each Fund’s proxy voting program to confirm that review, monitoring, and filing processes are satisfied. The Adviser will review each Sub-adviser’s proxy voting guidelines to ensure that they meet the standards set forth from time to time by the SEC. The Adviser will report to the Board as necessary regarding the compliance of the Adviser’s proxy voting guidelines and each Sub-adviser’s proxy voting guidelines with such SEC standards, including the procedures that the Adviser and each Sub-adviser uses when a vote presents a conflict between the interest of Fund shareholders and those of the Adviser or any Sub-adviser, respectively. The Sub-advisers shall report to the Adviser on a regular basis, but not less than annually, any conflicts of interest that arose from proxy votes and how such conflicts were resolved. The Adviser shall provide such reports to the Board and will report to the Board at least annually on any conflicts of interest that arose from its own proxy votes and how such conflicts were resolved.

Though unanticipated, the Adviser, in certain instances, may be required to vote proxies of Funds’ portfolio holdings instead of the Fund’s Sub-advisers. For such instances, the Adviser has delegated to Edward Jones the function of ensuring proxies for which the Adviser is responsible are voted in the best interest of the Funds’ shareholders and in accordance with the guidelines and procedures adopted by Edward Jones. Edward Jones utilizes the services of an independent, unaffiliated third-party proxy voting service in the administration of this function.

 

B-210


American Century Investments

PROXY VOTING POLICIES

American Century Investment Management, Inc. (the “Advisor”) is the investment manager for a variety of advisory clients, including the American Century family of funds. In such capacity, the Advisor has been delegated the authority to vote proxies with respect to investments held in the accounts it manages. The following is a statement of the proxy voting policies that have been adopted by the Advisor. In the exercise of proxy voting authority which has been delegated to it by particular clients, the Advisor will apply the following policies in accordance with, and subject to, any specific policies that have been adopted by the client and communicated to and accepted by the Advisor in writing.

 

A.

General Principles

In providing the service of voting client proxies, the Advisor is guided by general fiduciary principles, must act prudently, solely in the interest of its clients, and must not subordinate client interests to unrelated objectives. Except as otherwise indicated in these Policies, the Advisor will vote all proxies with respect to investments held in the client accounts it manages. The Advisor will attempt to consider all factors of its vote that could affect the value of the investment. Although in most instances the Advisor will vote proxies consistently across all client accounts, the votes will be based on the best interests of each client. As a result, accounts managed by the Advisor may at times vote differently on the same proposals. Examples of when an account’s vote might differ from other accounts managed by the Advisor include, but are not limited to, proxy contests and proposed mergers. In short, the Advisor will vote proxies in the manner that it believes will do the most to maximize shareholder value.

 

B.

Specific Proxy Matters

 

1.

Routine Matters

 

  a.

Election of Directors

 

  (1)

Generally. The Advisor will generally support the election of directors that result in a board made up of a majority of independent directors. In general, the Advisor will vote in favor of management’s director nominees if they are running unopposed. The Advisor believes that management is in the best possible position to evaluate the qualifications of directors and the needs and dynamics of a particular board. The Advisor of course maintains the ability to vote against any candidate whom it feels is not qualified or if there are specific concerns about the individual, such as allegations of criminal wrongdoing or breach of fiduciary responsibilities. Additional information the Advisor may consider concerning director nominees include, but is not limited to, whether (1) there is an adequate explanation for repeated absences at board meetings, (2) the nominee receives non-board fee compensation, or (3) there is a family relationship between the nominee and the company’s chief executive officer or controlling shareholder. When management’s nominees are opposed in a proxy contest, the Advisor will evaluate which nominees’ publicly-announced management policies and goals are most likely to maximize shareholder value, as well as the past performance of the incumbents.

 

  (2)

Committee Service. The Advisor will withhold votes for non-independent directors who serve on the audit, compensation, and/or nominating committees of the board.

 

  (3)

Classification of Boards. The Advisor will support proposals that seek to declassify boards. Conversely, the Advisor will oppose efforts to adopt classified board structures.

 

 

B-211


AMERICAN CENTURY INVESTMENTS    Proxy Voting Policies

 

  (4)

Majority Independent Board. The Advisor will support proposals calling for a majority of independent directors on a board. The Advisor believes that a majority of independent directors can help to facilitate objective decision making and enhances accountability to shareholders.

 

  (5)

Majority Vote Standard for Director Elections. The Advisor will vote in favor of proposals calling for directors to be elected by an affirmative majority of the votes cast in a board election, provided that the proposal allows for a plurality voting standard in the case of contested elections. The Advisor may consider voting against such shareholder proposals where a company’s board has adopted an alternative measure, such as a director resignation policy, that provides a meaningful alternative to the majority voting standard and appropriately addresses situations where an incumbent director fails to receive the support of the majority of the votes cast in an uncontested election.

 

  (6)

Withholding Campaigns. The Advisor will support proposals calling for shareholders to withhold votes for directors where such actions will advance the principles set forth in paragraphs (1) through (5) above.

 

  b.

Ratification of Selection of Auditors

The Advisor will generally rely on the judgment of the issuer’s audit committee in selecting the independent auditors who will provide the best service to the company. The Advisor believes that independence of the auditors is paramount and will vote against auditors whose independence appears to be impaired. The Advisor will vote against proposed auditors in those circumstances where (1) an auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent; (2) non-audit fees comprise more than 50% of the total fees paid by the company to the audit firm; or (3) there is reason to believe that the independent auditor has previously rendered an opinion to the issuer that is either inaccurate or not indicative of the company’s financial position.

 

2.

Compensation Matters

 

  a.

Executive Compensation

 

  (1)

Advisory Vote on Compensation. The Advisor believes there are more effective ways to convey concerns about compensation than through an advisory vote on compensation (such as voting against specific excessive incentive plans or withholding votes from compensation committee members). The Advisor will consider and vote on a case-by-case basis on say-on-pay proposals and will generally support management proposals unless specific concerns exist, including if the Advisor concludes that executive compensation is (i) misaligned with shareholder interests, (ii) unreasonable in amount, or (iii) not in the aggregate meaningfully tied to the company’s performance.

 

  (2)

Frequency of Advisory Votes on Compensation. The Advisor generally supports the triennial option for the frequency of say-on-pay proposals, but will consider management recommendations for an alternative approach.

 

  b.

Equity Based Compensation Plans

The Advisor believes that equity-based incentive plans are economically significant issues upon which shareholders are entitled to vote. The Advisor recognizes that equity-based compensation plans can be useful in attracting and maintaining desirable employees. The cost associated with such plans must be measured if plans are to be used appropriately to maximize shareholder value. The Advisor will conduct a case-by-case analysis of each stock option, stock bonus or similar plan or amendment, and generally approve management’s recommendations with respect to adoption of or amendments to a company’s equity-based compensation plans, provided that the total number of shares reserved under all of a company’s plans is reasonable and not excessively dilutive.

 

 

B-212


AMERICAN CENTURY INVESTMENTS    Proxy Voting Policies

 

The Advisor will review equity-based compensation plans or amendments thereto on a case-by-case basis. Factors that will be considered in the determination include the company’s overall capitalization, the performance of the company relative to its peers, and the maturity of the company and its industry; for example, technology companies often use options broadly throughout its employee base which may justify somewhat greater dilution.

Amendments which are proposed in order to bring a company’s plan within applicable legal requirements will be reviewed by the Advisor’s legal counsel; amendments to executive bonus plans to comply with IRS Section 162(m) disclosure requirements, for example, are generally approved.

The Advisor will generally vote against the adoption of plans or plan amendments that:

 

   

Provide for immediate vesting of all stock options in the event of a change of control of the company without reasonable safeguards against abuse (see “Anti-Takeover Proposals” below);

 

   

Reset outstanding stock options at a lower strike price unless accompanied by a corresponding and proportionate reduction in the number of shares designated. The Advisor will generally oppose adoption of stock option plans that explicitly or historically permit repricing of stock options, regardless of the number of shares reserved for issuance, since their effect is impossible to evaluate;

 

   

Establish restriction periods shorter than three years for restricted stock grants;

 

   

Do not reasonably associate awards to performance of the company; or

 

   

Are excessively dilutive to the company.

 

3.

Anti-Takeover Proposals

In general, the Advisor will vote against any proposal, whether made by management or shareholders, which the Advisor believes would materially discourage a potential acquisition or takeover. In most cases an acquisition or takeover of a particular company will increase share value. The adoption of anti-takeover measures may prevent or frustrate a bid from being made, may prevent consummation of the acquisition, and may have a negative effect on share price when no acquisition proposal is pending. The items below discuss specific anti-takeover proposals.

 

  a.

Cumulative Voting

The Advisor will vote in favor of any proposal to adopt cumulative voting and will vote against any proposal to eliminate cumulative voting that is already in place, except in cases where a company has a staggered board. Cumulative voting gives minority shareholders a stronger voice in the company and a greater chance for representation on the board. The Advisor believes that the elimination of cumulative voting constitutes an anti-takeover measure.

 

  b.

Staggered Board

If a company has a “staggered board,” its directors are elected for terms of more than one year and only a segment of the board stands for election in any year. Therefore, a potential acquiror cannot replace the entire board in one year even if it controls a majority of the votes. Although staggered boards may provide some degree of continuity and stability of leadership and direction to the board of directors, the Advisor believes that staggered boards are primarily an anti-takeover device and will vote against establishing them and for eliminating them. However, the Advisor does not necessarily vote against the re-election of directors serving on staggered boards.

 

B-213


AMERICAN CENTURY INVESTMENTS    Proxy Voting Policies

 

  c.

“Blank Check” Preferred Stock

Blank check preferred stock gives the board of directors the ability to issue preferred stock, without further shareholder approval, with such rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions as may be set by the board. In response to a hostile takeover attempt, the board could issue such stock to a friendly party or “white knight” or could establish conversion or other rights in the preferred stock which would dilute the common stock and make an acquisition impossible or less attractive. The argument in favor of blank check preferred stock is that it gives the board flexibility in pursuing financing, acquisitions or other proper corporate purposes without incurring the time or expense of a shareholder vote. Generally, the Advisor will vote against blank check preferred stock. However, the Advisor may vote in favor of blank check preferred if the proxy statement discloses that such stock is limited to use for a specific, proper corporate objective as a financing instrument.

 

  d.

Elimination of Preemptive Rights

When a company grants preemptive rights, existing shareholders are given an opportunity to maintain their proportional ownership when new shares are issued. A proposal to eliminate preemptive rights is a request from management to revoke that right.

While preemptive rights will protect the shareholder from having its equity diluted, it may also decrease a company’s ability to raise capital through stock offerings or use stock for acquisitions or other proper corporate purposes. Preemptive rights may therefore result in a lower market value for the company’s stock. In the long term, shareholders could be adversely affected by preemptive rights. The Advisor generally votes against proposals to grant preemptive rights, and for proposals to eliminate preemptive rights.

 

  e.

Non-targeted Share Repurchase

A non-targeted share repurchase is generally used by company management to prevent the value of stock held by existing shareholders from deteriorating. A non-targeted share repurchase may reflect management’s belief in the favorable business prospects of the company. The Advisor finds no disadvantageous effects of a non-targeted share repurchase and will generally vote for the approval of a non-targeted share repurchase subject to analysis of the company’s financial condition.

 

  f.

Increase in Authorized Common Stock

The issuance of new common stock can also be viewed as an anti-takeover measure, although its effect on shareholder value would appear to be less significant than the adoption of blank check preferred. The Advisor will evaluate the amount of the proposed increase and the purpose or purposes for which the increase is sought. If the increase is not excessive and is sought for proper corporate purposes, the increase will be approved. Proper corporate purposes might include, for example, the creation of additional stock to accommodate a stock split or stock dividend, additional stock required for a proposed acquisition, or additional stock required to be reserved upon exercise of employee stock option plans or employee stock purchase plans. Generally, the Advisor will vote in favor of an increase in authorized common stock of up to 100%; increases in excess of 100% are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and will be voted affirmatively if management has provided sound justification for the increase.

 

B-214


AMERICAN CENTURY INVESTMENTS    Proxy Voting Policies

 

  g.

“Supermajority” Voting Provisions or Super Voting Share Classes

A “supermajority” voting provision is a provision placed in a company’s charter documents which would require a “supermajority” (ranging from 66 to 90%) of shareholders and shareholder votes to approve any type of acquisition of the company. A super voting share class grants one class of shareholders a greater per-share vote than those of shareholders of other voting classes. The Advisor believes that these are standard anti- takeover measures and will generally vote against them. The supermajority provision makes an acquisition more time-consuming and expensive for the acquiror. A super voting share class favors one group of shareholders disproportionately to economic interest. Both are often proposed in conjunction with other anti- takeover measures.

 

  h.

“Fair Price” Amendments

This is another type of charter amendment that would require an offeror to pay a “fair” and uniform price to all shareholders in an acquisition. In general, fair price amendments are designed to protect shareholders from coercive, two-tier tender offers in which some shareholders may be merged out on disadvantageous terms.

Fair price amendments also have an anti-takeover impact, although their adoption is generally believed to have less of a negative effect on stock price than other anti-takeover measures. The Advisor will carefully examine all fair price proposals. In general, the Advisor will vote against fair price proposals unless the Advisor concludes that it is likely that the share price will not be negatively affected and the proposal will not have the effect of discouraging acquisition proposals.

 

  i.

Limiting the Right to Call Special Shareholder Meetings.

The corporation statutes of many states allow minority shareholders at a certain threshold level of ownership (frequently 10%) to call a special meeting of shareholders. This right can be eliminated (or the threshold increased) by amendment to the company’s charter documents. The Advisor believes that the right to call a special shareholder meeting is significant for minority shareholders; the elimination of such right will be viewed as an anti-takeover measure and the Advisor will generally vote against proposals attempting to eliminate this right and for proposals attempting to restore it.

 

  j.

Poison Pills or Shareholder Rights Plans

Many companies have now adopted some version of a poison pill plan (also known as a shareholder rights plan). Poison pill plans generally provide for the issuance of additional equity securities or rights to purchase equity securities upon the occurrence of certain hostile events, such as the acquisition of a large block of stock.

The basic argument against poison pills is that they depress share value, discourage offers for the company and serve to “entrench” management. The basic argument in favor of poison pills is that they give

management more time and leverage to deal with a takeover bid and, as a result, shareholders may receive a better price. The Advisor believes that the potential benefits of a poison pill plan are outweighed by the potential detriments. The Advisor will generally vote against all forms of poison pills.

The Advisor will, however, consider on a case-by-case basis poison pills that are very limited in time and preclusive effect. The Advisor will generally vote in favor of such a poison pill if it is linked to a business strategy that will – in our view – likely result in greater value for shareholders, if the term is less than three years, and if shareholder approval is required to reinstate the expired plan or adopt a new plan at the end of this term.

 

B-215


AMERICAN CENTURY INVESTMENTS    Proxy Voting Policies

 

  k.

Golden Parachutes

Golden parachute arrangements provide substantial compensation to executives who are terminated as a result of a takeover or change in control of their company. The existence of such plans in reasonable amounts probably has only a slight anti-takeover effect. In voting, the Advisor will evaluate the specifics of the plan presented.

 

  l.

Reincorporation

Reincorporation in a new state is often proposed as one part of a package of anti-takeover measures. Several states (such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana) now provide some type of legislation that greatly discourages takeovers. Management believes that Delaware in particular is beneficial as a corporate domicile because of the well-developed body of statutes and case law dealing with corporate acquisitions.

The Advisor will examine reincorporation proposals on a case-by-case basis. Generally, if the Advisor believes that the reincorporation will result in greater protection from takeovers, the reincorporation proposal will be opposed. The Advisor will also oppose reincorporation proposals involving jurisdictions that specify that directors can recognize non-shareholder interests over those of shareholders. When reincorporation is proposed for a legitimate business purpose and without the negative effects identified above, the Advisor will generally vote affirmatively.

 

  m.

Confidential Voting

Companies that have not previously adopted a “confidential voting” policy allow management to view the results of shareholder votes. This gives management the opportunity to contact those shareholders voting against management in an effort to change their votes.

Proponents of secret ballots argue that confidential voting enables shareholders to vote on all issues on the basis of merit without pressure from management to influence their decision. Opponents argue that confidential voting is more expensive and unnecessary; also, holding shares in a nominee name maintains shareholders’ confidentiality. The Advisor believes that the only way to insure anonymity of votes is through confidential voting, and that the benefits of confidential voting outweigh the incremental additional cost of administering a confidential voting system. Therefore, the Advisor will generally vote in favor of any proposal to adopt confidential voting.

 

  n.

Opting In or Out of State Takeover Laws

State takeover laws typically are designed to make it more difficult to acquire a corporation organized in that state. The Advisor believes that the decision of whether or not to accept or reject offers of merger or acquisition should be made by the shareholders, without unreasonably restrictive state laws that may impose ownership thresholds or waiting periods on potential acquirors. Therefore, the Advisor will generally vote in favor of opting out of restrictive state takeover laws.

 

4.

Transaction Related Proposals

The Advisor will review transaction related proposals, such as mergers, acquisitions, and corporate reorganizations, on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the impact of the transaction on each client account. In some instances, such as the approval of a proposed merger, a transaction may have a differential impact on client accounts depending on the securities held in each account. For example, whether a merger is in the best interest of a client account may be influenced by whether an account holds, and in what proportion, the stock of both the acquirer and the acquiror. In these circumstances, the Advisor may determine that it is in the best interests of the accounts to vote the accounts’ shares differently on proposals related to the same transaction.

 

B-216


AMERICAN CENTURY INVESTMENTS    Proxy Voting Policies

 

5.

Other Matters

 

  a.

Proposals Involving Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) Matters

The Advisor believes that ESG issues can potentially impact an issuer’s long-term financial performance and has developed an analytical framework, as well as a proprietary assessment tool, to integrate risks and opportunities stemming from ESG issues into our investment process. This ESG integration process extends to our proxy voting practices in that our ESG Proxy Team analyzes on a case-by-case basis the financial materiality and potential risks or economic impact of the ESG issues underpinning proxy proposals and makes voting recommendations based thereon for the Advisor’s consideration. The ESG Proxy Team will generally recommend support for well-targeted ESG proposals if it believes that there is a rational linkage between a proposal, its economic impact, and its potential to maximize long-term shareholder value.

Where the economic effect of such proposals is unclear and there is not a specific written client-mandate, the Advisor believes it is generally impossible to know how to vote in a manner that would accurately reflect the views of the Advisor’s clients, and, therefore, the Advisor will generally rely on management’s assessment of the economic effect if the Advisor believes the assessment is not unreasonable.

Shareholders may also introduce proposals which are the subject of existing law or regulation. Examples of such proposals would include a proposal to require disclosure of a company’s contributions to political action committees or a proposal to require a company to adopt a non-smoking workplace policy. The Advisor believes that such proposals may be better addressed outside the corporate arena and, absent a potential economic impact, will generally vote with management’s recommendation. In addition, the Advisor will generally vote against any proposal which would require a company to adopt practices or procedures which go beyond the requirements of existing, directly applicable law.

 

  b.

Anti-Greenmail Proposals

“Anti-greenmail” proposals generally limit the right of a corporation, without a shareholder vote, to pay a premium or buy out a 5% or greater shareholder. Management often argues that they should not be restricted from negotiating a deal to buy out a significant shareholder at a premium if they believe it is in the best interest of the company. Institutional shareholders generally believe that all shareholders should be able to vote on such a significant use of corporate assets. The Advisor believes that any repurchase by the company at a premium price of a large block of stock should be subject to a shareholder vote. Accordingly, it will generally vote in favor of anti-greenmail proposals.

 

  c.

Indemnification

The Advisor will generally vote in favor of a corporation’s proposal to indemnify its officers and directors in accordance with applicable state law. Indemnification arrangements are often necessary in order to attract and retain qualified directors. The adoption of such proposals appears to have little effect on share value.

 

  d.

Non-Stock Incentive Plans

Management may propose a variety of cash-based incentive or bonus plans to stimulate employee performance. In general, the cash or other corporate assets required for most incentive plans is not material, and the Advisor will vote in favor of such proposals, particularly when the proposal is recommended in order to comply with IRC Section 162(m) regarding salary disclosure requirements. Case-by-case determinations will be made of the appropriateness of the amount of shareholder value transferred by proposed plans.

 

B-217


AMERICAN CENTURY INVESTMENTS    Proxy Voting Policies

 

  e.

Director Tenure

These proposals ask that age and term restrictions be placed on the board of directors. The Advisor believes that these types of blanket restrictions are not necessarily in the best interests of shareholders and therefore will vote against such proposals, unless they have been recommended by management.

 

  f.

Directors’ Stock Options Plans

The Advisor believes that stock options are an appropriate form of compensation for directors, and the Advisor will generally vote for director stock option plans which are reasonable and do not result in excessive

shareholder dilution. Analysis of such proposals will be made on a case-by-case basis, and will take into account total board compensation and the company’s total exposure to stock option plan dilution.

 

  g.

Director Share Ownership

The Advisor will generally vote against shareholder proposals which would require directors to hold a minimum number of the company’s shares to serve on the Board of Directors, in the belief that such ownership should be at the discretion of Board members.

 

  h.

Non-U.S. Proxies

The Advisor will generally evaluate non-U.S. proxies in the context of the voting policies expressed herein but will also, where feasible, take into consideration differing laws, regulations, and practices in the relevant foreign market in determining if and how to vote. There may also be circumstances when practicalities and costs involved with non-U.S. investing make it disadvantageous to vote shares. For instance, the Advisor generally does not vote proxies in circumstances where share blocking restrictions apply, when meeting attendance is required in person, or when current share ownership disclosure is required.

 

C.

Use of Proxy Advisory Services

The Adviser may retain proxy advisory firms to provide services in connection with voting proxies, including, without limitation, to provide information on shareholder meeting dates and proxy materials, translate proxy materials printed in a foreign language, provide research on proxy proposals and voting recommendations in accordance with the voting policies expressed herein, provide systems to assist with casting the proxy votes, and provide reports and assist with preparation of filings concerning the proxies voted.

Prior to the selection of a proxy advisory firm and periodically thereafter, the Advisor will consider whether the proxy advisory firm has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues and the ability to make recommendations based on material accurate information in an impartial manner. Such considerations may include some or all of the following (i) periodic sampling of votes cast through the firm’s systems to determine

that votes are in accordance with the Advisor’s policies and its clients best interests, (ii) onsite visits to the proxy advisory firm’s office and/or discussions with the firm to determine whether the firm continues to have the resources (e.g. staffing, personnel, technology, etc.) capacity and competency to carry out its obligations to the Advisor, (iii) a review of the firm’s policies and procedures, with a focus on those relating to identifying and addressing conflicts of interest and monitoring that current and accurate information is used in creating recommendations, (iv) requesting that the firm notify the Advisor if there is a change in the firm’s material policies and procedures, particularly with respect to conflicts, or material business practices (e.g., entering or exiting new lines of business), and reviewing any such change, and (v) in case of an error made by the firm, discussing the error with the firm and determining whether appropriate corrective and preventative action is

 

B-218


AMERICAN CENTURY INVESTMENTS    Proxy Voting Policies

 

being taken. In the event the Advisor discovers an error in the research or voting recommendations provided by the firm, it will take reasonable steps to investigate the error and seek to determine whether the firm is taking reasonable steps to reduce similar errors in the future.

While the Advisor takes into account information from many different sources, including independent proxy advisory services, the decision on how to vote proxies will be made in accordance with these policies.

 

D.

Monitoring Potential Conflicts of Interest

Corporate management has a strong interest in the outcome of proposals submitted to shareholders. As a consequence, management often seeks to influence large shareholders to vote with their recommendations on particularly controversial matters. In the vast majority of cases, these communications with large shareholders amount to little more than advocacy for management’s positions and give the Advisor’s staff the opportunity to ask additional questions about the matter being presented. Companies with which the Advisor has direct business relationships could theoretically use these relationships to attempt to unduly influence the manner in which the Advisor votes on matters for its clients. To ensure that such a conflict of interest does not affect proxy votes cast for the Advisor’s clients, our proxy voting personnel regularly catalog companies with whom the Advisor has significant business relationships; all discretionary (including case-by-case) voting for these companies will be voted by the client or an appropriate fiduciary responsible for the client (e.g., a committee of the independent

directors of a fund or the trustee of a retirement plan).

In addition, to avoid any potential conflict of interest that may arise when one American Century fund owns shares of another American Century fund, the Advisor will “echo vote” such shares, if possible. Echo voting means the Advisor will vote the shares in the same proportion as the vote of all of the other holders of the fund’s shares. So, for example, if shareholders of a fund cast 80% of their votes in favor of a proposal and 20% against the proposal, any American Century fund that owns shares of such fund will cast 80% of its shares in favor of the proposal and 20% against. When this is not possible (as in the case of the “NT” funds, where the other American Century funds are the only shareholders), the shares of the underlying fund (e.g. the “NT” fund) will be voted in the same proportion as the vote of the shareholders of the corresponding American Century policy portfolio for proposals common to both funds. For example, NT Growth Fund shares will be echo voted in accordance with the votes of the Growth Fund shareholders. In the case where the policy portfolio does not have a common proposal, shares will be voted in consultation with a committee of the independent directors.

************************************************************

The voting policies expressed above are of course subject to modification in certain circumstances and will be reexamined from time to time. With respect to matters that do not fit in the categories stated above, the Advisor will exercise its best judgment as a fiduciary to vote in the manner which will most enhance shareholder value.

Case-by-case determinations will be made by the Advisor’s staff, which is overseen by the General Counsel of the Advisor, in consultation with equity managers. Electronic records will be kept of all votes made.

 

B-219


LOGO

Artisan Partners Proxy Voting Policy

Introduction

As a fiduciary, Artisan Partners Limited Partnership exercises its responsibility, if any, to vote its clients’ securities in a manner that, in the judgment of Artisan Partners, is in the clients’ economic best interests as shareholders. In accordance with that fiduciary obligation and Rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, Artisan Partners has established the following proxy voting policy.

Responsibility for Voting

Artisan Partners Limited Partnership shall vote proxies solicited by or with respect to the issuers of securities in which assets of a client portfolio are invested, unless: (i) the client is subject to the Employees Retirement Income Securities Act (ERISA) and the advisory agreement between Artisan Partners and the client expressly precludes the voting of proxies by Artisan Partners; (ii) the client is not subject to ERISA and the client otherwise instructs Artisan Partners; or (iii) Artisan Partners has responsibility for proxy voting and, in Artisan Partners’ judgment, the cost or disadvantages of voting the proxy would exceed the anticipated benefit to the client.

Primary Consideration in Voting

When Artisan Partners votes a client’s proxy with respect to a specific issuer, a client’s economic interest as a shareholder of that issuer is Artisan Partners’ primary consideration in determining how proxies should be voted. Except as otherwise specifically instructed by a client, Artisan Partners generally doesn’t take into account interests of other stakeholders of the issuer or interests the client may have in other capacities.

Engagement of Service Provider

Artisan Partners has engaged ISS (Institutional Shareholder Services) (ISS) to (i) make recommendations to Artisan Partners of proxy voting policies for adoption by Artisan Partners; (ii) perform research and make recommendations to Artisan Partners as to particular shareholder votes being solicited; (iii) perform the administrative tasks of receiving proxies and proxy statements, marking proxies as instructed by Artisan Partners and delivering those proxies; (iv) retain proxy voting records and information; and (v) report to Artisan Partners on its activities. In no circumstances shall ISS have the authority to vote proxies except in accordance with standing or specific instructions given to it by Artisan Partners. Artisan Partners retains final authority and fiduciary responsibility for the voting of proxies. If at any time Artisan Partners has engaged one or more other entities to perform the proxy administration and research services described above, all references to ISS in this policy shall be deemed to be references to those other entities. In addition to ISS, Artisan Partners has engaged additional service providers, Glass, Lewis & Co. (GL) and ZD Proxy Shareholder Services Ltd. (ZD), to perform research and make recommendations to Artisan Partners as to particular shareholder votes being solicited.

Voting Guidelines

 

   

Client Policy—If Artisan Partners has agreed to vote in accordance a client’s proxy voting policy, Artisan Partners shall vote proxies solicited by or with respect to the issuers of securities held in that client’s account in accordance with that policy.

 

   

No Client Policy—If Artisan Partners has not agreed to vote in accordance with a client’s proxy voting policy, Artisan Partners shall vote proxies solicited by or with respect to the issuers of securities held in the client’s account in the manner that, in the judgment of Artisan Partners, is in the economic best interests of

 

B-220


Proxy Voting Policy

 

  the client as a shareholder in accordance with the standards described in this Policy. When making proxy voting decisions, Artisan Partners generally adheres to the proxy voting guidelines set forth in Appendix A hereto (the Guidelines). The Guidelines set forth Artisan Partners’ proxy voting positions on recurring issues and criteria for addressing non-recurring issues. The Guidelines are based on Artisan Partners’ own research and analyses and the research and analyses provided by ISS. Artisan Partners believes the Guidelines, if followed, generally will result in the casting of votes in the economic best interests of clients as shareholders. The Guidelines will be reviewed from time to time by the Proxy Voting Committee, which Committee is further described below.

 

   

Limitations on Exercising Right to Vote—In the following circumstances Artisan Partners will not vote a client’s proxy:

 

   

No Responsibility—In certain circumstances, a client may direct Artisan Partners not to vote on its behalf. If such a client is an ERISA plan, the advisory agreement must expressly preclude Artisan Partners from voting. In addition, Artisan Partners will not generally vote a client’s proxy after a client has terminated its advisory relationship with Artisan Partners.

 

   

Limited Value—Artisan Partners may abstain from voting the client’s proxy in those circumstances where it has concluded to do so would have no identifiable economic benefit to the client-shareholder, such as when the security is no longer held in the client’s portfolio or when the value of the portfolio holding is indeterminable or insignificant.

 

   

Unjustifiable Costs or Disadvantages—Artisan Partners may also abstain from voting the client’s proxy when the costs of or disadvantages resulting from voting, in Artisan Partners’ judgment, outweigh the economic benefits of voting. For example, in some non-U.S. jurisdictions, the sale of securities voted may be prohibited for some period of time, usually between the record and meeting dates (“share blocking”). Artisan Partners believes that the loss of investment flexibility resulting from share blocking generally outweighs the benefit to be gained by voting. In addition, in some non-U.S. jurisdictions issuers may require documentation that is difficult to obtain or produce as a condition of voting. Therefore, in some cases, those shares will not be voted.

 

   

Securities Lending—Certain of Artisan Partners’ clients engage in securities lending programs under which shares of an issuer could be on loan while that issuer is conducting a proxy solicitation. As part of the securities lending program, if the securities are on loan at the record date, the client lending the security cannot vote that proxy. Therefore, in most cases, those shares will not be voted. Artisan Partners may seek to recall securities on loan to vote a proxy when Artisan Partners determines that the value of voting outweighs the cost of recalling shares.

Proxy Voting Committee

Artisan Partners’ Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for:

 

   

Overseeing the proxy voting process

 

   

Reviewing this Proxy Voting Policy at least annually and developing the Guidelines

 

   

Granting authority to Proxy Administrators (as defined below) to perform administrative services relating to proxy voting

 

   

With respect to Identified Issuers and Discretionary Votes (as described in the Guidelines) where there is an actual or potential conflict of interest, making determinations as to the votes to be cast.

 

   

Reviewing any voting discrepancies or operational issues identified through the Proxy Administrator’s reconciliation process

 

B-221


Proxy Voting Policy

 

The Proxy Voting Committee is comprised of the persons appointed by Artisan Partners from time to time, as such may be amended from time to time. Unless otherwise noted herein, action by any two members of the Proxy Voting Committee shall constitute the action of the Committee. To minimize the possibility that members of the Proxy Voting Committee could have certain potential conflicts of interest, none of the members of the Proxy Voting Committee shall be responsible for servicing existing clients or soliciting new clients.

Administration

 

   

Designation of Proxy Administrators—Members of the trading operations department of Artisan Partners, or such other persons as may be designated by the Proxy Voting Committee, shall serve as Proxy Administrators.

 

   

Receipt and Recording of Proxy Information—The legal and compliance department is responsible for establishing in the records for each client whether the client has:

 

   

vested Artisan Partners with proxy voting authority or has reserved or delegated that responsibility to another designated person; and

 

   

adopted a proxy voting policy that Artisan Partners is required to follow.

Such information shall be provided to a Proxy Administrator each time Artisan Partners enters into an advisory agreement with a new client. The legal and compliance department also shall be responsible for notifying a Proxy Administrator any time a client amends its voting instructions or voting policy.

 

   

Notification of Custodian and ISS— For each client account for which Artisan Partners has discretion to vote shareholder proxies, a member of the trading operations department or a Proxy Administrator shall notify the client’s custodian that all proxy materials and ballots shall be forwarded to ISS and shall notify ISS of those instructions.

 

   

ISS Reports on Pending Proxy Solicitations—ISS publishes a periodic electronic report that identifies pending meetings and due dates for ballots. A Proxy Administrator shall review ISS’ reports as necessary, but no less frequently than weekly.

 

   

Potential Conflicts of Interest—In certain circumstances, Artisan Partners may have a relationship with an issuer that could pose a conflict of interest when voting the shares of that issuer on behalf of clients. Artisan Partners will be deemed to have a potential conflict of interest when voting proxies if: (i) Artisan Partners manages assets for that issuer or an affiliate of the issuer and also recommends that its other clients invest in such issuer’s securities; (ii) a director, trustee or officer of the issuer or an affiliate of the issuer is an employee of Artisan Partners or a director of Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc., its subsidiaries or a fund sponsored by Artisan Partners; (iii) Artisan Partners is actively soliciting that issuer or an affiliate of the issuer as a client and the Proxy Administrator, member of the relevant investment team, or member of the Proxy Voting Committee who recommends, reviews or authorizes a vote has actual knowledge of such active solicitation; (iv) a director or executive officer of the issuer has a personal relationship with the Proxy Administrator, the member of the relevant investment team, or a member of the Proxy Voting Committee who recommends, reviews or authorizes the vote; or (v) another relationship or interest of Artisan Partners, or an employee of Artisan Partners, exists that may be affected by the outcome of the proxy vote and that the Proxy Voting Committee deems to be an actual or potential conflict for the purposes of this Proxy Voting Policy.

Each person who serves as a Proxy Administrator, is a member of an investment team that recommends votes or serves on the Proxy Voting Committee shall, on at least an annual basis, provide to Artisan Partners a list of any portfolio companies with or in which he or she has a relationship or could otherwise be deemed to have a conflict. Each such person shall also certify to Artisan Partners at least annually that he or she agrees to update such list promptly upon becoming aware of any relationship, interest or conflict other than what he or she originally disclosed.

 

B-222


Proxy Voting Policy

 

Artisan Partners will maintain a list of all such issuers with whom it has deemed that it has a potential conflict voting proxies (the Identified Issuers), and provide such list to each Proxy Administrator.

Artisan Partners believes that application of the Guidelines to vote client proxies should, in most cases, adequately address any possible conflicts of interest since the Guidelines are pre-determined. However, in the event an actual or potential conflict of interest has been identified, the procedures described below will be followed.

 

   

Voting Analysis—ISS, GL, or ZD deliver information relating to their research on particular votes and their vote recommendations electronically to the Proxy Administrators. A Proxy Administrator shall review the research and vote recommendations.

 

   

For all votes relating to routine or corporate administrative items (as identified in the Guidelines):

 

   

the Proxy Administrator shall confirm with ISS that the vote will be cast in accordance with the Guidelines.

 

   

For all other votes (identified as discretionary issues in the Guidelines):

 

   

the Proxy Administrator shall contact the investment team(s) whose portfolios hold the subject security or a member of the Proxy Voting Committee to ascertain or confirm the team’s recommendation with respect to the vote. If the vote pertains to an Identified Issuer, the Proxy Administrator will disclose the potential conflict and ask whether the potential conflict has influenced the voting recommendation.

 

   

The Proxy Administrator will provide the voting recommendation to at least one member of the Proxy Voting Committee, who shall review the vote to evaluate whether the recommended vote appears to be the result of a conflict of interest. The member of the Proxy Voting Committee will consider the recommended vote, any analysis available from ISS, GL, or ZD and whether ISS, GL, or ZD have a relationship with the issuer that could present a conflict of interest, the consistency of those recommendations with this Proxy Voting Policy and any identified conflict of interest.

 

   

In the absence of a conflict of interest, the Committee will generally follow the recommendation. If a conflict of interest is identified or the vote pertains to an Identified Issuer, the Committee will determine the course of action that it believes would best serve the interests of Artisan Partners’ clients as shareholders.

 

   

If the Committee concludes that a voting recommendation was influenced by a conflict of interest, the Committee may instruct the firm’s Proxy Administrator to vote proxies in accordance with the recommendations of ISS , GL, or ZD or provided that such service provider provides research and analysis with respect to the issuer in question and the Committee member has reason to believe the service provider is independent of the issuer. If none of the vendors meet these requirements, the Committee shall consider what course of action will best serve the interests of Artisan Partners’ clients, consistent with Artisan Partners’ obligations under applicable proxy voting rules.

 

   

For votes of particular interest to an investment team:

 

   

from time to time, the investment team(s) whose portfolios hold the subject security or a member of the Proxy Voting Committee may determine that following the Guidelines would not be in the economic best interests of Artisan Partners’ clients as shareholders; in which case, the team(s) or a member of the Proxy Voting Committee shall notify a Proxy Administrator, who will then provide a member of the Proxy Voting Committee with a summary of the information relating to the relevant proxy proposal and the recommended vote together with ISS’s and/or GL’s and/or ZD’s analyses. A member of the Proxy Voting Committee shall consider the investment team’s or other

 

B-223


Proxy Voting Policy

 

  Proxy Voting Committee member’s recommended vote, any analysis available from ISS, GL or ZD and whether the vendor has a relationship with the issuer that could present a conflict of interest, the consistency of those recommendations with this Proxy Voting Policy and any identified conflict of interest and shall determine the vote to be cast, in accordance with the standards set forth in this Policy. In the absence of a conflict of interest, the Proxy Voting Committee will generally follow the recommendation.

In certain circumstances, ISS, GL, or ZD may provide a recommendation with respect to a discretionary item for which no analysis or very limited analysis is provided. In such circumstances, the Proxy Administrator may request additional information from ISS and/or independently attempt to obtain additional information regarding the issuer in question. Any such additional information obtained will be provided to the relevant investment team. Regardless of the extent to which additional information is obtained, the recommendations of the team or a member of the Proxy Voting Committee shall be followed in accordance with and subject to the guidelines set forth above.

Review of Votes Cast

On a monthly basis, Artisan Partners monitors strategy votes to ensure ballots are processed on a consistent basis. On a quarterly basis, Artisan Partners engages in a vote reconciliation process for a representative account in each investment strategy managed by Artisan Partners. Artisan Partners determines whether proxy ballots for each meeting held during the quarter were voted in accordance with Artisan Partners’ voting instructions and this Proxy Voting Policy. Any voting discrepancies or operational issues identified through this reconciliation are recorded and reviewed by the Proxy Voting Committee at its next meeting.

In some cases, particularly for clients participating in securities lending programs and clients in strategies with more active trading, a full reconciliation of votes cast and shares held is not possible. In addition, in some cases, ISS may not receive a ballot on behalf of a client from that client’s custodian due to error of the custodian or failure of the custodian to receive the information from the issuer. A full reconciliation of votes cast and shares held by those clients also is not possible. However, if a discrepancy is identified, Artisan Partners shall use reasonable efforts to determine the reasons for the discrepancy, and if such discrepancy is due to an administrative error of ISS, Artisan Partners shall work with ISS to minimize the risk of such errors in the future.

Records and Reports

 

   

Reports—Artisan Partners shall make a summary of this Proxy Voting Policy available to clients on at least an annual basis. That summary may be contained in Artisan Partners’ Brochure. Artisan Partners shall also make the entire Proxy Voting Policy and Artisan Partners’ proxy voting records with respect to a client’s account available to that client or its representatives for review and discussion upon the client’s request or as may be required by applicable law. Artisan Partners generally will not disclose publicly its past votes, share amounts voted or held or how it intends to vote on behalf of a client account except as required by applicable law, but may disclose such information to a client who itself may decide or may be required to make public such information. Upon a request from a person other than a client for information on Artisan Partners’ proxy voting, Artisan Partners personnel will not disclose such information unless otherwise directed to do so by a client, in which case Artisan Partners personnel will direct the requesting party to the Proxy Administrator or a member of the Proxy Voting Committee who will handle the request.

 

   

Records—Basis for Vote—Artisan Partners shall maintain a copy of any document generated by Artisan Partners or its agents that was integral to formulating the basis for a proxy voting decision or that memorializes the basis for a proxy voting decision including:

 

   

For votes relating to routine or corporate administrative matters, the basis for each vote cast is reflected in the Guidelines and no additional documentation is required.

 

B-224


Proxy Voting Policy

 

   

For all other votes, including votes relating to discretionary items or Identified Issuers, Artisan Partners shall maintain records relating to the independent review of the Proxy Voting Committee, including a copy of any request for consideration of a vote by the Proxy Voting Committee and any other correspondence relating to recommendations made by an investment team member or a member of the Proxy Voting Committee.

 

   

Records—General—The following documents shall also be maintained by Artisan Partners or by ISS or another third party service provider, on behalf of Artisan Partners; provided that if such documents are maintained by ISS or a service provider of Artisan Partners, ISS or such third party shall undertake to provide Artisan Partners copies of such documents promptly upon Artisan Partners’ request:

 

   

a copy of each proxy statement received, provided that no copy need be retained of a proxy statement found on the SEC’s EDGAR website;

 

   

a record of each proxy vote cast, including the issuer, the number of shares voted, a description of the proposal, how the shares were voted and the date on which the proxy was returned;

 

   

a copy of each written client request for Artisan Partners’ proxy voting record with respect to such client and a copy of any written response from Artisan Partner to such client for that record; and

 

   

a copy of Artisan Partners’ Proxy Voting Policy, including the Guidelines.

 

   

Records—Retention—All records kept under this Records and Reports section shall be retained no less than seven years, the first two years in an appropriate office of Artisan Partners, or, if instructed by a client, for such longer period as may be mutually agreed by Artisan Partners and such client.

 

Business Group Owner:   

Trade Operations

Date of Last Revision:   

11 August 2022

Applicable to:    Artisan Partners Limited Partnership
Artisan Partners UK LLP

 

B-225


Appendix A

Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

I.

 

BACKGROUND

     B-229  

II.

 

GENERAL GUIDELINES

     B-229  
 

A.

 

Reliance on Information Provided by and Due Diligence of ISS

     B-229  
 

B.

 

Non-U.S. Securities

     B-229  
 

C.

 

Securities Lending

     B-229  
 

D.

 

Securities Not Acquired by Artisan Partners

     B-230  
 

E.

 

Consideration of Relevant Factors

     B-230  

III.

 

ROUTINE AND CORPORATE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

     B-230  
 

A.

 

Operational Items

     B-230  
   

1.

 

Adjourn Meeting

     B-230  
   

2.

 

Amend Quorum Requirements

     B-230  
   

3.

 

Minor Amendment to Charter or Bylaws

     B-230  
   

4.

 

Change Company Name

     B-230  
   

5.

 

Change in Principal Place of Business or Registered Office

     B-230  
   

6.

 

Change Date, Time or Location of Annual Meeting

     B-230  
   

7.

 

Electronic Meetings of Shareholders

     B-230  
   

8.

 

Ratify Auditors

     B-230  
   

9.

 

Authorize Board to Fix Remuneration of Auditors

     B-231  
   

10.

 

Confidential Voting

     B-231  
   

11.

 

Submission of Financial Statements and Statutory Reports

     B-231  
   

12.

 

Dividend Distributions and Profit Distribution/Allocation Plans

     B-231  
   

13.

 

Transact Other Business or Grant a Blank Proxy

     B-231  
   

14.

 

Electronic Communications to Shareholders

     B-231  
   

15.

 

Re-Registration of Shares

     B-231  
   

16.

 

Routine Items of Foreign Issuers

     B-231  
   

17.

 

Appoint Special Appraiser

     B-232  
 

B.

 

Board of Directors

     B-233  
   

1.

 

Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

     B-233  
   

2.

 

Service on Other Boards

     B-234  
   

3.

 

Board Size

     B-234  
   

4.

 

Classification/Declassification of the Board

     B-234  
   

5.

 

Cumulative Voting

     B-234  
   

6.

 

Indemnification and Liability Protection

     B-234  
   

7.

 

Filling Vacancies

     B-234  
   

8.

 

Director Resignations

     B-234  
   

9.

 

Removal of Directors

     B-234  
   

10.

 

Majority Vote Requirements

     B-234  
 

C.

 

Mergers and Corporate Restructuring

     B-234  
   

1.

 

Appraisal Right

     B-234  
   

2.

 

Conversion of Securities and Corporate Reorganizations

     B-234  
 

D.

 

Antitakeover Defenses and Voting Related Issues

     B-235  
   

1.

 

Amend Bylaws without Shareholder Consent

     B-235  
   

2.

 

Control Share Acquisition Provisions

     B-235  
   

3.

 

Fair Price Provisions

     B-235  
   

4.

 

Greenmail

     B-235  
   

5.

 

Issue Stock for Use with Rights Plan

     B-235  
   

6.

 

Stakeholder Provisions

     B-235  

 

B-226


   

7.

 

Supermajority Vote Requirements

     B-235  
   

8.

 

Control Share Cash-Out Provisions

     B-235  
   

9.

 

Disgorgement Provisions

     B-235  
   

10.

 

Freeze-Out Provisions

     B-235  
 

E.

 

Capital Structure

     B-235  
   

1.

 

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock

     B-235  
   

2.

 

Common Stock Authorization

     B-235  
   

3.

 

Preferred Stock Authorization

     B-236  
   

4.

 

Dual Class Stock

     B-236  
   

5.

 

General Issuances of Equity, Equity-Linked or Other Securities

     B-236  
   

6.

 

Share Repurchase Programs

     B-236  
   

7.

 

Reissuance of Repurchased Shares

     B-237  
   

8.

 

Cancellation of Repurchased Shares

     B-237  
   

9.

 

Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends

     B-237  
   

10.

 

Reverse Stock Splits

     B-237  
   

11.

 

Stock Splits

     B-237  
 

F.

 

Executive and Director Compensation

     B-237  
   

1.

 

Stock Plans in Lieu of Cash

     B-237  
   

2.

 

Director Retirement Plans

     B-237  
   

3.

 

Incentive Bonus Plans and Tax Deductibility Proposals

     B-237  
   

4.

 

Advisory Vote on Say On Pay Frequency

     B-237  
   

5.

 

Executive Death Benefits (Golden Coffins)

     B-237  
 

G.

 

Bundled Proposals (Routine Items Only)

     B-237  

IV.

 

DISCRETIONARY ISSUES

     B-238  
 

A.

 

Shareholder Proposals

     B-238  
 

B.

 

Environmental & Social Proposals

     B-238  
 

C.

 

Board of Directors

     B-238  
   

1.

 

Majority of Independent Directors

     B-238  
   

2.

 

Majority of Independent Committee Members

     B-238  
   

3.

 

Cumulative Voting

     B-238  
   

4.

 

Indemnification and Liability Protection

     B-238  
   

5.

 

Establish/Amend Nominee Qualifications

     B-238  
   

6.

 

Proxy access rights

     B-238  
   

7.

 

Term/Tenure Limits

     B-238  
   

8.

 

Age Limits

     B-239  
 

D.

 

Proxy Contests

     B-239  
   

1.

 

Director Nominees in Contested Elections

     B-239  
   

2.

 

Non-Director Voting Items

     B-239  
   

3.

 

Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses

     B-239  
 

E.

 

Mergers and Corporate Restructuring

     B-239  
   

1.

 

Mergers and Acquisitions, Asset Purchases and Asset Sales

     B-239  
   

2.

 

Conversion of Securities and Corporate Reorganizations

     B-239  
   

3.

 

Formation of Holding Company

     B-240  
   

4.

 

Going Private & Going Dark Transactions (LBOs and Minority Squeezeouts)

     B-240  
   

5.

 

Issuance of Warrants/Convertibles/Debentures

     B-240  
   

6.

 

Joint Ventures

     B-240  
   

7.

 

Liquidations

     B-241  
   

8.

 

Private Placements

     B-241  
   

9.

 

Prepackaged Bankruptcy Plans

     B-241  
   

10.

 

Recapitalizations

     B-241  
   

11.

 

Spinoffs

     B-242  

 

B-227


   

12.

 

Exclusive Venue

     B-242  
   

13.

 

Related-party transactions

     B-242  
 

F.

 

Antitakeover Defenses

     B-242  
   

1.

 

Fair Price Provisions

     B-242  
   

2.

 

Greenmail

     B-242  
   

3.

 

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)

     B-243  
   

4.

 

Shareholders’ Ability to Call Special Meetings

     B-243  
 

G.

 

State or Country of Incorporation

     B-243  
   

1.

 

State Takeover Statutes

     B-243  
   

2.

 

Reincorporation Proposals

     B-243  
 

H.

 

Capital Structure

     B-243  
   

1.

 

Common Stock Authorization

     B-243  
   

2.

 

Preferred Stock

     B-243  
   

3.

 

Reverse Stock Splits

     B-243  
   

4.

 

Tracking Stock

     B-243  
 

I.

 

Executive and Director Compensation

     B-244  
   

1.

 

Bundled Compensation

     B-244  
   

2.

 

Compensation Plans (Management “Say on Pay”)

     B-244  
   

3.

 

Remuneration Report

     B-244  
   

4.

 

Stock Plans in Lieu of Cash

     B-244  
   

5.

 

Management Proposals Seeking Approval to Reprice Options

     B-244  
   

6.

 

Executive Stock Purchase Plans

     B-244  
   

7.

 

Incentive Bonus Plans and Tax Deductibility Proposals

     B-245  
   

8.

 

Golden and Tin Parachutes

     B-245  
   

9.

 

Bonus Banking/Bonus Banking “Plus”

     B-245  
   

10.

 

Shareholder Ratification of Director Pay Programs

     B-245  
   

11.

 

Equity Plans for Non-Employee Directors

     B-245  
 

J.

 

Bundled Proposals

     B-245  

 

B-228


I.

Background

The following proxy voting guidelines (Guidelines) summarize Artisan Partners’ positions on various issues of concern to investors and give an indication of how portfolio securities generally will be voted on proposals dealing with particular issues. These Guidelines are based on Artisan Partners’ own research and analyses and the research and analyses provided by ISS.

The Guidelines, together with the Proxy Voting Policy, will be used for voting proxies on behalf of all of Artisan Partners’ clients for which Artisan Partners has voting authority. ISS is instructed to vote all proxies relating to portfolio securities in accordance with these Guidelines, except as otherwise instructed by Artisan Partners.

The Guidelines are not exhaustive and do not include all potential voting issues. Because proxy issues and the circumstances of individual companies are so varied, there may be instances when Artisan Partners votes differently than indicated in the Guidelines. Artisan Partners’ investment teams are responsible for monitoring significant corporate developments, including proxy proposals submitted to shareholders, and notifying the Proxy Administrator of circumstances where the interests of clients may warrant a vote contrary to the Guidelines. In such instances, the investment team member may submit a recommendation to the Proxy Administrator in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Proxy Voting Policy.

In addition, due to the varying regulations, customs and practices of non-U.S. countries, Artisan Partners may vote contrary to the Guidelines in circumstances where following the Guidelines would be inconsistent with local regulations, customs or practices.

 

II.

General Guidelines

 

  A.

Reliance on Information Provided by and Due Diligence of ISS—Artisan Partners may rely on the information provided by and due diligence efforts of ISS in determining whether to vote for or against a particular matter, provided that the Proxy Administrator, the member of the relevant investment team, or the members of the Proxy Voting Committee who recommend, review or authorize the vote does not have actual knowledge that the information provided by ISS is incorrect.

 

  B.

Non-U.S. Securities—In some non-U.S. jurisdictions, the sale of securities voted may be prohibited for some period of time, usually between the record and meeting dates (share blocking). Artisan Partners believes that the loss of investment flexibility resulting from share blocking generally outweighs the benefit to be gained by voting. Artisan Partners (or ISS on behalf of Artisan Partners) maintains a list of jurisdictions in which share blocking occurs. In such jurisdictions, there may be circumstances in which the specific securities voted might not in fact be subject to share blocking. However, because of the complexity and variety of share blocking restrictions in the various jurisdictions in which shares are held, Artisan Partners generally does not vote proxies in those jurisdictions unless a client’s proxy voting policy specifically requires other action. In some jurisdictions, a sub-custodian bank (record holder) may not have the power to vote shares, or may not receive ballots in a timely fashion, unless the client has fulfilled certain administrative requirements (for example, providing a power of attorney to the local sub-custodian), which may be imposed a single time or may be periodic. Artisan Partners does not have the ability to vote shares held in a client’s account unless the client, in conjunction with the client’s custodian, has fulfilled these requirements.

 

  C.

Securities Lending—Certain of Artisan Partners’ clients engage in securities lending programs under which a client’s shares of an issuer could be on loan while that issuer is conducting a proxy solicitation. As part of the securities lending program, if the securities are on loan at the record date, the client lending the security cannot vote that proxy. In some circumstances, a client may determine that recalling the security to vote is not in its best interest and may not be willing to do so. Therefore, in most cases, those shares will not be voted. Artisan Partners may seek to recall securities on loan to vote a proxy when Artisan Partners determines that the value of voting outweighs the cost of recalling shares.

 

 

B-229


  D.

Securities Not Acquired by Artisan Partners—From time to time, Artisan Partners’ client accounts may hold securities not specifically acquired for such accounts by Artisan Partners. Such securities are typically received through corporate or other actions, transfers in of securities acquired by other managers, or through clients’ investments in short-term investment funds for cash management purposes. When Artisan Partners receives proxies relating to such securities and the position(s) remain within the account, it will vote in accordance with the recommendations of ISS.

 

  E.

Consideration of Relevant Factors—These Guidelines below may provide examples of factors to be considered in determining how to vote on certain issues. These factors should not be considered exclusive or exhaustive. The Proxy Committee shall consider such factors as it considers to be appropriate in light of the circumstances.

 

III.

Routine and Corporate Administrative Items

 

  A.

Operational Items

 

  1.

Adjourn Meeting—Vote AGAINST proposals to provide management with the authority to adjourn an annual or special meeting absent compelling reasons to support the proposal. Circumstances in which an adjournment is sought to provide management with additional time during which to seek shareholder approval of a proposal of which Artisan Partners is in favor shall be deemed to be a compelling reason to support such proposals.

 

  2.

Amend Quorum Requirements—Vote AGAINST proposals to reduce quorum requirements for shareholder meetings below a majority of the shares outstanding unless there are compelling reasons to support the proposal.

 

  3.

Minor Amendment to Charter or Bylaws—Vote FOR bylaw or charter changes that are housekeeping or administrative in nature (updates or corrections) or changes required by or to conform to applicable law or requirements of national exchanges or other regulatory organizations.

 

  4.

Change Company Name—Vote FOR proposals to change the corporate name.

 

  5.

Change in Principal Place of Business or Registered Office—Vote FOR proposals to change principal place of business or registered office, unless the proposal appears unreasonable or would cause a change in the state or country of incorporation. Also, vote FOR proposals to grant authorization to the board of directors to amend organizational documents in connection with such change.

 

  6.

Change Date, Time, or Location of Annual Meeting—Vote FOR management proposals to change the date/time/location of the annual meeting unless the proposed change is unreasonable. Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals to change the date/time/location of the annual meeting unless the current scheduling or location is unreasonable.

 

  7.

Electronic Meetings of ShareholdersVote FOR management proposals to hold shareholder meetings using audio and video transmission (including live webcasts), unless the proposed alternative appears unreasonable in light of the circumstances.

 

  8.

Ratify Auditors—Vote FOR management proposals to ratify the selection of auditors, unless:

 

   

An auditor has a significant professional or personal relationship with the issuer that compromises the firm’s independence, including whether the amount of consulting or related services provided by the auditor to the issuer or the fees paid for non-audit services account for 50% or more of totals fees;

 

   

There is reason to believe the independent auditor has rendered an opinion which is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position; or

 

 

B-230


   

Serious concerns about accounting practices are identified such as fraud, misapplication of GAAP, and material weaknesses identified in Section 404 disclosures.

 

  9.

Authorize Board to Fix Remuneration of Auditors—Vote FOR proposals to authorize the board to fix the remuneration of auditors unless the firm does not vote in favor of the proposal to ratify the selection of those auditors or would not have done so had a proposal to ratify the selection of those auditors been made.

 

  10.

Confidential Voting—Vote FOR proposals to adopt confidential voting, use independent vote tabulators and use independent inspectors of election.

 

  11.

Submission of Financial Statements and Statutory Reports—Vote FOR the adoption or approval of routine submissions of an issuer’s annual financial statements and statutory reports.

 

  12.

Dividend Distributions and Profit Distribution/Allocation Plans— Vote FOR routine submissions of an issuer’s cash or stock dividend payout and profit distribution/allocation plans (including dividend capitalization or share capital reduction plans accompanied by cash distributions), assuming pro rata payout or distribution to all shareholders. Also, vote FOR ratification of board actions taken with respect to such dividend payouts and profit distribution/allocation plans.

 

  13.

Transact Other Business or Grant a Blank Proxy—Vote AGAINST proposals to approve other business when it appears as a voting item or to give proxy authority to a specified person to vote, at that person’s discretion, on any item that has yet to be raised and/or about which no information has been disclosed.

 

  14.

Electronic Communications to Shareholders—Vote FOR proposals to allow for delivery of notices and various corporate documents (such as prospectuses and annual reports, for example) to shareholders via electronic means to the extent shareholders are given the right to request hard copies of such notices and documents. Also, vote FOR proposals to grant authorization to the board of directors to amend organizational documents permitting such electronic communications to shareholders.

 

  15.

Re-Registration of Shares — Vote AGAINST proposals to re-register shares in share blocking markets. Vote FOR re-registration in markets that do not engage in share blocking.

 

  16.

Routine Items of Foreign Issuers—Vote FOR proposals to approve certain routine operational items frequently submitted by management of non-U.S. issuers, including, but not limited to the following:

 

   

election of chairman of the annual general meeting (AGM);

 

   

designation of an independent proxy;

 

   

preparation and approval of list of shareholders entitled to vote at AGM;

 

   

approval of meeting agenda;

 

   

approval of minutes of previous AGM, and technical or immaterial amendments to previously approved minutes of such AGM;

 

   

approval of routine capital budget requests in the absence of any known concerns or evidence of prior mismanagement;

 

   

acceptance of the submission of various reports to shareholders, including but not limited to audit committee reports, chairman’s reports, operations reports, reports on company performance, etc.;

 

   

appointment of internal statutory auditors, but vote AGAINST appointment of internal statutory auditors that are affiliated with the issuer and are listed as independent;

 

 

B-231


   

fees, remuneration schedule/plan for non-executive directors, unless the amounts are excessive relative to other companies in the country or industry;

 

   

discharge of responsibility of the management, supervisory board or the auditor for the fiscal year in review, but vote AGAINST such proposal if there are serious questions about actions of the management or board members or legal action is being taken against the management or board members by other shareholders;

 

   

approval of retirement plans or payments relating to those plans for employee directors;

 

   

approval of general meeting guidelines;

 

   

grant of authorization to the board of directors to ratify and execute approved resolutions;

 

   

designation of inspector or shareholder representative for approval of the minutes of the AGM;

 

   

acknowledgment of the proper convening of the AGM;

 

   

adoption of or approval of changes to procedural rules for shareholders’ general meetings, board meetings and supervisory committee meetings that are guidelines that seek to establish functions, powers, policies and procedures for these types of meetings in accordance with applicable law or requirements of national exchanges or other regulatory organizations;

 

   

authorization to form a special committee and elect its members to conduct shareholder meeting formalities (i.e. verify quorum);

 

   

authorization to hold general meetings (other than AGMs) with 14 days’ notice in limited and time-sensitive circumstances where it would be to the advantage of shareholders as a whole;

 

   

authorization to make donations to EU political organizations for the purpose of preventing an inadvertent breach of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000;

 

   

approval to create corporate website and related amendments that govern the terms of use of the company’s website;

 

   

review and acceptance of the financial statements of subsidiaries;

 

   

approval of affiliation agreements with subsidiaries;

 

   

approval of provisional guarantees so long as the guarantee is not being provided to an unnamed entity or an entity that the company has less than 75% equity ownership in and the guarantee amount does not exceed the company’s ownership;

 

   

approval of loan financing requests, including applications for lines of credit, so long as the proceeds from the loan(s) will not be made to directors, supervisors, or senior management either directly or indirectly through its subsidiaries

In instances where a member of the Proxy Voting Committee believes that sufficient information is not available to make an informed voting decision on a matter, a vote will be placed in accordance with the recommendations of ISS.

 

  17.

Appoint Special AppraiserVote FOR proposals to appoint certain appraisers, special auditors or liquidators unless there are concerns noted related to the appointment.

 

B-232


B.

Board of Directors

 

  1.

Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections—Vote FOR director nominees (including internal statutory auditors of Japanese companies) and nominees to any committee of the board of directors in uncontested elections, except that votes should be WITHHELD from [or submitted AGAINST] nominees who, as reported in the issuer’s proxy statement or materials provided by one of Artisan Partners’ proxy service providers:

 

   

Attended less than 75% of the board and committee meetings without a valid reason for the absences, if reported. Valid reasons include illness, absence due to company business, or other circumstances outside of the director’s control where sufficient facts are available to suggest the absences were duly justified, unless the nominee has served on the board for less than one fiscal year. Participation via telephone is acceptable. In addition, if the director missed only one meeting or one day’s meetings, votes should not be withheld even if such absence reduced the director’s attendance below 75%;

 

   

In the case of chronic poor attendance without justification, in addition to voting against the director nominee, generally vote against or withhold from members of the nominating or governance committees or the full board.

 

   

Voted to implement or renew a dead-hand or slow-hand poison pill;

 

   

Ignored a shareholder proposal that was approved by a majority of the votes cast for two consecutive years (unless Artisan Partners did not support such proposal);

 

   

Ignored a shareholder proposal approved by a majority of the shares outstanding (unless Artisan Partners did not support such proposal);

 

   

Failed to act on a takeover offer where the majority of the shareholders had tendered their shares;

 

   

With respect to director candidates of U.S. companies only, serves on the board of directors of more than five publicly-traded companies or serves as the chief executive officer of a publicly-traded company and also serves on the board of directors of more than two publicly-traded companies besides his/her own company (except that a vote will not be withheld for a candidate in director elections of the publicly traded company for which the director also serves as the chief executive officer; i.e., the vote will be withheld only in director elections for such candidate’s outside boards);

 

   

With respect to director candidates of non-U.S. companies, if our proxy data vendor identifies a candidate as being over-boarded with respect to local market practices, the candidate’s nomination will be voted on a CASE-BY-CASE basis;

 

   

In the past ten years was convicted of or pled guilty or no contest in a domestic or foreign court to any felony or misdemeanor involving fraud, false statements, wrongful taking of property, bribery, perjury, forgery, counterfeiting, extortion or conspiracy to commit any of these offenses, or has been found by a regulatory authority with jurisdiction over the nominee to have committed any such offense;

 

   

Has egregiously failed in their risk oversight responsibilities such as, but not limited to, demonstrably poor oversight related to environmental or social issues. Nominees who meet this criteria will be treated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis;

 

   

Are the Chair of the nominating committee at companies where there are no women on the company’s board, unless the firm has made a commitment towards improving gender diversity by appointing at least one female to the board in the near term or there was a female on the board at the preceding annual meeting or other reasonable justification is provided by the company. Nominees who meet this criteria will be treated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis;

 

 

B-233


   

Are the Chair of the nominating committee at companies where there is no apparent racial and/or ethnic diversity on the company’s board, unless the firm has made a commitment to address the concern in the near term or there was racial and/or ethnic diversity on the board at the preceding annual meeting or other reasonable justification is provided by the company. Nominees who meet this criteria will be treated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis

If the number of candidates in an election is greater than the number of seats to be filled, such election will be deemed contested and will be voted in accordance with the requirements set forth in sub-section entitled “Proxy Contests” under Discretionary Issues section of the Guidelines.

 

  2.

Service on Other Boards—Vote FOR proposals to release restrictions of competitive activities of directors, which would permit the directors to serve on the boards of other companies to the extent such service on other boards is not otherwise limited or prohibited pursuant to applicable laws or regulations. Vote AGAINST any proposals that would impose restrictions on competitive activities of directors that would prohibit the directors from serving on the boards of other companies, unless such restrictions or prohibitions are warranted by the applicable laws or regulations.

 

  3.

Board Size—Vote FOR proposals seeking to fix the board size or designate a range for the board size. Vote AGAINST proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board outside a specified range without shareholder approval.

 

  4.

Classification/Declassification of the Board—Vote AGAINST proposals to classify the board, including proposals to amend charter or bylaws to, in effect, permit classification of the board. Vote FOR proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors annually, including proposals to amend charter or bylaws to, in effect, eliminate classification of the board.

 

  5.

Cumulative Voting—Vote proposals to eliminate cumulative voting in accordance with the recommendations of each investment team or strategy based on the portfolio management’s investment philosophy as follows: AGAINST – Sustainable Emerging Markets, Global Equity, U.S. Value; FOR – International Value, Global Value; and CASE-BY-CASE – U.S. Growth, Antero Peak Group, Developing World, China Post-Venture. In director elections of companies in countries where cumulative voting is required by law or regulation, vote for the directors in accordance with the cumulative voting recommendations by ISS.

 

  6.

Indemnification and Liability Protection—Vote AGAINST proposals that would eliminate entirely directors’ and officers’ liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of care.

 

  7.

Filling Vacancies—Vote AGAINST proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies. Vote FOR proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.

 

  8.

Director Resignations—Vote FOR management proposals to accept resignations of directors from the board or committees on which they serve, unless there are apparent contentious issues relating to or requiring the resignation, in which case it shall be voted on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

  9.

Removal of Directors—Vote AGAINST proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause. Vote FOR proposals to restore shareholder ability to remove directors with or without cause.

 

  10.

Majority Vote Requirements—Vote FOR management proposals to require election of directors by a majority of votes cast.

 

  C.

Mergers and Corporate Restructuring

 

  1.

Appraisal Right—Vote FOR proposals to restore, or provide shareholders with, rights of appraisal.

 

  2.

Conversion of Securities and Corporate Reorganizations—Vote FOR the conversion or reorganization if it is expected that the company will be subject to onerous penalties or will be forced to file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

 

B-234


  D.

Antitakeover Defenses and Voting Related Issues

 

  1.

Amend Bylaws without Shareholder Consent—Vote AGAINST proposals giving the board exclusive authority to amend the bylaws. Vote FOR proposals giving the board the ability to amend the bylaws in addition to shareholders.

 

  2.

Control Share Acquisition Provisions—Vote AGAINST proposals to amend the charter to include control share acquisition provisions. Vote FOR proposals to restore voting rights to the control shares and to opt out of control share acquisition statutes unless doing so would enable the completion of a takeover that would be detrimental to shareholders.

 

  3.

Fair Price Provisions—Vote AGAINST fair price provisions with shareholder vote requirements greater than a majority of disinterested shares.

 

  4.

Greenmail Vote FOR proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.

 

  5.

Issue Stock for Use with Rights Plan—Vote AGAINST proposals that increase authorized common stock for the explicit purpose of implementing a shareholder rights plan (poison pill).

 

  6.

Stakeholder Provisions—Vote AGAINST proposals that ask the board to consider non-shareholder constituencies or other non-financial effects when evaluating a merger or business combination.

 

  7.

Supermajority Vote Requirements—Vote AGAINST proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote. Vote FOR proposals to lower supermajority vote requirements.

 

  8.

Control Share Cash-Out ProvisionsVote FOR proposals to opt out of control share cash-out statutes. Such statutes give dissident shareholder(s) the right to “cash-out” of their position in a company at the expense of the shareholder who has taken a control position.

 

  9.

Disgorgement ProvisionsVote FOR proposals to opt out of state disgorgement provisions. Such provisions require an acquirer or potential acquirer of more than a certain percentage of a company’s stock to disgorge to the company any profits realized from sale of that company’s stock purchased 24 months before achieving control status.

 

  10.

Freeze-Out ProvisionsVote FOR proposals to opt out of state freeze-out provisions. Freeze-out provisions force an investor who surpasses a certain ownership threshold in a company to wait a specified period of time before gaining control of the company.

 

  E.

Capital Structure

 

  1.

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock—Vote FOR management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock (including through share capital reduction plans that provide for pro rata capital repayments) or to increase the par value of common stock in order to capitalize cash dividends paid to all shareholders on a pro rata basis, unless the action is being taken to facilitate an anti-takeover device or some other negative corporate governance action. Vote FOR management proposals to eliminate par value. Additionally, vote FOR any amendments to bylaws or other corporate documents related to the items above.

 

  2.

Common Stock Authorization—Vote FOR proposals to increase the number of authorized common shares where the primary purpose of the increase is to issue shares in connection with a transaction on the same ballot that warrants support.

Vote AGAINST proposals at companies with dual-class capital structures to increase the number of authorized shares of the class of stock that has superior voting rights unless clients hold the class with the superior voting rights.

 

 

B-235


Vote FOR proposals to approve increases beyond the allowable increase when a company’s shares are in danger of being delisted or if a company’s ability to continue to operate as a going concern is uncertain.

 

  3.

Preferred Stock AuthorizationVote FOR proposals to increase the number of authorized preferred shares where the primary purpose of the increase is to issue shares in connection with a transaction on the same ballot that warrants support.

Vote AGAINST proposals to increase number of authorized shares of class or series of preferred stock that has superior voting rights, at a company that has more than one class or series of preferred stock, unless Artisan Partners holds on behalf of its clients the class with the superior voting rights.

Vote FOR proposals to create “declawed” blank check preferred stock (stock that cannot be used as a takeover defense without prior stockholder approval).

Vote FOR proposals to authorize preferred stock in cases where the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion, and other rights of such stock and the terms of the preferred stock appear reasonable.

Vote AGAINST proposals authorizing the creation of new classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution, and other rights (blank check preferred stock).

Vote AGAINST proposals to increase the number of blank check preferred stock authorized for issuance when no shares have been issued or reserved for a specific purpose.

 

  4.

Dual Class Stock—Vote AGAINST proposals to create a new class of common stock with superior voting rights. Vote FOR proposals to create a new class of nonvoting or subvoting common stock if:

 

   

It is intended for financing purposes with minimal or no dilution to current shareholders;

 

   

It is not designed to preserve the voting power of an insider or significant shareholder.

 

  5.

General Issuances of Equity, Equity-Linked or Other Securities not related to a merger (i.e., warrants, rights, convertibles, debt instruments) — Generally vote FOR proposals to issue equity, equity-linked or other securities with preemptive rights to a maximum of 100% over currently issued capital. Generally vote FOR such proposals without preemptive rights to a maximum of 20% over currently issued capital considering whether discount limits and the number of times the mandate may be refreshed are in line with local market practices. Proposal types that are commonly voted based on these criteria include, but are not limited to, non-executive employee stock purchase plans, restricted share issuances, and private placements not related to mergers or corporate restructuring. With respect to debt issuances, generally vote FOR proposals which increase debt-to-capital ratio by 15% or less, otherwise these proposals will be voted on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

  6.

Share Repurchase Programs—Vote FOR management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans, except that proposals where there is evidence that a proposed repurchase plan is not fair to all shareholders or where the company indicates that a proposed repurchase plan may continue during a takeover period shall be voted on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Also, vote FOR management proposals to authorize the use of financial derivatives when repurchasing shares if voted FOR the approval of the relevant share repurchase plan. Also, vote FOR management proposals to repurchase shares for the purpose of retiring them from special purpose plans, like corporate incentive or bonus schemes, if the repurchase is consistent with the terms of the plan/scheme.

 

 

B-236


  7.

Reissuance of Repurchased Shares—Vote FOR management proposals to reissue previously repurchased shares to the extent such reissuance would have a dilution effect of no more than 10%, unless there is clear evidence of abuse of this authority in the past.

 

  8.

Cancellation of Repurchased Shares—Vote FOR management proposals to cancel previously repurchased shares for routine accounting purposes unless the terms are unfavorable to shareholders.

 

  9.

Stock Distributions: Splits and DividendsVote FOR management proposals to increase the common share authorization for a stock split or share dividend, provided that the effective increase in authorized shares would not result in an excessive number of shares available for issuance relative to outstanding shares.

 

  10.

Reverse Stock Splits—Vote FOR management proposals to implement a reverse stock split when the number of authorized shares will be proportionately reduced or to avoid delisting.

 

  11.

Stock Splits—Vote FOR management proposals to implement a stock split when there is no dilution to existing shareholders.

 

  F.

Executive and Director Compensation

 

  1.

Stock Plans in Lieu of Cash—Vote FOR plans which provide a dollar-for-dollar cash for stock exchange for non-employee director plans only.

 

  2.

Director Retirement Plans—Vote AGAINST retirement plans for non-employee directors.

 

  3.

Incentive Bonus Plans and Tax Deductibility Proposals—Vote FOR cash or cash and stock bonus plans that are submitted to shareholders for the purpose of ensuring the deductibility of compensation under the provisions of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code if no increase in shares is requested and if the plan does not contain an evergreen provision. Vote FOR proposals that simply amend shareholder-approved compensation plans to include administrative features or place a cap on the annual grants any one participant may receive to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m). Vote FOR proposals to add performance goals to existing compensation plans to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) unless they are clearly inappropriate.

 

  4.

Advisory Vote on Say on Pay FrequencyVote proposals regarding the frequency in which companies must present shareholders with an advisory vote on executive compensation in accordance with the recommendations of each investment team or strategy based on the portfolio management’s investment philosophy as follows: One Year – U.S. Value, International Value, Global Value, Global Equity, U. S. Growth, Antero Peak Group, Developing World; Two Years – Sustainable Emerging Markets, China Post-Venture.

 

  5.

Executive Death Benefits (Golden Coffins)—Vote FOR proposals calling companies to adopt a policy of obtaining shareholder approval for any future agreements and corporate policies that could oblige the company to make payments or awards following the death of a senior executive in the form of unearned salary or bonuses, accelerated vesting or the continuation in force of unvested equity grants, perquisites and other payments or awards made in lieu of compensation. This would not apply to any benefit programs or equity plan proposals for which the broad-based employee population is eligible.

 

  G.

Bundled Proposals (Routine Items Only)—Vote bundled or “conditioned” proposals that consist of routine items and that, if voted separately, would result in the same vote in alignment with the recommendation. However, if conflicting outcomes would result if voting individually, vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

B-237


IV.

Discretionary Issues

 

  A.

Shareholder ProposalsVote CASE-BY-CASE for all shareholder proposals, except for shareholder proposals to change the date, time or location of annual meeting, which shall be voted in accordance with Section III.A.6.

 

  B.

Environmental and Social Proposals—Votes on environmental or climate related and social proposals are voted on a CASE-BY-CASE basis considering, as applicable:

 

   

If the matters presented in the proposal are more appropriately or effectively dealt with through legislation or government regulation;

 

   

If the company has already responded in an appropriate and sufficient manner to the matter(s) raised in the proposal;

 

   

Whether the proposal’s request is unduly burdensome (scope or timeframe) or overly prescriptive;

 

   

The company’s approach compared with any industry standard practices for addressing the matter(s) raised by the proposal;

 

   

Whether there are significant controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company’s environmental or social practices;

 

   

If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether reasonable and sufficient information is currently available to shareholders from the company or from other publicly available sources; and

 

   

If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether implementation would reveal proprietary or confidential information that could place the company at a competitive disadvantage.

 

  C.

Board of Directors

 

  1.

Majority of Independent Directors—Vote on proposals requiring the board to consist of a majority of independent directors on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

  2.

Majority of Independent Committee Members—Vote on proposals requiring the board audit, compensation and/or nominating committees be composed exclusively of independent directors on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

  3.

Cumulative Voting—All proposals to restore or provide for cumulative voting should be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis relative to other governance provisions contained in the company’s governing documents and the company’s relative performance.

 

  4.

Indemnification and Liability Protection—Proposals providing expanded insurance coverage or indemnification or liability protection in cases when a director or officer was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that he or she reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company, but the director’s or officer’s legal defense was nonetheless unsuccessful, should be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

  5.

Establish/Amend Nominee QualificationsVote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals that establish or amend director qualifications.

 

  6.

Proxy access rights—Vote management proposals to adopt proxy access rights on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

  7.

Term/Tenure Limits—vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals that establish or amend director tenure or term limits taking into consideration the robustness of the company’s board evaluation process, the proposed length of the limit, and rationale.

 

B-238


  8.

Age Limits—Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to impose a mandatory retirement age for directors or proposals that seek to eliminate such a requirement.

 

  D.

Proxy Contests

 

  1.

Director Nominees in Contested Elections— Votes in a contested election of directors should be decided on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with shareholders determining which directors are best suited to add value for shareholders, considering the following factors, as applicable:

 

   

Performance of the company relative to its peers

 

   

Strategic plans of the incumbents and the dissidents

 

   

Independence of directors/nominees

 

   

Governance profile of the company

 

   

Evidence of management entrenchment

 

   

Experience and skills of board candidates

 

   

Responsiveness to shareholders

 

   

Whether takeover offer has been rebuffed

If the number of candidates in an election is greater than the number of seats to be filled, such election will be deemed contested.

 

  2.

Non-Director Voting Items—Votes on matters other than election of directors in proxy contests should be decided on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, even if such matters would otherwise be routine voting items under this policy.

 

  3.

Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses—In cases where Artisan Partners votes in favor of the dissidents, it also votes FOR reimbursing proxy solicitation expenses. Otherwise, voting to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses should be analyzed on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

  E.

Mergers and Corporate Restructuring

 

  1.

Mergers and Acquisitions, Asset Purchases and Asset Sales—Votes on mergers and acquisitions, issuance of securities to facilitate mergers and acquisitions, asset purchases and asset sales should be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, determining whether the transaction enhances shareholder value by considering, as applicable:

 

   

Strategic rationale for the transaction and financial and operational benefits

 

   

Offer price (cost vs. premium) and market reaction

 

   

How the transaction was negotiated and the process

 

   

Changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights

 

   

Conflicts of interest

 

  2.

Conversion of Securities and Corporate Reorganizations—Votes on proposals regarding conversion of securities and corporate reorganizations are determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis by considering, as applicable:

 

   

Dilution to existing shareholders’ position

 

   

Conversion price relative to market value

 

   

Financial issues

 

   

Control issues

 

 

B-239


   

Termination penalties

 

   

Terms of the offer

 

   

Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives

 

   

Conflicts of Interest

 

  3.

Formation of Holding Company—Votes on proposals regarding the formation of a holding company should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis by considering, as applicable:

 

   

Reasons for the change

 

   

Any financial or tax benefits

 

   

Regulatory benefits

 

   

Increases in capital structure

 

   

Changes to the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the company

 

  4.

Going Private and Going Dark Transactions (LBOs and Minority Squeezeouts)—Vote on going private transactions on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, taking into account, as applicable:

 

   

Offer price/premium

 

   

Fairness opinion

 

   

How the deal was negotiated

 

   

Other alternatives/offers considered

 

   

Non-completion risk

 

   

Conflicts of interest

 

  5.

Issuance of Warrants/Convertibles/Debentures related to a merger, acquisition or other corporate reorganization—Votes on proposals regarding issuance of warrants, convertibles and debentures should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis by considering, as applicable:

 

   

Dilution to existing shareholders’ position

 

   

Terms of the offer

 

   

Financial issues

 

   

Management’s efforts to pursue alternatives

 

   

Control issues

 

   

Conflicts of interest

 

  6.

Joint Ventures—Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to form joint ventures, taking into account, as applicable:

 

   

Percentage of assets/business contributed

 

   

Percentage ownership

 

   

Financial and strategic benefits

 

   

Governance structure

 

   

Conflicts of interest

 

   

Other alternatives

 

   

Non-completion risk

 

B-240


  7.

Liquidations—Votes on liquidations should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis after reviewing, as applicable:

 

   

Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives

 

   

Appraisal value of the assets

 

   

Compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation

Vote FOR the liquidation if the company will file for bankruptcy if the proposal is not approved.

 

  8.

Private Placements — Votes on proposals regarding private placements related to mergers or corporate restructuring should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis by considering, as applicable:

 

   

Dilution to existing shareholders’ position

 

   

Terms of the offer

 

   

Financial issues

 

   

Management’s efforts to pursue alternatives

 

   

Control issues

 

   

Conflicts of interest

Vote FOR the private placement if it is expected that the company will file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

 

  9.

Prepackaged Bankruptcy Plans—Vote on 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, after evaluating, as applicable:

 

   

Dilution to existing shareholders’ position

 

   

Terms of the offer

 

   

Financial issues

 

   

Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives

 

   

Control issues

 

   

Conflicts of interest

Vote FOR the debt restructuring if it is expected that the company will file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

 

  10.

Recapitalizations—Vote CASE-BY-CASE on recapitalizations (reclassifications of securities), taking into account, as applicable:

 

   

More simplified capital structure

 

   

Enhanced liquidity

 

   

Fairness of conversion terms, including fairness opinion

 

   

Impact on voting power and dividends

 

   

Reasons for the reclassification

 

   

Conflicts of interest

 

   

Other alternatives considered

 

B-241


  11.

Spinoffs—Votes on spinoffs should be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, considering, as applicable:

 

   

Tax and regulatory advantages

 

   

Planned use of the sale proceeds

 

   

Benefits that the spinoff may have on the parent company

 

   

Valuation of spinoff

 

   

Conflicts of interest

 

   

Any changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights

 

   

Change in the capital structure

 

  12.

Exclusive VenueVote CASE-BY-CASE on exclusive venue proposals giving consideration to the following factors, as applicable:

 

   

The company’s stated rationale for adopting such a provision;

 

   

Whether the company has appropriate governance features, such as an annually elected board, a majority vote standard in uncontested director elections and the absence of a poison pill, unless the pill was approved by shareholders.

 

  13.

Related-party transactions – Vote CASE-BY-CASE on related-party transactions giving consideration to the following factors, as applicable:

 

   

The parties on either side of the transaction

 

   

The nature of the asset to be transferred/service to be provided

 

   

The pricing of the transaction (and any associated professional valuation)

 

   

The views of independent directors, where provided

 

   

The views of an independent financial adviser, where appointed

 

   

Whether any parties to the transaction, including advisers, are conflicted

 

   

The stated rationale for the transaction, including discussions of timing

 

  F.

Antitakeover Defenses

 

  1.

Fair Price Provisions—Votes on proposals to adopt fair price provisions or opt out of state fair price provisions are determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis giving consideration to the following factors, as applicable:

 

   

Percentage of outstanding shares that an acquirer must obtain before triggering the defense

 

   

Formula employed in determining fair price

 

   

Vote needed to overcome the board’s opposition to the acquisition

 

   

Vote required to repeal or amend the fair pricing provision

 

   

Size of the block of shares controlled by officers, directors, and their affiliates

 

   

Other takeover provisions

 

   

Company history relating to premium acquisition offers

 

  2.

Greenmail—Votes on anti-greenmail proposals which are bundled with other charter or bylaw amendments should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis after determining whether the overall effect of the proposal is positive or negative for shareholders.

 

 

B-242


  3.

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)—Votes regarding management proposals to ratify a poison pill should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Ideally, plans should embody the following attributes, as applicable:

 

   

20% or higher flip-in or flip-over

 

   

Two to three-year sunset provision

 

   

No dead-hand, slow-hand, no-hand or similar features

 

   

Shareholder redemption feature: If the board refuses to redeem the pill 90 days after an offer is announced, ten percent of the shares may call a special meeting or seek a written consent to vote on rescinding the pill.

 

  4.

Shareholders’ Ability to Call Special Meetings—Votes on proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholders’ ability to call special meetings or to remove restrictions on the right of shareholders to act independently of management should be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

  G.

State or Country of Incorporation

 

  1.

State Takeover Statutes—Votes on proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (control share acquisition statutes, control share cash-out statutes, freezeout provisions, fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pills endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, anti-greenmail provisions and disgorgement provisions) should be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

  2.

Reincorporation Proposals—Votes on proposals to change a company’s state or country of incorporation should be evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, giving consideration to both financial and corporate governance concerns, as applicable:

 

   

Reasons for reincorporation

 

   

Comparison of company’s governance provisions prior to and following the transaction

 

   

Comparison of corporation laws of original state or country and destination state or country

 

  H.

Capital Structure

 

  1.

Common Stock Authorization—Votes on proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance are determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, taking into consideration the specific purpose of the proposed increase, the dilutive impact of the request, as well as the Board’s past performance in using authorized shares among other factors.

 

  2.

Preferred Stock—Votes on proposals to increase the number of shares of blank check preferred shares are determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis after analyzing the number of preferred shares available for issue given a company’s industry and performance in terms of shareholder returns.

 

  3.

Reverse Stock Splits—Votes on proposals to implement a reverse stock split that does not proportionately reduce the number of shares authorized for issue should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, taking into consideration the company’s rationale.

 

  4.

Tracking Stock—Votes on the creation of tracking stock are determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, weighing the strategic value of the transaction against the following factors, as applicable:

 

   

Adverse governance changes

 

   

Excessive increases in authorized capital stock

 

   

Unfair method of distribution

 

   

Diminution of voting rights

 

   

Adverse conversion features

 

B-243


   

Negative impact on stock option plans

 

   

Other alternatives such as a spinoff

 

  I.

Executive and Director Compensation

 

  1.

Bundled Compensation—Votes on non-executive director compensation proposals that include both cash and share-based components as well as proposals that bundle compensation for both non-executive and executive directors into a single resolution are determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

  2.

Compensation Plans (Management “Say on Pay”)—Votes on compensation plans for executives and directors, including advisory votes on compensation matters, are determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, taking into account the company’s performance and pay practices relative to industry peers, potentially problematic pay practices, or unresponsiveness with respect to past proposals or shareholder feedback regarding compensation concerns among other factors.

 

  3.

Remuneration Report—Votes on an issuer’s compensation policy as set out in a remuneration report are determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, taking into account the company’s performance and pay practices relative to industry peers among other factors .

 

  4.

Stock Plans in Lieu of Cash—Votes for plans which do not provide a dollar-for-dollar cash for stock exchange should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis taking into account the specific parameters of the proposed plan. Votes on plans which provide participants with the option of taking all or a portion of their cash compensation in the form of stock are determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

  5.

Management Proposals Seeking Approval to Reprice Options—Votes on management proposals seeking approval to reprice options are evaluated on a CASE-BY-CASE basis giving consideration to the following, as applicable:

 

   

Historic trading patterns

 

   

Rationale for the repricing

 

   

Value-for-value exchange and treatment of surrendered options

 

   

Option vesting period and term of the option

 

   

Option exercise price

 

  6.

Executive Stock Purchase Plans—Votes on qualified employee stock purchase plans for executives should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis considering the following factors, as applicable:

 

   

Purchase price compared to fair market value

 

   

Offering period

 

   

Potential voting power dilution

Votes on non-qualified executive stock purchase plans should be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis considering the following factors, as applicable:

 

   

Broad-based participation by company employees

 

   

Limits on employee contributions

 

   

Company matching contributions

 

   

Discounts on the stock price at the time of purchase

 

 

B-244


  7.

Incentive Bonus Plans and Tax Deductibility Proposals—Votes on new or amended plan proposals containing evergreen provisions should be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Votes to amend existing plans to increase shares reserved and to qualify for tax deductibility under the provisions of Section 162(m) should be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis taking into account the overall impact of the amendment(s).

 

  8.

Golden and Tin Parachutes—Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis on proposals to ratify or cancel golden parachutes (severance plans that cover senior level executives of a firm in the event that the firm undergoes a change in control) or tin parachutes (severance plans that cover all of the employees of a company in the event it undergoes a change in control). An acceptable parachute should include the following:

 

   

The parachute should be less attractive than an ongoing employment opportunity with the firm; and

 

   

The triggering mechanism should be beyond the control of management.

 

  9.

Bonus Banking/Bonus Banking “Plus”Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals seeking deferral of a portion of annual bonus pay, with ultimate payout linked to sustained results based on performance metrics on which the bonus was earned, taking into account the following factors:

 

   

The company’s past practices regarding equity and cash compensation

 

   

Whether the company has a holding period or stock ownership requirements in place, such as a meaningful retention ratio

 

   

Whether the company has a rigorous claw-back policy in place

 

  10.

Shareholder Ratification of Director Pay Programs Vote CASE-BY-CASE on management proposals seeking the ratification of non-employee director compensation taking into account the features of the plan including, but not limited to, the following factors:

 

   

If the equity plan is on the same ballot, whether or not the plan warrants support

 

   

The presence of problematic pay practices

 

   

Equity awards vesting schedules

 

   

Meaningful limits on director compensation

 

   

Quality of disclosure surrounding director compensation

 

  11.

Equity Plans for Non-Employee Directors Vote CASE-BY-CASE on management compensation plans for non-employee directors taking into account the features of the plan including, but not limited to, the following factors:

 

   

Total estimated cost of the plan relative to industry and market cap peers

 

   

The company’s three-year burn rate or value-adjusted burn rate relative to industry and market cap peers

 

   

The presence of problematic pay practices.

 

  J.

Bundled Proposals—Vote bundled or “conditioned” proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis taking into account the aggregate effect of the items.

 

B-245


BAILLIE GIFFORD

Our Voting and Engagement Guidelines

We believe that ‘active ownership’ of our clients’ holdings is as important as selecting the right investments in the first instance. These guidelines are aligned with our stewardship principles and describe our approach to proxy voting and company engagement, the key levers of active ownership, often described as ‘stewardship’.

While these guidelines are intended to provide insight into how we approach voting on our clients’ behalf, it is important to note that we assess every company individually. In voting, we will always evaluate proposals on a case-by-case basis, based on what we believe to be in the best long-term interests of our clients, rather than rigidly applying a policy.

A broad cross section of our investment staff are involved in our ongoing work on stewardship. In the same way that our investment approach is based around empowered and independent teams, our voting and engagement is led by the individual investment teams. In keeping with our decentralised and autonomous culture, on occasion our investment teams will elect to vote differently on the same general meeting resolutions. Where this happens, we report accordingly in the proxy voting disclosure on our website. We also have clear processes in place to identify, prevent and manage potential proxy voting-related conflicts of interest to ensure that in all cases the firm acts in the clients’ best interest. Baillie Gifford’s firmwide conflict of interest disclosure is available on our website.

Prior to taking any voting action against management, we usually address any specific questions by engaging directly with the company, using voting as an escalation mechanism if we have not seen sufficient progress.

Prioritisation of long-term value creation

Equity issuances

We consider companies’ requests to raise additional capital with or without pre-emptive rights on a case-by-case basis, taking account of their specific circumstances and local market practice. We view excessive equity issuances as potentially destructive to creating long-term value. We believe pre-emptive rights are important to protect shareholders from being detrimentally diluted. However, we recognise that in some instances it is appropriate for companies to have the flexibility to issue shares without first offering them to existing shareholders on a pre-emptive basis. We also typically prefer that shareholders are given the opportunity to vote on significant capital issuance. In both instances, the onus is on the company to clearly demonstrate that the request is necessary and proportionate.

Share repurchases

Share repurchases, when executed in a thoughtful and appropriate manner, can play an important role in creating long-term value. Boards should be clear about how the share repurchase authority will be used. We typically approve share repurchases of up to 10 per cent of authorised capital, dependent upon the share price at which shares will be repurchased and local market practice. Share repurchases are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and we give further consideration to requests for repurchases of more than 10 per cent. Above this limit, we only approve requests on an exceptional basis considering the views of our investment teams.

Allocation of income and dividends

We expect companies to allocate capital as effectively and efficiently as possible in pursuit of long-term returns. Where this includes payment of dividends we normally expect to vote in favour. However, many profitable companies continue to propose unusually low dividend payments without an adequate explanation, deciding to retain cash on their balance sheets. In such instances, we typically oppose the proposed dividend. Where no dividend vote is proposed, we will consider taking voting action against the board chair.

 

B-246


Additionally, if we have significant and ongoing concerns over a company’s capital allocation policy, we endeavour to engage with management to encourage them to improve their practices and, if this proves ineffective, we will take appropriate voting action.

Mergers, acquisitions and disposals

Corporate restructurings such as mergers, acquisitions and disposals can clearly have a very significant impact on shareholder value. When done well, a successful merger or acquisition can accelerate a company’s growth prospects. However, when used inappropriately, they can be destructive to long-term value creation. It can be difficult to successfully integrate acquired companies, particularly if they have distinctive company cultures. Therefore, we carefully consider all such proposals on a case-by-case basis.

Political donations

We generally oppose all resolutions that seek approval for intentional political contributions and we will usually support shareholder resolutions that oblige companies to report to shareholders on their political contributions.

A constructive and purposeful board

Board effectiveness

Effective company boards should perform some key functions, recognising that such functions may vary depending on the wider regulatory environment in which a company is operating and the structure of the company. First and foremost, they should provide oversight to executive management teams, regularly reviewing performance against a defined strategy, recognising and supporting success but taking firm action if changes of direction or leadership are required. Specifically, we expect boards to perform the following functions:

 

   

Undertake effective succession planning for key roles, considering the diversity of current and future board members

 

   

Put in place an appropriate and effective remuneration plan to attract, retain, motivate and direct key executives

 

   

Establish the necessary risk management framework and controls on corporate activity

Where necessary, review and challenge key capital allocation decisions, ensuring that management teams are taking a long-term approach to business planning

 

   

Appoint, monitor and set the remuneration for a suitably qualified and independent financial auditor

 

   

Undertake a formal and transparent process for nominations and appointments to the board, the details of which should be fully disclosed in the annual report

 

   

Regularly evaluate the effectiveness of their own work, taking appropriate measures to address any priority issues

 

   

Ensure that management is working within the legal and regulatory norms of the countries it operates in and that stakeholders of the business are treated fairly

 

   

Ensure the material social and environmental impacts of the business are considered and improvements made, where necessary, to support the sustainable growth of the business

If a board of directors is persistently failing to exercise one or more of these key responsibilities, we aim to engage with the company in the first instance and then consider taking additional voting action if appropriate. Such voting action may include voting against the election of the chair or members of relevant board committees. This may be escalated to the board chair if we feel the overall effectiveness of the board is in question, or if our previous action has not materialised in any progress.

 

B-247


We also believe that independent directors should be periodically available to engage with shareholders.

Board composition

When considering board composition, we generally prefer to see the following features:

 

   

A majority of independent non-executive directors on the main board

 

   

Audit and remuneration committees composed of three or more independent non-executive directors

 

   

The appointment of a senior or lead independent director

 

   

An effective mix of qualifications, experience and background

 

   

Directors with sufficient time to focus on their responsibilities, given their other commitments and directorships

Companies should be able to demonstrate an appropriate level of commitment and independence on the board. Where we consider that a director has too many other appointments to be able to dedicate sufficient time to the board, or demonstrates persistently poor attendance without reasonable explanation, we will take voting action against appropriate members of the board.

We expect boards to take the diversity of directors seriously. We consider cognitive and social diversity to be a driving feature of a high-functioning board, while recognising that the specific mix of skills appropriate for a business varies widely.

The company should comply with relevant industry recommendations on both gender and ethnic diversity or have at least set out a clear roadmap of how they intend to achieve this. If the board composition or that of its subcommittees is very different from these expectations, we aim to engage with the company in the first instance. We may also consider taking additional voting action against appropriate directors, such as the chair of the nomination committee, if we do not believe sufficient progress has been made.

We do however recognise that composition may vary depending on the structure of the company and the wider regulatory environment in which it operates. We will adjust expectations as required, depending on these variables.

The roles of board chair, chief executive and senior (or lead) independent director

We generally support separating the roles of board chair and chief executive. If the roles are combined, there should ideally be a majority of independent directors on the board. The board should also appoint a senior or lead independent director with clearly defined responsibilities separate from that of the board chair to mitigate the risks associated with combining the positions. This should include the senior independent director having the right to periodically convene a meeting of the independent directors with the full support of the company. Additional actions to strengthen corporate governance should be considered where appropriate, such as enhanced authorisation, audit and disclosure requirements.

We also typically prefer that companies do not appoint a retiring CEO as board chair, however we recognise that in exceptional cases this may be in shareholders’ best interests. In these circumstances, the board should explain why it is appropriate and we will consider the justification on a case-by-case basis.

Director tenure

We believe that companies should be mindful of the value of periodically refreshing the membership of the board of directors. While we recognise the value that long-serving directors can bring in terms of continuity and experience, we will no longer consider them independent if their tenure exceeds nine years of service. This is in

 

B-248


keeping with the UK Corporate Governance Code. Where a director is deemed not to be independent, we will consider the impact this has on the wider composition of the board and associated committees. If we deem the overall independence is insufficient, we will take voting action against said director. The board should have in place an effective succession plan to mitigate any impact long-tenured directors may have on board composition.

Long-term focused remuneration with stretching targets

Effective remuneration policies help to recruit, retain and motivate the best available talent. They also incentivise management to focus on the right long-term priorities for the business. We encourage our investee companies to develop robust and transparent pay practices. These should demonstrate clear alignment with long-term shareholders, reward outstanding performance and mitigate against excessive risk taking or unintended consequences arising from a narrow focus on inappropriate targets. In addition to this, companies should take due account of increasing public scrutiny of executive pay practices. They should be cognisant of the reputational and regulatory risks of excessive or inequitable pay practices. We believe that substantive changes to executive remuneration policies should be submitted to a shareholder vote. We also welcome the opportunity to engage with our investee companies on material remuneration matters.

To achieve the right overall balance, we expect the remuneration committee to take full responsibility for this process, taking independent advice as necessary. It should retain discretion to make upward or downward revisions in exceptional circumstances, particularly where such action is clearly aligned with long-term shareholder interests.

For us to effectively assess a company’s executive remuneration, it is essential that we receive timely disclosure. Therefore, early in its deliberations, we look to receive clear and concise information about the design of the scheme, the underlying targets that are used to assess performance awards and the total quantity of reward that is possible.

We review each policy on a case-by-case basis and are prepared to support innovative structures which do not necessarily fit within conventional practices but are appropriate for a company’s individual circumstances. When reviewing remuneration proposals, we generally favour the following:

 

   

That a substantial proportion of total reward potential for senior executives is made up of variable performance-based pay that is subject to deferral and clawback provisions

 

   

Performance for long-term incentives should be measured over a minimum three-year period, paid in equity and subject to a post-vesting holding period. We support restricted stock plans when considered the best remuneration structure. We will seek the board to clearly justify why this structure is suitable and assess the appropriateness of such proposals on an individual basis

 

   

Performance metrics attached to variable pay should be relevant to the strategy of the company, robust, measurable and utilise stretching targets appropriately

 

   

The use of a maximum cap on variable incentive schemes to limit the total compensation available at an appropriate level

 

   

A requirement for senior executives to build up an appropriate level of shareholding within a reasonable time

 

   

Pension arrangements for executives to be aligned with the wider workforce

 

   

While we recognise that circumstances can change, we prefer investee companies’ pay policies to be consistent long-term structures and are therefore not usually supportive of regular changes or subsequent amends

 

B-249


We also encourage companies to disclose details of employee pay practices and why these are appropriate for the business, including whether employees are offered the real living wage as a minimum, whether an employee equity ownership plan is in place, the ratio of pay related to executives and the level of company contributions to employee pensions.

Typically, we would not support the following pay practices:

 

   

Repricing of equity awards

 

   

Retesting of performance conditions

 

   

Vesting of incentive awards for below-median performance

 

   

Incentive-based awards for non-executive directors

 

   

Severance agreements that (i) are excessive relative to market practice and/or

(ii) allow accelerated vesting of variable pay awards without pro-rating for time and performance

 

   

Frequent changes to performance metrics or unexpected use of discretion

When a company’s remuneration policy or report is significantly below expectations, we will consider taking voting action against any relevant pay proposals on the ballot and against the chair of the remuneration committee or other appropriate director.

Fair treatment of stakeholders

Annual general meetings

All listed companies should aim to ensure that an annual shareholder meeting takes place where substantive matters are submitted for shareholder approval. Every shareholder should be actively solicited for their voting instructions. We understand the benefit of annual general meetings being held electronically as this may allow the wider engagement of a greater number of shareholders, however our preference is that a physical meeting is also held to allow shareholders to have direct access to the company. The paperwork, particularly the annual report signed off by the appointed auditor, should be available to investors well in advance of the meeting. This enables due consideration by investors of any matters ahead of any relevant regulatory and market proxy voting deadlines. In the limited number of markets where the above features are not common practice, we engage with issuers and relevant third parties to encourage change and consider taking voting action where appropriate and possible. Such action may include voting against the board chair or the annual report and accounts.

Director elections

As a general expectation, we believe that all directors should be subject to annual, individually proposed, majority voting, standard elections. Currently, there are several alternatives:

 

   

‘Plurality voting’ enables uncontested board nominees to be elected with a single affirmative vote, even if all other votes are withheld

 

   

‘Cumulative voting’ allows shareholders to direct all or any of their votes to single or multiple directors

 

   

‘Bundled’ director elections are when several or all directors are proposed as a single resolution, without the ability to support or oppose individual directors

 

   

‘Classified’ boards is the term for when only a subset of directors are put up for election each year

We believe that each of these alternatives could potentially undermine individual director accountability, although we recognise that there may on occasion be company specific circumstances that support such voting arrangements.

 

B-250


We support management and shareholder resolutions calling for alternative director voting procedures to be replaced by a simple majority voting standard on an annual basis. When asked to vote in cumulative elections, we typically allocate our votes equally across independent directors on the ballot, unless we have specific concerns about their effectiveness or a desire to see a particular director on the board.

Auditors

The appointment of auditors should ideally be submitted to an annual shareholder vote. We will consider voting against the auditors’ appointment if we have concerns about their independence, level of non-audit fees, audit quality, where a company changes its auditor without providing an adequate explanation to shareholders, or where auditors are not adequately accounting for climate risk in their evaluation of the annual accounts.

We believe it is good practice to rotate the lead audit partner at least every five years and to limit continuous audit firm tenure to no more than 20 years, in line with current guidelines across several markets. We will consider voting against an auditor’s appointment if this tenure is exceeded without reasonable explanation.

Non-audit fees paid to the audit firm should not typically exceed audit fees, except for a limited period (not more than two consecutive years) where there are exceptional circumstances that support that position. In this case, the company should provide additional disclosure on the nature of the non-audit work undertaken by the audit firm.

We believe that auditors have an increasingly important role to play in evaluating climate risk consideration and disclosure within the context of the annual accounts. As international disclosure standards continue to develop, auditors should be called upon to analyse and evaluate the consistency, materiality, control processes, metrics and comparability demanded by these disclosure requirements. Additionally, for heavy-emitting or systemically very large companies2, auditors should be encouraged and empowered to draw attention between obvious gaps in stated climate strategies and the annual accounts. Where auditors are lagging, we will consider voting against their appointment or the annual accounts.

Statutory auditors play an important role in defining audit policy in the Japanese market, supervising the external audit of a company’s financial statements and advising the board. Given their responsibilities, we prefer outside nominees. We assess internal candidates on a case-by-case basis, considering the materiality of their relationship with the company and the presence of other external statutory auditors.

Proxy access

Proxy access is the ability for a shareholder or group of shareholders to nominate candidates to the board. We are supportive of proxy access in principle, believing that long-term shareholders should have the ability to place director nominees on the proxy ballot. While we are likely to support proposals based on the terms outlined above, we review each resolution individually. We also welcome the opportunity to engage with investee companies to help structure an appropriate policy: one which enhances board accountability and responsiveness to shareholders but also limits potential abuse by shareholders without a meaningful long-term interest in the company. Where a shareholder proposal is proposed on proxy access, we will assess the merits of this proposal against a company’s existing practice.

‘Poison pill’ anti-takeover devices

We generally oppose proposals for new anti-takeover devices, known as ‘poison pills’, particularly when introduced post-initial public offering. We also usually support shareholder proposals that request a company to submit a shareholder rights plan to a shareholder vote or to revoke a poison pill.

We evaluate proposals to modify or remove existing shareholder rights plans or poison pills on a case-by-case basis. While many anti-takeover devices have the potential to entrench management and damage shareholder value, there may be certain growth-oriented companies and sectors where an element of protection from short-term market priorities can support long-term shareholder value creation.

 

B-251


Articles of association

We review amendments to a company’s articles of association within the context of the company’s business strategy and shareholders’ best interests. Accordingly, we usually oppose any proposed changes that have the potential to erode shareholders’ rights.

Shareholder proposals

Shareholder proposals are a mechanism permitted in some markets which enable shareholders to table resolutions at company meetings. These proposals often request that companies improve their approach to environmental and social issues. Shareholder proposals can be a useful mechanism to hold companies to account for their wider impact on stakeholders.

We review each resolution on a case-by-case basis and will support those resolutions that address key ESG concerns or encourage progress on material ESG issues where we feel improvement is required to support long-term investment performance. We do not, however, support these proposals if they are designed to frustrate or distract a company. Prior to voting, we consider the company’s current approach to the issue, its response to the resolution and whether the intent of the resolution is workable and in the best interests of all stakeholders. Shareholder resolutions often relate to environmental and social issues, these matters are further explored in the following ‘Sustainable business practices’ section.

Bundled resolutions

In some markets, it is still common for companies to ‘bundle’ together proposals, such as the election of directors or amendments to articles of association. This practice reduces shareholder discretion by preventing voting on separate issues. For example, if shareholders have concerns about one specific director, the only option may be to vote in favour of or against the entire board, which may be counterproductive. Nonetheless, we vote against bundled resolutions where we have concerns and it is in shareholders’ best interests for us to do so. We communicate our views to the company and encourage it to isolate all relevant matters as separate resolutions in the future.

Related party transactions

As a general principle, we believe that large shareholders should excuse themselves from voting if they are involved in related party transactions. Most markets have specific disclosure rules on related party transactions and require approval from minority shareholders. We consider such transactions carefully to determine if they are appropriate and in our clients’ best interests.

Multi-class share structures

The use of dual and multi-class share structures is permitted in a number of regions. While the one share, one vote principle clearly aligns voting rights and economic rights for all holders, we appreciate that multiple share structures with different voting rights can enhance long-termism and protect the strategy and culture of some organisations. Accordingly, we assess all proposals to introduce additional share classes or amend existing voting rights on a case-by-case basis.

Corporate disclosure

Levels of disclosure vary significantly between sectors and countries. We believe that all material issues should be set out succinctly in an annual report. Plus, the approach to ESG matters should be reported in the context of the whole range of risks and opportunities faced by the company.

 

B-252


When disclosure of key financial ESG information is significantly below expectations and impedes us from exercising our stewardship responsibilities for our clients, we endeavour to engage with the company in the first instance and thereafter consider taking appropriate voting action where necessary. Such action may include voting against the board chair or the annual report and accounts. Our expectations of disclosure are further explored in the following ‘Sustainable business practices’ section.

Sustainable business practices

We believe that a company cannot be financially sustainable in the long run if its approach to business is fundamentally out of kilter with changing societal expectations and/or environmental realities.

We consider each of the following sustainability risks and opportunities in the context of our overall focus on long-term investment performance.

As a minimum, we believe all holdings should operate in accordance with the principles and standards set out in the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). If a company fails to meet the UNGC Principles, resulting in a material risk to the long-term performance of their business, we will engage with management in the first instance before considering appropriate voting action. We have several funds that make a binding commitment not to invest in companies that are non-compliant with the UNGC. Further details of how this is applied can be found in appendix 1.

We expect all our holdings to operate their businesses in a way that takes account of all relevant legal and regulatory guidelines and which is supportive of good stakeholder relations. Relevant areas of practice include responsible marketing, governance of data privacy and security, responsible taxation approaches and how the company manages product and service issues, such as product quality and integrity, complaint handling, safety recalls and compensation. Where we have concerns about a company’s practices in any of these areas, we will engage with the company to seek improvements, support any relevant shareholder proposals and consider voting against members of the board to ensure accountability for continued progress. Should our concerns be material and persistent, we will consider selling the holding.

Diversity and inclusion

We believe that worker diversity is an important issue for all businesses, potentially impacting the ability of a company to generate returns over the long term, so we expect our holdings to take steps to understand and, where necessary, improve worker diversity. Companies should disclose their policy on diversity and inclusion with details of initiatives to improve the diversity of the workforce where required. The diversity of employees throughout an organisation is important to ensure a varied pipeline of talent for future senior roles which we believe will in turn support the investment case.

Reporting on the diversity of the workforce should also be provided, including details on gender, ethnicity, culture and nationality. In markets where it is required, gender pay gap reporting should be unambiguous, with clear actions to solve any pay gap that exists.

We further expect businesses to carefully monitor and manage the culture of their organisation to ensure all employees are treated equally and with respect in the workplace. There should be suitable policies and processes in place to ensure that inappropriate behaviour and/or discrimination is identified and addressed accordingly.

Combating bribery and corruption

We expect all our holdings to work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.

For companies in the extractive industries, such as oil, gas and minerals, we support active participation in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.

 

B-253


We expect to see appropriate conduct and compliance programmes reinforced by leadership, policies and training, and appropriate reporting procedures such as independent and confidential ‘whistle blower’ hotlines. We would not ordinarily expect our holdings to make political donations or contributions to ‘politically exposed’ charitable organisations.

Human rights and labour rights

We expect all our holdings to respect internationally accepted human rights and labour rights throughout their business operations and value chains, in line with the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights. As a minimum, this should include the maintenance of health, safety and wellbeing management systems, particularly in high-risk sectors; the management of exposure to labour and human rights risks throughout the value chain, especially human/modern slavery; and encouraging positive relationships with local communities.

Climate change and the energy transition

We act in clients’ best interests: delivering long-term returns, using research and engagement to deepen understanding of climate opportunities and risks.

 

  1.

As investors, we are agents of our clients andstewards of their assets. We believe a successful transition that keeps increases in global temperatures to well below 2C, and ideally to 1.5C, this century offers our clients a better opportunity for strong long-term investment returns than a failed transition. We recognise that the successful pathway is not pre-determined.

 

   

We will invest in accordance with, and not exceeding, our investment mandates.

 

   

We regard the climate transition as a material investment factor and a threat to companies’ ability to operate if they remain unaware of or unprepared for its potential impacts. We will engage with holdings to understand the opportunities and risks they face related to climate change and to ensure that company management teams also understand them and have appropriate strategies in place. We will never invest or engage with our holdings on climate-related topics in a manner that we believe undermines the delivery of long-term returns.

 

   

We expect the backdrop against which our investments operate and our clients’ definitions of fiduciary duty to evolve. And we anticipate our clients’ expectations of our work on climate to continue rising.

 

  2.

As a firm, we accept the scientific evidence for climate change and the need for action to mitigate the risks climate change poses.

 

   

We are committed to reducing our Scope 1, 2 and operational Scope 3 emissions to net zero by 2040.

 

   

We recognise the finance industry’s importance as outlined at COP26. We will work with regulators to develop frameworks to promote the proper functioning of capital markets and transparent, stable climate-related regulation.

In order to help us assess climate-related opportunities and risks, and support companies to develop sustainable relations with their stakeholders, we seek and communicate the following expectations.

We expect companies we hold to provide basic climate disclosures (scope 1 and 2 emissions, material scope 3 emissions). For heavy-emitting, or systemically very large, companies, strategy and disclosure requirements will be held to a higher standard. We acknowledge that this may be more challenging for different countries and companies, dependent on size, location, and other factors and will consider this in the context of our stewardship activities.

 

B-254


By 2025, heavy-emitting, or systemically very large, companies should articulate strategies that acknowledge and align with the ambitions of the Paris Agreement, including scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions and mid-term milestones, with consistent governance and capital allocation. We accept that effective alignment will vary by company, country and sector. We will conduct our own research and engagement to draw company-specific conclusions, making use of guidance from regulators, our academic partnerships and other credible organisations.

If we feel that companies are not making enough progress in mitigating climate risks, or accessing opportunity, then we will engage with the company to communicate our expectations and deepen our understanding of their approach. We may also take voting action on resolutions such as annual reporting and accounts, election of directors, election of the auditors, and ultimately divesting our holdings.

Further details of our approach to climate change can be found in our Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) report, available on our website.

Nature and biodiversity

Biodiversity loss is a significant risk. Related risks may include increased raw material or resource costs, regulation and taxation, resource availability and/or supply chain disruption.

The protection of biodiversity should be a priority for all businesses, and companies should take steps to limit the destruction of the natural environment as far as possible. We have developed an initial framework for integrating biodiversity considerations into our company evaluation process but will continue to refine this over time. We are members of the stakeholder forum of the Task Force on Nature-Related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and will use it to develop our approach to biodiversity.

 

B-255


BAIRD ADVISORS

BAIRD ADVISORS’ PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Revised Effective November 30, 2021

 

I.

BACKGROUND

Rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) requires that, for an investment adviser to exercise voting authority with respect to client securities, the adviser must:

 

   

adopt and implement written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that the adviser votes clients securities in the best interest of clients, which procedures must include how the adviser addresses material conflicts that may arise between the adviser’s interests and those of the adviser’s clients;

 

   

disclose to clients how they may obtain information from the adviser about how the adviser voted with respect to their securities; and

 

   

describe to clients the adviser’s proxy voting policies and procedures and, upon request, furnish a copy of the policies and procedures to the requesting client.

Rule 204-2 of the Advisers Act requires that registered investment advisers maintain records of its proxy voting policies and procedures; proxy statements received; votes cast on behalf of clients; client requests for proxy voting information; and documents prepared by the investment adviser that were material to making a voting decision.

 

II.

POLICY

The Baird Advisors department of Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated (the “Advisor” or “Baird”) does not typically recommend or select securities for client accounts that have voting rights. However, to the extent securities with voting rights are held in client accounts, Baird Advisors exercises voting authority with respect to securities held by advisory clients that have executed advisory agreements with Baird and that have delegated proxy voting authority to Baird. Baird owes these clients duties of care and loyalty. Baird’s duty of loyalty requires Baird to vote the proxies in a manner consistent with the best interests of advisory clients. While Baird uses its best efforts to vote proxies, there are instances when voting is not practical or is not, in Baird or the portfolio manager’s view, in the best interest of clients.

As a fiduciary, Baird will ascertain whether the independent proxy voting service has the capacity and competency to analyze proxy issues, which may include considering: the adequacy and quality of the independent proxy voting service’s staffing and personnel; the robustness of its policies and procedures regarding its ability to (i) ensure that its proxy voting recommendations are based on current and accurate information and (ii) identify and address any conflicts of interest. Further, Baird should ensure that these voting guidelines or recommendation policies are generally appropriate for the clients whose proxies are being voted.

 

III.

PROXY VOTING COMMITTEE

Baird has established a Proxy Voting Committee (the “Committee”) to oversee Baird’s proxy voting practices, including oversight of the independent proxy voting service. The Committee has established a Proxy Committee Charter to describe its responsibilities under these policies and procedures. The Committee will review, at least annually, these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures and its Charter. Further, the Committee will appoint a Sub-Committee for Baird’s Asset Management groups to consider proxy voting challenges made by its portfolio managers.

 

B-256


IV.

PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

Baird utilizes an independent provider of proxy voting and corporate governance service to analyze proxy materials and make independent voting recommendations (the “independent proxy voting service”). Baird’s independent proxy voting service is currently Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”). The independent proxy voting service provides proxy voting guidelines regarding its position on various matters presented by companies to their shareholders for consideration. Baird will typically vote shares in accordance with the recommendations made by the independent proxy voting service. However, the independent proxy voting service’s guidelines are not exhaustive, do not address all potential voting issues, and do not necessarily correspond with the opinions of the portfolio managers.

In the event the portfolio manager believes the independent proxy voting service recommendation is not in the best interest of the client, he/she will bring the issue (a “proxy challenge”) to the Sub-Committee by completing a Proxy Vote Challenge Form, which describes, among other things, the issue(s) up for vote and the portfolio manager’s rationale for voting against the voting recommendation of the independent proxy voting service. The Sub-Committee will consider what is in the best interest of clients when evaluating the proxy challenge, including an evaluation of the portfolio manager’s rationale and any potential conflicts of interest. The decision made by the Sub-Committee on the proxy challenge will apply to all advisory accounts managed by the portfolio manager (or team of portfolio managers) that submitted the Proxy Voting Challenge Form, unless the client has directed Baird to utilize specific voting guidelines (e.g., Taft-Hartley guidelines).

For those matters for which the independent proxy voting service does not provide a specific voting recommendation, the portfolio manager will be responsible for casting the vote in a manner he/she believes is in the best interest of clients.

 

V.

PROXY VOTING EXCEPTIONS

There are instances when voting is not practical or is not, in Baird or the portfolio manager’s view, in the best interest of clients. Some examples of these types of situations are described below:

Certain Foreign Companies. Voting proxies of companies located in some jurisdictions may involve several issues that can restrict or prevent the ability to vote such proxies or entail additional costs, including, but not limited to: (i) requirements to vote proxies in person; (ii) restrictions on the sale of the securities for a period of time in proximity to the shareholder meeting; (iii) proxy statements and ballots being written in a language other than English; (iv) untimely notice of shareholder meetings; (v) restrictions on a foreigner’s ability to exercise votes; and (vi) requirements to provide local agents with a power of attorney to facilitate voting instructions. Baird will use a best efforts basis to vote proxies in these situations after weighing the costs and benefits of voting such proxies.

Securities Lending Program. The voting rights for shares that are out on loan are transferred to the borrower and therefore the lender is not entitled to vote the lent shares at the shareholder meeting. In general, Baird believes the revenue received from the lending program outweighs the ability to vote. Therefore, when a client has entered into a securities lending program, Baird generally will not seek to recall the securities on loan for the purpose of voting the securities; however, Baird reserves the right to recall the shares on loan on a best efforts basis if the portfolio manager becomes aware of a proxy proposal where the proxy vote is materially important to the client’s account.

 

VI.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

There may be instances where Baird’s interests conflict, or appear to conflict, with advisory client interests. For example, Baird (or a Baird affiliate) may manage a pension plan, administer employee benefit plans, or provide brokerage, underwriting, insurance or banking services to a company whose management is soliciting proxies. Or, for example, Baird (or Baird’s senior executive officers) may have business or personal relationships with

 

B-257


corporate directors or candidates for directorship. There may be a concern that we would vote in favor of management because of our relationship with the company.

We generally believe a material conflict exists if a portfolio manager (or team of portfolio managers) (i) manages or is pursuing management of accounts that are affiliated with the company soliciting proxies, (ii) is aware of investment banking or other relationships that the Advisor has or is pursuing with the company soliciting proxies (or its senior officers) that may give Baird an incentive to vote as recommended by the company, or (iii) has been asked or directed by persons associated with the Advisor or the company soliciting proxies to vote proxies in a certain manner in order to maintain or develop a relationship between the Advisor and the company. The Sub-Committee may also determine a material conflict of interest exists for other reasons.

Baird’s duty is to vote proxies in the best interests of advisory clients. As noted above under the Proxy Voting Guidelines section, Baird will typically vote shares in accordance with the recommendations made by the independent proxy voting service, which generally mitigates conflicts. However, in situations where there is a conflict of interest and the independent proxy voting service does not provide a recommendation or there is a proxy challenge, the Sub-Committee will determine the nature and materiality of the conflict.

 

   

If the conflict is determined to not be material, the Sub-Committee will vote the proxy in a manner the Sub-Committee believes is in the best interests of the client and without consideration of any benefit to the Advisor or its affiliates.

 

   

If the conflict is determined to be material, the Sub-Committee will take one of the following steps to resolve the conflict:

 

  1.

Vote the securities in accordance with the recommendations of an independent third party, such as ISS;

 

  2.

Refer the proxy to the advisory client or to a fiduciary of the advisory client for voting purposes;

 

  3.

Suggest that the advisory client engage another party to determine how the proxy should be voted;

 

  4.

If the matter is not addressed by the independent proxy voting service, vote in accordance with management’s recommendation; or

 

  5.

Abstain from voting.

 

VII.

PROCEDURES

Baird uses ISS’s electronic voting management system (“proxy voting system”) to assist with executing proxy votes on behalf of clients. Baird Advisors enters the voting instructions for clients into ISS after it is reviewed by the portfolio managers and, if necessary, by the Sub-Committee for portfolio manager challenges of any ISS recommendations. The vote instruction may be changed in the proxy voting system until the voting cut-off time (e.g., due to relevant material information received prior to the cut-off time).

The portfolio managers (or portfolio manager team) are responsible for:

 

   

casting the vote in a manner he/she believes is in the best interest of clients;

 

   

reviewing the proxy voting recommendation of the independent proxy voting services prior to casting a vote; and

 

   

completing the Proxy Voting Challenge Form and submitting it on a timely basis to the Proxy Voting Sub-Committee when he/she believes the independent proxy voting service recommendation is not in the best interest of the client.

 

B-258


Baird Advisors Operations is responsible for:

 

   

providing instructions to each client’s custodian to send any proxy statements and related proxy cards to ISS;

 

   

coordinating with a portfolio manager to obtain a voting recommendation, including obtaining a copy of the recommendation from the independent proxy voting service;

 

   

coordinating, with the assistance of the Compliance Department as needed, any Proxy Voting Sub-Committee meetings;

 

   

ensuring a conflicts check, with the assistance of the Compliance Department, is performed in situations where there is a proxy challenge or the independent proxy voting service does not provide a recommendation or there is a proxy challenge;

 

   

ensuring the votes are cast in a timely manner; and

 

   

creating a proxy voting record report when advisory client request for information on how Baird voted proxies on the advisory client’s behalf.

 

VIII.

DISCLOSURE TO CLIENTS

Baird will disclose to clients how they can obtain information from us on how client portfolio securities were voted. At the same time, we will provide a summary of these proxy voting policies and procedures to clients and, upon request, will provide them with a copy of the same. These disclosures will be made in Baird’s Form ADV Part 2A (Brochure).

 

IX.

RECORDKEEPING

The applicable department or department unit will maintain the following records with respect to proxy voting:

 

   

a copy of the proxy voting policies and procedures is maintained by the Compliance Department;

 

   

a copy of all proxy statements received is maintained through the proxy voting system (currently, ISS), the SEC’s EDGAR system or by the Baird Advisors Operations team;

 

   

a record of each vote cast on behalf of an advisory client is maintained through the proxy voting system (currently, ISS) or by the Baird Advisors Operations team;

 

   

a copy of any document prepared by Baird that was material to making a voting decision or that memorializes the basis for that decision is maintained by the Baird Advisors Operations team or as part of the records of the Proxy Voting Sub-Committee;

 

   

a copy of each written advisory client request for information on how Baird voted proxies on the advisory client’s behalf is maintained by the Baird Advisors Operations team; and

 

   

a copy of any written response to any advisory client request (written or oral) for information on how proxies were voted on behalf of the requesting advisory client is maintained by the Baird Advisors Operations team.

These books and records shall be made and maintained in accordance with the requirements and time periods provided in Rule 204-2 of the Advisers Act.

 

B-259


LOGO

Proxy Voting Policy & Guidelines

Barrow Hanley has accepted authority to vote proxies for our clients who have delegated this responsibility to us. It is the Firm’s Policy to vote our clients’ proxies in the best economic interests of our clients, the beneficial owners of the shares. The Firm has adopted this Proxy Voting Policy and procedures for handling research, voting, reporting, and disclosing proxy votes, and this set of Guidelines (“Guidelines”) that provide a framework for assessing proxy proposals.

Barrow Hanley votes all clients’ proxies the same based on the Firm’s Policy and Guidelines. If or when additional costs for voting proxies are identified, the Firm will determine whether such costs exceed the expected economic benefit of voting the proxy and may abstain from voting proxies for ERISA Plan clients. However, if/when such voting costs are borne by Barrow Hanley and not by the client, all proxies will be voted for all clients.

Disclosure information about the Firm’s Proxy Voting Policy & Guidelines is provided in the Firm’s Form ADV Part 2.

To assist in the proxy voting process, at its own expense, Barrow Hanley retains Glass Lewis & Co. (“Glass Lewis”) as proxy service provider. Glass Lewis provides:

 

   

Research on corporate governance, financial statements, business, legal and accounting risks,

 

   

Proxy voting recommendations, including environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) voting Guidelines,

 

   

Portfolio accounting and reconciliation of shareholdings for voting purposes,

 

   

Proxy voting execution, record keeping, and reporting services.

Proxy Oversight Committee, Proxy Coordinators, and Proxy Voting Committee

 

   

Barrow Hanley’s Proxy Oversight Committee is responsible for implementing and monitoring this proxy voting Policy, procedures, disclosures, and recordkeeping.

 

   

The Proxy Oversight Committee conducts periodic reviews of proxy votes to ensure that the Policy is observed, implemented properly, and amended or updated, as appropriate.

 

   

The Proxy Oversight Committee is comprised of the CCO, the Responsible Investing Committee Lead, the Head of Investment Operations, the ESG Research Coordinator, and an At-Large Portfolio Manager.

 

   

Proxy Coordinators are responsible for organizing and reviewing the data and recommendations of Glass Lewis.

 

   

Proxy Coordinators are responsible for ensuring that the proxy ballots are routed to the appropriate research analyst based on industry sector coverage.

 

BARROW HANLEY GLOBAL INVESTORS

2200 Ross Avenue, 31st Floor | Dallas, TX 75201 | (214) 665-1900

DALLAS | HONG KONG | LONDON | SINGAPORE | SYDNEY

Revised December 31, 2022

 

B-260


LOGO

 

   

Research Analysts are responsible for review and evaluate proposals and make recommendations to the Proxy Voting Committee to ensure that votes are consistent with the Firm’s analysis.

 

   

Equity Portfolio Managers are members of the Proxy Voting Committee.

 

   

Equity Portfolio Managers vote proposals based on our Guidelines, internal research recommendations, and the research from Glass Lewis. Proxy votes must be approved by the Proxy Voting Committee before submitting to Glass Lewis.

 

   

Proxies for the Diversified Small Cap Value accounts are voted in accordance with the Glass Lewis’ recommendations for the following reasons:

 

   

Investment selection is based on a quantitative model,

 

   

The holding period is too short to justify the time for analysis necessary to vote.

Conflicts of Interest

Potential conflicts may arise when:

 

   

Clients elect to participate in securities lending arrangements; in such cases, the votes follow the shares. Barrow Hanley is not a party to the client’s lending arrangement and typically does not have information about shares on loan. Under these circumstances the proxies for those shares may not be voted.

 

   

If/when a proxy voting issue is determined to be financially material, the Firm makes a best-efforts attempt to alert clients and their custodial bank to recall shares from loan to be voted. In this context, Barrow Hanley defines a financially material issue to be issues deemed by our investment team to have significant economic impact. The ultimate decision on whether to recall shares is the responsibility of the client.

 

   

Barrow Hanley invests in equity securities of corporations who are also clients of the Firm. In such cases, the Firm seeks to mitigate potential conflicts by:

 

   

Making voting decisions for the benefit of the shareholder(s), our clients,

 

   

Uniformly voting every proxy based on Barrow Hanley’s internal research and consideration of Glass Lewis’ recommendations, and

 

   

Documenting the votes of companies who are also clients of the Firm.

 

   

If a material conflict of interest exists, members from the Proxy Voting and Oversight Committees will determine if the affected clients should have an opportunity to vote their proxies themselves, or whether Barrow Hanley will address the specific voting issue through other objective means, such as voting the proxies in a manner consistent with a predetermined voting policy or accepting the voting recommendation of Glass Lewis.

Other Policies and Procedures

 

   

A proxy card or voting instruction form contains a list of voting options, including For, Against, Abstain, and/or Withhold. A vote to Abstain or Withhold is effectively a vote against the proposal. Barrow Hanley assesses each vote, the intended impact of our vote, and the rule(s) that apply to the vote and may select any of these options when casting the vote. Barrow Hanley sends a daily electronic transfer of equity positions to Glass Lewis.

 

B-261


LOGO

 

   

Glass Lewis identifies accounts eligible to vote for each security and posts the proposals and research on its secure, proprietary online system.

 

   

Barrow Hanley sends a proxy report to clients at least annually and/or as requested by client, listing the number of shares voted and disclosing how proxies were voted.

 

   

Barrow Hanley retains voting records in accordance with the Firm’s Books and Records Policy. Glass Lewis retains the Firm’s voting records for seven years.

 

   

Proxy Coordinators are responsible for retaining the following proxy records:

 

   

These policies, procedures, and amendments;

 

   

Proxy statements regarding our clients’ securities;

 

   

A record of each proxy voted;

 

   

Proxy voting reports that are sent to clients annually;

 

   

Internal documents related to voting decisions; and

 

   

Records of clients’ requests for proxy voting information and/or correspondence about votes.

Voting Debt and/or Bank Loan Securities

Barrow Hanley’s proxy voting responsibilities may include voting on proposals, amendments, consents, or resolutions solicited by or in respect to securities related to bank loan investments.

Exceptions

Limited exceptions to this Policy may be permitted based on a client’s circumstances, such as, foreign regulations that create a conflict with U.S. practices, expenses to facilitate voting when the costs outweigh the benefit of voting the proxies, or other circumstances.

Guidelines

Barrow Hanley’s set of proxy voting Guidelines is a framework for assessing proposals. Each proposal is evaluated based on its facts and circumstances. The Firm reviews and considers ESG issues along with other financially material factors to assess the financially material impact on the long-term value of the shares. Our Guidelines address the following issues:

 

   

Board of Directors

 

   

Independent Auditors

 

   

Compensation Issues

 

   

Corporate Structure and Shareholder Rights

 

   

Shareholder Proposals and ESG Issues

 

   

Voting of Non-U.S./Foreign Shares

Issues that do not conform to these Guidelines are evaluated by the Proxy Voting Committee and voted in the best interest of our clients.

 

B-262


LOGO

 

Board of Directors

Election of Directors

Barrow Hanley believes that good corporate governance begins with a board of majority-independent directors and committees, including independent directors who serve on Audit, Compensation, and Nominating committees.

Barrow Hanley will generally approve:

 

   

A slate of nominees comprised of a two-thirds majority of independent directors.

 

   

Nominees for Audit, Compensation and/or Nominating committees who are independent of management.

 

   

Nominees who we believe have the required skills and diverse backgrounds to make informed judgments about the subject matter for which the committee is responsible.

 

   

We attempt to target board diversity of at least 30%.

Barrow Hanley will generally not approve:

 

   

A slate of nominees that results in a majority non-independent directors.

 

   

Nominees for Audit, Compensation and/or Nominating committees who are not independent of management.

 

   

Incumbent board members who failed to attend at least 75% of board and applicable committee meetings.

 

   

Nominees who have served on boards or as executives of companies with records of poor performance, inadequate risk oversight, excessive compensation, audit, or accounting-related problems and/or other indicators of mismanagement or actions against the interests of shareholders.

 

   

Nominees whose actions on other committees demonstrate serious failures of governance, which may include acting to significantly reduce shareholder rights, or failure to respond to previous vote requests for directors and shareholder proposals.

 

   

An independent director who has in the past three years, had a material financial, familial, or other relationship with the company or its executives.

 

   

Members of a Nominating committee where the board has an average tenure of over ten years and has not appointed a new member to the board in at least five years

 

   

Members of a Nominating committee where the board lacks diversity.

Combined Chairman / CEO Role

When the roles of a board’s chair and CEO are combined a strong lead independent director is necessary. If a lead director is not appointed, Barrow Hanley supports proposals to separate the roles.

Contested Elections of Directors

Barrow Hanley evaluates a nominee’s qualifications, the incumbent board’s performance, and the rationale behind dissident campaigns, and votes based on maximizing shareholder value.

 

B-263


LOGO

 

Classified Boards

Barrow Hanley supports proposals to declassify existing boards, whether proposed by management or shareholders. In most cases we vote against proposals for classified board structures where only part of the board is elected each year.

If a board does not have a committee responsible for governance oversight and the board has not implement a proposal that received the requisite support, we vote against the entire board. If a proposal requests the board adopt a declassified structure, we vote against all directors and nominees up for election.

Board Diversity

Barrow Hanley supports boards with diverse backgrounds and nominees with relevant experience. Nominating and governance committees should consider diversity within the context of the company and industry. Shareholders are best served when boards make an effort to ensure a constituency that is not only reasonably diverse based on age, race, gender, and ethnicity, but also based on geographic knowledge, industry experience, board tenure and culture. Board diversity is one of many factors considered on a case-by-case basis when reviewing board elections.

Board Tenure

Barrow Hanley believes that independent directors are an important part of good governance. Long term service diminishes a member’s independence. Directors serving on a board for 10 years or more are not considered to be independent.

We recognize that in some cases, a director’s tenure and experience on the board is beneficial to shareholders. Nominees’ tenure on the board is evaluated to determine independence.

Overboarding

Barrow Hanley reviews a nominee’s board commitments on a case-by-case basis and generally votes against nominees who are executives of public company while serving on two or more public boards or a non-executive who sits on four or more public boards.

Proxy Access

Shareholders’ participation in electing directors enhances a board’s accountability and responsiveness. Long-term investors can benefit from shareholder rights to nominate directors. Such rights should require a minimum percentage ownership (at least 5%) of outstanding shares held for a minimum period (at least three years) to nominate a maximum percentage of (up to 20%) for the board.

Approval of Independent Auditors

Independent auditors are a critical element of good governance. A company’s relationship with its independent auditor should be limited to its audit. Barrow Hanley votes against auditor ratification proposals when the auditor has changed for 15 or more years. Auditor’s fees should be limited to the audit work. Other, closely related activities that do not appear to impair the auditor’s independence may be approved. Barrow Hanley evaluates the circumstances of auditors who have a substantial non-auditing relationship with the company on a case-by-case basis.

 

B-264


LOGO

 

Compensation Issues

Compensation Plans should align the interests of long-term shareholders with the interests of management, employees, and directors.

Stock-Based Compensation Plans

Stock-based compensation plans should be administered by an independent committee of the board and approved by shareholders. Barrow Hanley opposes compensation plans that substantially dilute a shareholder’s ownership interest, provides participants with excessive awards, and/or have other objectionable features. Compensation proposals are evaluated on a case-by-case basis using the following factors:

 

   

The company’s industry group, market capitalization, and competitors’ compensation plans.

 

   

Requirements for senior executives to hold a minimum amount/percentage of company stock.

 

   

Requirements for minimum holding periods for stock acquired through equity awards.

 

   

Performance-vesting awards, indexed options, and/or other grants linked to the company’s performance.

 

   

Requirements that limit the concentration of equity grants to senior executives and provide for a broad-based plan.

 

   

Requirements for stock-based compensation plans as a substitute for cash compensation to deliver market-competitive total compensation.

Bonus Plans

Bonus based compensation plans should include the following features:

 

   

Periodic shareholder approval to properly qualify for deductions under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m).

 

   

Performance measures relating to key value drivers of the company’s business.

 

   

Maximum award amounts expressed in dollar amounts.

Bonus plans should not include excessive awards in both absolute and relative terms.

Executive Compensation Plans (Say on Pay)

Say on Pay type of executive compensation programs can effectively link pay and performance and provide competitive compensation opportunities. Say on Pay type plans should state the amount of compensation at risk and the amount of equity-based compensation linked to the company’s performance and include adequate disclosure about the overall compensation structure. Say on Pay type plans should not include significant compensation guarantees and/or compensation that is not sufficiently linked to performance.

Recoupment Provisions (Clawbacks)

Executive compensation programs should be clearly tied to performance and include the following:

 

   

Detailed bonus recoupment policies to prevent executives from retaining performance-based awards that were not truly earned.

 

B-265


LOGO

 

   

Clawback triggers in the event of a restatement of financial results or similar revision of performance indicators upon which bonuses were based.

 

   

Policies allowing board reviews of performance-related bonuses and awards paid to senior executives during the period covered by a restatement that allows the company to recoup such bonuses if performance goals were not actually achieved.

 

   

Clawback policies that limit discretion and ensure the integrity of such policies.

Executive Severance Agreement (Golden Parachutes)

Executive compensation should be designed as an incentive for continued employment and include reasonable severance benefits, and the executive’s termination should be limited to three times salary and bonus, referred to as double-trigger plans.

Guaranteed severance benefits that exceed three times salary and bonus should be disclosed and should require shareholder approval.

Barrow Hanley does not support guaranteed severance benefits without a change in control or arrangements that does not require the executive’s termination, referred to as single-trigger plans.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

Employee stock purchase plans are effective ways to increase employees’ ownership in the company’s stock. Such plans should not allow for purchases below 85% of current market value and should limit shares reserved under the plan to 5% or less of the outstanding shares of the company.

Corporate Structure and Shareholder Rights

Barrow Hanley supports market-based corporate control functions without undue interference from artificial barriers. Shareholders’ rights are a fundamental privilege of equity ownership and should be proportional to economic ownership. Appropriate limits include a shareholder’s ability to act by corporate charter, bylaw provisions, or adoption of certain takeover provisions.

Shareholder Right Plans (Poison Pills)

Poison pill plans can erode shareholder value by limiting a potential acquirer’s ability to purchase a controlling interest in the company without the approval of its board of directors, and/or can serve to entrench incumbent management and directors.

Shareholder rights plans should be designed to enables the board to take appropriate to defensive actions, and should require the following:

 

   

Shareholder approval within a year of its adoption.

 

   

Timing limited to 3-5 years.

 

   

Requirement for shareholder approval for renewal.

 

   

Reviews by a committee of independent directors at least every three years, referred to as TIDE provisions.

 

   

Permitted bid or qualified offer features requiring shareholder votes under specific conditions referred to as chewable pills.

 

B-266


LOGO

 

   

Reasonable ownership triggers of 15-20%.

 

   

Highly independent, non-classified boards.

Shareholder rights plans should avoid the following:

 

   

Long-term defensive features of 5 or more years.

 

   

Automatic renewals without shareholder approval.

 

   

Ownership triggers of less than 15%.

 

   

Classified boards.

 

   

Boards with limited independence.

Political Contributions and Lobbying

Barrow Hanley evaluates an issuer’s policy and procedures governing political spending and lobbying. Proposals demonstrating insufficient or absent policies and disclosure are opposed.

An Increase in Authorized Shares

Proposals for increases in authorized share amounts should not expose shareholders to excessive dilution and should be limited to increases of up to 20% of the current share authorization.

Cumulative Voting

Cumulative voting should be proportional to the shareholders’ economic investment in the company.

Supermajority Vote Requirements

Shareholders’ rights to approve or reject proposals should be based on a simple majority.

Confidential Voting

Shareholder voting should be conducted in a confidential manner.

Dual Classes of Stock

Barrow Hanley opposes dual-class capitalization structures that provide disparate voting rights to shareholders with similar economic interests. Proposals to create separate share classes with different voting rights are opposed. Proposals to dissolve separate share classes are approved.

Shareholder Proposals and ESG Issues

Proposals relating to ESG issues are usually initiated by shareholders seeking disclosure about certain business practices or amendments to certain policies. Barrow Hanley’s Policy and Guidelines are designed to provide a framework for assessing the financial materiality of corporate governance, environmental, and social issues. Barrow Hanley supports proposals that improve transparency on issues that can be clearly tied to sustainable resource development, environmental compliance, and workplace safety.

 

B-267


LOGO

 

Barrow Hanley subscribes to third party ESG research and scoring databases, including MSCI, Sustainalytics, and IFRS as a tool for rating the financial materiality of ESG factors to support our internal research. Some investments may have a low corporate ranking based on a third party’s profile. Investment in low ranked companies is based on our belief that shareholder engagement is the best way to engage with management and use our influence toward sustainable improvements. Our fundamental analysis identifies areas and issues for engagement with management to improve policies and disclosure.

Barrow Hanley evaluates climate risk and disclosure standards for the companies and industries most exposed to climate change and engages with management and boards to understand the company’s risks and opportunities and where necessary, seeks additional disclosure.

Barrow Hanley considers issues related to human capital to be a company’s most significant risks and opportunities. Boards should disclose and communicate plans to instill inclusive, attractive, and high-retention environments in the company. Barrow Hanley supports inclusive working environments and diversity among employees and supports shareholder proposals that contain comprehensive equal opportunity and anti-discrimination provisions, and reporting on gender-based discrepancies in compensation.

Voting of Non-U.S./Foreign Shares

Although corporate governance standards, disclosure requirements, and voting mechanisms vary greatly among the markets outside the U.S., proposals are evaluated under these Guidelines and consideration of the local market’s standards and best practices.

Exceptions

Reasonable and limited exceptions to these Guidelines are permitted based on the facts, circumstances, and best economic interests of our clients. Exceptions are documented and retained in the Firm’s proxy voting records.

 

B-268


 

BlackRock

Investment

Stewardship

Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

Effective as of January 2022

 

 

 

 

 

LOGO

 

B-269


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-270    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

Contents

 

Introduction

     B-271  

Voting guidelines

     B-271  

Boards and directors

     B-271  

Auditors and audit-relate dissues

     B-277  

Capital structure proposals

     B-277  

Mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and other special transactions

     B-278  

Executive compensation

     B-279  

Environmental and social issues

     B-282  

General corporate governance matters

     B-284  

Shareholder protections

     B-286  


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-271    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

These guidelines should be read in conjunction with the BlackRock Investment Stewardship Global Principles.

Introduction

We believe BlackRock has a responsibility to monitor and provide feedback to companies, in our role as stewards of our clients’ investments. BlackRock Investment Stewardship (“BIS”) does this through engagement with management teams and/or board members on material business issues, including environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) matters and, for those clients who have given us authority, through voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of their assets.

The following issue-specific proxy voting guidelines (the “Guidelines”) are intended to summarize BIS’ regional philosophy and approach to engagement and voting on ESG factors, as well as our expectations of directors, for U.S. securities. These Guidelines are not intended to limit the analysis of individual issues at specific companies or provide a guide to how BIS will engage and/or vote in every instance. They are applied with discretion, taking into consideration the range of issues and facts specific to the company, as well as individual ballot items at annual and special meetings.

Voting guidelines

These guidelines are divided into eight key themes, which group together the issues that frequently appear on the agenda of annual and extraordinary meetings of shareholders:

 

   

Boards and directors

 

   

Auditors and audit-related issues

 

   

Capital structure

 

   

Mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and other special transactions

 

   

Executive compensation

 

   

Environmental and social issues

 

   

General corporate governance matters

 

   

Shareholder protections

Boards and directors

The effective performance of the board is critical to the economic success of the company and the protection of shareholders’ interests. As part of their responsibilities, board members owe fiduciary duties to shareholders in overseeing the strategic direction, operations, and risk management of the company. For this reason, BIS sees engagement with and the election of directors as one of our most critical responsibilities.

Disclosure of material issues that affect the company’s long-term strategy and value creation, including material ESG factors, is essential for shareholders to appropriately understand and assess how effectively the board is identifying, managing, and mitigating risks.

Where we conclude that a board has failed to address or disclose one or more material issues within a specified timeframe, we may hold directors accountable or take other appropriate action in the context of our voting decisions.

Director elections

Where a board has not adequately demonstrated, through actions and company disclosures, how material issues are appropriately identified, managed, and overseen, we will consider voting against the re-election of those directors responsible for the oversight of such issues, as indicated below.


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-272    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

Independence

We expect a majority of the directors on the board to be independent. In addition, all members of key committees, including audit, compensation, and nominating/ governance committees, should be independent. Our view of independence may vary from listing standards.

Common impediments to independence may include:

 

   

Employment as a senior executive by the company or a subsidiary within the past five years

 

   

An equity ownership in the company in excess of 20%

 

   

Having any other interest, business, or relationship (professional or personal) which could, or could reasonably be perceived to, materially interfere with the director’s ability to act in the best interests of the company

We may vote against directors serving on key committees who we do not consider to be independent, including at controlled companies.

Oversight

We expect the board to exercise appropriate oversight of management and the business activities of the company. Where we believe a board has failed to exercise sufficient oversight, we may vote against the responsible committees and/or individual directors. The following illustrates common circumstances:

 

   

With regard to material ESG risk factors, or where the company has failed to provide shareholders with adequate disclosure to conclude appropriate strategic consideration is given to these factors by the board, we may vote against directors of the responsible committee, or the most relevant director

 

   

With regard to accounting practices or audit oversight, e.g., where the board has failed to facilitate quality, independent auditing. If substantial accounting irregularities suggest insufficient oversight, we will consider voting against the current audit committee, and any other members of the board who may be responsible

 

   

During a period in which executive compensation appears excessive relative to the performance of the company and compensation paid by peers, we may vote against the members of the compensation committee

 

   

Where a company has proposed an equity compensation plan that is not aligned with shareholders’ interests, we may vote against the members of the compensation committee

 

   

Where the board is not comprised of a majority of independent directors (this may not apply in the case of a controlled company), we may vote against the chair of the nominating/governance committee, or where no chair exists, the nominating/governance committee member with the longest tenure

 

   

Where it appears the director has acted (at the company or at other companies) in a manner that compromises their ability to represent the best long-term economic interests of shareholders, we may vote against that individual

 

   

Where a director has a multi-year pattern of poor attendance at combined board and applicable committee meetings, or a director has poor attendance in a single year with no disclosed rationale, we may vote against that individual. Excluding exigent circumstances, BIS generally considers attendance at less than 75% of the combined board and applicable committee meetings to be poor attendance


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-273    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities
   

Where a director serves on an excessive number of boards, which may limit their capacity to focus on each board’s needs, we may vote against that individual. The following identifies the maximum number of boards on which a director may serve, before BIS considers them to be over-committed:

 

     Public Company Executive      # Outside Public Boards1      Total # of Public Boards  

Director A

          1        2  

Director B2

        3        4  

Responsiveness to shareholders

We expect a board to be engaged and responsive to its shareholders, including acknowledging voting outcomes for director elections, compensation, shareholder proposals, and other ballot items. Where we believe a board has not substantially addressed shareholder concerns, we may vote against the responsible committees and/or individual directors. The following illustrates common circumstances:

 

   

The independent chair or lead independent director, members of the nominating/governance committee, and/or the longest tenured director(s), where we observe a lack of board responsiveness to shareholders, evidence of board entrenchment, and/or failure to plan for adequate board member succession

 

   

The chair of the nominating/governance committee, or where no chair exists, the nominating/governance committee member with the longest tenure, where board member(s) at the most recent election of directors have received against votes from more than 25% of shares voted, and the board has not taken appropriate action to respond to shareholder concerns. This may not apply in cases where BIS did not support the initial against vote

 

   

The independent chair or lead independent director and/or members of the nominating/governance committee, where a board fails to consider shareholder proposals that receive substantial support, and the proposals, in our view, have a material impact on the business, shareholder rights, or the potential for long-term value creation

Shareholder rights

We expect a board to act with integrity and to uphold governance best practices. Where we believe a board has not acted in the best interests of its shareholders, we may vote against the appropriate committees and/or individual directors. The following illustrates common circumstances:

 

   

The independent chair or lead independent director and members of the nominating/governance committee, where a board implements or renews a poison pill without shareholder approval

 

   

The independent chair or lead independent director and members of the nominating/governance committee, where a board amends the charter/articles/bylaws and where the effect may be to entrench directors or to significantly reduce shareholder rights

 

   

Members of the compensation committee where the company has repriced options without shareholder approval

If a board maintains a classified structure, it is possible that the director(s) with whom we have a particular concern may not be subject to election in the year that the concern arises. In such situations, if we have a concern regarding the actions of a committee and the responsible member(s), we will generally register our concern by voting against all available members of the relevant committee.

1 

In addition to the company under review.

2 

Including fund managers whose full-time employment involves responsibility for the investment and oversight of fund vehicles, and those who have employment as professional investors and provide oversight for those holdings.


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-274    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

Board composition and effectiveness

We encourage boards to periodically refresh their membership to ensure relevant skills and experience within the boardroom. To this end, regular performance reviews and skills assessments should be conducted by the nominating/governance committee or the lead independent director. When nominating new directors to the board, we ask that there is sufficient information on the individual candidates so that shareholders can assess the suitability of each individual nominee and the overall board composition. Where boards find that age limits or term limits are the most efficient and objective mechanism for ensuring periodic board refreshment, we generally defer to the board’s determination in setting such limits. BIS will also consider the average board tenure to evaluate processes for board renewal. We may oppose boards that appear to have an insufficient mix of short-, medium-, and long- tenured directors.

Furthermore, we expect boards to be comprised of a diverse selection of individuals who bring their personal and professional experiences to bear in order to create a constructive debate of a variety of views and opinions in the boardroom. We are interested in diversity in the board room as a means to promoting diversity of thought and avoiding “group think”. We ask boards to disclose how diversity is considered in board composition, including demographic factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, and age; as well as professional characteristics, such as a director’s industry experience, specialist areas of expertise, and geographic location. We assess a board’s diversity in the context of a company’s domicile, business model, and strategy. We believe boards should aspire to 30% diversity of membership and encourage companies to have at least two directors on their board who identify as female and at least one who identifies as a member of an underrepresented group.3

We ask that boards disclose:

 

   

The aspects of diversity that the company believes are relevant to its business and how the diversity characteristics of the board, in aggregate, are aligned with a company’s long-term strategy and business model

 

   

The process by which candidates are identified and selected, including whether professional firms or other resources outside of incumbent directors’ networks have been engaged to identify and/or assess candidates, and whether a diverse slate of nominees is considered for all available board nominations

 

   

The process by which boards evaluate themselves and any significant outcomes of the evaluation process, without divulging inappropriate and/or sensitive details

This position is based on our view that diversity of perspective and thought – in the boardroom, in the management team, and throughout the company – leads to better long-term economic outcomes for companies. Academic research already reveals correlations between specific dimensions of diversity and effects on decision-making processes and outcomes.4 In our experience, greater diversity in the boardroom contributes to more robust discussions and more innovative and resilient decisions. Over time, it can also promote greater diversity and resilience in the leadership team and workforce more broadly, enabling companies to develop businesses that more closely reflect and resonate with the customers and communities they serve.

To the extent that, based on our assessment of corporate disclosures, a company has not adequately accounted for diversity in its board composition within a reasonable timeframe, we may vote against members of the

3 

Including, but not limited to, individuals who identify as Black or African American, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native Ameri can or Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander; individuals who identify as LGBTQ+; individuals who identify as underrepresented based on national, Indigenous, religious, or cultural identity; individuals with disabilities; and veterans.

4 

For example, the role of gender diversity on team cohesion and participative communication is explored by Post, C., 2015, When is female leadership an advantage? Coordination requirements, team cohesion, and team interaction norms, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 1153-1175.


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-275    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

nominating/governance committee for an apparent lack of commitment to board effectiveness. We recognize that building high-quality, diverse boards can take time. We will look to the largest companies (e.g., S&P 500) for continued leadership. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to board diversity.

Board size

We typically defer to the board in setting the appropriate size and believe directors are generally in the best position to assess the optimal board size to ensure effectiveness. However, we may oppose boards that appear too small to allow for the necessary range of skills and experience or too large to function efficiently.

 

CEO and management succession planning

There should be a robust CEO and senior management succession plan in place at the board level that is reviewed and updated on a regular basis. We expect succession planning to cover scenarios over both the long-term, consistent with the strategic direction of the company and identified leadership needs over time, as well as the short-term, in the event of an unanticipated executive departure. We encourage the company to explain its executive succession planning process, including where accountability lies within the boardroom for this task, without prematurely divulging sensitive information commonly associated with this exercise.

Classified board of directors/staggered terms

We believe that directors should be re-elected annually; classification of the board generally limits shareholders’ rights to regularly evaluate a board’s performance and select directors. While we will typically support proposals requesting board de-classification, we may make exceptions, should the board articulate an appropriate strategic rationale for a classified board structure. This may include when a company needs consistency and stability during a time of transition, e.g., newly public companies or companies undergoing a strategic restructuring. A classified board structure may also be justified at non- operating companies, e.g., closed-end funds or business development companies (“BDC”),5 in certain circumstances. We would, however, expect boards with a classified structure to periodically review the rationale for such structure and consider when annual elections might be more appropriate.

Without a voting mechanism to immediately address concerns about a specific director, we may choose to vote against the directors up for election at the time (see “Shareholder rights” for additional detail).

Contested director elections

The details of contested elections, or proxy contests, are assessed on a case-by-case basis. We evaluate a number of factors, which may include: the qualifications of the dissident and management candidates; the validity of the concerns identified by the dissident; the viability of both the dissident’s and management’s plans; the ownership stake and holding period of the dissident; the likelihood that the dissident’s solutions will produce the desired change; and whether the dissident represents the best option for enhancing long-term shareholder value.

Cumulative voting

We believe that a majority vote standard is in the best long-term interests of shareholders. It ensures director accountability through the requirement to be elected by more than half of the votes cast. As such, we will generally oppose proposals requesting the adoption of cumulative voting, which may disproportionately aggregate votes on certain issues or director candidates.

5 

A BDC is a special investment vehicle under the Investment Company Act of 1940 that is designed to facilitate capital formation for small and middle-market companies.


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-276    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

Director compensation and equity programs

We believe that compensation for directors should be structured to attract and retain directors, while also aligning their interests with those of shareholders. We believe director compensation packages that are based on the company’s long-term value creation and include some form of long-term equity compensation are more likely to meet this goal. In addition, we expect directors to build meaningful share ownership overtime.

Majority vote requirements

BIS believes that directors should generally be elected by a majority of the shares voted and will normally support proposals seeking to introduce bylaws requiring a majority vote standard for director elections. Majority vote standards assist in ensuring that directors who are not broadly supported by shareholders are not elected to serve as their representatives. Some companies with a plurality voting standard have adopted a resignation policy for directors who do not receive support from at least a majority of votes cast. Where we believe that the company already has a sufficiently robust majority voting process in place, we may not support a shareholder proposal seeking an alternative mechanism.

We note that majority voting may not be appropriate in all circumstances, for example, in the context of a contested election, or for majority-controlled companies.

Risk oversight

Companies should have an established process for identifying, monitoring, and managing business and material ESG risks. Independent directors should have access to relevant management information and outside advice, as appropriate, to ensure they can properly oversee risk. We encourage companies to provide transparency around risk management, mitigation, and reporting to the board. We are particularly interested in understanding how risk oversight processes evolve in response to changes in corporate strategy and/or shifts in the business and related risk environment. Comprehensive disclosure provides investors with a sense of the company’s long-term risk management practices and, more broadly, the quality of the board’s oversight. In the absence of robust disclosures, we may reasonably conclude that companies are not adequately managing risk.

Separation of chair and CEO

We believe that independent leadership is important in the boardroom. There are two commonly accepted structures for independent board leadership: 1) an independent chair; or 2) a lead independent director when the roles of chair and CEO are combined.

In the absence of a significant governance concern, we defer to boards to designate the most appropriate leadership structure to ensure adequate balance and independence.6

In the event that the board chooses a combined chair/CEO model, we generally support the designation of a lead independent director if they have the power to: 1) provide formal input into board meeting agendas; 2) call meetings of the independent directors; and 3) preside at meetings of independent directors. Furthermore, while we anticipate that most directors will be elected annually, we believe an element of continuity is important for this role to provide appropriate leadership balance to the chair/CEO.

6 

To this end, we do not view shareholder proposals asking for the separation of chair and CEO to be a proxy for other concerns we may have at the company for which a vote against directors would be more appropriate. Rather, support for such a proposal mig ht arise in the case of overarching and sustained governance concerns such as lack of independence or failure to oversee a mater ial risk over consecutive years.


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-277    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

The following table illustrates examples of responsibilities under each board leadership model:

 

    

Combined Chair/CEO Model

  

Separate Chair Model

    

Chair/CEO

  

Lead Independent Director

  

Chair

   Authority to call full meetings of the board of directors    Attends full meetings of the board of directors    Authority to call full meetings of the board of directors
Board Meetings       Authority to call meetings of independent directors   
      Briefs CEO on issues arising from executive sessions   
Agenda    Primary responsibility for shaping board agendas, consulting with the lead independent director    Collaborates with chair/CEO to set board agenda and board information    Primary responsibility for shaping board agendas, in conjunction with CEO
Board Communications    Communicates with all directors on key issues and concerns outside of full board meetings    Facilitates discussion among independent directors on key issues and concerns outside of full board meetings, including contributing to the oversight of CEO and management succession planning    Facilitates discussion among independent directors on key issues and concerns outside of full board meetings, including contributing to the oversight of CEO and management succession planning

Auditors and audit-related issues

BIS recognizes the critical importance of financial statements to provide a complete and accurate portrayal of a company’s financial condition. Consistent with our approach to voting on directors, we seek to hold the audit committee of the board responsible for overseeing the management of the audit function at a company. We may vote against the audit committee members where the board has failed to facilitate quality, independent auditing. We look to public disclosures for insight into the scope of the audit committee responsibilities, including an overview of audit committee processes, issues on the audit committee agenda, and key decisions taken by the audit committee. We take particular note of cases involving significant financial restatements or material weakness disclosures, and we expect timely disclosure and remediation of accounting irregularities.

The integrity of financial statements depends on the auditor effectively fulfilling its role. To that end, we favor an independent auditor. In addition, to the extent that an auditor fails to reasonably identify and address issues that eventually lead to a significant financial restatement, or the audit firm has violated standards of practice, we may also vote against ratification.

From time to time, shareholder proposals may be presented to promote auditor independence or the rotation of audit firms. We may support these proposals when they are consistent with our views as described above.

Capital structure proposals

Equal voting rights

BIS believes that shareholders should be entitled to voting rights in proportion to their economic interests. We believe that companies that look to add or that already have dual or multiple class share structures should review these structures on a regular basis, or as company circumstances change. Companies with multiple share classes


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-278    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

should receive shareholder approval of their capital structure on a periodic basis via a management proposal on the company’s proxy. The proposal should give unaffiliated shareholders the opportunity to affirm the current structure or establish mechanisms to end or phase out controlling structures at the appropriate time, while minimizing costs to shareholders.

Blank check preferred stock

We frequently oppose proposals requesting authorization of a class of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution, and other rights (“blank check” preferred stock) because they may serve as a transfer of authority from shareholders to the board and as a possible entrenchment device. We generally view the board’s discretion to establish voting rights on a when-issued basis as a potential anti-takeover device, as it affords the board the ability to place a block of stock with an investor sympathetic to management, thereby foiling a takeover bid without a shareholder vote.

Nonetheless, we may support the proposal where the company:

 

   

Appears to have a legitimate financing motive for requesting blank check authority

 

   

Has committed publicly that blank check preferred shares will not be used for anti-takeover purposes

 

   

Has a history of using blank check preferred stock for financings

 

   

Has blank check preferred stock previously outstanding such that an increase would not necessarily provide further anti-takeover protection but may provide greater financing flexibility

Increase in authorized common shares

BIS will evaluate requests to increase authorized shares on a case-by-case basis, in conjunction with industry-specific norms and potential dilution, as well as a company’s history with respect to the use of its common shares.

Increase or issuance of preferred stock

We generally support proposals to increase or issue preferred stock in cases where the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion, and other rights of such stock and where the terms of the preferred stock appear reasonable.

Stock splits

We generally support stock splits that are not likely to negatively affect the ability to trade shares or the economic value of a share. We generally support reverse stock splits that are designed to avoid delisting or to facilitate trading in the stock, where the reverse split will not have a negative impact on share value (e.g., one class is reduced while others remain at pre-split levels). In the event of a proposal for a reverse split that would not proportionately reduce the company’s authorized stock, we apply the same analysis we would use for a proposal to increase authorized stock.

Mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and other special transactions

In assessing mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, or other special transactions – including business combinations involving Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (“SPACs”) – BIS’ primary consideration is the long-term economic interests of our clients as shareholders. We expect boards proposing a transaction to clearly explain the economic and strategic rationale behind it. We will review a proposed transaction to determine the degree to which it enhances long-term shareholder value. While mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, business combinations,


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-279    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

and other special transaction proposals vary widely in scope and substance, we closely examine certain salient features in our analyses, such as:

 

   

The degree to which the proposed transaction represents a premium to the company’s trading price. We consider the share price over multiple time periods prior to the date of the merger announcement. We may consider comparable transaction analyses provided by the parties’ financial advisors and our own valuation assessments. For companies facing insolvency or bankruptcy, a premium may not apply

 

   

There should be clear strategic, operational, and/or financial rationale for the combination

 

   

Unanimous board approval and arm’s-length negotiations are preferred. We will consider whether the transaction involves a dissenting board or does not appear to be the result of an arm’s-length bidding process. We may also consider whether executive and/or board members’ financial interests appear likely to affect their ability to place shareholders’ interests before their own

 

   

We prefer transaction proposals that include the fairness opinion of a reputable financial advisor assessing the value of the transaction to shareholders in comparison to recent similar transactions

Poison pill plans

Where a poison pill is put to a shareholder vote by management, our policy is to examine these plans individually. Although we have historically opposed most plans, we may support plans that include a reasonable “qualifying offer clause.” Such clauses typically require shareholder ratification of the pill and stipulate a sunset provision whereby the pill expires unless it is renewed. These clauses also tend to specify that an all-cash bid for all shares that includes a fairness opinion and evidence of financing does not trigger the pill, but forces either a special meeting at which the offer is put to a shareholder vote or requires the board to seek the written consent of shareholders, where shareholders could rescind the pill at their discretion. We may also support a pill where it is the only effective method or protecting tax or other economic benefits that may be associated with limiting the ownership changes of individual shareholders.

We generally vote in favor of shareholder proposals to rescind poison pills.

Reimbursement of expense for successful shareholder campaigns

We generally do not support shareholder proposals seeking the reimbursement of proxy contest expenses, even in situations where we support the shareholder campaign. We believe that introducing the possibility of such reimbursement may incentivize disruptive and unnecessary shareholder campaigns.

Executive compensation

BIS expects a company’s board of directors to put in place a compensation structure that incentivizes and rewards executives appropriately and is aligned with shareholder interests, particularly the generation of sustainable long-term value.

We expect the compensation committee to carefully consider the specific circumstances of the company and the key individuals the board is focused on incentivizing. We encourage companies to ensure that their compensation plans incorporate appropriate and rigorous performance metrics consistent with corporate strategy and market practice. Performance-based compensation should include metrics that are relevant to the business and stated strategy or risk mitigation efforts. Goals, and the processes used to set these goals, should be clearly articulated and appropriately rigorous. We use third party research, in addition to our own analysis, to evaluate existing and proposed compensation structures. We hold members of the compensation committee, or equivalent board members, accountable for poor compensation practices or structures.

BIS believes that there should be a clear link between variable pay and company performance that drives value creation for our clients as shareholders. We are generally not supportive of one-off or special bonuses unrelated


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-280    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

to company or individual performance. Where discretion has been used by the compensation committee, we expect disclosure relating to how and why the discretion was used and further, how the adjusted outcome is aligned with the interests of shareholders.

We acknowledge that the use of peer group evaluation by compensation committees can help calibrate competitive pay; however, we are concerned when the rationale for increases in total compensation is solely based on peer benchmarking, rather than absolute outperformance.

We support incentive plans that foster the sustainable achievement of results – both financial and non- financial, including ESG – consistent with the company’s strategic initiatives. The vesting and holding timeframes associated with incentive plans should facilitate a focus on long-term value creation.

Compensation committees should guard against contractual arrangements that would entitle executives to material compensation for early termination of their contract. Finally, pension contributions and other deferred compensation arrangements should be reasonable in light of market practices. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to executive compensation.

“Say on Pay” advisory resolutions

In cases where there is a “Say on Pay” vote, BIS will respond to the proposal as informed by our evaluation of compensation practices at that particular company and in a manner that appropriately addresses the specific question posed to shareholders. Where we conclude that a company has failed to align pay with performance, we will vote against the management compensation proposal and relevant compensation committee members.

Frequency of “Say on Pay” advisory resolutions

BIS will generally support annual advisory votes on executive compensation. We believe shareholders should have the opportunity to express feedback on annual incentive programs and changes to long-term compensation before multiple cycles are issued.

Clawback proposals

We generally favor recoupment from any senior executive whose compensation was based on faulty financial reporting or deceptive business practices. We also favor recoupment from any senior executive whose behavior caused material financial harm to shareholders, material reputational risk to the company, or resulted in a criminal proceeding, even if such actions did not ultimately result in a material restatement of past results. This includes, but is not limited to, settlement agreements arising from such behavior and paid for directly by the company. We typically support shareholder proposals on these matters unless the company already has a robust clawback policy that sufficiently addresses our concerns.

Employee stock purchase plans

We believe employee stock purchase plans (“ESPP”) are an important part of a company’s overall human capital management strategy and can provide performance incentives to help align employees’ interests with those of shareholders. The most common form of ESPP qualifies for favorable tax treatment under Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code. We will typically support qualified ESPP proposals.

Equity compensation plans

BIS supports equity plans that align the economic interests of directors, managers, and other employees with those of shareholders. We believe that boards should establish policies prohibiting the use of equity awards in a manner that could disrupt the intended alignment with shareholder interests (e.g., the use of stock as collateral for a loan; the use of stock in a margin account; the use of stock in hedging or derivative transactions). We may support shareholder proposals requesting the establishment of such policies.


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-281    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

Our evaluation of equity compensation plans is based on a company’s executive pay and performance relative to peers and whether the plan plays a significant role in a pay-for-performance disconnect. We generally oppose plans that contain “evergreen” provisions, which allow for the unlimited increase of shares reserved without requiring further shareholder approval after a reasonable time period. We also generally oppose plans that allow for repricing without shareholder approval. We may also oppose plans that provide for the acceleration of vesting of equity awards even in situations where an actual change of control may not occur. We encourage companies to structure their change of control provisions to require the termination of the covered employee before acceleration or special payments are triggered (commonly referred to as “double trigger” change of control provisions).

Golden parachutes

We generally view golden parachutes as encouragement to management to consider transactions that might be beneficial to shareholders. However, a large potential pay-out under a golden parachute arrangement also presents the risk of motivating a management team to support a sub-optimal sale price for a company.

When determining whether to support or oppose an advisory vote on a golden parachute plan, BIS may consider several factors, including:

 

   

Whether we believe that the triggering event is in the best interests of shareholders

 

   

Whether management attempted to maximize shareholder value in the triggering event

 

   

The percentage of total premium or transaction value that will be transferred to the management team, rather than shareholders, as a result of the golden parachute payment

 

   

Whether excessively large excise tax gross-up payments are part of the pay-out

 

   

Whether the pay package that serves as the basis for calculating the golden parachute payment was reasonable in light of performance and peers

 

   

Whether the golden parachute payment will have the effect of rewarding a management team that has failed to effectively manage the company

It may be difficult to anticipate the results of a plan until after it has been triggered; as a result, BIS may vote against a golden parachute proposal even if the golden parachute plan under review was approved by shareholders when it was implemented.

We may support shareholder proposals requesting that implementation of such arrangements require shareholder approval.

Option exchanges

We believe that there may be legitimate instances where underwater options create an overhang on a company’s capital structure and a repricing or option exchange may be warranted. We will evaluate these instances on a case-by-case basis. BIS may support a request to reprice or exchange underwater options under the following circumstances:

 

   

The company has experienced significant stock price decline as a result of macroeconomic trends, not individual company performance

 

   

Directors and executive officers are excluded; the exchange is value neutral or value creative to shareholders; tax, accounting, and other technical considerations have been fully contemplated

 

   

There is clear evidence that absent repricing, the company will suffer serious employee incentive or retention and recruiting problems

BIS may also support a request to exchange underwater options in other circumstances, if we determine that the exchange is in the best interests of shareholders.


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-282    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

Supplemental executive retirement plans

BIS may support shareholder proposals requesting to put extraordinary benefits contained in supplemental executive retirement plans (“SERP”) to a shareholder vote unless the company’s executive pension plans do not contain excessive benefits beyond what is offered under employee-wide plans.

Environmental and social issues

We believe that well-managed companies deal effectively with material ESG factors relevant to their businesses. Governance is the core means by which boards can oversee the creation of sustainable long- term value. Appropriate risk oversight of environmental and social (“E&S”) considerations stems from this construct.

Robust disclosure is essential for investors to effectively gauge the impact of companies’ business practices and strategic planning related to E&S risks and opportunities. When a company’s reporting is inadequate, investors, including BlackRock, will increasingly conclude that the company is not appropriately managing risk. Given the increased understanding of material sustainability risks and opportunities, and the need for better information to assess them, BIS will advocate for continued improvement in companies’ reporting and will express concerns through our voting where disclosures or the business practices underlying them are inadequate.

BIS encourages companies to disclose their approach to maintaining a sustainable business model. We believe that reporting aligned with the framework developed by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”), supported by industry-specific metrics such as those identified by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (“SASB”), can provide a comprehensive picture of a company’s sustainability approach and performance. While the TCFD framework was developed to support climate-related risk disclosure, the four pillars of the TCFD Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics and Targets are a useful way for companies to disclose how they identify, assess, manage, and oversee a variety of sustainability -related risks and opportunities. SASB’s industry- specific guidance (as identified in its materiality map) is beneficial in helping companies identify key performance indicators (“KPIs”) across various dimensions of sustainability that are considered to be financially material and decision-useful within their industry. We recognize that some companies may report using different standards, which may be required by regulation, or one of a number of private standards. In such cases, we ask that companies highlight the metrics that are industry- or company- specific.

Accordingly, we ask companies to:

 

   

Disclose the identification, assessment, management, and oversight of sustainability-related risks in accordance with the four pillars of TCFD

 

   

Publish investor-relevant, industry-specific, material metrics and rigorous targets, aligned with SASB or comparable sustainability reporting standards

Companies should also disclose any supranational standards adopted, the industry initiatives in which they participate, any peer group benchmarking undertaken, and any assurance processes to help investors understand their approach to sustainable and responsible business conduct .

Climate risk

BlackRock believes that climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects. We ask every company to help its investors understand how it may be impacted by climate-related risk and opportunities, and how these factors are considered within strategy in a manner consistent with the company’s business model and sector. Specifically, we ask companies to articulate how their business model is aligned to a scenario in which global warming is limited to well below 2°C, moving towards global net zero emissions by 2050.


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-283    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

BIS understands that climate change can be very challenging for many companies, as they seek to drive long-term value by mitigating risks and capturing opportunities. A growing number of companies, financial institutions, as well as governments, have committed to advancing net zero. There is growing consensus that companies can benefit from the more favorable macro-economic environment under an orderly, timely, and just transition to net zero.7 Many companies are asking what their role should be in contributing to a just transition – in ensuring a reliable energy supply and protecting the most vulnerable from energy price shocks and economic dislocation. They are also seeking more clarity as to the public policy path that will help align greenhouse gas reduction actions with commitments.

In this context, we ask companies to disclose a business plan for how they intend to deliver long-term financial performance through the transition to global net zero, consistent with their business model and sector. We encourage companies to demonstrate that their plans are resilient under likely decarbonization pathways, and the global aspiration to limit warming to 1.5°C.8 We also encourage companies to disclose how considerations related to having a reliable energy supply and just transition affect their plans.

We look to companies to set short-, medium-, and long-term science-based targets, where available for their sector, for greenhouse gas reductions and to demonstrate how their targets are consistent with the long-term economic interests of their shareholders. Companies have an opportunity to use and contribute to the development of alternative energy sources and low-carbon transition technologies that will be essential to reaching net zero. We also recognize that some continued investment is required to maintain a reliable, affordable supply of fossil fuels during the transition. We ask companies to disclose how their capital allocation across alternatives, transition technologies, and fossil fuel production is consistent with their strategy and their emissions reduction targets.

In determining how to vote, we will continue to assess whether a company’s disclosures are aligned with the TCFD and provide short-, medium-, and long-term reduction targets for Scope 1 and 2 emissions. We may signal concerns about a company’s plans or disclosures in our voting on director elections, particularly at companies facing material climate risks. We may support shareholder proposals that ask companies to disclose climate plans aligned with our expectations. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to climate risk.

Key stakeholder interests

We believe that in order to deliver long-term value for shareholders, companies should also consider the interests of their key stakeholders. While stakeholder groups may vary across industries, they are likely to include employees; business partners (such as suppliers and distributors); clients and consumers; government and regulators; and the communities in which a company operates. Companies that build strong relationships with their key stakeholders are more likely to meet their own strategic objectives, while poor relationships may create adverse impacts that expose a company to legal, regulatory, operational, and reputational risks and jeopardize their social license to operate. We expect companies to effectively oversee and mitigate these risks with appropriate due diligence processes and board oversight. Our publicly available commentaries provide more information on our approach.

7 

For example, BlackRock’s Capital Markets Assumptions anticipate 25 points of cumulative economic gains over a 20 -year period in an orderly transition as compared to the alternative. This better macro environment will support better economic growth, financial stability, job growth, productivity, as well as ecosystem stability and health outcomes.

8 

The global aspiration is reflective of aggregated efforts; companies in developed and emerging markets are not equally equipped to transition their business and reduce emissions at the same rate—those in developed markets with the largest market capitalization are better positioned to adapt their business models at an accelerated pace. Government policy and regional targets may be reflective of these realities.


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-284    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

Human capital management

A company’s approach to human capital management (“HCM”) is a critical factor in fostering an inclusive, diverse, and engaged workforce, which contributes to business continuity, innovation, and long-term value creation. Consequently, we expect companies to demonstrate a robust approach to HCM and provide shareholders with disclosures to understand how their approach aligns with their stated strategy and business model.

We believe that clear and consistent disclosures on these matters are critical for investors to make an informed assessment of a company’s HCM practices. We expect companies to disclose the steps they are taking to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion; job categories and workforce demographics; and their responses to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s EEO-1 Survey. Where we believe a company’s disclosures or practices fall short relative to the market or peers, or we are unable to ascertain the board and management’s effectiveness in overseeing related risks and opportunities, we may vote against members of the appropriate committee or support relevant shareholder proposals. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to HCM.

Corporate political activities

Companies may engage in certain political activities, within legal and regulatory limits, in order to support public policy matters material to the companies’ long-term strategies. These activities can also create risks, including: the potential for allegations of corruption; certain reputational risks; and risks that arise from the complex legal, regulatory, and compliance considerations associated with corporate political spending and lobbying activity. Companies that engage in political activities should develop and maintain robust processes to guide these activities and mitigate risks, including board oversight.

When presented with shareholder proposals requesting increased disclosure on corporate political activities, BIS will evaluate publicly available information to consider how a company’s lobbying and political activities may impact the company. We will also evaluate whether there is general consistency between a company’s stated positions on policy matters material to its strategy and the material positions taken by significant industry groups of which it is a member. We may decide to support a shareholder proposal requesting additional disclosures if we identify a material inconsistency or feel that further transparency may clarify how the company’s political activities support its long-term strategy. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to corporate political activities.

General corporate governance matters

Adjourn meeting to solicit additional votes

We generally support such proposals unless the agenda contains items that we judge to be detrimental to shareholders’ best long-term economic interests.

Bundled proposals

We believe that shareholders should have the opportunity to review substantial governance changes individually without having to accept bundled proposals. Where several measures are grouped into one proposal, BIS may reject certain positive changes when linked with proposals that generally contradict or impede the rights and economic interests of shareholders.

Exclusive forum provisions

BIS generally supports proposals to seek exclusive forum for certain shareholder litigation. In cases where a board unilaterally adopts exclusive forum provisions that we consider unfavorable to the interests of shareholders, we will vote against the independent chair or lead independent director and members of the nominating/governance committee.


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-285    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

Multi-jurisdictional companies

Where a company is listed on multiple exchanges or incorporated in a country different from its primary listing, we will seek to apply the most relevant market guideline(s) to our analysis of the company’s governance structure and specific proposals on the shareholder meeting agenda. In doing so, we typically consider the governance standards of the company’s primary listing, the market standards by which the company governs itself, and the market context of each specific proposal on the agenda. If the relevant standards are silent on the issue under consideration, we will use our professional judgment as to what voting outcome would best protect the long-term economic interests of investors. We expect companies to disclose the rationale for their selection of primary listing, country of incorporation, and choice of governance structures, particularly where there is conflict between relevant market governance practices.

Other business

We oppose voting on matters where we are not given the opportunity to review and understand those measures and carry out an appropriate level of shareholder oversight.

Reincorporation

Proposals to reincorporate from one state or country to another are most frequently motivated by considerations of anti-takeover protections, legal advantages, and/or cost savings. We will evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, the economic and strategic rationale behind the company’s proposal to reincorporate. In all instances, we will evaluate the changes to shareholder protections under the new charter/articles/bylaws to assess whether the move increases or decreases shareholder protections.

Where we find that shareholder protections are diminished, we may support reincorporation if we determine that the overall benefits outweigh the diminished rights.

IPO governance

We expect boards to consider and disclose how the corporate governance structures adopted upon initial public offering(“IPO”) are in shareholders’ best long-term interests. We also expect boards to conduct a regular review of corporate governance and control structures, such that boards might evolve foundational corporate governance structures as company circumstances change, without undue costs and disruption to shareholders. In our letter on unequal voting structures, we articulate our view that “one vote for one share” is the preferred structure for publicly-traded companies. We also recognize the potential benefits of dual class shares to newly public companies as they establish themselves; however, we believe that these structures should have a specific and limited duration. We will generally engage new companies on topics such as classified boards and supermajority vote provisions to amend bylaws, as we believe that such arrangements may not be in the best interest of shareholders in the long-term.

We will typically apply a one-year grace period for the application of certain director-related guidelines (including, but not limited to, responsibilities on other public company boards and board composition concerns), during which we expect boards to take steps to bring corporate governance standards in line with our expectations.

Further, if a company qualifies as an emerging growth company (an “EGC”) under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (the “JOBS Act”), we will give consideration to the NYSE and NASDAQ governance exemptions granted under the JOBS Act for the duration such a company is categorized as an EGC. We expect an EGC to have a totally independent audit committee by the first anniversary of its IPO, with our standard approach to voting on auditors and audit-related issues applicable in full for an EGC on the first anniversary of its IPO.


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-286    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

Corporate form

Proposals to change a corporation’s form, including those to convert to a public benefit corporation (“PBC”) structure, should clearly articulate how the interests of shareholders and different stakeholders would be augmented or adversely affected, as well as the accountability and voting mechanisms that would be available to shareholders. We generally support management proposals if our analysis indicates that shareholders’ interests are adequately protected. Corporate form shareholder proposals are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Shareholder protections

Amendment to charter/articles/bylaws

We believe that shareholders should have the right to vote on key corporate governance matters, including changes to governance mechanisms and amendments to the charter/articles/bylaws. We may vote against certain directors where changes to governing documents are not put to a shareholder vote within a reasonable period of time, particularly if those changes have the potential to impact shareholder rights (see “Director elections”). In cases where a board’s unilateral adoption of changes to the charter/articles/bylaws promotes cost and operational efficiency benefits for the company and its shareholders, we may support such action if it does not have a negative effect on shareholder rights or the company’s corporate governance structure.

When voting on a management or shareholder proposal to make changes to the charter/articles/bylaws, we will consider in part the company’s and/or proponent’s publicly stated rationale for the changes; the company’s governance profile and history; relevant jurisdictional laws; and situational or contextual circumstances which may have motivated the proposed changes, among other factors. We will typically support amendments to the charter/articles/bylaws where the benefits to shareholders outweigh the costs of failing to make such changes.

Proxy access

We believe that long-term shareholders should have the opportunity, when necessary and under reasonable conditions, to nominate directors on the company’s proxy card.

In our view, securing the right of shareholders to nominate directors without engaging in a control contest can enhance shareholders’ ability to meaningfully participate in the director election process, encourage board attention to shareholder interests, and provide shareholders an effective means of directing that attention where it is lacking. Proxy access mechanisms should provide shareholders with a reasonable opportunity to use this right without stipulating overly restrictive or onerous parameters for use, and also provide assurances that the mechanism will not be subject to abuse by short-term investors, investors without a substantial investment in the company, or investors seeking to take control of the board.

In general, we support market-standardized proxy access proposals, which allow a shareholder (or group of up to 20 shareholders) holding three percent of a company’s outstanding shares for at least three years the right to nominate the greater of up to two directors or 20% of the board. Where a standardized proxy access provision exists, we will generally oppose shareholder proposals requesting outlier thresholds.

Right to act by written consent

In exceptional circumstances and with sufficiently broad support, shareholders should have the opportunity to raise issues of substantial importance without having to wait for management to schedule a meeting. We therefore believe that shareholders should have the right to solicit votes by written consent provided that: 1) there are reasonable requirements to initiate the consent solicitation process (in order to avoid the waste of corporate resources in addressing narrowly supported interests); and 2) shareholders receive a minimum of 50% of outstanding shares to effectuate the action by written consent. We may oppose shareholder proposals requesting the right to act by written consent in cases where the proposal is structured for the benefit of a dominant


 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship   B-287    Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities

shareholder to the exclusion of others, or if the proposal is written to discourage the board from incorporating appropriate mechanisms to avoid the waste of corporate resources when establishing a right to act by written consent. Additionally, we may oppose shareholder proposals requesting the right to act by written consent if the company already provides a shareholder right to call a special meeting that we believe offers shareholders a reasonable opportunity to raise issues of substantial importance without having to wait for management to schedule a meeting.

Right to call a special meeting

In exceptional circumstances and with sufficiently broad support, shareholders should have the opportunity to raise issues of substantial importance without having to wait for management to schedule a meeting. Accordingly, shareholders should have the right to call a special meeting in cases where a reasonably high proportion of shareholders (typically a minimum of 15% but no higher than 25%) are required to agree to such a meeting before it is called. However, we may oppose this right in cases where the proposal is structured for the benefit of a dominant shareholder, or where a lower threshold may lead to an ineffective use of corporate resources. We generally believe that a right to act via written consent is not a sufficient alternative to the right to call a special meeting.

Simple majority voting

We generally favor a simple majority voting requirement to pass proposals. Therefore, we will support the reduction or the elimination of supermajority voting requirements to the extent that we determine shareholders’ ability to protect their economic interests is improved. Nonetheless, in situations where there is a substantial or dominant shareholder, supermajority voting may be protective of minority shareholder interests and we may support supermajority voting requirements in those situations.

Virtual meetings

Shareholders should have the opportunity to participate in the annual and special meetings for the companies in which they are invested, as these meetings facilitate an opportunity for shareholders to provide feedback and hear from the board and management. While these meetings have traditionally been conducted in-person, virtual meetings are an increasingly viable way for companies to utilize technology to facilitate shareholder accessibility, inclusiveness, and cost efficiencies. We expect shareholders to have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the meeting and interact with the board and management in these virtual settings; companies should facilitate open dialogue and allow shareholders to voice concerns and provide feedback without undue censorship. Relevant shareholder proposals are assessed on a case-by-case basis.


Want to know more?

blackrock.com/stewardship | [email protected]

This document is provided for information and educational purposes only. Investing involves risk, including the loss of principal.

Prepared by BlackRock, Inc.

©2022 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved. BLACKROCK is a trademark of BlackRock, Inc., or its subsidiaries in the United States and elsewhere. All other trademarks are those of their respective owners.

 

LOGO

 

B-288


BOSTON PARTNERS GLOBAL INVESTORS, INC.

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

February 2023

Boston Partners

One Beacon Street, 30th Floor

Boston, MA 02108—www.boston-partners.com

 

B-289


PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Boston Partners Global Investors, Inc. (“Boston Partners”) is an investment adviser comprised of two divisions, Boston Partners and Weiss, Peck & Greer Partners (“WPG”). Boston Partners’ Governance Committee (the “Committee”) is comprised of representatives from portfolio management, securities analyst, portfolio research, quantitative research, investor relations, sustainability and engagement, and legal/compliance teams. The Committee is responsible for administering and overseeing Boston Partners’ proxy voting process. The Committee makes decisions on proxy policy, establishes formal Boston Partners’ Proxy Voting Policies (the “Proxy Voting Policies”) and updates the Proxy Voting Policies as necessary, but no less frequently than annually. In addition, the Committee, in its sole discretion, delegates certain functions to internal departments and/or engages third-party vendors to assist in the proxy voting process. Finally, members of the Committee are responsible for evaluating and resolving conflicts of interest relating to Boston Partners’ proxy voting process.

To assist Boston Partners in carrying out our responsibilities with respect to proxy activities, Boston Partners has engaged Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”), a third-party corporate governance research service, which is registered as an investment adviser. ISS receives all proxy-related materials for securities held in client accounts and votes the proposals in accordance with Boston Partners’ Proxy Voting Policies. ISS assists Boston Partners with voting execution through an electronic vote management system that allows ISS to pre-populate and automatically submit votes in accordance with Boston Partners’ Proxy Voting Policies. While Boston Partners may consider ISS’s recommendations on proxy issues, Boston Partners bears ultimate responsibility for proxy voting decisions and can change votes via ISS’ electronic voting platform at any time before a meeting’s cut-off date. ISS also provides recordkeeping and vote-reporting services.

How Boston Partners Votes

For those clients who delegate proxy voting authority to Boston Partners, Boston Partners has full discretion over votes cast on behalf of clients. All proxy votes on behalf of clients are voted the same way; however, Boston Partners may refrain from voting proxies for certain clients in certain markets. These arrangements are outlined in respective client investment management agreements. Boston Partners may also refrain from voting proxies on behalf of clients when shares are out on loan; when share blocking is required to vote; where it is not possible to vote shares; where there are legal or operational difficulties; where Boston Partners believes the administrative burden and/ or associated cost exceeds the expected benefit to a client; or where not voting or abstaining produces the desired outcome.

Boston Partners meets with ISS at least annually to review ISS policy changes, themes, methodology, and to review the Proxy Voting Policies. The information is taken to the Committee to discuss and decide what changes, if any, need to be made to the Proxy Voting Policies for the upcoming year.

The Proxy Voting Policies provide standard positions on likely issues for the upcoming proxy season. In determining how proxies should be voted, including those proxies the Proxy Voting Policies do not address or where the Proxy Voting Policies’ application is ambiguous, Boston Partners primarily focuses on maximizing the economic value of its clients’ investments. This is accomplished through engagements with Boston Partners’ analysts and issuers, as well as independent research conducted by Boston Partners’ Sustainability and Engagement Team. In the case of social and political responsibility issues that, in its view, do not primarily involve financial considerations, it is Boston Partners’ objective to support shareholder proposals that it believes promote good corporate citizenship. If Boston Partners believes that any research provided by ISS or other sources is incorrect, that research is ignored in the proxy voting decision, which is escalated to the Committee so that all relevant facts can be discussed, and a final vote determination can be made. Boston Partners is alerted to proposals that may require more detailed analysis via daily system generated refer notification emails. These emails prompt the Committee Secretary to call a Committee meeting to discuss the items in question.

Although Boston Partners has instructed ISS to vote in accordance with the Proxy Voting Policies, Boston Partners retains the right to deviate from the Proxy Voting Policies if, in its estimation, doing so would be in the best interest of clients.

 

B-290


Conflicts

Boston Partners believes clients are sufficiently insulated from any actual or perceived conflicts Boston Partners may encounter between its interests and those of its clients because Boston Partners votes proxies based on the predetermined Proxy Voting Policies. However, as noted, Boston Partners may deviate from the Proxy Voting Policies in certain circumstances, or the Proxy Voting Policies may not address certain proxy voting proposals. If a member of Boston Partners’ research or portfolio management team recommends that Boston Partners vote a particular proxy proposal in a manner inconsistent with the Proxy Voting Policies or if the Proxy Voting

Policies do not address a particular proposal, Boston Partners will adhere to certain procedures designed to ensure that the decision to vote the particular proxy proposal is based on the best interest of Boston Partners’ clients. These procedures require the individual requesting a deviation from the Proxy Voting Policies to complete a Conflicts Questionnaire (the “Questionnaire”) along with written documentation of the economic rationale supporting the request. The Questionnaire seeks to identify possible relationships with the parties involved in the proxy that may not be apparent. Based on the responses to the Questionnaire, the Committee (or a subset of the Committee) will determine whether it believes a material conflict of interest is present. If a material conflict of interest is found to exist, Boston Partners will vote in accordance with client instructions, seek the recommendation of an independent third-party or resolve the conflict in such other manner as Boston Partners believes is appropriate, including by making its own determination that a particular vote is, notwithstanding the conflict, in the best interest of clients.

Oversight

Meetings and upcoming votes are reviewed by the Committee Secretary with a focus on votes against management. Votes on behalf of Boston Partners’ clients are reviewed and compared against ISS’ recommendations. When auditing vote instructions, which Boston Partners does at least annually, ballots voted for a specified period are requested from ISS, and a sample of those meetings are reviewed by Boston Partners’ Operations Team. The information is then forwarded to compliance/ the Committee Secretary for review. Any perceived exceptions are reviewed with ISS and an analysis of what the potential vote impact would have been is conducted. ISS’ most recent SOC-1 indicates they have their own control and audit personnel and procedures, and a sample of ballots are randomly selected on a quarterly basis. ISS compares ballots to applicable vote instructions recorded in their database. Due diligence meetings with ISS are conducted periodically.

Disclosures

A copy of Boston Partners’ Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, as updated from time to time, as well as information regarding the voting of securities for a client account are available upon request from your Boston Partners relationship manager. A copy of Boston Partners’ Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures are also available at https://www.boston-partners.com/. For general inquires, contact (617) 832-8149.

 

B-291


Boston Partners Proxy Policy contains a General Policy as well as country specific Policies. The information provided for each specific country cited should be viewed as supplemental to the General Policy

GENERAL POLICY

 

I.   The Board of Directors

     B-304  

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

     B-304  

Independence

     B-304  

Composition

     B-304  

Attendance at Board and Committee Meetings

     B-304  

Overboarded Directors (Executive and Non-Executive)

     B-305  

Gender Diversity

     B-305  

Underrepresented Directors (U.S. Only)

     B-305  

More Candidates than Seats

     B-305  

Responsiveness

     B-306  

Accountability

     B-306  

Problematic Takeover Defenses/Governance Structure

     B-307  

Restrictions on Shareholders’ Rights

     B-309  

Problematic Audit-Related Practices

     B-309  

Problematic Compensation Practices

     B-310  

Problematic Pledging of Company Stock

     B-310  

Climate Accountability

     B-310  

Governance Failures

     B-311  

Voting on Director Nominees in Contested Elections

     B-311  

Vote-No Campaigns

     B-312  

Proxy Contests/Proxy Access — Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections

     B-312  

Bundled and Unbundled Elections

     B-312  

Other Board-Related Proposals

     B-313  

Adopt Anti-Hedging/Pledging/Speculative Investments Policy

     B-313  

Age/Term Limits

     B-313  

Board Size

     B-313  

Classification/Declassification of the Board

     B-313  

CEO Succession Planning

     B-313  

Cumulative Voting

     B-314  

Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection

     B-314  

Establish/Amend Nominee Qualifications

     B-315  

Establish Other Board Committee Proposals

     B-315  

Filling Vacancies/Removal of Directors

     B-315  

Independent Chair (Separate Chair/CEO)

     B-316  

Majority of Independent Directors/Establishment of Independent Committees

     B-316  

Majority Vote Standard for the Election of Directors

     B-316  

Proxy Access

     B-316  

Shareholder Engagement Policy (Shareholder Advisory Committee)

     B-316  

II.   Audit-Related

     B-317  

Auditor Indemnification and Limitation of Liability

     B-317  

Auditor Ratification/Reelection

     B-317  

Appointment of Internal Statutory Auditors

     B-318  

Shareholder Proposals Limiting Non-Audit Services

     B-318  

Shareholder Proposals on Audit Firm Rotation

     B-318  

 

B-292


III. Shareholder Rights and Defenses

     B-318  

Shareholder Proposals

     B-318  

Advance Notice Requirements for Shareholder Proposals/Nominations

     B-319  

Amend By-laws without Shareholder Consent

     B-319  

Control Share Acquisition Provisions

     B-319  

Control Share Cash-Out Provisions

     B-319  

Disgorgement Provisions

     B-320  

Fair Price Provisions

     B-320  

Freeze-Out Provisions

     B-320  

Greenmail

     B-320  

Litigation Rights (including Exclusive Venue and Fee-Shifting By-law Provisions) (U.S. only)

     B-320  

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)

     B-321  

Shareholder Proposals to Put Pill to a Vote and/or Adopt a Pill Policy

     B-321  

Management Proposals to Ratify a Poison Pill

     B-321  

Net Operating Losses Protective Amendments and Management Proposals to Ratify a Pill to Preserve NOLs

     B-322  

Proxy Voting Disclosure, Confidentiality, and Tabulation

     B-322  

Ratification Proposals: Management Proposals to Ratify Existing Charter or By-law Provisions

     B-323  

Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses

     B-323  

Reincorporation Proposals

     B-323  

Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

     B-324  

Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings

     B-324  

Stakeholder Provisions

     B-324  

State Antitakeover Statutes

     B-324  

Supermajority Vote Requirements

     B-324  

IV.  Capital/ Restructuring

     B-324  

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock

     B-324  

Shelf Registration Program

     B-324  

Common Stock Authorization/ Share Issuance Requests

     B-325  

General Authorization Requests

     B-325  

Specific Authorization Requests

     B-326  

Reduction of Capital

     B-326  

Dual Class Structure

     B-326  

Issue Stock for Use with Rights Plan

     B-326  

Preemptive Rights

     B-326  

Preferred Stock Authorization

     B-327  

General Authorization Requests

     B-327  

Specific Authorization Requests

     B-328  

Recapitalization Plans

     B-328  

Reverse Stock Splits

     B-328  

Share Repurchase Programs

     B-328  

Reissuance of Repurchased Shares

     B-329  

Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends

     B-330  

Tracking Stock

     B-330  

Appraisal Rights

     B-330  

Asset Purchases

     B-330  

Asset Sales

     B-330  

Pledging of Assets for Debt

     B-331  

Increase in Borrowing Powers

     B-331  

Bundled Proposals

     B-331  

Conversion of Securities

     B-331  

Corporate Reorganization/Debt Restructuring/Prepackaged Bankruptcy Plans/Reverse Leveraged Buyouts/Wrap Plans

     B-331  

 

B-293


Formation of Holding Company

     B-332  

Going Private and Going Dark Transactions (LBOs and Minority Squeeze-outs)

     B-332  

Joint Ventures

     B-332  

Liquidations

     B-333  

Mergers and Acquisitions

     B-333  

Private Placements/Warrants/Convertible Debentures

     B-334  

Reorganization/Restructuring Plan (Bankruptcy)

     B-335  

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs)

     B-335  

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs) - Proposals for Extensions

     B-335  

Spin-offs

     B-335  

Value Maximization Shareholder Proposals

     B-336  

V. Compensation

     B-336  

Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation—Management Proposals (Management Say-on-Pay)

     B-336  

Primary Evaluation Factors for Executive Pay

     B-337  

Problematic Pay Practices

     B-337  

Problematic Pay Practices related to Non-Performance-Based Compensation Elements

     B-337  

Options Backdating

     B-338  

Frequency of Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation ("Say When on Pay")

     B-338  

Voting on Golden Parachutes in an Acquisition, Merger, Consolidation, or Proposed Sale

     B-338  

Equity-Based and Other Incentive Plans

     B-339  

Further Information on certain EPSC Factors

     B-340  

SVT

     B-340  

Egregious Factors

     B-341  

Other Compensation Plans

     B-342  

401(k) Employee Benefit Plans

     B-342  

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)

     B-343  

Employee Stock Purchase Plans—Qualified Plans

     B-343  

Employee Stock Purchase Plans—Non-Qualified Plans

     B-343  

Option Exchange Programs/Repricing Options

     B-343  

Stock Plans in Lieu of Cash

     B-344  

Transfer Stock Option (TSO) Programs

     B-344  

Director Compensation

     B-345  

Non- Executive Directors

     B-345  

Equity Plans for Non- Executive Directors

     B-345  

Non- Executive Director Retirement Plans

     B-346  

Shareholder Proposals on Compensation

     B-346  

Compensation Consultants—Disclosure of Board or Company’s Utilization

     B-346  

Golden Coffins/Executive Death Benefits

     B-347  

Hold Equity Past Retirement or for a Significant Period of Time

     B-347  

Non-Deductible Compensation (U.S.)

     B-347  

Pay Disparity

     B-347  

Pay for Performance/Performance-Based Awards

     B-348  

Pay for Superior Performance

     B-348  

Pre-Arranged Trading Plans (10b5-1 Plans)

     B-349  

Prohibit Outside CEOs from Serving on Compensation Committees

     B-349  

Recoupment of Incentive or Stock Compensation in Specified Circumstances

     B-349  

Severance Agreements for Executives/Golden Parachutes

     B-349  

Share Buyback Proposals

     B-350  

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERPs)

     B-350  

Tax Gross-Up Proposals

     B-350  

Termination of Employment Prior to Severance Payment/Eliminating Accelerated Vesting of Unvested Equity

     B-350  

 

B-294


VI.  Routine/ Miscellaneous/ Operational

     B-351  

Adjourn Meeting

     B-351  

Amend Quorum Requirements

     B-351  

Amend Minor By-laws

     B-351  

Change Company Name

     B-351  

Change Date, Time, or Location of Annual Meeting

     B-351  

Other Business

     B-351  

Management Supported Shareholder Proposals: Reporting

     B-351  

Allocation of Income

     B-352  

Stock (Scrip) Dividend Alternative

     B-352  

Amendments to Articles of Association (Bylaws), Board Policies, and Board Committees’ Charters

     B-352  

Change in Company Fiscal Term

     B-352  

Lower Disclosure Threshold for Stock Ownership

     B-352  

Expansion of Business Activities

     B-352  

Related-Party Transactions

     B-352  

Charitable Donations

     B-353  

Virtual Meetings

     B-353  

Financial Results/Director and Statutory Reports

     B-353  

VII. Social and Environmental

     B-353  

Endorsement of Principles

     B-354  

Animal Welfare

     B-354  

Animal Welfare Policies

     B-354  

Animal Testing

     B-354  

Animal Slaughter

     B-354  

Consumer Issues

     B-355  

Genetically Modified Ingredients

     B-355  

Reports on Potentially Controversial Business/Financial Practices

     B-355  

Pharmaceutical Pricing, Access to Medicines, and Prescription Drug Reimportation

     B-355  

Product Safety and Toxic/Hazardous Materials

     B-356  

Tobacco-Related Proposals

     B-356  

Climate Change

     B-357  

Say on Climate (SoC) Management Proposals

     B-357  

Say on Climate (SoC) Shareholder Proposals

     B-357  

Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

     B-358  

Energy Efficiency

     B-358  

Renewable Energy

     B-358  

Diversity

     B-359  

Board Diversity

     B-359  

Equality of Opportunity

     B-359  

Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Domestic Partner Benefits

     B-359  

Gender, Race/ Ethnicity Pay Gap

     B-360  

Racial Equity and/or Civil Rights Audit Guidelines

     B-360  

Environment and Sustainability

     B-360  

Facility and Workplace Safety

     B-360  

General Environmental Proposals and Community Impact Assessments

     B-361  

Hydraulic Fracturing

     B-361  

Operations in Protected Areas

     B-361  

Recycling

     B-361  

Sustainability Reporting

     B-362  

Water Issues

     B-362  

 

B-295


General Corporate Issues

     B-362  

Charitable Contributions

     B-362  

Data Security, Privacy, and Internet Issues

     B-362  

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Compensation-Related Proposals

     B-363  

Human Rights, Labor Issues, and International Operations

     B-363  

Human Rights Proposals

     B-363  

Operations in High Risk Markets

     B-364  

Outsourcing/Offshoring

     B-364  

Weapons and Military Sales

     B-364  

Mandatory Arbitration

     B-364  

Sexual Harassment

     B-365  

Political Activities

     B-365  

Lobbying

     B-365  

Political Contributions

     B-365  

Political Ties

     B-366  

VIII.Mutual Fund Proxies

     B-366  

Election of Directors

     B-366  

Converting Closed-end Fund to Open-end Fund

     B-366  

Proxy Contests

     B-366  

Investment Advisory Agreements

     B-367  

Approving New Classes or Series of Shares

     B-367  

Preferred Stock Proposals

     B-367  

1940 Act Policies (U.S.)

     B-367  

Changing a Fundamental Restriction to a Nonfundamental Restriction

     B-367  

Change Fundamental Investment Objective to Nonfundamental

     B-367  

Name Change Proposals

     B-368  

Change in Fund's Subclassification

     B-368  

Business Development Companies—Authorization to Sell Shares of Common Stock at a Price below Net Asset Value

     B-368  

Disposition of Assets/Termination/Liquidation

     B-368  

Changes to the Charter Document

     B-368  

Changing the Domicile of a Fund

     B-369  

Authorizing the Board to Hire and Terminate Sub-advisers Without Shareholder Approval

     B-369  

Distribution Agreements

     B-369  

Master-Feeder Structure

     B-369  

Mergers

     B-369  

Closed End Funds-Unilateral Opt-in to Control Share Acquisition Statutes

     B-370  

Shareholder Proposals for Mutual Funds

     B-370  

Reimburse Shareholder for Expenses Incurred

     B-370  

Terminate the Investment Advisor

     B-370  

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND

  

I.   General

     B-371  

Constitutional Amendment

     B-371  

Renewal of "Proportional Takeover" Clause in Constitution

     B-371  

Significant Change in Activities

     B-371  

II.   Share Capital

     B-371  

Non-Voting Shares

     B-371  

Reduction of Share Capital: Cash Consideration Payable to Shareholders

     B-371  

Reduction of Share Capital: Absorption of Losses

     B-371  

Buybacks/Repurchases

     B-371  

 

B-296


III. Board of Directors

     B-372  

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

     B-372  

Attendance (Australia)

     B-372  

Independence (Australia)

     B-372  

Combined Chair and CEO (Australia)

     B-372  

Problematic Remuneration Practices (Australia)

     B-373  

Shareholder Nominees

     B-373  

Removal of Directors (New Zealand)

     B-373  

IV.  Remuneration

     B-373  

Remuneration Report (Australia)

     B-373  

Remuneration of Executive Directors: Share Incentive Schemes (Australia)

     B-375  

Remuneration of Executives: Options and Other Long-Term Incentives

     B-375  

Non-Executive Director Perks/Fringe Benefits (Australia)

     B-377  

Remuneration of Non-Executive Directors: Increase in Aggregate Fee Cap

     B-377  

Remuneration of Non-Executive Directors: Issue of Options (New Zealand)

     B-378  

Remuneration of Non-Executive Directors: Approval of Share Plan

     B-378  

Transparency of CEO Incentives (New Zealand)

     B-378  

Shareholder Resolutions (New Zealand)

     B-378  

BRAZIL

  

I.   Board of Directors

     B-379  

Minimum Independent Levels

     B-379  

Election of Minority Nominees (Separate Election)

     B-379  

Installation of Fiscal Council

     B-379  

Combined Chairman/CEO

     B-380  

Board Structure

     B-380  

II.   Capital Structure

     B-380  

Share Repurchase Plans

     B-380  

III. Compensation

     B-380  

Management Compensation

     B-380  

Compensation Plans

     B-381  

IV.  Other

     B-382  

Items Antitakeover Mechanisms

     B-382  

CANADA: TSX- LISTED AND VENTURE LISTED COMPANIES

  

I.   Board of Directors

     B-383  

Director Elections

     B-383  

Gender Diversity

     B-383  

Audit Fee Disclosure

     B-383  

Director Attendance

     B-384  

Board Responsiveness

     B-384  

Unilateral Adoption of an Advance Notice Provision

     B-384  

Externally-Managed Issuers (EMIs)

     B-384  

Proxy Access

     B-385  

Proxy Contests – Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections

     B-385  

II.   Shareholder Rights & Defenses

     B-385  

Advance Notice Requirements

     B-385  

Enhanced Shareholder Meeting Quorum for Contested Director Elections

     B-386  

Appointment of Additional Directors Between Annual Meetings

     B-386  

Article/By-law Amendments

     B-386  

Confidential Voting

     B-387  

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)

     B-387  

Exclusive Forum Proposals

     B-388  

 

B-297


III. Capital/ Restructuring

     B-388  

Increases in Authorized Capital

     B-388  

Private Placement Issuances

     B-388  

Blank Check Preferred Stock

     B-389  

Dual-class Stock

     B-389  

Escrow Agreements

     B-389  

IV.  Compensation

     B-390  

Pay for Performance Evaluation

     B-390  

Step I: Quantitative Screen

     B-390  

Relative

     B-390  

Absolute

     B-390  

Step II: Qualitative Analysis

     B-390  

Problematic Pay Practices

     B-391  

Equity-Based Compensation Plans

     B-392  

Plan Cost

     B-393  

Overriding Negative Factors

     B-393  

Plan Amendment Provisions

     B-393  

Non- Executive Director (NED) Participation

     B-394  

Limited Participation

     B-394  

Individual Grants

     B-394  

Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs, ESOPs)

     B-394  

Management Deferred Share Unit (DSU) Plans

     B-395  

Non- Executive Director (NED) Deferred Share Unit (DSU) Plans

     B-395  

Problematic Director Compensation Practices

     B-396  

Shareholder Proposals on Compensation

     B-396  

Shareholder Advisory Vote Proposals

     B-397  

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP) Proposals

     B-397  

CHINA AND HONG KONG

  

I.   Board of Directors

     B-398  

Voting for Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections (Hong Kong)

     B-398  

Independence and Composition

     B-398  

II.   Remuneration

     B-398  

Director Remuneration

     B-398  

Equity-based Compensation

     B-399  

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

     B-399  

III. Capital Raising

     B-400  

Share Issuance Requests

     B-400  

Share Repurchase Plans (Repurchase Mandate) (Hong Kong)

     B-400  

Reissuance of Shares Repurchased (Share Reissuance Mandate) (Hong Kong)

     B-400  

A-share Private Placement Issuance Requests (Hong Kong)

     B-400  

Adjustments of Conversion Price of Outstanding Convertible Bonds

     B-400  

Debt Issuance Request/Increase in Borrowing Powers

     B-400  

Provision of Guarantees/ Loan Guarantee Requests

     B-401  

IV.  Amendments to Articles of Association/ Company By-laws

     B-402  

Communist Party Committee

     B-402  

Other Article of Association/By-law Amendments

     B-402  

V. Related Party Transactions

     B-402  

Loan Financing Requests

     B-402  

Group Finance Companies

     B-402  

 

B-298


VI.  Proposals to Invest in Financial Products Using Idle Funds

     B-403  

CONTINENTAL EUROPE

  

I.   Operational Items

     B-404  

Appointment of Auditors and Auditor Fees

     B-404  

Approval of Non-financial Information Statement/ Report

     B-404  

II.   Director Elections

     B-404  

Non-Contested Director Elections

     B-404  

Director Terms

     B-404  

Bundling of Proposals to Elect Directors

     B-404  

Board Independence

     B-405  

Widely-held Controlled Companies and Non widely-held Companies

     B-405  

Widely-held Non-controlled Companies

     B-405  

Disclosure of Names of Nominees

     B-405  

Election of a Former CEO as Chairman of the Board

     B-405  

Voto di Lista (Italy)

     B-405  

One Board Seat per Director

     B-405  

Composition of Committees

     B-405  

Election of Censors (France)

     B-406  

Board Gender Diversity

     B-407  

Committee of Representatives and Corporate Assembly Elections (Denmark and Norway)

     B-407  

III. Capital Structure

     B-407  

Share Issuance Requests

     B-407  

General Issuances

     B-407  

For French Companies

     B-407  

Increases in Authorized Capital

     B-408  

IV.  Compensation

     B-408  

Executive Compensation-related Proposals

     B-408  

Non-Executive Director Compensation

     B-410  

Equity-based Compensation Guidelines

     B-410  

Compensation-Related Voting Sanctions

     B-410  

Stock Option Plans – Adjustment for Dividend (Nordic Region)

     B-411  

Share Matching Plans (Sweden and Norway)

     B-411  

V. Other Items

     B-412  

Antitakeover Mechanisms

     B-412  

Authority to Reduce Minimum Notice Period for Calling a Meeting

     B-412  

Auditor Report Including Related Party Transactions (France)

     B-413  

EUROPE, THE MIDDLE EAST, AND AFRICA

  

I.   Operational Items

     B-414  

Financial Results/Director and Auditor Reports

     B-414  

Appointment of Auditors and Auditor Fees

     B-414  

Donations

     B-414  

II.   Board of Directors

     B-414  

Board Independence

     B-414  

Committee Independence

     B-415  

Cumulative Voting System

     B-415  

 

B-299


III. Capital Structure

     B-416  

Capital Structures

     B-416  

Preferred Stock

     B-416  

Debt Issuance Requests

     B-416  

IV.  Compensation

     B-416  

Remuneration Policy/Report

     B-417  

V. Other Items

     B-417  

Related-Party Transactions

     B-417  

INDIA

  

I.   Board of Directors

     B-418  

Executive Appointment

     B-418  

Election of Directors

     B-418  

Accountability

     B-418  

Composition

     B-418  

Separation of Roles of Chair and CEO

     B-418  

II.   Remuneration

     B-418  

Director Commission and Executive Compensation

     B-418  

Fees for Non-executive Directors

     B-418  

Executive Compensation

     B-418  

Equity Compensation Plans

     B-419  

III. Share Issuance Requests

     B-419  

Preferential Issuance Requests and Preferential Issuance of Warrants

     B-419  

Specific Issuance Requests

     B-419  

IV.  Debt Issuance Requests

     B-419  

Debt Related Proposals

     B-419  

Increase in Borrowing Powers

     B-420  

Pledging of Assets for Debt

     B-420  

Financial Assistance

     B-421  

V. Miscellaneous

     B-421  

Accept Financial Statements and Statutory Reports

     B-421  

Acceptance of Deposits

     B-421  

Charitable Donations

     B-421  

Increase in Foreign Shareholding Limit

     B-421  

ISRAEL

  

I.   Operational Items

     B-422  

Appointment of Auditors and Auditor Fees

     B-422  

II.   Compensation

     B-422  

Executive Compensation-related Proposals

     B-422  

Non-Executive Director Compensation

     B-423  

Equity-based Compensation Guidelines

     B-423  

JAPAN

  

I.   Routine Miscellaneous

     B-424  

Income Allocation

     B-424  

Election of Statutory Auditors

     B-424  

II.   Election of Directors

     B-424  

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

     B-424  

 

B-300


III. Article Amendments

     B-425  

Adoption of a U.S.-style Three Committee Board Structure

     B-425  

Adoption of a Board with Audit Committee Structure

     B-425  

Increase in Authorized Capital

     B-425  

Creation/Modification of Preferred Shares/Class Shares

     B-425  

Repurchase of Shares at Board’s Discretion

     B-425  

Allow Company to Make Rules Governing the Exercise of Shareholders’ Rights

     B-426  

Limit Rights of Odd Shareholders

     B-426  

Amendments Related to Takeover Defenses

     B-426  

Decrease in Maximum Board Size

     B-426  

Supermajority Vote Requirement to Remove a Director

     B-426  

Creation of Advisory Positions (Sodanyaku or Komon)

     B-426  

Payment of Dividends at the Board’s Discretion

     B-426  

Management Buyout Related Amendments

     B-426  

IV.  Compensation

     B-426  

Annual Bonuses for Directors/Statutory Auditors

     B-426  

Retirement Bonuses

     B-427  

Special Payments in Connection with Abolition of Retirement Bonus System

     B-427  

Stock Option Plans/Deep-Discounted Stock Option Plans

     B-427  

Stock Option Plans

     B-427  

Deep-Discounted Stock Option Plans

     B-427  

Director Compensation Ceiling

     B-427  

Statutory Auditor Compensation Ceiling

     B-428  

KOREA

  

I.   Election of Directors

     B-429  

Director Elections

     B-429  

Independence

     B-429  

Composition

     B-429  

Voting on Director Nominees in Contested Elections

     B-429  

II.   Audit Related

     B-429  

Election of Audit Committee Member(s)

     B-429  

Election of Internal Auditor(s)/ Establishment of Audit Committees

     B-429  

III. Capital Structure/Restructuring

     B-430  

Stock Split

     B-430  

Spinoff Agreement

     B-430  

Reduction in Capital Accompanied by Cash Consideration

     B-430  

Reduction in Capital Not Accompanied by Cash Consideration

     B-430  

Merger Agreement, Sales/ Acquisition of Company Assets, and Formation of Holding Company

     B-430  

IV.  Compensation

     B-431  

Remuneration Cap for Directors

     B-431  

Remuneration Cap for Internal Auditors

     B-431  

Stock Option Grants

     B-431  

Amendments to Terms of Severance Payments to Executives

     B-431  

Stock Option Programs for the Employee Stock Ownership Plan

     B-431  

Golden Parachute Clause

     B-432  

V. Routine/Miscellaneous

     B-432  

Authorizing Board to Approve Financial Statements and Income Allocation

     B-432  

 

B-301


RUSSIA AND KAZAKHSTAN

  

I.   Operation Items

     B-433  

Financial Results/Director and Auditor Reports

     B-433  

Appointment of Auditors and Auditor Fees

     B-433  

Appointment of Audit Commission

     B-433  

Early Termination of the Audit Commission

     B-433  

II.   Board of Directors

     B-433  

Cumulative Voting System

     B-433  

Early Termination of Powers of Board of Directors

     B-434  

Election of General Director (CEO)

     B-434  

Early Termination of Powers of General Director (CEO)

     B-434  

III. Compensation

     B-434  

Non-Executive Director Compensation

     B-434  

Equity-based Compensation Guidelines

     B-435  

SINGAPORE

  

I.   Board of Directors

     B-436  

Voting for Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections- Independence and Composition

     B-436  

II.   Remuneration

     B-436  

Director Remuneration

     B-436  

Equity Compensation Plans

     B-437  

III. Share Issuance Requests

     B-437  

Issuance Requests

     B-437  

General Issuance Requests – Real Estate Investment Trusts

     B-437  

Specific Issuance Requests

     B-437  

Share Repurchase Plans

     B-437  

IV.  Articles and By-law Amendments

     B-437  

V. Related Party Transactions

     B-438  

SOUTH AFRICA

  

I.   Operational Items

     B-439  

Authority to Ratify and Execute Approved Resolutions

     B-439  

II.   Board of Directors

     B-439  

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

     B-439  

Accountability

     B-439  

Audit Committee Elections

     B-439  

Social and Ethics Committee Elections

     B-440  

III. Capital Structure

     B-440  

Share Issuance Authorities

     B-440  

Share Buyback Authorities

     B-440  

IV.  Remuneration

     B-440  

Fees for Non-Executive Directors

     B-440  

Approval of Remuneration Policy

     B-441  

Approval of Implementation Report

     B-441  

New Equity Incentive Scheme or Amendment to Existing Scheme

     B-442  

Financial Assistance

     B-442  

V. Other Items

     B-442  

New Memorandum of Incorporation (MOI)/ Amendments to the MOI

     B-442  

Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Transactions

     B-443  

Social and Ethics Committee Report

     B-443  

 

B-302


TAIWAN

  

I.   Allocation of Income and Dividends

     B-444  

Allocation of Income and Dividends

     B-444  

Cash Dividends or New Shares from Capital and Legal Reserves

     B-444  

Stock Dividends

     B-444  

II.   Capital Reduction

     B-444  

III. Amendments to Company Articles/By-laws

     B-444  

Cash Dividend Distribution Plans

     B-444  

IV.  Capital Raising

     B-444  

V. Compensation

     B-445  

Equity Based Compensation

     B-445  

VI.  Release of Restrictions on Directors Competitive Activities

     B-445  

UNITED KINGDOM AND IRELAND

  

I.   Operational Items

     B-446  

Accept Financial Statements and Statutory Reports

     B-446  

II.   The Board of Directors

     B-446  

Board Diversity

     B-446  

Gender Diversity

     B-446  

Ethnic Diversity

     B-447  

Board Independence and Tenure

     B-447  

Board and Committee Composition

     B-448  

III. Compensation

     B-449  

Remuneration Policy

     B-449  

Remuneration Report

     B-450  

Approval of a New or Amended LTIP

     B-451  

IV.  Capital Structure

     B-452  

Authorize Issue of Equity with and without Pre-emptive Rights

     B-452  

Authorize Market Purchase of Ordinary Shares

     B-452  

V. Other Items

     B-452  

Authorize EU Political Donations and Expenditure

     B-452  

Continuation of Investment Trust

     B-453  
END   

 

B-303


Boston Partners

Proxy Voting Policies

As of March 2022

GENERAL POLICY

I. The Board of Directors

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

Votes for director nominees on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Boston Partners will generally vote FOR director nominees when names of the nominee(s) and adequate disclosure have been provided in a timely manner, except under the following circumstances:

Independence

Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from non-independent directors (Executive Directors and Non- Independent Non-Executive Directors) when:

 

  1.

Independent directors comprise less than one-third of the board (Boston Partners will support higher thresholds required by local law or regulation);

 

  2.

A non-independent director, not including employee/ labor representatives required to sit on a board committee(s) by law, serves on the audit, compensation, or nominating committee;

 

  3.

The company lacks an audit, compensation or nominating committee so that the full board functions as that committee; or

 

  4.

The company lacks a formal nominating committee, even if the board attests that the independent directors fulfill the functions of such a committee.

Vote AGAINST individual directors, members of a committee, or the entire board due to a conflict of interest that raises significant potential risk, in the absence of mitigating measures and/or procedures.

Except in Japanese markets where no numerical threshold is used, Boston Partners uses a three-year cooling-off period in determining whether a nominee is or is not independent. However, Boston Partners will vote in accordance with specific country or region thresholds required by law.

Composition

Attendance at Board and Committee Meetings

Generally, vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from directors (except nominees who served only part of the fiscal year) who attend less than 75 percent of the of their board and committee meetings for the period for which they served, unless an acceptable reason for absences is disclosed in the proxy or another filing. Acceptable reasons for director absences are generally limited to the following:

 

  1.

Medical issues/illness;

 

  2.

Family emergencies; and

 

  3.

Missing only one meeting (when the total of all meetings is three or fewer).

In cases of chronic poor attendance without reasonable justification, in addition to voting against the director(s) with poor attendance, generally vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from appropriate members of the nominating/governance committees or the full board.

 

B-304


If the proxy disclosure is unclear and insufficient to determine whether a director attended at least 75 percent of the aggregate of his/her board and committee meetings during his/her period of service, vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from the director(s) in question.

Overboarded Directors (Executive and Non-Executive)

Vote AGAINST non-CEO nominees sitting on more than four (4) total public company boards and AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes from CEOs sitting on more than three (3) total public company boards. Additionally, vote AGAINST nominees if they exceed lesser thresholders mandated by local country or regional laws.

Gender Diversity

Vote AGAINST majority gender board representatives of the nominating committee or majority gender nominees of the full board when no nominating committee exists (except nominees who served only part of the fiscal year) if there is not at least one (1) board member that is not of the majority board gender for boards with six (6) or fewer total members or at least two (2) board members that are not of the majority board gender for boards with seven (7) or greater board members.

Underrepresented1 Directors (U.S. Only)

Vote AGAINST board representatives of the nominating committee from represented communities or nominees of the full board from represented communities when no nominating committee exists (except nominees who served only part of the fiscal year) if: there is not at least one (1) board member from an underrepresented community on the board.

More Candidates than Seats

Where the number of candidates exceeds the number of board seats, vote FOR all or a limited number of the independent director nominees considering factors including, but not limited to, the following:

 

  1.

Past composition of the board, including proportion of the independent directors vis-a-vis the size of the board;

 

  2.

Nominee(s) qualification, knowledge, and experience;

 

  3.

Attendance record of the director nominees;

 

  4.

Company’s free float.

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals that would require a company to nominate more candidates than the number of open board seats.

1 

A director from an underrepresented community is classified as an individual who is American Indian or Alaskan Native (a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition); Asian or Pacific Islander (Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander); Black (a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa); or Hispanic or Latino (speaking Spanish or descending from Spanish-speaking populations or people descending from Latin America including Brazil). If this policy is in conflict with Boston Partners’ Gender Diversity Policy, the matter will be referred to the Governance Committee for discussion and final determination on votes cast.

 

B-305


Responsiveness

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on individual directors, committee members, or the entire board of directors as appropriate if:

 

  1.

The board failed to act on a shareholder proposal that received the support of a majority of the shares cast in the previous year or acted on a management proposal that was opposed by a majority of the shares cast in the previous year. Factors considered will be:

 

  a.

Disclosed outreach efforts by the board to shareholders in the wake of the vote;

 

  b.

Rationale provided in the proxy statement for the level of implementation;

 

  c.

The subject matter of the proposal;

 

  d.

The level of support for and opposition to the resolution in past meetings;

 

  e.

Actions taken by the board in response to the majority vote and its engagement with shareholders;

 

  f.

The continuation of the underlying issue as a voting item on the ballot (as either shareholder or management proposals); and

 

  g.

Other factors as appropriate.

 

  2.

The board failed to act on takeover offers where the majority of shares are tendered;

 

  3.

At the previous board election, any director received more than 50 percent AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes of the shares cast and the company has failed to address the issue(s) that caused the high AGAINST or WITHHOLD vote.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on Compensation Committee members (or, in exceptional cases, the full board) and the Say on Pay proposal if:

 

  1.

The company failed to respond to majority-supported shareholder proposals on executive pay topics.

 

  2.

The company failed to adequately respond to the company’s previous say-on-pay proposal that received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast, taking into account:

 

  a.

The company’s response, including:

 

  i.

Disclosure of engagement efforts with major institutional investors, including the frequency and timing of engagements and the company participants (including whether independent directors participated);

 

  ii.

Disclosure of the specific concerns voiced by dissenting shareholders that led to the say-on-pay opposition;

 

  iii.

Disclosure of specific and meaningful actions taken to address shareholders’ concerns;

 

  b.

Other recent compensation actions taken by the company;

 

  c.

Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated;

 

  d.

The company’s ownership structure; and

 

  e.

Whether the support level was less than 50 percent, which would warrant the highest degree of responsiveness.

 

  3.

The board implements an advisory vote on executive compensation on a less frequent basis than the frequency that received the plurality of votes cast.

Accountability

Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from the entire board of directors (except nominees being presented on a ballot for the first time or having served on a board less than a year, who should be considered CASE- BY-CASE depending on the timing of their appointment and the problematic governance issue in question) for the following:

 

B-306


Problematic Takeover Defenses/Governance Structure

Mandatory Takeover Bid Waivers

Vote proposals to waive mandatory takeover bid requirements on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Poison Pills

Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from all nominees (except new nominees, who should be considered CASE-BY-CASE) if:

 

  1.

The company has a poison pill that was not approved by shareholders. However, vote CASE-BY- CASE on nominees if the board adopts an initial pill with a term of one year or less, depending on the disclosed rationale for the adoption, and other factors as relevant (such as a commitment to put any renewal to a shareholder vote).

 

  2.

The board makes a material adverse modification to an existing pill, including, but not limited to, extension, renewal, or lowering the trigger, without shareholder approval; or

 

  3.

The pill, whether short-term2 or long-term, has a dead-hand or slow-hand feature.

Classified Board Structure

The board is classified, and a continuing director responsible for a problematic governance issue at the board/committee level that would warrant a WITHHOLD or AGAINST vote is not up for election. All appropriate nominees (except new) may be held accountable.

Removal of Shareholder Discretion on Classified Boards

The company has opted into, or failed to opt out of, state laws requiring a classified board structure.

Director Performance Evaluation

The board lacks mechanisms to promote accountability and oversight, coupled with sustained poor performance relative to peers. Sustained poor performance is measured by one-, three-, and five-year total shareholder returns in the bottom half of a company’s four-digit GICS industry group (Russell 3000 companies only). Take into consideration the company’s operational metrics and other factors as warranted. Problematic provisions include but are not limited to:

 

  1.

A classified board structure;

 

  2.

A supermajority vote requirement;

 

  3.

Either a plurality vote standard in uncontested director elections, or a majority vote standard in contested elections;

 

  4.

The inability of shareholders to call special meetings;

 

  5.

The inability of shareholders to act by written consent;

 

  6.

A multi-class capital structure; and/or

 

  7.

A non-shareholder-approved poison pill.

2 

If the short-term pill with a dead-hand or slow-hand feature is enacted but expires before the next shareholder vote, Boston Partners will generally still vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from nominees at the next shareholder meeting following its adoption.

 

B-307


Unilateral By-law/Charter Amendments and Problematic Capital Structures

Generally, vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from directors individually, committee members, or the entire board (except new nominees, who should be considered CASE-BY-CASE) if the board amends the company’s by-laws or charter without shareholder approval in a manner that materially diminishes shareholders’ rights or that could adversely impact shareholders, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

The board’s rationale for adopting the by-law/charter amendment without shareholder ratification;

 

  2.

Disclosure by the company of any significant engagement with shareholders regarding the amendment;

 

  3.

The level of impairment of shareholders’ rights caused by the board’s unilateral amendment to the by-laws/charter;

 

  4.

The board’s track record with regard to unilateral board action on by-law/charter amendments or other entrenchment provisions;

 

  5.

Whether the amendment was made prior to or in connection with the company’s initial public offering;

 

  6.

The company’s ownership structure;

 

  7.

The company’s existing governance provisions;

 

  8.

The timing of the board’s amendment to the by-laws/charter in connection with a significant business development; and

 

  9.

Other factors, as deemed appropriate, that may be relevant to determine the impact of the amendment on shareholders.

Unless the adverse amendment is reversed or submitted to a binding shareholder vote, in subsequent years vote CASE-BY-CASE on director nominees. Generally, vote AGAINST (except new nominees, who should be considered CASE-BY-CASE) if the directors:

 

  1.

Classified the board;

 

  2.

Adopted supermajority vote requirements to amend the by-laws or charter; or

 

  3.

Eliminated shareholders’ ability to amend by-laws.

Problematic Capital Structure—Newly Public Companies

For newly public companies, generally vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from the entire board (except new nominees, who should be considered CASE-BY-CASE) if, prior to or in connection with the company’s public offering, the company or its board implemented a multi-class capital structure in which the classes have unequal voting rights without subjecting the multi-class capital structure to a reasonable time-based sunset. In assessing the reasonableness of a time-based sunset provision, consideration will be given to the company’s lifespan, its post-IPO ownership structure and the board’s disclosed rationale for the sunset period selected. No sunset period of more than seven years from the date of the IPO will be considered reasonable.

Continue to vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from incumbent directors in subsequent years, unless the problematic capital structure is reversed, removed, or subject to a newly added reasonable sunset.

Common Stock Capital Structure with Unequal Voting Rights

Generally, vote WITHHOLD or AGAINST directors individually, committee members, or the entire board (except new nominees), who should be considered CASE-BY-CASE), if the company employs a common stock structure with unequal voting rights.

 

B-308


Exceptions to this policy will generally be limited to:

 

  1.

Newly-public companies with a sunset provision of no more than seven years from the date of going public;

 

  2.

Limited Partnerships and the Operating Partnership (OP) unit structure of REITs;

 

  3.

Situations where the unequal voting rights are considered de minimis; or

 

  4.

The company provides sufficient protections for minority shareholders, such as allowing minority shareholders a regular binding vote on whether the capital structure should be maintained.

Problematic Governance Structure—Newly Public Companies

For newly public companies (generally defined as companies that emerge from bankruptcy, spin-offs, direct listings, and those who complete a traditional initial public offering), generally vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from directors individually, committee members, or the entire board (except new nominees, who should be considered CASE-BY-CASE) if, prior to or in connection with the company’s public offering, the company or its board adopted the following by-law or charter provisions that are considered materially adverse to shareholder rights:

 

  1.

Supermajority vote requirements to amend the by-laws or charter;

 

  2.

A classified board structure; or

 

  3.

Other egregious provisions.

A reasonable sunset provision will be considered a mitigating factor.

Unless the adverse provision is reversed or removed, vote CASE-BY-CASE on director nominees in subsequent years.

Restrictions on Shareholders’ Rights

Restricting Binding Shareholder Proposals

Generally, vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from the members of the governance committee if the company’s governing documents impose undue restrictions on shareholders’ ability to amend the by- laws. Such restrictions include but are not limited to outright prohibition on the submission of binding shareholder proposals or share ownership requirements, subject matter restrictions, or time holding requirements in excess of SEC Rule 14a-8. Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD on an ongoing basis.

Submission of management proposals to approve or ratify requirements in excess of SEC Rule 14a-8 for the submission of binding by-law amendments will generally be viewed as an insufficient restoration of shareholder’ rights. Generally, continue to vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD on an ongoing basis until shareholders are provided with an unfretted ability to amend the by-laws or a proposal providing for such unfretted right is submitted for shareholder approval.

Problematic Audit-Related Practices

Generally, vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from the members of the Audit Committee if:

 

  1.

The non-audit fees paid to the auditor are excessive (greater than 50 percent);

 

  2.

The company receives an adverse opinion on the company’s financial statements from its auditor;

 

  3.

There is persuasive evidence that the Audit Committee entered into an inappropriate indemnification agreement with its auditor that limits the ability of the company, or its shareholders, to pursue legitimate legal recourse against the audit firm;

 

B-309


  4.

The company did not disclose the audit fees and/or non-audit fees in the latest fiscal year; or

 

  5.

There are clear concerns over questionable finances or restatements.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on members of the Audit Committee and potentially the full board if poor accounting practices are identified that rise to a level of serious concern, such as: fraud; misapplication of GAAP or other acceptable accounting practices; and material weaknesses identified in Section 404 disclosures. Examine the severity, breadth, chronological sequence, and duration, as well as the company’s efforts at remediation or corrective actions, in determining whether AGAINST or WITHHOLD votes are warranted.

Problematic Compensation Practices

In the absence of an Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) ballot item or in egregious situations, vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from the members of the Compensation Committee and potentially the full board if:

 

  1.

There is an unmitigated misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (pay for performance);

 

  2.

The company maintains significant problematic pay practices; or

 

  3.

The board exhibits a significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders.

Generally, vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from the Compensation Committee chair, other committee members, or potentially the full board if:

 

  1.

The company fails to include a Say on Pay ballot item when required under SEC provisions, or under the company’s declared frequency of say on pay; or

 

  2.

The company fails to include a Frequency of Say on Pay ballot item when required under SEC provisions.

Generally, vote AGAINST members of the board committee responsible for approving/setting non- executive director compensation if there is a pattern (i.e. two or more years) of awarding excessive non- executive director compensation without disclosing a compelling rationale or other mitigating factors.

Problematic Pledging of Company Stock

Vote AGAINST the members of the committee that oversees risks related to pledging, or the full board, where a significant level of pledged company stock by executives or directors raises concerns. The following factors will be considered:

 

  1.

The presence of an anti-pledging policy, disclosed in the proxy statement, that prohibits future pledging activity;

 

  2.

The magnitude of aggregate pledged shares in terms of total common shares outstanding, market value, and trading volume;

 

  3.

Disclosure of progress or lack thereof in reducing the magnitude of aggregate pledged shares over time;

 

  4.

Disclosure in the proxy statement that shares subject to stock ownership and holding requirements do not include pledged company stock; and

 

  5.

Any other relevant factors.

Climate Accountability

For companies that are significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters (those on the current Climate Action 100+ Focus Group list), through their operations or value chain, generally, vote FOR the incumbent chair of the

 

B-310


responsible committee (or other directors) (or in the U.K. and Ireland, Russia, and Kazakhstan just the board chair) where Boston Partners determines that the company is taking the minimum steps needed to understand, assess, and mitigate risks related to climate change to the company and the larger economy.

Minimum steps to understand and mitigate those risks are considered to be the following. Both minimum criteria will be required to be in compliance:

 

  1.

Detailed disclosure of climate-related risks, such as according to the framework established by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), including:

 

  a.

Board governance measures;

 

  b.

Corporate strategy;

 

  c.

Risk management analyses; and

 

  d.

Metrics and targets.

 

  2.

Appropriate GHG emissions reduction targets.

“Appropriate GHG emissions reductions targets” will be any well-defined GHG reduction targets. Targets should cover at least a significant portion of the company’s direct emissions. Expectations about what constitutes “minimum steps to mitigate risks related to climate change” will increase over time.

Otherwise, vote CASE-BY-CASE.

Governance Failures

Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from directors individually, committee members, or the entire board at any company whose board the director serves, due to:

 

  1.

Criminal wrongdoing or material failures of governance, stewardship, risk oversight, or fiduciary responsibilities at any company including, but not limited to: bribery; large or serial fines or sanctions from regulatory bodies; demonstrably poor risk oversight of environmental and social issues, including climate change; significant adverse legal judgments or settlement; or hedging of company stock;

 

  2.

Failure to replace management or directors as appropriate; or

 

  3.

Egregious actions related to a director’s service on other boards that raise substantial doubt about his or her ability to effectively oversee management and serve the best interests of shareholders at any company.

Voting on Director Nominees in Contested Elections

For contested elections of directors, e.g. the election of shareholder nominees or the dismissal of incumbent directors, Boston Partners will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, determining which directors are best suited to add value for shareholders.

The analysis will generally be based on, but not limited to, the following major decision factors:

 

  1.

Company performance relative to its peers;

 

  2.

Strategy of the incumbents versus the dissidents;

 

  3.

Independence of directors/nominees;

 

  4.

Experience and skills of board candidates;

 

  5.

Governance profile of the company;

 

  6.

Evidence of management entrenchment;

 

B-311


  7.

Responsiveness to shareholders;

 

  8.

Whether a takeover offer has been rebuffed;

 

  9.

Whether minority or majority representation is being sought.

When analyzing a contested election of directors, Boston Partners will generally focus on two central questions: (1) Have the dissidents proved that board change is warranted? And (2) if so, are the dissident board nominees likely to affect positive change? (i.e., maximize long-term shareholder value).

Vote-No Campaigns

In cases where companies are targeted in connection with public “vote-no” campaigns, evaluate director nominees under the existing governance policies for voting on director nominees in uncontested elections. Take into consideration the arguments submitted by shareholders and other publicly available information.

Proxy Contests/Proxy Access — Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on the election of directors in contested elections, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry;

 

  2.

Management’s track record;

 

  3.

Background to the contested election;

 

  4.

Nominee qualifications (both slates) and any compensatory arrangements;

 

  5.

Strategic plan of dissident slate and quality of the critique against management;

 

  6.

Likelihood that the proposed goals and objectives can be achieved (both slates); and

 

  7.

Stock ownership positions.

In the case of candidates nominated pursuant to proxy access, vote CASE-BY-CASE considering any applicable factors listed above or additional factors which may be relevant, including those that are specific to the company, to the nominee(s) and/or to the nature of the election (such as whether there are more candidates than board seats).

Bundled and Unbundled Elections

Vote FOR the bundled election of nominees unless:

 

  1.

Adequate disclosure has not been provided in a timely manner, including nominee name(s);

 

  2.

There are clear concerns over questionable finances or restatements;

 

  3.

There have been questionable transactions with conflicts of interest (;

 

  4.

There are any records of abuses against minority shareholder interests;

 

  5.

The board fails to meet minimum corporate governance standards;

 

  6.

There are specific concerns about individual nominees, such as criminal wrongdoing or breach of fiduciary responsibilities;

 

  7.

The company does not comply with market legal requirements for minimum board independence or the board is not at least one-third independent, whichever is higher; or

 

  8.

Repeated absences at board and key committee meetings (less than 75 percent attendance) have not been explained (in countries where this information is disclosed).

 

B-312


In an unbundled election, generally vote FOR all director nominees, unless:

 

  1.

The company has not provided adequate disclosure of the proposed nominees;

 

  2.

There are concerns regarding the candidate(s) and/or the company; or

 

  3.

The board does not meet a one-third independence threshold, or the threshold required by local regulations. If the proposed board falls below one-third independence or market regulation requirements, vote FOR the independent nominees presented individually, and vote AGAINST the non-independent candidates.

Other Board-Related Proposals

Adopt Anti-Hedging/Pledging/Speculative Investments Policy

Generally, vote FOR proposals seeking a policy that prohibits named executive officers from engaging in derivative or speculative transactions involving company stock, including hedging, holding stock in a margin account, or pledging stock as collateral for a loan. However, the company’s existing policies regarding responsible use of company stock will be considered.

Age/Term Limits

Vote AGAINST management and shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of directors through mandatory retirement ages.

Vote AGAINST management proposals to limit the tenure of outside through term limits.

Boston Partners follows respective market thresholds for independence determinations.

Board Size

Vote FOR proposals seeking to fix the size of the board. Vote AGAINST if the proposal would result in the board size being fewer than five (5) or more than fifteen (15) seats.

Vote AGAINST proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board without shareholder approval.

Vote AGAINST proposals to alter board structure or size in the context of a fight for control of the company or the board.

Classification/Declassification of the Board

Vote AGAINST proposals to classify or stagger the board.

Vote FOR proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors annually.

CEO Succession Planning

Generally, vote FOR proposals seeking disclosure on a CEO succession planning policy, considering, at a minimum, the following factors:

 

  1.

The reasonableness/scope of the request; and

 

  2.

The company’s existing disclosure on its current CEO succession planning process.

 

B-313


Cumulative Voting

Generally, vote AGAINST management proposals to eliminate cumulative voting unless:

 

  1.

The company has proxy access, thereby allowing shareholders to nominate directors to the company’s ballot; and

 

  2.

The company has adopted a majority vote standard, with a carve-out for plurality voting in situations where there are more nominees than seats, and a director resignation policy to address failed elections.

Vote FOR proposals for cumulative voting at controlled companies (insider voting power > 50%). Vote FOR shareholder proposals that restore or introduce cumulative voting.

Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals concerning director and officer indemnification and liability protection taking into account the following:

 

  1.

Safeguards to prevent potential conflict of interests, including the independence of the decision- making process for approval of indemnification coverage;

 

  2.

The disclosure of a publicly available, board approved indemnification policy;

 

  3.

Clear description of acts and events that can and cannot be covered by the indemnity policy or contract;

 

  4.

Information regarding potential financial impact of the indemnity policy or contracts to the company;

 

  5.

Eligible beneficiaries of the policy, including the length of the post-employment period that will be covered by the policy or contract;

 

  6.

Treatment of indemnity payments already made in the event of a final irreversible court ruling has determined that associated actions were outside the scope of indemnification coverage.

Vote AGAINST proposals that would:

 

  1.

Limit or eliminate entirely directors’ and officers’ liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of care;

 

  2.

Expand coverage beyond just legal expenses to liability for acts that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligation than mere carelessness;

 

  3.

Expand the scope of indemnification to provide for mandatory indemnification of company officials in connection with acts that previously the company was permitted to provide indemnification for, at the discretion of the company’s board (i.e., “permissive indemnification”), but that previously the company was not required to indemnify;

 

  4.

Allow indemnity coverage for current and/or former director, officers, and/or fiscal council members who have entered into leniency agreements with the country’s authorities in the context of corruption investigations; and

 

  5.

Allow indemnity coverage of acts committed outside the normal exercise of duties of the administrator, acts performed in bad faith, malice, or fraud, or acts committed in detriment of the company’s best interest.

Vote FOR only those proposals providing such expanded coverage in cases when a director’s or officer’s legal defense was unsuccessful if both of the following apply:

 

  1.

If the director was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that s/he reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company; and

 

  2.

If only the director’s legal expenses would be covered.

 

B-314


Establish/Amend Nominee Qualifications

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals that establish or amend director qualifications. Votes should be based on the reasonableness of the criteria and the degree to which they may preclude dissident nominees from joining the board.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder resolutions seeking a director nominee who possesses a particular subject matter expertise, considering:

 

  1.

The company’s board committee structure, existing subject matter expertise, and board nomination provisions relative to that of its peers;

 

  2.

The company’s existing board and management oversight mechanisms regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought;

 

  3.

The company’s disclosure and performance relating to the issue for which board oversight is sought and any significant related controversies; and

 

  4.

The scope and structure of the proposal.

Establish Other Board Committee Proposals

Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals to establish a new board committee, as such proposals seek a specific oversight mechanism/structure that potentially limits a company’s flexibility to determine an appropriate oversight mechanism for itself. However, the following factors will be considered:

 

  1.

Existing oversight mechanisms (including current committee structure) regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought;

 

  2.

Level of disclosure regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought;

 

  3.

Company performance related to the issue for which board oversight is sought;

 

  4.

Board committee structure compared to that of other companies in its industry sector; and

 

  5.

The scope and structure of the proposal.

Filling Vacancies/Removal of Directors

Vote CASE-BY-CASE when a company proposes to dismiss directors, paying particular attention, but not limited, to:

 

  1.

Whether the company has presented a compelling rationale for the request, and

 

  2.

Whether the newly proposed board is one-third independent.

Generally, vote FOR the discharge of directors, including members of the management board and/or supervisory board, unless there is reliable information about significant and compelling controversies as to whether the board is fulfilling its fiduciary duties, as evidenced by:

 

  1.

A lack of oversight or actions by board members that invoke shareholder distrust related to malfeasance or poor supervision, such as operating in private or company interest rather than in shareholder interest; or

 

  2.

Any legal proceedings (either civil or criminal) aiming to hold the board responsible for breach of trust in the past or related to currently alleged actions yet to be confirmed (and not only the fiscal year in question), such as price fixing, insider trading, bribery, fraud, and other illegal actions; or

 

  3.

Other egregious governance issues where shareholders will bring legal action against the company or its directors.

 

B-315


For markets that do not routinely request discharge resolutions (e.g. common law countries or markets where discharge is not mandatory), analysts may voice concern in other appropriate agenda items, such as approval of the annual accounts or other relevant resolutions, to enable shareholders to express discontent with the board.

Vote AGAINST proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.

Vote FOR proposals to restore shareholders’ ability to remove directors with or without cause.

Vote AGAINST proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies.

Vote FOR proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.

Independent Chair (Separate Chair/CEO)

Vote FOR shareholder proposals requiring that the chairman’s position be filled by an independent director and FOR the separation of the offices of CEO and chair.

Majority of Independent Directors/Establishment of Independent Committees

Vote FOR shareholder proposals asking that a majority or more of directors be independent.

Vote FOR shareholder proposals asking that board audit, compensation, and/or nominating committees be composed exclusively of independent directors.

Majority Vote Standard for the Election of Directors

Vote for proposals requiring a majority vote standard.

Companies are strongly encouraged to also adopt a post-election policy (also known as a director resignation policy) that will provide guidelines so that the company will promptly address the situation of a holdover director.

Proxy Access

Generally, vote FOR management and shareholder proposals for proxy access with the following provisions:

 

  1.

Ownership threshold: maximum requirement not more than three percent (3%) of the voting power;

 

  2.

Ownership duration: maximum requirement not longer than three (3) years of continuous ownership for each member of the nominating group;

 

  3.

Aggregation: minimal or no limits on the number of shareholders permitted to form a nominating group;

 

  4.

Cap: cap on nominees of generally twenty-five percent (25%) of the board.

Review for reasonableness any other restrictions on the right of proxy access.

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals that are more restrictive than these guidelines.

Shareholder Engagement Policy (Shareholder Advisory Committee)

Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals requesting that the board establish an internal mechanism/process, which may include a committee, in order to improve communications between directors and shareholders, unless the company has the following features, as appropriate:

 

  1.

Established a communication structure that goes beyond the exchange requirements to facilitate the exchange of information between shareholders and members of the board;

 

B-316


  2.

Effectively disclosed information with respect to this structure to its shareholders;

 

  3.

Company has not ignored majority-supported shareholder proposals or a majority WITHHOLD vote on a director nominee; and

 

  4.

The company has an independent chairman or a lead director. This individual must be made available for periodic consultation and direct communication with major shareholders.

II. Audit-Related

Auditor Indemnification and Limitation of Liability

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on the issue of auditor indemnification and limitation of liability. Factors to be assessed include, but are not limited to:

 

  1.

The terms of the auditor agreement—the degree to which these agreements impact shareholders’ rights;

 

  2.

The motivation and rationale for establishing the agreements;

 

  3.

The quality of the company’s disclosure; and

 

  4.

The company’s historical practices in the audit area.

Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from members of an audit committee in situations where there is persuasive evidence that the audit committee entered into an inappropriate indemnification agreement with its auditor that limits the ability of the company, or its shareholders, to pursue legitimate legal recourse against the audit firm.

Vote AGAINST proposals that would indemnify external auditors.

Auditor Ratification/Reelection

Vote AGAINST incumbent audit committee members if the ratification of auditors is not up for shareholder vote. (U.S. only). This does not apply to mutual fund companies.

Vote FOR proposals to ratify/reelect auditors and/or proposals authorizing the board to fix auditor fees, unless:

 

  1.

The name(s) of the proposed auditors has not been published;

 

  2.

The auditors are being changed without explanation;

 

  3.

An auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, for example, external auditors have previously served the company in an executive capacity and is therefore not independent;

 

  4.

There is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion that is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position;

 

  5.

There are serious concerns about the accounts presented or the procedures used by the auditor or poor accounting practices are identified that rise to a serious level of concern, such as fraud or misapplication of GAAP or other acceptable accounting standards;

 

  6.

The profile of the new audit firm being appointed is not disclosed or not available in the public domain; or

 

  7.

Fees for non-audit services (“Other” fees) are excessive (greater than 50 percent).

Non-audit fees are excessive if Non-audit (“other”) fees > audit fees + audit-related fees + tax compliance/preparation fees

 

B-317


Tax compliance and preparation include the preparation of original and amended tax returns and refund claims, and tax payment planning. All other services in the tax category, such as tax advice, planning, or consulting, should be added to “Other” fees. If the breakout of tax fees cannot be determined, add all tax fees to “Other” fees.

In circumstances where “Other” fees include fees related to significant one-time capital structure events (such as initial public offerings, bankruptcy emergence, and spin-offs) and the company makes public disclosure of the amount and nature of those fees that are an exception to the standard “non-audit fee” category, then such fees may be excluded from the non-audit fees considered in determining the ratio of non-audit to audit/audit-related fees/tax compliance and preparation for purposes of determining whether non-audit fees are excessive.

For concerns related to the audit procedures, independence of auditors, and/or name of auditors, Boston Partners may vote AGAINST the auditor’s (re)election. For concerns related to fees paid to the auditors, Boston Partners may vote AGAINST remuneration of auditors if this is a separate voting item; otherwise Boston Partners may vote AGAINST the auditor election.

Appointment of Internal Statutory Auditors

Vote FOR the appointment or (re)election of statutory auditors, unless:

 

  1.

There are serious concerns about the statutory reports presented or the audit procedures used;

 

  2.

Questions exist concerning any of the statutory auditors being appointed; or

 

  3.

The auditors have previously served the company in an executive capacity or can otherwise be considered affiliated with the company.

Shareholder Proposals Limiting Non-Audit Services

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder proposals asking companies to prohibit or limit their auditors from engaging in non-audit services.

Shareholder Proposals on Audit Firm Rotation

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder proposals asking for audit firm rotation, taking into account:

 

  1.

The tenure of the audit firm;

 

  2.

The length of rotation specified in the proposal;

 

  3.

Any significant audit-related issues at the company;

 

  4.

The number of Audit Committee meetings held each year;

 

  5.

The number of financial experts serving on the committee; and

 

  6.

Whether the company has a periodic renewal process where the auditor is evaluated for both audit quality and competitive price.

III. Shareholder Rights and Defenses

Shareholder Proposals

Vote all shareholder proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote FOR proposals that would improve the company’s corporate governance or business profile at a reasonable cost.

 

B-318


Vote AGAINST proposals that limit the company’s business activities or capabilities or result in significant costs being incurred with little or no benefit.

Advance Notice Requirements for Shareholder Proposals/Nominations

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on advance notice proposals, giving support to those proposals which allow shareholders to submit proposals/nominations as close to the meeting date as reasonably possible and within the broadest window possible, recognizing the need to allow sufficient notice for company, regulatory, and shareholder review.

To be reasonable, the company’s deadline for shareholder notice of a proposal/nominations must not be more than 60 days prior to the meeting, with a submittal window of at least 30 days prior to the deadline. The submittal window is the period under which a shareholder must file his proposal/nominations prior to the deadline.

In general, support additional efforts by companies to ensure full disclosure in regard to a proponent’s economic and voting position in the company so long as the informational requirements are reasonable and aimed at providing shareholders with the necessary information to review such proposals.

Amend By-laws without Shareholder Consent

Vote AGAINST proposals giving the board exclusive authority to amend the by-laws.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals giving the board the ability to amend the by-laws in addition to shareholders, taking into account the following:

 

  1.

Any impediments to shareholders’ ability to amend the by-laws (i.e. supermajority voting requirements);

 

  2.

The company’s ownership structure and historical voting turnout;

 

  3.

Whether the board could amend by-laws adopted by shareholders; and

 

  4.

Whether shareholders would retain the ability to ratify any board-initiated amendments.

Control Share Acquisition Provisions

Control share acquisition statutes function by denying shares their voting rights when they contribute to ownership in excess of certain thresholds. Voting rights for those shares exceeding ownership limits may only be restored by approval of either a majority or supermajority of disinterested shares. Thus, control share acquisition statutes effectively require a hostile bidder to put its offer to a shareholder vote or risk voting disenfranchisement if the bidder continues buying up a large block of shares.

Vote FOR proposals to opt out of control share acquisition statutes unless doing so would enable the completion of a takeover that would be detrimental to shareholders.

Vote AGAINST proposals to amend the charter to include control share acquisition provisions.

Vote FOR proposals to restore voting rights to the control shares.

Control Share Cash-Out Provisions

Control share cash-out statutes give dissident shareholders the right to “cash-out” of their position in a company at the expense of the shareholder who has taken a control position. In other words, when an investor crosses a preset threshold level, remaining shareholders are given the right to sell their shares to the acquirer, who must buy them at the highest acquiring price.

Vote FOR proposals to opt out of control share cash-out statutes.

 

B-319


Disgorgement Provisions

Disgorgement provisions require an acquirer or potential acquirer of more than a certain percentage of a company’s stock to disgorge, or pay back, to the company any profits realized from the sale of that company’s stock purchased 24 months before achieving control status. All sales of company stock by the acquirer occurring within a certain period of time (between 18 months and 24 months) prior to the investor’s gaining control status are subject to these recapture-of-profits provisions.

Vote FOR proposals to opt out of state disgorgement provisions.

Fair Price Provisions

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to adopt fair price provisions (provisions that stipulate that an acquirer must pay the same price to acquire all shares as it paid to acquire the control shares), evaluating factors such as the vote required to approve the proposed acquisition, the vote required to repeal the fair price provision, and the mechanism for determining the fair price.

Generally, vote AGAINST fair price provisions with shareholder vote requirements greater than a majority of disinterested shares.

Freeze-Out Provisions

Vote FOR proposals to opt out of state freeze-out provisions. Freeze-out provisions force an investor who surpasses a certain ownership threshold in a company to wait a specified period of time before gaining control of the company.

Greenmail

Greenmail payments are targeted share repurchases by management of company stock from individuals or groups seeking control of the company. Since only the hostile party receives payment, usually at a substantial premium over the market value of its shares, the practice discriminates against all other shareholders.

Vote FOR proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or by-law amendments or otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on anti-greenmail proposals when they are bundled with other charter or by-law amendments.

Litigation Rights (including Exclusive Venue and Fee-Shifting By-law Provisions) (U.S. only)

Generally, vote FOR federal selection provisions in the charter or bylaws that specify “the district courts of the United States” as the exclusive forum for federal securities law matters, in the absence of serious concerns about corporate governance or board responsiveness to shareholders.

Vote AGAINST provisions that restrict the forum to a particular federal district court; unilateral adoption (without shareholder vote) of such a provision will generally be considered a one-time failure under our Unilateral By-law/Charter Amendments policy.

Generally, vote FOR charter or by-law provisions that specify courts located within the state of Delaware as the exclusive for corporate law matters for Delaware corporations, in the absence of serious concerns about corporate governance or board responsiveness to shareholders.

For states other than Delaware, vote CASE-BY-CASE on exclusive forum provisions, taking into consideration:

 

  1.

The company’s stated rationale for adopting such a provision;

 

B-320


  2.

Disclosure of past harm from duplicative shareholder lawsuits in more than one forum;

 

  3.

The breadth of application of the charter or by-law provision, including the types of lawsuits to which it would apply and the definition of key terms; and

 

  4.

Governance features such as shareholders’ ability to repeal the provision at a later date (including the vote standard applied when shareholders attempt to amend the charter or by-laws) and their ability to hold directors accountable through annual director elections and a majority vote standard in uncontested elections.

Generally, vote AGAINST provisions that specify a state other than the state of incorporation as the exclusive forum of corporate law matters, or that specify a particular local court within the state; unilateral adoption of such a provision will generally be considered a one-time failure under our Unilateral By-law/Charter Amendments policy.

Generally, vote AGAINST provisions that mandate fee-shifting whenever plaintiffs are not completely successful on the merits (i.e., including cases where the plaintiffs are partially successful).

Unilateral adoption of a fee-shifting provision will generally be considered an ongoing failure under our Unilateral By-law/Charter Amendments policy.

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)

Generally vote against or withhold from all nominees (except new nominees, who should be considered case-by-cast) if:

 

  1.

The company has a poison pill with a deadhand or slowhand feature;

 

  2.

The board makes a material adverse modification to an existing pill, including, but not limited to, extension, renewal, or lowering the trigger, without shareholder approval, or

 

  3.

The company has a long-term poison pill (with a term of over one year) that was not approved by the public shareholders.

Shareholder Proposals to Put Pill to a Vote and/or Adopt a Pill Policy

Vote FOR shareholder proposals requesting that the company submit its poison pill to a shareholder vote or redeem it unless the company has: (1) A shareholder approved poison pill in place; or (2) The company has adopted a policy concerning the adoption of a pill in the future specifying that the board will only adopt a shareholder rights plan if either:

 

  1.

Shareholders have approved the adoption of the plan; or

 

  2.

The board, in its exercise of its fiduciary responsibilities, determines that it is in the best interest of shareholders under the circumstances to adopt a pill without the delay in adoption that would result from seeking stockholder approval (i.e., the “fiduciary out” provision). A poison pill adopted under this fiduciary out will be put to a shareholder ratification vote within 12 months of adoption or expire. If the pill is not approved by a majority of the votes cast on this issue, the plan will immediately terminate.

If the shareholder proposal calls for a time period of less than 12 months for shareholder ratification after adoption, vote FOR the proposal, but add the caveat that a vote within 12 months would be considered sufficient implementation.

Management Proposals to Ratify a Poison Pill

Vote case-by-case on nominees if the board adopts an initial short-term pill (with a term of one year or less) without shareholder approval, taking into consideration:

 

  1.

The disclosed rationale for the adoption;

 

B-321


  2.

The trigger;

 

  3.

The company’s market capitalization (including absolute level and sudden changes);

 

  4.

A commitment to put any renewal to a shareholder vote; and other factors as relevant.

In addition, the rationale for adopting the pill should be thoroughly explained by the company. In examining the request for the pill, take into consideration the company’s existing governance structure, including: board independence, existing takeover defenses, and any problematic governance concerns.

Net Operating Losses (NOLs) Protective Amendments and Management Proposals to Ratify a Pill to Preserve NOLs

Vote AGAINST proposals to adopt a protective amendment or poison pill for the stated purpose of protecting a company’s net operating losses (NOL) if the term of the protective amendment or pill would exceed the shorter of three years and the exhaustion of the NOL.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on management proposals for protective amendments or poison pill ratification, considering the following factors, if the term of the pill would be the shorter of three years (or less) and the exhaustion of the NOL:

 

  1.

The ownership threshold to transfer (NOL protective amendments and pills generally prohibit stock ownership transfers that would result in a new 5-percent holder or increase the stock ownership percentage of an existing 5-percent holder);

 

  2.

The value of the NOLs;

 

  3.

Shareholder protection mechanisms (sunset provision or commitment to cause expiration of the pill upon exhaustion or expiration of NOLs);

 

  4.

The company’s existing governance structure including: board independence, existing takeover defenses, track record of responsiveness to shareholders, and any other problematic governance concerns; and

 

  5.

Any other factors that may be applicable.

Proxy Voting Disclosure, Confidentiality, and Tabulation

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals regarding proxy voting mechanics, taking into consideration whether implementation of the proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder rights. Specific issues covered under the policy include, but are not limited to, confidential voting of individual proxies and ballots, confidentiality of running vote tallies, and the treatment of abstentions and/or broker non-votes in the company’s vote-counting methodology.

While a variety of factors may be considered in each analysis, the guiding principles are: transparency, consistency, and fairness in the proxy voting process. The factors considered, as applicable to the proposal, may include:

 

  1.

The scope and structure of the proposal;

 

  2.

The company’s stated confidential voting policy (or other relevant policies) and whether it ensures a “level playing field” by providing shareholder proponents with equal access to vote information prior to the annual meeting;

 

  3.

The company’s vote standard for management and shareholder proposals and whether it ensures consistency and fairness in the proxy voting process and maintains the integrity of vote results;

 

B-322


  4.

Whether the company’s disclosure regarding its vote counting method and other relevant voting policies with respect to management and shareholder proposals are consistent and clear;

 

  5.

Any recent controversies or concerns related to the company’s proxy voting mechanics;

 

  6.

Any unintended consequences resulting from implementation of the proposal; and

 

  7.

Any other factors that may be relevant.

Ratification Proposals: Management Proposals to Ratify Existing Charter or By-law Provisions

Generally, vote AGAINST management proposals to ratify provisions of the company’s existing charter or by-laws, unless these governance provisions align with best practice.

In addition, voting AGAINST or WITHHOLD from individual directors, members of the governance committee, or the full board may be warranted, considering:

 

  1.

The presence of a shareholder proposal addressing the same issue on the same ballot;

 

  2.

The board’s rationale for seeking ratification;

 

  3.

Disclosure of actions to be taken by the board should the ratification proposal fail;

 

  4.

Disclosure of shareholder engagement regarding the board’s ratification request;

 

  5.

The level of impairment to shareholders’ rights caused by the existing provision;

 

  6.

The history of management and shareholder proposals on the provision at the company’s past meetings;

 

  7.

Whether the current provision was adopted in response to the shareholder proposal;

 

  8.

The company’s ownership structure; and

 

  9.

Previous use of ratification proposals to exclude shareholder proposals.

Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses.

When voting in conjunction with support of a dissident slate, vote FOR the reimbursement of all appropriate proxy solicitation expenses associated with the election.

Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals calling for the reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred in connection with nominating one or more candidates in a contested election where the following apply:

 

  1.

The election of fewer than 50 percent of the directors to be elected is contested in the election;

 

  2.

One or more of the dissident’s candidates is elected;

 

  3.

Shareholders are not permitted to cumulate their votes for directors; and

 

  4.

The election occurred, and the expenses were incurred, after the adoption of this by-law.

Reincorporation Proposals

Management or shareholder proposals to change a company’s state of incorporation should be evaluated CASE-BY-CASE, giving consideration to both financial and corporate governance concerns including the following:

 

  1.

Reasons for reincorporation;

 

B-323


  2.

Comparison of company’s governance practices and provisions prior to and following the reincorporation; and

 

  3.

Comparison of corporation laws of original state and destination state.

 

  4.

Vote FOR reincorporation when the economic factors outweigh any neutral or negative governance changes.

Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

Vote AGAINST management and shareholder proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholders’ ability to act by written consent.

Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings

Vote AGAINST management or shareholder proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholders’ ability to call special meetings.

Vote FOR management or shareholder proposals that provide shareholders with the ability to call special meetings as long as the proposed minimum threshold is 10 percent or higher, with 10 percent being the preferred percentage.

Stakeholder Provisions

Vote AGAINST proposals that ask the board to consider non-shareholder constituencies or other non- financial effects when evaluating a merger or business combination.

State Antitakeover Statutes

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, and anti-greenmail provisions).

Supermajority Vote Requirements

Vote AGAINST proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote.

Vote FOR management or shareholder proposals to reduce supermajority vote requirements.

IV. Capital/ Restructuring

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock

In the U.S. and Korea, vote FOR proposals to reduce/adjust the par value of common stock unless the action is being taken to facilitate an anti-takeover device or some other negative corporate governance action.

Vote FOR management proposals to eliminate par value.

For countries and regions outside the U.S., vote FOR requests to capitalize reserves for bonus issues of shares or to increase par value.

Shelf Registration Program

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis on all requests, with or without preemptive rights.

 

B-324


Approval of a multi-year authority for the issuance of securities under Shelf Registration Programs will be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, taking into consideration, but not limited to, the following:

 

  1.

Whether the company has provided adequate and timely disclosure including detailed information regarding the rationale for the proposed program;

 

  2.

Whether the proposed amount to be approved under such authority, the use of the resources, the length of the authorization, the nature of the securities to be issued under such authority, including any potential risk of dilution to shareholders is disclosed; and

 

  3.

Whether there are concerns regarding questionable finances, the use of the proceeds, or other governance concerns

Common Stock Authorization/ Share Issuance Requests

General Authorization Requests

Vote FOR proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of common stock that are to be used for general corporate purposes:

 

  1.

With preemptive rights to a maximum of 50 percent over currently issued capital;

 

  2.

Without preemptive rights to a maximum of 10 percent of currently issued capital;

 

  3.

In Malaysia, for real estate investment trusts (REITs), issuance requests without preemptive rights to a maximum of 20 percent of currently issued capital;

 

  4.

In the U.S., in the case of a stock split, the allowable increase is calculated (per above) based on the post-split adjusted authorization.

In the U.S., generally vote AGAINST proposed increases, even if within the above ratios, if the proposal or the company’s prior or ongoing use of authorized shares is problematic, including, but not limited to:

 

  1.

The proposal seeks to increase the number of authorized shares of the class of common stock that has superior voting rights to other share classes;

 

  2.

On the same ballot is a proposal for a reverse split for which support is warranted despite the fact that it would result in an excessive increase in the share authorization;

 

  3.

The company has a non-shareholder approved poison pill (including an NOL pill); or

 

  4.

The company has previous sizeable placements (within the past 3 years) of stock with insiders at prices substantially below market value, or with problematic voting rights, without shareholder approval.

However, generally vote FOR proposed increases beyond the above ratios or problematic situations when there is disclosure of specific and severe risks to shareholders of not approving the request, such as:

 

  1.

In, or subsequent to, the company’s most recent 10-K filing, the company discloses that there is substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern;

 

  2.

The company states that there is a risk of imminent bankruptcy or imminent liquidation if shareholders do not approve the increase in authorized capital; or

 

  3.

A government body has in the past year required the company to increase its capital ratios.

For companies incorporated in states that allow increases in authorized capital without shareholder approval, generally vote WITHHOLD or AGAINST all nominees if a unilateral capital authorization increase does not conform to the above policies.

 

B-325


Specific Authorization Requests

In the U.S., generally, vote FOR proposals to increase the number of authorized common shares where the primary purpose of the increase is to issue shares in connection with transaction(s) (such as acquisitions, SPAC transactions, private placements, or similar transactions) on the same ballot, or disclosed in the proxy statement, that warrant support.

For such transactions, the allowable increase will be the greater of:

 

  1.

twice the amount needed to support the transactions on the ballot, and

 

  2.

the allowable increase as calculated for general issuances above.

Elsewhere, vote FOR specific proposals to increase authorized capital to any amount, unless:

 

  1.

The specific purpose of the increase (such as a share-based acquisition or merger) does not meet guidelines for the purpose being proposed; or

 

  2.

The increase would leave the company with less than 30 percent of its new authorization outstanding after adjusting for all proposed issuances.

Vote AGAINST proposals to adopt unlimited capital authorizations.

Reduction of Capital

Vote FOR proposals to reduce capital for routine accounting purposes unless the terms are unfavorable to shareholders.

Vote proposals to reduce capital in connection with corporate restructuring on a CASE-BY-CASE basis

Dual Class Structure

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to create or maintain a new class of common stock unless:

 

  1.

The company discloses a compelling rationale for the dual-class capital structure, such as:

 

  a.

The company’s auditor has concluded that there is substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern; or

 

  b.

The new class of shares will be transitory;

 

  2.

The new class is intended for financing purposes with minimal or no dilution to current shareholders in both the short term and long term; and

 

  3.

The new class is not designed to preserve or increase the voting power of an insider or significant shareholder.

Issue Stock for Use with Rights Plan

Vote AGAINST proposals that increase authorized common stock for the explicit purpose of implementing a non-shareholder-approved shareholder rights plan (poison pill).

Preemptive Rights

We vote FOR proposals to create preemptive rights and AGAINST proposals to eliminate preemptive rights.

 

B-326


Preferred Stock Authorization

General Authorization Requests

Vote FOR the creation of a new class of preferred stock or for issuances of preferred stock up to 50 percent of issued capital unless the terms of the preferred stock would adversely affect the rights of existing shareholders.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of preferred stock that are to be used for general corporate purposes:

 

  1.

If share usage (outstanding plus reserved) is less than 50% of the current authorized shares, vote for an increase of up to 50% of current authorized shares.

 

  2.

If share usage is 50% to 100% of the current authorized, vote for an increase of up to 100% of current authorized shares.

 

  3.

If share usage is greater than current authorized shares, vote for an increase of up to the current share usage.

 

  4.

In the case of a stock split, the allowable increase is calculated (per above) based on the post-split adjusted authorization.

 

  5.

If no preferred shares are currently issued and outstanding, vote against the request, unless the company discloses a specific use for the shares.

Generally, vote AGAINST proposed increases, even if within the above ratios, if the proposal or the company’s prior or ongoing use of authorized shares is problematic, including, but not limited to:

 

  1.

If the shares requested are blank check preferred shares that can be used for antitakeover purposes;

 

  2.

The company seeks to increase a class of non-convertible preferred shares entitled to more than one vote per share on matters that do not solely affect the rights of preferred stockholders “supervoting shares”);

 

  3.

The company seeks to increase a class of convertible preferred shares entitled to a number of votes greater than the number of common shares into which they’re convertible (“supervoting shares”) on matters that do not solely affect the rights of preferred stockholders;

 

  4.

The stated intent of the increase in the general authorization is to allow the company to increase an existing designated class of supervoting preferred shares;

 

  5.

On the same ballot is a proposal for a reverse split for which support is warranted despite the fact that it would result in an excessive increase in the share authorization;

 

  6.

The company has a non-shareholder approved poison pill (including an NOL pill); or

 

  7.

The company has previous sizeable placements (within the past 3 years) of stock with insiders at prices substantially below market value, or with problematic voting rights, without shareholder approval.

However, generally vote FOR proposed increases beyond the above ratios or problematic situations when there is disclosure of specific and severe risks to shareholders of not approving the request, such as:

 

  1.

In, or subsequent to, the company’s most recent 10-K filing, the company discloses that there is substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern;

 

  2.

The company states that there is a risk of imminent bankruptcy or imminent liquidation if shareholders do not approve the increase in authorized capital; or

 

  3.

A government body has in the past year required the company to increase its capital ratios.

 

B-327


For companies incorporated in states that allow increases in authorized capital without shareholder approval, generally vote WITHHOLD or AGAINST all nominees if a unilateral capital authorization increase does not conform to the above policies.

Specific Authorization Requests

Generally vote FOR proposals to increase the number of authorized preferred shares where the primary purpose of the increase is to issue shares in connection with transaction(s) (such as acquisitions, SPAC transactions, private placements, or similar transactions) on the same ballot, or disclosed in the proxy statement, that warrant support. For such transactions, the allowable increase will be the greater of:

 

  1.

twice the amount needed to support the transactions on the ballot, and

 

  2.

the allowable increase as calculated for general issuances above.

Vote FOR the creation/issuance of convertible preferred stock as long as the maximum number of common shares that could be issued upon conversion meets guidelines on equity issue requests.

Recapitalization Plans

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on recapitalizations (reclassifications of securities), taking into account the following:

 

  1.

More simplified capital structure;

 

  2.

Enhanced liquidity;

 

  3.

Fairness of conversion terms;

 

  4.

Impact on voting power and dividends;

 

  5.

Reasons for the reclassification;

 

  6.

Conflicts of interest; and

 

  7.

Other alternatives considered.

Reverse Stock Splits

Vote FOR management proposals to implement a reverse stock split if:

 

  1.

The number of authorized shares will be proportionately reduced; or

 

  2.

The effective increase in authorized shares is equal to or less than the allowable increase.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals that do not meet either of the above conditions, taking into consideration the following factors:

 

  1.

Stock exchange notification to the company of a potential delisting;

 

  2.

Disclosure of substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern without additional financing;

 

  3.

The company’s rationale; or

 

  4.

Other factors as applicable.

Share Repurchase Programs

For U.S.-incorporated companies, and foreign-incorporated U.S. Domestic Issuers that are traded solely on U.S. exchanges, vote FOR management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all

 

B-328


shareholders may participate on equal terms, or to grant the board authority to conduct open- market repurchases, in the absence of company-specific concerns regarding:

 

  1.

Greenmail,

 

  2.

The use of buybacks to inappropriately manipulate incentive compensation metrics,

 

  3.

Threats to the company’s long-term viability, or

 

  4.

Other company-specific factors as warranted.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to repurchase shares directly from specified shareholders, balancing the stated rationale against the possibility for the repurchase authority to be misused, such as to repurchase shares from insiders at a premium to market price.

Generally, vote FOR market repurchase authorities (share repurchase programs) if the terms comply with the following criteria:

 

  1.

A repurchase limit of up to 10 percent of issued share capital;

 

  2.

A holding limit of up to 10 percent of a company’s issued share capital in treasury (“on the shelf”); and

 

  3.

A duration that does not exceed market practice. In Asian markets, a duration of no more than five years, or such lower threshold as may be set by applicable law, regulation or code of governance best practice.

Authorities to repurchase shares in excess of the 10 percent repurchase limit will be assessed on a CASE- BY-CASE basis. Boston Partners may support such share repurchase authorities under special circumstances, which are required to be publicly disclosed by the company, provided that, on balance, the proposal is in shareholders’ interests. In such cases, the authority must comply with the following criteria:

 

  1.

A holding limit of up to 10 percent of a company’s issued share capital in treasury (“on the shelf”); and

 

  2.

A duration of no more than 18 months.

In markets where it is normal practice not to provide a repurchase limit, Boston Partners will evaluate the proposal based on the company’s historical practice. However, Boston Partners expects companies to disclose such limits and, in the future, may vote AGAINST companies that fail to do so. In such cases, the authority must comply with the following criteria:

 

  1.

A holding limit of up to 10 percent of a company’s issued share capital in treasury (“on the shelf”); and

 

  2.

A duration of no more than 18 months.

In addition, Boston Partners will vote AGAINST any proposal where:

 

  1.

The repurchase can be used for takeover defenses;

 

  2.

There is clear evidence of abuse;

 

  3.

There is no safeguard against selective buybacks; and/or

 

  4.

Pricing provisions and safeguards are deemed to be unreasonable in light of market practice.

Reissuance of Repurchased Shares

Vote FOR requests to reissue any repurchased shares unless there is clear evidence of abuse of this authority in the past.

 

B-329


Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends

Generally, vote FOR management proposals to increase the common share authorization for stock split or stock dividend, provided that the effective increase in authorized shares is equal to or is less than the allowable increase(s).

Tracking Stock

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on the creation of tracking stock, weighing the strategic value of the transaction against such factors as:

 

  1.

Adverse governance changes;

 

  2.

Excessive increases in authorized capital stock;

 

  3.

Unfair method of distribution;

 

  4.

Diminution of voting rights;

 

  5.

Adverse conversion features;

 

  6.

Negative impact on stock option plans; and

 

  7.

Alternatives such as spin-off.

Appraisal Rights

Vote FOR proposals to restore or provide shareholders with rights of appraisal.

Asset Purchases

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on asset purchase proposals, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Purchase price;

 

  2.

Fairness opinion;

 

  3.

Financial and strategic benefits;

 

  4.

How the deal was negotiated;

 

  5.

Conflicts of interest;

 

  6.

Other alternatives for the business;

 

  7.

Non-completion risk.

Asset Sales

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on asset sales, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Impact on the balance sheet/working capital;

 

  2.

Potential elimination of diseconomies;

 

  3.

Anticipated financial and operating benefits;

 

  4.

Anticipated use of funds;

 

  5.

Value received for the asset;

 

  6.

Fairness opinion;

 

B-330


  7.

How the deal was negotiated;

 

  8.

Conflicts of interest.

Pledging of Assets for Debt

Vote proposals to approve the pledging of assets for debt on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Increase in Borrowing Powers

Vote proposals to approve increases in a company’s borrowing powers on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Bundled Proposals

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on bundled or “conditional” proxy proposals. In the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, examine the benefits and costs of the packaged items. In instances when the joint effect of the conditioned items is not in shareholders’ best interests, vote AGAINST the proposals. If the combined effect is positive, support such proposals.

Conversion of Securities

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals regarding conversion of securities. When evaluating these proposals, the investor should review the dilution to existing shareholders, the conversion price relative to market value, financial issues, control issues, termination penalties, and conflicts of interest.

Vote FOR the conversion if it is expected that the company will be subject to onerous penalties or will be forced to file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

Vote FOR the creation/issuance of convertible debt instruments as long as the maximum number of common shares that could be issued upon conversion meets guidelines on equity issuance requests.

Corporate Reorganization/Debt Restructuring/Prepackaged Bankruptcy Plans/Reverse Leveraged Buyouts/Wrap Plans

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares, with or without preemptive rights, and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan, after evaluating:

 

  1.

Dilution to existing shareholders’ positions;

 

  2.

Terms of the offer—discount/premium in purchase price to investor, including any fairness opinion; termination penalties; exit strategy;

 

  3.

Financial issues—company’s financial situation; degree of need for capital; use of proceeds; effect of the financing on the company’s cost of capital;

 

  4.

Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives;

 

  5.

Control issues—change in management; change in control, guaranteed board and committee seats; standstill provisions; voting agreements; veto power over certain corporate actions; and

 

  6.

Conflict of interest—arm’s length transaction, managerial incentives.

Vote FOR the debt restructuring if it is expected that the company will file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

 

B-331


Formation of Holding Company

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals regarding the formation of a holding company, taking into consideration the following:

 

  1.

The reasons for the change;

 

  2.

Any financial or tax benefits;

 

  3.

Regulatory benefits;

 

  4.

Increases in capital structure; and

 

  5.

Changes to the articles of incorporation or by-laws of the company.

Absent compelling financial reasons for the transaction, vote AGAINST the formation of a holding company if the transaction would include either of the following:

 

  1.

Increases in common or preferred stock in excess of the allowable maximum (see discussion under “Capital”); or

 

  2.

Adverse changes in shareholder rights.

Going Private and Going Dark Transactions (LBOs and Minority Squeeze-outs)

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on going private transactions, taking into account the following:

 

  1.

Offer price/premium;

 

  2.

Fairness opinion;

 

  3.

How the deal was negotiated;

 

  4.

Conflicts of interest;

 

  5.

Other alternatives/offers considered; and

 

  6.

Non-completion risk.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on going dark transactions, determining whether the transaction enhances shareholder value by taking into consideration:

 

  1.

Whether the company has attained benefits from being publicly traded (examination of trading volume, liquidity, and market research of the stock);

 

  2.

Balanced interests of continuing vs. cashed-out shareholders, taking into account the following:

 

  a.

Are all shareholders able to participate in the transaction?

 

  b.

Will there be a liquid market for remaining shareholders following the transaction?

 

  c.

Does the company have strong corporate governance?

 

  d.

Will insiders reap the gains of control following the proposed transaction?

 

  e.

Does the state of incorporation have laws requiring continued reporting that may benefit shareholders?

Joint Ventures

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to form joint ventures, taking into account the following:

 

  1.

Percentage of assets/business contributed;

 

B-332


  2.

Percentage ownership;

 

  3.

Financial and strategic benefits;

 

  4.

Governance structure;

 

  5.

Conflicts of interest;

 

  6.

Other alternatives; and

 

  7.

Non-completion risk.

Liquidations

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on liquidations, taking into account the following:

 

  1.

Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives;

 

  2.

Appraisal value of assets; and

 

  3.

The compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation.

Vote FOR the liquidation if the company will file for bankruptcy if the proposal is not approved.

Mergers and Acquisitions

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on mergers and acquisitions. Review and evaluate the merits and drawbacks of the proposed transaction, balancing various and sometimes countervailing factors including:

 

  1.

Valuation—Is the value to be received by the target shareholders (or paid by the acquirer) reasonable? While the fairness opinion may provide an initial starting point for assessing valuation reasonableness, emphasis is placed on the offer premium, market reaction, and strategic rationale.

 

  2.

Market reaction—How has the market responded to the proposed deal? A negative market reaction should cause closer scrutiny of a deal.

 

  3.

Strategic rationale—Does the deal make sense strategically? From where is the value derived? Cost and revenue synergies should not be overly aggressive or optimistic, but reasonably achievable. Management should also have a favorable track record of successful integration of historical acquisitions.

 

  4.

Negotiations and process—Were the terms of the transaction negotiated at arm’s-length? Was the process fair and equitable? A fair process helps to ensure the best price for shareholders. Significant negotiation “wins” can also signify the deal makers’ competency. The comprehensiveness of the sales process (e.g., full auction, partial auction, no auction) can also affect shareholder value.

 

  5.

Conflicts of interest—Are insiders benefiting from the transaction disproportionately and inappropriately as compared to non-insider shareholders? As the result of potential conflicts, the directors and officers of the company may be more likely to vote to approve a merger than if they did not hold these interests. Consider whether these interests may have influenced these directors and officers to support or recommend the merger.

 

  6.

Governance—Will the combined company have a better or worse governance profile than the current governance profiles of the respective parties to the transaction? If the governance profile is to change for the worse, the burden is on the company to prove that other issues (such as valuation) outweigh any deterioration in governance.

Vote AGAINST if the companies do not provide sufficient information upon request to make an informed voting decision.

 

B-333


Private Placements/Warrants/Convertible Debentures

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals regarding private placements, warrants, and convertible debentures taking into consideration:

 

  1.

Dilution to existing shareholders’ position: The amount and timing of shareholder ownership dilution should be weighed against the needs and proposed shareholder benefits of the capital infusion. Although newly issued common stock, absent preemptive rights, is typically dilutive to existing shareholders, share price appreciation is often the necessary event to trigger the exercise of “out of the money” warrants and convertible debt. In these instances, from a value standpoint, the negative impact of dilution is mitigated by the increase in the company’s stock price that must occur to trigger the dilutive event.

 

  2.

Terms of the offer (discount/premium in purchase price to investor, including any fairness opinion, conversion features, termination penalties, exit strategy):

 

  a.

The terms of the offer should be weighed against the alternatives of the company and in light of company’s financial condition. Ideally, the conversion price for convertible debt and the exercise price for warrants should be at a premium to the then prevailing stock price at the time of private placement.

 

  b.

When evaluating the magnitude of a private placement discount or premium, consider factors that influence the discount or premium, such as, liquidity, due diligence costs, control and monitoring costs, capital scarcity, information asymmetry, and anticipation of future performance.

 

  3.

Financial issues:

 

  a.

The company’s financial condition;

 

  b.

Degree of need for capital;

 

  c.

Use of proceeds;

 

  d.

Effect of the financing on the company’s cost of capital;

 

  e.

Current and proposed cash burn rate;

 

  f.

Going concern viability and the state of the capital and credit markets.

 

  4.

Management’s efforts to pursue alternatives and whether the company engaged in a process to evaluate alternatives: A fair, unconstrained process helps to ensure the best price for shareholders. Financing alternatives can include joint ventures, partnership, merger, or sale of part or all of the company.

 

  5.

Control issues:

 

  a.

Change in management;

 

  b.

Change in control;

 

  c.

Guaranteed board and committee seats;

 

  d.

Standstill provisions;

 

  e.

Voting agreements;

 

  f.

Veto power over certain corporate actions; and

 

  g.

Minority versus majority ownership and corresponding minority discount or majority control premium.

 

  6.

Conflicts of interest:

 

  a.

Conflicts of interest should be viewed from the perspective of the company and the investor.

 

B-334


  b.

Were the terms of the transaction negotiated at arm’s length? Are managerial incentives aligned with shareholder interests?

 

  7.

Market reaction: The market’s response to the proposed deal. A negative market reaction is a cause for concern. Market reaction may be addressed by analyzing the one day impact on the unaffected stock price.

Vote FOR the private placement, or for the issuance of warrants and/or convertible debentures in a private placement, if it is expected that the company will file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

Reorganization/Restructuring Plan (Bankruptcy)

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to common shareholders on bankruptcy plans of reorganization, considering the following factors including, but not limited to:

 

  1.

Estimated value and financial prospects of the reorganized company;

 

  2.

Percentage ownership of current shareholders in the reorganized company;

 

  3.

Whether shareholders are adequately represented in the reorganization process (particularly through the existence of an Official Equity Committee);

 

  4.

The cause(s) of the bankruptcy filing, and the extent to which the plan of reorganization addresses the cause(s);

 

  5.

Existence of a superior alternative to the plan of reorganization; and

 

  6.

Governance of the reorganized company.

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs)

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on SPAC mergers and acquisitions taking into account the following:

 

  1.

Valuation

 

  2.

Market reaction

 

  3.

Deal timing

 

  4.

Negotiations and process.

 

  5.

Conflicts of interest

 

  6.

Voting agreements

 

  7.

Governance

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs)—Proposals for Extensions

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on SPAC extension proposals taking into account the length of the requested extension, the status of any pending transaction(s) or progression of the acquisition process, any added incentive for non-redeeming shareholders, and any prior extension requests.

Spin-offs

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on spin-offs, considering:

 

  1.

Tax and regulatory advantages;

 

  2.

Planned use of the sale proceeds;

 

B-335


  3.

Valuation of spinoff;

 

  4.

Fairness opinion;

 

  5.

Benefits to the parent company;

 

  6.

Conflicts of interest;

 

  7.

Managerial incentives;

 

  8.

Corporate governance changes;

 

  9.

Changes in the capital structure.

Value Maximization Shareholder Proposals

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder proposals seeking to maximize shareholder value by:

 

  1.

Hiring a financial advisor to explore strategic alternatives;

 

  2.

Selling the company; or

 

  3.

Liquidating the company and distributing the proceeds to shareholders.

These proposals should be evaluated based on the following factors:

 

  1.

Prolonged poor performance with no turnaround in sight;

 

  2.

Signs of entrenched board and management (such as the adoption of takeover defenses);

 

  3.

Strategic plan in place for improving value;

 

  4.

Likelihood of receiving reasonable value in a sale or dissolution; and

 

  5.

The company actively exploring its strategic options, including retaining a financial advisor.

V. Compensation

Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation—Management Proposals (Management Say-on-Pay)

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on ballot items related to executive pay and practices, as well as certain aspects of outside director compensation.

Vote AGAINST Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay or “SOP”) if:

 

  1.

There is an unmitigated misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (pay for performance);

 

  2.

The company maintains significant problematic pay practices;

 

  3.

The board exhibits a significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders.

Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from the members of the Compensation Committee and potentially the full board if:

 

  1.

There is no SOP on the ballot, and an AGAINST vote on SOP would otherwise be warranted due to pay-for-performance misalignment, problematic pay practices, or the lack of adequate responsiveness on compensation issues raised previously, or a combination thereof;

 

  2.

The board fails to respond adequately to a previous SOP proposal that received less than 70 percent support of votes cast;

 

B-336


  3.

The company has recently practiced or approved problematic pay practices, such as option repricing or option backdating; or

 

  4.

The situation is egregious.

Primary Evaluation Factors for Executive Pay

Pay-for-Performance Evaluation Analysis considers the following:

 

  1.

Peer Group Alignment:

 

  a.

The degree of alignment between the company’s annualized TSR rank and the CEO’s annualized total pay rank within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period.

 

  b.

The rankings of CEO total pay and company financial performance within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period.

 

  c.

The multiple of the CEO’s total pay relative to the peer group median in the most recent fiscal year.

 

  2.

Absolute Alignment – the absolute alignment between the trend in CEO pay and company TSR over the prior five fiscal years – i.e., the difference between the trend in annual pay changes and the trend in annualized TSR during the period.

If the above analysis demonstrates significant unsatisfactory long-term pay-for-performance alignment or, in the case of companies outside the Russell indices, misaligned pay and performance are otherwise suggested, our analysis may include any of the following qualitative factors, as relevant to evaluating how various pay elements may work to encourage or to undermine long-term value creation and alignment with shareholder interests:

 

  1.

The ratio of performance- to time-based incentive awards;

 

  2.

The overall ratio of performance-based compensation;

 

  3.

The completeness of disclosure and rigor of performance goals;

 

  4.

The company’s peer group benchmarking practices;

 

  5.

Actual results of financial/operational metrics, both absolute and relative to peers;

 

  6.

Special circumstances related to, for example, a new CEO in the prior FY or anomalous equity grant practices (e.g., bi-annual awards);

 

  7.

Realizable pay compared to grant pay; and

 

  8.

Any other factors deemed relevant.

Problematic Pay Practices

The focus is on executive compensation practices that contravene the global pay principles, including:

 

  1.

Problematic practices related to non-performance-based compensation elements;

 

  2.

Incentives that may motivate excessive risk-taking or present a windfall risk; and

 

  3.

Pay decisions that circumvent pay-for-performance, such as options backdating or waiving performance requirements.

Problematic Pay Practices related to Non-Performance-Based Compensation Elements

Pay elements that are not directly based on performance are generally evaluated CASE-BY-CASE considering the context of a company’s overall pay program and demonstrated pay-for-performance philosophy. The list

 

B-337


below highlights the problematic practices that carry significant weight in this overall consideration and may result in an adverse vote:

 

  1.

Repricing or replacing of underwater stock options/SARS without prior shareholder approval (including cash buyouts and voluntary surrender of underwater options);

 

  2.

Extraordinary perquisites or tax gross-ups;

 

  3.

New or materially amended agreements that provide for:

 

  a.

Excessive termination or CIC severance payments (generally exceeding 3 times base salary and average/target/most recent bonus);

 

  b.

CIC severance payments without involuntary job loss or substantial diminution of duties (“single” or “modified single” triggers) or in connection with a problematic Good Reason definition;

 

  c.

CIC excise tax gross-up entitlements (including “modified” gross-ups);

 

  d.

Multi-year guaranteed awards that are not at risk due to rigorous performance conditions;

 

  e.

Liberal CIC definition combined with any single-trigger CIC benefits;

 

  4.

Insufficient executive compensation disclosure by externally-managed issuers (EMIs) such that a reasonable assessment of pay programs and practices applicable to the EMI’s executives is not possible;

 

  5.

Any other provision or practice deemed to be egregious and present a significant risk to investors.

Options Backdating

The following factors should be examined CASE-BY-CASE to allow for distinctions to be made between “sloppy” plan administration versus deliberate action or fraud:

 

  1.

Reason and motive for the options backdating issue, such as inadvertent vs. deliberate grant date changes;

 

  2.

Duration of options backdating;

 

  3.

Size of restatement due to options backdating;

 

  4.

Corrective actions taken by the board or compensation committee, such as canceling or re-pricing backdated options, the recouping of option gains on backdated grants; and

 

  5.

Adoption of a grant policy that prohibits backdating and creates a fixed grant schedule or window period for equity grants in the future.

Frequency of Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (“Say When on Pay”)

Vote FOR annual advisory votes on compensation, which provide the most consistent and clear communication channel for shareholder concerns about companies’ executive pay programs.

Voting on Golden Parachutes in an Acquisition, Merger, Consolidation, or Proposed Sale

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on Golden Parachute proposals, including consideration of existing change-in- control arrangements maintained with named executive and non-executive officers rather than focusing primarily on new or extended arrangements.

Features that may result in an AGAINST vote include one or more of the following, depending on the number, magnitude, and/or timing of issue(s):

 

  1.

Single- or modified-single-trigger cash severance;

 

B-338


  2.

Single-trigger acceleration of unvested equity awards;

 

  3.

Full acceleration of equity awards granted shortly before the change in control;

 

  4.

Acceleration of performance awards above the target level of performance without compelling rationale;

 

  5.

Excessive cash severance (generally >3x base salary and bonus);

 

  6.

Excise tax gross-ups triggered and payable;

 

  7.

Excessive golden parachute payments (on an absolute basis or as a percentage of transaction equity value); or

 

  8.

Recent amendments that incorporate any problematic features (such as those above) or recent actions (such as extraordinary equity grants) that may make packages so attractive as to influence merger agreements that may not be in the best interests of shareholders; or

 

  9.

The company’s assertion that a proposed transaction is conditioned on shareholder approval of the golden parachute advisory vote.

Recent amendment(s) that incorporate problematic features will tend to carry more weight on the overall analysis. However, the presence of multiple legacy problematic features will also be closely scrutinized.

In cases where the golden parachute vote is incorporated into a company’s advisory vote on compensation (management say-on-pay), evaluate the say-on-pay proposal in accordance with these guidelines, which may give higher weight to that component of the overall evaluation.

Equity-Based and Other Incentive Plans

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on certain equity-based compensation plans depending on a combination of certain plan features and equity grant practices, where positive factors may counterbalance negative factors, and vice versa, as evaluated using an “Equity Plan Scorecard” (EPSC) approach with three pillars:

 

  1.

Plan Cost: The total estimated cost of the company’s equity plans relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company’s estimated Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) in relation to peers and considering both:

 

  a.

SVT based on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants, plus outstanding unvested/unexercised grants; and

 

  b.

SVT based only on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants.

 

  2.

Plan Features:

 

  a.

General quality of disclosure, especially around vesting upon a change in control (CIC);

 

  b.

Discretionary vesting authority;

 

  c.

Liberal share recycling on various award types;

 

  d.

Lack of minimum vesting period for grants made under the plan;

 

  e.

Dividends payable prior to award vesting.

 

  3.

Grant Practices:

 

  a.

The company’s three-year burn rate relative to its industry/market cap peers (shouldn’t exceed 3.5%);

 

  b.

Vesting requirements in CEO’s recent equity grants (3-year look-back);

 

B-339


  c.

The estimated duration of the plan (based on the sum of shares remaining available and the new shares requested, divided by the average annual shares granted in the prior three years);

 

  d.

The proportion of the CEO’s most recent equity grants/awards subject to performance conditions;

 

  e.

Whether the company maintains a sufficient claw-back policy;

 

  f.

Whether the company maintains sufficient post-exercise/vesting share-holding requirements.

Generally, vote AGAINST the plan proposal if the combination of above factors indicates that the plan is not, overall, in shareholders’ interests, or if any of the following egregious factors (“overriding factors”) apply:

 

  1.

Awards may vest in connection with a liberal change-of-control definition;

 

  2.

The plan would permit repricing or cash buyout of underwater options without shareholder approval (either by expressly permitting it – for NYSE and Nasdaq listed companies – or by not prohibiting it when the company has a history of repricing – for non-listed companies);

 

  3.

The plan is a vehicle for problematic pay practices or a significant pay-for-performance disconnect under certain circumstances;

 

  4.

The plan is excessively dilutive to shareholders’ holdings;

 

  5.

The plan contains an evergreen (automatic share replenishment) feature; or

 

  6.

Any other plan features are determined to have a significant negative impact on shareholder interests.

Further Information on certain EPSC Factors

SVT

The cost of the equity plans is expressed as SVT, which is measured using a binomial option pricing model that assesses the amount of shareholders’ equity flowing out of the company to employees and directors. SVT is expressed as both a dollar amount and as a percentage of market value, and includes the new shares proposed, shares available under existing plans, and shares granted but unexercised (using two measures, in the case of plans subject to the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation, as noted above). All award types are valued. For omnibus plans, unless limitations are placed on the most expensive types of awards (for example, full-value awards), the assumption is made that all awards to be granted will be the most expensive types. See discussion of specific types of awards.

Except for proposals subject to Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation, SVT is reasonable if it falls below a company-specific benchmark. The benchmark is determined as follows: The top quartile performers in each industry group (using the Global Industry Classification Standard: GICS) are identified. Benchmark SVT levels for each industry are established based on these top performers’ historic SVT. Regression analyses are run on each industry group to identify the variables most strongly correlated to SVT. The benchmark industry SVT level is then adjusted upwards or downwards for the specific company by plugging the company-specific performance measures, size and cash compensation into the industry cap equations to arrive at the company’s benchmark.

For meetings held prior to February 1, 2023, three-Year Burn Rate Burn-rate benchmarks (utilized in Equity Plan Scorecard evaluations) are calculated as the greater of: (1) the mean (µ) plus one standard deviation (s) of the company’s GICS group segmented by S&P 500, Russell 3000 index (less the S&P500), and non-Russell 3000 index; and (2) two percent of weighted common shares outstanding. In addition, year-over-year burn-rate benchmark changes will be limited to a maximum of two (2) percentage points plus or minus the prior year’s burn-rate benchmark.

For meetings held prior to February 1, 2023, a company’s adjusted burn rate is calculated as follows:

Burn Rate = (# of appreciation awards granted + # of full value awards granted * Volatility Multiplier) / Weighted average common shares outstanding

 

B-340


The Volatility Multiplier is used to provide more equivalent valuation between stock options and full value shares, based on the company’s historical stock price volatility.

Effective for meetings held on or after February 1, 2023, a “Value-Adjusted Burn Rate” is used for stock plan evaluations. Value-Adjusted Burn Rate benchmarks will be calculated as the greater of: (1) an industry-specific threshold based on three-year burn rates within the company’s GICS group segmented by S&P 500, Russell 3000 index (less the S&P 500) and non-Russell 3000 index; and (2) a de minimis threshold established separately for each of the S&P 500, the Russell 3000 index less the S&P 500, and the non-Russell 3000 index. Year-over-year burn-rate benchmark changes will be limited to a predetermined range above or below the prior year’s burn-rate benchmark.

The Value-Adjusted Burn Rate will be calculated as follows:

Value-Adjusted Burn Rate = ((# of options * option’s dollar value using a Black-Scholes model) + (# of full-value awards * stock price)) / (Weighted average common shares * stock price).

Boston Partners will vote AGAINST plans if the three-year average adjusted and value adjusted burn rate exceeds 3.5 percent.

Egregious Factors

Liberal Change in Control Definition

Generally, vote AGAINST equity plans if the plan has a liberal definition of change in control and the equity awards could vest upon such liberal definition of change in control, even though an actual change in control may not occur. Examples of such a definition include, but are not limited to, announcement or commencement of a tender offer, provisions for acceleration upon a “potential” takeover, shareholder approval of a merger or other transactions, or similar language.

Repricing Provisions

Vote AGAINST plans that expressly permit the repricing or exchange of underwater stock options/stock appreciate rights (SARs) without prior shareholder approval. “Repricing” typically includes the ability to do any of the following:

 

  1.

Amend the terms of outstanding options or SARs to reduce the exercise price of such outstanding options or SARs;

 

  2.

Cancel outstanding options or SARs in exchange for options or SARs with an exercise price that is less than the exercise price of the original options or SARs;

 

  3.

The cancellation of underwater options in exchange for stock awards; or

 

  4.

Cash buyouts of underwater options.

While the above cover most types of repricing, Boston Partners may view other provisions as akin to repricing depending on the facts and circumstances.

Also, vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from members of the Compensation Committee who approved repricing (as defined above or otherwise determined by Boston Partners), without prior shareholder approval, even if such repricings are allowed in their equity plan.

Vote AGAINST plans that do not expressly prohibit repricing or cash buyout of underwater options without shareholder approval if the company has a history of repricing/buyouts without shareholder approval, and the applicable listing standards would not preclude them from doing so.

 

B-341


Problematic Pay Practices or Significant Pay-for-Performance Disconnect

If the equity plan on the ballot is a vehicle for problematic pay practices, vote AGAINST the plan.

May vote AGAINST the equity plan if the plan is determined to be a vehicle for pay-for-performance misalignment. Considerations in voting AGAINST the equity plan may include, but are not limited to:

 

  1.

Severity of the pay-for-performance misalignment;

 

  2.

Whether problematic equity grant practices are driving the misalignment; and/or

 

  3.

Whether equity plan awards have been heavily concentrated to the CEO and/or the other NEOs.

Amending Cash and Equity Plans

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on amendments to cash and equity incentive plans.

Generally, vote FOR proposals to amend executive cash, stock, or cash and stock incentive plans if the proposal addresses administrative features only. Vote CASE-BY-CASE on all other proposals to amend cash incentive plans. This includes plans presented to shareholders for the first time after the company’s IPO and/or proposals that bundle material amendment(s).

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on all other proposals to amend equity incentive plans, considering the following:

 

  1.

If the proposal requests additional shares and/or the amendments include a term extension or addition of full value awards as an award type, the vote will be based on the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation as well as an analysis of the overall impact of the amendments.

 

  2.

If the plan is being presented to shareholders for the first time (including after the company’s IPO), whether or not additional shares are being requested, the vote will be based on the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation as well as an analysis of the overall impact of any amendments.

 

  3.

If there is no request for additional shares and the amendments do not include a term extension or addition of full value awards as an award type, then the vote will be based entirely on an analysis of the overall impact of the amendments, and the EPSC evaluation will be shown only for informational purposes.

In the first two CASE-BY-CASE evaluation scenarios, the EPSC evaluation/score is the more heavily weighted consideration.

Specific Treatment of Certain Award Types in Equity Plan Evaluations: Dividend Equivalent Rights

Options that have Dividend Equivalent Rights (DERs) associated with them will have a higher calculated award value than those without DERs under the binomial model, based on the value of these dividend streams. The higher value will be applied to new shares, shares available under existing plans, and shares awarded but not exercised per the plan specifications. DERS transfer more shareholder equity to employees and non- executive directors and this cost should be captured.

Operating Partnership (OP) Units in Equity Plan Analysis of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)

For Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS), include the common shares issuable upon conversion of outstanding Operating Partnership (OP) units in the share count for the purposes of determining: (1) market capitalization in the SVT analysis and (2) shares outstanding in the burn rate analysis.

Other Compensation Plans

401(k) Employee Benefit Plans

Vote FOR proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.

 

B-342


Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)

Vote FOR proposals to implement an ESOP or increase authorized shares for existing ESOPs, unless the number of shares allocated to the ESOP is excessive (more than five percent of outstanding shares).

Employee Stock Purchase Plans—Qualified Plans

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on qualified employee stock purchase plans. Vote FOR employee stock purchase plans where all of the following apply:

 

  1.

Purchase price is at least 85 percent of fair market value;

 

  2.

Offering period is 27 months or less; and

 

  3.

The number of shares allocated to the plan is 10 percent or less of the outstanding shares.

Vote AGAINST qualified employee stock purchase plans where any of the following apply:

 

  1.

Purchase price is less than 85 percent of fair market value; or

 

  2.

Offering period is greater than 27 months; or

 

  3.

The number of shares allocated to the plan is more than 10 percent of the outstanding shares.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans—Non-Qualified Plans

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on nonqualified employee stock purchase plans. Vote FOR nonqualified employee stock purchase plans with all the following features:

 

  1.

Broad-based participation (i.e., all employees of the company with the exclusion of individuals with 5 percent or more of beneficial ownership of the company);

 

  2.

Limits on employee contribution, which may be a fixed dollar amount or expressed as a percent of base salary;

 

  3.

Company matching contribution up to 25 percent of employee’s contribution, which is effectively a discount of 20 percent from market value; and

 

  4.

No discount on the stock price on the date of purchase when there is a company matching contribution.

Vote AGAINST nonqualified employee stock purchase plans when the plan features do not meet all of the above criteria. If the matching contribution or effective discount exceeds the above, may evaluate the SVT cost of the plan as part of the assessment.

Option Exchange Programs/Repricing Options

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on management proposals seeking approval to exchange/reprice options taking into consideration:

 

  1.

Historic trading patterns--the stock price should not be so volatile that the options are likely to be back “in-the-money” over the near term;

 

  2.

Rationale for the re-pricing--was the stock price decline beyond management’s control?;

 

  3.

Is this a value-for-value exchange?;

 

  4.

Are surrendered stock options added back to the plan reserve?;

 

  5.

Timing—repricing should occur at least one year out from any precipitous drop in company’s stock price;

 

B-343


  6.

Option vesting—does the new option vest immediately or is there a black-out period?;

 

  7.

Term of the option--the term should remain the same as that of the replaced option;

 

  8.

Exercise price—should be set at fair market or a premium to market;

 

  9.

Participants—executive officers and directors must be excluded.

If the surrendered options are added back to the equity plans for re-issuance, then also take into consideration the company’s total cost of equity plans and its three-year average burn rate (shouldn’t exceed 3.5%).

In addition to the above considerations, evaluate the intent, rationale, and timing of the repricing proposal. The proposal should clearly articulate why the board is choosing to conduct an exchange program at this point in time. Repricing underwater options after a recent precipitous drop in the company’s stock price demonstrates poor timing and warrants additional scrutiny. Also, consider the terms of the surrendered options, such as the grant date, exercise price and vesting schedule. Grant dates of surrendered options should be far enough back (two to three years) so as not to suggest that repricings are being done to take advantage of short-term downward price movements. Similarly, the exercise price of surrendered options should be above the 52-week high for the stock price.

Vote FOR shareholder proposals to put option repricings to a shareholder vote.

Stock Plans in Lieu of Cash

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on plans that provide participants with the option of taking all or a portion of their cash compensation in the form of stock.

Vote non- executive director-only equity plans that provide a dollar-for-dollar cash-for-stock exchange.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on plans which do not provide a dollar-for-dollar cash for stock exchange. In cases where the exchange is not dollar-for-dollar, the request for new or additional shares for such equity program will be considered using the binomial option pricing model. In an effort to capture the total cost of total compensation, no adjustments will be made to carve out the in-lieu-of cash compensation.

Transfer Stock Option (TSO) Programs

One-time Transfers: Vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from compensation committee members if they fail to submit one-time transfers to shareholders for approval.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on one-time transfers. Vote FOR if:

 

  1.

Executive officers and non- executive directors are excluded from participating;

 

  2.

Stock options are purchased by third-party financial institutions at a discount to their fair value using option pricing models such as Black-Scholes or a Binomial Option Valuation or other appropriate financial models; and

 

  3.

There is a two-year minimum holding period for sale proceeds (cash or stock) for all participants.

Additionally, management should provide a clear explanation of why options are being transferred to a third-party institution and whether the events leading up to a decline in stock price were beyond management’s control. A review of the company’s historic stock price volatility should indicate if the options are likely to be back “in-the-money” over the near term.

Ongoing TSO program: Vote AGAINST equity plan proposals if the details of ongoing TSO programs are not provided to shareholders. Since TSOs will be one of the award types under a stock plan, the ongoing TSO

 

B-344


program, structure and mechanics must be disclosed to shareholders. The specific criteria to be considered in evaluating these proposals include, but not limited, to the following:

 

  1.

Eligibility;

 

  2.

Vesting;

 

  3.

Bid-price;

 

  4.

Term of options;

 

  5.

Cost of the program and impact of the TSOs on company’s total option expense; and

 

  6.

Option repricing policy.

Amendments to existing plans that allow for introduction of transferability of stock options should make clear that only options granted post-amendment shall be transferable.

Director Compensation

Non- Executive Directors

Vote FOR proposals to award cash fees to non-executive directors unless the amounts are excessive relative to other companies in the country or industry.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on management proposals seeking ratification of non- executive director compensation, based on the following factors:

 

  1.

If the equity plan under which non- executive director grants are made is bundled into a single resolution or is on the ballot, whether or not it warrants support; and

 

  2.

An assessment of the following qualitative factors:

 

  a.

The relative magnitude of director compensation as compared to companies of a similar profile;

 

  b.

The presence of problematic pay practices relating to director compensation;

 

  c.

Director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements;

 

  d.

Equity award vesting schedules;

 

  e.

The mix of cash and equity-based compensation;

 

  f.

Meaningful limits on director compensation;

 

  g.

The availability of retirement benefits or perquisites; and

 

  h.

The quality of disclosure surrounding director compensation.

Equity Plans for Non- Executive Directors

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on compensation plans for non- executive directors, based on:

 

  1.

The total estimated cost of the company’s equity plans relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company’s estimated SVT based on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants, plus outstanding unvested/unexercised grants;

 

  2.

The company’s three-year burn rate relative to its industry/market cap peers (in certain circumstances) (shouldn’t exceed 3.5%); and

 

  3.

The presence of any egregious plan features (such as an option repricing provision or liberal CIC vesting risk).

 

B-345


On occasion, non- executive director stock plans will exceed the plan cost or burn-rate benchmarks when combined with employee or executive stock plans. In such cases, vote CASE-BY-CASE on the plan taking into consideration the following qualitative factors:

 

  1.

The relative magnitude of director compensation as compared to companies of a similar profile;

 

  2.

The presence of problematic pay practices relating to director compensation;

 

  3.

Director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements;

 

  4.

Equity award vesting schedules;

 

  5.

The mix of cash and equity-based compensation;

 

  6.

Meaningful limits on director compensation;

 

  7.

The availability of retirement benefits or perquisites; and

 

  8.

The quality of disclosure surrounding director compensation.

Non- Executive Director Retirement Plans

Vote AGAINST retirement plans for non- executive directors. Vote FOR shareholder proposals to eliminate retirement plans for non- executive directors.

Shareholder Proposals on Compensation

Bonus Banking/Bonus Banking “Plus”

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals seeking deferral of a portion of annual bonus pay, with ultimate payout linked to sustained results for the performance metrics on which the bonus was earned (whether for the named executive officers or a wider group of employees), taking into account the following factors:

 

  1.

The company’s past practices regarding equity and cash compensation;

 

  2.

Whether the company has a holding period or stock ownership requirements in place, such as a meaningful retention ratio (at least 50 percent for full tenure); and

 

  3.

Whether the company has a rigorous claw-back policy in place.

Compensation Consultants—Disclosure of Board or Company’s Utilization

Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals seeking disclosure regarding the Company, Board, or Compensation Committee’s use of compensation consultants, such as company name, business relationship(s), and fees paid.

Disclosure/Setting Levels or Types of Compensation for Executives and Directors

Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals seeking additional disclosure of executive and director pay information, provided the information requested is relevant to shareholders’ needs, would not put the company at a competitive disadvantage relative to its industry, and is not unduly burdensome to the company.

Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals seeking to set absolute levels on compensation or otherwise dictate the amount or form of compensation (such as types of compensation elements or specific metrics) to be used for executive or directors.

Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals that mandate a minimum amount of stock that directors must own in order to qualify as a director or to remain on the board.

 

B-346


Vote CASE-BY-CASE on all other shareholder proposals regarding executive and director pay, taking into account relevant factors, including but not limited to: company performance, pay level and design versus peers, history of compensation concerns or pay-for-performance disconnect, and/or the scope and prescriptive nature of the proposal.

Golden Coffins/Executive Death Benefits

Generally, vote FOR proposals calling for companies to adopt a policy of obtaining shareholder approval for any future agreements and corporate policies that could oblige the company to make payments or awards following the death of a senior executive in the form of unearned salary or bonuses, accelerated vesting or the continuation in force of unvested equity grants, perquisites and other payments or awards made in lieu of compensation. This would not apply to any benefit programs or equity plan proposals for which the broad-based employee population is eligible.

Hold Equity Past Retirement or for a Significant Period of Time

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder proposals asking companies to adopt policies requiring senior executive officers to retain a portion of net shares acquired through compensation plans. The following factors will be taken into account:

 

  1.

The percentage/ratio of net shares required to be retained;

 

  2.

The time period required to retain the shares;

 

  3.

Whether the company has equity retention, holding period, and/or stock ownership requirements in place and the robustness of such requirements;

 

  4.

Whether the company has any other policies aimed at mitigating risk taking by executives;

 

  5.

Executives’ actual stock ownership and the degree to which it meets or exceeds the proponent’s suggested holding period/retention ratio or the company’s existing requirements; and

 

  6.

Problematic pay practices, current and past, which may demonstrate a short-term versus long- term focus.

Non-Deductible Compensation (U.S.)

Generally, vote FOR proposals seeking disclosure of the extent to which the company paid non- deductible compensation to senior executives under U.S. Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m), while considering the company’s existing disclosure practices. Section 162(m) imposes a $1 million annual limit on the amount of compensation that a publicly held corporation can deduct with respect to certain executives.

Pay Disparity

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals calling for an analysis of the pay disparity between corporate executives and other non-executive employees. The following factors will be considered:

 

  1.

The company’s current level of disclosure of its executive compensation setting process, including how the company considers pay disparity;

 

  2.

If any problematic pay practices or pay-for-performance concerns have been identified at the company; and

 

  3.

The level of shareholder support for the company’s pay programs.

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals calling for the company to use the pay disparity analysis or pay ratio in a specific way to set or limit executive pay.

 

B-347


Pay for Performance/Performance-Based Awards

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder proposals requesting that a significant amount of future long-term incentive compensation awarded to senior executives shall be performance-based and requesting that the board adopt and disclose challenging performance metrics to shareholders, based on the following analytical steps:

 

  1.

First, vote FOR shareholder proposals advocating the use of performance-based equity awards, such as performance contingent options or restricted stock, indexed options or premium-priced options, unless the proposal is overly restrictive or if the company has demonstrated that it is using a “substantial” portion of performance-based awards for its top executives. Standard stock options and performance-accelerated awards do not meet the criteria to be considered as performance-based awards. Further, premium-priced options should have a meaningful premium to be considered performance-based awards.

 

  2.

Second, assess the rigor of the company’s performance-based equity program. If the bar set for the performance-based program is too low based on the company’s historical or peer group comparison, generally vote FOR the proposal. Furthermore, if target performance results in an above target payout, vote FOR the shareholder proposal due to program’s poor design. If the company does not disclose the performance metric of the performance-based equity program, vote FOR the shareholder proposal regardless of the outcome of the first step to the test.

In general, vote FOR the shareholder proposal if the company does not meet both of the above two steps.

Pay for Superior Performance

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder proposals that request the board establish a pay-for-superior performance standard in the company’s executive compensation plan for senior executives. These proposals generally include the following principles:

 

  1.

Set compensation targets for the plan’s annual and long-term incentive pay components at or below the peer group median;

 

  2.

Deliver a majority of the plan’s target long-term compensation through performance-vested, not simply time-vested, equity awards;

 

  3.

Provide the strategic rationale and relative weightings of the financial and non-financial performance metrics or criteria used in the annual and performance-vested long-term incentive components of the plan;

 

  4.

Establish performance targets for each plan financial metric relative to the performance of the company’s peer companies;

 

  5.

Limit payment under the annual and performance-vested long-term incentive components of the plan to when the company’s performance on its selected financial performance metrics exceeds peer group median performance.

Consider the following factors in evaluating this proposal:

 

  1.

What aspects of the company’s annual and long-term equity incentive programs are performance driven?

 

  2.

If the annual and long-term equity incentive programs are performance driven, are the performance criteria and hurdle rates disclosed to shareholders or are they benchmarked against a disclosed peer group?

 

  3.

Can shareholders assess the correlation between pay and performance based on the current disclosure?

 

  4.

What type of industry and stage of business cycle does the company belong to?

 

B-348


Pre-Arranged Trading Plans (10b5-1 Plans)

Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals calling for certain principles regarding the use of prearranged trading plans (10b5-1 plans) for executives. These principles include:

 

  1.

Adoption, amendment, or termination of a 10b5-1 Plan must be disclosed within two business days in a Form 8-K;

 

  2.

Amendment or early termination of a 10b5-1 Plan is allowed only under extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the board;

 

  3.

Ninety days must elapse between adoption or amendment of a 10b5-1 Plan and initial trading under the plan;

 

  4.

Reports on Form 4 must identify transactions made pursuant to a 10b5-1 Plan;

 

  5.

An executive may not trade in company stock outside the 10b5-1 Plan;

 

  6.

Trades under a 10b5-1 Plan must be handled by a broker who does not handle other securities transactions for the executive.

Prohibit Outside CEOs from Serving on Compensation Committees

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals seeking a policy to prohibit any outside CEO from serving on a company’s compensation committee, unless the company has demonstrated problematic pay practices that raise concerns about the performance and composition of the committee.

Recoupment of Incentive or Stock Compensation in Specified Circumstances

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to recoup incentive cash or stock compensation made to senior executives if it is later determined that the figures upon which incentive compensation is earned turn out to have been in error, or if the senior executive has breached company policy or has engaged in misconduct that may be significantly detrimental to the company’s financial position or reputation, or if the senior executive failed to manage or monitor risks that subsequently led to significant financial or reputational harm to the company. Many companies have adopted policies that permit recoupment in cases where an executive’s fraud, misconduct, or negligence significantly contributed to a restatement of financial results that led to the awarding of unearned incentive compensation. However, such policies may be narrow given that not all misconduct or negligence may result in significant financial restatements. Misconduct, negligence or lack of sufficient oversight by senior executives may lead to significant financial loss or reputational damage that may have long-lasting impact.

In considering whether to support such shareholder proposals, Boston Partners will consider the following factors:

 

  1.

If the company has adopted a formal recoupment policy;

 

  2.

The rigor of the recoupment policy focusing on how and under what circumstances the company may recoup incentive or stock compensation;

 

  3.

Whether the company has chronic restatement history or material financial problems;

 

  4.

Whether the company’s policy substantially addresses the concerns raised by the proponent;

 

  5.

Disclosure of recoupment of incentive or stock compensation from senior executives or lack thereof; or

 

  6.

Any other relevant factors.

Severance Agreements for Executives/Golden Parachutes

Vote FOR shareholder proposals requiring prior shareholder approval of any severance arrangement that would pay severance exceeding the limitation set forth in Section 280G of the Internal revenue code.

 

B-349


Vote AGAINST if the proposal does not specifically mention 280G.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to ratify or cancel golden parachutes. An acceptable parachute should include, but is not limited to, the following:

 

  1.

The triggering mechanism should be beyond the control of management;

 

  2.

The amount should not exceed 2.99 times base amount (defined as the average annual taxable W- 2 compensation during the five years prior to the year in which the change of control occurs);

 

  3.

Change-in-control payments should be double-triggered, i.e., (1) after a change in control has taken place, and (2) termination of the executive as a result of the change in control. Change in control is defined as a change in the company ownership structure.

Share Buyback Proposals

Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals prohibiting executives from selling shares of company stock during periods in which the company has announced that it may or will be repurchasing shares of its stock. Vote FOR the proposal when there is a pattern of abuse by executives exercising options or selling shares during periods of share buybacks.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals requesting the company exclude the impact of share buybacks from the calculation of incentive program metrics, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

The frequency and timing of the company’s share buybacks;

 

  2.

The use of per-share metrics in incentive plans;

 

  3.

The effect of recent buybacks on incentive metric results and payouts; and

 

  4.

Whether there is any indication of metric result manipulation.

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERPs)

Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals requesting to put extraordinary benefits contained in SERP agreements to a shareholder vote unless the company’s executive pension plans do not contain excessive benefits beyond what is offered under employee-wide plans.

Generally, vote FOR shareholder proposals requesting to limit the executive benefits provided under the company’s supplemental executive retirement plan (SERP) by limiting covered compensation to a senior executive’s annual salary or those pay elements covered for the general employee population.

Tax Gross-Up Proposals

Generally, vote FOR proposals calling for companies to adopt a policy of not providing tax gross-up payments to executives, except in situations where gross-ups are provided pursuant to a plan, policy, or arrangement applicable to management employees of the company, such as a relocation or expatriate tax equalization policy.

Termination of Employment Prior to Severance Payment/Eliminating Accelerated Vesting of Unvested Equity

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder proposals seeking a policy requiring termination of employment prior to severance payment and/or eliminating accelerated vesting of unvested equity.

The following factors will be considered:

 

  1.

The company’s current treatment of equity upon employment termination and/or in change-in- control situations (i.e., vesting is double triggered and/or pro rata, does it allow for the assumption of equity by acquiring company, the treatment of performance shares, etc.);

 

B-350


  2.

Current employment agreements, including potential poor pay practices such as gross-ups embedded in those agreements.

Generally, vote FOR proposals seeking a policy that prohibits automatic acceleration of the vesting of equity awards to senior executives upon a voluntary termination of employment or in the event of a change in control (except for pro rata vesting considering the time elapsed and attainment of any related performance goals between the award date and the change in control).

VI. Routine/ Miscellaneous/ Operational

Adjourn Meeting

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to provide management with the authority to adjourn an annual or special meeting absent compelling reasons to support the proposal.

Vote FOR proposals that relate specifically to soliciting votes for a merger or transaction if supporting that merger or transaction.

Vote AGAINST proposals if the wording is too vague or if the proposal includes “other business.”

Amend Quorum Requirements

Vote AGAINST proposals to reduce quorum requirements for shareholder meetings below a majority of the shares outstanding unless there are compelling reasons to support the proposal. Otherwise, vote CASE-BY-CASE.

Amend Minor By-laws

Vote FOR by-law or charter changes that are of a housekeeping nature (updates or corrections).

Change Company Name

Vote FOR proposals to change the corporate name unless there is compelling evidence that the change would adversely impact shareholder value.

Change Date, Time, or Location of Annual Meeting

Vote FOR management proposals to change the date, time, or location of the annual meeting unless the proposed change is unreasonable.

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals to change the date, time, or location of the annual meeting unless the current scheduling or location is unreasonable.

Other Business

Vote AGAINST proposals to approve other business when it appears as a voting item.

Management Supported Shareholder Proposals: Reporting

Vote FOR shareholder proposals for additional reporting beyond what is regulatorily required when the proposal is supported by management.

 

B-351


Allocation of Income

Vote FOR approval of the allocation of income, unless:

 

  1.

The dividend payout ratio has been consistently below 30 percent (consistently low in Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore) without adequate explanation or in the absence of positive shareholder returns; or

 

  2.

The payout is excessive given the company’s financial position.

Stock (Scrip) Dividend Alternative

Vote FOR most stock (scrip) dividend proposals considering whether the proposal is in line with market standards.

Vote AGAINST proposals that do not allow for a cash option unless management demonstrates that the cash option is harmful to shareholder value.

Amendments to Articles of Association (Bylaws), Board Policies, and Board Committees’ Charters

Vote amendments to the articles of association (bylaws), board policies or board Committees’ charters on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Generally, vote AGAINST if the draft of the current bylaws, board policies or board committees’ charters and their proposed amendments are not disclosed or publicly available in a timely manner; if the proposed changes are not adequately highlighted in the shareholder notice; or the proposed amendments are not in shareholders’ interest.

Generally, vote FOR proposals where the changes are driven by regulatory or compliance considerations. This policy applies to both bundled and unbundled proposals.

Change in Company Fiscal Term

Vote FOR resolutions to change a company’s fiscal term unless a company’s motivation for the change is to postpone its annual general meeting.

Lower Disclosure Threshold for Stock Ownership

Vote AGAINST resolutions to lower the stock ownership disclosure threshold below 5 percent unless specific reasons exist to implement a lower threshold.

Expansion of Business Activities

Vote FOR resolutions to expand business activities unless a company has performed poorly for several years and the new business takes the company into risky areas and enterprises unrelated to its core business.

Related-Party Transactions

In evaluating resolutions that seek shareholder approval on related-party transactions (RPTs), vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, considering long-term shareholder value for the company’s existing shareholders and such factors including, but not limited to, the following:

 

  1.

The parties on either side of the transaction;

 

  2.

The nature of the asset to be transferred/service to be provided;

 

B-352


  3.

The pricing of the transaction (and any associated professional valuation);

 

  4.

The views of independent directors (where provided);

 

  5.

The views of an independent financial adviser (where appointed);

 

  6.

Whether any entities party to the transaction (including advisers) is conflicted; and

 

  7.

The stated rationale for the transaction, including discussions of timing.

If there is a transaction that Boston Partners deemed problematic and that was not put to a shareholder vote, Boston Partners may vote AGAINST the election of the director involved in the related-party transaction or the full board.

Generally, vote AGAINST perpetual arrangements where the transactions will not be subjected to further shareholder review going forward.

For proposals on royalty payments, vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis based on disclosures provided.

Charitable Donations

Vote proposals seeking the approval of donations on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, considering factors including, but not limited to, the following:

 

  1.

Size of the proposed donation request;

 

  2.

The destination of the proposed allocation of funds; and

 

  3.

The company’s historical donations practices, including allocations approved at prior shareholder meetings.

Virtual Meetings

Generally, vote FOR proposals allowing for the convening of hybrid shareholder meetings if it is clear that it is not the intention to hold virtual-only annual general meetings.

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals allowing for the convening of virtual-only shareholder meetings. However, if the company specifies in the articles that it intends to hold virtual only meetings only in unusual situations such as the spread of an infectious disease or the occurrence of a natural disaster, vote FOR the article amendments.

Financial Results/Director and Statutory Reports

Generally, vote FOR the approval of financial statements, report of the board of directors, independent auditor reports, and other statutory reports, unless:

 

  1.

There are concerns about the accounts presented or audit procedures used; or

 

  2.

The external auditor expresses no opinion or qualified opinion over the financial statements.

VII. Social and Environmental

Generally, vote CASE-BY-CASE, examining primarily whether implementation of the proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder value. The following factors will be considered:

 

  1.

If the issues presented in the proposal are more appropriately or effectively dealt with through legislation or government regulation;

 

B-353


  2.

If the company has already responded in an appropriate and sufficient manner to the issue(s) raised in the proposal;

 

  3.

Whether the proposal’s request is unduly burdensome (scope or timeframe) or overly prescriptive;

 

  4.

The company’s approach compared with any industry standard practices for addressing the issue(s) raised by the proposal;

 

  5.

Whether there are significant controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company’s environmental or social practices;

 

  6.

If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether reasonable and sufficient information is currently available to shareholders from the company or from other publicly available sources; and

 

  7.

If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether implementation would reveal proprietary or confidential information that could place the company at a competitive disadvantage.

Endorsement of Principles

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals seeking a company’s endorsement of principles that support a particular public policy position. Endorsing a set of principles may require a company to take a stand on an issue that is beyond its own control and may limit its flexibility with respect to future developments. Management and the board should be afforded the flexibility to make decisions on specific public policy positions based on their own assessment of the most beneficial strategies for the company.

Animal Welfare

Animal Welfare Policies

Generally, vote FOR proposals seeking a report on a company’s animal welfare standards, or animal welfare-related risks, unless:

 

  1.

The company has already published a set of animal welfare standards and monitors compliance;

 

  2.

The company’s standards are comparable to industry peers; and

 

  3.

There are no recent significant fines, litigation, or controversies related to the company’s and/or its suppliers’ treatment of animals.

Animal Testing

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to phase out the use of animals in product testing, unless:

 

  1.

The company is conducting animal testing programs that are unnecessary or not required by regulation;

 

  2.

The company is conducting animal testing when suitable alternatives are commonly accepted and used by industry peers; or

 

  3.

There are recent, significant fines or litigation related to the company’s treatment of animals.

Animal Slaughter

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals requesting the implementation of Controlled Atmosphere Killing (CAK) methods at company and/or supplier operations unless such methods are required by legislation or generally accepted as the industry standard.

 

B-354


Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals requesting a report on the feasibility of implementing CAK methods at company and/or supplier operations considering the availability of existing research conducted by the company or industry groups on this topic and any fines or litigation related to current animal processing procedures at the company.

Consumer Issues

Genetically Modified Ingredients

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals requesting that a company voluntarily label genetically engineered (GE) ingredients in its products. The labeling of products with GE ingredients is best left to the appropriate regulatory authorities.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals asking for a report on the feasibility of labeling products containing GE ingredients, taking into account:

 

  1.

The potential impact of such labeling on the company’s business;

 

  2.

The quality of the company’s disclosure on GE product labeling, related voluntary initiatives, and how this disclosure compares with industry peer disclosure; and

 

  3.

Company’s current disclosure on the feasibility of GE product labeling.

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals seeking a report on the social, health, and environmental effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Studies of this sort are better undertaken by regulators and the scientific community.

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to eliminate GE ingredients from the company’s products, or proposals asking for reports outlining the steps necessary to eliminate GE ingredients from the company’s products. Such decisions are more appropriately made by management with consideration of current regulations.

Reports on Potentially Controversial Business/Financial Practices

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on requests for reports on a company’s potentially controversial business or financial practices or products, taking into account:

 

  1.

Whether the company has adequately disclosed mechanisms in place to prevent abuses;

 

  2.

Whether the company has adequately disclosed the financial risks of the products/practices in question;

 

  3.

Whether the company has been subject to violations of related laws or serious controversies; and

 

  4.

Peer companies’ policies/practices in this area.

Pharmaceutical Pricing, Access to Medicines, and Prescription Drug Reimportation

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals requesting that companies implement specific price restraints on pharmaceutical products unless the company fails to adhere to legislative guidelines or industry norms in its product pricing practices.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals requesting that a company report on its product pricing or access to medicine policies, considering:

 

  1.

The potential for reputational, market, and regulatory risk exposure;

 

  2.

Existing disclosure of relevant policies;

 

  3.

Deviation from established industry norms;

 

B-355


  4.

Relevant company initiatives to provide research and/or products to disadvantaged consumers;

 

  5.

Whether the proposal focuses on specific products or geographic regions;

 

  6.

The potential burden and scope of the requested report;

 

  7.

Recent significant controversies, litigation, or fines at the company.

Generally, vote FOR proposals requesting that a company report on the financial and legal impact of its prescription drug reimportation policies unless such information is already publicly disclosed.

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals requesting that companies adopt specific policies to encourage or constrain prescription drug reimportation. Such matters are more appropriately the province of legislative activity and may place the company at a competitive disadvantage relative to its peers.

Product Safety and Toxic/Hazardous Materials

Generally, vote FOR proposals requesting that a company report on its policies, initiatives/procedures, and oversight mechanisms related to toxic/hazardous materials or product safety in its supply chain, unless:

 

  1.

The company already discloses similar information through existing reports such as a supplier code of conduct and/or a sustainability report;

 

  2.

The company has formally committed to the implementation of a toxic/hazardous materials and/or product safety and supply chain reporting and monitoring program based on industry norms or similar standards within a specified time frame; and

 

  3.

The company has not been recently involved in relevant significant controversies, fines, or litigation.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on resolutions requesting that companies develop a feasibility assessment to phase-out of certain toxic/hazardous materials, or evaluate and disclose the potential financial and legal risks associated with utilizing certain materials, considering:

 

  1.

The company’s current level of disclosure regarding its product safety policies, initiatives, and oversight mechanisms;

 

  2.

Current regulations in the markets in which the company operates; and

 

  3.

Recent significant controversies, litigation, or fines stemming from toxic/hazardous materials at the company.

Generally, vote AGAINST resolutions requiring that a company reformulate its products.

Tobacco-Related Proposals

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on resolutions regarding the advertisement of tobacco products, considering:

 

  1.

Recent related fines, controversies, or significant litigation;

  2.

Whether the company complies with relevant laws and regulations on the marketing of tobacco;

 

  3.

Whether the company’s advertising restrictions deviate from those of industry peers;

 

  4.

Whether the company entered into the Master Settlement Agreement, which restricts marketing of tobacco to youth; and

 

  5.

Whether restrictions on marketing to youth extend to foreign countries.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals regarding second-hand smoke, considering;

 

  1.

Whether the company complies with all laws and regulations;

 

B-356


  2.

The degree that voluntary restrictions beyond those mandated by law might hurt the company’s competitiveness; and

 

  3.

The risk of any health-related liabilities.

Generally, vote AGAINST resolutions to cease production of tobacco-related products, to avoid selling products to tobacco companies, to spin-off tobacco-related businesses, or prohibit investment in tobacco equities. Such business decisions are better left to company management or portfolio managers.

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals regarding tobacco product warnings. Such decisions are better left to public health authorities.

Climate Change

Say on Climate (SoC) Management Proposals

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on management proposals that request shareholders to approve the company’s climate transition action plan, taking into account the completeness and rigor of the plan. Information that will be considered where available includes the following:

 

  1.

The extent to which the company’s climate related disclosures are in line with TCFD recommendations and meet other market standards;

 

  2.

Disclosure of its operational supply chain GHG emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3);

 

  3.

The completeness and rigor of company’s short-, medium-, and long-term targets for reducing operational and supply chain GHG emissions (Scope 1, 2, and 3 if relevant);

 

  4.

Whether the company has sought and approved third-party approval that its targets are science- based;

 

  5.

Whether the company has made a commitment to be “net zero” for operational and supply chain emissions (Scope 1, 2, and 3) by 2050;

 

  6.

Whether the company discloses a commitment to report on the implementation of its plan in subsequent years;

 

  7.

Whether the company’s climate data has received third-party assurance;

 

  8.

Disclosure of how the company’s lobbying activities and its capital expenditures align with company strategy;

 

  9.

Whether there are specific industry decarbonization challenges; and

 

  10.

The company’s related commitment, disclosure, and performance compared to its industry peers.

Say on Climate (SoC) Shareholder Proposals

Unless there is a significant relevant controversy or the company significantly lags peers, generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals that request the company to disclose a report providing its GHG emissions levels and reduction targets and/or its upcoming/approved climate transition action plan and provide shareholders the opportunity to express approval or disapproval of its GHG emissions reduction plan. If there is a significant relevant controversy or the company significantly lags peers, Boston Partners will taking the following into account:

 

  1.

The completeness and rigor of the company’s climate-related disclosure;

 

  2.

The company’s actual GHG emissions performance;

 

  3.

Whether the company has been the subject of recent, significant violations, fines, litigation, or controversy related to its GHG emissions; and

 

  4.

Whether the proposal’s request is unduly burdensome (scope or timeframe) or overly prescriptive.

 

B-357


Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

Generally, vote FOR resolutions requesting that a company disclose information on the financial, physical, or regulatory risks it faces related to climate change on its operations and investments or on how the company identifies, measures, and manages such risks, considering:

 

  1.

Whether the company already provides current, publicly-available information on the impact that climate change may have on the company as well as associated company policies and procedures to address related risks and/or opportunities;

 

  2.

The company’s level of disclosure compared to industry peers; and

 

  3.

Whether there are significant controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company’s climate change-related performance.

Generally, vote FOR proposals requesting a report on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from company operations and/or products and operations, unless:

 

  1.

The company already discloses current, publicly-available information on the impacts that GHG emissions may have on the company as well as associated company policies and procedures to address related risks and/or opportunities;

 

  2.

The company’s level of disclosure is comparable to that of industry peers; and

 

  3.

There are no significant, controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company’s GHG emissions.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals that call for the adoption of GHG reduction goals from products and operations, taking into account:

 

  1.

Whether the company provides disclosure of year-over-year GHG emissions performance data;

 

  2.

Whether company disclosure lags behind industry peers;

 

  3.

The company’s actual GHG emissions performance;

 

  4.

The company’s current GHG emission policies, oversight mechanisms, and related initiatives; and

 

  5.

Whether the company has been the subject of recent, significant violations, fines, litigation, or controversy related to GHG emissions.

Energy Efficiency

Generally, vote FOR proposals requesting that a company report on its energy efficiency policies, unless:

 

  1.

The company complies with applicable energy efficiency regulations and laws, and discloses its participation in energy efficiency policies and programs, including disclosure of benchmark data, targets, and performance measures; or

 

  2.

The proponent requests adoption of specific energy efficiency goals within specific timelines.

Renewable Energy

Generally, vote FOR requests for reports on the feasibility of developing renewable energy resources unless the report would be duplicative of existing disclosure or irrelevant to the company’s line of business.

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals requesting that the company invest in renewable energy resources. Such decisions are best left to management’s evaluation of the feasibility and financial impact that such programs may have on the company.

 

B-358


Generally, vote AGAINST proposals that call for the adoption of renewable energy goals, taking into account:

 

  1.

The scope and structure of the proposal;

 

  2.

The company’s current level of disclosure on renewable energy use and GHG emissions; and

 

  3.

The company’s disclosure of policies, practices, and oversight implemented to manage GHG emissions and mitigate climate change risks.

Diversity

Board Diversity

Generally, vote FOR requests for reports on a company’s efforts to diversify the board, unless:

 

  1.

The gender and racial minority representation of the company’s board is reasonably inclusive in relation to companies of similar size and business; and

 

  2.

The board already reports on its nominating procedures and gender and racial minority initiatives on the board and within the company.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals asking a company to increase the gender and racial minority representation on its board, taking into account:

 

  1.

The degree of existing gender and racial minority diversity on the company’s board and among its executive officers;

 

  2.

The level of gender and racial minority representation that exists at the company’s industry peers;

 

  3.

The company’s established process for addressing gender and racial minority board representation;

 

  4.

Whether the proposal includes an overly prescriptive request to amend nominating committee charter language;

 

  5.

The independence of the company’s nominating committee;

 

  6.

Whether the company uses an outside search firm to identify potential director nominees; and

 

  7.

Whether the company has had recent controversies, fines, or litigation regarding equal employment practices.

Equality of Opportunity

Generally, vote FOR proposals requesting a company disclose its diversity policies or initiatives, or proposals requesting disclosure of a company’s comprehensive workforce diversity data, including requests for EEO-1 data, unless:

 

  1.

The company publicly discloses equal opportunity policies and initiatives in a comprehensive manner;

 

  2.

The company already publicly discloses comprehensive workforce diversity data; and

 

  3.

The company has no recent significant EEO-related violations or litigation.

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals seeking information on the diversity efforts of suppliers and service providers. Such requests may pose a significant burden on the company.

Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Domestic Partner Benefits

Generally, vote FOR proposals seeking to amend a company’s EEO statement or diversity policies to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, unless the change would be unduly burdensome.

 

B-359


Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to extend company benefits to, or eliminate benefits from, domestic partners. Decisions regarding benefits should be left to the discretion of the company.

Gender, Race/ Ethnicity Pay Gap

Generally, vote CASE-BY-CASE on requests for reports on a company’s pay data by gender, race, ethnicity, or a report on a company’s policies and goals to reduce any gender, race, or ethnicity pay gap, taking into account:

 

  1.

The company’s current policies and disclosure related to both its diversity and inclusion policies and practices and its compensation philosophy and fair and equitable compensation practices;

 

  2.

Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to gender, race, or ethnicity pay gap issues; and

 

  3.

The company’s disclosure regarding gender, race, or ethnicity pay gap policies or initiatives compared to its industry peers; and

 

  4.

Local laws regarding categorization of race and/or ethnicity and definitions of ethnic and/or racial minorities.

Racial Equity and/or Civil Rights Audit Guidelines

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals asking a company to conduct an independent racial equity and/or civil rights audit, taking into account:

 

  1.

The company’s established process or framework for addressing racial inequity and discrimination internally;

 

  2.

Whether the company has issued a public statement related to its racial justice efforts in recent years, or has committed to internal policy review;

 

  3.

Whether the company has engaged with impacted communities, stakeholders, and civil rights experts;

 

  4.

The company’s track record in recent years of racial justice measures and outreach externally;

 

  5.

Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to racial inequity or discrimination; and

 

  6.

Whether the company’s actions are aligned with market norms on civil rights, and racial or ethnic diversity.

Environment and Sustainability

Facility and Workplace Safety

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on requests for workplace safety reports, including reports on accident risk reduction efforts, taking into account:

 

  1.

The company’s current level of disclosure of its workplace health and safety performance data, health and safety management policies, initiatives, and oversight mechanisms;

 

  2.

The nature of the company’s business, specifically regarding company and employee exposure to health and safety risks;

 

  3.

Recent significant controversies, fines, or violations related to workplace health and safety; and

 

  4.

The company’s workplace health and safety performance relative to industry peers.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on resolutions requesting that a company report on safety and/or security risks associated with its operations and/or facilities, considering:

 

  1.

The company’s compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines;

 

B-360


  2.

The company’s current level of disclosure regarding its security and safety policies, procedures, and compliance monitoring; and

 

  3.

The existence of recent, significant violations, fines, or controversy regarding the safety and security of the company’s operations and/or facilities.

General Environmental Proposals and Community Impact Assessments

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on requests for reports on policies and/or the potential (community) social and/or environmental impact of company operations, considering:

 

  1.

Current disclosure of applicable policies and risk assessment report(s) and risk management procedures;

 

  2.

The impact of regulatory non-compliance, litigation, remediation, or reputational loss that may be associated with failure to manage the company’s operations in question, including the management of relevant community and stakeholder relations;

 

  3.

The nature, purpose, and scope of the company’s operations in the specific region(s);

 

  4.

The degree to which company policies and procedures are consistent with industry norms; and

 

  5.

The scope of the resolution.

Hydraulic Fracturing

Generally, vote FOR proposals requesting greater disclosure of a company’s (natural gas) hydraulic fracturing operations, including measures the company has taken to manage and mitigate the potential community and environmental impacts of those operations, considering:

 

  1.

The company’s current level of disclosure of relevant policies and oversight mechanisms;

 

  2.

The company’s current level of such disclosure relative to its industry peers;

 

  3.

Potential relevant local, state, or national regulatory developments; and

 

  4.

Controversies, fines, or litigation related to the company’s hydraulic fracturing operations.

Operations in Protected Areas

Generally, vote FOR requests for reports on potential environmental damage as a result of company operations in protected regions, unless:

 

  1.

Operations in the specified regions are not permitted by current laws or regulations;

 

  2.

The company does not currently have operations or plans to develop operations in these protected regions; or

 

  3.

The company’s disclosure of its operations and environmental policies in these regions is comparable to industry peers.

Recycling

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to report on an existing recycling program, or adopt a new recycling program, taking into account:

 

  1.

The nature of the company’s business;

 

  2.

The current level of disclosure of the company’s existing related programs;

 

B-361


  3.

The timetable and methods of program implementation prescribed by the proposal;

 

  4.

The company’s ability to address the issues raised in the proposal; and

 

  5.

How the company’s recycling programs compare to similar programs of its industry peers.

Sustainability Reporting

Generally, vote FOR proposals requesting that a company report on its policies, initiatives, and oversight mechanisms related to social, economic, and environmental sustainability, unless:

 

  1.

The company already discloses similar information through existing reports or policies such as an environment, health, and safety (EHS) report; a comprehensive code of corporate conduct; and/or a diversity report; or

 

  2.

The company has formally committed to the implementation of a reporting program based on Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines or a similar standard within a specified time frame.

Water Issues

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals requesting a company report on, or adopt a new policy on, water- related risks and concerns, taking into account:

 

  1.

The company’s current disclosure of relevant policies, initiatives, oversight mechanisms, and water usage metrics;

 

  2.

Whether or not the company’s existing water-related policies and practices are consistent with relevant internationally recognized standards and national/local regulations;

 

  3.

The potential financial impact or risk to the company associated with water-related concerns or issues; and

 

  4.

Recent, significant company controversies, fines, or litigation regarding water use by the company and its suppliers.

General Corporate Issues

Charitable Contributions

Vote AGAINST proposals restricting a company from making charitable contributions. Charitable contributions are generally useful for assisting worthwhile causes and for creating goodwill in the community. In the absence of bad faith, self-dealing, or gross negligence, management should determine which, and if, contributions are in the best interests of the company.

Data Security, Privacy, and Internet Issues

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals requesting the disclosure or implementation of data security, privacy, or information access and management policies and procedures, considering:

 

  1.

The level of disclosure of company policies and procedures relating to data security, privacy, freedom of speech, information access and management, and Internet censorship;

 

  2.

Engagement in dialogue with governments or relevant groups with respect to data security, privacy, or the free flow of information on the Internet;

 

  3.

The scope of business involvement and of investment in countries whose governments censor or monitor the Internet and other telecommunications;

 

  4.

Applicable market-specific laws or regulations that may be imposed on the company; and

 

B-362


  5.

Controversies, fines, or litigation related to data security, privacy, freedom of speech, or Internet censorship.

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Compensation-Related Proposals

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to link, or report on linking, executive compensation to sustainability (environmental and social) criteria, considering:

 

  1.

The scope and prescriptive nature of the proposal;

 

  2.

Whether the company has significant and/or persistent controversies or regulatory violations regarding social and/or environmental issues;

 

  3.

Whether the company has management systems and oversight mechanisms in place regarding its social and environmental performance;

 

  4.

The degree to which industry peers have incorporated similar non-financial performance criteria in their executive compensation practices; and

 

  5.

The company’s current level of disclosure regarding its environmental and social performance.

Human Rights, Labor Issues, and International Operations

Human Rights Proposals

Generally, vote FOR proposals requesting a report on company or company supplier labor and/or human rights standards and policies unless such information is already publicly disclosed.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to implement company or company supplier labor and/or human rights standards and policies, considering:

 

  1.

The degree to which existing relevant policies and practices are disclosed;

 

  2.

Whether or not existing relevant policies are consistent with internationally recognized standards;

 

  3.

Whether company facilities and those of its suppliers are monitored and how;

 

  4.

Company participation in fair labor organizations or other internationally recognized human rights initiatives;

 

  5.

Scope and nature of business conducted in markets known to have higher risk of workplace labor/human rights abuse;

 

  6.

Recent, significant company controversies, fines, or litigation regarding human rights at the company or its suppliers;

 

  7.

The scope of the request; and

  8.

Deviation from industry sector peer company standards and practices.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals requesting that a company conduct an assessment of the human rights risks in its operations or in its supply chain, or report on its human rights risk assessment process, considering:

 

  1.

The degree to which existing relevant policies and practices are disclosed, including information on the implementation of these policies and any related oversight mechanisms;

 

  2.

The company’s industry and whether the company or its suppliers operate in countries or areas where there is a history of human rights concerns;

 

  3.

Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation regarding human rights involving the company or its suppliers, and whether the company has taken remedial steps; and

 

  4.

Whether the proposal is unduly burdensome or overly prescriptive.

 

B-363


Operations in High Risk Markets

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on requests for a report on a company’s potential financial and reputational risks associated with operations in “high-risk” markets, such as a terrorism-sponsoring state or politically/socially unstable region, taking into account:

 

  1.

The nature, purpose, and scope of the operations and business involved that could be affected by social or political disruption;

 

  2.

Current disclosure of applicable risk assessment(s) and risk management procedures;

 

  3.

Compliance with U.S. sanctions and laws;

 

  4.

Consideration of other international policies, standards, and laws; and

 

  5.

Whether the company has been recently involved in recent, significant controversies, fines, or litigation related to its operations in “high-risk” markets.

Outsourcing/Offshoring

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals calling for companies to report on the risks associated with outsourcing/plant closures, considering:

 

  1.

Controversies surrounding operations in the relevant market(s);

 

  2.

The value of the requested report to shareholders;

 

  3.

The company’s current level of disclosure of relevant information on outsourcing and plant closure procedures; and

 

  4.

The company’s existing human rights standards relative to industry peers.

Weapons and Military Sales

Vote AGAINST reports on foreign military sales or offsets. Such disclosures may involve sensitive and confidential information. Moreover, companies must comply with government controls and reporting on foreign military sales.

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals asking a company to cease production or report on the risks associated with the use of depleted uranium munitions or nuclear weapons components and delivery systems, including disengaging from current and proposed contracts. Such contracts are monitored by government agencies, serve multiple military and non-military uses, and withdrawal from these contracts could have a negative impact on the company’s business.

Mandatory Arbitration

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on requests for a report on a company’s use of mandatory arbitration on employment-related claims, taking into account:

 

  1.

The company’s current policies and practices related to the use of mandatory arbitration agreements on workplace claims;

 

  2.

Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to the use of mandatory arbitration agreements on workplace claims; and

 

  3.

The company’s disclosure of its policies and practices related to the use of mandatory arbitration agreements compared to its peers.

 

B-364


Sexual Harassment

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on requests for a report on company actions taken to strengthen policies and oversight to prevent workplace sexual harassment, or a report on risks posed by a company’s failure to prevent workplace sexual harassment, taking into account:

 

  1.

The company’s current policies, practices, oversight mechanisms related to preventing workplace sexual harassment;

 

  2.

Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation or regulatory actions related to workplace sexual harassment issues; and

 

  3.

The company’s disclosure regarding workplace sexual harassment policies or initiatives compared to its industry peers.

Political Activities

Lobbying

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals requesting information on a company’s lobbying (including direct, indirect, and grassroots lobbying) activities, policies, or procedures, considering:

 

  1.

The company’s current disclosure of relevant lobbying policies, and management and board oversight;

 

  2.

The company’s disclosure regarding trade associations or other groups that it supports, or is a member of, that engage in lobbying activities; and

 

  3.

Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation regarding the company’s lobbying-related activities.

Boston Partners will vote AGAINST proposals that impose significantly higher standards of reporting and oversight than required by legislation and-or industry standard and that would put the firm at a competitive disadvantage.

Political Contributions

Generally, vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals requesting greater disclosure of a company’s political contributions and trade association spending policies and activities, considering:

 

  1.

The company’s policies, and management and board oversight related to its direct political contributions and payments to trade associations or other groups that may be used for political purposes;

 

  2.

The company’s disclosure regarding its support of, and participation in, trade associations or other groups that may make political contributions; and

 

  3.

Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation related to the company’s political contributions or political activities.

Boston Partners will vote AGAINST proposals that impose significantly higher standards of reporting and oversight than required by legislation and-or industry standard and that would put the firm at a competitive disadvantage.

Vote AGAINST proposals barring a company from making political contributions. Businesses are affected by legislation at the federal, state, and local level; barring political contributions can put the company at a competitive disadvantage.

 

B-365


Vote AGAINST proposals to publish in newspapers and other media a company’s political contributions. Such publications could present significant cost to the company without providing commensurate value to shareholders.

Political Ties

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals asking a company to affirm political nonpartisanship in the workplace, so long as:

 

  1.

There are no recent, significant controversies, fines, or litigation regarding the company’s political contributions or trade association spending; and

 

  2.

The company has procedures in place to ensure that employee contributions to company- sponsored political action committees (PACs) are strictly voluntary and prohibit coercion.

Vote AGAINST proposals asking for a list of company executives, directors, consultants, legal counsels, lobbyists, or investment bankers that have prior government service and whether such service had a bearing on the business of the company. Such a list would be burdensome to prepare without providing any meaningful information to shareholders.

VIII. Mutual Fund Proxies

Election of Directors

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on the election of directors and trustees, following the same guidelines for uncontested directors for public company shareholder meetings. However, mutual fund boards do not usually have compensation committees, so do not withhold for the lack of this committee.

Converting Closed-end Fund to Open-end Fund

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on conversion proposals, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Past performance as a closed-end fund;

 

  2.

Market in which the fund invests;

 

  3.

Measures taken by the board to address the discount; and

 

  4.

Past shareholder activism, board activity, and votes on related proposals.

Proxy Contests

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proxy contests, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Past performance relative to its peers;

 

  2.

Market in which the fund invests;

 

  3.

Measures taken by the board to address the issues;

 

  4.

Past shareholder activism, board activity, and votes on related proposals;

 

  5.

Strategy of the incumbents versus the dissidents;

 

  6.

Independence of directors;

 

  7.

Experience and skills of director candidates;

 

  8.

Governance profile of the company;

 

  9.

Evidence of management entrenchment.

 

B-366


Investment Advisory Agreements

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on investment advisory agreements, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Proposed and current fee schedules;

 

  2.

Fund category/investment objective;

 

  3.

Performance benchmarks;

 

  4.

Share price performance as compared with peers;

 

  5.

Resulting fees relative to peers;

 

  6.

Assignments (where the advisor undergoes a change of control).

Approving New Classes or Series of Shares

Vote FOR the establishment of new classes or series of shares.

Preferred Stock Proposals

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on the authorization for or increase in preferred shares, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Stated specific financing purpose;

 

  2.

Possible dilution for common shares;

 

  3.

Whether the shares can be used for antitakeover purposes.

1940 Act Policies (U.S.)

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on policies under the Investment Advisor Act of 1940, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Potential competitiveness;

 

  2.

Regulatory developments;

 

  3.

Current and potential returns; and

 

  4.

Current and potential risk.

Generally, vote FOR these amendments as long as the proposed changes do not fundamentally alter the investment focus of the fund and do comply with the current SEC interpretation.

Changing a Fundamental Restriction to a Nonfundamental Restriction

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to change a fundamental restriction to a non-fundamental restriction, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

The fund’s target investments;

 

  2.

The reasons given by the fund for the change; and

 

  3.

The projected impact of the change on the portfolio.

Change Fundamental Investment Objective to Nonfundamental

Vote AGAINST proposals to change a fund’s fundamental investment objective to non-fundamental.

 

B-367


Name Change Proposals

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on name change proposals, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Political/economic changes in the target market;

 

  2.

Consolidation in the target market; and

 

  3.

Current asset composition.

Change in Fund’s Subclassification

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on changes in a fund’s sub-classification, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Potential competitiveness;

 

  2.

Current and potential returns;

 

  3.

Risk of concentration;

 

  4.

Consolidation in target industry.

Business Development Companies—Authorization to Sell Shares of Common Stock at a Price below Net Asset Value

Vote FOR proposals authorizing the board to issue shares below Net Asset Value (NAV) if:

 

  1.

The proposal to allow share issuances below NAV has an expiration date no more than one year from the date shareholders approve the underlying proposal, as required under the Investment Company Act of 1940;

 

  2.

The sale is deemed to be in the best interests of shareholders by (1) a majority of the company’s independent directors and (2) a majority of the company’s directors who have no financial interest in the issuance; and

 

  3.

The company has demonstrated responsible past use of share issuances by either:

 

  a.

Outperforming peers in its 8-digit GICS group as measured by one- and three-year median TSRs; or

 

  b.

Providing disclosure that its past share issuances were priced at levels that resulted in only small or moderate discounts to NAV and economic dilution to existing non- participating shareholders.

Disposition of Assets/Termination/Liquidation

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to dispose of assets, to terminate or liquidate, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Strategies employed to salvage the company;

 

  2.

The fund’s past performance;

 

  3.

The terms of the liquidation.

Changes to the Charter Document

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on changes to the charter document, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

The degree of change implied by the proposal;

 

  2.

The efficiencies that could result;

 

B-368


  3.

The state of incorporation;

 

  4.

Regulatory standards and implications.

Vote AGAINST any of the following changes:

 

  1.

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to reorganize or terminate the trust or any of its series;

 

  2.

Removal of shareholder approval requirement for amendments to the new declaration of trust;

 

  3.

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to amend the fund’s management contract, allowing the contract to be modified by the investment manager and the trust management, as permitted by the 1940 Act;

 

  4.

Allow the trustees to impose other fees in addition to sales charges on investment in a fund, such as deferred sales charges and redemption fees that may be imposed upon redemption of a fund’s shares;

 

  5.

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to engage in and terminate sub-advisory arrangements;

 

  6.

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to change the domicile of the fund.

Changing the Domicile of a Fund

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on re-incorporations, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Regulations of both states;

 

  2.

Required fundamental policies of both states;

 

  3.

The increased flexibility available.

Authorizing the Board to Hire and Terminate Sub-advisers Without Shareholder Approval

Vote AGAINST proposals authorizing the board to hire or terminate sub-advisers without shareholder approval if the investment adviser currently employs only one sub-adviser.

Distribution Agreements

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on distribution agreement proposals, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Fees charged to comparably sized funds with similar objectives;

 

  2.

The proposed distributor’s reputation and past performance;

 

  3.

The competitiveness of the fund in the industry;

 

  4.

The terms of the agreement.

Master-Feeder Structure

Vote FOR the establishment of a master-feeder structure.

Mergers

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on merger proposals, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Resulting fee structure;

 

  2.

Performance of both funds;

 

B-369


  3.

Continuity of management personnel;

 

  4.

Changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights.

Closed End Funds-Unilateral Opt-in to Control Share Acquisition Statutes

For closed-end management investment companies (“CEFs”), vote AGAINST or WITHHOLD from nominating/governance committee members (or other directors on a CASE-BY-CASE basis) at CEFs that have not provided a compelling rationale for opting-in to a Control Share Acquisition statute, nor submitted a by-law amendment to a shareholder vote.

Shareholder Proposals for Mutual Funds

Establish Director Ownership Requirement

Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder proposals that mandate a specific minimum amount of stock that directors must own in order to qualify as a director or to remain on the board.

Reimburse Shareholder for Expenses Incurred

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on shareholder proposals to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses. When supporting the dissidents, vote FOR the reimbursement of the proxy solicitation expenses.

Terminate the Investment Advisor

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to terminate the investment advisor, considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Performance of the fund’s Net Asset Value (NAV);

 

  2.

The fund’s history of shareholder relations;

 

  3.

The performance of other funds under the advisor’s management.

 

B-370


AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND

I. General

Constitutional Amendment

Vote case-by case on proposals to amend the company’s constitution.

Any proposals to amend the company’s constitution, including updating of various clauses to reflect changes in corporate law, to complete replacement of an existing constitution with a new “plain language,” and updated, version, are required to be approved by a special resolution (with a 75 percent super majority of votes cast requirement).

Renewal of “Proportional Takeover” Clause in Constitution

Vote FOR the renewal of the proportional takeover clause in the company’s constitution.

Significant Change in Activities

Vote FOR resolutions to change the nature or scale of business activities provided the notice of meeting and explanatory statement provide a sound business case for the proposed change.

II. Share Capital

Non-Voting Shares

Vote AGAINST proposals to create a new class of non-voting or sub-voting shares. Only vote FOR if:

 

  1.

It is intended for financing purposes with minimal or no dilution to current shareholders;

 

  2.

It is not designed to preserve the voting power of an insider or significant shareholder.

Generally, vote FOR the cancellation of classes of non-voting or sub-voting shares.

Reduction of Share Capital: Cash Consideration Payable to Shareholders

Generally, vote FOR the reduction of share capital with the accompanying return of cash to shareholders.

Reduction of Share Capital: Absorption of Losses

Vote FOR reduction of share capital proposals, with absorption of losses as they represent routine accounting measures.

Buybacks/Repurchases

Generally, vote FOR requests to repurchase shares, unless:

 

  1.

There is clear evidence available of past abuse of this authority; or

 

  2.

It is a selective buyback, and the notice of meeting and explanatory statement does not provide a sound business case for it.

Consider the following conditions in buyback plans:

 

  1.

Limitations on a company’s ability to use the plan to repurchase shares from third parties at a premium;

 

B-371


  2.

Limitations on the exercise of the authority to thwart takeover threats; and

 

  3.

A requirement that repurchases be made at arms-length through independent third parties.

Some shareholders object to companies repurchasing shares, preferring to see extra cash invested in new businesses or paid out as dividends. However, when timed correctly, buybacks are a legitimate use of corporate funds and can add to long-term shareholder returns.

III. Board of Directors

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

Attendance (Australia)

Vote AGAINST director nominees that attended less than 75 percent of board and committee meetings over the fiscal year without a satisfactory explanation.

Generally, vote AGAINST the chairman or deputy chairman if no disclosure of board and/or committee attendance is provided. Subject to section 300(10) of the Corporations Act, an Australian listed company must include in its annual report information about each director’s attendance at board and committee meetings.

Independence (Australia)

Vote AGAINST a director nominee(s) in the following circumstances:

 

  1.

The director nominee is an executive or board chair, and no “lead director” has been appointed from among the independent directors or other control mechanisms are in place. Exceptions may be made for company founders who are integral to the company or if other exceptional circumstances apply;

 

  2.

The director nominee is an executive and a member of the audit committee or remuneration committee. In these situations, also vote AGAINST the chairman of the board and/or the chairman of the relevant committee;

 

  3.

The director nominee is a former partner or employee of the company’s auditor who serves on the audit committee; and

 

  4.

The director nominee is a former partner of the company’s audit firm and receives post- employment benefits.

If the board is not a majority (over 50 percent) independent, generally vote AGAINST nominees who are:

 

  1.

Executive directors (except the CEO and founders integral to the company); or

 

  2.

Non-independent NEDs whose presence causes the board not to be majority independent without sufficient justification. Exceptional factors may include:

 

  a.

Whether a non-independent director represents a substantial shareholder owning at least 15 percent of the company’s shares and whose percentage board representation is proportionate to its ownership interest in the company; and

 

  b.

The level of board independence (i.e. generally, a recommendation against non- independent directors if the board composition is wholly non-independent, whereas a CASE-BY-CASE analysis may be undertaken where a board is at or near 50% independent and the reasons for nonindependence of certain directors may include excessive board tenure greater than 12 years).

Combined Chair and CEO (Australia)

Generally, vote AGAINST a director who combines the CEO and chairman roles, unless the company provides strong justification as to why this non-standard governance arrangement is appropriate for the specific situation

 

B-372


of the company. Exceptional circumstances may include a limited timeframe for the combined role upon departure of the CEO, or a non-operating, research, development or exploration company. In some circumstances an executive chair may be considered to effectively combine the chair and CEO roles, notwithstanding the presence of another director on the board with the title of CEO. In assessing this situation, Boston Partners will assess the disclosure surrounding the split of responsibilities and their comparative pay levels.

Problematic Remuneration Practices (Australia)

Generally, vote AGAINST members of the remuneration committee if the remuneration resolution at the previous general meeting (usually the previous year) received support of less than 75 percent of votes cast, taking into account:

 

  1.

The company’s response in addressing specific concerns, engagement with institutional investors, and other compensation practices;

 

  2.

The company’s ownership structure;

 

  3.

Whether the issues are considered to be recurring or isolated;

 

  4.

Whether the director has served on a remuneration committee of a non-associated company which has also demonstrated problematic remuneration practices; and

 

  5.

Whether the level of support was less than 50 percent.

Shareholder Nominees

Generally, vote AGAINST shareholder-nominated candidates who lack board endorsement and do not present conclusive rationale to justify their nomination, including unmatched skills and experience, or other reason. Vote FOR such candidates if they demonstrate a clear ability to contribute positively to board deliberations.

Removal of Directors (New Zealand)

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on resolutions for the removal of directors, taking into consideration:

 

  1.

Company performance relative to its peers;

 

  2.

Strategy of the incumbents versus the dissidents;

 

  3.

Independence of directors/nominees;

 

  4.

Experience and skills of board candidates;

 

  5.

Governance profile of the company;

 

  6.

Evidence of management entrenchment;

 

  7.

Responsiveness to shareholders; and,

 

  8.

Level of disclosure by company to shareholders.

IV. Remuneration

Remuneration Report (Australia)

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on the remuneration report, taking into account the pay of executives and non- executive directors, including where applicable:

 

  1.

The quantum of total fixed remuneration and short-term incentive payments relative to peers;

 

B-373


  2.

Whether any increases, either to fixed or variable remuneration, for the year under review or the upcoming year were well-explained and not excessive;

 

  3.

The listed entity’s workforce;

 

  4.

Financial performance and alignment with shareholder returns;

 

  5.

The adequacy and quality of the company’s disclosure generally;

 

  6.

The appropriateness and quality of the company’s disclosure linking identified material business risks and pre-determined key performance indicators (KPIs) that determine annual variable executive compensation outcomes;

 

  7.

The existence of appropriate performance criteria against which vesting and the quantum of cash and equity bonuses are assessed prior to any payment being made;

 

  8.

Whether appropriate targets for incentives, including in the STI or LTI, are in place and are disclosed with an appropriate level of detail;

 

  9.

Whether performance measures and targets for incentives, including in the STI and LTI, are measured over an appropriate period and are sufficiently stretching;

 

  10.

Any special arrangements for new joiners were in line with good market practice;

 

  11.

The remuneration committee exercised discretion appropriately, and such discretion is appropriately explained; and

 

  12.

The alignment of CEO and executive pay with the company’s financial performance and returns for shareholders.

Where a remuneration report contains multiple areas of non-compliance with good practice, the vote will reflect the severity of the issues identified. A small number of minor breaches may still result in an overall qualified FOR vote whereas a single, serious deviation may be sufficient to justify an AGAINST vote.

In cases where a serious breach of good practice, or departure from accepted market standards and shareholder requirements, is identified and typically where issues have been raised by shareholders over one or more years, the chair of the remuneration committee (or, where relevant, another member of the remuneration committee) may also receive a negative vote.

Elements of the remuneration report include:

 

  1.

Base Pay;

 

  2.

Superannuation, pension contributions and benefits;

 

  3.

Short term incentive (STI);

 

  4.

Long-term incentive (LTI);

 

  5.

Dilution Limits;

 

  6.

Malus/ clawback;

 

  7.

Good leavers;

 

  8.

Change in control;

 

  9.

Shareholding requirement;

 

  10.

Executive’ service contracts, including exit payments;

 

  11.

Arrangements for new joiners;

 

B-374


 

  12.

Discretion;

 

  13.

Non-executive director fees;

 

  14.

All-employee schemes.

Remuneration of Executive Directors: Share Incentive Schemes (Australia)

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on share-based incentives for executive directors.

Remuneration of Executives: Options and Other Long-Term Incentives

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on options and long-term incentives for executives. Vote AGAINST plans and proposed grants under plans if:

 

  1.

The company failed to disclose adequate information regarding any element of the scheme;

 

  2.

The performance hurdles are not sufficiently demanding;

 

  3.

The plan permits retesting of grants based on rolling performance;

 

  4.

The plan allows for excessive dilution.

Evaluate long-term incentive plans (and proposed grants of equity awards to particular directors) according to the following criteria:

Exercise Price

 

  1.

Option exercise prices should not be at a discount to market price at the grant date (in the absence of demanding performance hurdles).

 

  2.

Plans should not allow the repricing of underwater options.

Vesting Period: Appropriate time restrictions before options can be exercised (if 50 percent or more of securities can vest in two to three years or less, this is generally considered too short).

Performance Hurdles

 

  1.

Generally, a hurdle that relates to total shareholder return (TSR) is preferable to a hurdle that specifies an absolute share price target or an accounting measure of performance (such as earnings per share (EPS)).

 

  2.

Where a relative hurdle is used (comparing the company’s performance against a group of peers or against an index), no vesting should occur for sub-median performance.

 

  3.

The use of ‘indexed options’ – where the exercise price of an option is increased by the movement in a suitable index of peer companies – is generally considered a sufficiently demanding hurdle.

 

  4.

A sliding-scale hurdle – under which the percentage of rights that vest increases according to a sliding scale of performance (whether absolute or relative) – is generally preferable to a hurdle under which 100 percent of the award vests once a single target is achieved (i.e. no “cliff vesting”).

 

  5.

In the absence of relative performance hurdles, absolute share price hurdles may be appropriate so long as they are sufficiently stretching. Where an absolute share-price target is used, executives can be rewarded by a rising market even if their company does relatively poorly. In addition, even if a share price hurdle is set at a significantly higher level than the prevailing share price, if the option has a long life then the hurdle may not be particularly stretching.

 

B-375


  6.

In determining whether an absolute share price target is sufficiently stretching, take into consideration the company’s explanation of how the target share price has been calculated. ISS will be more likely to consider an absolute share price target as sufficiently stretching when the target price is reflected in the option exercise price.

 

  7.

The issue of options with no performance conditions other than continued service and the exercise price (set as being equal to the share price on date of issue) is not generally considered to be a sufficiently demanding hurdle.

 

  8.

Support incentive schemes with accounting-based hurdles if they are sufficiently demanding. An accounting-based hurdle does not necessarily require that shareholder value be improved before the incentive vests as it is possible for incentives to vest – and executives to be rewarded – without any medium- to long-term improvement in returns to shareholders. Growth in EPS may, but does not always, translate into a material increase in share price and dividends over the medium to long-term.

 

  9.

Hurdles which relate option vesting to share price performance against a company’s cost of capital may be considered acceptable if the exercise price is adjusted to reflect the cost of capital over the vesting period. Shareholders must also be given sufficient information to determine if the cost of capital will be calculated or reviewed independently of management.

 

  10.

Two different types of options should be distinguished: (1) grants of market-exercise-price options (traditional options), and (2) zero exercise price options (also called conditional awards, performance shares, and performance rights). Traditional options have an in-built share price appreciation hurdle, because the share price must increase above its level at grant date for the executive to have an incentive to exercise. Performance rights have no exercise price; the executive pays nothing to the company on exercising the rights. An EPS hurdle can lead to executive reward without any increase in shareholder return if the instruments are performance rights, but not if they are traditional options. Therefore, an EPS hurdle can more readily be supported if traditional options, rather than performance rights, are being granted.

 

  11.

For an EPS target to be sufficiently stretching, where a single target is used (with 100 percent of options/rights vesting on the target being achieved), the target should generally specify a challenging target that is at least in line with analyst and management earnings forecasts. For targets which see rewards vest based on a sliding scale, vesting should start at a level below consensus forecasts only if a substantial portion of the award vests for performance above consensus forecasts.

Retesting

 

  1.

Do not support excessive retesting of options grants against performance hurdles. Many NZ companies use performance hurdles such as cost of capital relative to share price that allow for continual retesting and the issue of retesting against performance hurdles does not appear to have been raised with companies in the past and many equity grants to executive directors have been modest in size. As such, it is not appropriate for Boston Partners to vote AGAINST a particular options grant on the basis of excessive retesting.

 

  2.

Generally, vote AGAINST incentive schemes that provide for retesting against performance hurdles on a rolling-basis. For retesting to be acceptable, at a minimum it should assess performance against the hurdle from the inception date to the date of vesting.

Transparency

 

  1.

The methodology for determining exercise price of options should be disclosed.

 

  2.

Shareholders should be presented with sufficient information to determine whether an incentive scheme will reward superior future performance.

 

  3.

The proposed volume of securities which may be issued under an incentive scheme should be disclosed to enable shareholders to assess dilution.

 

B-376


  4.

Time restrictions before options can be exercised should be disclosed, as should the expiry date of the options. Any restrictions on disposing of shares received on the exercise of options should be disclosed.

 

  5.

If a value has been assigned to the options, the method used to calculate cost of options should be disclosed.

 

  6.

The method of purchase or issue of shares on exercise of options should be disclosed.

Dilution of Existing Shareholders’ Equity

Aggregate number of all shares and options issued under all employee and executive incentive schemes should not exceed 10 percent of issued capital.

Level of Reward

Value of options granted (assuming performance hurdles are met) should be consistent with comparable schemes operating in similar companies.

Eligibility for Participation in the Scheme

 

  1.

Scheme should be open to all key executives.

 

  2.

Scheme should not be open to non-executive directors.

Other

 

  1.

Incentive plans should include reasonable change-in-control provisions (i.e. pro-rata vesting based on the proportion of the vesting period expired and performance against the hurdles taking into account the size of awards).

 

  2.

Incentive plans should include ‘good’ leaver/’bad’ leaver provisions to minimize excessive and unearned payouts.

Non-Executive Director Perks/Fringe Benefits (Australia)

Where a company provides fringe benefits to non-executive directors in addition to directors’ board and committee fees, vote CASE-BY-CASE on:

 

  1.

The remuneration report;

 

  2.

Proposals to increase the non-executive directors’ aggregate fee cap; and/or

 

  3.

The election of the chairman of the board, chairman of the remuneration committee, or any member of the remuneration committee standing for re-election.

Vote AGAINST when post-employment fringe benefits are paid to non-executive directors, which are often represented as an entitlement per year of service on the board of the company.

Remuneration of Non-Executive Directors: Increase in Aggregate Fee Cap

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on resolution that seeks shareholder approval for an increase in the maximum aggregate level of fees payable to the company’s non-executive directors.

In assessing director remuneration, consider how remuneration relates to shareholders’ interests, specifically:

 

  1.

The size of the proposed increase;

 

  2.

The level of fees compared to those at peer companies;

 

B-377


  3.

The explanation the board has given for the proposed increase;

 

  4.

Whether the company has discontinued retirement benefits;

 

  5.

Whether there is sufficient capacity within the previously approved aggregate fee cap to accommodate any proposed increases in director’s fees;

 

  6.

The company’s absolute and relative performance over (at least) the past three years based on measures such as (but not limited to) share price, earnings per share and return on capital employed;

 

  7.

The company’s policy and practices on non-executive director remuneration, including equity ownership;

 

  8.

The number of directors presently on the board and any planned increases to the size of the board;

 

  9.

The level of board turnover.

Generally, vote FOR a fee cap resolution that also seeks to allow directors to receive part or all of their fees in shares.

In Australia, vote AGAINST the increase if the company has an active retirement benefits plan for non- executive directors. Vote AGAINST where a company is seeking an increase after a period of poor absolute and relative performance, where the same board (or largely the same board) has overseen this period of poor performance and where the fee cap increase is not sought for the purposes of board renewal.

Remuneration of Non-Executive Directors: Issue of Options (New Zealand)

Generally, vote AGAINST the issue of options to non-executive directors.

Remuneration of Non-Executive Directors: Approval of Share Plan

For New Zealand, generally vote AGAINST the issue of options to non-executive directors. For Australia, generally, vote FOR the approval of NED share plans which are essentially salary-sacrifice structures and have the effect of increasing directors’ shareholdings and alignment with investors.

Transparency of CEO Incentives (New Zealand)

Vote AGAINST the re-election of members of the remuneration committee if:

 

  1.

The remuneration of the CEO is not subject to any shareholder approval or scrutiny; or

 

  2.

There is evidence that the CEO has been granted a substantial quantity of equity incentives; and,

 

  3.

There is no apparent credible explanation for the CEO not being a member of the board;

Shareholder Resolutions (New Zealand)

Generally, vote FOR appropriately-structured shareholder resolutions calling for increased disclosure of executive remuneration and/or the introduction of a non-binding shareholder vote on a company’s remuneration policy.

 

B-378


BRAZIL

I. Board of Directors

Minimum Independent Levels

Vote AGAINST the bundled election of directors if the post-election board at Novo Mercado and Nivel 2 companies would be less than 50 percent.3

Vote AGAINST the bundled election of directors if the post-election board of Nivel 1 and traditional companies would not have at least one-third of the board or two directors, whichever is higher, classified as independent.

Boston Partners applies a five-year cooling off period to former executives when determining nominee independence in Brazil.

Election of Minority Nominees (Separate Election)

Vote FOR the election of minority board nominees (ordinary and preferred holders), as well as minority fiscal council nominees, presented under a separate election when timely disclosure is provided of their names and biographical information, in the absence of other concerns regarding the proposed nominees. If competing minority nominees are disclosed by different minority shareholders, the contested election policy will be applied.

In the absence of timely disclosure regarding minority nominees, an ABSTAIN vote will be issued for the separate minority election proposal.

In the absence of publicly disclosed information regarding the existence of board nominees presented by minority shareholders, an ABSTAIN vote will be issued for the procedural question requesting a separate election for the election of a director appointed by minority ordinary and/or preferred shareholders.

For fiscal council elections, in the event of publicly-disclosed minority nominee(s), Boston Partners will prioritize the support for the election of minority representatives, issuing an ABSTAIN vote for the management nominees. In the absence of timely disclosure of a minority fiscal council nominee, an ABSTAIN vote will be recommended for the fiscal council minority separate election agenda item, with a vote recommendation presented for the management fiscal council nominees.

Boston Partners will vote on a best effort basis, whenever the names and biographical information of minority nominees are disclosed following the publication of the original report, up to a minimum of eight (8) days prior to the shareholder meeting, in which case priority will be given to allow minority shareholders to elect a representative to the board of directors and/or fiscal council.

Installation of Fiscal Council

Vote FOR approval of the fiscal council installation unless no fiscal council nominees, appointed by either the company’s management or by minority shareholders, have been disclosed in a timely manner. Vote to ABSTAIN from such proposals in the absence of publicly disclosed candidates.

In the event management recommends against the installation of the fiscal council, vote CASE-BY- CASE.

3 

2021 and 2022 are transitionary periods. Vote AGAINST proposed board with overall independence below 40 percent during this period.

 

B-379


Combined Chairman/CEO

Vote AGAINST the bundled election of directors of companies listed under the differentiated corporate governance segments of the Sao Paulo Stock Exchange (BM&Fbovespa)–Novo Mercado, Nivel 2, and Nivel 1–if the company maintains or proposes a combined chairman/CEO structure, after three (3) years from the date the company’s shares began trading on the respective differentiated corporate governance segment.

Vote AGAINST the election of the company’s chairman, if the nominee is also the company’s CEO, when it is presented as a separate election at companies listed under the differentiated corporate governance segments of the Sao Paulo Stock Exchange (BM&Fbovespa), Novo Mercado, Nivel 2, and Nivel 1–after three (3) years from the date the company’s shares began trading on the respective differentiated corporate governance segment.

Board Structure

Vote AGAINST proposals to increase board terms.

II. Capital Structure

Share Repurchase Plans

Boston Partners will generally vote AGAINST any proposal where:

 

  1.

The repurchase can be used for takeover defenses;

 

  2.

There is clear evidence of abuse;

 

  3.

There is no safeguard against selective buybacks; or

Pricing provisions and safeguards are deemed to be unreasonable in light of market practice.

III. Compensation

Management Compensation

Generally, vote FOR management compensation proposals that are presented in a timely manner and include all disclosure elements required by the Brazilian Securities Regulator (CVM).

Vote AGAINST management compensation proposals when:

 

  1.

The company fails to present a detailed remuneration proposal or the proposal lacks clarity;

 

  2.

The company does not disclose the total remuneration of its highest-paid executive; or

 

  3.

The figure provided by the company for the total compensation of its highest-paid administrator is not inclusive of all elements of the executive’s pay.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on global remuneration cap (or company’s total remuneration estimate, as applicable) proposals that represent a significant increase of the amount approved at the previous annual general meeting (year-over-year increase). When further scrutinizing year-over-year significant remuneration increases, jointly consider some or all of the following factors, as relevant:

 

  1.

Whether there is a clearly stated and compelling rationale for the proposed increase;

 

  2.

Whether the remuneration increase is aligned with the company’s long-term performance and/or operational performance targets disclosed by the company;

 

  3.

Whether the company has had positive TSR for the most recent one- and/or three-year periods;

 

B-380


  4.

Whether the relation between fixed and variable executive pay adequately aligns compensation with the company’s future performance.

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis when the company proposes to amend previously-approved compensation caps, paying particular attention as to whether the company has presented a compelling rationale for the request.

Compensation Plans

Boston Partners will generally support reasonable equity pay plans that encourage long-term commitment and ownership by its recipients without posing significant risks to shareholder value. Things to be considered include the presence of discounted exercise prices (which are common in Brazil), particularly in the absence of specific performance criteria; the potential for conflict of interests when administrators are also beneficiaries of the plan; and whether there are sufficient safeguards to mitigate such concerns are considered.

Vote AGAINST a stock option plan and/or restricted share plan, or an amendment to the plan, if:

 

  1.

The plan lacks a minimum vesting cycle of three years;

 

  2.

The plan permits options to be issued with an exercise price at a discount to the current market price, or permits restricted shares to be awarded (essentially shares with a 100 percent discount to market price), in the absence of explicitly stated, challenging performance hurdles related to the company’s historical financial performance or the industry benchmarks;

 

  3.

The maximum dilution exceeds 5 percent of issued capital for a mature company and 10 percent for a growth company. However, Boston Partners will support plans at mature companies with dilution levels up to 10 percent if the plan includes other positive features such as challenging performance criteria and meaningful vesting periods, as these features partially offset dilution concerns by reducing the likelihood that options will become exercisable unless there is a clear improvement in shareholder value; or

 

  4.

Directors eligible to receive options or shares under the scheme are involved in the administration of the plan.

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if non-executive directors are among the plan’s potential beneficiaries, paying special attention to:

 

  1.

Whether there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that beneficiaries do not participate in the plan’s administration; and

 

  2.

The type of grant (if time-based, performance-based, or in lieu of cash), considering the long- term strategic role of boards of directors.

Specifically, for share matching plans, in addition to the abovementioned factors, vote AGAINST the plan, or an amendment to the plan, if:

 

  1.

The shares to be acquired by the participant to become eligible to the share matching plan lack a minimum three-year lock-up period.

Furthermore, for share matching plans with no disclosed performance criteria, Boston Partners will vote AGAINST the plan if:

 

  1.

The shares of the initial investment may be purchased by the participant at a discount to the market price;

 

  2.

The initial investment is made using resources other than the annual variable remuneration received by the participant; or

 

B-381


  3.

The plan lacks a reasonable ratio between the number of shares awarded by the company (matching) and each share acquired by the participant.

IV. Other

Items Antitakeover Mechanisms

Vote FOR mandatory bid provisions that are structured in line with the recommendations of the Sao Paulo Stock Exchange’s Novo Mercado listing segment:

 

  1.

Ownership trigger of 30 percent or higher; and

 

  2.

Reasonable pricing provisions.

 

B-382


CANADA: TSX- LISTED AND VENTURE LISTED COMPANIES

I. Board of Directors

Director Elections

Generally, vote WITHHOLD for all directors nominated only by slate ballot at the annual/general or annual/special shareholders’ meetings. This policy will not apply to contested director elections.

Individual director elections are required for companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX). Policy Considerations for Majority Owned Companies

Support a one-share, one-vote principle. In recognition of the substantial equity stake held by certain shareholders, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, non-management director nominees who are or who represent a controlling shareholder of a majority owned company may be supported if the company meets all of the following independence and governance criteria:

 

  1.

The number of directors related to the controlling shareholder should not exceed the proportion of common shares controlled by the controlling shareholder. In no event, however, should the number of directors related to the controlling shareholder exceed two-thirds of the board;

 

  2.

In addition to the above, if the CEO is related to the controlling shareholder, no more than one- third of the board should be related to management (as distinct from the controlling shareholder);

 

  3.

If the CEO and chair roles are combined or the CEO is or is related to the controlling shareholder, then there should be an independent lead director and the board should have an effective and transparent process to deal with any conflicts of interest between the company, minority shareholders, and the controlling shareholder;

 

  4.

A majority of the audit and nominating committees should be either independent directors or in addition to at least one independent director, may be directors who are related to the controlling shareholder. All members of the compensation committee should be independent of management. If the CEO is related to the controlling shareholder, no more than one member of the compensation committee should be a director who is related to the controlling shareholder; and

 

  5.

Prompt disclosure of detailed vote results following each shareholder meeting.

If any of the above independence and governance criteria are not met, the policy exemption will not be applied. This policy will not be considered at dual class companies having common shares with unequal voting or unequal board representation rights.

Gender Diversity

WITHOLD votes from the Chair of the Nominating Committee when the company has not disclosed a formal written gender diversity policy.

Audit Fee Disclosure

For TSX-listed companies, vote WITHHOLD for the members of the audit committee as constituted in the most recently completed fiscal year if no audit fee information is disclosed by the company within a reasonable period of time prior to a shareholders’ meeting at which ratification of auditors is a voting item.

For Canada Venture Listed companies, vote WITHHOLD for the members of the audit committee as constituted in the most recently completed fiscal year if no audit fee information is disclosed by the company within 120 days after its fiscal year end. In the event that the shareholders’ meeting at which ratification of auditors is a

 

B-383


voting item is scheduled prior to the end of the 120 day reporting deadline and the audit fees for the most recently completed fiscal year have not yet been provided, the vote will be based on the fee disclosure for the prior fiscal year.

Director Attendance

Vote WITHHOLD for individual director nominees (except nominees who served for only part of the fiscal year or newly publicly listed companies or companies that have recently graduated to the TSX, should be considered CASE-BY-CASE) if the company has not adopted a majority voting director resignation policy and, if they have, a pattern of low attendance exists based on prior years’ meeting attendance.

Board Responsiveness

Vote WITHHOLD for continuing individual directors, nominating committee members, or the continuing members of the entire board of directors if at the previous board election, any director received more than 50 percent WITHHOLD votes of the votes cast under a majority voting director resignation policy and the nominating committee has not required that the director leave the board after 90 days, or has not provided another form of acceptable response to the shareholder vote which will be reviewed on a CASE-BY- CASE basis;

Unilateral Adoption of an Advance Notice Provision

Vote WITHHOLD for individual directors, committee members, or the entire board as appropriate in situations where an advance notice policy has been adopted by the board but has not been included on the voting agenda at the next shareholders’ meeting.

Continued lack of shareholder approval of the advanced notice policy in subsequent years may result in further WITHHOLD votes.

Externally-Managed Issuers (EMIs)

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on say-on-pay resolutions where provided, or on individual directors, committee members, or the entire board as appropriate, when an issuer is externally managed and has provided minimal or no disclosure about their management services agreements and how senior management is compensated. Factors taken into consideration may include but are not limited to:

 

  1.

The size and scope of the management services agreement;

 

  2.

Executive compensation in comparison to issuer peers and/or similarly structured issuers;

 

  3.

Overall performance;

 

  4.

Related party transactions;

 

  5.

Board and committee independence;

 

  6.

Conflicts of interest and process for managing conflicts effectively;

 

  7.

Disclosure and independence of the decision-making process involved in the selection of the management services provider;

 

  8.

Risk mitigating factors included within the management services agreement such as fee recoupment mechanisms;

 

  9.

Historical compensation concerns;

 

  10.

Executives’ responsibilities; and

 

B-384


  11.

Other factors that may reasonably be deemed appropriate to assess an externally-managed issuer’s governance framework.

Proxy Access

Proxy Contests – Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections

In addition to the General Policy when a dissident seeks a majority of board seats, Boston Partners will require from the dissident a well-reasoned and detailed business plan, including the dissident’s strategic initiatives, a transition plan and the identification of a qualified and credible new management team. The detailed dissident plan will be compared against the incumbent plan and the dissident director nominees and management team will be compared against the incumbent team in order to arrive at a vote decision.

When a dissident seeks a minority of board seats, the burden of proof imposed on the dissident is lower. In such cases, Boston Partners will not require from the dissident a detailed plan of action, nor is the dissident required to prove that its plan is preferable to the incumbent plan. Instead, the dissident will be required to prove that board change is preferable to the status quo and that the dissident director slate will add value to board deliberations including by, among other factors, considering issues from a viewpoint different from that of the current board members.

II. Shareholder Rights & Defenses

Advance Notice Requirements

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to adopt or amend an advance notice board policy or to adopt or amend articles or by-laws containing or adding an advance notice requirement. These provisions will be evaluated to ensure that all of the provisions included within the requirement solely support the stated purpose of the requirement. The purpose of advance notice requirements, as generally stated in the market, is:

 

  1.

To prevent stealth proxy contests;

 

  2.

To provide a reasonable framework for shareholders to nominate directors by allowing shareholders to submit director nominations within a reasonable timeframe; and

 

  3.

To provide all shareholders with sufficient information about potential nominees in order for them to make informed voting decisions on such nominees.

Features that may be considered problematic include but are not limited to:

 

  1.

For annual notice of meeting given not less than 50 days prior to the meeting date, the notification timeframe within the advance notice requirement should allow shareholders the ability to provide notice of director nominations at any time not less than 30 days prior to the shareholders’ meeting. The notification timeframe should not be subject to any maximum notice period. If notice of annual meeting is given less than 50 days prior to the meeting date, a provision to require shareholder notice by close of business on the 10th day following first public announcement of the annual meeting is supportable. In the case of a special meeting, a requirement that a nominating shareholder must provide notice by close of business on the 15th day following first public announcement of the special shareholders’ meeting is also acceptable;

 

  2.

The board’s inability to waive all sections of the advance notice provision under the policy or by- law, in its sole discretion;

 

  3.

A requirement that any nominating shareholder provide representation that the nominating shareholder be present at the meeting in person or by proxy at which his or her nominee is standing for election for the nomination to be accepted, notwithstanding the number of votes obtained by such nominee;

 

B-385


  4.

A requirement that any proposed nominee deliver a written agreement wherein the proposed nominee acknowledges and agrees, in advance, to comply with all policies and guidelines of the company that are applicable to directors;

 

  5.

Any provision that restricts the notification period to that established for the originally scheduled meeting in the event that the meeting has been adjourned or postponed;

 

  6.

Any disclosure request within the advance notice requirement, or the company’s ability to request additional disclosure of the nominating shareholder(s) or the shareholder nominee(s) that: exceeds what is required in a dissident proxy circular; goes beyond what is necessary to determine director nominee qualifications, relevant experience, shareholding or voting interest in the company, or independence in the same manner as would be required for management nominees; or, goes beyond what is required under law or regulation;

 

  7.

Stipulations within the provision that the corporation will not be obligated to include any information provided by dissident director nominees or nominating shareholders in any shareholder communications, including the proxy statement; and

 

  8.

Any other feature or provision determined to have a negative impact on shareholders’ interests and deemed outside the purview of the stated purpose of the advance notice requirement.

Enhanced Shareholder Meeting Quorum for Contested Director Elections

Vote AGAINST new by-laws or amended by-laws that would establish two different quorum levels which would result in implementing a higher quorum solely for those shareholder meetings where common share investors seek to replace the majority of current board members (“Enhanced Quorum”).

Appointment of Additional Directors Between Annual Meetings

Vote FOR these resolutions where:

 

  1.

The company is incorporated under a statute (such as the Canada Business Corporations Act) that permits removal of directors by simple majority vote;

 

  2.

The number of directors to be appointed between meetings does not exceed one-third of the number of directors appointed at the previous annual meeting; and

 

  3.

Such appointments must be ratified by shareholders at the annual meeting immediately following the date of their appointment.

Article/By-law Amendments

Vote FOR proposals to adopt or amend articles/by-laws unless the resulting document contains any of the following:

 

  1.

The quorum for a meeting of shareholders is set below two persons holding 25 percent of the eligible vote (this may be reduced to no less than 10 percent in the case of a small company that can demonstrate, based on publicly disclosed voting results, that it is unable to achieve a higher quorum and where there is no controlling shareholder);

 

  2.

The quorum for a meeting of directors is less than 50 percent of the number of directors;

 

  3.

The chair of the board has a casting vote in the event of a deadlock at a meeting of directors;

 

  4.

An alternate director provision that permits a director to appoint another person to serve as an alternate director to attend board or committee meetings in place of the duly elected director;

 

B-386


  5.

An advance notice requirement that includes one or more provisions which could have a negative impact on shareholders’ interests and which are deemed outside the purview of the stated purpose of the requirement;

 

  6.

Authority is granted to the board with regard to altering future capital authorizations or alteration of the capital structure without further shareholder approval; or

 

  7.

Any other provisions that may adversely impact shareholders’ rights or diminish independent effective board oversight.

In any event, proposals to adopt or amend articles or by-laws will generally be opposed if the complete article or by-law document is not included in the meeting materials for thorough review or referenced for ease of location on SEDAR, which is the equivalent to the U.S.’ EDGAR System.

Vote FOR proposals to adopt or amend articles/by-laws if the proposed amendment is limited to only that which is required by regulation or will simplify share registration.

Confidential Voting

Vote FOR shareholder proposals requesting that corporations adopt confidential voting, use independent vote tabulators, and use independent inspectors of election, as long as the proposal includes a provision for proxy contests as follows: In the case of a contested election, management should be permitted to request that the dissident group honor its confidential voting policy. If the dissidents agree, the policy remains in place. If the dissidents will not agree, the confidential voting policy is waived for that particular vote.

Generally, vote FOR management proposals to adopt confidential voting.

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)

As required by the TSX, the adoption of a shareholder rights plan must be ratified by shareholders within six months of adoption.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on management proposals to ratify a shareholder rights plan (poison pill) taking into account whether it conforms to ‘new generation’ rights plan best practice guidelines and its scope is limited to the following two specific purposes:

 

  1.

To give the board more time to find an alternative value enhancing transaction; and

 

  2.

To ensure the equal treatment of all shareholders.

Vote AGAINST plans that go beyond these purposes if:

 

  1.

The plan gives discretion to the board to either:

 

  a.

Determine whether actions by shareholders constitute a change in control;

 

  b.

Amend material provisions without shareholder approval;

 

  c.

Interpret other provisions;

 

  d.

Redeem the rights or waive the plan’s application without a shareholder vote; or

 

  e.

Prevent a bid from going to shareholders.

 

  2.

The plan has any of the following characteristics:

 

  a.

Unacceptable key definitions;

 

  b.

Reference to Derivatives Contracts within the definition of Beneficial Owner;

 

B-387


  c.

Flip over provision;

 

  d.

Permitted bid minimum period greater than 105 days;

 

  e.

Maximum triggering threshold set at less than 20 percent of outstanding shares;

 

  f.

Does not permit partial bids;

 

  g.

Includes a Shareholder Endorsed Insider Bid (SEIB) provision;

 

  h.

Bidder must frequently update holdings;

 

  i.

Requirement for a shareholder meeting to approve a bid; and

 

  j.

Requirement that the bidder provide evidence of financing.

 

  3.

The plan does not:

 

  a.

Include an exemption for a “permitted lock up agreement”;

 

  b.

Include clear exemptions for money managers, pension funds, mutual funds, trustees, and custodians who are not making a takeover bid; and

 

  c.

Exclude reference to voting agreements among shareholders.

Exclusive Forum Proposals

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to adopt an exclusive forum by-law or to amend by-laws to add an exclusive forum provision, taking the following into consideration:

 

  1.

Jurisdiction of incorporation;

 

  2.

Board rationale for adopting exclusive forum;

 

  3.

Legal actions subject to the exclusive forum provision;

 

  4.

Evidence of past harm as a result of shareholder legal action against the company originating outside of the jurisdiction of incorporation;

 

  5.

Company corporate governance provisions and shareholder rights; or

 

  6.

Any other problematic provisions that raise concerns regarding shareholder rights.

III. Capital/ Restructuring

Increases in Authorized Capital

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance. Generally, vote FOR proposals to approve increased authorized capital if:

 

  1.

A company’s shares are in danger of being de-listed; or

 

  2.

A company’s ability to continue to operate as a going concern is uncertain.

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to approve unlimited capital authorization.

Private Placement Issuances

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on private placement issuances taking into account:

 

  1.

Whether other resolutions are bundled with the issuance;

 

  2.

Whether the rationale for the private placement issuance is disclosed;

 

B-388


  3.

Dilution to existing shareholders’ position;

 

  4.

Issuance that represents no more than 30 percent of the company’s outstanding shares on a non- diluted basis is considered generally acceptable;

 

  5.

Discount/premium in issuance price to the unaffected share price before the announcement of the private placement;

 

  6.

Market reaction: The market’s response to the proposed private placement since announcement; and

 

  7.

Other applicable factors, including conflict of interest, change in control/management, evaluation of other alternatives.

Generally, vote FOR the private placement issuance if it is expected that the company will file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved or the company’s auditor/management has indicated that the company has going concern issues.

Blank Check Preferred Stock

Vote AGAINST proposals to create unlimited blank check preferred shares or increase blank cheque preferred shares where:

 

  1.

The shares carry unspecified rights, restrictions, and terms; or

 

  2.

The company does not specify any specific purpose for the increase in such shares.

Generally, vote FOR proposals to create a reasonably limited number of preferred shares where both of the following apply:

 

  1.

The company has stated in writing and publicly disclosed that the shares will not be used for antitakeover purposes; and

 

  2.

The voting, conversion, and other rights, restrictions, and terms of such stock where specified in the articles, are reasonable.

Dual-class Stock

Vote AGAINST proposals to create a new class of common stock that will create a class of common shareholders with diminished or superior voting rights.

The following is an exceptional set of circumstances under which Boston Partners would generally support a dual class capital structure. Such a structure must meet all of the following criteria:

 

  1.

It is required due to foreign ownership restrictions and financing is required to be done out of country;

 

  2.

It is not designed to preserve the voting power of an insider or significant shareholder;

 

  3.

The subordinate class may elect some board nominees;

 

  4.

There is a sunset provision; and

 

  5.

There is a coattail provision that places a prohibition on any change in control transaction without approval of the subordinate class shareholders.

Escrow Agreements

Vote AGAINST an amendment to an existing escrow agreement where the company is proposing to delete all performance-based release requirements in favor of time-driven release requirements.

 

B-389


IV. Compensation

Pay for Performance Evaluation

This policy will be applied at all S&P/TSX Composite Index Companies and for all management say-on- pay proposals (MSOP) resolutions.

On a CASE-BY-CASE basis, Boston Partners will evaluate the alignment of the CEO’s total compensation with company performance over time, focusing particularly on companies that have underperformed their peers over a sustained period. From a shareholder’s perspective, performance is predominantly gauged by the company’s share price performance over time. Even when financial or operational measures are used as the basis for incentive awards, the achievement related to these measures should ultimately translate into superior shareholder returns in the long term.

Vote AGAINST MSOP proposals and/or vote WITHHOLD for compensation committee members (or, in rare cases where the full board is deemed responsible, all directors including the CEO) and/or AGAINST an equity-based incentive plan proposal if there is significant long-term misalignment between CEO pay and company performance.

The determination of long-term pay for performance alignment is a two-step process: step one is a quantitative screen, which includes a relative and absolute analysis on pay for performance, and step two is a qualitative assessment of the CEO’s pay and company performance. A pay for performance disconnect will be determined as follows:

Step I: Quantitative Screen

Relative:

 

  1.

The Relative Degree of Alignment (RDA) is the difference between the company’s annualized TSR rank and the CEO’s annualized total pay rank within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period or less if pay or performance data is unavailable for the full three years;

 

  2.

The Financial Performance Assessment (FPA) is the ranking of CEO total pay and company financial performance within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period;

 

  3.

Multiple of Median (MOM) is the total compensation in the last reported fiscal year relative to the median compensation of the peer group; and

Absolute:

 

  1.

The CEO Pay-to-TSR Alignment (PTA) over the prior five fiscal years, i.e., the difference between absolute pay changes and absolute TSR changes during the prior five-year period (or less as company disclosure permits).

Step II: Qualitative Analysis

Companies identified by the methodology as having potential misalignment will receive a qualitative assessment to determine the ultimate vote, considering a range of CASE-BY-CASE factors which may include:

 

  1.

The ratio of performance- to time-based equity grants and the overall mix of performance-based compensation relative to total compensation (considering whether the ratio is more than 50 percent); standard time-vested stock options and restricted shares are not considered to be performance-based for this consideration;

 

  2.

The quality of disclosure and appropriateness of the performance measure(s) and goal(s) utilized, so that shareholders can assess the rigor of the performance program. The use of non-GAAP financial

 

B-390


  metrics also makes it challenging for shareholders to ascertain the rigor of the program as shareholders often cannot tell the type of adjustments being made and if the adjustments were made consistently. Complete and transparent disclosure helps shareholders to better understand the company’s pay for performance linkage;

 

  3.

The trend in other financial metrics, such as growth in revenue, earnings, return measures such as ROE, ROA, ROIC, etc.;

 

  4.

The use of discretionary out-of-plan payments or awards and the rationale provided as well as frequency of such payments or awards;

 

  5.

The trend considering prior years’ P4P concern;

 

  6.

Extraordinary situation due to a new CEO in the last reported FY; and

 

  7.

Any other factors deemed relevant.

Problematic Pay Practices

Vote AGAINST MSOP resolutions and/or vote WITHHOLD for compensation committee members if the company has significant problematic compensation practices. Generally, vote AGAINST equity plans if the plan is a vehicle for problematic compensation practices.

Generally, vote based on the preponderance of problematic elements; however, certain adverse practices may warrant WITHHOLD or AGAINST votes on a stand-alone basis in particularly egregious cases. The following practices, while not an exhaustive list, are examples of problematic compensation practices that may warrant an AGAINST or WITHHOLD vote:

Poor disclosure practices: General omission of timely information necessary to understand the rationale for compensation setting process and outcomes, or omission of material contracts, agreements or shareholder disclosure documents;

New CEO with overly generous new hire package:

 

  1.

Excessive “make whole” provisions;

 

  2.

Any of the problematic pay practices listed in this policy;

Egregious employment contracts: Contracts containing multiyear guarantees for salary increases, bonuses, or equity compensation;

Employee Loans: Interest free or low interest loans extended by the company to employees for the purpose of exercising options or acquiring equity to meet holding requirements or as compensation;

Excessive severance and/or change-in-control provisions:

 

  1.

Inclusion of excessive change-in-control or severance payments, especially those with a multiple in excess of 2X cash pay (salary + bonus);

 

  2.

Severance paid for a “performance termination” (i.e., due to the executive’s failure to perform job functions at the appropriate level);

 

  3.

Employment or severance agreements that provide for modified single triggers, under which an executive may voluntarily leave following a change in control without cause and still receive the severance package;

 

  4.

Perquisites for former executives such as car allowance, personal use of corporate aircraft, or other inappropriate arrangements;

 

B-391


  5.

Change-in-control payouts without loss of job or substantial diminution of job duties (single- triggered);

Abnormally large bonus payouts without justifiable performance linkage or proper disclosure: Performance metrics that are changed, canceled, or replaced during the performance period without adequate explanation of the action and the link to performance;

Excessive perks: Overly generous cost and/or reimbursement of taxes for personal use of corporate aircraft, personal security systems maintenance and/or installation, car allowances, and/or other excessive arrangements relative to base salary;

Payment of dividends on performance awards: Performance award grants for which dividends are paid during the period before the performance criteria or goals have been achieved, and therefore not yet earned;

Problematic option granting practices:

 

  1.

Backdating options (i.e. retroactively setting a stock option’s exercise price lower than the prevailing market value at the grant date);

 

  2.

Springloading options (i.e. timing the grant of options to effectively guarantee an increase in share price shortly after the grant date);

 

  3.

Cancellation and subsequent re-grant of options;

Internal Pay Disparity: Excessive differential between CEO total pay and that of next highest-paid named executive officer (NEO);

Absence of pay practices that discourage excessive risk taking:

 

  1.

These provisions include but are not limited to: clawbacks, holdbacks, stock ownership requirements, deferred bonus and equity award compensation practices, etc.;

 

  2.

Financial institutions will be expected to have adopted or at least addressed the provisions listed above in accordance with the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) Compensation Practices and standards for financial companies;

Other excessive compensation payouts or problematic pay practices at the company.

Equity-Based Compensation Plans

In addition to the General Policy, consider the following:

 

  1.

Plan Features:

 

  a.

Detailed disclosure regarding the treatment of outstanding awards under a change in control (CIC)

 

  b.

No financial assistance to plan participants for the exercise or settlement of awards;

 

  c.

Public disclosure of the full text of the plan document; and

 

  d.

Reasonable share dilution from equity plans relative to market best practices. For Canada Venture Listed Companies, the basic dilution (i.e. not including warrants or shares reserved for equity compensation) represented by all equity compensation plans should not be greater than 10 percent.

 

B-392


  e.

For Canada Venture Listed Companies, generally vote AGAINST if the plan expressly permits the repricing of options without shareholder approval and the company has repriced options within the past three years; and the plan is a rolling equity plan that enables auto-replenishment of share reserves without requiring periodic shareholder approval of at least every three years (i.e., evergreen plan).

 

  i.

Generally, WITHHOLD votes from the continuing compensation committee members, (or, where no compensation committee has been identified, the board chair or full board), if the company maintains an evergreen plan (including those adopted prior to an initial public offering) and has not sought shareholder approval in the past two years and does not seek shareholder approval of the plan at the meeting.

 

  2.

Grant Practices:

 

  a.

Reasonable three-year average burn rate relative to market best practices (shouldn’t exceed 3.5%);

 

  b.

Meaningful time vesting requirements for the CEO’s most recent equity grants (three- year lookback);

 

  c.

The issuance of performance-based equity to the CEO;

 

  d.

A clawback provision applicable to equity awards; and

 

  e.

Post-exercise or post-settlement share-holding requirements (S&P/TSX Composite Index only).

Generally, vote AGAINST the plan proposal if the combination of above factors, as determined by an overall score, indicates that the plan is not in shareholders’ best interests.

Overriding Negative Factors: In addition, vote AGAINST the plan if any of the following unacceptable factors have been identified:

 

  1.

Discretionary or insufficiently limited non- executive director participation;

 

  2.

An amendment provision which fails to adequately restrict the company’s ability to amend the plan without shareholder approval;

 

  3.

A history of repricing stock options without shareholder approval (three-year look-back);

 

  4.

The plan is a vehicle for problematic pay practices, or a significant pay-for-performance disconnect under certain circumstances; or

 

  5.

Any other plan features that are determined to have a significant negative impact on shareholder interests.

Plan Cost

Vote AGAINST equity plans if the cost is unreasonable.

Overriding Negative Factors

Plan Amendment Provisions

Vote AGAINST the approval of proposed Amendment Procedures that do not require shareholder approval for the following types of amendments under any security-based compensation arrangement, whether or not such approval is required under current regulatory rules:

 

  1.

Any increase in the number of shares reserved for issuance under a plan or plan maximum;

 

  2.

Any reduction in exercise price or cancellation and reissue of options or other entitlements;

 

  3.

Any amendment that extends the term of options beyond the original expiry;

 

B-393


  4.

Amendments to eligible participants that may permit the introduction or reintroduction of non- executive directors on a discretionary basis or amendments that increase limits previously imposed on non- executive director participation;

 

  5.

Any amendment which would permit options granted under the Plan to be transferable or assignable other than for normal estate settlement purposes; and

 

  6.

Amendments to the plan amendment provisions.

To clarify application of the above criteria, all items will apply to all equity-based compensation arrangements under which treasury shares are reserved for grants of, for example: restricted stock, restricted share units, or deferred share units, except those items that specifically refer to option grants.

Non- Executive Director (NED) Participation

Discretionary Participation

Vote AGAINST a management equity compensation plan that permits discretionary NED participation.

Limited Participation

Vote AGAINST an equity compensation plan proposal where:

 

  1.

The NED aggregate share reserve under the plan exceeds 1 percent of the outstanding common shares; or

 

  2.

The equity plan document does not specify an annual individual NED grant limit with a maximum value of (i) $100,000 worth of stock options, or (ii) $150,000 worth of shares.

The maximum annual individual NED limit should not exceed $150,000 under any type of equity compensation plan, of which no more than $100,000 of value may comprise stock options.

Individual Grants

Vote AGAINST individual equity grants to NEDs in the following circumstances:

 

  1.

In conjunction with an equity compensation plan that is on the agenda at the shareholder meeting if voting AGAINST the underlying equity compensation plan; and

 

  2.

Outside of an equity compensation plan if the director’s annual grant would exceed the above individual director limit.

Shares taken in lieu of cash fees and a one-time initial equity grant upon a director joining the board will not be included in the maximum award limit.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs, ESOPs)

Vote FOR broadly based (preferably all employees of the company with the exclusion of individuals with 5 percent or more beneficial ownership of the company) employee stock purchase plans where the following apply:

 

  1.

Reasonable limit on employee contribution (may be expressed as a fixed dollar amount or as a percentage of base salary excluding bonus, commissions and special compensation);

 

  2.

Employer contribution of up to 25 percent of employee contribution and no purchase price discount or employer contribution of more than 25 percent of employee contribution and SVT cost of the company’s equity plans is within the allowable cap for the company;

 

  3.

Purchase price is at least 80 percent of fair market value with no employer contribution;

 

B-394


  4.

Potential dilution together with all other equity-based plans is 10 percent of outstanding common shares or less; and

 

  5.

The Plan Amendment Provision requires shareholder approval for amendments to:

 

  a.

The number of shares reserved for the plan;

 

  b.

The allowable purchase price discount;

 

  c.

The employer matching contribution amount.

Treasury funded ESPPs, as well as market purchase funded ESPPs requesting shareholder approval, will be considered to be incentive-based compensation if the employer match is greater than 25 percent of the employee contribution. In this case, Boston Partners will assess the SVT cost of the plan together with the company’s other equity-based compensation plans.

Eligibility and administration are also key factors in determining the acceptability of an ESPP/ESOP plan.

Management Deferred Share Unit (DSU) Plans

Vote FOR deferred compensation plans if:

 

  1.

SVT cost of the plan does not exceed the company’s allowable cap;

 

  2.

If the SVT cost cannot be calculated, potential dilution together with all other equity-based compensation is 10 percent of the outstanding common shares or less;

 

  3.

NED participation is acceptably limited or the plan explicitly states that NEDs may only receive DSUs in lieu of cash in a value for value exchange (please refer to Overriding Negative Factors/NED Participation above);

 

  4.

The plan amendment provisions require shareholder approval for any amendment to:

 

  5.

Increase the number of shares reserved for issuance under the plan;

 

  6.

Change the eligible participants that may permit the introduction or reintroduction of non- executive directors on a discretionary basis or amendments that increase limits previously imposed on NED participation;

 

  7.

Amend the plan amendment provisions.

In addition, for Canada Venture Listed Companies, vote FOR deferred compensation plans if:

 

  1.

Potential dilution together with all other equity-based compensation is 10 percent of the outstanding common shares or less;

 

  2.

The average annual burn rate is no more than 3.5 percent per year (generally averaged over most recent three-year period and rounded to the nearest whole number for policy application purposes.

Non- Executive Director (NED) Deferred Share Unit (DSU) Plans

Vote FOR a NED deferred compensation plan if:

 

  1.

DSUs may ONLY be granted in lieu of cash fees on a value for value basis (no discretionary or other grants are permitted), and

 

  2.

Potential dilution together with all other equity-based compensation is 10 percent of the outstanding common shares or less.

 

B-395


Vote FOR NED deferred compensation plans that permit discretionary grants (not ONLY in lieu of cash fees) if:

 

  1.

Potential dilution together with all other equity-based compensation is 10 percent of the outstanding common shares or less;

 

  2.

If the plan includes a company matching or top-up provision, the SVT cost of the plan does not exceed the company’s allowable cap;

 

  3.

NED participation is acceptably limited (please refer to Overriding Negative Factors/NED Participation above);

 

  4.

The plan amendment provisions require shareholder approval for any amendment to:

 

  a.

Increase the number of shares reserved for issuance under the plan; Change the eligible participants that may permit the introduction or reintroduction of non- executive directors on a discretionary basis or amendments that increase limits previously imposed on NED participation;

 

  b.

Amend the plan amendment provisions.

 

  5.

In addition, for Canada Venture Listed Companies, vote FOR deferred compensation plans if the average annual burn rate is no more than 3.5 percent per year (generally averaged over most recent three-year period and rounded to the nearest whole number for policy application purposes.

Other elements of director compensation evaluated in conjunction with DSU plan proposals include:

 

  1.

Director stock ownership guidelines of a minimum of three times annual cash retainer;

 

  2.

Vesting schedule or mandatory deferral period which requires that shares in payment of deferred units may not be paid out until the end of board service;

 

  3.

The mix of remuneration between cash and equity; and

 

  4.

Other forms of equity-based compensation, i.e. stock options, restricted stock.

Problematic Director Compensation Practices

On a CASE-BY-CASE basis, generally vote WITHHOLD for members of the committee responsible for director compensation (or, where no such committee has been identified, the board chair or full board) where director compensation practices which pose a risk of compromising a non- executive director’s independence or which otherwise appear problematic from the perspective of shareholders have been identified, including:

 

  1.

Excessive (relative to standard market practice) inducement grants issued upon the appointment or election of a new director to the board (consideration will be given to the form in which the compensation has been issued and the board’s rationale for the inducement grant);

 

  2.

Performance-based equity grants to non- executive directors which could pose a risk of aligning directors’ interests away from those of shareholders and toward those of management; and

 

  3.

Other significant problematic practices relating to director compensation.

Shareholder Proposals on Compensation

Vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis for shareholder proposals targeting executive and director pay, taking into account the target company’s performance, absolute and relative pay levels as well as the wording of the proposal itself.

Vote FOR shareholder proposals requesting that the exercise of some, but not all stock options be tied to the achievement of performance hurdles.

 

B-396


Shareholder Advisory Vote Proposals

Vote FOR shareholder proposals requesting the adoption of a non-binding advisory shareholder vote to ratify the report of the compensation committee.

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals requesting a binding vote on executive or director compensation as being overly prescriptive and which may lead to shareholder micro-management of compensation issues that are more appropriately within the purview of the compensation committee of the board of directors.

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP) Proposals

Vote AGAINST shareholder proposals requesting the exclusion of bonus amounts and extra service credits to determine SERP payouts, unless the company’s SERP disclosure includes the following problematic pay practices:

 

  1.

Inclusion of equity-based compensation in the pension calculation;

 

  2.

Inclusion of excessive bonus amounts in the pension calculation;

 

  3.

Addition of extra years’ service credited in other than exceptional circumstances and without compelling rationale;

 

  4.

No absolute limit on SERP annual pension benefits (ideally expressed in dollar terms);

 

  5.

No reduction in benefits on a pro-rata basis in the case of early retirement.

In addition, consideration will also be given to the extent to which executive compensation is performance driven and “at risk,” as well as whether bonus payouts can exceed 100 percent of base salary.

 

B-397


CHINA AND HONG KONG

I. Board of Directors

Voting for Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections (Hong Kong)

Independence and Composition

Boston Partners applies a five-year cooling off period to former employees or executives when determining nominee independence in Hong Kong.

Generally, vote FOR the re/election of directors unless:

 

  1.

The nominee has been a partner of the company’s auditor within the last three years, and serves on the audit committee;

 

  2.

Any non-independent director nominees where the board is less than one-third independent4;

 

  3.

The nominee is an executive director serving on the audit committee;

 

  4.

The nominee is an executive director serving on the remuneration committee or nomination committee, and the committee is not majority independent;

 

  5.

The nominee is a non-independent director serving as the chairman of the audit committee, remuneration committee, and/or nomination committee (except for a non-independent director serving as chairman of the nomination committee who also serves as the chairman of the board)

 

  6.

There is a conflict of interest with the resolution(s) to be discussed in the board or committee meeting

When the board does not have a formal audit committee, remuneration committee, and/or nomination committee, vote AGAINST if:

 

  1.

The nominee is an executive director and the board is not majority independent;

 

  2.

The nominee is a non-independent chairman of the board.

Boston Partners will consider an independent non-executive director non-independent if such director serves as a director for more than nine years, and the company fails to disclose the reasons why such director should still be considered independent, or where such reasons raise concerns regarding the director’s true level of independence.

Generally, Boston Partners will vote FOR the election of a CEO, managing director, executive chairman, or founder whose removal from the board would be expected to have a material negative impact on shareholder value.

 

II. Remuneration

Director Remuneration

Generally, vote FOR resolutions regarding directors’ and supervisors’ fees unless they are excessive relative to fees paid by other companies of similar size.

4 

Not applicable if the lack of board independence is due to the immediate retirement, abrupt resignation, or death of an independent non-executive director, provided that the company mentioned or announced a definite timeline of up to three months for the appointment of a new independent non-executive director to have adequate level of board independence.

 

B-398


Equity-based Compensation

A-share Stock Option Schemes and Performance Share Schemes

Vote AGAINST a stock option and/or performance share scheme if:

 

  1.

Pricing Basis – The plan permits the exercise price of the stock options and/or grant price of the performance shares to be set at an unreasonable price compared to the market price without sufficient justification;

 

  2.

Dilution – The maximum dilution level for the scheme exceeds 10 percent of issued capital; or of 5 percent of issued capital for a mature company and 10 percent for a growth company. However, Boston Partners will support plans at mature companies with dilution levels up to 10 percent if the plan includes other positive features such as challenging performance criteria and meaningful vesting periods, as these features partially offset dilution concerns by reducing the likelihood that options will become exercisable unless there is a clear improvement in shareholder value;

 

  3.

Performance benchmark – The scheme is proposed in the second half of the year and the measurement of the company’s financial performance starts from the same year. The rationale is that the company’s financial performance has been largely determined for that particular year and thus by linking the vesting conditions of part of the options and/or performance shares to that year’s financial performance, the company is providing incentives for the period of the second half only, which can either be too aggressive (if the target is far out of reach) or too insufficient (i.e., the target has already been reached); or

 

  4.

Incentive plan administration – Directors eligible to receive options and/or performance shares under the scheme are involved in the administration of the scheme are involved in the administration of the scheme.

Additionally, in Hong Kong, generally vote FOR an equity-based compensation plan unless:

 

  1.

The maximum dilution level for the scheme, together with all outstanding schemes, exceeds 5 percent of issued capital for a mature company and 10 percent for a growth company. In addition, Boston Partners will support a plan’s dilution limit that exceeds these thresholds if the annual grant limit under all plans is 0.5 percent or less for a mature company (1 percent or less for a mature company with clearly disclosed performance criteria) and 1 percent or less for a growth company.

 

  2.

The plan permits options to be issued with an exercise price at a discount to the current market price; or

 

  3.

Directors eligible to receive options or awards under the scheme are involved in the administration of the scheme and the administrator has the discretion over their awards.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

Generally, vote FOR employee stock purchase plans (ESPPs) unless any of the following applies:

 

  1.

The total stock allocated to the ESPP exceeds 10 percent of the company’s total shares outstanding at any given time;

 

  2.

The share purchase price is less than 90 percent of the market price (calculated as the average trading price 20 trading days prior to the pricing reference date pursuant to the CSRC’s guidelines on private placements) when the share purchase is conducted solely through private placement;

 

  3.

The company’s significant shareholders (i.e. individuals with 5 percent or more of beneficial ownership of the company) are involved as plan participants;

 

  4.

The ESPP is proposed in connection with an equity financing scheme which does not warrant shareholder support; or

 

  5.

The ESPP contains any other terms that are deemed disadvantageous to shareholders.

 

B-399


III. Capital Raising

Share Issuance Requests

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on share issuance request, with reference to the identity of the placees, the use of proceeds, and the company’s past share issuance requests.

For Hong Kong, generally vote FOR the general share issuance mandate for companies that:

 

  1.

Limit the issuance request to 10 percent or less of the relevant class of issued share capital;

 

  2.

Limit the discount to 10 percent of the market price of shares (rather than the maximum 20 percent permitted by the Listing Rules); and

 

  3.

Have no history of renewing the general issuance mandate several times within a period of one year which may result in the share issuance limit exceeding 10 percent of the relevant class of issued share capital within the 12-month period.

Share Repurchase Plans (Repurchase Mandate) (Hong Kong)

Generally, vote FOR resolutions seeking for share repurchase mandate.

Reissuance of Shares Repurchased (Share Reissuance Mandate) (Hong Kong)

Generally, vote FOR the share reissuance mandate for companies that:

 

  1.

Limit the aggregate issuance request – that is, for the general issuance mandate and the share reissuance mandate combined – to 10 percent or less of the relevant class of issued share capital;

 

  2.

Limit the discount to 10 percent of the market price of shares (rather than the maximum 20 percent permitted by the Listing Rules); and

 

  3.

Have no history of renewing the general issuance mandate several times within a period of one year.

A-share Private Placement Issuance Requests (Hong Kong)

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on share issuance requests, with reference to the identity of the places, the use of proceeds, and the company’s past share issuance requests.

Adjustments of Conversion Price of Outstanding Convertible Bonds

Generally, vote AGAINST the downward adjustment of the conversion price of A-share convertible bonds unless the proposed adjusted conversion price is deemed reasonable given the company’s justification; and the company is under extraordinary circumstances, such as liquidation or debt restructuring process due to financial distress.

Debt Issuance Request/Increase in Borrowing Powers

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on non-convertible debt issuance requests, proposals to approve the specific pledging of assets for debt and increases in borrowing power. Generally, vote FOR such requests if:

 

  1.

The size of the debt being requested is disclosed;

 

  2.

A credible reason for the need for additional funding is provided;

 

  3.

Details regarding the assets to be pledged are disclosed (for specific asset pledge proposals); and

 

  4.

There are no significant causes for shareholder concerns regarding the terms and conditions of the debt.

 

B-400


A vote AGAINST will be warranted only in extremely egregious cases or where the company fails to provide sufficient information to enable a meaningful shareholder review.

For the issuance of convertible debt instruments, as long as the maximum number of common shares that could be issued upon conversion is acceptable on equity issuance requests, a vote FOR will be warranted. Boston Partners will vote FOR proposals to restructure existing debt arrangements unless the terms of the restructuring would adversely affect the rights of shareholders.

Moreover, where a general authority to issue debt or pledge assets is requested, in addition to the above criteria, we will oppose such a proposal if it could result in a potentially excessive increase in debt. A potential increase in debt may be considered excessive when:

 

  1.

The proposed maximum amount is more than twice the company’s total debt;

 

  2.

It could result in the company’s debt-to-equity ratio exceeding 300 percent (for non-financial companies); and

 

  3.

The maximum hypothetical debt-to-equity ratio is more than three times the industry and/or market norm.

If data on the normal level of debt in that particular industry or market is not available, only the company- specific information will be considered.

For Hong Kong, for proposals seeking a general authority to pledge assets for debt, the specific assets to be pledged need not be disclosed. However, in such cases, the authority should be limited such that it would not result in an excessive increase in debt. If the proposal grants excessive authority to the board or management, vote AGAINST.

In certain countries, shareholder approval is required when a company needs to secure a debt issuance with its assets. In many cases, this is a routine request and is a formality under the relevant law. When reviewing such proposals, Boston Partners takes into account the terms of the proposed debt issuance, the company’s overall debt level, and the company’s justification for the pledging of assets.

Boston Partners will vote AGAINST specific requests to pledge an asset in cases where no information regarding the size of the debt to be raised is disclosed, no credible explanation for the need of funding is provided, no details regarding the assets to be pledged are disclosed, or in extreme cases where shareholders’ rights and economic interests could be negatively affected.

Provision of Guarantees/ Loan Guarantee Requests

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals to provide loan guarantees for subsidiaries, affiliates, and related parties. Generally, vote AGAINST the provision of a guarantee where:

 

  1.

The identity of the entity receiving the guarantee is not disclosed;

 

  2.

The guarantee is being provided to a director, executive, parent company or affiliated entities where the company has no direct or indirect equity ownership; or

 

  3.

The guarantee is provided to an entity in which the company’s ownership stake is less than 75 percent; and such guarantee is not proportionate to the company’s equity stake or other parties have not provided a counter guarantee.

When the proposed guarantee does not fall into the above criteria, vote FOR such request provided that there are no significant concerns regarding the entity receiving the guarantee, the relationship between the listed company and the entity receiving the guarantee, the purpose of the guarantee, or the terms of the guarantee agreement. Examples of such concerns include a previous default by the entity receiving the guarantee or a sub-investment grade credit rating.

 

B-401


IV. Amendments to Articles of Association/ Company By-laws

Communist Party Committee

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals for article and/or by-law amendments regarding Party Committees where the proposed amendments lack transparency or are not considered to adequately provide for accountability and transparency to shareholders.

Other Article of Association/By-law Amendments

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on Articles of Association/bylaw amendments.

In China, generally, vote FOR by-law amendments if:

 

  1.

They are driven by regulatory changes and are technical in nature; or

 

  2.

They are meant to update company-specific information in the by-laws such as registered capital, address, and business scope, etc.

Generally, vote AGAINST the amendments if:

 

  1.

The company has failed to provide either a comparison table or a summary of the proposed amendments; or

 

  2.

The amendments include the increase in the decision authority which is considered excessive and the company fails to provide a compelling justification.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on the adoption of new constitutional document with no previous reference.

V. Related Party Transactions

Loan Financing Requests

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on loans and financing proposals.

In assessing requests for loan financing provided by a related party:

 

  1.

Boston Partners will examine stated uses of proceeds, the size or specific amount of the loan requested, and the interest rate to be charged. Boston Partners also gives importance to, and seeks disclosure on, the specific relation of the party providing the loan to the company.

In assessing requests to provide loan financing to a related party:

 

  1.

Boston Partners will examine stated uses of proceeds, the size or specific amount of the loan requested, and interest rates to be charged. Boston Partners also gives importance to, and seeks disclosure on, the specific relation of the party to be granted the loan by the company.

 

  2.

Boston Partner will generally vote AGAINST the provision of loans to clients, controlling shareholders, and actual controlling persons of the company.

 

  3.

Boston Partners will generally vote AGAINST the provision of loans to an entity in which the company’s ownership stake is less than 75 percent and the financing provision is not proportionate to the company’s equity stake.

Group Finance Companies

Vote AGAINST requests to deposit monies with a group finance company.

 

B-402


VI. Proposals to Invest in Financial Products Using Idle Funds

Vote on proposals to invest in financial products using idle funds on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Key factors for evaluating such requests include:

 

  1.

Any known concerns with previous investments;

 

  2.

The amount of the proposed investment relative to the company’s assets;

 

  3.

Disclosure of the nature of the products in which the company proposes to invest; and

 

  4.

Disclosure of associated risks of the proposed investments and related risk management efforts by the company.

Generally, vote FOR such proposals unless the company fails to provide sufficient information to enable a meaningful shareholder or there are significant concerns with the company’s previous similar investments.

 

B-403


CONTINENTAL EUROPE

Applies to: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, the Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, and Switzerland. Also applies to the United Kingdom and Ireland to the extent policies are shared.

For specific United Kingdom and Ireland policies, please see that section of the Policy.

I. Operational Items

Appointment of Auditors and Auditor Fees

Vote FOR proposals to (re)appoint auditors and/or proposals authorizing the board to fix auditor fees, unless:

 

  1.

The lead audit partner(s) has been linked with a significant auditing controversy; and

 

  2.

Fees for non-audit services exceed either 100 percent of standard audit-related fees or any stricter limit set in local best practice recommendations or law.

Approval of Non-financial Information Statement/ Report

Generally, vote FOR the approval of mandatory non-financial information statement/report, unless the independent assurance services provider has raised material concerns about the information presented.

II. Director Elections

Non-Contested Director Elections

Boston Partners may vote AGAINST proposals due to concerns related to at least one of the following specific factors, which are presented below as separate subsections.

Director Terms

 

  1.

Generally, vote AGAINST the election or re-election of any director when his/her term is not disclosed or when it exceeds four years and adequate explanation for non-compliance has not been provided. Under best practice recommendations, companies should shorten the terms for directors when the terms exceed the limits suggested by best practices. The policy will be applied to all companies in these markets, for bundled as well as unbundled items.

 

  2.

Vote AGAINST article amendment proposals to extend board terms.

Bundling of Proposals to Elect Directors

 

  1.

Directors should be elected individually.

 

  2.

For the markets of Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland*, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, vote AGAINST the election or reelection of any directors if individual director elections are an established market practice and the company proposes a single slate of directors.

 

   

* Bundled director elections in Poland may be supported for companies that go beyond market practice by disclosing the names of nominees on a timely basis.

 

B-404


Board Independence

Boston Partners applies a five-year cooling off period to former executives when determining nominee independence in Continental Europe.

Widely-held Controlled Companies and Non widely-held Companies

Generally, vote AGAINST the election or reelection of any non-independent directors (excluding the CEO) if less than one-third of the board members are independent.

Widely-held Non-controlled Companies

Generally, vote AGAINST the election or reelection of any non-independent directors (excluding the CEO) if fewer than 50 percent of the board members elected by shareholders– excluding, where relevant, employee shareholder representatives – would be independent (Portugal is excluded from this provision); or fewer than one-third of all board members would be independent.

Disclosure of Names of Nominees

Vote AGAINST the election or reelection of any and all director nominees when the names of the nominees are not available.

Election of a Former CEO as Chairman of the Board

Generally, vote AGAINST the (re)election of a former CEO to the supervisory board or board of directors in Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands if the former CEO is to be chair of the relevant board.

Companies are expected to confirm prior to the general meeting that the former CEO will not be (re)appointed as chair of the relevant board.

Given the importance of board leadership, Boston Partners may consider that the chair of the board should be an independent non-executive director.

Voto di Lista (Italy)

Boston Partners will vote CASE-BY-CASE.

One Board Seat per Director

 

  1.

In cases where a director holds more than one board seat on a single board and the corresponding votes, manifested as one seat as a physical person plus an additional seat(s) as a representative of a legal entity, vote AGAINST the election/reelection of such legal entities and in favor of the physical person.

 

  2.

If the representative of the legal entity holds the position of CEO, generally vote in favor of the legal entity and AGAINST the election/reelection of the physical person.

Composition of Committees

 

  1.

For widely held companies, generally vote AGAINST the (re)election of any non-independent members of the audit committee if:

 

  a.

Fewer than 50 percent of the audit committee members, who are elected by shareholders– excluding, where relevant, employee shareholder representatives – would be independent; or

 

  b.

Fewer than one-third of all audit committee members would be independent.

 

 

B-405


For companies whose boards are legally required to have 50 percent of directors not elected by shareholders, the second criterion is not applicable.

 

  2.

Generally, vote AGAINST the election or reelection of the non-independent member of the audit committee designated as chairman of that committee.

 

  3.

For widely held companies generally vote AGAINST the (re)election of any non-independent members of the remuneration committee if:

 

  a.

Fewer than 50 percent of the remuneration committee members, who are elected by shareholders– excluding, where relevant, employee shareholder representatives – would be independent; or

 

  b.

Fewer than one-third of all remuneration committee members would be independent.

For companies whose boards are legally required to have 50 percent of directors not elected by shareholders, the second criterion is not applicable.

 

  4.

Generally, vote AGAINST the (re)election of executives who serve on the company’s audit or remuneration committee. Boston Partners may vote AGAINST if the disclosure is too poor to determine whether an executive serves or will serve on a committee. If a company does not have an audit or a remuneration committee, Boston Partners may consider that the entire board fulfills the role of a committee. In such case, Boston Partners may vote AGAINST the executives, including the CEO, up for election to the board.

 

  5.

Composition of Nominating Committee (Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and Norway)

 

  a.

Vote FOR proposals in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden to elect or appoint a nominating committee consisting mainly of non-board members.

 

  b.

Vote FOR shareholder proposals calling for disclosure of the names of the proposed candidates at the meeting, as well as the inclusion of a representative of minority shareholders in the committee.

 

  c.

Vote AGAINST proposals where the names of the candidates (in the case of an election) or the principles for the establishment of the committee have not been disclosed in a timely manner.

 

  d.

Vote AGAINST proposals in Sweden to elect or appoint such a committee if the company is on the MSCI-EAFE or local main index and the following conditions exist:

 

  I.

A member of the executive management would be a member of the committee;

 

  II.

More than one board member who is dependent on a major shareholder would be on the committee; or

 

  III.

The chair of the board would also be the chair of the committee.

 

  e.

In cases where the principles for the establishment of the nominating committee, rather than the election of the committee itself, are being voted on, vote AGAINST the adoption of the principles if any of the above conditions are met for the current committee, and there is no publicly available information indicating that this would no longer be the case for the new nominating committee.

Election of Censors (France)

Boston Partners will generally vote AGAINST proposals seeking shareholder approval to elect a censor, to amend by-laws to authorize the appointment of censors, or to extend the maximum number of censors to the board.

Boston Partners will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis when the company provides assurance that the censor would serve on a short-term basis (maximum one year) with the intent to retain the nominee before his/her election as director. In this case, consideration shall also be given to the nominee’s situation (notably overboarding or other factors of concern).

 

 

B-406


Vote AGAINST any proposal to renew the term of a censor or to extend the statutory term of censors.

Board Gender Diversity

Generally, vote AGAINST the chair of the nomination committee (or other directors on a CASE-BY- CASE basis) if:

 

  1.

The underrepresented gender accounts for less than 30 percent (or any higher domestic threshold) of shareholder-elected directors of a widely held company Excluding, where relevant, employee shareholder representatives.5

 

  2.

Both genders are not represented on the board of a non-widely-held company.

Mitigating factors may include:

 

  1.

Compliance with the relevant standard at the preceding annual meeting and a firm commitment, publicly available, to comply with the relevant standard within a year; or

 

  2.

Other relevant factors as applicable.

 

Committee of Representatives and Corporate Assembly Elections (Denmark and Norway)

For Norwegian and Danish companies where shareholders vote on elections for members of the corporate assembly or committee of representatives, but not directly on the board of directors, vote CASE-BY- CASE on corporate assembly and committee of representative elections based on the board of directors’ compliance with Boston Partners’ director election policy.

III. Capital Structure

Share Issuance Requests

General Issuances

Vote FOR issuance authorities with pre-emptive rights to a maximum of 50 percent over currently issued capital and as long as the share issuance authorities’ periods are clearly disclosed (or implied by the application of a legal maximum duration) and in line with market-specific practices and/or recommended guidelines (e.g. issuance periods limited to 18 months for the Netherlands).

Vote FOR issuance authorities without pre-emptive rights to a maximum of 10 percent (or a lower limit if local market best practice recommendations provide) of currently issued capital as long as the share issuance authorities’ periods are clearly disclosed (or implied by the application of a legal maximum duration) and in line with market-specific practices and/or recommended guidelines (e.g. issuance periods limited to 18 months for the Netherlands).

These thresholds are mutually exclusive. When calculating the defined limits, all authorized and conditional capital authorizations are considered, including existing authorizations that will remain valid beyond the concerned shareholders’ meeting.

For French Companies

Vote FOR general issuance requests with preemptive rights, or without preemptive rights but with a binding “priority right,” for a maximum of 50 percent over currently issued capital.

5 

In France, when employees exceed a given shareholding threshold in the company, they must be represented by employee shareholder representative(s) on the [supervisory] board.

 

B-407


Generally, vote FOR general authorities to issue shares without preemptive rights up to a maximum of 10 percent of share capital. When companies are listed on a regulated market, the maximum discount on share issuance price proposed in the resolution must, in addition, comply with the legal discount (i.e., a maximum of 5 percent discount to the share listing price) for a vote FOR to be warranted.

Increases in Authorized Capital

Vote for proposals to increase authorized capital on a CASE-BY-CASE basis if such proposals do not include the authorization to issue shares from the (pre-)approved limit.

In case the proposals to increase authorized capital include the authorization to issue shares according to the (pre-) approved limit without obtaining separate shareholder approval, the general issuance policy applies.

IV. Compensation

Executive Compensation-related Proposals

Boston Partners will generally vote AGAINST a company’s compensation-related proposal if such proposal fails to comply with one or a combination of several of the global principles and their corresponding rules:

 

  1.

Provide shareholders with clear and comprehensive compensation disclosures:

 

  a.

Information on compensation-related proposals shall be made available to shareholders in a timely manner;

 

  b.

The level of disclosure of the proposed compensation policy and remuneration report shall be sufficient for shareholders to make an informed decision and shall be in line with what local market best practice standards dictate;

 

  i.

Remuneration report disclosure is expected to include amongst others: amounts paid to executives, alignment between company performance and payout to executives, disclosure of variable incentive targets and according levels of achievement and performance awards made, after the relevant performance period (ex-post), and disclosure and explanation of use of any discretionary authority or derogation clause by the board or remuneration committee to adjust pay outcomes.

 

  ii.

Companies are expected to provide meaningful information regarding the average remuneration of employees of the company, in a manner which permits comparison with directors’ remuneration.

 

  c.

Companies shall adequately disclose all elements of the compensation, including:

 

  i.

Any short- or long-term compensation component must include a maximum award limit.

 

  ii.

Long-term incentive plans must provide sufficient disclosure of (i) the exercise price/strike price (options); (ii) discount on grant; (iii) grant date/period; (iv) exercise/vesting period; and, if applicable, (v) performance criteria.

 

  iii.

Discretionary payments, if applicable.

 

  iv.

The derogation policy, if applicable, which shall clearly define and limit any elements (e.g., base salary, STI, LTI, etc.) and extent (e.g., caps, weightings, etc.) to which derogations may apply.

 

  2.

Maintain appropriate pay structure with emphasis on long-term shareholder value:

 

  a.

The structure of the company’s short-term incentive plan shall be appropriate.

 

  b.

The compensation policy must notably avoid guaranteed or discretionary compensation.

 

 

B-408


  c.

The structure of the company’s long-term incentives shall be appropriate, including, but not limited to, dilution, vesting period, and, if applicable, performance conditions.

 

  i.

Equity-based plans or awards that are linked to long-term company performance will be evaluated using Boston Partners’ General Policy for equity-based plans; and

 

  ii.

For awards granted to executives, generally require a clear link between shareholder value and awards, and stringent performance-based elements.

 

  d.

The balance between short- and long-term variable compensation shall be appropriate. The company’s executive compensation policy must notably avoid disproportionate focus on short-term variable element(s).

 

  3.

Avoid arrangements that risk “pay for failure”:

  a.

The board shall demonstrate good stewardship of investor’s interests regarding executive compensation practices (principle being supported by Pay for Performance Evaluation).

 

  i.

There shall be a clear link between the company’s performance and variable incentives. Financial and non-financial conditions, including ESG criteria, are relevant as long as they reward an effective performance in line with the purpose, strategy, and objectives adopted by the company.

 

  ii.

There shall not be significant discrepancies between the company’s performance, financial and non-financial and real executive payouts.

 

  iii.

The level of pay for the CEO and members of executive management should not be excessive relative to peers, company performance, and market practices.

 

  iv.

Significant pay increases shall be explained by a detailed and compelling disclosure.

 

  b.

Termination payments (any payment linked to early termination of contracts for executive or managing directors, including payments related to the duration of a notice period or a non-competition clause included in the contract) must not be in excess of (i) 24 months’ pay or of (ii) any more restrictive provision pursuant to local legal requirements and/or market best practices.

 

  c.

Arrangements with a company executive regarding pensions and post-mandate exercise of equity-based awards must not result in an adverse impact on shareholders’ interests or be misaligned with good market practices.

 

  4.

Maintain an independent and effective compensation committee:

 

  a.

No executives may serve on the compensation committee.

 

  b.

In certain markets the compensation committee shall be composed of a majority of independent members.

 

  c.

Compensation committees should use the discretion afforded them by shareholders to ensure that rewards properly reflect business performance.

In addition, Boston Partners will generally vote AGAINST a compensation-related proposal if such proposal is in breach of any other Boston Partners’ voting policy.

 

B-409


Non-Executive Director Compensation

Though always seeking to avoid inappropriate pay to non-executive directors, Boston Partners will generally vote FOR proposals to award cash fees to non-executive directors, and will otherwise vote AGAINST where:

 

  1.

Documents (including general meeting documents, annual report) provided prior to the general meeting do not mention fees paid to non-executive directors.

 

  2.

Proposed amounts are excessive relative to other companies in the country or industry.

 

  3.

The company intends to increase the fees excessively in comparison with market/sector practices, without stating compelling reasons that justify the increase.

 

  4.

Proposals provide for the granting of stock options, performance-based places compensation (including stock appreciation rights and performance-vesting restricted stock), and performance- based cash to non-executive directors.

 

  5.

Proposals introduce retirement benefits for non-executive directors.

Boston Partners will vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis where:

 

  1.

Proposals include both cash and share-based components to non-executive directors.

 

  2.

Proposals bundle compensation for both non-executive and executive directors into a single resolution.

Equity-based Compensation Guidelines

Boston Partners will generally vote FOR equity-based compensation proposals of the like if the plan(s) is (are) in line with long-term shareholder interests and align the award with shareholder value. This assessment includes, but is not limited to, the following factors:

 

  1.

The volume of awards (to be) transferred to participants under all outstanding plans must not be excessive.

 

  2.

Awards must not exceed:

 

  a.

5 percent of a company’s issued share capital. This number can be up to 10 percent for high-growth companies or particularly well-designed plans (e.g., with challenging performance criteria, extended vesting/performance period, etc.);

 

  b.

The plan(s) must be sufficiently long-term in nature/structure: the vesting of awards (i) must occur no less than three years from the grant date, and (ii) if applicable, should be conditioned on meeting performance targets that are measured over a period of at least three consecutive years;

 

  c.

If applicable, performance criteria must be fully disclosed, measurable, quantifiable, and long-term oriented;

 

  d.

The awards must be granted at market price. Discounts, if any, must be mitigated by performance criteria or other features that justify such discount.

Compensation-Related Voting Sanctions

Should a company be deemed:

 

   

To have egregious remuneration practices;

 

   

To have failed to follow market practice by not submitting expected resolutions on executive compensation; or

 

   

To have failed to respond to significant shareholder dissent on remuneration-related proposals;

an adverse vote could be applied to any of the following on a CASE-BY-CASE basis:

 

 

B-410


  1.

The (re)election of the chair of the remuneration committee or, where relevant, any other members of the remuneration committee;

 

  2.

The reelection of the board chair;

 

  3.

The discharge of directors; or

 

  4.

The annual report and accounts.

Other adverse recommendations under existing remuneration proposals (if any) should also be considered.

Stock Option Plans – Adjustment for Dividend (Nordic Region)

Vote AGAINST stock option plans in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden if evidence is found that they contain provisions that may result in a disconnect between shareholder value and employee/executive reward. This includes one or a combination of the following:

 

  1.

Adjusting the strike price for future ordinary dividends AND including expected dividend yield above 0 percent when determining the number of options awarded under the plan;

 

  2.

Having significantly higher expected dividends than actual historical dividends;

 

  3.

Favorably adjusting the terms of existing options plans without valid reason; and/or

 

  4.

Any other provisions or performance measures that result in undue award.

Boston Partners will make an exception if a company proposes to reduce the strike price by the amount of future special (extraordinary) dividends only.

Generally, vote AGAINST if the potential increase of share capital amounts to more than 5 percent for mature companies or 10 percent for growth companies or if options may be exercised below the market price of the share at the date of grant, or that employee options do not lapse if employment is terminated.

Share Matching Plans (Sweden and Norway)

Boston Partners considers the following factors when evaluating share matching plans:

  1.

For every share matching plan, Boston Partners requires a holding period.

 

  2.

For plans without performance criteria, the shares must be purchased at market price.

 

  3.

For broad-based share matching plans directed at all employees, Boston Partners accepts an arrangement up to a 1:1 ratio, i.e. no more than one free share is awarded for every share purchased at market value.

 

  4.

In addition, for plans directed at executives, we require that sufficiently challenging performance criteria be attached to the plan. Higher discounts demand proportionally higher performance criteria.

The dilution of the plan when combined with the dilution from any other proposed or outstanding employee stock purchase/stock matching plans, must comply with Boston Partners guidelines.

 

B-411


V. Other Items

Antitakeover Mechanisms

For the Netherlands, votes regarding management proposals to approve protective preference shares will be determined on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. In general, Boston Partners will vote FOR protective preference shares (PPS) only if:

 

  1.

The supervisory board needs to approve an issuance of shares and the supervisory board is independent within the meaning Boston Partners’ guidelines and the Dutch Corporate Governance Code (i.e. a maximum of one member can be non-independent);

 

  2.

No call / put option agreement exists between the company and a foundation for the issuance of PPS;

 

  3.

The issuance authority is for a maximum of 18 months;

 

  4.

The board of the company-friendly foundation is fully independent;

 

  5.

There are no priority shares or other egregious protective or entrenchment tools;

 

  6.

The company states specifically that the issue of PPS is not meant to block a takeover, but will only be used to investigate alternative bids or to negotiate a better deal;

 

  7.

The foundation buying the PPS does not have as a statutory goal to block a takeover; and

 

  8.

The PPS will be outstanding for a period of maximum 6 months (an EGM must be called to determine the continued use of such shares after this period).

For French companies listed on a regulated market, generally vote AGAINST any general authorities impacting the share capital (i.e. authorities for share repurchase plans and any general share issuances with or without preemptive rights) if they can be used for antitakeover purposes without shareholders’ prior explicit approval.

Authority to Reduce Minimum Notice Period for Calling a Meeting

A FOR vote to approve the “enabling” authority proposal would be on the basis that Boston Partners would generally expect companies to call EGMs/GMs using a notice period of less than 21 days only in limited circumstances where a shorter notice period will be to the advantage of shareholders as a whole, for example, to keep a period of uncertainty about the future of the company to a minimum. This is particularly true of capital raising proposals or other price sensitive transactions. By definition, annual general meetings, being regular meetings of the company, should not merit a notice period of less than 21 days.

In a market where local legislation permits an EGM/GM to be called at no less than 14-days’ notice, Boston will generally vote FOR a resolution to approve the enabling authority if the company discloses that the shorter notice period of between 20 and 14 days would not be used as a matter of routine for such meetings, but only when the flexibility is merited by the business of the meeting. Where the proposal(s) at a given EGM/GM is (are) not time-sensitive, such as the approval of incentive plans, Boston Partners would not expect a company to invoke the shorter notice notwithstanding any prior approval of the enabling authority proposal by shareholders.

In evaluating an enabling authority proposal, Boston Partners would first require that the company make a clear disclosure of its compliance with any hurdle conditions for the authority imposed by applicable law, such as the provision of an electronic voting facility for shareholders. In addition, with the exception of

the first annual general meeting at which approval of the enabling authority is sought following implementation of the European Shareholder Rights Directive, when evaluating an enabling authority proposal Boston Partners will take into consideration the company’s use (if any) of shorter notice periods in the preceding year to ensure that such shorter notice periods were invoked solely in connection with genuinely time-sensitive matters. Where the company has not limited its use of the shorter notice periods to such time sensitive-matters and fails to provide a clear explanation for this, Boston Partners will consider a vote AGAINST the enabling authority for the coming year.

 

B-412


Auditor Report Including Related Party Transactions (France)

Boston Partners will review all auditor reports on related-party transactions and screen for and evaluate agreements with respect to the following issues:

 

  1.

Director Remuneration

 

  2.

Consulting Services

 

  3.

Liability Coverage

 

  4.

Certain Business Transactions

In general, Boston Partners expects companies to provide the following regarding related-party transactions:

 

  1.

Adequate disclosure of terms under listed transactions (including individual details of any consulting, or other remuneration agreements with directors and for any asset sales and/or acquisitions);

 

  2.

Sufficient justification on transactions that appear to be unrelated to operations and/or not in shareholders’ best interests;

 

  3.

Fairness opinion (if applicable in special business transactions); and

 

  4.

Any other relevant information that may affect or impair shareholder value, rights, and/or judgment.

In the event that the company fails to provide an annual report in a timely manner, generally at least 21 days prior to the meeting, Boston Partners will vote AGAINST these proposals.

 

B-413


EUROPE, THE MIDDLE EAST, AND AFRICA

Applies to: Markets in South-Eastern Europe and the Near East; Albania, Bahrain, Belarus, Bosnia, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lebanon, Macedonia, Malawi, Mauritius, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Also applies to Russia and Kazakhstan, and Israel to the extent policies are shared. For specific Russia and Kazakhstan, and Israel policies, please see those sections of the Policy.

I. Operational Items

Financial Results/Director and Auditor Reports

Vote FOR approval of financial statements and director and auditor reports, unless:

 

  1.

There are concerns about the accounts presented or audit procedures used; or

 

  2.

The company is not responsive to shareholder questions about specific items that should be publicly disclosed.

Generally, vote for approval of the corporate governance and/or the board report, unless information about corporate governance practices to be included in those reports has not been publicly disclosed by the company in a timely manner.

Appointment of Auditors and Auditor Fees

Vote FOR the (re)election of auditors and/or proposals authorizing the board to fix auditor fees, unless: for widely-held companies, fees (if disclosed) for non-audit services exceed either 100 percent of standard audit-related fees or any stricter limit set in local best practice recommendations or law.

Donations

Vote FOR proposals seeking the approval of donations for the fiscal year under review unless:

 

  1.

The amount of donations for the fiscal year in review is not publicly available at the time of analysis; or

 

  2.

There are controversies surrounding the company’s use of donations.

Vote FOR proposals seeking the approval of donations for the upcoming fiscal year unless:

 

  1.

The company does not provide a cap for the amount of future donations, and there is no disclosure regarding donations being made under the fiscal year in review; or

 

  2.

There are controversies surrounding the company’s use of donations.

II. Board of Directors

Board Independence

Boston Partners applies a five-year cooling off period to former executives when determining nominee independence in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

If a nominee cannot be categorized, Boston Partners will consider that nominee as non-independent and include that nominee in the calculation of overall board independence.

 

B-414


Generally, vote AGAINST the election or reelection of any non-independent directors (excluding the CEO) if overall board independence is less than one-third, excluding, where relevant, employee shareholder representatives.

Vote FOR (AGAINST) employee or labor representatives if they sit on either the audit or compensation committee and are (not) required by law to be on these committees.

Committee Independence

Vote AGAINST proposals seeking the election of non-independent members of the audit committee if:

 

  1.

Fewer than one-third of all audit committee members6 excluding, where relevant, employee shareholder representatives, would be independent; or

 

  2.

A non-independent member is being presented for election or reelection as the audit committee chair.

This policy applies to bundled and unbundled items.

For companies incorporated in Turkey, vote AGAINST the (re)election of any non-independent members of the audit committee.

Vote AGAINST the (re)election of executives who serve on the company’s audit committee. Vote AGAINST if the disclosure is insufficient to determine whether an executive serves or will serve on the audit committee. If Boston Partners believes the entire board fulfills the audit committee role, vote AGAINST any executives, including the CEO.

For Nigerian companies, vote FOR the election of shareholders’ representatives as members of the statutory audit committee unless the names of the proposed candidates are not publicly disclosed in a timely manner or there are specific concerns about the candidates.

Cumulative Voting System

When directors are elected through a cumulative voting system, or when the number of nominees exceeds the number of board vacancies vote CASE-BY-CASE on directors, taking into consideration additional factors to identify the nominees best suited to add value for shareholders.

Generally, ABSTAIN votes from all candidates if the disclosure provided by the company is not sufficient to allow the assessment of independence and the support of all proposed candidates on equal terms.

If the disclosure is sufficient to allow an assessment of the independence of proposed candidates, generally vote in favor of the following types of candidates:

 

  1.

Candidates who can be identified as representatives of minority shareholders of the company, or independent candidates.

 

  2.

Candidates whose professional background may have the following benefits:

 

  a.

Increasing the diversity of incumbent directors ‘ professional profiles and skills (thanks to their financial expertise, international experience, executive positions/directorships at other listed companies, or other relevant factors).

6 

For Saudi Arabian companies, Boston Partners will include external (non-board members) nominees in the assessment of the audit committee’s level of independence.

 

B-415


  b.

Bringing to the current board of directors relevant experience in areas linked to the company’s business, evidenced by current or past board memberships or management functions at other companies.

 

  3.

Incumbent board members and candidates explicitly supported by the company’s management.

III. Capital Structure

Capital Structures

Vote FOR resolutions that seek to maintain or convert to a one-share, one-vote capital structure.

Vote AGAINST requests for the creation or continuation of dual-class capital structures or the creation of new or additional super-voting shares.

Preferred Stock

Vote AGAINST the creation of a new class of preference shares that would carry superior voting rights to the common shares.

Vote AGAINST the creation of blank check preferred stock unless the board clearly states that the authorization will not be used to thwart a takeover bid.

Vote proposals to increase blank check preferred authorizations on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Debt Issuance Requests

Vote non-convertible debt issuance requests on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with or without preemptive rights.

Vote FOR the creation/issuance of convertible debt instruments as long as the maximum number of common shares that could be issued upon conversion meets guidelines on equity issuance requests.

Vote FOR proposals to restructure existing debt arrangements unless the terms of the restructuring would adversely affect the rights of shareholders.

IV. Compensation

Vote FOR proposals to award cash fees to non-executive directors unless:

 

  1.

The board fees paid for the fiscal year under review are not disclosed in a timely manner;

 

  2.

The proposed amounts are excessive relative to similarly sized companies in the same market/sector, with no justification provided by the company; or

 

  3.

There is significant concern on the company’s past practices regarding directors’ remuneration.

In case there is a significant increase in fees with limited or no justification, vote on the proposal on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote non-executive director compensation proposals that include both cash and share-based components on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

B-416


Vote proposals that bundle compensation for both non-executive and executive directors into a single resolution on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Vote AGAINST proposals to introduce retirement benefits for non-executive directors.

Remuneration Policy/Report

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on compensation related-proposal including both non-executive and executive directors (or executive directors only) taking into account the following factors:

 

  1.

Information on compensation-related proposals shall be made publicly available in a timely manner;

 

  2.

The level of disclosure of the proposed compensation policy shall be sufficient for shareholders to make an informed decision and shall be in line with what local best market practice standards dictate;

 

  3.

Companies shall adequately disclose all elements of the compensation, including any short- or long-term compensation component.

When assessing a company’s remuneration policy and/or report, generally vote AGAINST if the level of disclosure around the policy and/or the application of the policy is below what is required for shareholders to make an informed judgment. In the event of satisfactory disclosure, vote FOR the approval of the executive remuneration policy and/or the remuneration report on a CASE-BY-CASE approach paying particular attention as to whether the proposed policy and/ or amendments are aligned with shareholders’ interest.

V. Other Items

Related-Party Transactions

In the case of Nigerian companies, vote FOR proposals relating to renewal of the general mandate for the company to enter into recurrent transactions with related parties necessary for its day-to-day operations in the absence of any concerns with the related party transactions concluded pursuant to the general mandate.

 

B-417


INDIA

I. Board of Directors

Executive Appointment

Vote FOR executive appointment and remuneration proposals, unless there is evidence of problems in the past or significant concerns with the individual’s qualifications, proposed remuneration, or performance or the position.

Election of Directors

Accountability

Generally, vote AGAINST directors who are not liable to retire by rotation and whose continuation on the board will not be subject to shareholder review and approval going forward.

Composition

Separation of Roles of Chair and CEO

For the NIFTY 500 and BSE 500 companies, vote AGAINST the board chair and the chair of the nomination committee (or a senior member of the nomination committee on a CASE-BY-CASE basis) up for reelection, if there is no separation of roles between the CEO and chairperson, as required under the applicable regulations.

II. Remuneration

Director Commission and Executive Compensation

Fees for Non-executive Directors

For aggregate non-executive director remuneration, generally, vote FOR resolutions regarding director fees unless there is a clear indication that directors are being rewarded for poor performance, or the fees are excessive relative to fees paid by other companies of similar size.

For individual non-executive director remuneration, vote on a case-to-case basis depending on the role and contribution of the concerned director, company performance, the quantum of proposed remuneration, peer benchmarking, and the overall pay structure.

Executive Compensation

Generally, vote AGAINST the payment of remuneration in excess of the minimum remuneration and the waiver of recovery of excess remuneration paid to executives in the event of loss or inadequate profit unless compelling justification is provided in support of the proposal.

Any increases in total remuneration for executives should not be out of line with general increases at the company. Vote CASE-BY-CASE on executive compensation proposals considering whether:

 

  1.

Quantum of pay and proposed hike is reasonable and commensurate with the size and scale of company;

 

  2.

Past remuneration has been aligned with performance;

 

  3.

Pay is benchmarked to industry/market peers;

 

  4.

Pay as a multiple of median employee pay is reasonable;

 

  5.

The proposed pay structure has sufficient degree of variable pay;

 

B-418


  6.

Terms of LTIP/stock option plans are disclosed;

 

  7.

The award levels for the different components of variable pay are clearly defined and capped;

 

  8.

Performance conditions have been stated;

 

  9.

Malus/clawback/deferred pay provisions are in place; and

 

  10.

The board has unreasonable level of discretion and flexibility in deciding the final pay.

Equity Compensation Plans

Generally, vote FOR option plans and restricted share plans.

Vote AGAINST an option plan if:

 

  1.

The maximum dilution level for the plan exceeds:

 

  a.

5 percent of issued share capital for a mature company (this may be increased to 10 percent if the plan includes other positive features such as a challenging performance criteria and meaningful vesting periods as these partially offset dilution concerns by reducing the likelihood that options will become exercisable or performance shares are issued unless there is a clear improvement in shareholder value);

 

  b.

10 percent for a growth company; or

 

  2.

The plan permits options to be issued with an exercise price at a discount to the current market price.

Vote AGAINST a restricted share plan if:

 

  1.

The maximum dilution level for the plan exceeds 5 percent of issued share capital for a mature company or 10 percent for a growth company; or

 

  2.

The plan does not include a challenging performance criteria and meaningful vesting periods to partially offset dilution concerns by reducing the likelihood that performance shares are issued unless there is a clear improvement in shareholder value.

III. Share Issuance Requests

Preferential Issuance Requests and Preferential Issuance of Warrants

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on requests for preferential issuance (private placements) and issuance of preferential warrants.

Specific Issuance Requests

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on issuances of shares for specific purposes.

IV. Debt Issuance Requests

Debt Related Proposals

In evaluating debt-related proposals, consider the following factors:

 

  1.

Rationale/use of proceeds: Why does the company need additional capital? How will that capital be used?

 

  2.

Terms of the debts: Are the debt instruments convertible into equity? What are the interest rate and maturity dates? Any call or put options? Often these terms will not be determined until the time of

 

B-419


  issuance of debt instruments (or when the actual loan agreement is signed). The terms of the debts would generally be determined by the market conditions, and lack of disclosure concerning these terms should not be a cause for significant concern so long as the debt is not convertible into equity.

 

  3.

Size: At a minimum, the size of the debt issuance/potential borrowing should be disclosed.

 

  4.

The company’s financial position: What is the company’s current leverage and how does that compare to its peers?

 

  5.

The risk of non-approval: What might happen if the proposal is not approved? Are there any alternative sources of funding? Could the company continue to fund its operations? Would it hinder the company’s ability to realize opportunities?

A distinction should be made between a specific debt issuance or pledging of assets, and authority to issue or increase debt; as in the case of specific equity issuances and requests for authority to issue equity.

Increase in Borrowing Powers

Vote FOR proposals to approve increases in a company’s borrowing powers if:

 

  1.

The size of the debt being requested is disclosed;

 

  2.

A credible reason for the need for additional funding is provided;

 

  3.

The potential increase in debt is not excessive; and

 

  4.

There are no significant causes for shareholder concern regarding the terms and conditions of the debt.

For non-financial companies, the following criteria are used to assess whether the potential increase in debt is considered excessive:

 

  1.

The proposed maximum amount is more than twice the company’s total debt;

 

  2.

It could result in the company’s debt-to-equity ratio, or gearing level, exceeding 300 percent; and

 

  3.

The maximum hypothetical debt-to-equity ratio is more than three times the industry and/or market norm.

Generally, vote FOR debt-related proposals of financial companies taking into account the current financial standing of the company, including but not limited to:

 

  1.

The capital adequacy to risk (weighted) assets; or

 

  2.

Capital adequacy ratio vis-à-vis the regulatory norm;

 

  3.

Revenue growth; and

 

  4.

Asset base.

Pledging of Assets for Debt

Vote FOR proposals to approve the specific pledging of assets for debt if:

 

  1.

The size of the debt being requested is disclosed;

 

  2.

A credible reason for the need for additional funding is provided;

 

  3.

Details regarding the assets to be pledged are disclosed; and

 

  4.

There are no significant causes for shareholder concern regarding the terms and conditions of the debt.

 

B-420


For proposals seeking a general authority to pledge assets for debt, the specific assets to be pledged need not be disclosed. However, in such cases, the authority should be limited such that it would not result in an excessive increase in debt. Vote AGAINST proposals that grant excessive authority to the board or management.

Financial Assistance

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on requests for financial assistance. Generally, vote AGAINST the provision of a guarantee where:

 

  1.

The identity of the entity receiving the guarantee is not disclosed;

 

  2.

The guarantee is being provided to a director, executive, parent company, or affiliated entities where the company has no direct or indirect equity ownership; or

 

  3.

The guarantee is provided to an entity in which the company’s ownership stake is less than 75 percent; and such guarantee is not proportionate to the company’s equity stake or other parties have not provided a counter guarantee.

When the proposed guarantee does not fall into the above criteria, generally vote FOR the request provided that there are no significant concerns regarding the entity receiving the guarantee, the relationship between the listed company and the entity receiving the guarantee, the purpose of the guarantee, or the terms of the guarantee agreement. Examples of such concerns include a previous default by the entity receiving the guarantee or a sub-investment grade credit rating.

V. Miscellaneous

Accept Financial Statements and Statutory Reports

Generally, vote FOR the approval of financial statements and statutory reports, unless:

 

  1.

There are concerns about the accounts presented or audit procedures used; or

 

  2.

There has been an accounting fraud or materials misstatement during the year.

Acceptance of Deposits

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to accept deposits from shareholders and/or the public, unless there are no significant causes for shareholder concern regarding the terms and conditions of the deposit.

Sufficient information regarding the deposits must be disclosed, including:

 

  1.

Justification for the need for additional funding; and

 

  2.

The interest rate offered, which must not exceed the interest rate prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for acceptance of deposits by non-banking financial companies (NBFCs).

Charitable Donations

Vote AGAINST proposed charitable donations, unless:

 

  1.

Adequate disclosure on the rationale for the donation and exact term of the authority are provided in the meeting materials, and

 

  2.

The party receiving the charitable donation is an independent third party.

Increase in Foreign Shareholding Limit

Vote FOR requests for increases in foreign shareholder limits, unless there are outstanding issues concerning the company.

 

B-421


ISRAEL

I. Operational Items

Appointment of Auditors and Auditor Fees

Vote FOR the (re)election of auditors and/or proposals authorizing the board to fix auditor fees unless, fees for non-audit services exceed standard annual audit-related fees (only applies to companies on the MSCI EAFE index and/or listed on any country main index); or audit fees are being reported together with tax / other fees.

II. Compensation

Executive Compensation-related Proposals

Boston Partners will generally vote AGAINST a company’s compensation-related proposal if such proposal fails to comply with one or a combination of several of the global principles and their corresponding rules:

 

  1.

Provide shareholders with clear and comprehensive compensation disclosures:

 

  a.

Information on compensation-related proposals shall be made available to shareholders in a timely manner;

 

  b.

The level of disclosure of the proposed compensation policy shall be sufficient for shareholders to make an informed decision and shall be in line with what local market best practice standards dictate;

 

  c.

Companies shall adequately disclose all elements of the compensation, including:

 

  i.

Any short- or long-term compensation component must include a maximum award limit.

 

  ii.

Long-term incentive plans must provide sufficient disclosure of (i) the exercise price/strike price (options); (ii) discount on grant; (iii) grant date/period; (iv) exercise/vesting period; and, if applicable, (v) performance criteria.

 

  iii.

Discretionary payments, if applicable.

 

  2.

Maintain appropriate pay structure with emphasis on long-term shareholder value:

 

  a.

The structure of the company’s short-term incentive plan shall be appropriate.

 

  b.

The compensation policy must notably avoid guaranteed or discretionary compensation.

 

  c.

The structure of the company’s long-term incentives shall be appropriate, including, but not limited to, dilution, vesting period, and, if applicable, performance conditions.

 

  i.

Equity-based plans or awards that are linked to long-term company performance will be evaluated using Boston Partners’ General Policy for equity-based plans; and

 

  ii.

For awards granted to executives, generally require a clear link between shareholder value and awards, and stringent performance-based elements.

 

  d.

The balance between short- and long-term variable compensation shall be appropriate. The company’s executive compensation policy must notably avoid disproportionate focus on short-term variable element(s).

 

  3.

Avoid arrangements that risk “pay for failure”:

 

  a.

The board shall demonstrate good stewardship of investor’s interests regarding executive compensation practices (principle being supported by Pay for Performance Evaluation).

 

  i.

There shall be a clear link between the company’s performance and variable awards.

 

  ii.

There shall not be significant discrepancies between the company’s performance and real executive payouts.

 

B-422


  iii.

The level of pay for the CEO and members of executive management should not be excessive relative to peers, company performance, and market practices.

 

  iv.

Significant pay increases shall be explained by a detailed and compelling disclosure.

 

  b.

Termination payments (any payment linked to early termination of contracts for executive or managing directors, including payments related to the duration of a notice period or a non-competition clause included in the contract) must not be in excess of (i) 24 months’ pay or of (ii) any more restrictive provision pursuant to local legal requirements and/or market best practices.

 

  c.

Arrangements with a company executive regarding pensions and post-mandate exercise of equity-based awards must not result in an adverse impact on shareholders’ interests or be misaligned with good market practices.

 

  4.

Maintain an independent and effective compensation committee:

 

  a.

No executives may serve on the compensation committee.

 

  b.

In certain markets the compensation committee shall be composed of a majority of independent members.

 

  c.

Compensation committees should use the discretion afforded them by shareholders to ensure that rewards properly reflect business performance.

In addition, Boston Partners will generally vote AGAINST a compensation-related proposal if such proposal is in breach of any other Boston Partners’ voting policy.

Non-Executive Director Compensation

Though always seeking to avoid inappropriate pay to non-executive directors, Boston Partners will generally vote FOR proposals to award cash fees to non-executive directors, and will otherwise vote AGAINST where:

 

  1.

Documents (including general meeting documents, annual report) provided prior to the general meeting do not mention fees paid to non-executive directors.

 

  2.

Proposed amounts are excessive relative to other companies in the country or industry.

 

  3.

The company intends to increase the fees excessively in comparison with market/sector practices, without stating compelling reasons that justify the increase.

 

  4.

Proposals provide for the granting of stock options, performance-based places compensation (including stock appreciation rights and performance-vesting restricted stock), and performance- based cash to non-executive directors.

 

  5.

Proposals introduce retirement benefits for non-executive directors.

Equity-based Compensation Guidelines

Vote FOR equity- based compensation proposals for employees if the plan(s) are in line with long-term shareholder interests and align the award with shareholder value.

Boston Partners will vote AGAINST plans if the three-year average burn rate exceeds 3.5 percent.

 

B-423


JAPAN

I. Routine Miscellaneous

Income Allocation

Generally, vote FOR approval of income allocation, unless:

 

  1.

Payout ratio is consistently low without adequate justification; or

 

  2.

Payout ratio is too high, potentially damaging financial health.

Election of Statutory Auditors

Generally, vote FOR the election of statutory auditors, unless:

 

  1.

The outside statutory auditor nominee is regarded as non-independent; or

 

  2.

The outside statutory nominee attended less than 75 percent of meetings of the board of directors or board of statutory auditors during the year under review; or

 

  3.

The statutory auditor is judged to be responsible for clear mismanagement or shareholder- unfriendly behavior.

 

  4.

Egregious actions related to a statutory auditor’s service on other boards that raise substantial doubt about his or her ability to effectively oversee management and serve the best interests of shareholders at any company.

II. Election of Directors

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

There are three policies for director elections in Japan: one for companies with a statutory auditor board structure, one for companies with a U.S.-type three committee structure, and one for companies with a board with audit committee structure.

 

  1.

At companies with a statutory auditor structure: vote FOR the election of directors, except:

 

  a)

Top executive(s) at a company that has underperformed in terms of capital efficiency (i.e., when the company has posted average return on equity (ROE) of less than five percent over the last five fiscal years), unless an improvement is observed;

 

  b)

For meetings on or after Feb. 1, 2022, top executive(s) at a company that allocates a significant portion (20 percent or more) of its net assets to cross-shareholdings. Exceptions may be considered for cases such as where the top executive has newly joined the company in connection with a bailout or restructuring;

 

  c)

Top executive(s) if the board, after the shareholder meeting, will not include at least two outside directors and, for meetings on or after Feb. 1, 2022, at least one-third of the board members will not be outside directors;

 

  d)

Top executive(s) at a company that has a controlling shareholder, where the board, after the shareholder meeting, will not include at least two independent directors and at least one-third of the board members will be independent directors;

 

  e)

Top executive(s) who are responsible for not implementing a shareholder proposal which has received a majority of votes cast, or not putting a similar proposal on the ballot as a management proposal the following year (with a management recommendation of FOR), when that proposal is deemed to be in the interest of independent shareholders; or

 

B-424


  f)

An outside director nominee who attended less than 75 percent of board meetings during the year under review.

 

  2.

At companies with a U.S.-type three committee structure: (In addition to the guidelines for companies with a statutory auditor structure) vote FOR the election of directors, except:

 

  a)

Where an outside director nominee is regarded as non-independent and the board, after the shareholder meeting, is not majority independent;

 

  b)

Top executive(s) if at least one-third of the board members, after the shareholder meeting, will not be outside directors; or

 

  c)

Where the company has a controlling shareholder, a director nominee sits on the nomination committee and is an insider, or non-independent outsider, when the board, after the shareholder meeting, does not include at least two independent directors and at least one-third of the board members will be independent directors.

 

  3.

At companies with a board with audit committee structure: (In addition to the guidelines for companies with a statutory auditor structure) vote FOR the election of directors, except:

 

  a.

Where an outside director nominee who is also nominated as an audit committee member (outside director nominees who are not nominated as audit committee members are not subject to this policy) is regarded as non-independent; or

 

  b.

Top executive(s) if at least one-third of the board members, after the shareholder meeting, will not be outside directors.

III. Article Amendments

Adoption of a U.S.-style Three Committee Board Structure

Generally, vote FOR the adoption of a U.S. style, three-committee board structure.

Adoption of a Board with Audit Committee Structure

Generally, vote FOR an article amendment to adopt a board with audit committee structure. However, if the adoption of the new governance structure would eliminate shareholders’ ability to submit shareholder proposals on income allocation, vote AGAINST the article amendments. Vote CASE-BY-CASE if the board currently has a three-committee structure.

Increase in Authorized Capital

Generally, vote CASE-BY-CASE on this request if the company explicitly provides reasons for the increase.

If the company does not provide reasons for the increase, generally vote FOR proposals to increase authorized capital, unless the increase is intended for a poison pill.

Creation/Modification of Preferred Shares/Class Shares

Generally, vote CASE-BY-CASE on this request.

Repurchase of Shares at Board’s Discretion

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on article amendments to give the board discretionary authority over share repurchases, taking into account the company’s:

 

  1.

Balance sheet conditions;

 

B-425


  2.

Capital efficiency and return on equity;

 

  3.

Past share buybacks and dividend payouts;

 

  4.

Board composition;

 

  5.

Shareholding structure; and

 

  6.

Other relevant factors.

Generally, vote AGAINST these amendments if shareholders will lose the ability to submit shareholder proposals on share repurchases.

Allow Company to Make Rules Governing the Exercise of Shareholders’ Rights

Generally, vote AGAINST this change.

Limit Rights of Odd Shareholders

Generally, vote FOR this change.

Amendments Related to Takeover Defenses

Generally, vote FOR this proposal, unless Boston Partners opposes or has opposed the poison pill proposal by itself.

Decrease in Maximum Board Size

Generally, vote FOR this proposal, unless the decrease eliminates all vacant seats, leaving no flexibility to add shareholder nominees or other outsiders to the board without removing an incumbent director.

Supermajority Vote Requirement to Remove a Director

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals seeking a supermajority requirement to remove a director.

Creation of Advisory Positions (Sodanyaku or Komon)

Generally, vote AGAINST amendments to articles of incorporation to create new advisory positions such as “sodanyaku” or “komon,” unless the advisors will serve on the board of directors and thus be accountable to shareholders.

Payment of Dividends at the Board’s Discretion

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals allowing the board to pay dividends at its discretion. However, if the company employs board with committee structure and the proposal would not eliminate shareholders’ ability to submit shareholder proposals on income allocation, vote FOR the article amendments.

Management Buyout Related Amendments

Generally, vote CASE-BY-CASE on management related buyout amendments.

IV. Compensation

Annual Bonuses for Directors/Statutory Auditors

Vote FOR approval of annual bonuses, unless recipients include those who are judged to be responsible for clear mismanagement or shareholder-unfriendly behavior.

 

B-426


Retirement Bonuses

Generally, vote FOR approval of retirement bonuses, unless:

 

  1.

Recipients include outsiders; or

 

  2.

Neither the individual payments nor the aggregate amount of the payments is disclosed; or

 

  3.

Recipients include those who are judged to be responsible for clear mismanagement or shareholder-unfriendly behavior.

Special Payments in Connection with Abolition of Retirement Bonus System

Generally, vote FOR approval of special payments in connection with abolition of retirement bonus system, unless:

 

  1.

Recipients include outsiders; or

 

  2.

Neither the individual payments nor the aggregate amount of the payments is disclosed; or

 

  3.

Recipients include those who are judged to be responsible for clear mismanagement or shareholder-unfriendly behavior.

Stock Option Plans/Deep-Discounted Stock Option Plans

Stock Option Plans

Generally, vote FOR approval of stock option plans, unless:

 

  1.

Total dilution from proposed plan(s) and previous option plans exceeds 5 percent for mature companies, or 10 percent for growth companies; or;

 

  2.

Recipients include individuals who are not in a position to affect the company’s stock price, including employees of business partners or unspecified “collaborators;” or

 

  3.

The maximum number of options that can be issued per year is not disclosed.

Deep-Discounted Stock Option Plans

Generally, vote FOR approval of deep-discounted stock option plans10, unless:

 

  1.

Total dilution from proposed plan(s) and previous option plans exceeds 5 percent for mature companies, or 10 percent for growth companies; or

 

  2.

Recipients include individuals who are not in a position to affect the company’s stock price, including employees of business partners or unspecified “collaborators;” or

 

  3.

The maximum number of options that can be issued per year is not disclosed; or

 

  4.

No specific performance hurdles are specified (However, if the vesting period before exercise lasts for at least three years, this policy may not apply).

Director Compensation Ceiling

Generally, vote FOR proposals seeking to increase director fees, if:

 

  1.

The specific reason(s) for the increase are explained; or

 

  2.

The company is introducing or increasing a ceiling for performance-based compensation.

 

B-427


Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposals seeking to increase director fees, taking into account the company’s stock price performance and capital efficiency if:

 

  1.

The proposals are intended to increase fixed cash compensation or do not specify whether it is fixed or performance-based compensation which will be increased.

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals seeking to increase director fees if there are serious concerns about corporate malfeasance.

Statutory Auditor Compensation Ceiling

Generally, vote FOR proposals seeking to increase statutory auditor compensation ceiling, unless statutory auditors are judged to be responsible for clear mismanagement or shareholder-unfriendly behavior

 

B-428


KOREA

I. Election of Directors

Director Elections

Independence

Boston Partners applies a five-year cooling off period to former employees or executives when determining nominee independence in Korea.

Vote AGAINST any non-independent director nominees where the board is less than majority- independent (in the case of large companies) or less than 25 percent independent (in the case of small companies).

Composition

For cases where the election of multiple directors are presented as a bundled item, vote AGAINST the entire slate of directors if one of the nominees presents any governance concerns.

Voting on Director Nominees in Contested Elections

Vote CASE-BY-CASE, determining which directors are best suited to add value for shareholders. The analysis will generally be based on, but not limited to, the following major decision factors:

 

  1.

Management’s track record;

 

  2.

Background to the contested election;

 

  3.

Nominee qualifications and any compensatory arrangements;

 

  4.

Strategic plan of dissident slate and quality of the critique against management;

 

  5.

Likelihood that the proposed goals and objectives can be achieved (both slates); and

 

  6.

Stock ownership positions.

II. Audit Related

Election of Audit Committee Member(s)

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on the election of audit committee members. Consider the history of a particular director when deciding whether to vote in favor of his/her (re)election.

For small companies, Boston Partners will vote AGAINST a non-independent director nominee if the audit committee is less than two-thirds independent.

Election of Internal Auditor(s)/ Establishment of Audit Committees

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on the election of internal auditor(s). Consider the history of a particular internal auditor when deciding whether to vote in favor of his or her (re)election.

Under Korean law, small companies are required to appoint at least one internal auditor. These companies may alternatively choose to establish an audit committee. For those small companies which choose to create an audit committee in place of the internal auditor system vote FOR the election of an inside director as an audit committee member only if the company’s audit committee, after the election, satisfies the legal requirement.

Generally, vote FOR the establishment of an audit committee as a replacement for the internal auditor system.

 

B-429


III. Capital Structure/Restructuring

Stock Split

Generally, vote FOR stock splits or reverse stock splits unless there is potential dilution impact on existing shareholders as a result of stock split and/or reverse stock split.

Spinoff Agreement

Generally, vote FOR the approval of a spinoff agreement, unless:

 

  1.

The impact on earnings or voting rights for one class of shareholders is disproportionate to the relative contributions of the group;

 

  2.

The company’s structure following the spinoff does not reflect good corporate governance;

 

  3.

There are concerns over the process of negotiation that may have had an adverse impact on the valuation of the terms of the offer; and/or

 

  4.

The company does not provide sufficient information upon request to make an informed voting decision.

 

  5.

There is an accompanying reduction in capital.

Reduction in Capital Accompanied by Cash Consideration

Generally, vote FOR proposals to reduce a company’s capital that accompany return of funds to shareholders and are part of a capital-management strategy and an alternative to a buyback or a special dividend. Such a resolution is normally implemented proportionately AGAINST all outstanding capital, and therefore do not involve any material change relative to shareholder value.

Reduction in Capital Not Accompanied by Cash Consideration

Generally, vote FOR proposals to reduce capital that do not involve any funds being returned to shareholders. A company may take this action if its net assets are in danger of falling below the aggregate of its liabilities and its stated capital. Such proposals are considered to be routine accounting measures.

Merger Agreement, Sales/ Acquisition of Company Assets, and Formation of Holding Company

Generally, vote FOR the approval of a sale of company assets, merger agreement, and/or formation of a holding company, unless:

 

  1.

The impact on earnings or voting rights for one class of shareholders is disproportionate to the relative contributions of the group;

 

  2.

The company’s structure following such transactions does not reflect good corporate governance;

 

  3.

There are concerns over the process of negotiation that may have had an adverse impact on the valuation of the terms of the offer;

 

  4.

The company does not provide sufficient information upon request to make an informed voting decision; and/or

 

  5.

The proposed buyback price carries a significant premium at the date of writing, conferring on shareholders a trading opportunity.

 

B-430


IV. Compensation

Remuneration Cap for Directors

Generally, vote FOR approval of the remuneration cap for directors, unless:

 

  1.

The proposed cap on directors’ remuneration is excessive relative to peer companies’ remuneration without reasonable justification; or

 

  2.

The company is asking for an increase in the remuneration cap where the company has not provided a reasonable justification for the proposed increase.

Remuneration Cap for Internal Auditors

Generally, vote FOR the remuneration cap for internal auditors, unless:

 

  1.

The proposed remuneration cap for internal auditors is excessive relative to peer companies’ remuneration caps without reasonable justification; or

 

  2.

The company is asking for an increase in the remuneration cap where the company has not provided a reasonable justification for the proposed increase; or

 

  3.

There are serious concerns about the statutory reports presented or audit procedures used.

Stock Option Grants

In Korea, the manner in which stock options are granted and exercised is stipulated under the law.

Under Korean law, companies are allowed to grant stock options up to 15 percent of the total number of issued shares pursuant to a shareholder meeting resolution. The board is also allowed to grant stock options up to 3 percent of the total issued shares and to seek shareholders’ approval retrospectively at the first general meeting after the grant.

Generally, vote FOR stock option grant proposals, unless:

 

  1.

The maximum dilution level under the plan exceeds 5 percent of issued capital for a mature company; or

 

  2.

The maximum dilution level under the plan exceeds 10 percent for a growth company.

Amendments to Terms of Severance Payments to Executives

Generally, vote FOR the establishment of, or amendments, to executives’ severance payment terms, unless:

 

  1.

The company fails to provide any information in regard to the changes to the terms of severance payments to executives;

 

  2.

The negative provisions proposed in a resolution outweigh any positive ones; and/or

 

  3.

The company proposes to introduce a new clause that is effectively a golden parachute clause.

Stock Option Programs for the Employee Stock Ownership Plan

Generally, vote FOR article amendments to establish stock option programs for the Employee Stock Ownership Plan if:

 

  1.

The company explicitly states that shareholders’ approval will be required for the board to grant stock options to individual members of the employee stock ownership plan pursuant to the Framework Act on Labor Welfare, either prior to the grant or retrospectively at the earliest general meeting; and

 

B-431


  2.

The maximum dilution level under the program does not exceed 5 percent of issued capital for a mature company and 10 percent for a growth company.

Golden Parachute Clause

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to introduce a provision that entitles the company’s directors to an excessive level of remuneration in the event that they are dismissed or terminated.

V. Routine/Miscellaneous

Authorizing Board to Approve Financial Statements and Income Allocation

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals to introduce a provision that gives the board of directors the authority to approve financial statements and income allocation (including dividend payout). Insertion of such a clause would potentially take away shareholders’ right to approve the company’s dividend payment decision without any countervailing benefits.

 

B-432


RUSSIA AND KAZAKHSTAN

I. Operation Items

Financial Results/Director and Auditor Reports

Vote FOR approval of financial statements and director and auditor reports, unless the financial statements and/or auditor’s report are not disclosed or are incomplete.

Appointment of Auditors and Auditor Fees

For widely-held companies, vote AGAINST the authorization of auditor fees, or AGAINST the election of auditors if the authorization of auditor fees is not presented as a separate item, if:

 

  1.

Non-audit fees exceed audit-related fees (or any stricter limit under local law or best practice); or

 

  2.

Audit fees are not disclosed.

Appointment of Audit Commission

Vote FOR the election of the audit commission members where the number of nominees is equal to the number of seats on the audit commission unless:

 

  1.

Adequate disclosure, including the nominees’ names, has not been provided in a timely manner;

 

  2.

There are serious concerns about the work and/or the composition of the audit commission;

 

  3.

There are serious concerns about the statutory reports presented or the audit procedures used;

 

  4.

There are serious concerns over questionable finances or restatements.

Where the number of nominees exceeds the number of seats on the audit commission, vote on a CASE- BY-CASE basis considering the following factors:

 

  1.

Nominees’ independence and potential conflicts of interest;

 

  2.

Nominees’ qualifications, experience, and past track records;

 

  3.

Current composition of the audit commission.

Early Termination of the Audit Commission

Vote FOR the early termination of powers of the audit commission unless there are any concerns with the proposal.

II. Board of Directors

Cumulative Voting System

Where the number of candidates is equal to the number of board seats, vote FOR all independent director nominees.

Where the number of candidates exceeds the number of board seats, vote FOR all or a limited number of the independent director nominees considering factors including, but not limited to, the following:

 

  1.

Past composition of the board, including proportion of the independent directors vis-a-vis the size of the board;

 

B-433


  2.

Nominee(s) qualification, knowledge, and experience;

 

  3.

Attendance record of the director nominees;

 

  4.

Company’s free float.

Where none of the director nominees can be classified as independent Boston Partners will consider factors including, but not limited to, the following when deciding whether to vote in favor of a candidate’s (re)election:

 

  1.

A director nominee, while not classified as independent per Boston Partners’ classification of directors, has been classified as independent per company’s director classification criteria and/or any other directors classification criteria widely used in the market;

 

  2.

A director nominee possesses adequate qualification, knowledge and experience;

 

  3.

There are no specific concerns about the individual, such as criminal wrongdoing or breach of fiduciary responsibilities.

At companies on the main index, Boston Partners may vote AGAINST all nominees, if none of the proposed candidates can be classified as independent non-executive directors.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE for contested elections of directors, e.g. the election of shareholder nominees or the dismissal of incumbent directors, determining which directors may be best suited to add value for shareholders.

For the companies that have a status of an International Company re-domiciliated to Russia and choose to follow the regulation of a country from which they have re-domiciliated, vote in accordance with the Country Guidelines applicable to the company prior to its re-domiciliation.

Early Termination of Powers of Board of Directors

Vote FOR the early termination of powers of the board of directors where such a proposal is supported by compelling justification.

Vote AGAINST proposals seeking to alter the composition of the board and resulting in majority shareholder increasing its influence on the board.

Election of General Director (CEO)

Vote FOR the election of the general director, unless there are significant concerns with the proposed candidate and/or compelling controversies with the election process exist.

Early Termination of Powers of General Director (CEO)

Vote FOR (AGAINST) the early termination of powers of the general director where such a proposal is (is not) supported by compelling justification.

III. Compensation

Vote compensation plans on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Non-Executive Director Compensation

Generally, vote FOR proposals to award cash fees to non-executive directors, and will otherwise vote AGAINST where:

 

  1.

Documents (including general meeting documents, annual report) provided prior to the general meeting do not mention fees paid to non-executive directors.

 

B-434


  2.

Proposed amounts are excessive relative to other companies in the country or industry.

 

  3.

The company intends to increase the fees excessively in comparison with market/sector practices, without stating compelling reasons that justify the increase.

 

  4.

Proposals provide for the granting of stock options, performance-based places compensation (including stock appreciation rights and performance-vesting restricted stock), and performance- based cash to non-executive directors.

 

  5.

Proposals introduce retirement benefits for non-executive directors.

Equity-based Compensation Guidelines

Boston Partners will generally vote FOR equity-based compensation proposals for employees if the plan(s) are in line with long-term shareholder interests and align the award with shareholder value. This assessment includes, but is not limited to, the following factors:

 

  1.

The volume of awards transferred to participants must not be excessive;

 

  2.

The potential volume of fully diluted issued share capital from equity-based compensation plans must not exceed the following guidelines:

 

  a.

The shares reserved for all share plans may not exceed 5 percent of a company’s issued share capital, except in the case of high-growth companies or particularly well-designed plans, in which case we allow dilution of between 5 and 10 percent. In this case, we will need to have performance conditions attached to the plans which should be acceptable;

 

  b.

The plan(s) must be sufficiently long-term in nature/structure: the minimum vesting period must be no less than three years from date of grant;

 

  c.

The awards must be granted at market price. Discounts, if any, must be mitigated by performance criteria or other features that justify such discount;

 

  3.

If applicable, performance standards must be fully disclosed, quantified, and long-term, with relative performance measures preferred.

 

B-435


SINGAPORE

I. Board of Directors

Voting for Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections- Independence and Composition

Boston Partners applies a five-year cooling off period to former employees or executives when determining nominee independence in Singapore.

Generally, vote FOR the re-election of directors, unless:

 

  1.

The nominee has been a partner of the company’s auditor within the last three years, and serves on the audit committee;

 

  2.

Any non-independent director nominees where the board is less than one-third independent7;

 

  3.

The nominee is a member of the nomination committee and the board does not have a lead/senior independent director and/or the board is less than majority independent under the following scenarios:

 

  a.

The chairman and the CEO are the same person;

 

  b.

The chairman and the CEO are immediate family members;

 

  c.

The chairman is part of the management team; or

 

  d.

The chairman is not an independent director.

 

  4.

The nominee is an executive director serving on the audit, remuneration, and/or nomination committee;

 

  5.

The nominee is a non-independent director serving as the chairman of the audit committee, remuneration committee, and/or nomination committee.

 

  6.

There is a conflict of interest in the resolution(s) to be discussed in the board or committee meeting.

When the board does not have a formal audit committee, remuneration committee, and/or nomination committee, vote AGAINST if:

 

  1.

The nominee is an executive director;

 

  2.

The nominee is a non-independent chairman of the board.

Boston Partners will consider an independent non-executive director non-independent if such director serves as a director for more than nine years, and the company fails to disclose the reasons why such director should still be considered independent, or where such reasons raise concerns regarding the director’s true level of independence.

Boston Partners will generally vote FOR the election of a CEO, managing director, executive chairman, or founder whose removal from the board would be expected to have a material negative impact on shareholder value

II. Remuneration

Director Remuneration

Generally, vote FOR resolutions regarding directors’ and supervisors’ fees unless they are excessive relative to fees paid by other companies of similar size.

7 

Not applicable if the lack of board independence is due to the immediate retirement, abrupt resignation, or death of an independent non-executive director, provided that the company mentioned or announced a definite timeline of up to three months for the appointment of a new independent non-executive director to have adequate level of board independence.

 

B-436


Equity Compensation Plans

Generally, vote FOR an equity-based compensation plan unless:

 

  1.

The maximum dilution level for the scheme, together with all outstanding schemes, exceeds 5 percent of issued capital for a mature company and 10 percent for a growth company. In addition, Boston Partners will support a plan’s dilution limit that exceeds these thresholds if the annual grant limit under all plans is 0.5 percent or less for a mature company (1 percent or less for a mature company with clearly disclosed performance criteria) and 1 percent or less for a growth company.

 

  2.

The plan permits options to be issued with an exercise price at a discount to the current market price; or

 

  3.

Directors eligible to receive options or awards under the scheme are involved in the administration of the scheme and the administrator has the discretion over their awards.

III. Share Issuance Requests

Issuance Requests

For companies listed on the Mainboard of the Singapore Exchange, generally vote FOR a general issuance of equity or equity-linked securities without preemptive rights when the share issuance limit is not more than 10 percent of the company’s issued share capital and 50 percent with preemptive rights.

For companies listed on the Catalist market of the SGX, generally vote FOR a general issuance of equity or equity-linked securities without preemptive rights when the share issuance limit is not more than 10 percent of the company’s issued share capital and 50 percent with preemptive rights.

General Issuance Requests – Real Estate Investment Trusts

Generally, vote FOR a general issuance of equity or equity-linked securities without preemptive rights when the share issuance limit is not more than 10 percent of the company’s issued share capital and 50 percent with preemptive rights for all Singapore companies..

For Singapore companies listed on the Catalist market of the SGX, generally vote FOR a general issuance of equity or equity-linked securities without preemptive rights when the share issuance limit is not more than 10 percent of the company’s issued share capital and 50 percent with preemptive rights. For Real Estate Investment Trusts, generally vote FOR a general issuance of equity or equity-linked securities without preemptive rights when the unit issuance limit is not more than 10 percent of its issued unit capital and 50 percent with preemptive rights.

Specific Issuance Requests

For issuance requests relating equity compensation plans, apply the policy on equity compensation plans. For other issuance requests, vote on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

Share Repurchase Plans

Generally, vote FOR resolutions authorizing the company to repurchase its own shares, unless the premium over the average trading price of the shares as implied by the price limit for on-market repurchases exceeds 5 percent or the premium over the overage trading price of the shares as implied by the price limit for off-market repurchased exceeds 20 percent.

IV. Articles and By-law Amendments

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on proposed amendments to the Articles and By-Laws based on the details of the proposed amendments provided by the company.

 

B-437


In the absence of adequate information that would specify the details of proposed amendments, generally vote AGAINST:

 

  1.

The proposed amendments;

 

  2.

The adoption of new Articles of Association; or

 

  3.

The replacement of the current constitutional document.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on the adoption of new constitutional document with no previous reference.

V. Related Party Transactions

Generally, vote FOR mandate for recurrent interested-party transactions if such transactions are carried out at arms-length and on normal commercial terms.

 

B-438


SOUTH AFRICA

I. Operational Items

Authority to Ratify and Execute Approved Resolutions

Vote FOR the authority to ratify and execute approved resolutions, unless opposing all other items on the agenda.

II. Board of Directors

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

Boston Partners applies a five-year cooling off period to former executives when determining nominee independence in South Africa. Boston Partners applies a three-year cooling off period to immediate family members, auditors, and senior legal advisors.

Generally, vote FOR the election/ reelection of directors unless the director is a non-independent NED:

 

  1.

Serving on the audit committee (unless there is a separate annual general meeting proposal specifically covering his/her election as an audit committee member);

 

  2.

Serving on the remuneration or nomination committee and there is no majority of independent NEDs on the committee. However, such a consideration should take into account the potential implications for the board’s Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) credentials; or

 

  3.

The majority of NEDs on the board are not independent. However, such a consideration should take into account the potential implications for the board’s BEE credentials.

Accountability

Do not support bundled elections.

Alternative Directors: Proposals to re-elect alternate directors will take into account the vote that applies for the director for whom they serve as an alternate. In addition, the specific nature of the alternate role will be considered, for example whether or not the individual serves as a genuine alternate (i.e. only attending board and committee meetings in the absence of a particular director) or appears to have a broader board position.

Audit Committee Elections

Vote for the re-election of the audit committee and/or audit committee members, unless:

 

  1.

Committee member elections are bundled into a single voting item, and the committee includes one or more non-independent NEDs;

 

  2.

Committee members are elected individually, and the audit committee member is a non- independent NED;

 

  3.

The board chair is a member of the audit committee, in line with the position stated in King IV. Boston Partners will only apply this provision to large, widely held companies;

 

  4.

Repeated absences (less than 75 percent attendance) at committee meetings have not been explained; or

 

  5.

There are serious concerns about the accounts presented, the audit procedures used, or some other feature for which the audit committee has responsibility.

Companies (other than those covered by the Banks Act) must establish an audit committee of at least three members, which must be elected by shareholders at the AGM (CA s94).

 

B-439


Social and Ethics Committee Elections

Vote FOR the reelection of the social and ethics committee and/or social and ethics committee members, unless:

 

  1.

The committee does not satisfy the minimum guidelines for membership, as set out in South African company law; or

 

  2.

Serious concerns have been raised with the work of the committee during the year.

III. Capital Structure

Share Issuance Authorities

Vote FOR a general authority to place authorized but unissued ordinary shares under the control of the directors, unless:

 

  1.

The authority is over a number of shares equivalent to more than 10 percent of the current issued share capital;

 

  2.

The authority would allow shares to be used for share incentive scheme purposes and the underlying scheme(s) raises concern; or

 

  3.

The company used the authority during the previous year in a manner deemed not be in shareholders’ best interests.

Vote FOR a general authority to issue ordinary shares for cash, unless:

 

  1.

The authority is over a number of shares equivalent to more than 10 percent of the current issued share capital; or

 

  2.

The company used the authority during the previous year in a manner deemed not to be in shareholders’ interests.

Vote FOR a general authority to issue preference shares, unless:

 

  1.

Following the issue, preference shares would comprise greater than 50 percent of the company’s issued share capital; or

 

  2.

The terms of the preference shares would adversely affect the rights of existing shareholders.

 

  3.

The issue of shares pursuant to a specific transaction will be considered on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, depending on the merits of the underlying deal.

Share Buyback Authorities

Vote FOR a general share buyback authority, unless:

 

  1.

The company wishes to repurchase more than 20 percent of its issued share capital over the year;

  2.

The repurchase can be used for takeover defenses; or

 

  3.

There is clear evidence of abuse.

IV. Remuneration

Fees for Non-Executive Directors

Vote FOR the fees payable to non-executive directors unless the proposed fees are excessive, relative to similarly-sized companies in the same sector. Fees should specifically relate to an individual’s responsibilities as a non-executive director on the board; open-ended authorities covering ad hoc or consultancy work are generally not supported due to the potential impact on director independence.

 

B-440


Approval of Remuneration Policy

When assessing a company’s remuneration policy, Boston Partners will generally vote AGAINST if the level of disclosure around the policy is below what is required for shareholders to make an informed judgment. In the event of satisfactory disclosure, Boston Partners will vote FOR the approval of the executive remuneration policy on a CASE-BY-CASE approach, paying particular attention as to whether:

 

  1.

The company operates long-term incentive schemes (including matching shares) which do not have performance conditions attached for all or a substantial proportion of awards;

 

  2.

The vesting period for long-term incentive schemes is set at less than three years;

 

  3.

Long-term schemes include an element of retesting;

 

  4.

The policy provides for grants of share options at a discount to market value;

 

  5.

The potential maximum dilution under all share incentive schemes exceeds 5 percent of the issued share capital of a large, widely held company, or 10 percent in the case of an emerging high-growth company, and there are no mitigating circumstances (e.g. stringent performance measures);

 

  6.

The quality of disclosure around the severance provisions of the executive directors’ service contracts, including any potential termination payments, is considered inadequate;

 

  7.

The policy is in any way not considered aligned with shareholder interests.

In circumstances where a company has demonstrated a significant shift towards good practice, it may be appropriate for Boston Partners to support remuneration policy resolution, notwithstanding the presence of some historical issues of concern.

Approval of Implementation Report

When assessing the implementation report, Boston Partners will generally vote AGAINST if the level of disclosure regarding the application of the policy is below what is required for shareholders to make an informed judgment. In the event of satisfactory disclosure, Boston Partners will vote FOR the approval of the implementation report on a CASE-BY-CASE approach, paying particular attention as to whether:

 

  1.

Large increases in fixed remuneration have been implemented which have not been adequately explained;

 

  2.

The company has made bonus payments, but these have not been clearly linked to performance (including guaranteed bonuses or transaction bonuses);

 

  3.

The company has made ex-gratia payments or one-off special awards to executives during the year which have not been adequately explained;

 

  4.

The performance conditions for long-term incentive schemes, where applicable, are not disclosed, or are not considered sufficiently challenging or relevant;

 

  5.

Significant termination-related or restraint of trade payments have been made to executive directors, and the reasons for these are not disclosed or, where they are disclosed, do not adequately justify the size of the payment;

 

  6.

Discretion has been used during the year in a manner not considered consistent with shareholder interests, or the application of the policy is in any way not considered aligned with shareholder interests, with particular attention given to any payments or decisions which have been made outside of the policy framework previously communicated to shareholders.

In circumstances where a company has demonstrated a significant shift towards good practice, it may be appropriate for Boston Partners to support for the implementation report resolution, notwithstanding the presence of some historical issues of concern.

 

B-441


In cases where a serious breach of good practice is identified, and typically where issues have been raised over a number of years, the chair of the remuneration committee (or, where relevant, other members of the remuneration committee) may receive a negative vote.

New Equity Incentive Scheme or Amendment to Existing Scheme

Boston Partners evaluates management proposals seeking approval for a share incentive scheme on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. When judging such items, Boston Partners will generally vote AGAINST if the level of disclosure on the proposal is below what is required for shareholders to make an informed judgment on the scheme. In the event of satisfactory disclosure, Boston Partners will vote FOR the proposal unless one or more of the following apply:

 

  1.

Performance conditions do not apply, have not been disclosed or are not considered sufficiently challenging or relevant.

 

  2.

Performance conditions can be retested.

 

  3.

Performance is measured over a period shorter than three years.

 

  4.

The plan allows for option repricing or issue of options at a discount or backdating of options.

 

  5.

The potential maximum dilution under all share incentive schemes exceeds 5 percent of the issued share capital of a large, widely held company, or 10 percent in the case of an emerging high-growth company, and there are no mitigating circumstances (e.g. stringent performance measures).

 

  6.

The scheme provides for potentially excessive individual reward or has no caps on individual participation.

 

  7.

The scheme rules allow for accelerated vesting upon termination (including change of control) without reference to relevant performance criteria. In addition, best practice suggests that “good leaver” treatment should include appropriate pro-rating to outstanding long-term incentive awards to reflect any reduced time in service.

 

  8.

NEDs can participate in the scheme.

 

  9.

The scheme is in any way not considered aligned with shareholder interests.

Proposals to amend a scheme will involve an assessment of the nature of the amendment.

Financial Assistance

Vote FOR a general authority to provide financial assistance, unless:

 

  1.

As part of the authority, the company requests a general authority to provide financial assistance to directors, and this is not limited to participation in incentive schemes;

 

  2.

The authority would facilitate the operation of an incentive scheme(s) which raises governance concerns, with particular attention given to any schemes which authorize the provision of preferential loans to directors; or

 

  3.

As part of the authority, the company seeks approval to provide financial assistance “to any person”.

Evidence that the company has used a previous authority in a manner deemed not to be in shareholders’ interests would warrant further review and analysis.

V. Other Items

New Memorandum of Incorporation (MOI)/ Amendments to the MOI

Vote on a new MOI or on amendments to the MOI on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, depending on the impact on shareholder rights.

 

B-442


Boston Partners will normally vote AGAINST a MOI which limits retirement by rotation to non- executive directors only.

Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Transactions

Vote on BEE transactions on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Factors considered include the overall dilutive impact, the structure of the transaction and the identity of the company’s chosen BEE partners. Proposals which are genuinely broad-based are more appealing than those which stand to benefit a narrow group of investors, as are those which have a long-term timeframe.

Social and Ethics Committee Report

Vote FOR the report of the social and ethics committee, unless:

 

  1.

The report does not include details of how the committee has undertaken the functions prescribed to it by South African company law; or

 

  2.

Serious concerns have been raised with the work of the committee during the year.

 

B-443


TAIWAN

I. Allocation of Income and Dividends

Allocation of Income and Dividends

Generally, vote FOR approval of the allocation of income and dividends.

When distributing earnings and dividends, companies usually provide shareholders one or a combination of the following:

 

  1.

Cash dividends from earnings;

 

  2.

Cash dividends from capital reserves;

 

  3.

New shares from capital reserves;

 

  4.

Stock dividends.

When losses are posted for the year, companies are required to submit the loss offsetting proposals, usually included in the statement of profit and loss appropriation, for shareholder approval, along with the business operations reports and financial statements.

Cash Dividends or New Shares from Capital and Legal Reserves

Generally, vote FOR proposals to distribute dividends or new shares from capital and legal reserves.

Stock Dividends

Resolution Type: Special

Generally, vote FOR proposals to distribute stock dividends.

II. Capital Reduction

Generally, vote FOR the capital reduction to offset losses or to distribute cash to shareholders unless:

 

  1.

The proposed capital reduction is not conducted on a proportionate basis according to the shareholding structure of the company but instead favors certain shareholders; or

 

  2.

The proposed cash distribution is expected to negatively affect the company’s day-to-day operations.

III. Amendments to Company Articles/By-laws

Cash Dividend Distribution Plans

Generally, vote AGAINST proposals for article amendments to grant the board full discretion to decide on the company’s cash dividend distribution plan without shareholder approval.

IV. Capital Raising

Generally, vote FOR general authority to issue shares if:

 

  1.

A general share issuance mandate that includes a private placement as one of the financing channels if the resulting dilution is limited to no more than 10 percent.

 

B-444


  2.

A general mandate for public share issuance if the issue size is limited to no more than 20 percent of the existing issued share capital.

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on requests to issue shares for a specific purpose such as the financing of a particular project, an acquisition, or a merger.

V. Compensation

Equity Based Compensation

Vote CASE-BY-CASE on employee restricted stocks and/or employee stock warrant plans. Vote AGAINST the employee restricted stocks plan and/or employee stock warrants plan if any of the following features is not met:

 

  1.

Existing substantial shareholders are restricted in participation;

 

  2.

Presence of challenging performance hurdles if awards are issued or exercised for free or at a deep discount; or

 

  3.

Reasonable vesting period (at least two years) is set.

VI. Release of Restrictions on Directors Competitive Activities

Vote AGAINST release of restrictions on competitive activities of directors if:

 

  1.

There is lack of disclosure on the key information including identities of the directors in question, current positions in the company, and outside boards they are serving on; or

 

  2.

The non-nomination system is employed by the company for the director election.

 

B-445


UNITED KINGDOM AND IRELAND

I. Operational Items

Accept Financial Statements and Statutory Reports

The overall quality of disclosure will be considered, and the weakest examples, such as where the meeting documents are not released in time for investors to review these ahead of the meeting, are likely to attract a negative vote. For smaller companies, other minimum disclosure requirements include:

The identity of all the directors, their board roles, committee memberships and independence classification;

 

  1.

List of major shareholders;

 

  2.

Attendance at board and committee meetings; and

 

  3.

Details of compliance against a “recognized corporate governance code” (as required by the AIM Rules).

In addition, where no appropriate resolution to target an investor’s specific concern is on the ballot, Boston Partners may vote AGAINST this resolution. Specific concerns include:

 

  1.

Absence of sufficient independent representation on the board and the key committees (if the relevant director is not standing for election/re-election)

 

  2.

Absence of regular re-election for all directors (once every three years at a minimum); and

 

  3.

Remuneration not aligned with expected market practice (if there is no remuneration report or remuneration policy resolution on the agenda).

Concerns raised in the first year may not lead to a negative vote; this is more likely in the event of repeated concerns identified over a number of years.

II. The Board of Directors

Board Diversity

Gender Diversity

Generally, vote AGAINST the chair of the nomination committee (or other directors on a CASE-BY- CASE basis) in the following cases

 

  1.

The company is a constituent of the FTSE 350 (excluding investment trusts) and the board does not comprise at least 33 percent representation of women.

 

  2.

The company (excluding investment trusts) is a constituent of any of the following, and there is not at least one woman on the board:

 

  a.

FTSE Small Cap;

 

  b.

ISEQ 20;

 

  c.

Listed on the AIM with a market capitalization of over GBP 500 million.

Mitigating factors include:

 

  1.

Compliance with the relevant board diversity standard at the preceding annual general meeting and a firm commitment, publicly available, to comply with the relevant standard within a year.

 

  2.

Other relevant factors as applicable.

 

B-446


Ethnic Diversity

Generally, vote AGAINST the chair of the nomination committee (or other directors on a case-by-case basis) if the company is a constituent of the FTSE 100 index (excluding investment companies) and has not appointed at least one individual from an ethnic minority background to the board.

There is an expectation for constituents of the following indices (excluding investment companies) to appoint at least one individual from an ethnic minority background to the board by 2024:

 

  1.

FTSE 250 index;

 

  2.

FTSE SmallCap;

 

  3.

ISEQ 20;

 

  4.

Listed on the AIM with a market capitalization of over GBP 500 million.

The abovementioned companies are expected to publicly disclose a roadmap to compliance with best market practice standards of having at least one director from an ethnic minority background by 2024.

Board Independence and Tenure

Directors are assessed on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, although a non-executive director is likely to be considered as non-independent if one (or more) of the issues listed below apply, in accordance with the

U.K. Governance Code. The director nominee:

 

  1.

Has been an employee of the company or group during the last five (5) years;

 

  2.

Has, or a connected person has had, within the last three (3) years, a material business relationship with the company either directly, or as a partner, shareholder, director or senior employee of a body that has such a relationship with the company;

 

  3.

Has received or receives additional remuneration from the company apart from a director’s fee, participates in the company’s share option or performance-related pay schemes, or is a member of the company’s pension scheme;

 

  4.

Has close family ties with any of the company’s advisers, directors or senior employees;

 

  5.

Holds cross-directorships or has significant links with other directors through involvement in other companies or bodies;

 

  6.

Represents a significant shareholder;

 

  7.

Is attested by the board to be a non-independent non-executive director;

 

  8.

Is a former board chair; or

 

  9.

Has a substantial personal shareholding of greater than 1 percent (greater than three percent for small companies; greater than 1 percent for investment companies provided the investment trust is listed in the FTSE All-Share index); or

 

  10.

Tenure.

Also, the non-executive director of either a venture capital trust or an investment trust is likely to be considered as non-independent if he or she holds a directorship in one or more investment companies or venture capital trusts managed by the same manager, or they have a relationship with the investment manager.

At investment trusts, tenure is not taken into account when assessing independence. However, classified boards are an issue of concern. As a result, if more than half the board has served in excess of nine years, a negative vote would over time be applied to the chairman’s re-election.

 

B-447


Non-executive directors that have served concurrently with an executive director for over nine (9) years, are deemed non-independent.

If a non-executive director has served for fifteen (15) years on the board, Boston Partners deems such individuals as non-independent.

The board chair should not remain in post for more than nine (9) years from the date of their first appointment to the board. However, their appointment can be extended for a limited time particularly in those cases where the chair was an existing non-executive director on appointment, to facilitate effective succession planning and the development of a diverse board. Vote CASE-BY-CASE on the re-election of a tenured chair taking into account:

 

  1.

Succession planning;

 

  2.

Diversity; and

 

  3.

Board independence.

Board and Committee Composition

Generally, vote AGAINST any non-independent, non-executive director whose presence on the board, audit, or remuneration committee renders the board or committee insufficiently independent, unless the company discloses details of how the issue of concern will be resolved by the next annual general meeting.

Non-independent non-executive directors serving on the nomination committee are assessed on a CASE- BY-CASE basis.

For all companies with a premium listing, at least half the board should comprise non-executive directors determined by the board to be independent.

For companies in the FTSE 350, the audit committee should comprise at least three non-executive directors, and all members should be independent. The board chair should not be a member of the audit committee. The remuneration committee should also comprise at least three non-executive directors and again, all members should be independent. In addition, the board chair may also be a member of, but not chair the remuneration committee if he or she was considered independent on appointment as chair. A majority of the nomination committee should be independent non-executive directors.

For companies in the FTSE All Share below the FTSE 350, the board should establish audit and remuneration committees with at least two members on each committee, all of whom should be independent non-executive directors. The board chair may be a member of, but not chair, of the remuneration committee in addition to the independent non-executive directors, provided he or she was considered independent on appointment as chair. A majority of the nomination committee should be independent non-executive directors.

For FTSE Fledgling companies, the audit and remuneration committees should be fully independent and should include a minimum of two independent non-executives. The majority of the members of the nomination committee should be independent. The chair may sit on the remuneration committee (but not the audit committee) provided that he/she continues to be considered independent.

 

B-448


III. Compensation

Remuneration Policy

Vote the resolution to approve the remuneration policy on a CASE-BY-CASE approach, paying particular attention as to whether:

 

  1.

The overall remuneration policy or specific scheme structures are not over-complex, have an appropriate long-term focus and have been sufficiently justified in light of the company’s specific circumstances and strategic objectives;

 

  2.

The company’s approach to fixed remuneration is appropriate, with a particular focus on the extent to which pension contributions are aligned with those available to the wider workforce, as recommended by the UK Code;

 

  3.

The award levels for the different components of variable pay are capped, and the quantum is reasonable when compared to peers, and any increase in the level of certainty of reward is accompanied by a material reduction in the size of awards;

 

  4.

Increases to the maximum award levels for the LTIP and bonus have been adequately explained;

 

  5.

Performance conditions for all elements of variable pay are clearly aligned with the company’s strategic objectives, with vesting levels and holding periods that are in line with UK good practice;

 

  6.

Change of control, good leaver and malus/clawback provisions are in line with standard practice in the UK market;

 

  7.

The shareholding requirement for executive directors is a minimum of 200 percent of base salary, with an appropriate post-employment shareholding requirement in place;

 

  8.

Service contracts contain notice periods of no more than twelve months’ duration and potential termination payments are linked to fixed pay with no contractual entitlements to unearned bonus on termination;

 

  9.

Non-executive directors do not receive any performance-related remuneration beyond their standard fees;

 

  10.

The treatment of new joiners is appropriate, with particular attention paid to the use of buy-out awards, and that the potential for any additional awards is capped;

 

  11.

The remuneration committee seeks to reserve a degree of discretion in line with standard UK practice; and

 

  12.

There are no issues in the policy which would be of concern to shareholders.

Where a policy contains multiple areas of non-compliance with good practice, the vote will reflect the severity of the issues identified. A small number of minor breaches may still result in an overall FOR vote, whereas a single, serious deviation may be sufficient to justify an AGAINST vote.

The binding vote on the remuneration policy is forward-looking and in most cases will apply for three years. Therefore, many shareholders will want to ensure that the policy takes into account good market practice in a number of key areas including:

 

  1.

The start and end date of the policy;

 

  2.

Base salaries;

 

  3.

Benefits and pensions;

 

  4.

Annual bonus;

 

B-449


  5.

Long-term incentive plans (LTIP);

 

  6.

Claw back provisions;

 

  7.

Good leavers;

 

  8.

Change in control;

 

  9.

Shareholding requirement;

 

  10.

Executive directors’ service contracts, including exit payments;

 

  11.

Arrangements for new joiners;

 

  12.

Discretion;

 

  13.

Non-executive director pay; and

 

  14.

All-employee schemes.

For smaller companies, a negative vote would be considered if any of the following applied:

 

  1.

Executive directors are not employed under formal service contracts, or their service contracts, in the event of termination, provide for more than 12 months’ notice;

 

  2.

Vesting of incentive awards is not conditional on the achievement of performance hurdles;

 

  3.

Re-testing is allowed throughout the performance period; or

 

  4.

There are any other serious issues with the policy when measured against good market practice.

Remuneration Report

Vote the resolution to approve the remuneration report on a CASE-BY-CASE approach, paying particular attention as to whether:

 

  1.

Any increases, either to fixed or variable remuneration, for the year under review or the upcoming year were well-explained and not excessive;

 

  2.

The bonus received and/or the proportion of the LTIP which vested was a fair reflection of the performance achieved;

 

  3.

Performance targets are measured over an appropriate period and are sufficiently stretching;

 

  4.

Targets for the bonus or the LTIP are disclosed in an appropriate level of detail;

 

  5.

Any exit payments to good leavers were reasonable, with appropriate pro-rating (if any) applied to outstanding long-term share awards;

 

  6.

Any special arrangements for new joiners were in line with good market practice;

 

  7.

The remuneration committee exercised discretion appropriately; and

 

  8.

There are no issues in the report which would be of concern to shareholders.

Where the report contains multiple areas of non-compliance with good practice, the vote will reflect the severity of the issues identified. A small number of minor breaches may still result in an overall FOR vote, whereas a single, serious deviation may be sufficient to justify an AGAINST vote.

For small companies, when assessing remuneration report resolutions, a negative vote would be considered if any of the following applied:

 

  1.

Disclosure of pay practices is poor. This would include if the individual emoluments paid to each director are not disclosed, or if the performance metrics which applied to LTIP awards made during the year under review are not disclosed;

 

B-450


  2.

NEDs have received performance-related pay during the year under review;

 

  3.

Options have been re-priced during the period under review;

 

  4.

Re-testing is allowed throughout the performance period;

 

  5.

Share awards granted to executive directors during the year under review feature a performance period of less than three years; or

 

  6.

There are any other serious issues with the report when measured against good market practice.

The award of options to NEDs is not in line with best practice as it can cause a potential conflict of interest that may affect an NED’s independent judgment. Therefore, NEDs should be remunerated with basic fees only, in the form of cash and/or shares.

Approval of a New or Amended LTIP

Vote the resolution to approve a new or amended LTIP on a CASE-BY-CASE approach, paying particular attention as to whether:

 

  1.

The LTIP is aligned with the company’s strategy, is not over-complex and fosters an appropriately long-term mindset;

 

  2.

The proposed award levels are appropriate, and, in the case of an amended plan, any increases to the previous award levels are well-explained;

 

  3.

Any increase in the level of certainty of reward is matched by a material reduction in the size of awards;

 

  4.

The maximum payout is capped;

 

  5.

The vesting levels for threshold and on target performance are in line with market norms, with threshold vesting generally no higher than 25 percent. However, as much as 25 percent may be considered inappropriate if LTIP grants represent large multiples of salary.

 

  6.

The LTIP is in line with the current remuneration policy;

 

  7.

Change of control, good leaver, and malus/clawback provisions are present and the terms are in line with standard practice in the UK market;

 

  8.

The remuneration committee seeks to reserve a degree of discretion in line with standard UK practice;

 

  9.

The scheme is operating within dilution limits that are aligned to the relevant UK market standards. Namely, no more than 10 percent of the issued share capital should be issued under all incentive schemes in any rolling 10-year period, and no more than 5 percent of the issued share capital should be issued under executive (discretionary) schemes in any rolling 10-year period, in line with the guidelines established by the Investment Association; and

 

  10.

There are no issues with the plan which would be of concern to shareholders.

Where the plan contains multiple areas of non-compliance with good practice, the vote will reflect the severity of the issues identified. A small number of minor breaches may still result in an overall FOR vote, whereas a single, serious deviation may be sufficient to justify an AGAINST vote.

 

B-451


IV. Capital Structure

Authorize Issue of Equity with and without Pre-emptive Rights

Generally, vote FOR a resolution to authorize the issuance of equity, unless:

 

  1.

The general issuance authority exceeds one-third (33 percent) of the issued share capital. Assuming it is no more than one-third, a further one-third of the issued share capital may also be applied to a fully pre-emptive rights issue taking the acceptable aggregate authority to two-thirds (66 percent); or

 

  2.

For small companies, the routine authority to disapply preemption rights exceeds 10 percent of the issued share capital in any one year. For larger companies, the routine authority to disapply preemption rights exceeds 10 percent of the issued share capital, provided that any amount above 5 percent is to be used for the purposes of an acquisition or a specified capital investment.

For investment companies, generally, vote FOR a resolution to authorize the issuance of equity if there is a firm commitment from the board that shares would only be issues at the price at or above net asset value. Otherwise, generally vote FOR a resolution to authorize the issuance of equity, unless:

 

  1.

The general issuance authority exceeds one-third (33 percent) of the issued share capital. Assuming it is no more than one-third, a further one-third of the issued share capital may also be applied to a fully pre-emptive rights issue taking the acceptable aggregate authority to two-thirds (66 percent); or

 

  2.

The routine authority to disapply preemption rights exceeds 5 percent of the issued share capital in any one year.

Authorize Market Purchase of Ordinary Shares

Generally, vote FOR the resolution to authorize the market purchase of ordinary shares, unless:

 

  1.

The authority requested exceeds the levels permitted under the Listing Rules; or

 

  2.

The company seeks an authority covering a period longer than 18 months.

Boston Partners will generally support this resolution if it is in line with the Listing Rules LR 12.4.1 which allows companies to buy back up to 15 percent of their shares in any given year, provided that the maximum price paid is not more than 5 percent above the average trading price.

Under the Companies Act 2006, the share buyback authority cannot be for a period longer than five years. Boston Partners recommends that the renewal of such authorities be requested annually, and that the duration be no longer than 18 months or until the next annual general meeting, if sooner. However, Boston Partners will support a five-year authority if, in practice, the company has a history of reverting to shareholders annually.

V. Other Items

Authorize EU Political Donations and Expenditure

Generally, vote FOR the resolution to authorize EU political donations and expenditure, unless:

 

  1.

The company made explicit donations to political parties or election candidates during the year under review;

 

  2.

The duration of the authority sought exceeds one year and the company has not clarified that separate authorization will be sought at the following annual general meeting should the authority be used; or

 

  3.

No cap is set on the level of donations.

 

B-452


Continuation of Investment Trust

For investment companies, Boston partners will vote FOR when the board has tabled the resolution to comply with the requirement in the trust’s articles of association that this vote be put to shareholders at regular intervals, and there are no issues of concern.

If the board has called a special meeting, due to the shares trading at a discount to net asset value over a prolonged period, Boston Partners will consider the issues on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

END

 

B-453


LOGO

PROXY VOTING PROCEDURES AND PRINCIPLES

The following summarizes the internal operating procedures and principles adopted by Capital Bank and Trust CompanySM, Capital InternationalSM, Inc., Capital Research and Management CompanySM and their investment advisory affiliates, Capital Group Private Client ServicesSM, Inc., Capital International Asset Management (Canada)SM, Inc., Capital International K.K.SM, Capital International LimitedSM, Capital International Management Company SàrlSM Capital International SàrlSM (the “Advisers”), and Capital Group Investment Management Pte. Ltd. (CGIMPL) for voting (1) proxies of portfolio companies held by mutual funds and exchange traded funds which are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and managed by the Advisers,

(2) proxies of portfolio companies held by funds organized under collective investment trusts and other pooled investment vehicles managed by the Advisers, and (3) proxies of securities held in client accounts for which the Advisers have proxy voting authority. These proxy voting procedures and principles are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interest of the Advisers’ clients and the shareholders of the funds advised or managed by the Advisers.

SUMMARY

The Advisers are committed to acting in the best interests of their clients. We view proxies of companies held in client portfolios as significant assets and proxy voting as an integral part of our engagement and the investment process. The voting process reflects our understanding of a company’s business, its management and its relationship with shareholders over time. In addition to our annual review of specific proxy proposals (including discussions with corporate management representatives), we meet with companies throughout the year to discuss various governance and proxy voting topics. In all cases, the investment objectives and policies of the funds and accounts we manage remain the focus.

These proxy voting procedures and principles (“Principles”) provide an important framework for analysis and decision-making with respect to issues that arise in proxy voting. While we generally adhere to these Principles, we have the flexibility to vote each proposal based on the specific circumstances that we believe are relevant. As a result, each proxy is analyzed and voted on a case-by-case basis.

As a matter of policy, we take an objective approach in assessing and voting on matters, seeking to avoid being influenced by outside sources or business relationships involving interests that may conflict with those of clients. In addition, we do not, as a policy, follow the voting recommendations provided by Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), Glass-Lewis & Co. or other third-party advisory firms (“Advisory Firms”), which provide research that the Advisers may utilize on a case-by-case basis in addition to our proprietary proxy voting, governance and executive compensation research. We periodically assess the information provided by the Advisory Firms, including information regarding potential conflicts of interest, and report to the applicable governance committees that provide oversight of the application of these Principles.

PROXY VOTING PROCESS

The Advisers seek to vote all U.S. proxies. Proxies for companies outside the U.S. are also voted where there is sufficient time and information available, taking into account distinct market practices, regulations and laws, and types of proposals presented in each country. Where there is insufficient proxy and meeting agenda information available, the Advisers will generally vote against such proposals in the interest of encouraging improved disclosure for investors.

 

B-454


The Advisers may not exercise their voting authority if voting would impose costs on clients, including opportunity costs. For example, certain regulators have granted investment limit relief to the Advisers and their affiliates, conditioned upon limiting its voting power to specific voting ceilings. To comply with these voting ceilings, the Advisers will scale back their votes across all funds and accounts they manage on a pro rata basis based on assets. In addition, certain countries impose restrictions on the ability of shareholders to sell shares during the proxy solicitation period. The Advisers may choose, due to liquidity issues, not to expose the funds and accounts they manage to such restrictions and may not vote some (or all) shares. Finally, the Advisers may determine not to recall securities on loan to exercise their voting rights when they determine that the cost of doing so would exceed the benefits to clients or that the vote would not have a material impact on the investment. Proxies with respect to securities on loan through client-directed lending programs are not available to vote and therefore are not voted.

After a proxy is received, the Advisers’ stewardship and engagement team prepares a summary of the proposals contained in the proxy statement. A notation of any potential conflicts of interest also is included in the summary (see below under “Special review procedures”).

Investment analysts are generally responsible for making voting recommendations for their investment division on significant votes that relate to companies in their coverage areas. Analysts also review initial recommendations made by the Advisers’ stewardship and engagement team for routine matters. Depending on the vote, a second recommendation may be made by a proxy coordinator (an investment professional with experience in corporate governance and proxy voting matters) within the appropriate investment division, based on knowledge of these Principles and familiarity with proxy-related issues. In this way, we seek to bring multiple perspectives to the voting process.

Each of the Advisers’ equity investment divisions has its own proxy voting committee, which is made up of investment professionals within each division. The proxy summary and voting recommendations are made available to the appropriate proxy voting committee for a final voting decision. Therefore, if more than one fund or account invests in the same company, certain funds and accounts may vote differently on the same proposal. In addition, while voting recommendations are generally applicable to all accounts managed by the investment division, the Advisers may vote differently depending on the investment objective and strategy of a particular fund or account.

Special review procedures

From time to time the Advisers may vote proxies issued by, or on proposals sponsored or publicly supported by (1) a client with substantial assets managed by the Advisers or their affiliates, (2) an entity with a significant business relationship with The Capital Group Companies, Inc. or its affiliates, or (3) a company with a U.S. mutual fund director on its board (each referred to as an “Interested Party”). Other persons or entities may also be deemed an Interested Party if facts or circumstances appear to give rise to a potential conflict. The Advisers analyze these proxies and proposals on their merits and do not consider these relationships when casting their vote.

The Advisers have developed procedures to identify and address instances where such a relationship may affect the exercise of the Advisers’ best judgment as a fiduciary. Under the procedures, if a potential conflict is identified, the Special Review Committee (“SRC”) of the investment division that is voting the proxy will be provided a summary of any relevant communications with the Interested Party, the rationale for the voting decision, information on the organization’s relationship with the Interested Party and any other pertinent information. If the SRC determines, based on the information provided, that a conflict of interest could affect the Advisers’ best judgement as a fiduciary, the SRC will take appropriate steps to address the conflict of interest, including, if appropriate, engaging an independent, third-party fiduciary to vote the proxy. The SRC includes senior investment professionals and legal and compliance professionals.

 

B-455


Allocating votes for comanaged funds

In cases where a fund or an account is comanaged and a security is held by more than one of the Advisers’ equity investment divisions, the divisions may develop different voting recommendations for individual ballot proposals. If this occurs, and if permitted by local market conventions, the position will generally be voted proportionally by divisional holding, according to their respective decisions. Otherwise, the outcome will be determined by the equity investment division or divisions with the larger position in the security as of the record date for the shareholder meeting.

Proxy voting for fund of funds and other pooled vehicles

In cases where the underlying fund of an investing fund managed by the Advisers, including a fund of funds, holds a proxy vote, such vote is reviewed by the Special Review Committee based on the procedures described above.

Considerations for accounts held with Capital Group Private Clients Services, Inc. (CGPCS)

CGPCS accepts proxy voting authority from its clients and follows these proxy voting procedures and principles. If CGPCS has voting authority for a client account, it generally does not provide the client the option to direct a proxy vote with respect to a particular solicitation.

Some clients reserve the right to vote proxies and do not give CGPCS the authority to vote on their behalf. In those cases, clients should contact their custodian about receiving proxies. CGPCS would not expect to discuss particular solicitations with clients for whom it does not have proxy voting authority.

PRINCIPLES

The following principles are grouped according to types of proposals usually presented to shareholders in proxy statements.

Director matters

Election of directors

As active fund managers, we value ongoing engagement with our investee companies in advancing the long-term interests of our clients, and proxy voting is an important part of that process. Director elections are of particular importance, as we believe a company’s board of directors plays a key role in the success of the company. In discharging their fiduciary duties, we expect boards to, among other things, be responsive to and act in the best interests of its shareholders and to exercise appropriate oversight over the management and business of the company.

We generally support the annual election of a company’s nominees for director. We may, however, oppose all or some of the company’s nominees if we believe it to be in the best interest of shareholders or if, in our view, they have not otherwise fulfilled their fiduciary duties. In making this determination, we consider, among other things, a nominee’s potential conflicts of interest, track record (whether in the current board seat or in previous executive or director roles) with respect to shareholder protection and value creation as well as their capacity for full engagement on board matters.

With respect to capacity, we expect directors to have sufficient time to reflect and make high-quality contributions to the work of the board. As such, we will flag certain situations for additional analysis:

 

   

A sitting CEO, or other senior executive officer, serving on their company board plus more than one additional outside company board (in a non-executive position), and

 

B-456


   

A non-executive director serving on more than four public company boards, with each non-executive board chair position considered as two board seats.

When evaluating board nominees, the Advisers will consider company and individual- specific situations and circumstances. These include and are not limited to company size and complexity, business transformation, board and executive turnover, expertise, employment and controversy. We also acknowledge that service on certain boards, such as a mutual fund board or similar, may not give rise to the same concerns. In addition, we will endeavor to engage in advance of the first instance in which we may consider an adverse vote and to address questions, as appropriate.

Importantly, we may consider opposing all or some of the nominees if the independence of a board does not comply with local regulations, governance codes or reasonable shareholder expectation. Because we expect boards to be collectively accountable for company performance and long-term value creation, we may, albeit rarely, vote against the entire board where we believe they have demonstrably failed in the execution of their duties. Where we feel a specific area has fallen short of our expectations, for example in relation to audit, remuneration or board composition, we may vote against the chair and/or members of the relevant committee.

We evaluate director nominees not only on an individual basis but also in the context of the whole board. We believe boards, as a whole, should have appropriate industry knowledge, skills, business experience and understanding of all relevant stakeholders of the company in order to discharge their duties effectively. This goal is more likely to be met by a board composed of individual directors who can each bring a breadth of experience to their service. Thus, we will generally vote against shareholder proposals that call for director candidates with specialized expertise (e.g., environmental expertise). However, we may vote in favor of such proposals where we believe such expertise would be conducive to the company’s ability to mitigate its specific set of risks and create long-term value. We also believe diversity of expertise, gender and, subject to local norms and expectations, race and ethnicity among board members enhances the overall quality of their decision-making.

Independent board chair/Separation of chair and CEO

We believe board independence is essential to good corporate governance. In addition to having a board’s majority made up of independent members, we generally prefer an independent board chair (i.e., not a current or former executive or other affiliated director) as best practice for structural oversight of the executive team. We recognize that, in some cases, a sufficient level of board independence and leadership can be accomplished via other means. For example, in situations where a board has appointed an independent lead director, we will examine that individual’s duties and interaction with the chair/CEO to determine whether a full separation of the roles is still warranted. We analyze board structure, leadership and overall governance on a case-by-case basis in arriving at decisions on whether to support separation of the chair and CEO roles.

Governance provisions

While we would typically support each of the following proposals as best practices if presented separately, we are aware that often a company may already have adopted several of these governance features. In such situations (such as a proposal to add cumulative voting in cases where directors are elected annually and there is a majority vote provision), we would consider whether the additional protections are necessary, or whether a combination of these features would leave a company vulnerable to coercive actions by shareholders with short-term investment horizons.

Shareholder access to the proxy

Proxy access proposals generally require a company to amend its bylaws to allow a qualifying shareholder or group of shareholders to nominate up to two directors on a company’s proxy ballot. To qualify, an individual or group must have owned a certain percentage (typically 3% to 5%) of the company’s shares for a minimum period of time (typically one to three years).

 

B-457


All proposals are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We generally believe the following:

 

   

The holding period is the most important component of these proposals, since length of ownership demonstrates a commitment that is more likely to be aligned with our interests as long-term shareholders. As such, three years appears reasonable.

 

   

The ownership threshold should be set at the right level to avoid misuse of this provision by those without a significant economic interest in a company, so we generally will apply a sliding scale of 5% for small capitalization companies and 3% for large capitalization companies.

 

   

The number of board seats to be added under these proposals should be capped at a reasonable number (generally 10% to 25%).

 

   

The number and makeup of parties that may nominate directors should be representative of the broader shareholder base.

We may vote against shareholder proposals to amend existing proxy access bylaws if the company has already adopted a bylaw that meets the general parameters described above.

Classified boards

A classified board is one that elects only a percentage of its members each year. (Usually, one-third of directors are elected to serve a three-year term.) Generally, we support proposals declassifying boards. We believe that declassification (i.e., the annual election of all directors) increases a board’s sense of accountability to shareholders.

Cumulative voting

Under cumulative voting, each shareholder has a number of votes equal to the number of shares owned multiplied by the number of directors up for election. Shareholders can cast all of their votes for a single nominee, thus allowing minority shareholders to elect a director. We generally support the concept of cumulative voting in order to promote management and board accountability, and the opportunity for leadership change.

Majority vote requirement

Generally, we support proposals designed to make director elections more meaningful, either by requiring a majority vote in director elections (more “for” votes than “against”) or by requiring any director receiving more withhold votes to tender their resignation.

Anti-takeover provisions, shareholder rights and reincorporation

Shareholder rights plans (“poison pills”)

“Poison pills” are a defense against unwelcome takeover offers. These plans allow shareholders (other than the shareholder making the unwelcome takeover offer) to purchase stock at significantly discounted prices under certain circumstances.

The plans force would-be acquirers to negotiate with the board, effectively giving the board veto power over any offer. Poison pills can be detrimental to the creation of shareholder value and can help entrench management by thwarting or deterring acquisition offers that are not favored by the board but that may be beneficial to shareholders.

We generally support the elimination of existing poison pills and proposals that would require shareholder approval to adopt prospective poison pills. There may be a few select circumstances, however, where the analyst

 

B-458


feels a need for the company to maintain anti-takeover protection. Additionally, if a company has crafted a shareholder- friendly pill, we may not support a shareholder proposal to eliminate or amend the existing provisions. One example of this is the Canadian model, which requires shareholder review and consideration of any acquisition offer.

Change of corporate domicile

 

   

Reincorporation within the U.S.: We generally leave the state domicile decision to the discretion of company management and its board.

 

   

Reincorporation outside the U.S.: We consider a company’s specific circumstances with respect to the reasons for the reincorporation. Factors that may influence whether we support a proposal to reincorporate include the potential for both corporate and shareholder-level taxes to be triggered at the time of the event, as well as the potential long-term impact of country-specific tax treaties.

Action by written consent/Right to call a special meeting

We consider several factors relating to these proposals and apply them on a case-by- case basis. These include a company’s market capitalization, composition of the company’s largest shareholders, its responsiveness to previous shareholder proposals and other forms of feedback, any meeting provisions and ownership thresholds currently in place, and its overall governance structure. While we believe that both the right to take action by written consent and to call a special meeting are important tools for shareholders, we will consider a company’s overall governance profile before supporting shareholder proposals to adopt or amend those rights.

The right to act by written consent (without calling a formal meeting of shareholders) can be a powerful tool for shareholders, especially in a proxy fight. We generally support adoption of this right in principle and oppose proposals that would prevent shareholders from taking action without a formal meeting or that would take away a shareholder’s right to call a special meeting.

The ability to call a special meeting is also a valuable right for shareholders that we generally support. However, we consider the details of these shareholder proposals, particularly the proposed ownership thresholds, and attempt to assess whether a low limit (e.g., 10%) would allow actions by a relatively small group that might not be in the best interests of the majority of shareholders.

Capitalization

Authorization of new common shares

We generally support reasonable increases in authorized shares when the company has articulated a need (for example, a stock split or recapitalization). Even so, we are aware that new shares may dilute the ownership interest of shareholders. Consequently, other than in the case of stock splits, we generally oppose proposals that would more than double the number of authorized shares.

Authorization of “blank check” preferred shares

“Blank check” preferred shares give the board complete discretion to set terms (including voting rights). Such shares may have voting rights far in excess of those held by common stockholders. We generally oppose proposals that allow a board to issue preferred shares without prior shareholder approval, as well as proposals that allow the board to set the terms and voting rights of preferred shares at their discretion. However, a request for preferred shares with voting rights that are equal to those of existing common stock shares generally would be considered similarly to a request for authorization of new common shares.

 

B-459


Compensation and benefit plans

Advisory vote on executive compensation (say on pay)

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd- Frank”) requires companies to allow shareholders to cast advisory (nonbinding) votes on the compensation for named executive officers, as well as the frequency of such votes (every one, two or three years). Under Dodd-Frank, the advisory vote on compensation will cover the Compensation, Discussion and Analysis disclosure, executive compensation tables, and related narrative in company proxy filings.

We generally will ratify executive compensation unless we have specific concerns about the structure or amounts paid at a particular company (based, in part, on the factors outlined below under “Equity incentive plans”). For example, we expect short-term incentives to constitute no more than a third — and long-term incentives to constitute at least two-thirds — of an executive’s overall compensation. We apply additional scrutiny to those companies where we have a history of voting against one or more compensation plans or where we have withheld votes from compensation committee members over the past several years. From time to time, we will vote against say-on-pay proposals if we are dissatisfied with a component of the overall compensation policy (e.g., high dilution, ability to reprice or exchange options, cash bonus caps expressed as a percentage of net income rather than hard dollar stop).

With respect to the frequency of advisory votes on compensation, we historically found the triennial option to be most consistent with our long-term focus at companies that presented no obvious compensation-related concerns. We acknowledge that it is often difficult for companies to make significant changes within a 12-month period and found that we have ongoing engagement with companies even when the say-on-pay votes occur less frequently. Annual votes, however, allow for regular feedback and ongoing monitoring of the impact of any policy changes. Accordingly, we will generally support management recommendation for annual votes. When longer frequencies are proposed (biennial or triennial), we will consider these proposals on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the company’s current practices and any history of concerns related to compensation.

Equity incentive plans

Incentive plans are complicated, and many factors are considered when evaluating a plan. No single factor is determinative; the proxy committees weigh each plan based on protecting shareholder interests and our historical knowledge of the company and its management. Factors include:

 

   

Pricing: We believe options should be priced to at least 100% of fair market value (the price that shareholders would pay on the open market) on the date they are granted. We do not generally support options priced at a discount to the market.

 

   

Repricing: An “out-of-the-money” option has an exercise price that is higher than the current price of the stock. We generally have not supported replacing “out-of- the-money” options with new options at a lower exercise price (generally known as “repricing”) because it is not consistent with a policy of offering options as a form of long-term compensation. However, there may be circumstances under which we would consider a limited exchange program (including value-neutral exchanges).

 

   

Dilution: Dilution is the reduction of the voting power and/or economic interest of existing shareholders due to an increase in shares available for distribution to company employees in lieu of cash compensation. We consider several kinds of dilution: the historical annual dilution of the current plan, the potential dilution of the proposed plan and the cumulative dilution of all option plans. We tend to oppose plans that result in “excessive” dilution for existing shareholders. Acceptable dilution levels are not rigidly defined but will be a function of the (i) stage of the company’s lifecycle (embryonic to mature), (ii) company size (market capitalization), (iii) historical growth rate of sales and earnings, (iv) competitive environment and (v) extenuating circumstances related to the company’s industry. In addition, greater dilution can be tolerated when options are awarded to all employees rather

 

B-460


 

than to top-level management only. We generally oppose evergreen plans (which provide for an automatic annual increase of shares available for awards without shareholder approval).

 

   

Performance: We prefer linking compensation (cash and equity) to appropriate performance criteria that encourage a long-term focus, consistent with our approach to investing.

 

   

Shares available for awards: Requests for additional incentive plan shares, where there are a substantial number of shares currently in reserve, will receive additional scrutiny to ensure that a company continues to award equity at an appropriate rate.

 

   

Option expensing: We generally support option expensing in theory and will generally support shareholder proposals on option expensing if such proposal language is nonbinding and does not require the company to adopt a specific expensing methodology.

Restricted stock plans

We support restricted stock plans when such grants replace cash compensation without increasing the historical cash award and when the amount of restricted stock available for distribution represents a reasonable percentage of overall equity awards. We also consider performance criteria and other vesting requirements, as well as the economic value of the restricted stock when compared to options.

Non-employee director compensation

We generally support equity-based compensation for non-employee directors that aligns their interests with shareholders. Such plans must be reasonable in size, have fair- market-value option grants and not create excess total compensation. (They should be subject to the same limitations as executive incentive plans.) We also review the mix of options, stock awards and cash compensation. We believe that compensation packages should be structured to attract, motivate and retain qualified directors, but that excessive board compensation can undermine the board’s independence.

Employee stock purchase plans

We generally support employee stock purchase plans, which are designed to allow employees to purchase stock at a discount price and to receive favorable tax treatment when the stock is sold. In many cases, the price is 85% of the market value of the stock. These plans are broad-based and have relatively low caps on the amount of stock that may be purchased by a single employee.

Shareholder proposals regarding executive compensation

Caps on executive pay

In general, we oppose shareholder proposals that seek to set limits on executive compensation because competitive compensation packages are necessary to attract, motivate and retain executives. Shareholder proposals on this issue tend to specify arbitrary compensation criteria.

Executive pay restrictions or freezes

We generally oppose proposals specifying restrictions on executive pay because they take away compensation committee flexibility. Such proposals include terminating the company’s option or restricted stock programs, freezing executive pay during periods of large layoffs, establishing a maximum ratio between the highest paid executive and lowest paid employee, and linking executive pay to social criteria.

 

B-461


Executive severance agreements

Generally, we support proposals that require shareholder approval of executive severance agreements, largely because of the trend toward excessive severance benefits (also known as golden parachutes). If an executive leaves for reasons related to poor performance, allowing a generous “parting gift” seems contrary to good corporate governance. While we typically support proposals asking that such severance be limited to 2.99 times pay and bonus (amounts over this threshold are subject to a 20% excise tax), we may vote against proposals that request a lower limitation.

Other shareholder proposals

General principles

When evaluating shareholder proposals, including those relating to political spending and advocacy and social and environmental issues, we consider their materiality to the company and its ability to generate long-term value in light of the company’s business model and specific operating context. We generally favor transparency, as it allows our investment professionals to better understand a company’s risks and opportunities and its long-term value drivers. Comparing a company against its peers and against prevailing “best practices” in the relevant sector each provides helpful benchmarking that also informs our voting decisions. In addition, we support increased standardization of disclosures, particularly ones that leverage existing regulatory reporting or industry best practices, to allow for greater comparability among companies.

We will generally avoid supporting proposals that are overly prescriptive, taking into account, among other things, the current policies, practices and regulatory obligations of the company. We consider whether a proxy proposal is nonbinding and may vote in favor of a proposal that addresses either a material shortcoming or an area in which the company has not shown sufficient progress, even if the proposal would benefit from some modification before being implemented.

Where applicable, we will also seek to apply other principles articulated in this document.

Political spending and advocacy

We review shareholder proposals relating to political expenditures on a case-by-case basis. In order to make a voting decision, we consider:

 

  1)

whether there currently is a policy in place regarding political spending;

 

  2)

the level of political spending oversight by the board and management team; and

 

  3)

a company’s current disclosure practices and whether the company has been subject to any previous fines or litigation.

We will generally support company disclosure regarding political spending and advocacy, including industry body membership. This is particularly the case when the current disclosure on political contributions is insufficient or significantly lacking compared to a company’s peers, there are verifiable or credible allegations of funds mismanagement through donations, or either there is no explicit board oversight or there is evidence that board oversight on political expenses is inadequate. On the other hand, we may not support a shareholder proposal if the information requested is already available in another report or the company meets the criteria noted above. We do encourage companies to disclose information relating to their political spending and advocacy against the criteria put forth by the Center for Political Accountability.

Social issues

We know that social issues, such as employee safety, community engagement and human rights (including with respect to a company’s supply chain), are important factors that can affect companies’ long-term prospects for

 

B-462


success. As such, they are researched by our investment professionals as part of the investment process and are also considered within the framework described above, under “General principles,” when reviewing proxy proposals. This approach is consistent with the stated investment objectives and policies of the funds and accounts we manage.

Generally, we believe racial and gender equity and diversity within a company’s workforce, including its management and the board of directors, contribute to the company’s long-term value creation. To that end, subject to local norms and expectations, we expect companies to be able to articulate a strategy or plan to advance these values. Additionally, we support reporting and disclosure of data relating to workforce diversity and equity across various types of roles and levels of seniority, consistent with broadly applicable standards (e.g., Employment Information Report (EEO-1) and U.K. pay gap reporting).

Environmental issues

As with other types of proposals, when reviewing those related to environmental issues (including climate change policy and reporting) we take into account the investment implications and are required to vote in a manner consistent with the objectives of the funds and accounts we manage. We examine each environmental issue within the context of each specific company’s situation, including any potentially negative impact to the company’s business or operations that we feel have not been properly addressed. In formulating a voting decision on these issues, we weigh the set of factors described under “General principles” above: the issue’s materiality to the company, overall value of transparency and standardization of disclosure, the prescriptive and/or nonbinding nature of the proxy proposal, best-in-class practices by peer group companies and best practices in the applicable sector.

We generally believe environmental issues present investment risks and opportunities that can shape a company’s long-term financial sustainability. Accordingly, we expect companies to disclose against the standards set forth by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). We also expect companies to issue sustainability reporting. We will generally vote against proposals that call for director candidates with specialized expertise because, in addition to the importance of an individual director’s breadth of experience (as discussed above under “Election of directors”), we believe overly prescriptive proposals can create burdensome limitations on the effectiveness of a company’s oversight. However, where the company is in a sector with particular exposure to climate-related risks and we believe directors with specialized expertise would enhance the company’s ability to mitigate such risks and create long-term value, we will consider voting in favor of such proposals.

 

B-463


PROXY VOTING

Policy

Unless otherwise directed, Champlain, as a matter of policy and as a fiduciary to our clients, has responsibility for voting proxies for portfolio securities consistent with the best interests of the clients. Our firm maintains written policies and procedures as to the handling, research, voting, and reporting of proxy voting and makes appropriate disclosures about our firm’s proxy policies and practices. Our policy and practice include the responsibility to monitor corporate actions, receive and vote client proxies, and disclose any potential conflicts of interest as well as making information available to clients about the voting of proxies for their portfolio securities and maintaining relevant and required records. A copy of our written proxy policy and procedures and/or the record of proxy votes for a client’s portfolio will be provided to that client upon request.

Although Champlain’s policy is to vote proxies for clients unless otherwise directed in writing, there may be times in which the firm would not exercise voting authority on matters where the cost of voting would be high, such as with some foreign securities, and/or the benefit to the client would be low, such as when casting a vote would not reasonably be expected to have a material effect on the value of the client’s investment.

Situations may arise in which more than one Champlain client invests in the same company or in which a single client may invest in the same company but in multiple accounts. In those situations, clients may be invested in strategies having different investment objectives, investment styles, or portfolio managers. As a result, Champlain may cast different votes on behalf of different clients or on behalf of the same client with different accounts.

Unless Champlain otherwise agrees in writing, Champlain will not advise or take any action on behalf of a client in any legal proceedings, including bankruptcies or class actions, involving securities held in, or formerly held in, client’s account or the issuers of those securities.

Background

Proxy voting is an important right of shareholders and reasonable care and diligence must be undertaken to ensure that such rights are properly and timely exercised.

Investment advisers registered with the SEC, and that exercise voting authority with respect to client securities, are required by Rule 206(4)-6 of the Advisers Act to (1) adopt and implement written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that client securities are voted in the best interests of clients, which must include how an adviser addresses material conflicts that may arise between an adviser’s interests and those of its clients; (2) to disclose to clients how they may obtain information from the adviser with respect to the voting of proxies for their securities; (3) to describe to clients a summary of its proxy voting policies and procedures and, upon request, furnish a copy to its clients; and (4) maintain certain records relating to the adviser’s proxy voting activities when the adviser does have proxy voting authority.

Investment advisers that have ERISA clients and are making decisions on proxy voting and other exercises of shareholder rights are required to: (1) act solely in accordance with the economic interest of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries; (2) consider any costs involved; (3) not subordinate the interests of the participants and beneficiaries in their retirement income or financial benefits under the plan to any non-pecuniary objective, or promote non-pecuniary benefits or goals unrelated to those financial interests of the plan’s participants and beneficiaries or the purposes of the plan; (4) evaluate material facts that form the basis for any particular proxy vote or other exercise of shareholder rights; (5) maintain records on proxy voting activities and other exercises of shareholder rights; and (6) exercise prudence and diligence in the selection and monitoring of persons, if any, selected to advise or otherwise assist with exercises of shareholder rights, such as providing research and analysis, recommendations regarding proxy votes, administrative services with voting proxies, and recordkeeping and reporting services.

 

CHAMPLAIN INVESTMENT PARTNERS   B-464   


Responsibility

Champlain has designated professionals as Proxy Voting Managers, who are responsible for the administrative management of our proxy voting policy, practices, disclosures and record keeping, including outlining our voting guidelines in our procedures.

Procedure

Champlain has adopted comprehensive proxy voting procedures to implement the firm’s investment policies on behalf of clients. Proxy policies and procedures will be monitored closely, and may be amended or updated when appropriate, to ensure the policies outlined below are effectively executed:

Voting Procedures and Monitoring

 

   

All employees will forward any proxy materials received on behalf of clients to the Proxy Voting Managers;

 

   

The Proxy Voting Managers will determine which client accounts hold the security to which the proxy relates; Absent material conflicts, the appropriate company analyst will determine how Champlain should vote the proxy in accordance with applicable voting guidelines and will complete the voting in a timely and appropriate manner. Proxy systems (i.e., Proxy Edge) may be used to aid in the voting process;

 

   

Clients may provide proxy guidelines to Champlain; in which case the appropriate company analyst will vote in accordance with the applicable voting guidelines provided while adhering to the Conflict of Interest section below;

 

   

The Proxy Voting Managers will facilitate the proxy voting process, ensure process controls are being adhered to, and review ballots prior to submission; under certain circumstances, ballots are also reviewed by an additional analyst.

 

   

Compliance conducts quarterly reviews which include confirmation all proxies were voted during the previous quarter, and a sampling of how ballots were voted in relation to client/firm guidelines and policies;

 

   

Annually, the adequacy of proxy voting policies and procedures are analyzed during the firm’s Risk Assessment process and tested during the Annual Compliance Review.

Proxy Advisory Firms

Although Champlain may use the research provided by proxy advisory firms our practice is to use this research in conjunction with client and firm proxy guidelines and an internal analysis of company filings such as annual reports, proxy statements, and quarterly reports.

The due diligence of proxy advisory firms is consistent with that of other service providers of Champlain, and also includes a review of practices for ensuring accuracy in analyses and voting recommendations, as well as a broader competency assessment.

Recordkeeping

The Proxy Voting Managers shall retain the following proxy records in accordance with the SEC’s five-year retention requirement:

 

   

These policies and procedures and any amendments;

 

   

A record of each vote that Champlain casts;

 

CHAMPLAIN INVESTMENT PARTNERS   B-465   


   

A copy of each written request from a client for information on how Champlain voted such client’s proxies, and a copy of any written response;

 

   

Any document Champlain creates that is material to making a decision on how to vote proxies, or that memorializes that decision.

Disclosure

 

   

Champlain will conspicuously display information in its Form ADV Part 2A summarizing the proxy voting policy and procedures, including a statement that clients may request information regarding how Champlain voted a client’s proxies, and that clients may request a copy of these policies and procedures.

Client Requests for Information

 

   

All client requests for information regarding proxy votes, or policies and procedures, received by any employee should be forwarded to the Proxy Voting Managers;

 

   

In response to any request, the Proxy Voting Managers will prepare a written response to the client with the information requested, and as applicable will include the name of the issuer, the proposal voted upon, and how Champlain voted the client’s proxy with respect to each proposal about which client inquired.

Small Cap and Mid Cap Voting Guidelines

Fiduciary Duty and Proxy Voting Philosophy

Champlain’s fiduciary duty is to vote proxies in a manner that we believe is in the best interests of our clients; accordingly, Champlain will carefully review each proxy issue and evaluate the statements and views of competing parties. Our proxy voting will generally reflect an appreciation for how diversity throughout a company, including at the Board level, as well as responsible stewardship of resources, are likely to improve the odds that a company will deliver superior long-term shareholder returns. We look for diversity across all relevant dimensions; diversity should be appropriate for each company and not formulaic.

Using Management Guidance

The quality of corporate management is one of the most important considerations of Champlain portfolio managers and analysts when making investment decisions. Considerable weight is given to the recommendations of a company’s management and directors with respect to proxy issues. Unless such recommendations conflict with the interests of clients, votes will be cast in accordance with management recommendations. However, in certain cases, company recommendations may be in conflict with our assessment of sound governance practices and therefore not in the interests of clients, leading to votes in opposition to management. Champlain will strive for consistency in its proxy voting, but also acknowledges that there are no hard and fast rules guiding all situations. Individual proxy issues are always evaluated on their particular merits, and where conflicts arise between the interests of corporate management and the interests of Champlain clients, resolution is always in favor of the clients.

Policy on Board of Directors

Champlain believes that meaningful, independent oversight of corporate managers is a critical function of a company’s Board of Directors, and a cornerstone of sound corporate governance. To that end, we will support proposals seeking a majority of independent and diverse directors for the board, as well as proposals requiring independent and diverse directors for nominating, audit and compensation committees. Votes on individual

 

CHAMPLAIN INVESTMENT PARTNERS   B-466   


director nominees are made on a case-by-case basis examining such factors as board and committee composition, past attendance record, financial interest in the company, diversity of skills and experiences, and governance efficacy.

Policy on Audit Committee

Champlain believes that audit committees should be comprised of directors who are independent and financially literate and shall vote in favor of such a structure. The audit committee should have the exclusive authority to hire independent auditors. We will generally withhold votes for audit committee members who approve significant non- audit relationships with outside auditors, as well as vote against ratification of the outside auditor when such relationships exist.

Policy on Proxy Contest Defenses / Anti-takeover Measures

Champlain generally opposes proxy contest defenses and anti-takeover measures since they tend to restrict shareholder rights and participation and often limit the realization of maximum economic value. We support shareholder resolutions that reverse previously adopted anti-takeover measures or, in general, enhance shareholder rights. In these situations, we may conduct more issuer specific analysis; however, as with all proxy issues, we conduct a full review of each proposal and vote in the best interests of clients.

Anti-takeover measures generally opposed:

 

   

Classification of the Board of Directors

 

   

Shareholder rights plans (poison pills)

 

   

Greenmail

 

   

Supermajority rules to approve mergers or amend charter or bylaws

 

   

Authority to place stock with disproportionate voting rights

 

   

Golden parachutes

Shareholder resolutions generally supported:

 

   

Rescind or prohibit any of the above anti-takeover measures

 

   

Annual voting of directors; repeal classified boards

 

   

Adoption of confidential voting

 

   

Adoption of cumulative voting

 

   

Redeem shareholder rights plans

 

   

Proposals that require shareholder approval of rights plans (poison pills)

Policy on Capital Structure

Champlain considers disciplined capital use an essential component of effective corporate management. Therefore, we carefully consider proposals to authorize increased common shares, and generally limit authorization to funding needs for the next twelve months or for compelling management uses. We will generally vote for proposals to increase common shares for a stock split. Other capital structure proposals, such as preferred stock, will be voted for on a case-by-case basis.

 

CHAMPLAIN INVESTMENT PARTNERS   B-467   


Policy on Executive and Director Compensation

Champlain believes stock-based compensation plans must be very carefully analyzed to protect the economic interests of shareholders while providing appropriate motivation for corporate managers. Such plans should be highly correlated to both individual and corporate performance. We will oppose all option plans with excessive transfer of shareholder wealth, in the form of dilution to shareholder equity and voting power, to corporate directors, executives and employees. Champlain will consider factors such as other corporate incentives, corporate performance, industry practices, and terms and duration of the non-cash compensation program in its decision. We will vote for proposals requiring shareholder approval to retroactively increase non-cash compensation and will generally vote against such proposals.

We will withhold votes for director nominees in the event of a retroactive increase of non-cash compensation without shareholder approval. Director compensation plans are viewed on a case-by-case basis, with the goal of protecting economic interests of shareholders and aligning interests of directors with shareholders. Employee stock purchase plans are voted on a case-by-case basis.

Policy on Mergers and Corporate Restructurings

All mergers, acquisitions, and restructurings are voted on a case-by-case basis taking into account financial terms, benefits, and acquisition price.

Social and Environmental Issues

To become and remain highly competitive and be able to recruit and retain the most talented employees and directors, companies should strive for alignment between the long-term interests of shareholders, employees, customers, other community stakeholders, and the health of the environment. Thus, companies should consider issues such as a lack of diversity, inequality, climate change, and other threats to the community and whether their policies and decisions contribute to those threats. We will evaluate social and environmental proposals on a case-by-case basis using a long-term perspective.

Conflicts of Interest

 

   

If there is a conflict of interest between the Champlain proxy voting policy and a client’s expressed voting policy, Champlain will vote the proxy in the manner the client has articulated;

 

   

Champlain will identify any conflicts that exist between the interests of the adviser and the client by reviewing the relationship of Champlain with the issuer of each security to determine if Champlain or any of its employees has any financial, business, or personal relationship with the issuer;

 

   

If a material conflict of interest exists, the Proxy Voting Manager will determine whether it is appropriate to disclose the conflict to the affected clients, to give the clients an opportunity to vote the proxies themselves, or to address the voting issue through other objective means such as voting in a manner consistent with a predetermined voting policy or receiving an independent third-party voting recommendation;

 

   

Champlain will maintain a record of the voting resolution of any conflict of interest.

Voting Guidelines on Money Market Funds Held for Clients’ Cash Sweep and Account Transition Holdings

Champlain will vote in line with management’s recommendation on proxies for money market funds held for a client’s cash sweep, as well as for client holdings that Champlain has sold or is in the process of selling as part of an account transition.

 

CHAMPLAIN INVESTMENT PARTNERS   B-468   


Emerging Markets and Emerging Markets Small Cap Voting Guidelines

Fiduciary Duty and Proxy Voting Philosophy

Champlain’s fiduciary duty is to vote proxies in a manner that we believe is in the best interests of our clients; accordingly, Champlain will carefully review each proxy issue and evaluate the statements and views of competing parties. Our proxy voting will generally reflect an appreciation for how diversity throughout a company, including at the Board level, as well responsible stewardship of resources, can improve the odds that a company will deliver superior long-term shareholder returns. We look for diversity across all relevant dimensions; diversity should be appropriate for each company and not formulaic.

Using Management and External Guidance

The quality of corporate management is one of the most important considerations of Champlain portfolio managers and analysts when making investment decisions. Considerable weight is given to the recommendations of a company’s management and directors with respect to proxy issues. In some cases, unless such recommendations conflict with the interests of clients, votes will be cast in accordance with management recommendations. However, in certain cases, company recommendations may be in conflict with our assessment of sound governance practices and therefore not in the interests of clients, leading to votes in opposition to management. Champlain will strive for consistency in its proxy voting, but also acknowledges that there are no hard and fast rules guiding all situations. Individual proxy issues are always evaluated on their particular merits, and where conflicts arise between the interests of corporate management and the interests of Champlain clients, resolution is always in favor of the clients. Champlain may rely upon external proxy advisers to provide an English-language translation of ballots when one is not offered by the company itself. We may also consider the recommendations of external proxy advisers in our evaluation of ballot items; however, all votes will be made in accordance with Champlain’s guidelines and in the best interest of our clients.

Policy on Board of Directors

Champlain believes that meaningful, independent oversight of corporate managers is a critical function of a company’s Board of Directors, and a cornerstone of sound corporate governance. We seek to balance a Board of Directors that is financially motivated for the company to succeed with a Board that provides independent voices who are able to both support and challenge management. While we are generally supportive of independent directors having large roles on a board, we will not vote for or against any director solely because of their independence or lack thereof.

Policy on Proxy Contest Defenses / Anti-takeover Measures

Champlain generally opposes proxy contest defenses and anti-takeover measures since they tend to restrict shareholder rights and participation, and often limit the realization of maximum economic value. We support shareholder resolutions that reverse previously adopted anti-takeover measures or, in general, enhance shareholder rights. However, as with all proxy issues, we conduct a full review of each proposal and vote in the best interests of clients.

Policy on Capital Structure

Champlain considers disciplined capital use an essential component of effective corporate management. Therefore, we carefully consider proposals to authorize increased common shares, and generally limit authorization to funding needs compelling management uses, and proposals that issue stock at attractive prices. We will generally vote for proposals to increase common shares for a stock split. We are generally supportive of management efforts to return capital to shareholders through dividends and stock buybacks (at reasonable valuations) if there are not alternative uses of the capital and the payout does not cause the company to become overleveraged. Other capital structure proposals, such as preferred stock, will be voted for on a case-by-case basis.

 

CHAMPLAIN INVESTMENT PARTNERS   B-469   


Policy on Executive and Director Compensation

Champlain believes stock-based compensation plans must be very carefully analyzed to protect the economic interests of shareholders while providing appropriate motivation for corporate managers. Such plans should be highly correlated to both individual and corporate performance. Because of the wide variance in executive compensation norms by country, we will evaluate these matters on a case-by-case basis, with the goal of allowing companies to attract and retain talent without unjustly burdening shareholders.

Policy on Mergers and Corporate Restructurings

All mergers, acquisitions, and restructurings are voted on a case-by-case basis taking into account financial terms, benefits, and acquisition price.

Auditors

Auditors serve as a key check on management and, through their opinion on a company’s financial statements, a key source of information to us as investors. We generally vote to ratify auditors unless they do not appear independent (for example, by receiving substantial compensation for non-audit services) or because the company’s business is a large portion of the auditor’s total practice. We also generally support the board’s ability to set auditor compensation as long as there is no evidence that such compensation is excessive.

Costs or Other Consequences of Voting

On matters where the cost of voting would be high, such as with foreign securities, or the benefit to the client would be low, such as when casting a vote would not reasonably be expected to have a material effect on the value of the client’s investment, we may determine refraining from voting is in the best interest of the client.

Social and Environmental Issues

To become and remain highly competitive and be able to recruit and retain the most talented employees and directors, companies should strive for alignment between the interests of shareholders, employees, customers, community stakeholders, and the environment. Thus, companies should consider issues such as a lack of diversity, inequality, climate change, and other threats to the community. We evaluate social and environmental proposals on a case-by-case basis using a long-term perspective.

Conflicts of Interest

 

   

If there is a conflict of interest between the Champlain proxy voting policy and a client’s expressed voting policy, Champlain will vote the proxy in the manner the client has articulated;

 

   

Champlain will identify any conflicts that exist between the interests of the adviser and the client by reviewing the relationship of Champlain with the issuer of each security to determine if Champlain or any of its employees has any financial, business, or personal relationship with the issuer;

 

   

If a material conflict of interest exists, the Proxy Voting Manager will determine whether it is appropriate to disclose the conflict to the affected clients, to give the clients an opportunity to vote the proxies themselves, or to address the voting issue through other objective means such as voting in a manner consistent with a predetermined voting policy or receiving an independent third-party voting recommendation;

 

   

Champlain will maintain a record of the voting resolution of any conflict of interest.

 

CHAMPLAIN INVESTMENT PARTNERS   B-470   


Voting Guidelines on Money Market Funds Held for Clients’ Cash Sweep and Account Transition Holdings

Champlain will vote in line with management’s recommendation on proxies for money market funds held for a client’s cash sweep, as well as for client holdings that Champlain has sold or is in the process of selling as part of an account transition.

 

CHAMPLAIN INVESTMENT PARTNERS   B-471   


LOGO   

325 John H. McConnell Blvd

Suite 200

Columbus, Ohio 43215

614.255.3333

diamond-hill.com

Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc.

Proxy Voting Policy, Procedures and Guidelines

One of the responsibilities of owning stock in a company is the right to vote on issues submitted to a shareholder vote. In order to fulfill its responsibilities under Rule 206(4)-6 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc. (hereinafter “we” or “us” or “our”) has adopted the following Proxy Voting Policy, Procedures and Guidelines (the “Proxy Policy”) with regard to companies in our clients’ investment portfolios.

Key Objective

The key objective of our Proxy Policy is to maximize the long-term value of the securities held in our clients’ portfolios. These policies and procedures recognize that a company’s management is entrusted with the day-to-day operations and long-term strategic planning of the company, subject to the oversight of the company’s board of directors. While we believe ordinary business matters are primarily the responsibility of management and should be approved solely by the corporation’s board of directors, we also recognize that the company’s shareholders must have final say over how management and directors are performing, and how shareholders’ rights and ownership interests are handled, especially when matters could have material economic implications for the shareholders.

Therefore, we will pay particular attention to the following matters in exercising our proxy voting responsibilities as a fiduciary for our clients:

Accountability. Each company should have effective means in place to hold those entrusted with running a company’s business accountable for their actions. Management of a company should be accountable to its board of directors and the board should be accountable to shareholders.

Alignment of Management and Shareholder Interests. Each company should endeavor to align the interests of management and the board of directors with the interests of the company’s shareholders. For example, we generally believe that compensation should be designed to reward management for doing a good job of creating value for the shareholders of the company.

Transparency. Each company should provide timely disclosure of important information about its business operations and financial performance to enable investors to evaluate the company’s performance and to make informed decisions about the purchase and sale of the company’s securities.

Decision Methods

Some of our clients prefer to vote the proxies in their account, however, in most cases we accept authority to vote proxies for our clients’ accounts. For those clients that retain the ability to vote proxies themselves, clients will not receive information about their proxies from Diamond Hill. Instead, clients receive proxies from their custodian, transfer agent, or other third-party service provider such as their proxy service provider.

Our recommendation is for clients to delegate the responsibility of voting proxies to us. Many clients recognize that good corporate governance and good investment decisions are complementary. Often, the investment

 

Adopted: June 2003

Amended: June 2021

  B-472   


LOGO    diamond-hill.com

 

manager is uniquely positioned to judge what is in the client’s best economic interest regarding proxy voting issues. Additionally, we can vote in accordance with a client’s wishes on any individual issue or shareholder proposal, even in cases where we believe the implementation of a proposal will diminish shareholder value. We believe clients are entitled to a statement of our principles and an articulation of our process when we make investment decisions, and similarly, we believe clients are entitled to an explanation of our voting principles, as both have economic value.

We have developed the guidelines outlined below to guide our proxy voting. In addition, we generally believe that the investment professionals involved in the selection of securities are the most knowledgeable and best suited to make decisions regarding proxy votes. Therefore, the portfolio management team whose strategy owns the shares has the authority to override the guidelines. Also, where the guidelines indicate that an issue will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis or for votes that are not covered by the Proxy Policy, the portfolio management team whose strategy owns the shares has final authority to direct the vote. In special cases, we may seek insight from a variety of sources on how a particular proxy proposal will affect the financial prospects of a company, and then we vote in keeping with our primary objective of maximizing shareholder value over the long term.

Voting to maximize shareholder value over the long term may lead to the unusual circumstance of voting differently on the same issue in different Funds at Diamond Hill. For instance, the Small Cap Fund may own a company that is the subject of a takeover bid by a company owned in the Large Cap Fund. Analysis of the bid may show that the bid is in the best interest of the Large Cap Fund but not in the best interest of the Small Cap Fund; therefore the Large Cap Fund may vote for the merger whereas the Small Cap Fund may vote against it.

In addition, when securities are out on loan, our clients collectively hold a significant portion of the company’s outstanding securities, and we learn of a pending proxy vote enough in advance of the record date, we will perform a cost/benefit analysis to determine if there is a compelling reason to recall the securities from loan to enable us to vote.

Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest may arise from various sources. Clients may take positions on certain shareholder and/or proxy voting issues that they perceive to be in their own best interests but are inconsistent with our firm’s primary objective of maximizing shareholder value in the long run. We encourage clients who have investment objectives that differ from ours to notify us that they will vote their proxies themselves, either permanently or temporarily. Otherwise, we will vote their shares in keeping with this Proxy Policy.

In some instances, a proxy vote may present a conflict between the interests of a client and our interests or the interests of a person affiliated with us. For example, we might manage money for a plan sponsor and that company’s securities may be held in client investment portfolios. The potential for conflict of interest is imminent since we would have a vested interest to support that company’s management recommendations, which may not be in the best interests of clients. Another possible scenario could arise if we held a strong belief in a social cause and felt obligated to vote in a certain manner to support that social cause, but it may not be best for our clients. In cases of conflicts of interest that impede our ability to vote, we will refrain from making a voting decision and will forward all of the necessary proxy voting materials to the client to enable the client to cast the votes themselves. In the case of the mutual funds under our management, we will forward the proxy material to the independent trustees or directors if we are the investment adviser or to the investment adviser if we are the sub-adviser.

 

Adopted: June 2003

Amended: June 2021

  B-473   


LOGO    diamond-hill.com

 

Recordkeeping

We will maintain records documenting how proxies are voted. In addition, when we vote contrary to the Proxy Policy, against management, or on issues that the Proxy Policy indicates will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, we will document the rationale for our vote. We will maintain this documentation in accordance with the requirements of the Act and we will provide this information to a client who held the security in question upon the client’s request.

Proxy Voting Principles

 

1.

We recognize that the right to vote a proxy has economic value.

All else being equal, a share with voting rights is worth more than a share of the same company without voting rights. Sometimes, investors may observe a company with both a voting class and a non-voting class in which the non-voting class sells at a higher price than the voting, the exact opposite of the expected result described above; typically, this can be attributed to the voting class being relatively illiquid. Thus, when you buy a share of voting stock, part of the purchase price includes the right to vote in matters concerning the company.

 

2.

We recognize that we incur additional fiduciary responsibility by assuming this proxy voting right.

In general, acting as a fiduciary when dealing with the assets of others means being held to a higher than ordinary standard in each of the following aspects:

Loyalty - We will act only in the best interest of the client. Furthermore, the duty of loyalty extends to the avoidance of conflicts of interest and self-dealing.

Care - We will carefully analyze the issues at hand and bring all the skills, knowledge, and insights a professional in the field is expected to have in order to cast an informed vote.

Prudence - We will make the preservation of assets and the earning of a reasonable return on those assets primary and secondary objectives as a fiduciary.

Impartiality - We will treat all clients fairly.

Discretion - We will keep client information confidential. Information concerning client-specific requests is held strictly confidential between the client and us.

 

3.

We believe that a corporation exists to maximize the value for shareholders.

Absent a specific client directive, we will always vote in the manner (to the extent that it can be determined) that we believe will maximize shareholder returns over the long term.

 

4.

We believe conscientious proxy voting can result in better investment performance.

The presence of an owner-oriented management is a major consideration in many of our investment decisions. As a result, we typically would not expect to find ourselves at odds with management recommendations on major issues. Furthermore, we do not anticipate entering a position intending to be shareholder activists. Yet, cases will arise in which we feel the current management or management’s current strategy is unlikely to result in the maximization of shareholder value. One reason for owning such stock might be that the stock price is at such a significant discount to intrinsic value that the share price need not be “maximized” for us to realize an attractive return. Another reason may be that we anticipate

 

Adopted: June 2003

Amended: June 2021

  B-474   


LOGO    diamond-hill.com

 

management will soon alter company strategy when it becomes apparent that a new strategy is more appropriate. Additionally, we may disagree with management on a specific issue while still holding admiration for a company, its management, or its corporate governance in general. In certain circumstances, we may engage with management to discuss our concerns and share ideas. We do not subscribe to the “If you don’t like management or its strategy, sell the stock” philosophy in many instances.

 

5.

We believe there is relevant and material investment information contained in the proxy statement.

Closely reviewing a company’s proxy materials may reveal insights into management motives, aid in developing quantifiable or objective measures of how a company has managed its resources over a period of time, and, perhaps most importantly, speak volumes about the “corporate culture.”

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Each proposal put to a shareholder vote is unique. As a result, while each proposal must be considered individually, there are several types of proxy issues that recur frequently in public companies. Below are brief descriptions of various issues and our position on each. Please note that this list is not meant to be all-inclusive. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, we generally will vote in the manner outlined below on the proposals described.

I. Corporate Governance Provisions

A. Board of Directors

The election of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) is frequently viewed as a “routine item.” Yet, in many ways the election of the Board is the most important issue that comes before shareholders. Inherent conflicts of interest can exist between shareholders (the owners of the company) and management (who run the company). At many companies, plans have been implemented attempting to better align the interests of shareholders and management, including stock ownership requirements and additional compensation systems based on stock performance. Yet, seldom do these perfectly align shareholder and management interests. An independent Board serves the role of oversight on behalf of shareholders. For this reason, we strongly prefer that the majority of the Board be comprised of independent (also referred to as outside or non-affiliated) directors. Furthermore, we believe key committees should be comprised entirely of outside directors. In cases where a majority of the board is not independent or a key committee is not entirely independent, we may vote against non-independent directors as well as the nominating and governance committee. When voting non-U.S. proxies, we may take local standards into consideration to determine the appropriate level of independence for both the Board and key committees.

1. Cumulative Voting

Cumulative voting allows the shareholders to distribute the total number of votes they have in any manner they wish when electing directors. In some cases, this may allow a small number of shareholders to elect a minority representative to the corporate board, thus ensuring representation for all sizes of shareholders. Cumulative voting may also allow a dissident shareholder to obtain representation on the Board in a proxy contest.

To illustrate the difference between cumulative voting and straight voting, consider the John Smith Corporation. There are 100 total shares outstanding; Jones owns 51 and Wilson owns 49. Three directors are to be elected. Under the straight voting method, each shareholder is entitled to one vote per share and each vacant director’s position is voted on separately. Thus, Jones could elect all the

 

Adopted: June 2003

Amended: June 2021

  B-475   


LOGO    diamond-hill.com

 

directors since he would vote his 51 shares for his choice on each separately elected director. Under the cumulative voting method, each shareholder has a total number of votes equal to the number of shares owned times the number of directors to be elected. Thus, Jones has 153 votes (51 X 3 = 153) and Wilson has 147 votes (49 X 3). The election of all directors then takes place simultaneously, with the top three vote recipients being elected. Shareholders may group all their votes for one candidate. Thus, Wilson could vote all 147 of his votes for one candidate. This will ensure that Wilson is able to elect at least one director to the board since his candidate is guaranteed to be one of the top three vote recipients.

Since cumulative voting subjects management to the disciplinary effects of outside shareholder involvement, it should encourage management to maximize shareholder value and promote management accountability. Thus, we will vote FOR proposals seeking to permit cumulative voting.

2. Majority vs Plurality Voting

In evaluating majority voting vs. plurality voting we will vote in favor of majority voting proposals. A majority vote requires a candidate to receive support from a majority of votes cast to be elected. Plurality voting, on the other hand, provides that the winning candidate only garner more votes than a competing candidate. If a director runs unopposed under a plurality voting standard, he or she needs only one vote to be elected, so an “against” vote is meaningless. We feel that directors should be elected to the board by a majority vote simply because it gives us a greater ability to elect board candidates that represent our clients’ best interests. However, we find plurality voting acceptable when the number of director nominees exceeds the number of directors up for election.

3. Election of Directors (Absenteeism)

Customarily, schedules for regular board and committee meetings are made well in advance. A person accepting a nomination for a directorship should be prepared to attend meetings. A director who is found to have a high rate of absenteeism (less than 75% attendance) raises significant doubt about that director’s ability to effectively represent shareholder interests and contribute experience and guidance to the company. While valid excuses for absences (such as illness) are possible, these are not the norm. Schedule conflicts are not an acceptable reason for absenteeism since it suggests a lack of commitment or an inability to devote sufficient time to make a noteworthy contribution. Thus, we will WITHHOLD our vote for (or vote AGAINST, if that option is provided) any director who fails to attend at least 75% of the regularly scheduled board and committee meetings. We may make exceptions when there are extenuating circumstances that prevent a director from attending 75% of the meetings.

4. Classified Boards

A classified Board separates directors into more than one class, with only a portion of the full Board standing for election each year. For example, if the John Smith Corporation has nine directors on its Board and divides them into three classes, each member will be elected for a term of three years with elections staggered so that only one of the three classes stands for election in a given year. A non-classified Board requires all directors to stand for election every year and serve a one-year term.

Proponents of classified Boards argue that by staggering the election of directors, a certain level of continuity and stability is maintained. However, a classified Board makes it more difficult for

 

Adopted: June 2003

Amended: June 2021

  B-476   


LOGO    diamond-hill.com

 

shareholders to change control of the Board. A classified Board can delay a takeover advantageous to shareholders yet opposed by management or prevent bidders from approaching a target company if the acquirer fears having to wait more than one year before gaining majority control.

We will vote FOR proposals seeking to declassify the Board and AGAINST proposals to classify the Board.

5. Third-Party Transactions

We will WITHHOLD votes for (or vote AGAINST, if that option is provided) directors who may have a conflict of interest, such as receipt of consulting fees from the corporation (affiliated outsiders) if the fees are significant or represent a significant percent of the director’s income.

6. Auditor Ratification

We believe that management is in the best position to choose its accounting firm, and we will generally support management’s recommendation. However, we recognize that there may be conflicts when a company’s independent auditors perform substantial non-audit related services for the company. While we will generally vote FOR management proposals to ratify the selection of auditors, we may vote against the ratification of an auditor if non-audit related fees are excessive relative to fees paid for audit services, or when an auditor fails to identify issues that violate standards of practice intended to protect shareholder interests. Likewise, we may vote against or withhold votes from audit committee members in instances where the committee does not provide sufficient oversight to ensure effective, independent auditing. Examples of auditing concerns that may lead to an against or withhold vote include accounting irregularities or significant financial restatements.

7. Dual Chair/CEO Role

While we prefer the separation of roles between the Board Chair and CEO, there may be times when a dual Chair/CEO role is an effective governance structure at a company. Therefore, we will vote on the separation of Board Chair and CEO on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the company. Factors that we will consider include the existence of a Lead Independent Director, as well as any past or ongoing governance concerns.

8. Director Tenure

We view director tenure as just one data point when considering the overall composition of the board. While we will not withhold votes from a director based on tenure alone, we will consider the length of a director’s board service on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. Characteristics such as average tenure across the board and overall board independence may affect our support for directors with lengthy tenures. We will consider the qualifications of the directors on the overall board and the effectiveness of the board’s existing governance structures as well.

9. Proxy Access

Proxy access is the ability of certain shareholders, or groups of shareholders, to have their own director nominee(s) included in the company’s proxy materials. Historically, Boards held the exclusive authority to decide whether shareholder proposals seeking to implement proxy access could be included in the company’s proxy solicitation materials. In 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission amended its rules to allow these proposals to be included.

 

Adopted: June 2003

Amended: June 2021

  B-477   


LOGO    diamond-hill.com

 

When voting on a proxy access proposal, we consider multiple aspects, including the binding nature of the proposal, ownership and duration thresholds, as well as the company’s existing governance structures and historical level of responsiveness to shareholder concerns.

10. Proxy Contests

A proxy contest is a campaign to solicit shareholder votes in opposition to management at an annual or special meeting. Generally speaking, the objective of the shareholder(s) initiating the proxy contest is to elect specific directors to the board or to approve a specific corporate action. In a proxy contest, incumbent directors are those directors that currently sit on the board. Dissident nominees are those shareholders who oppose a firm’s management and/or policies and often seek their own spot on the board.

Due to the unique nature of each proxy contest, we review these on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, with the overarching goal of maximizing shareholder value. Among other factors, we will consider the strategic plans of both the incumbents and dissidents and the governance profile of the company.

11. Board Diversity

At Diamond Hill, we believe strong, effective corporate boards are comprised of directors with a diversity of skills, perspectives and experience. We believe that cognitive diversity, which we define as having a variety of viewpoints, perspectives, and ways of processing information, is beneficial for organizational decision making, problem solving, and remaining competitive over time. Additionally, we believe that a board’s composition should, at a minimum, reflect the diversity of its stakeholders, and boards that include the perspectives of historically under-represented groups including women and minorities can contribute to long-term sustainable value creation and reduce risk over time.

Therefore, we generally oppose the elections and re-elections of Nominating/ Governance Committee members if we can find no evidence of board diversity at a company. We will also generally vote in favor of proposals that encourage the adoption of a diverse director search policy.

B. Voting/Shareholder Rights

Shareholder rights are an important tool used to hold boards of directors accountable and ensure that they are acting in the best interest of shareholders. While we do not intend to be shareholder activists, there may be times when an expansion of shareholder rights is needed in order to improve alignment of interests and increase the long-term value of a company. Therefore, we view proposals related to shareholder rights, including proposals for the right to call special meetings and the right to act by written consent, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, taking into consideration each company’s ownership concentration and the governance characteristics of the board of directors.

1. Supermajority Votes

Most state corporation laws require that mergers, acquisitions, and amendments to the corporate bylaws or charter be approved by a simple majority of the outstanding shares. A company may, however, set a higher requirement for certain corporate actions. We believe a simple majority should be enough to approve mergers and other business combinations, amend corporate governance provisions, and enforce other issues relevant to all shareholders. Requiring a supermajority vote entrenches management and weakens the governance ability of shareholders. We will vote AGAINST management proposals to require a supermajority vote to enact these changes. In addition, we will vote FOR shareholder proposals seeking to lower supermajority vote requirements.

 

Adopted: June 2003

Amended: June 2021

  B-478   


LOGO    diamond-hill.com

 

2. Shareholder Rights Plans (Poison Pills)

Shareholder rights plans are corporate-sponsored financial devices designed with provisions that, when triggered by a hostile takeover bid, generally result in either: (1) dilution of the acquirer’s equity holdings in the target company; (2) dilution of the acquirer’s voting rights in the target company; or (3) dilution of the acquirer’s equity interest in the post-merger company. This is typically accomplished by distributing share rights to existing shareholders that allow the purchase of stock at a fixed price should a takeover attempt occur.

Proponents of shareholder rights plans argue that they benefit shareholders by forcing potential acquirers to negotiate with the target company’s Board, thus protecting shareholders from unfair coercive offers and often leading to higher premiums in the event of a purchase. Obviously, this argument relies on the assumption of director independence and integrity. Opponents claim that these plans merely lead to the entrenchment of management and discourage legitimate tender offers by making them prohibitively expensive.

We will evaluate these proposals on a case-by-case basis. However, we generally will vote AGAINST proposals seeking to ratify a poison pill in which the expiration of the plan (sunset provision) is unusually long, the plan does not allow for the poison pill to be rescinded in the face of a bona fide offer, or the existing management has a history of not allowing shareholders to consider legitimate offers. Similarly, we generally will vote FOR the rescission of a poison pill where these conditions exist.

We will vote FOR proposals requiring shareholder rights plans be submitted to shareholder vote.

II. Compensation Plans

Management is an immensely important factor in the performance of a corporation. Management can either create or destroy shareholder value depending on the success it has both operating the business and allocating capital. Well-designed compensation plans can prove essential in setting the right incentives to enhance the probability that both operations and capital allocation are conducted in a rational manner. Ill-designed compensation plans work to the detriment of shareholders in several ways. For instance, there may be outsized compensation for mediocre (or worse) performance, directly reducing the resources available to the company, or misguided incentives could cloud business judgment. Given the variations in compensation plans, most of these proposals must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

A. Non-Employee Directors

As directors take a more active role in corporate governance, compensation is becoming more performance based. In general, stock-based compensation will better tie the interests of directors and shareholders than cash-based compensation. The goal is to have directors own enough stock (directly or in the form of a stock derivative) that when faced with a situation in which the interests of shareholders and management differ, rational directors will have incentive to act on behalf of shareholders. However, if the stock compensation or ownership is excessive (especially if management is viewed as the source for this largesse), the plan may not be beneficial.

We will vote FOR proposals to eliminate retirement plans and AGAINST proposals to maintain or expand retirement packages for non-employee directors.

 

Adopted: June 2003

Amended: June 2021

  B-479   


LOGO    diamond-hill.com

 

We will vote FOR proposals requiring compensation of non-employee directors to be paid at least half in company stock. Likewise, we may vote against or withhold votes from directors who sit on the Compensation Committee at companies who do not require non-employee directors to be paid at least half in company stock.

B. Stock Incentive Plans

Stock compensation programs can reward the creation of shareholder value through high payout sensitivity to increases in shareholder value. Of all the recurring issues presented for shareholder approval, these plans typically require the most thorough examination for several reasons. First, their economic significance is large. Second, the prevalence of these plans has grown and is likely to persist in the future. Third, there are many variations in these plans. As a result, we must consider any such plan on a case-by-case basis. However, some general comments are in order.

We recognize that options, stock appreciation rights, and other equity-based grants (whether the grants are made to directors, executive management, employees, or other parties) are a form of compensation. As such, there is a cost to their issuance and the issue boils down to a cost-benefit analysis. If the costs are excessive, then the benefit will be overwhelmed. Factors that are considered in determining whether the costs are too great (in other words, that shareholders are overpaying for the services of management and employees) include: the number of shares involved, the exercise price, the award term, the vesting parameters, and any performance criteria. Additionally, objective measures of company performance (which do not include short-term share price performance) will be factored into what we consider an acceptable amount of dilution. We will also consider past grants in our analysis, as well as the level of the executives’ or directors’ cash compensation.

We will look particularly closely at companies that have repriced options. Repricing stock options may reward poor performance and lessen the incentive such options are supposed to provide. We will vote AGAINST any plan that permits the practice of option repricing.

C. Say-on-Pay

The Securities and Exchange Commission adopted rules on Jan. 25, 2011 which implement requirements in Section 951 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The rules concern three separate non-binding shareholder votes on executive compensation:

 

  1.

Say-on-Pay Votes. Public companies are required to provide their shareholders with an advisory vote on the compensation of the most highly compensated executives. Say-on-pay votes must be held at least once every three years. As stated above, support for or against executive compensation will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

 

  2.

Frequency of Votes. Companies are required to provide their shareholders with an advisory vote on how frequently they would like to be presented with say-on-pay votes: everyone, two, or three years. We generally believe a TRIENNIAL vote is appropriate, due to the non-binding, advisory nature of the vote. More frequent votes could reduce the Board’s strategic focus on the business and a three-year time horizon allows the Board to make well-informed decisions regarding executive compensation, evaluate the effectiveness of executive compensation, and increase time spent focusing on long-term shareholder value creation. However, in cases where we have concerns about the alignment of pay and performance, we might consider supporting an annual say-on-pay vote. Likewise, in situations where compensation and performance appear to be

 

Adopted: June 2003

Amended: June 2021

  B-480   


LOGO    diamond-hill.com

 

  misaligned, or we have general concerns about the compensation structures in place to such an extent that we have voted against the advisory say-on-pay vote itself, we may also vote against or withhold votes from directors who sit on the Compensation Committee.

 

  3.

Golden Parachute Disclosures and Votes. These companies are also required to disclose compensation arrangements and understandings with highly compensated executive officers in connection with an acquisition or merger. In certain circumstances, these companies also are required to conduct a shareholder vote to approve the golden parachute compensation arrangements. We have a bias against golden parachutes, but since each merger or acquisition presents unique facts and circumstances, we will determine our votes on golden parachutes on a CASE-BY CASE basis.

D. Claw back of Incentive Compensation

From time to time, we may consider proposals for policies regarding the recoupment of incentive compensation from senior executives whose compensation was based on faulty financial reporting or fraudulent business practices. This type of behavior not only causes direct financial harm to shareholders, but it also creates reputational risk to the company that may impact its value over time. We view claw back proposals on a CASE-BY-CASE basis, taking into consideration whether or not the company already has robust policies in place that would address our concerns.

III. Capital Structure, Classes of Stock, and Recapitalizations

A. Common Stock Authorization

Corporations increase the supply of common stock for a variety of ordinary business reasons including: to raise new capital to invest in a project, to make an acquisition for stock, to fund a stock compensation program, or to implement a stock split or stock dividend. When proposing an increase in share authorization, corporations typically request an amount that provides a cushion for unexpected financing needs or opportunities. However, unusually large share authorizations create the potential for abuse. An example would be the targeted placement of a large number of common shares to a friendly party in order to deter a legitimate tender offer. Thus, we generally prefer that companies request shareholder approval for all requests for share authorizations that extend beyond what is currently needed and indicate the specific purpose for which the shares are intended. Generally, we will vote AGAINST any proposal seeking to increase the total number of authorized shares to more than 120% of the current outstanding and reserved but unissued shares, unless there is a specific purpose for the shares with which we agree.

For example, suppose a company has a total share authorization of 100 million. Of the 100 million, 85 million are issued and outstanding and an additional 5 million are reserved but unissued. We would vote against any proposal seeking to increase the share authorization by more than 8 million shares (Total allowable authorization: 1.2 X 90 =108 million; Current authorization: 100 million).

When voting non-U.S. proxies, we may take local standards into consideration to determine the appropriate amount of authorized shares.

B. Unequal Voting Rights (Dual Class Exchange Offers/ Dual Class Recapitalizations)

Proposals to issue a class of stock with inferior or even no voting rights are sometimes made. Frequently, this class is given a preferential dividend to coax holders to cede voting power. In general, we will vote AGAINST proposals to authorize or issue voting shares without full voting rights on the grounds that it could entrench management.

 

Adopted: June 2003

Amended: June 2021

  B-481   


LOGO    diamond-hill.com

 

However, multi-class structures may be beneficial to companies for limited periods of time, and in such cases we will evaluate proposals to ensure they include appropriate sunset provisions or require shareholder reauthorization after a predetermined period of time.

IV. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Issues

Environment, social and governance (ESG) issues are often difficult to analyze in terms of their effect on shareholder value. Nonetheless, we expect the companies in which we invest to demonstrate a commitment to a long-term perspective, sustainable competitive advantages, and stakeholder-focused management teams that can add value to the company without impeding the ability of future generations to meet their economic, social, and environmental needs.

Shareholder proposals relating to a company’s activities and policies about certain ESG issues have become quite prevalent at annual meetings. Due to the complicated nature of each proposal, we consider these issues on a case-by-case basis. We will vote FOR any proposal that seeks to have a corporation change its activities or policies when we believe the failure to do so will result in economic harm to the company. Similarly, we will vote AGAINST any proposal that requests a change we believe will result in economic harm. We may ABSTAIN from voting on certain issues where we do not believe we can determine the effect of the proposal.

When voting, we will consider whether or not a shareholder proposal addressing a material ESG issue will promote long-term shareholder value in the context of the company’s existing business practices. We will generally support proposals requesting increased transparency or disclosure of workplace diversity, gender pay equity, lobbying and political spending, and climate change and sustainability efforts in instances where a company is not already disclosing sufficient information. We will not support requests for increased disclosure when such information would reveal sensitive or proprietary information that could place the company at a competitive disadvantage, or if increased disclosure is administratively impractical.

V. Voting Non-U.S. Securities

Voting proxies of non-U.S. issuers can be much different than voting proxies of U.S.-domiciled companies. It can be more expensive (for instance, we could need to hire a translator for the proxy materials or, in some cases votes can only be cast in person so there would be travel costs to attend the meeting) and in some jurisdictions the shares to be voted must be sequestered and cannot be sold until the votes are cast or even until the meeting has been held. In addition, the SEC has acknowledged that in some cases it can be in an investor’s best interests not to vote a proxy, for instance, when the costs of voting outweigh the potential benefits of voting. Therefore, proxy voting for non-U.S. issuers will be evaluated and voted, or not voted, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

 

Adopted: June 2003

Amended: June 2021

  B-482   


DRIEHAUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC

SUMMARY OF PROXY VOTING POLICY

FEBRUARY 2023

For those clients for whom Driehaus Capital Management LLC (“DCM”) has undertaken to vote proxies, DCM retains the final authority and responsibility for such voting. On behalf of our valued clients, DCM (i) provides the client with this written summary of its proxy voting policy and the complete proxy voting policy upon request; (ii) discloses to the client how to obtain voting information; (iii) applies the proxy voting policy consistently; (iv) documents the reasons for voting; (v) maintains records of voting activities for clients and regulating authorities; (vi) generally aims to vote securities based on a pre-determined voting policy, based on the recommendations of an independent third-party to avoid conflicts of interest with DCM; and (vii)

follows a formal process in the event of a deviation from the third-party’s voting recommendations.

In order to facilitate this proxy voting process, DCM has retained Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”) to provide in-depth proxy research, vote recommendations and execution, and the record keeping necessary for the appropriate management of a client account. ISS is an investment adviser that specializes in providing a variety of fiduciary-level services related to proxy voting. DCM has ascertained that ISS has the capacity and competency to analyze proxy issues, make vote recommendations in an impartial manner and in the best interests of DCM’s clients. The default choice used by DCM for ISS recommendations is the ISS Sustainability U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines for its domestic strategies and the International Sustainability Proxy Voting Guidelines for its international strategies. Clients may choose another policy, such as the ISS U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines, as appropriate. In addition to analyses, ISS delivers to DCM voting reports that reflect voting activities for DCM’s clients, enabling the clients to monitor voting activities performed by DCM.

DCM’s proxy voting policy refers to the general voting guidelines that ISS follows on various types of issues when there are no company-specific reasons for voting to the contrary. In making the proxy voting decision, there are two overriding considerations: first, the economic impact of the proposal; and second, the best interest impact of a proposal if it were to pass or not pass, as the case may be. ISS performs company-by-company analysis, which means that all votes are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and no issues are considered routine. Each issue is considered in the context of the company under review. DCM generally follows ISS’s recommendations and typically does not use its discretion in the proxy voting decision. For this reason, client proxies are voted in the clients’ best interests, in accordance with a predetermined policy based upon recommendations of an independent third party, and are not affected by any potential or actual conflict of interest of DCM. If a situation arises in which a DCM portfolio manager wishes to deviate from an ISS recommendation on a proxy voting decision, that portfolio manager must consult with DCM’s general counsel or chief compliance officer in writing and provide: (i) the name of the issuer; (ii) a description of the proposal; (iii) ISS’s voting recommendation; (iv) the reason the portfolio manager believes they are acting in the best interest of clients by voting against the ISS recommendation; and (v) identification of any actual or potential conflicts of interest which do or could exist with respect to the proposal.

DCM may decline to vote proxies due to certain market considerations, including “share blocking.” DCM generally prefers not to restrict the sale of any shares held within client accounts for proxy voting purposes and it is therefore standard practice for DCM not to execute proxies for holdings located in countries that engage in share blocking.

In addition, DCM annually, and more frequently if necessary, reviews ISS’s policies and procedures regarding any potential conflicts of interest when making vote recommendations to determine if ISS is acting impartially.

 

B-483


Clients who are interested in obtaining information from DCM on how their securities were voted may contact the Relationship Management Department at 1-800-688-8819. In addition, the Relationship Management Department mails to each client an annual record of all proxies voted on behalf of that client. Clients may also contact the Relationship Management Department if they wish to receive a copy of DCM’s complete proxy voting policy.

 

B-484


Proxy Voting Guidelines

Eagle Asset Management, Inc.

March 2023

 

LOGO

 

B-485


Table of Contents

PART I: POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Guiding Principles

The Proxy Voting Process Implementation

Conflicts of Interest

PART II: EAM PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES SUMMARY

U.S. Proxy Items

Non-U.S. Proxy Items

 

2023 PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

B-486


PART I: POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Eagle Asset Management, Inc.

(Collectively “EAM”)

POLICY AND PROCEDURES ON PROXY VOTING

FOR INVESTMENT ADVISORY CLIENTS

Guiding Principles

Proxy voting and the analysis of corporate governance issues in general are important elements of the portfolio management services we provide to our advisory clients who have authorized us to address these matters on their behalf. Our guiding principles in performing proxy voting are to make decisions that favor proposals, which in EAM’s view, maximize a company’s shareholder value and are not influenced by conflicts of interest. These principles reflect EAM’s belief that sound corporate governance will create a framework within which a company can be managed in the interests of its shareholders.

EAM has adopted the policies and procedures set out below regarding the voting of proxies (the “Policy”). EAM periodically reviews this Policy, in conjunction with the parent company Raymond James Investment Management Stewardship committee, to ensure it continues to be consistent with our guiding principles.

The Proxy Voting Process Public Equity

Investments

To implement these guiding principles for investments in publicly traded equities for which we have voting power on any record date, we follow customized proxy voting guidelines that have been developed by EAM portfolio management (the “EAM Guidelines”). The EAM Guidelines embody the positions and factors EAM considers important in casting proxy votes. They address a wide variety of individual topics, including, among other matters, shareholder voting rights, anti-takeover defenses, board structures, the election of directors, executive and director compensation, reorganizations, mergers, issues of corporate social responsibility and various shareholder proposals. Recognizing the complexity and fact-specific nature of many corporate governance issues, the EAM Guidelines identify factors we consider in determining how the vote should be cast. A summary of the EAM Guidelines is enclosed as Part II.

The principles and positions reflected in this Policy are designed to guide us in voting proxies, and not necessarily in making investment decisions. EAM portfolio management teams (each a “Portfolio Management Team”) base their determinations of whether to invest in a particular company on a variety of factors, and while corporate governance may be one such factor, it may not be the primary consideration.

Implementation

EAM has retained a third-party proxy voting service (the “Proxy Service”) to assist in the implementation of certain proxy voting-related functions, including, without limitation, operational, recordkeeping and reporting services. The Proxy Service transmits votes for each proxy based upon the application of the EAM Guidelines to the particular proxy issues. EAM retains the responsibility for proxy voting decisions. All proxy votes are done so on a best efforts basis.

Clients of EAM may retain their voting rights; delegate the responsibility to EAM or to a third party of their choosing. In certain instances, EAM may still be required to transmit vote proxies for those custodians who do not have a relationship with the Proxy Service.

 

B-487


EAM’s Portfolio Management Teams generally cast proxy votes consistently with the EAM Guidelines. On certain proxy votes, each Portfolio Management Team may diverge from the EAM Guidelines based on new information.

but bearing in mind that the override decisions are not influenced by any conflict of interest. Because of the override process, different Portfolio Management Teams may vote differently for particular votes for the same company.

From time to time, EAM’s ability to vote proxies may be affected by regulatory requirements and compliance, legal or logistical considerations. As a result, EAM, from time to time, may determine that it is not practicable or desirable to vote proxies.

Conflicts of Interest

In instances when a Portfolio Management Team is interested in voting in a manner that diverges from the initial Recommendation based on the EAM Guidelines, EAM has implemented processes designed to prevent conflicts of interest from influencing its proxy voting decisions. These processes include information barriers, the use of the EAM Guidelines and the override review described above.

 

2023 PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

B-488


PART II: EAM PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the material EAM Proxy Voting Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), which form the substantive basis of EAM’s Policy and Procedures on Proxy Voting for Investment Advisory Clients (the “Policy”). As described in the main body of the Policy, one or more EAM Portfolio Management Teams may diverge from the Guidelines and a related Recommendation on any particular proxy vote or in connection with any individual investment decision in accordance with the Policy.

U.S. Proxy Items

The EAM proxy voting guidelines will be based on the ISS Benchmark Policy (US), with the following customization:

 

   

All shareholder proposals will be voted Case-By-Case (“REFER”).

 

   

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (“Say on Pay”) will go to Case-By-Case (“REFER”) in the event ISS has an “AGAINST” recommendation.

 

   

Restructuring proposals, including M&A activity, bankruptcy, etc. will be voted Case-By-Case (“REFER”).

 

   

Special Meetings will be voted Case-By-Case (“REFER”).

 

   

Vote(s) for director(s) will go to Case-By-Case (“REFER”) in the event ISS recommends WITHHOLD votes.

All Case-By-Case (“REFER”) votes would go to chair of Stewardship Committee who would then convene a meeting with portfolio managers involved for discussion and vote.

Unified EAM guidelines as well as any updates to the ISS Benchmark Policy (US) will be reviewed by the Stewardship Committee at least annually.

Non-U.S Proxy Items

For international holdings, ISS country-specific benchmark guidelines will be used.

 

2023 PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

B-489


LOGO

Proxy Voting Guidelines

February 2023

Table of Contents

 

I.    Introduction

     B-491  

II.   Board of Directors and Corporate Governance

     B-491  

A. Election of Directors

     B-491  

B. Contested Director Elections

     B-492  

C. Cumulative Voting Rights

     B-492  

D. Classified Boards

     B-492  

E.  Independent Chairperson

     B-492  

F.  Majority Voting in Director Elections

     B-493  

G. Proxy Access

     B-493  

H. Indemnification of Directors and Officers

     B-493  

III. Compensation

     B-493  

A. Equity Compensation Plans

     B-493  

B. Employee Stock Purchase Plans

     B-494  

IV.  Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) and Frequency of Say on Pay Vote

     B-494  

A. Compensation Committee

     B-495  

B. Executive Severance Agreements

     B-495  

V.  Environmental and Social Issues

     B-495  

VI.  Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights Plans

     B-496  

A. Shareholders Rights Plans (“poison pills”)

     B-496  

B. Shareholder Ability to Call a Special Meeting

     B-497  

C. Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

     B-497  

D. Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement

     B-497  

VII.  Anti-Takeover Provisions and Director Elections

     B-497  

VIII.  Capital Structure and Incorporation

     B-497  

A. Increases in Common Stock

     B-498  

B. Multi-Class Share Structures

     B-498  

C. Incorporation or Reincorporation in another State or Country

     B-498  

IX.  Shares of Fidelity Funds or other non-Fidelity Funds

     B-498  

X.  Foreign Markets

     B-498  

XI.  Securities on Loan

     B-499  

XII.  Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

     B-499  

XIII.  Conclusion

     B-499  

 

B-490


I.

Introduction

These guidelines are intended to help Fidelity’s customers and the companies in which Fidelity invests understand how Fidelity votes proxies to further the values that have sustained Fidelity for over 75 years. Our core principles sit at the heart of our voting philosophy; putting our customers’ and fund shareholders’ long-term interests first and investing in companies that share our approach to creating value over the long-term guides everything we do. Fidelity generally adheres to these guidelines in voting proxies and our Stewardship Principles serve as the foundation for these guidelines. Our evaluation of proxies reflects information from many sources, including management or shareholders of a company presenting a proposal and proxy voting advisory firms. Fidelity maintains the flexibility to vote individual proxies based on our assessment of each situation.

In evaluating proxies, Fidelity considers factors that are financially material to individual companies and investing funds’ investment objectives and strategies in support of maximizing long-term shareholder value. This includes considering the company’s approach to financial and operational, human, and natural capital and the impact of that approach on the potential future value of the business.

Fidelity will vote on proposals not specifically addressed by these guidelines based on an evaluation of a proposal’s likelihood to enhance the long-term economic returns or profitability of the company or to maximize long-term shareholder value. Fidelity will not be influenced by business relationships or outside perspectives that may conflict with the interests of the funds and their shareholders.

 

II.

Board of Directors and Corporate Governance

Directors of public companies play a critical role in ensuring that a company and its management team serve the interests of its shareholders. Fidelity believes that through proxy voting, it can help ensure accountability of management teams and boards of directors, align management and shareholder interests, and monitor and assess the degree of transparency and disclosure with respect to executive compensation and board actions affecting shareholders’ rights. The following general guidelines are intended to reflect these proxy voting principles.

 

  A.

Election of Directors

Fidelity will generally support director nominees in elections where all directors are unopposed (uncontested elections), except where board composition raises concerns, and/or where a director clearly appears to have failed to exercise reasonable judgment or otherwise failed to sufficiently protect the interests of shareholders.

Fidelity will evaluate board composition and generally will oppose the election of certain or all directors if, by way of example:

 

  1.

Inside or affiliated directors serve on boards that are not composed of a majority of independent directors.

 

  2.

There are no women on the board or if a board of ten or more members has fewer than two women directors.

 

  3.

There are no racially or ethnically diverse directors.

 

  4.

The director is a public company CEO who sits on more than two unaffiliated public company boards.

 

  5.

The director, other than a CEO, sits on more than five unaffiliated public company boards.

 

B-491


Fidelity will evaluate board actions and generally will oppose the election of certain or all directors if, by way of example:

 

  1.

The director attended fewer than 75% of the total number of meetings of the board and its committees on which the director served during the company’s prior fiscal year, absent extenuating circumstances.

 

  2.

The company made a commitment to modify a proposal or practice to conform to these guidelines, and failed to act on that commitment.

 

  3.

For reasons described below under the sections entitled Compensation and Anti-Takeover Provisions and Director Elections.

 

  B.

Contested Director Elections

On occasion, directors are forced to compete for election against outside director nominees (contested elections). Fidelity believes that strong management creates long-term shareholder value. As a result, Fidelity generally will vote in support of management of companies in which the funds’ assets are invested. Fidelity will vote its proxy on a case-by-case basis in a contested election, taking into consideration a number of factors, amongst others:

 

  1.

Management’s track record and strategic plan for enhancing shareholder value;

 

  2.

The long-term performance of the company compared to its industry peers; and

 

  3.

The qualifications of the shareholder’s and management’s nominees.

Fidelity will vote for the outcome it believes has the best prospects for maximizing shareholder value over the long-term.

 

  C.

Cumulative Voting Rights

Under cumulative voting, each shareholder may exercise the number of votes equal to the number of shares owned multiplied by the number of directors up for election. Shareholders may cast all of their votes for a single nominee (or multiple nominees in varying amounts). With regular (non-cumulative) voting, by contrast, shareholders cannot allocate more than one vote per share to any one director nominee. Fidelity believes that cumulative voting can be detrimental to the overall strength of a board. Generally, therefore, Fidelity will oppose the introduction of, and support the elimination of, cumulative voting rights.

 

  D.

Classified Boards

A classified board is one that elects only a percentage of its members each year (usually one-third of directors are elected to serve a three-year term). This means that at each annual meeting only a subset of directors is up for re-election.

Fidelity believes that, in general, classified boards are not as accountable to shareholders as declassified boards. For this and other reasons, Fidelity generally will oppose a board’s adoption of a classified board structure and support declassification of existing boards.

 

  E.

Independent Chairperson

In general, Fidelity believes that boards should have a process and criteria for selecting the board chair, and will oppose shareholder proposals calling for, or recommending the appointment of, a non-executive or independent chairperson. If, however, based on particular facts and circumstances, Fidelity believes that appointment of a non-executive or independent chairperson appears likely to

 

B-492


further the interests of shareholders and promote effective oversight of management by the board of directors, Fidelity will consider voting to support a proposal for an independent chairperson under such circumstances.

 

  F.

Majority Voting in Director Elections

In general, Fidelity supports proposals calling for directors to be elected by a majority of votes cast if the proposal permits election by a plurality in the case of contested elections (where, for example, there are more nominees than board seats). Fidelity may oppose a majority voting shareholder proposal where a company’s board has adopted a policy requiring the resignation of an incumbent director who fails to receive the support of a majority of the votes cast in an uncontested election.

 

  G.

Proxy Access

Proxy access proposals generally require a company to amend its by-laws to allow a qualifying shareholder or group of shareholders to nominate directors on a company’s proxy ballot. Fidelity believes that certain safeguards as to ownership threshold and duration of ownership are important to assure that proxy access is not misused by those without a significant economic interest in the company or those driven by short term goals. Fidelity will evaluate proxy access proposals on a case-by-case basis, but generally will support proposals that include ownership of at least 3% (5% in the case of small-cap companies) of the company’s shares outstanding for at least three years; limit the number of directors that eligible shareholders may nominate to 20% of the board; and limit to 20 the number of shareholders that may form a nominating group.

 

  H.

Indemnification of Directors and Officers

In many instances there are sound reasons to indemnify officers and directors, so that they may perform their duties without the distraction of unwarranted litigation or other legal process. Fidelity generally supports charter and by-law amendments expanding the indemnification of officers or directors, or limiting their liability for breaches of care unless Fidelity is dissatisfied with their performance or the proposal is accompanied by anti-takeover provisions (see Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights Plans below).

 

III.

Compensation

Incentive compensation plans can be complicated and many factors are considered when evaluating such plans. Fidelity evaluates such plans based on protecting shareholder interests and our historical knowledge of the company and its management.

 

  A.

Equity Compensation Plans

Fidelity encourages the use of reasonably designed equity compensation plans that align the interest of management with those of shareholders by providing officers and employees with incentives to increase long-term shareholder value. Fidelity considers whether such plans are too dilutive to existing shareholders because dilution reduces the voting power or economic interest of existing shareholders as a result of an increase in shares available for distribution to employees in lieu of cash compensation. Fidelity will generally oppose equity compensation plans or amendments to authorize additional shares under such plans if:

 

  1.

The company grants stock options and equity awards in a given year at a rate higher than a benchmark rate (“ burn rate”) considered appropriate by Fidelity and there were no circumstances specific to the company or the compensation plans that leads Fidelity to conclude that the rate of awards is otherwise acceptable.

 

B-493


  2.

The plan includes an evergreen provision, which is a feature that provides for an automatic increase in the shares available for grant under an equity compensation plan on a regular basis.

 

  3.

The plan provides for the acceleration of vesting of equity compensation even though an actual change in control may not occur.

As to stock option plans, considerations include the following:

 

  1.

Pricing: We believe that options should be priced at 100% of fair market value on the date they are granted. We generally oppose options priced at a discount to the market, although the price may be as low as 85% of fair market value if the discount is expressly granted in lieu of salary or cash bonus.

 

  2.

Re-pricing: An “out-of-the-money” (or underwater) option has an exercise price that is higher than the current price of the stock. We generally oppose the re-pricing of underwater options because it is not consistent with a policy of offering options as a form of long-term compensation. Fidelity also generally opposes a stock option plan if the board or compensation committee has re-priced options outstanding in the past two years without shareholder approval.

Fidelity generally will support a management proposal to exchange, re-price or tender for cash, outstanding options if the proposed exchange, re-pricing, or tender offer is consistent with the interests of shareholders, taking into account a variety of factors such as:

 

  1.

Whether the proposal excludes senior management and directors;

 

  2.

Whether the exchange or re-pricing proposal is value neutral to shareholders based upon an acceptable pricing model;

 

  3.

The company’s relative performance compared to other companies within the relevant industry or industries;

 

  4.

Economic and other conditions affecting the relevant industry or industries in which the company competes; and

 

  5.

Any other facts or circumstances relevant to determining whether an exchange or re-pricing proposal is consistent with the interests of shareholders.

 

  B.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

These plans are designed to allow employees to purchase company stock at a discounted price and receive favorable tax treatment when the stock is sold. Fidelity generally will support employee stock purchase plans if the minimum stock purchase price is equal to or greater than 85% (or at least 75% in the case of non-U.S. companies where a lower minimum stock purchase price is equal to the prevailing “best practices” in that market) of the stock’s fair market value and the plan constitutes a reasonable effort to encourage broad based participation in the company’s stock.

 

IV.

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) and Frequency of Say on Pay Vote

Current law requires companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on the compensation for named executive officers, as well as the frequency of such votes. Fidelity generally will support proposals to ratify executive compensation unless the compensation appears misaligned with shareholder interests or is otherwise problematic, taking into account:

 

   

The actions taken by the board or compensation committee in the previous year, including whether the company re-priced or exchanged outstanding stock options without shareholder approval; adopted or extended a golden parachute without shareholder approval; or adequately addressed concerns communicated by Fidelity in the process of discussing executive compensation;

 

B-494


   

The alignment of executive compensation and company performance relative to peers; and

 

   

The structure of the compensation program, including factors such as whether incentive plan metrics are appropriate, rigorous and transparent; whether the long-term element of the compensation program is evaluated over at least a three-year period; the sensitivity of pay to below median performance; the amount and nature of non-performance-based compensation; the justification and rationale behind paying discretionary bonuses; the use of stock ownership guidelines and amount of executive stock ownership; and how well elements of compensation are disclosed.

When presented with a frequency of Say on Pay vote, Fidelity generally will support holding an annual advisory vote on Say on Pay.

 

  A.

Compensation Committee

Directors serving on the compensation committee of the Board have a special responsibility to ensure that management is appropriately compensated and that compensation, among other things, fairly reflects the performance of the company. Fidelity believes that compensation should align with company performance as measured by key business metrics. Compensation policies should align the interests of executives with those of shareholders. Further, the compensation program should be disclosed in a transparent and timely manner.

Fidelity will oppose the election of directors on the compensation committee if:

 

  1.

The compensation appears misaligned with shareholder interests or is otherwise problematic and results in concerns with:

 

  a)

The alignment of executive compensation and company performance relative to peers; and

 

  b)

The structure of the compensation program, including factors outlined above under the section entitled Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) and Frequency of Say on Pay Vote.

 

  2.

The company has not adequately addressed concerns communicated by Fidelity in the process of discussing executive compensation.

 

  3.

Within the last year, and without shareholder approval, a company’s board of directors or compensation committee has either:

 

  a)

Re-priced outstanding options, exchanged outstanding options for equity, or tendered cash for outstanding options; or

 

  b)

Adopted or extended a golden parachute.

 

  B.

Executive Severance Agreements

Executive severance compensation and benefit arrangements resulting from a termination following a change in control are known as “golden parachutes.” Fidelity generally will oppose proposals to ratify golden parachutes where the arrangement includes an excise tax gross-up provision; single trigger for cash incentives; or may result in a lump sum payment of cash and acceleration of equity that may total more than three times annual compensation (salary and bonus) in the event of a termination following a change in control.

 

V.

Environmental and Social Issues

Grounded in our Stewardship Principles, these guidelines outline our views on corporate governance. As part of our efforts to maximize long-term shareholder value, we incorporate consideration of human and

 

B-495


natural capital issues into our evaluation of a company, particularly if we believe an issue is material to that company and the investing fund’s investment objective and strategies.

Fidelity generally considers management’s recommendation and current practice when voting on shareholder proposals concerning human and natural capital issues because it generally believes that management and the board are in the best position to determine how to address these matters. Fidelity, however, also believes that transparency is critical to sound corporate governance. Fidelity evaluates shareholder proposals concerning natural and human capital topics. To engage and vote more effectively on the growing number of submitted proposals on these topics, we developed a four-point decision-making framework. In general, Fidelity will more likely support proposals that:

 

   

Address a topic that our research has identified as financially material;

 

   

Provide disclosure of new or additional information to investors, improving transparency;

 

   

Provide value to the business or investors by improving the landscape of investment-decision relevant information or contributing to our understanding of a company’s processes and governance of the topic in question; and

 

   

Are realistic or practical for the company to comply with.

 

VI.

Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights Plans

Fidelity generally will oppose a proposal to adopt an anti-takeover provision. Anti-takeover provisions include:

 

   

classified boards;

 

   

“blank check” preferred stock (whose terms and conditions may be expressly determined by the company’s board, for example, with differential voting rights);

 

   

golden parachutes;

 

   

supermajority provisions (that require a large majority (generally between 67- 90%) of shareholders to approve corporate changes as compared to a majority provision that simply requires more than 50% of shareholders to approve those changes);

 

   

poison pills;

 

   

restricting the right to call special meetings;

 

   

provisions restricting the right of shareholders to set board size; and

 

   

any other provision that eliminates or limits shareholder rights.

 

  A.

Shareholders Rights Plans (“poison pills”)

Poison pills allow shareholders opposed to a takeover offer to purchase stock at discounted prices under certain circumstances and effectively give boards veto power over any takeover offer. While there are advantages and disadvantages to poison pills, they can be detrimental to the creation of shareholder value and can help entrench management by deterring acquisition offers not favored by the board, but that may, in fact, be beneficial to shareholders.

Fidelity generally will support a proposal to adopt or extend a poison pill if the proposal:

 

  1.

Includes a condition in the charter or plan that specifies an expiration date (sunset provision) of no greater than five years;

 

  2.

Is integral to a business strategy that is expected to result in greater value for the shareholders;

 

B-496


  3.

Requires shareholder approval to be reinstated upon expiration or if amended;

 

  4.

Contains a mechanism to allow shareholders to consider a bona fide takeover offer for all outstanding shares without triggering the poison pill; and

 

  5.

Allows the Fidelity funds to hold an aggregate position of up to 20% of a company’s total voting securities, where permissible.

Fidelity generally also will support a proposal that is crafted only for the purpose of protecting a specific tax benefit if it also believes the proposal is likely to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.

 

  B.

Shareholder Ability to Call a Special Meeting

Fidelity generally will support shareholder proposals regarding shareholders’ right to call special meetings if the threshold required to call the special meeting is no less than 25% of the outstanding stock.

 

  C.

Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

Fidelity generally will support proposals regarding shareholders’ right to act by written consent if the proposals include appropriate mechanisms for implementation. This means that proposals must include record date requests from at least 25% of the outstanding stockholders and consents must be solicited from all shareholders.

 

  D.

Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement

Fidelity generally will support proposals regarding supermajority provisions if Fidelity believes that the provisions protect minority shareholder interests in companies where there is a substantial or dominant shareholder.

 

VII.

Anti-Takeover Provisions and Director Elections

Fidelity will oppose the election of all directors or directors on responsible committees if the board adopted or extended an anti-takeover provision without shareholder approval.

Fidelity will consider supporting the election of directors with respect to poison pills if:

 

   

All of the poison pill’s features outlined under the Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights section above are met when a poison pill is adopted or extended.

 

   

A board is willing to consider seeking shareholder ratification of, or adding the features outlined under the Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights Plans section above to, an existing poison pill. If, however, the company does not take appropriate action prior to the next annual shareholder meeting, Fidelity will oppose the election of all directors at that meeting.

 

   

It determines that the poison pill was narrowly tailored to protect a specific tax benefit, and subject to an evaluation of its likelihood to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.

 

VIII. 

Capital Structure and Incorporation

These guidelines are designed to protect shareholders’ value in the companies in which the Fidelity funds invest. To the extent a company’s management is committed and incentivized to maximize shareholder value, Fidelity generally votes in favor of management proposals; Fidelity may vote contrary to

 

B-497


management where a proposal is overly dilutive to shareholders and/or compromises shareholder value or other interests. The guidelines that follow are meant to protect shareholders in these respects.

 

  A.

Increases in Common Stock

Fidelity may support reasonable increases in authorized shares for a specific purpose (a stock split or re-capitalization, for example). Fidelity generally will oppose a provision to increase a company’s authorized common stock if such increase will result in a total number of authorized shares greater than three times the current number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares, including stock options.

In the case of real estate investment trusts (REITs), however, Fidelity will oppose a provision to increase the REIT’s authorized common stock if the increase will result in a total number of authorized shares greater than five times the current number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares.

 

  B.

Multi-Class Share Structures

Fidelity generally will support proposals to recapitalize multi-class share structures into structures that provide equal voting rights for all shareholders, and generally will oppose proposals to introduce or increase classes of stock with differential voting rights. However, Fidelity will evaluate all such proposals in the context of their likelihood to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.

 

  C.

Incorporation or Reincorporation in another State or Country

Fidelity generally will support management proposals calling for, or recommending that, a company reincorporate in another state or country if, on balance, the economic and corporate governance factors in the proposed jurisdiction appear reasonably likely to be better aligned with shareholder interests, taking into account the corporate laws of the current and proposed jurisdictions and any changes to the company’s current and proposed governing documents. Fidelity will consider supporting these shareholder proposals in limited cases if, based upon particular facts and circumstances, remaining incorporated in the current jurisdiction appears misaligned with shareholder interests.

 

IX.

Shares of Fidelity Funds or other non-Fidelity Funds

When a Fidelity fund invests in an underlying Fidelity fund with public shareholders or a non-Fidelity investment company or business development company, Fidelity will generally vote in the same proportion as all other voting shareholders of the underlying fund (this is known as “echo voting”). Fidelity may not vote if “echo voting” is not operationally practical or not permitted under applicable laws and regulations. For Fidelity fund investments in a Fidelity Series Fund, Fidelity generally will vote in a manner consistent with the recommendation of the Fidelity Series Fund’s Board of Trustees on all proposals, except where not permitted under applicable laws and regulations.

 

X.

Foreign Markets

Many Fidelity funds invest in voting securities issued by companies that are domiciled outside the United States and are not listed on a U.S. securities exchange. Corporate governance standards, legal or regulatory requirements and disclosure practices in foreign countries can differ from those in the United States. When voting proxies relating to non-U.S. securities, Fidelity generally will evaluate proposals under these guidelines and where applicable and feasible, take into consideration differing laws, regulations and practices in the relevant foreign market in determining how to vote shares.

 

B-498


In certain non-U.S. jurisdictions, shareholders voting shares of a company may be restricted from trading the shares for a period of time around the shareholder meeting date. Because these trading restrictions can hinder portfolio management and could result in a loss of liquidity for a fund, Fidelity generally will not vote proxies in circumstances where such restrictions apply. In addition, certain non-U.S. jurisdictions require voting shareholders to disclose current share ownership on a fund-by-fund basis. When such disclosure requirements apply, Fidelity generally will not vote proxies in order to safeguard fund holdings information.

 

XI.

Securities on Loan

Securities on loan as of a record date cannot be voted. In certain circumstances, Fidelity may recall a security on loan before record date (for example, in a particular contested director election or a noteworthy merger or acquisition). Generally, however, securities out on loan remain on loan and are not voted because, for example, the income a fund derives from the loan outweighs the benefit the fund receives from voting the security. In addition, Fidelity may not be able to recall and vote loaned securities if Fidelity is unaware of relevant information before record date, or is otherwise unable to timely recall securities on loan.

 

XII. 

Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

Voting of shares is conducted in a manner consistent with the best interests of the Fidelity funds. In other words, securities of a company generally will be voted in a manner consistent with these guidelines and without regard to any other Fidelity companies’ business relationships.

Fidelity takes its responsibility to vote shares in the best interests of the funds seriously and has implemented policies and procedures to address actual and potential conflicts of interest.

 

XIII. 

Conclusion

Since its founding more than 75 years ago, Fidelity has been driven by two fundamental values: 1) putting the long-term interests of our customers and fund shareholders first; and 2) investing in companies that share our approach to creating value over the long-term. With these fundamental principles as guideposts, the funds are managed to provide the greatest possible return to shareholders consistent with governing laws and the investment guidelines and objectives of each fund.

Fidelity believes that there is a strong correlation between sound corporate governance and enhancing shareholder value. Fidelity, through the implementation of these guidelines, puts this belief into action through consistent engagement with portfolio companies on matters contained in these guidelines, and, ultimately, through the exercise of voting rights by the funds.

 

B-499


LOGO

I. Policy

Jennison (or the “Company”) has adopted the following policy and related procedures to guide the voting of proxies in a manner that is consistent with Jennison’s fiduciary duties and the requirements of Rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act.

In the absence of any written delegation or when proxy voting authority has been delegated in writing to Jennison by clients, Jennison will exercise this voting authority in each client’s best interests. The Company will not consider its own interests, or those of any affiliates, when voting proxies.

Unless otherwise specified by a client, “best interest” means the client’s best economic interest over the long term, as determined by Jennison’s portfolio managers and analysts (“Investment Professionals”) covering the issuer. We recognize that the nature of ballot issues, including environmental and social issues (“ESG”), can vary widely depending on the company, industry practices, the company’s operations and geographic footprint, to name a few, and will consider relevant issues, including ESG issues, in a manner consistent with our fiduciary duties and the goal of maximizing shareholder value.

Jennison’s proxy voting policy and procedures and proxy voting records are publically available on our website. Clients may obtain a copy of our guidelines, as well as the proxy voting records for that client’s securities, by contacting the client service representative responsible for the client’s account.

II. Procedures

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Jennison has adopted proxy voting guidelines (“Guidelines”) with respect to certain recurring issues. When Jennison is responsible for voting proxies, Jennison considers these guidelines except, where appropriate, when Jennison accepts custom guidelines.

The Guidelines are reviewed annually and as necessary by the Proxy Team. Proposed revisions to the Guidelines are reviewed and approved by the Company’s Proxy Voting Committee and Investment Professionals when a change is appropriate. The Proxy Team maintains the Guidelines and distributes copies to the Investment Professionals following confirmation of any change. The Guidelines are meant to convey Jennison’s general

 

 

Jennison Associates LLC    www.jennison.com

B-500


Conflicts of Interest Policy and Procedures     2 

 

approach to voting decisions on certain issues. Nevertheless, Investment Professionals are responsible for reviewing all proposals related to fundamental strategies individually and making final decisions based on the merits of each voting opportunity.

If an Investment Professional believes that Jennison should vote in a way that is different from the Guidelines, the Proxy Team is notified. In certain circumstances, an Investment Professional may conclude that different clients should vote in different ways, or that it is in the best interests of some or all clients to abstain from voting. The Proxy Team will notify each Investment Professional’s supervisor of any Guideline overrides authorized by that Investment Professional.

The Proxy Team is responsible for maintaining Investment Professionals’ reasons for deviating from the Guidelines.

Client Directed and Jennison Custom Voting Guidelines

Any client’s specific voting instructions must be communicated or confirmed by the client in writing, either through a provision in the investment advisory contract or through other written correspondence. Such instructions may call for Jennison to vote the client’s securities according to the client’s own voting guidelines (“Client Directed Custom Guidelines”), or may indicate that the Company is not responsible for voting the client’s proxies. We try to accommodate such requests where appropriate.

The Proxy Team reviews Client Directed Custom Guidelines and approves operational implementation, and certain instructions may only be implemented on a best efforts basis. The Proxy Team is responsible for communicating such instructions to the third party vendor.

Additionally, for certain investment products or vehicles that are developed and managed by the Company that seek to follow certain religious values (“Jennison Investment Products”), Jennison has adopted custom guidelines from a third party proxy voting vendor that are aligned with the particular Jennison Investment Product (“Jennison Custom Guidelines”). Prior to the adoption of Jennison Custom Guidelines, the Proxy Committee will review the custom guidelines provided by the third party proxy vendor. The Proxy Team will review the proxy voting records of the Jennison Investment Products that utilize the Jennison Custom Guidelines on a quarterly basis and provide reporting to the Proxy Committee.

Use of a Third Party Voting Service

Jennison has engaged an independent third party proxy voting vendor that provides research and analytical services, operational implementation and recordkeeping and reporting services. The proxy voting vendor will cast votes in accordance with the Company’s Guidelines; however, notwithstanding the Guidelines, Investment Professionals for fundamental strategies are responsible for reviewing the facts and circumstances related to each proposal in order to make all final voting decisions.

The third party proxy voting vendor is responsible for operational implementation of Client Directed Custom Guidelines and Jennison Custom Guidelines (“Client Directed Custom Guidelines and Jennison Custom Guidelines are collectively Custom Guidelines”). The ballots received for clients/accounts with Custom Guidelines will be automatically voted in accordance with the Custom Guideline recommendations by the third party proxy voting vendor.

 

LOGO

 

B-501


Conflicts of Interest Policy and Procedures     3 

 

Identifying and Addressing Potential Material Conflicts of Interest

There may be instances where Jennison’s interests conflict materially, or appear to conflict materially, with the interests of clients in connection with a proxy vote (a “Material Conflict”). Examples of potential Material Conflicts include, but are not limited to:

 

   

Jennison managing the pension plan of the issuer

 

   

Jennison or its affiliates have a material business relationship with the issuer

 

   

Jennison investment professionals who are related to a person who is senior management or a director at a public company

 

   

Jennison has a material investment in a security that the investment professional who is responsible for voting that security’s proxy also holds the same security personally

If an Investment Professional or any other employee perceives a Material Conflict, he or she must promptly report the matter to the Chief Compliance Officer.

If the Proxy Voting Committee determines that a Material Conflict is present and if the Investment Professional is recommending a vote that deviates from the Guidelines or there is no specific recommended Guideline vote and decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, then the voting decision must be reviewed and approved by the Investment Professional’s supervisor and the Proxy Committee prior to casting the vote.

Jennison will not abstain from voting a proxy for the purpose of avoiding a Material Conflict.

Quantitatively Derived Holdings and the Jennison Managed Accounts

In voting proxies for non-fundamental strategies such as quantitatively derived holdings and Jennison Managed Accounts (i.e. “wrap”) where the securities are not held elsewhere in the firm, proxies will be voted utilizing the Guidelines. Additionally, in those circumstances where no specific Guidelines exist, the Company will consider the recommendations of the proxy voting vendor.

International Holdings

Jennison will exercise opportunities to vote on international holdings on a best efforts basis. Such votes will be cast based on the same principles that govern domestic holdings.

In some countries casting a proxy vote can adversely affect a client, such as countries that restrict stock sales around the time of the proxy vote by requiring “share blocking” as part of the voting process. The Investment Professional covering the issuer will weigh the expected benefits of voting proxies on international holdings against any anticipated costs or limitations, such as those associated with share blocking. Jennison may abstain from voting if it anticipates that the costs or limitations associated with voting outweigh the benefits.

Securities Lending

Jennison may be unable to vote proxies when the underlying securities have been lent out pursuant to a client’s securities lending program. The Company does not know when securities are on loan and are therefore not

 

LOGO

 

B-502


Conflicts of Interest Policy and Procedures     4 

 

available to be voted. In rare circumstances, Investment Professionals may ask the Proxy Team to work with the client’s custodian to recall the shares so that Jennison can vote. Efforts to recall loaned securities are not always effective since such requests must be submitted prior to the record date for the upcoming proxy vote; therefore voting shares on loan is on a best efforts basis. In determining whether to call back securities that are out on loan, the Investment Professional will consider whether the benefit to the client in voting the matter outweighs the benefit to the client in keeping the security out on loan.

Disclosure to Advisory Clients

Jennison will provide a copy of these Policies and Procedures and the Guidelines to any client upon request. The Company will also provide any client with information about how Jennison has voted that client’s proxies upon request. Any such requests should be directed to the client service representative responsible for the client’s account who will coordinate with the Proxy Team.

Compliance Reporting for Investment Companies

Upon request, the Proxy Team will provide to each investment company for which Jennison acts as sub-adviser reporting needed to satisfy their regulatory and board requirements, including, but not limited to, information required for Form NP-X.

III. Internal Controls

Supervisory Notification

The Proxy Team will notify each Investment Professional’s supervisor of any Guideline overrides authorized by that Investment Professional. The supervisor reviews the overrides ensuring that they were made based on clients’ best interests, and that they were not influenced by any Material Conflict or other considerations.

The Proxy Voting Committee

The Proxy Voting Committee consists of representatives from Operations, Operational Risk, Legal, and Compliance. It meets at least quarterly, and has the following responsibilities:

 

   

Review potential Material Conflicts and decide whether a material conflict is present, and needs to be addressed according to these policies and procedures

 

   

Review proposed amendments to the Guidelines in consultation with the Investment Professionals and make revisions as appropriate

 

   

Review these Policies and Procedures annually for accuracy and effectiveness, and recommend and adopt any necessary changes

 

   

Review all Guideline overrides

 

   

Review quarterly voting metrics and analysis published by the Proxy Team

 

   

Review accuracy of the application of Custom Guidelines

 

LOGO

 

B-503


Conflicts of Interest Policy and Procedures     5 

 

   

Review the performance of the proxy voting vendor and determine whether Jennison should continue to retain their services. The Committee will consider the following factors while conducting their review:

 

   

Accuracy and completeness of research reports, engagement with issuers, potential conflicts of interest and overall administration of Jennison’s proxy voting recommendations.

IV. Escalating Concerns

Any concerns about aspects of the policy that lack specific escalation guidance may be reported to the reporting employee’s supervisor, the Chief Compliance Officer, Chief Legal Officer, Chief Risk Officer, Chief Ethics Officer, Chief Operating Officer or Chief Executive Officer. Alternatively, Jennison has an Ethics Reporting Hotline phone number and email address that enable employees to raise concerns anonymously. Information about the Ethics Reporting Hotline phone number and email address can be found on the Jennison intranet’s “Ethics” web page.

V. Discipline and Sanctions

All Jennison employees are responsible for understanding and complying with the policies and procedures outlined in this policy. The procedures described in this policy are intended to ensure that Jennison and its employees act in full compliance with the law. Violations of this policy and related procedures will be communicated to your supervisor and to senior management through Jennison’s Compliance Council, and may lead to disciplinary action.

 

LOGO

 

B-504


Global Proxy Voting Guidelines

North America, Europe, Middle East, Africa, Central America, South America, and Asia

April 1, 2023

 

 

LOGO


Contents

  

I.

   JPMorgan Asset Management Global Proxy Voting Guidelines      B-507  
   A.    Objective      B-507  
   B.    Proxy Committee      B-507  
   C.    The Proxy Voting Process      B-507  
   D.    Material Conflicts of Interest      B-509  
   E.    Escalation of Material Conflicts of Interest      B-511  
   F.    Recordkeeping      B-511  

II.

   Proxy Voting Guidelines      B-513  
   A.    North America      B-514  
   1.    Board of Directors      B-514  
   2.    Proxy Contests      B-515  
   3.    Ratification of Auditors      B-516  
   4.    Proxy Contest Defenses      B-516  
   5.    Tender Offer Defenses      B-518  
   6.    Miscellaneous Board Provisions      B-519  
   7.    Miscellaneous Governance Provisions      B-521  
   8.    Capital Structure      B-523  
   9.    Executive and Director Compensation      B-525  
   10.    Incorporation      B-528  
   11.    Mergers and Corporate Restructurings      B-528  
   12.    Social and Environmental Issues      B-529  
   13.    Foreign Proxies      B-532  
   14.    Pre-Solicitation Contact      B-532  
   B.    Europe, Middle East, Africa, Central America and South America      B-534  
   C.    Asia ex Japan      B-551  
   D.    Japan      B-570  

 

B-506

 

LOGO


I.

JPMorgan Asset Management Global Proxy Voting

 

  A.

Objective

As an investment adviser within JPMorgan Asset Management, each of the entities listed on Exhibit A attached hereto (each referred to individually as a “JPMAM Entity” and collectively as “JPMAM”) may be granted by its clients the authority to vote the proxies of the securities held in client portfolios. In such cases, JPMAM’s objective is to vote proxies in the best interests of its clients. This document describes how JPMAM meets that objective.

JPMAM incorporates detailed guidelines for voting proxies on specific types of issues (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines have been developed and approved by the relevant Proxy Committee (as defined below) with the objective of encouraging corporate action that enhances shareholder value. Because proxy proposals and individual company facts and circumstances may vary, JPMAM may not always vote proxies in accordance with the Guidelines.

 

  B.

Proxy Committee

To oversee the proxy-voting process on an ongoing basis, a Proxy Committee has been established for each global location where proxy-voting decisions are made. Each Proxy Committee is composed of members and invitees including a Proxy Administrator (as defined below) and senior officers from among the Investment, Legal, Compliance and Risk Management Departments. The primary functions of each Proxy Committee are to: (1) determine the independence of any third-party vendor which it has delegated proxy voting responsibilities 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; (2) review and approve the Guidelines annually; and (3) provide advice and recommendations on general proxy-voting matters as well as on specific voting issues to be implemented by the relevant JPMAM Entity. The Proxy Committee may delegate certain of its responsibilities to subgroups composed of at least 3 Proxy Committee members. The Proxy Committee meets at least quarterly, or more frequently as circumstances dictate. The Global Head of Investment Stewardship is a participant of each regional committee and, working with the regional Proxy Administrators, is charged with overall responsibility for JPMAM’s approach to governance issues including proxy voting worldwide and coordinating regional proxy voting guidelines in accordance with applicable regulations and best practices. The Proxy Committees escalate to the AM Business Control Committee and/or the AM Bank Fiduciary Committee for issues and errors while strategy related matters for escalation will be escalated to the Sustainable Investing Oversight Committee.

 

  C.

The Proxy Voting Process

JPMAM investment professionals monitor the corporate actions of the companies held in their clients’ portfolios. To assist JPMAM investment professionals with public companies’ proxy voting proposals, a JPMAM Entity may, but shall not be obligated to, retain the services of an independent proxy voting service (“Independent Voting Service”). The Independent Voting Service is assigned responsibility for various functions, which may include one or more of the following: coordinating with client custodians to ensure that all proxy materials are processed in a timely fashion; providing JPMAM with a comprehensive analysis of each proxy proposal and providing JPMAM with recommendations on how to vote each proxy proposal based on the Guidelines or, where no Guideline exists or where the Guidelines require a case-by-case analysis, on the Independent Voting Service’s analysis; and executing the voting of the proxies in accordance with Guidelines and its recommendation, except when a recommendation is overridden by

 

B-507

 

LOGO


JPMAM, as described below. If those functions are not assigned to an Independent Voting Service, they are performed or coordinated by a Proxy Administrator (as defined below). JPMAM has adopted procedures determine if it should recall securities on loans to vote proxies when it believes a vote is material with respect to an investment such as when JPMAM believes its participation in a vote is necessary to preserve the long-term value of an investment or in highly contested issue for which JPMAM believes its vote is important to the account’s strategy..1

Each JPMAM Entity appoints a JPMAM professional to act as a proxy administrator (“Proxy Administrator”) for each global location of such entity where proxy-voting decisions are made. The Proxy Administrators are charged with oversight of these Guidelines and the entire proxy-voting process. Their duties, in the event an Independent Voting Service is retained, include the following: evaluating the quality of services provided by the Independent Voting Service; escalating certain proposals identified by the Independent Voting Service as non-routine (including, but not limited to, compensation plans, anti-takeover proposals, reincorporation, mergers, acquisitions and proxy-voting contests) to the attention of the appropriate investment professionals and confirming the Independent Voting Service’s recommendation with the appropriate JPMAM investment professional; escalating proposals identified by the Independent Voting Service as not being covered by the Guidelines (including proposals requiring a case-by-case determination under the Guidelines) to the appropriate investment professional and obtaining a recommendation with respect thereto; reviewing recommendations of JPMAM investment professionals with respect to proposals not covered by the Guidelines (including proposals requiring a case-by-case determination under the Guidelines) or, within the US, to override the Guidelines (collectively, “Overrides”); referring investment considerations regarding Overrides to the Proxy Committee, if necessary; determining, in the case of Overrides, whether a material conflict, as described below, exists; escalating material conflicts to the Proxy Committee; and maintaining the records required by these Procedures.

In the event investment professionals are charged with recommending how to vote the proxies, the Proxy Administrator’s duties include the following: reviewing recommendations of investment professionals with respect to Overrides; referring investment considerations regarding such Overrides to the Proxy Committee, if necessary; determining, in the case of such Overrides, whether a material conflict, as described below, exists; escalating material conflicts to the Proxy Committee; and maintaining the records required by these Procedures.

In the event a JPMAM investment professional makes a recommendation in connection with an Override, the investment professional must provide the appropriate Proxy Administrator with an analysis supporting his or her recommendation. Additionally, an attestation will be confirmed noting that (A) He/she is not aware of any actual or potential conflicts of interest associated with this proxy voting matter except as specifically noted in the attestation and (B) He/she has received no communication in regard to the proxy that would violate the J.P. Morgan Chase Safeguard Policy and the Information Safeguarding and Barriers Policy — MNPI Firmwide supplement.

1 

In determining whether a vote is material, JPMAM’s determination is informed by its responsibility to act in the account’s best interest. In most cases, JPMAM anticipates that the potential long-term value to a client of voting shares would not be material and therefore would not justify foregoing the potential revenue the loan may provide the account. JPMAM may not vote certain foreign securities positions if, in its judgment, the expense and administrative inconvenience or other burdens outweigh the benefits to clients of voting the securities.

 

B-508

 

LOGO


In certain circumstances JPMAM may abstain and/or delegate proxy voting to the Independent Voting Service including the following: 1) for certain commingled funds that are index replication portfolios, JPMAM is permitted in certain instances to delegate its proxy voting authority in whole or in part to the Independent Voting Service. For the Custom Invest strategies, the Adviser delegates full proxy voting authority to the Independent Voting Service. These delegations may occur, among other reasons, where JPMAM is restricted under applicable laws from voting a particular security or to permit JPMAM to utilize exemptions applicable to positions in bank or bank holding company stocks held in such funds, 2) where securities are held only in certain passive index tracking portfolios and not owned in our active accounts, the proxy may be voted in accordance with the Independent Voting Service 3) for securities that were held in an account on record date but not on the date of the proxy vote, we may abstain from voting where JPMAM no longer holds the position.

 

  D.

Conflicts of Interest

Material Conflicts of Interest

The U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940 requires that the proxy-voting procedures adopted and implemented by a U.S. investment adviser include procedures that address material conflicts of interest that may arise between the investment adviser’s interests and those of its clients. To address such material and/or potential conflicts of interest, JPMAM relies on certain policies and procedures. In order to maintain the integrity and independence of JPMAM’s investment processes and decisions, including proxy-voting decisions, and to protect JPMAM’s decisions from influences that could lead to a vote other than in its clients’ best interests, JPMC (including JPMAM) has adopted several policies including: the Conflicts of Interest Policy — Firmwide, Information Safeguarding and Barriers Policy — Firmwide and Information Safeguarding and Barriers Policy — MNPI Firmwide Supplement. Material conflicts of interest are further avoided by voting in accordance with JPMAM’s predetermined Guidelines.

Given the breadth of JPMAM’s products and service offerings, it is not possible to enumerate every circumstance that could give rise to a material conflict. Examples of such material conflicts of interest that could arise include, without limitation, circumstances in which:

 

  i)

management of a JPMAM client or prospective client, distributor or prospective distributor of its investment management products, or critical vendor, is soliciting proxies and failure to vote in favor of management may harm JPMAM’s relationship with such company and materially impact JPMAM’s business;

 

  ii)

a personal relationship between a JPMAM officer and management of a company or other proponent of a proxy proposal could impact JPMAM’s voting decision;

 

  iii)

The proxy being voted is for JPMorgan Chase & Co stock or for J.P. Morgan Funds;

 

  iv)

When a JPMAM affiliate is an investment banker or rendered a fairness opinion with respect to the matter that is the subject of the proxy vote;

 

  v)

Voting of third-party funds.

Depending on the nature of the Conflict, JPMAM may elect to take one or more of the following measures, or other appropriate action:

 

  i)

Removing certain Adviser personnel from the proxy voting process;

 

B-509

 

LOGO


  ii)

“Walling off” personnel with knowledge of the conflict to ensure that such personnel do not influence the relevant proxy vote;

 

  iii)

Voting in accordance with the applicable Proxy Guidelines, if any, if the application of the Proxy Guidelines would objectively result in the casting of a proxy vote in a predetermined manner; or

 

  iv)

Deferring the vote to an independent third party, if any, that will vote in accordance with its own recommendation. However, JPMAM 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 JPMAM affiliate is an investment banker or rendered a fairness opinion with respect to the matter that is the subject of a proxy vote. The Proxy Committee shall review the Exception Request and shall determine whether JPMAM 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.

Potential Conflicts

The below are potential conflicts and may be evaluated on a case by case basis, to determine whether they are material and therefore require escalation.

 

  i)

JPMAM may cast proxy votes consistent with Client(s) investment strategies which may conflict with the investment strategies of other JPMAM clients, and notably, individual proxy votes may differ between clients;

 

  ii)

JPMAM clients may invest in the same company or in which a single client may invest in the same company but in multiple accounts. In those situations, two or more clients, or one client with different accounts, may be invested in strategies having different investment objectives, investment styles, or portfolio managers. As a result, JPMAM may cast different votes on behalf of different clients or on behalf of the same client with different accounts;

 

  iii)

JPMAM, or our clients, may participate in stocklending programs or lend stock to third parties whose investment objectives may be different to ours and as a result the third parties may cast proxy votes that conflict with the investment strategies of our clients;

 

  iv)

JPMAM may engage with companies on behalf of impact and sustainable funds that have different objectives to other funds;

 

  v)

JPMAM may have a different position on corporate governance matters than its parent company (JPMC);

 

  vi)

JPMAM clients may want to us to engage or vote on corporate governance issues that further their interests, however, are not consistent with our policies;

 

  vii)

JPMAM may participate in collaborative engagements with other industry participants which may include joining a coalition, working with other asset managers / owners on issues relating to the 5 priorities, and / or signing of public statements and resolutions that may have conflicting or differing positions on corporate governance matters.

 

B-510

 

LOGO


  E.

Escalation of Material Conflicts of Interest

When an Override occurs, the investment professional must complete the Certification and the Proxy Administrator will review the circumstances surrounding such Certification. When a potential material conflict of interest has been identified, the Proxy Administrator, and as necessary, a legal and/or compliance representative from the Proxy Committee will evaluate the potential conflict and determine whether an actual material conflict of interest exists, and if so, will recommend how the relevant JPMAM entity will vote the proxy. Sales and marketing professionals will be precluded from participating in the decision-making process.

The resolution of all potential and actual material conflict issues will be documented in order to demonstrate that JPMAM acted in the best interests of its clients.

 

  F.

Recordkeeping

JPMAM is required to maintain in an easily accessible place for all records relating to the proxy voting process, according to the retention requirements set out by the various global regulatory regimes. Those records include the following:

 

   

a copy of the JPMAM Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines;

 

   

a copy of each proxy statement received on behalf of JPMAM clients;

 

   

a record of each vote cast on behalf of JPMAM client holdings;

 

   

a copy of all documents created by JPMAM personnel that were material to making a decision on the voting of client securities or that memorialize the basis of the decision;

 

   

a copy of the documentation of all dialogue with issuers and JPMAM personnel created by JPMAM personnel prior to the voting of client securities; and

 

   

a copy of each written request by a client for information on how JPMAM voted proxies on behalf of the client, as well as a copy of any written response by JPMAM to any request by a JPMAM client for information on how JPMAM voted proxies on behalf of our client.

It should be noted that JPMAM reserves the right to use the services of the Independent Voting Service to maintain certain required records in accordance with all applicable regulations.

 

B-511

 

LOGO


Exhibit A

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Limited

J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.

JPMorgan Asset Management (Asia Pacific) Limited

JPMorgan Asset Management (Singapore) Limited

JPMorgan Asset Management (Japan) Ltd.

J.P. Morgan Private Investments, Inc.

Bear Stearns Asset Management Inc.

 

B-512

 

LOGO


II.

Proxy Voting Guidelines

JPMAM is a global asset management organization with the capabilities 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, our proxy voting guidelines have been customized for each region to take into account such variations.

JPMAM currently has four sets of proxy voting guidelines covering the regions of (1) North America, (2) Europe, Middle East, Africa, Central America and South America (3) Asia (ex-Japan) and (4) Japan, respectively. Notwithstanding the variations among the guidelines, all of these guidelines have been designed with the uniform objective of encouraging corporate action that enhances shareholder value. As a general rule, in voting proxies of a particular security, each JPMAM Entity will apply the guidelines of the region in which the issuer of such security is organized.

In March 2007, JPMAM signed the Principles for Responsible Investment, an initiative of the UN Secretary-General.

 

B-513

 

LOGO


A.

North America

 

  1.

Board of Directors

 

  A.

Uncontested Director Elections

Votes on director nominees should be made on a case-by-case (for) basis. Votes generally will be WITHHELD from directors who:

 

  1)

attend less than 75 percent of the board and committee meetings without a valid excuse for the absences

 

  2)

adopt or renew a poison pill without shareholder approval, does not commit to putting it to shareholder vote within 12 months of adoption (or in the case of an newly public company, do not commit to put the pill to a shareholder vote within 12 months following the IPO), or reneges on a commitment to put the pill to a vote, and has not yet received a withhold recommendation for this issue.

 

  3)

are inside or affiliated outside directors and sit on the audit, compensation, or nominating committees. For purposes of defining “affiliation” we will apply either the NYSE listing rule for companies listed on that exchange or the NASDAQ listing rule for all other companies.

 

  4)

ignore a shareholder proposal that is approved by a i) majority of the shares outstanding, or ii) majority of the votes cast. The review period will be the vote results over a consecutive two year time frame.

 

  5)

are inside or affiliated outside directors and the full board serves as the audit, compensation, or nominating committee or the company does not have one of these committees

 

  6)

are insiders and affiliated outsiders on boards that are not at least majority independent. In the case of controlled companies vote FOR non-independent directors who serve on committees other than the audit committee.

 

  7)

are CEOs of publicly-traded companies who serve on more than two public boards (besides his or her own board) and all other directors who serve on more than four public company boards.

 

  8)

are compensation committee members where there is a pay-for performance disconnect for Russell 3000 companies. (See 9a – Stock-Based Incentive Plans, last paragraph). WITHHOLD votes from compensation committee members if the company does not submit one-time transferable stock options to shareholders for approval.

 

  9)

are audit committee members in circumstances in which there is evidence (such as audit reports or reports mandated under the Sarbanes Oxley Act) that there exists material weaknesses in the company’s internal controls.

 

  10)

are compensation committee members who were present at the time of the grant of backdated options or options the pricing or the timing of which we believe may have been manipulated to provide additional benefits to executives.

 

  11)

demonstrated history of poor performance or inadequate risk oversight.

 

B-514

 

LOGO


  12)

and/or committee members when the board adopts changes to the company’s by-laws or charter without shareholder approval if the changes materially diminish shareholder rights.

 

  13)

chair the board, are lead independent directors, or chair governance committees of publicly traded companies where employees have departed for significant violation of code of conduct without claw back of compensation.

 

  14)

for newly public companies, vote case-by-case on directors as we believe the company should have the appropriate time frame to mature and better its governance structure and practices.

 

  B.

CEO Votes

Except as otherwise described above, we generally do not vote against a sitting CEO in recognition of the impact the vote may have on the management of the company.

 

  C.

Proxy Access

Generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting companies to amend their by-laws in order to facilitate shareholders’ ability to nominate candidates for directors as long as the minimum threshold of share ownership is 3% (defined as either a single shareholder or group of shareholders) and the minimum holding period of share ownership is 3 years. Generally, we will oppose proposals which restrict share ownership thresholds to a single shareholder.

We recognize the importance of shareholder access to the ballot process as one means to ensure that boards do not become self-perpetuating and self-serving. We generally support the board when they have adopted proxy access at a 3% / 3 year threshold either through a majority supported shareholder ballot or by adopting the bylaw on its own initiative. However, we are also aware that some proposals may promote certain interest groups to the detriment of shareholders generally and could be disruptive to the nomination process. Hence, we will generally vote against shareholder proposals which seek to amend an existing proxy access by law unless the terms of the proxy access right is unduly restrictive to shareholders.

 

  2.

Proxy Contests

 

  A.

Election of Directors

Votes in a contested election of directors must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors: long-term financial performance of the subject company relative to its industry; management’s track record; background to the proxy contest; qualifications of director nominees (both slates); evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders as well as the likelihood that the proposed objectives and goals can be met; and stock ownership positions.

 

  B.

Reimburse Proxy Solicitation Expenses

Decisions to provide full reimbursement for dissidents waging a proxy contest should be made on a case-by-case basis.

 

B-515

 

LOGO


  3.

Ratification of Auditors

Vote for proposals to ratify auditors, unless an auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent; or there is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion that is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position.

Generally vote against auditor ratification and withhold votes from Audit Committee members if non-audit fees exceed audit fees.

Vote case-by-case on auditor Rotation Proposals: tenure of Audit Firm; establishment and disclosure of a renewal process whereby the auditor is regularly evaluated for both audit quality and competitive price; length of the rotation period advocated in the proposal; significant audit related issues; and number of annual Audit Committee meetings held and the number of financial experts that serve on the Audit Committee.

Generally vote against auditor indemnification and limitation of liability; however we recognize there may be situations where indemnification and limitations on liability may be appropriate.

 

  4.

Proxy Contest Defenses

 

  A.

Board Structure: Staggered vs. Annual Elections

Proposals regarding classified boards will be voted on a case-by-case basis. Classified boards normally will be supported if the company’s governing documents contain each of the following provisions:

 

   

Majority of board composed of independent directors,

 

   

Nominating committee composed solely of independent directors,

 

   

Do not require more than a two-thirds shareholders’ vote to remove a director, revise any bylaw or revise any classified board provision,

 

   

Confidential voting (however, there may be a provision for suspending confidential voting during proxy contests),

 

   

Ability of shareholders to call special meeting or to act by written consent with 90 days’ notice,

 

   

Absence of superior voting rights for one or more classes of stock,

 

   

Board does not have the sole right to change the size of the board beyond a stated range that been approved by shareholders, and

 

   

Absence of shareholder rights plan that can only be removed by the incumbent directors (dead-hand poison pill).

 

  B.

Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors

Vote against proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.

Vote for proposals to restore shareholder ability to remove directors with or without cause.

Vote against proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies.

Vote for proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.

 

B-516

 

LOGO


  C.

Cumulative Voting

Cumulative voting proposals will be voted on a case-by-case basis. If there are other safeguards  to ensure that shareholders have reasonable access and input into the process of nominating and electing directors, cumulative voting is not essential. Generally, a company’s governing documents must contain the following provisions for us to vote against restoring or providing for cumulative voting:

 

   

Annually elected board,

 

   

Majority of board composed of independent directors,

 

   

Nominating committee composed solely of independent directors,

 

   

Confidential voting (however, there may be a provision for suspending confidential voting during proxy contests),

 

   

Ability of shareholders to call special meeting or to act by written consent with 90 days’ notice,

 

   

Absence of superior voting rights for one or more classes of stock,

 

   

Board does not have the sole right to change the size of the board beyond a stated range that has been approved by shareholders, and

 

   

Absence of shareholder rights plan that can only be removed by the incumbent directors (dead-hand poison pill).

 

  D.

Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meeting

Vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to call special meetings so long as the ability to call special meetings requires the affirmative vote of less than 15% of the shares outstanding. The ability to call special meetings enables shareholders to remove directors or initiate a shareholder resolution without having to wait for the next scheduled meeting, should require more than a de minimis number of shares to call the meeting and subject the company to the expense of a shareholder meeting.

Vote for proposals that remove restrictions on the right of shareholders to act independently of management.

 

  E.

Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

We generally vote for proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to take action by written consent. The requirement that all shareholders be given notice of a shareholders’ meeting and matters to be discussed therein seems to provide a reasonable protection of minority shareholder rights.

We generally vote against proposals to allow or facilitate shareholder action by written consent unless the company does not permit the right to call special meetings, or if there are undue restrictions on shareholders’ rights to call special meetings.

 

  F.

Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board

Vote for proposals that seek to fix the size of the board.

Vote against proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board without shareholder approval.

 

B-517

 

LOGO


  5.

Tender Offer Defenses

 

  A.

Poison Pills

Vote for shareholder proposals that ask a company to submit its poison pill for shareholder ratification.

Review on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals to redeem a company’s poison pill.

Studies indicate that companies with a rights plan secure higher premiums in hostile takeover situations.

Review on a case-by-case basis management proposals to ratify a poison pill. We generally look for shareholder friendly features including a two- to three-year sunset provision, a permitted bid provision, a 20 percent or higher flip-in provision, and the absence of dead-hand features.

If the board refuses to redeem the pill 90 days after an offer is announced, ten percent of the shares may call a special meeting or seek a written consent to vote on rescinding the pill.

 

  B.

Fair Price Provisions

Vote proposals to adopt fair price provisions on a case-by-case basis, evaluating factors such as the vote required to approve the proposed acquisition, the vote required to repeal the fair price provision, and the mechanism for determining the fair price.

Generally, vote against fair price provisions with shareholder vote requirements greater than a majority of disinterested shares.

 

  C.

Greenmail

Vote for proposals to adopt antigreenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.

 

  D.

Unequal Voting Rights

Generally, vote against dual-class recapitalizations as they offer an effective way for a firm to thwart hostile takeovers by concentrating voting power in the hands of management or other insiders.

Vote for dual-class recapitalizations when the structure is designed to protect economic interests of investors.

 

  E.

Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Amend Charter or Bylaws

Vote against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve charter and bylaw amendments. Supermajority provisions violate the principle that a simple majority of voting shares should be all that is necessary to effect change regarding a company.

Vote for shareholder proposals to lower supermajority shareholder vote requirements for charter and bylaw amendments.

 

  F.

Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Approve Mergers

Vote against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve mergers and other significant business combinations. Supermajority provisions violate the principle that a simple majority of voting shares should be all that is necessary to effect change regarding a company.

 

B-518

 

LOGO


Vote for shareholder proposals to lower supermajority shareholder vote requirements for mergers and other significant business combinations.

 

  6.

Miscellaneous Board Provisions

 

  A.

Separate Chairman and CEO Positions

We will generally vote for proposals looking to separate the CEO and Chairman roles unless the company has governance structures in place that can satisfactorily counterbalance a combined chairman and CEO/president post. Such a structure should include most or all of the following:

 

   

Designated lead director, appointed from the ranks of the independent board members with clearly delineated duties. At a minimum these should include:

(1) Presides at all meetings of the board at which the chairman is not present, including executive sessions of the independent directors,

(2) Serves as liaison between the chairman and the independent directors,

(3) Approves information sent to the board,

(4) Approves meeting agendas for the board,

(5) Approves meeting schedules to assure that there is sufficient time for discussion of all agenda items,

(6) Has the authority to call meetings of the independent directors, and

(7) If requested by major shareholders, ensures that he is available for consultation and direct communication;

 

   

2/3 of independent board;

 

   

All-independent key committees;

 

   

Committee chairpersons nominated by the independent directors;

 

   

CEO performance is reviewed annually by a committee of outside directors; and

 

   

Established governance guidelines.

Additionally, the company should not have underperformed its peers under current leadership, over the long term.

 

  B.

Lead Directors and Executive Sessions

In cases where the CEO and Chairman roles are combined, we will vote for the appointment of a “lead” (non-insider) director and for regular “executive” sessions (board meetings taking place without the CEO/Chairman present).

 

  C.

Majority of Independent Directors

We generally vote for proposals that call for the board to be composed of a majority of independent directors. We believe that a majority of independent directors can be an important factor in facilitating objective decision making and enhancing accountability to shareholders.

 

B-519

 

LOGO


Vote for shareholder proposals requesting that the board’s audit, compensation, and/or nominating committees include independent directors exclusively.

Generally vote for shareholder proposals asking for a 2/3 independent board.

 

  D.

Stock Ownership Requirements

Vote for shareholder proposals requiring directors to own a minimum amount of company stock in order to qualify as a director or to remain on the board, so long as such minimum amount is not excessive or unreasonable.

 

  E.

Hedging / Pledging of Securities

We support full disclosure of the policies of the company regarding pledging and/or hedging of company stocks by executives and board directors. We will vote FOR shareholder proposals which ask for disclosure of this policy. We will vote Case by Case for directors if it is determined that hedging and /or pledging of securities has occurred.

 

  F.

Term of Office

Vote against shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of outside directors. Term limits pose artificial and arbitrary impositions on the board and could harm shareholder interests by forcing experienced and knowledgeable directors off the board.

 

  G.

Board Composition

We support board refreshment, independence, and a diverse skillset for directors. We believe that board composition should contribute to overall corporate strategies and risk management and will evaluate the board’s skills, expertise, and qualifications. As a matter of principle, we expect our investee companies to be committed to diversity and inclusiveness in their general recruitment policies as we believe such diversity contributes to the effectiveness of boards. We will utilize our voting power to bring about change where Boards are lagging in gender and racial/ethnic diversity. We will generally vote against the chair of the Nominating Committee when the issuer does not disclose the gender or racial and ethnic composition of the Board. Aggregated diversity data will be considered as adequate in instances where individual directors do not wish to disclose personal identification. We will generally vote against the chair of the Nominating Committee when the issuer lacks any gender diversity or any racial/ethnic diversity unless there are mitigating factors. Mitigating factors include, among other factors, recent retirement of relevant directors, a relatively new public company, and an ongoing search for a director. We generally will vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals which seek to force the board to add specific expertise or to change the composition of the board.

 

  H.

Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection

Proposals concerning director and officer indemnification and liability protection should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

 

B-520

 

LOGO


Vote against proposals to limit or eliminate director and officer liability for monetary damages for violating the relevant duty of care.

Vote against indemnification proposals that would expand coverage beyond legal expenses to acts, such as negligence, that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligations than mere carelessness.

Vote for proposals that provide such expanded coverage in cases when a director’s or officer’s legal defense was unsuccessful only if: (1) the director was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that he reasonably believed was in the company’s best interests, and (2) the director’s legal expenses would be covered.

 

  I.

Board Size

Vote for proposals to limit the size of the board to 15 members.

 

  J.

Majority Vote Standard

We would generally vote for proposals asking for the board to initiate the appropriate process to amend the company’s governance documents (certificate of incorporation or bylaws) to provide that director nominees shall be elected by the affirmative vote of the majority of votes cast at an annual meeting of shareholders. We would generally review on a case-by-case basis proposals that address alternative approaches to a majority vote requirement.

 

  K.

Zombie Directors

Generally vote 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.

 

  7.

Miscellaneous Governance Provisions

 

  A.

Independent Nominating Committee

Vote for the creation of an independent nominating committee.

 

  B.

Confidential Voting

Vote for shareholder proposals requesting that companies adopt confidential voting, use independent tabulators, and use independent inspectors of election as long as the proposals include clauses for proxy contests as follows: In the case of a contested election, management should be permitted to request that the dissident group honor its confidential voting policy. If the dissidents agree, the policy remains in place. If the dissidents do not agree, the confidential voting policy is waived.

Vote for management proposals to adopt confidential voting.

 

  C.

Equal Access

Vote for shareholder proposals that would give significant company shareholders equal access to management’s proxy material in order to evaluate and propose voting recommendations on proxy proposals and director nominees and to nominate their own candidates to the board.

 

B-521

 

LOGO


  D.

Bundled Proposals

Review on a case-by-case basis bundled or “conditioned” proxy proposals. In the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, examine the benefits and costs of the packaged items. In instances where the joint effect of the conditioned items is not in shareholders’ best interests, vote against the proposals. If the combined effect is positive, support such proposals.

 

  E.

Charitable Contributions

Vote against shareholder proposals regarding charitable contributions. In the absence of bad faith, self-dealing, or gross negligence, management should determine which contributions are in the best interests of the company.

 

  F.

Date/Location of Meeting

Vote against shareholder proposals to change the date or location of the shareholders’ meeting. No one site will meet the needs of all shareholders.

 

  G.

Include Nonmanagement Employees on Board

Vote against shareholder proposals to include nonmanagement employees on the board.

Constituency representation on the board is not supported, rather decisions are based on director qualifications.

 

  H.

Adjourn Meeting if Votes are Insufficient

Vote for proposals to adjourn the meeting when votes are insufficient. Management has additional opportunities to present shareholders with information about its proposals.

 

  I.

Other Business

Vote for proposals allowing shareholders to bring up “other matters” at shareholder meetings.

 

  J.

Disclosure of Shareholder Proponents

Vote for shareholder proposals requesting that companies disclose the names of shareholder proponents. Shareholders may wish to contact the proponents of a shareholder proposal for additional information.

 

  K.

Exclusive Venue

Generally, vote 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, vote on a case-by-case basis on management proposals which seek shareholder approval to make the state of incorporation, or another state, the exclusive forum for disputes.

 

B-522

 

LOGO


Vote against the independent chair or lead independent director and members of the nominating/governance committee where the company has unilaterally adopted such policy after going public without shareholder approval or engagement, unless the company is a Delaware Corporation

 

  L.

Virtual Only Annual General Meeting

Annual stockholders’ meetings should allow fair and open access for dialogue between the management of the company and shareholders We have concerns that there may be restrictions on shareholder participation in a virtual only annual general meeting. Such a meeting should only be held in exceptional circumstances, such as during pandemic, and that companies should explain why it is necessary to hold the meeting in this manner.

Generally vote for management proposals allowing for the convening of shareholder meetings by electronic means, so long as the governing documents do not prohibit in-person meetings.

 

  8.

Capital Structure

 

  A.

Common Stock Authorization

Review proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issue on a case-by-case basis.

Vote against proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of a class of stock that has superior voting rights in companies that have dual-class capital structure.

 

  B.

Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends

Vote for management proposals to increase common share authorization for a stock split, provided that the increase in authorized shares would not result in an excessive number of shares available for issuance given a company’s industry and performance as measured by total shareholder returns.

 

  C.

Reverse Stock Splits

Vote for management proposals to implement a reverse stock split that also reduces the number of authorized common shares to a level where the number of shares available for issuance is not excessive given a company’s industry and performance in terms of shareholder returns.

Vote case-by-case on proposals to implement a reverse stock split that does not proportionately reduce the number of shares authorized for issue.

 

  D.

Blank Check Preferred Authorization

Vote against proposals authorizing the creation of new classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution, and other rights (“blank check” preferred stock).

Vote for proposals to create “blank check” preferred stock in cases when the company expressly states that the stock will not be used as a takeover device. Vote against such proposals unless it explicitly states that the preferred stock cannot be used as anti-takeover mechanism or prevent change in control or mergers and acquisitions.

 

B-523

 

LOGO


Vote for proposals to authorize preferred stock in cases when the company specifies voting, dividend, conversion, and other rights of such stock and the terms of the preferred stock appear reasonable.

Vote case-by-case on proposals to increase the number of blank check preferred shares after analyzing the number of preferred shares available for issue given a company’s industry and performance as measured by total shareholder returns.

 

  E.

Shareholder Proposals Regarding Blank Check Preferred Stock

Vote for shareholder proposals to have blank check preferred stock placements, other than those shares issued for the purpose of raising capital or making acquisitions in the normal course of business, submitted for shareholder ratification.

 

  F.

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock

Vote for management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock. The purpose of par value is to establish the maximum responsibility of a shareholder in the event that a company becomes insolvent.

 

  G.

Restructurings/Recapitalizations

Review proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan or if the company is in danger of being delisted on a case-by-case basis. Consider the following issues:

Dilution — How much will ownership interest of existing shareholders be reduced, and how extreme will dilution to any future earnings be?

Change in Control — Will the transaction result in a change in control of the company?

Bankruptcy — Generally, approve proposals that facilitate debt restructurings unless there are clear signs of self-dealing or other abuses.

 

  H.

Share Repurchase Programs

Vote for management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms.

 

  I.

Targeted Share Placements

These shareholder proposals ask companies to seek stockholder approval before placing 10% or more of their voting stock with a single investor. The proposals are in reaction to the placemen by various companies of a large block of their voting stock in an ESOP, parent capital fund or with a single friendly investor, with the aim of protecting themselves against a hostile tender offer. These proposals are voted on a case by case basis after reviewing the individual situation of the company receiving the proposal.

 

B-524

 

LOGO


  9.

Executive and Director Compensation

 

  A.

Stock-based Incentive Plans

Votes with respect to compensation plans should be determined 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). Other matters included in our analysis are the amount of the company’s outstanding stock to be reserved for the award of stock options, whether the exercise price of an option is less than the stock’s fair market value at the date of the grant of the options, and whether the plan provides for the exchange of outstanding options for new ones at lower exercise prices.

In addition, we will assess the structure of the equity plan taking into consideration certain plan features as well as grant practices. This will include whether dividends are paid or accrued to the unvested equity awards. Once the cost of the plan is estimated and other features are taken into consideration, the plan will be reviewed to determine if it is in the best interest of the shareholders. Problematic pay practices will have a bearing on whether we support the plan. We will consider the pay practices of other companies in the relevant industry and peer companies in this analysis.

Review case-by-case stock based plans for companies which rely heavily upon stock for incentive compensation, taking into consideration the factors mentioned above. These companies include high growth and financial services companies where the plan cost as measured by shareholder value transfer (SVT) appears to be high.

For companies in the Russell 3000 we will generally vote against a plan and/or withhold from members of the compensation committee, when there is a disconnect between the CEO’s pay and performance (an increase in pay and a decrease in performance), the main source for the pay increase is equity-based, and the CEO participates in the plan being voted on. Specifically, if the company has significantly underperformed over the longterm and its CEO also had an increase in total direct or targeted compensation from the prior year, it would signify a disconnect in pay and performance. Generally vote against management proposal on executive compensation when there is significant increase in target compensation despite long term underperformance.

 

  B.

Approval of Cash or Cash-and-Stock Bonus Plans

Vote for cash or cash-and-stock bonus plans to exempt the compensation from limits on deductibility under the provisions of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

  C.

Shareholder Proposals to Limit Executive and Director Pay

Generally, vote for shareholder proposals that seek additional disclosure of executive and director pay information.

Review on a case-by-case basis all other shareholder proposals that seek to limit executive and director pay.

Review on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals for performance pay such as indexed or premium priced options if a company has a history of oversized awards and one-, two- and three-year returns below its peer group.

 

B-525

 

LOGO


  D.

Say on Pay – Advisory Vote

Generally, review on a case-by-case basis executive pay and practices as well as certain aspects of outside director compensation.

Where the company’s Say on Pay proposal received 60% or less support on its previous Say on Pay proposal, WITHHOLD votes for the compensation committee and or vote against the current Say on Pay proposal unless the company has demonstrated active engagement with shareholders to address the issue as well as the specific actions taken to address the low level of support. Where executive compensation seems excessive relative to peers and is not supported by long term performance, or where we believe performance metrics and targets used to determine executive compensation are not aligned with long term shareholder value, WITHHOLD from select members of the compensation committee.

In the case of externally-managed REITs, generally vote against the advisory vote as there is a lack of transparency in both compensation structure and payout.

Say on Pay - Frequency

JPMAM will review compensation versus long/term performance on an annual basis.

 

  E.

Golden and Tin Parachutes

Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals to ratify or cancel golden or tin parachutes. Favor golden parachutes that limit payouts to less than three times salary, plus guaranteed retirement and target bonus.

Change-in-control payments should only be made when there is a significant change in company ownership structure, and when there is a loss of employment or substantial change in job duties associated with the change in company ownership structure (“double-triggered”). Change-in-control provisions should exclude excise tax gross-up and eliminate the acceleration of vesting of equity awards upon a change in control unless provided under a double-trigger scenario.

Generally vote case-by-case for proposals calling companies to adopt a policy of obtaining shareholder approval for any future agreements and corporate policies that could oblige the company to make payments or awards following the death of a senior executive in the form of unearned salary or bonuses, accelerated vesting or the continuation in force of unvested equity grants, perquisites and other payments or awards made in lieu of compensation. This would not apply to any benefit programs or equity plan proposals for which the broad-based employee population is eligible.

 

  F.

401(k) Employee Benefit Plans

Vote for proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.

 

  G.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

Vote for qualified employee stock purchase plans with the following features: the purchase price is at least 85 percent of fair market value; the offering period is 27 months or less; and potential voting power dilution (shares allocated to the plan as a percentage of outstanding shares) is ten percent or less.

 

B-526

 

LOGO


Vote for nonqualified employee stock purchase plans with the following features: broad-based participation (i.e., all employees of the company with the exclusion of individuals with five percent or more of beneficial ownership of the company); limits on employee contribution, which may be a fixed dollar amount or expressed as a percentage of base salary; company matching contribution up to 25 percent of the employee’s contribution, which is effectively a discount of 20 percent from market value; and no discount on the stock price on the date of purchase since there is a company matching contribution

 

  H.

Option Expensing

Generally, vote for shareholder proposals to expense fixed-price options.

 

  I.

Option Repricing

In most cases, we take a negative view of option repricings and will, therefore, generally vote against such proposals. We do, however, consider the granting of new options to be an acceptable alternative and will generally support such proposals, provided such options are valued appropriately.

 

  J.

Stock Holding Periods

Generally vote against all proposals requiring executives to hold the stock received upon option exercise for a specific period of time.

 

  K.

Transferable Stock Options

Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to grant transferable stock options or otherwise permit the transfer of outstanding stock options, including cost of proposal and alignment with shareholder interests.

 

  L.

Recoup Bonuses

 

  1.

Vote FOR on shareholder proposals to recoup unearned incentive bonuses or other incentive payments made to senior executives if it is later determined that fraud, misconduct, or negligence significantly contributed to a restatement of financial results that led to the awarding of unearned incentive compensation.

 

  2.

Vote FOR shareholder proposals to recoup incentive payments if it is determined that the individual engaged in misconduct or poor performance prior to payment of the award or bonus, and that such award or bonus would not have been paid, in whole or in part, had the misconduct or poor performance been known prior to payment.

 

  M.

Two Tiered Compensation

Vote against proposals to adopt a two tiered compensation structure for board directors.

 

B-527

 

LOGO


  10.

Incorporation

 

  A.

Reincorporation Outside of the United States

Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to reincorporate the company outside of the U.S.

 

  B.

Voting on State Takeover Statutes

Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including control share acquisition statutes, control share cash-out statutes, freezeout provisions, fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, antigreenmail provisions, and disgorgement provisions).

 

  C.

Voting on Reincorporation Proposals

Proposals to change a company’s state of incorporation should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Review management’s rationale for the proposal, changes to the charter/bylaws, and differences in the state laws governing the companies.

 

  11.

Mergers and Corporate Restructurings

 

  A.

Mergers and Acquisitions

Votes on mergers and acquisitions should be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors including the following: anticipated financial and operating benefits; offer price (cost vs. premium); prospects of the combined companies; how the deal was negotiated; and changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights.

 

  B.

Nonfinancial Effects of a Merger or Acquisition

Some companies have proposed a charter provision which specifies that the board of directors may examine the nonfinancial effect of a merger or acquisition on the company. This provision would allow the board to evaluate the impact a proposed change in control would have on employees, host communities, suppliers and/or others. We generally vote against proposals to adopt such charter provisions. We feel it is the directors’ fiduciary duty to base decisions solely on the financial interests of the shareholders.

 

  C.

Corporate Restructuring

Votes on corporate restructuring proposals, including minority squeezeouts, leveraged buyouts, “going private” proposals, spin-offs, liquidations, and asset sales, should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

 

  D.

Spin-offs

Votes on spin-offs should be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the tax and regulatory advantages, planned use of sale proceeds, market focus, and managerial incentives.

 

B-528

 

LOGO


  E.

Asset Sales

Votes on asset sales should be made on a case-by-case basis after considering the impact on the balance sheet/working capital, value received for the asset, and potential elimination of diseconomies.

 

  F.

Liquidations

Votes on liquidations should be made on a case-by-case basis after reviewing management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives, appraisal value of assets, and the compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation.

 

  G.

Appraisal Rights

Vote for proposals to restore, or provide shareholders with, rights of appraisal. Rights of appraisal provide shareholders who are not satisfied with the terms of certain corporate transactions the right to demand a judicial review in order to determine a fair value for their shares.

 

  H.

Changing Corporate Name

Vote for changing the corporate name.

 

  12.

Social and Environmental Issues

We believe that a company’s environmental policies may have a long-term impact on the company’s financial performance. We believe that good corporate governance policies should consider the impact of company operations on the environment and the cost 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. Furthermore, we believe that corporate shareholders have a legitimate need for information to enable them to evaluate the potential risks and opportunities that climate change and other environmental matters pose to the company’s operations, sales and capital investments. We acknowledge that many companies disclose their practices relating to social and environmental issues and that disclosure is improving over time. We generally encourage a level of 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, we consider 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.

In evaluating how to vote environmental proposals, considerations may include but are not limited to the following—

Issuer Considerations

 

   

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

 

B-529

 

LOGO


   

capital deployment of the company

 

   

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, including whether senior management is incentivized for long-term returns

 

   

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

 

   

whether the company incorporates environmental or social issues in a risk assessment or risk reporting framework

Proposal Considerations

 

   

would adoption of the proposal inform and educate shareholders and have companies that adopted 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

 

   

does the proposal create the potential for unintended consequences such as a competitive disadvantage.

In general, we support 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.

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

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 in which the company operates, thus delivering shareholder returns. JPMAM will generally support shareholder resolutions seeking the company to disclose data on workforce demographics including diversity, and release of EEO-1 or comparable data, where such disclosure is deemed inadequate.

We expect engaged Boards to provide oversight of Human Capital Management (HCM); a company’s management of its workforce including human resources policies including code of conduct, 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. JPMAM will vote case by case on shareholder resolutions seeking disclosure of HCM. JPMAM will generally vote against shareholder proposals seeking HCM information which is considered confidential or sensitive information by the Board.

 

B-530

 

LOGO


  A.

Military Business

Vote case-by-case on defense issue proposals.

Vote case-by-case on disclosure reports that seek additional information on military-related operations.

 

  B.

International Labor Organization Code of Conduct

Vote case-by-case on proposals to endorse international labor organization code of conducts.

Vote case-by-case on disclosure reports that seek additional information on company activities in this area.

 

  C.

Promote Human Rights

Vote case-by-case on proposals to promote human rights.

Vote case-by-case on disclosure reports that seek additional information on company activities regarding human rights.

 

  D.

Equal Employment Opportunity and Discrimination

Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding equal employment opportunities and discrimination.

Vote case-by-case on disclosure reports that seek additional information about affirmative action efforts, particularly when it appears that companies have been unresponsive to shareholder requests.

 

  E.

Animal Rights

Vote case-by-case on proposals that deal with animal rights.

 

  F.

Product Integrity and Marketing

Vote case-by-case on proposals that ask companies to end their production of legal, but socially questionable, products.

Vote case-by-case on disclosure reports that seek additional information regarding product integrity and marketing issues.

Vote case-by-case on resolutions requesting the disclosure and implementation of Internet privacy and censorship policies and procedures.

Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting the company to report on its policies, initiatives/procedures, oversight mechanisms related to toxic materials, including certain product line toxicities, and/or product safety in its supply chain.

 

  G.

Human Resources Issues

Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding human resources issues.

Vote case-by-case on disclosure reports that seek additional information regarding human resources issues.

 

B-531

 

LOGO


  H.

Link Executive Pay with Social and/or Environmental Criteria

Vote case-by-case on proposals to link executive pay with the attainment of certain social and/or environmental criteria.

Vote case-by-case on disclosure reports that seek additional information regarding this issue.

 

  I.

High Risk Markets

Vote case-by-case on requests for the company to review and report on the financial and reputation risks associated with operations in “high risk” markets, such as a terrorism-sponsoring state or otherwise.

 

  J.

Political Contribution

Generally vote against proposals asking the company to affirm political non-partisanship in the workplace.

Vote against proposals to publish the company’s political contributions taking into consideration recent, significant controversies, fines or litigation regarding the company’s political contributions or trade association spending.

 

  13.

Foreign Proxies

Responsibility for voting non-U.S. proxies rests with our Proxy Voting Committees located in London, Tokyo, and Hong Kong. The Proxy Committee is composed of senior analysts and portfolio managers and officers of the Legal and Compliance Department.

 

  14.

Pre-Solicitation Contact

From time to time, companies will seek to contact analysts, portfolio managers and others in advance of the formal proxy solicitation to solicit support for certain contemplated proposals. Such contact can potentially result in the recipient receiving material non-public information and result in the imposition of trading restrictions. Accordingly, pre-solicitation contact should occur only under very limited circumstances and only in accordance with the terms set forth herein.

What is material non-public information?

The definition of material non-public information is highly subjective. The general test, however, is whether or not such information would reasonably affect an investor’s decision to buy, sell or hold securities, or whether it would be likely to have a significant market impact. Examples of such information include, but are not limited to:

 

   

a pending acquisition or sale of a substantial business;

 

   

financial results that are better or worse than recent trends would lead one to expect;

 

   

major management changes;

 

   

an increase or decrease in dividends;

 

B-532

 

LOGO


   

calls or redemptions or other purchases of its securities by the company;

 

   

a stock split, dividend or other recapitalization; or

 

   

financial projections prepared by the Company or the Company’s representatives.

What is pre-solicitation contact?

Pre-solicitation contact is any communication, whether oral or written, formal or informal, with the Company or a representative of the Company regarding proxy proposals prior to publication of the official proxy solicitation materials. This contact can range from simply polling investors as to their reaction to a broad topic, e.g., “How do you feel about dual classes of stock?” to very specific inquiries, e.g., “Here’s a term sheet for our restructuring. Will you vote to approve this?”

Determining the appropriateness of the contact is a factual inquiry which must be determined on a case-by-case basis. For instance, it might be acceptable for us to provide companies with our general approach to certain issues. Promising our vote, however, is prohibited under all circumstances. In the event that you are contacted in advance of the publication of proxy solicitation materials, please notify the Proxy     Administrator immediately. The Company or its representative should be instructed that all further contact should be with the Proxy Administrator. The Proxy Administrator will make the determination to contact the Legal/Compliance departments if needed.

It is also critical to keep in mind that as a fiduciary, we exercise our proxies solely in the best interests of our clients. Outside influences, including those from within J.P. Morgan Chase should not interfere in any way in our decision making process. Any calls of this nature should be escalated by the Proxy Administrator to the Legal/Compliance Department.

 

B-533

 

LOGO


  B.

Europe, Middle East, Africa, Central America and South America

Table of Contents

 

I.    POLICY

   B-535

II.    VOTING GUIDELINES

   B-538

1.   REPORTS & ACCOUNTS

   B-538

2.   DIVIDENDS

   B-539

3.   BOARD OF DIRECTORS

   B-539

4.   COMPENSATION

   B-542

5.   AUDITORS

   B-545

6.   ISSUE OF CAPITAL

   B-545

7.   MERGERS / ACQUISITIONS

   B-546

8.   RELATED-PARTY TRANSACTIONS

   B-546

9.   VOTING RIGHTS

   B-547

10.   OTHERS

   B-547

 

B-534

 

LOGO


  I.

POLICY

Corporate Governance addresses the agency problems that are induced by the separation of ownership and control in the modern corporation. J.P. Morgan Asset Management (‘JPMAM’) is committed to delivering superior investment performance to its clients worldwide. We believe that one of the drivers of investment performance is an assessment of the corporate governance principles and practices of the companies in which we invest our clients’ assets and we expect those companies to demonstrate high standards of governance in the management of their business at all times.

We have set out herein the principles which provide the framework for our corporate governance and proxy voting activity. Although these apply primarily to the UK and Europe and therefore principally concern accounts managed from the London office, our colleagues in New York, Tokyo and Hong Kong have similar guidelines, consistent with law and best practice in these different locations. Full details are available on request.

Our UK Guidelines are based on the revised UK Corporate Governance Code. Any company complying with its provisions can usually expect JPMAM to support its corporate governance policies. JPMAM works closely with the UK Financial Reporting Council (FRC) and the Investment Association (IA), and we abide by these organisations’ corporate governance principles and also take their guidance into account when implementing our policy. If a company chooses to deviate from the provisions of the Code, we will give the explanations due consideration and take them into account as appropriate, based on our overall assessment of the standards of corporate governance evidenced at the company.

For Continental European markets, we expect companies to comply with local Corporate Governance Codes, where they exist. We fully recognise that, in certain European markets, there are areas where local law or practice prescribe differing structures or processes to those found in the UK, which must be taken into account. In markets where a comparable standard does not exist, we will use our own Guidelines as the primary basis for our voting and corporate governance activity, whilst taking local market practice into consideration where applicable. JPMAM also is a member of the European Funds and Asset Management Association (EFAMA), the International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN) and the Asian Corporate Governance Association (ACGA) and will take their guidance into account where appropriate.

In our view, our Guidelines meet with the requirements of the US Department of Labor recommendations as they apply to ERISA and US Mutual Funds.

Voting

JPMAM manages the voting rights of the shares entrusted to it as it would manage any other asset (although it should be noted that not all of our clients delegate voting authority to us. Some do not authorise us to vote, or delegate voting to a third party). It is the policy of JPMAM to vote shares held in its clients’ portfolios in a prudent and diligent manner, based exclusively on our reasonable judgement of what will best serve the financial interests of the beneficial owners of the security. So far as is practicable we will vote at all of the meetings called by companies in which we are invested.

It should be noted that JPMAM treats every proxy on a case-by-case basis, voting for or against each resolution, or actively withholding our vote as appropriate. Our primary concern at all times is the best economic interests of our clients. These Guidelines are therefore an indication only of JPMAM’s

 

B-535

 

LOGO


normal voting policy. The investment analyst or portfolio manager always has discretion to override the policy should individual circumstances dictate.

Certain markets require that shares being tendered for voting purposes are temporarily immobilised from trading until after the shareholder meeting has taken place. Other markets require a local representative to be hired in order to attend the meeting and vote in person on our behalf, empowered with Power of Attorney documentation which can represent considerable cost to clients. Elsewhere, notably Emerging Markets, it may not always be possible to obtain sufficient information to make an informed decision in good time to vote, or there may be specific financial risks where, for example, voting can preclude participating in certain types of corporate action. In these instances, it may sometimes be in our clients’ best interests to intentionally refrain from voting in certain overseas markets from time to time.

As our Guidelines are primarily targeted at companies listed on main stock exchanges, it is sometimes difficult for smaller companies to apply the same corporate governance rules and we will look at any issues for such companies on a case-by-case basis. We would, however, encourage them to apply the highest possible standards of governance.

Proxy Committee

To oversee the proxy-voting process on an ongoing basis, a Proxy Committee has been established for each global location where proxy-voting decisions are made. Each Proxy Committee is composed of a Proxy Administrator (as defined below) and senior officers from among the Investment, Legal, Compliance and Risk Management Departments. The primary functions of each Proxy Committee are to:(1) determine the independence of any third-party vendor which it has delegated proxy voting responsibilities 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; (2) review and approve the Guidelines annually; and (3) provide advice and recommendations on general proxy-voting matters as well as on specific voting issues to be implemented by the relevant JPMAM Entity. The Proxy Committee may delegate certain of its responsibilities to subgroups composed of at least 3 Proxy Committee members. The Proxy Committee meets at least quarterly, or more frequently as circumstances dictate. The Global Head of Stewardship is a member of each regional committee and, working with the regional Proxy Administrators, is charged with overall responsibility for JPMAM’s approach to governance issues including proxy voting worldwide and coordinating regional proxy voting guidelines in accordance with applicable regulations and best practices. The Proxy Committees escalate to the AM Business Control Committee and/or the AM Bank Fiduciary Committee for issues and errors while strategy related matters for escalation will be escalated to the Sustainable Investing Oversight Committee.

Stewardship and Engagement

As long-term owners, we regard regular, systematic and direct contact with senior company management, both executive and non-executive, as crucially important. For UK and European companies in particular, Investment Stewardship specialists routinely attend scheduled one-to-one meetings alongside analysts and portfolio managers, as well as convene dedicated meetings as required in order to debate areas of concern.

 

B-536

 

LOGO


JPMAM is a signatory to the UK Stewardship Code 2020, and we believe that our existing stewardship policies meet the standards required under the Code, please see link to the FRC website. https://www.frc.org.uk/investors/uk-stewardship-code/uk-stewardship-code-signatories

Conflicts of Interest

Typical conflicts include where JPMC or its Affiliates are involved in a transaction at an investee company, or provide banking or other services, or where JPM personnel sit on other company boards.

In order to maintain the integrity and independence of JPMAM’s proxy voting decisions, JPMorgan Chase (including JPMAM) has established formal barriers designed to restrict the flow of information between JPMC’s securities, lending, investment banking and other divisions to JPMAM investment professionals. The policy is available to download from our website.

A conflict is deemed to exist when voting in relation to JPMorgan Chase & Co, or for JPMorgan Funds, or when JPMAM has knowledge that a JPMorgan affiliate is an advisor or has rendered a fairness opinion with respect to the matter being voted upon. When such conflicts are identified, JPMAM will call upon an independent third-party to make the voting decision, either in accordance with JPMAM voting guidelines or by the third party using its own guidelines, or when a JPMorgan affiliate receives a voting recommendation from a third party, as guided by Compliance. In certain circumstances, we may elect not to vote. A record of all such decisions is available to clients on request.

Stocklending

Stock which is lent cannot normally be voted, as the right to vote is effectively lent with the shares. For routine voting, JPMAM views the revenue from lending activities to be of more value to the client than the ability to vote. However, we reserve the right to recall stock on loan in exceptional circumstances, in order to protect our clients’ interests in the event of a particularly important or close vote, or if we feel lent stock risks being used in a manner which may impede ongoing engagement activity.

Finally, it should be pointed out that this document is intended as an overview only. Specific issues should always be directed to your account administrator or portfolio manager, or the J.P. Morgan Investment Stewardship Team.

 

B-537

 

LOGO


  II.

VOTING GUIDELINES

 

  1.

REPORTS & ACCOUNTS

Annual Report

Reports and accounts should be both detailed and transparent and should be submitted to shareholders for approval. They should meet accepted reporting standards, such as those prescribed by of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and should meet with the spirit as well as the letter of those reporting standards. We agree with the UK Corporate Governance Code, that the company’s annual report and accounts, when taken as a whole, should be fair, balanced and understandable, a primary outcome of which is for the narrative sections of the annual report to reflect more accurately the company’s position, performance and prospects

The annual report should include a statement of compliance with relevant codes of best practice, in markets where they exist, together with detailed explanations regarding any area of non-compliance.

Legal disclosure varies from market to market. If, in our opinion, a company’s standards of disclosure (whilst meeting minimum legal requirements) are insufficient in any particular area, we will inform company management of our concerns. Depending on the circumstances, we will either abstain or vote against the resolution concerned. Similar consideration would relate to the use of inappropriate accounting methods.

Remuneration Report

The remuneration policy as it relates to senior management should ideally be presented to shareholders as a separate voting item. We would expect the report to contain full details of all aspects of individual director’s emoluments. We will endeavour to engage with the company or seek an explanation regarding any areas of remuneration which fall outside our guidelines and we will abstain or vote against the remuneration report and, if appropriate, members of the Remuneration Committee, if we feel that explanation is insufficient. Any material changes to compensation arrangements should be put to shareholders for approval.

Under the requirements of SRD II (Shareholder Rights Directive), and best practice under the European Commission’s guidelines, companies are asked to provide disclosure on amounts paid to executives, alignment between company performance and pay out to executives. Companies should provide disclosure of variable incentive targets, levels of achievement and performance awards made after the performance period. Companies should clearly outline discretionary authority by the board or remuneration committee to adjust pay outcomes.

We encourage companies to provide information on the ratio of CEO pay to median employee pay, and explain the reasons for changes to the ratio year on year and how it is consistent with the company’s wider policies on employee pay, reward and progression. Companies should also have regard to gender pay gaps (if any) and indicate to shareholders how the issue is to be addressed.

Several markets worldwide now have a binding vote on remuneration policy. In our view, remuneration policies should stand the test of time, and should not need amendment on an annual or biennial basis. We would therefore expect votes on remuneration policies to occur normally every third year, the maximum allowed under the regulations, and will regard it as concerning where companies feel the need to bring proposed changes to shareholders more frequently than this. Similarly, reporting under the new regulations should not necessarily lead to an increase in the volume of data provided. Investors expect clear and concise reports that are effective at communicating how executive pay is linked to delivery of the company’s strategy in the long-term. see Compensation

 

B-538

 

LOGO


  2.

DIVIDENDS

Proposals for the payment of dividends should be presented to shareholders for approval and should be fully disclosed in advance of the meeting. We will vote against dividend proposals if we deem the payout ratio to be too low, or if the earnings and cash cover are inadequate and payment of the proposed dividend would prejudice the solvency or future prospects of the company.

 

  3.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Board Structure

Companies should be controlled by an effective board, with an appropriate balance of executive and non-executive directors, such that no single stakeholder or group of stakeholders has a disproportionate or undue level of influence. JPMAM is generally in favour of unitary boards of the type found in the UK, as opposed to tiered board structures. We find that unitary boards offer flexibility while, with a tiered structure, there is a risk of upper tier directors becoming remote from the business, while lower tier directors become deprived of contact with outsiders of wider experience. No director should be excluded from the requirement to submit him/herself for re-election on a regular basis.

In our view, the board has a vital role to play in shaping and embedding a healthy corporate culture. The values and standards of behaviour set by the board are an important influence on culture within the organisation and we believe there are strong links between governance and establishing a culture that supports long-term success. In our view, there is a role for the board in establishing and promoting the culture, values and ethics of the company and in setting the ‘tone from the top’. We agree with the UK Financial Reporting Council (FRC), that a company’s culture should promote integrity and openness, value diversity and be responsive to the views of shareholders and wider stakeholders.

Board Independence

JPMAM believes that a strong independent element to a board is essential to the effective running of a company. The calibre and number of non-executive directors on a board should be such that their views will carry significant weight in the board’s decisions.

We agree with the ICGN, that the majority of a board should be independent, especially if the company has a joint Chairman / CEO. JPMAM will use its voting powers to encourage appropriate levels of board independence, whilst taking into account local market practice

In order to help assess their contribution to the company, the time spent by each non-executive director should be disclosed to shareholders, as well as their attendance at board and committee meetings. Boards should also create and maintain a formal succession plan, to ensure orderly refreshment of the board, and minimise over-dependence on any certain individual.

Chairman

Boards should be headed by an effective Chairman, who is independent on appointment, and who meets the same ongoing independence criteria, including tenure, as other non-executive directors. There should be a clear division of responsibilities at the head of a company, such that no one individual has unfettered powers of decision. JPMAM believes that the roles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer should normally be separate and will generally vote against combined posts.

 

B-539

 

LOGO


Board Size

Board size should be appropriate to the size and complexity of the company. JPMAM will exercise its voting powers in favour of reducing excessively-large boards wherever possible. Boards with more than 15 directors are usually deemed excessively large, whereas less than 5 directors may be too small to provide sufficient levels of independence for key committees.

Board Diversity

JPMAM is committed to supporting inclusive organisations where everyone can succeed on merit, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability or ethnic and religious background. Recruiting individuals with unique skills, experiences and diverse backgrounds is a fundamental part of strengthening a business and is an important consideration when searching for new board members. Although we do not endorse quotas, we expect boards to have a strategy to improve female representation in particular. To this end, we 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). We also recognize that Investee companies should provide clear disclosure within their financial reports, how they intend on increasing female representation beyond 30%. Investee companies should provide appropriate information explaining how they consider diversity in its widest sense both at board and executive level and throughout the broader business.

We will utilise our voting power to bring about change where companies are lagging, as well as engage with Nominations Committees where appropriate.. We will monitor changes of UK Boards in support of the Parker Review, , in increasing ethnic diversity, and ask for transparency and disclosure of progress made.

We also expect companies to produce a gender pay gap report and encourage companies to voluntarily produce an ethnicity pay gap report where data is available.

More broadly, from 2023 onwards, we expect, no single-gender boards, and a minimum of 30%, or adherence to the local market best practice, whichever is more stringent on diverse membership on underrepresented members.

Board Committees

Boards should delegate key oversight functions, such as responsibility for Audit, Nominations and Remuneration issues, to independent committees. The Chairman and members of any committee should be clearly identified in the annual report. Any committee should have the authority to engage independent advisers where appropriate at the company’s expense.

Audit Committees should consist solely of non-executive directors, who are independent of management. The Committee should include at least one person with appropriate financial qualifications but they should all undergo appropriate training that provides and maintains a reasonable degree of financial literacy. Formal arrangements should be in place for the committee to hold regular meetings with external auditors, without executive or staff presence and they should have an explicit right of unrestricted access to company documents and information.

 

B-540

 

LOGO


Nomination Committees should be majority-independent and have an independent chair. The responsibilities of the Committee should include assessing the skills, diversity and competencies of directors, to ensure that the board has an appropriate range of expertise. The Committee should also manage the process for formally evaluating the performance of the board, its committees and directors, and reporting on this process to shareholders in the Annual Report, as well as maintaining formal and transparent arrangements for succession planning for the board and senior executives.

Remuneration Committees should be majority-independent and have an independent chair. The responsibilities of the Committee should include reviewing and recommending policies relating to remuneration, retention and termination of senior executives, ensuring that, through these policies, executives are properly motivated to drive the long term success of the company, and that incentives are appropriately aligned, and overseeing the remuneration framework for non-executive directors. The Remuneration Committee should be ready to engage with and where necessary, receive feedback from, relevant stakeholders including large institutional shareholders and the wider workforce.See Remuneration Report

Boards of banks, or other large or complex companies, should establish a Risk Committee to provide independent oversight and advice to the board on the current risk exposures of the entity and future risk strategy, in order to manage these issues effectively within their business. These bodies should give a summary of their activities in the Annual Report.

Director Independence

We agree with the ICGN that a director will generally be deemed to be independent if he or she has no significant financial, familial or other ties with the company which might pose a conflict and has not been employed in an executive capacity by the company for at least the previous ten years.

A non-executive director who has served more than three terms (or ten years) in the same capacity can no longer normally be deemed to be independent. Directors staying on beyond this duration would require the fullest explanation to shareholders, and we would expect such directors to offer themselves for re-election annually.

In determining our vote, we will always consider independence issues on a case-by-case basis, taking into account any exceptional individual circumstances, together with local markets’ differing attitudes to director independence.

Director’s Liability

In certain markets, this proposal asks shareholders to give blanket discharge from responsibility for all decisions made during the previous financial year. Depending on the market, this resolution may or may not be legally binding and may not release the board from its legal responsibility.

JPMAM 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.

Companies may arrange Directors and Officers (‘D&O’) liability insurance to indemnify executives in certain circumstances, such as class action lawsuits and other litigation. JPMAM generally supports such proposals, although we do not approve of arrangements where directors are given 100% indemnification, as this could absolve them of responsibility for their actions and encourage them to act recklessly. Such arrangements should not extend to third parties, such as auditors.

 

B-541

 

LOGO


Multiple Directorships

Non-executive directors should have sufficient time to meet their board responsibilities. In order to be able to devote sufficient time to his or her duties, we would not normally expect a non-executive to hold more than three significant directorships at any one time. For executives, only one additional non-executive post would normally be considered appropriate without further explanation.

We agree with the UK Corporate Governance Code that no single individual should chair more than one major listed company.

Investment Trust and Fund Directors

In the UK, the Boards of investment trust companies are unusual in being normally comprised solely of non-executive directors. JPMAM generally prefers that the majority of such boards (including the Chairman) are independent of the management company. We believe this to be appropriate and expect investment trust boards to comply with the Association of Investment Companies (AIC) Code of Corporate Governance.

We note that the AIC Code does not make explicit recommendations on board tenure. We take this into account when assessing director independence, although we agree with the AIC that investment trust companies should have a formal policy on tenure and that any director serving beyond three terms should offer themselves for re-election annually. We also believe that at least half of the board of an investment trust company (including the Chairman) should be non-executive directors having served for less than nine years, in order to ensure that the board does not become ossified with a large number of long-serving directors.

SICAV and other fund board directors should comply with the ALFI Code of Conduct, or equivalent codes where they exist.

 

  4.

COMPENSATION

Directors’ Contracts

JPMAM believes that directors’ contracts should be of one year’s duration or less, and payments on termination should not exceed one year’s fixed compensation. This is accepted market best practice in the UK as well as other major European markets.

Special provisions whereby additional payment becomes due in the event of a change of control are an inappropriate use of shareholder funds and should be discouraged. Market practice regarding the length of director’s service contracts varies enormously: JPMAM is cognisant that it would be inappropriate to enforce UK standards in some other markets. To this end, JPMAM will take into account local market practice when making judgements in this area. Company Chairmen should not normally have executive-style contractual arrangements with the company which include severance terms.

Executive Director’s Remuneration

Executive remuneration is and will remain a contentious issue, particularly the overall quantum of remuneration. Policy in this area cannot easily be prescribed by any code or formula to cater for all circumstances and must depend on responsible and well-informed judgement on the part of

 

B-542

 

LOGO


remuneration committees. Any remuneration policy should be transparent, simple to understand and fully disclosed to shareholders in a separate Remuneration Report within the Annual Report. Compensation should contain both a fixed element, set by reference to the external market but always cognisant of pay within a company’s general workforce, and a variable element, which fully aligns the executive with shareholders and where superior awards can only be achieved by attaining superior performance.

Due consideration should also be given to the effective management of risk within the business. This should be reflected in remuneration arrangements, in order to incentivise appropriate behaviours and, more importantly, discourage excessive risk taking, which may be detrimental to shareholders. Compensation arrangements should provide alignment between managers and shareholders across the cycle, and due consideration should be given to devices such as clawback or bonus/malus arrangements in order to avoid payment for failure.

JPMAM will generally vote against shareholder proposals to restrict arbitrarily the compensation of executives or other employees. We feel that the specific amounts and types of employee compensation are within the ordinary business responsibilities of the board and the company management. However, the remuneration of executive directors should be determined by independent remuneration committees and fully disclosed to shareholders. Any stock option plans or long-term incentive plans should meet our guidelines for such plans set forth herein.

We believe firmly that directors should be encouraged to hold meaningful amounts of company stock, equivalent to at least two year’s salary, which should be maintained for the duration of employment. Increasingly, we expect directors to maintain a meaningful shareholding in the company for at least one year following their departure. Unvested stock from in-flight incentive plan cycles may count towards this shareholding requirement.

Transaction bonuses, one-off retention awards, or other retrospective ex-gratia payments, should not be made. Similarly, recruitment awards for incoming executives should be limited to the value of awards forgone, and be granted on equivalent terms.

Non-Executive Director’s Remuneration

JPMAM believes that non-executive directors should be paid, at least in part, in shares of the company wherever possible, in order to align their interests with the interests of shareholders. Performance criteria, however, should never be attached. Non-executive directors should not be awarded share options or performance based share awards.

Fixed Compensation

Executives are entitled to a basic salary set by reference to the external market and in particular benchmarked against the company’s immediate peers. Acknowledging that salary often forms the basis for variable compensation, we believe annual increases in salary should be limited and generally in line with the wider workforce of the company. Substantial increases in salary should be fully justified to shareholders. We do not approve of large increases in fixed salary as a retention mechanism.

 

B-543

 

LOGO


Variable Compensation

We generally prefer any variable compensation arrangement to have a short-term and long-term component. Annual bonuses are now a common feature of compensation packages. We prefer that bonuses be capped at a multiple of salary benchmarked against a company’s sector. In industries that operate an overall bonus pool we at least expect a cap on the overall potential pool. Whilst we recognise that annual bonus targets are often, though not always, commercially sensitive, we expect a high degree of disclosure on performance metrics (pre-award) and performance against those metrics (post-award). Payment of bonus for executives should take the form of cash and shares deferred for a defined period of time. Bonus malus and/or clawback are also expected features of any bonus scheme.

For the long-term component, share-based Long-Term Incentive Plans (LTIPs) and Share Option Schemes (SOSs) should be designed to give directors incentive to perform at the highest levels, and grants under such schemes should be subject to appropriate performance criteria which are challenging and which reflect the company’s long-term strategy and objectives over an appropriate period (at least three years, and preferably five years or more) There should be no award for below-median performance, and awards for at-median performance should be modest. Beneficiaries should be encouraged to retain any resultant shares for a suitable time, and should not benefit from free-matching shares for no other reason than a decision to defer compensation already earned. Restricted Share Awards (RSAs), which substitute traditional performance criteria in exchange for long-term ownership of company stock, may be appropriate for some companies. Any move to RSAs should be fully justified by the remuneration committee. We will also wish to satisfy our selves that the company has demonstrated historically appropriate levels of remuneration and has established a relationship of trust with shareholders. If moving from traditional long-term incentives to restricted shares, the remuneration committee should consider the appropriate level of discount to award levels, to reflect the certainty of restricted shares. Restricted shares should, in our view, be retained for a period of time after retirement or departure from the company, in order to incentivise executives to ensure an orderly transition.

We will generally vote against the re-setting of performance conditions on existing awards, the cancellation and re-issue, re-testing or re-pricing of underwater awards, the backdating of awards or discounted awards.

All incentive plans should be clearly explained and fully disclosed to both shareholders and participants and put to shareholders for approval. Furthermore, each director’s awards, awarded or vested, should be detailed, including term, performance conditions, exercise prices (if any), and the market price of the shares at the date of exercise. They should also take into account appropriate levels of dilution. Best practice requires that share options be fully expensed, so that shareholders can assess their true cost to the company. The assumptions and methodology behind the expensing calculation should also be explained to shareholders.

In all markets JPMAM will vote in favour of well-structured schemes with keen incentives and clear and specific performance criteria, which are challenging in nature and fully disclosed to shareholders in advance. We also favour simplicity both in the number of variable incentive schemes and in their structure. We will vote against payments which are excessive, or performance criteria which are undemanding, or where there is excessive discretion exercised by remuneration committees. We will also oppose incentive arrangements which are not subject to formal caps, or appropriate tapering arrangements. We would expect remuneration committees to explain why criteria are considered to be challenging and how they align the interests of shareholders with the interests of the recipients.

 

B-544

 

LOGO


Pensions

JPMAM believes that executive pension arrangements should mirror those of the wider workforce particularly with regard to contribution levels. JPMAM believes it is inappropriate for executives to participate in pension arrangements which are materially different to those of employees (such as receiving a higher contribution, or continuing to participate in a final salary arrangement, when employees have been transferred to a defined contribution scheme). One-off payments into individual director’s pension schemes, changes to pension entitlements and waivers concerning early retirement provisions must be fully disclosed and justified to shareholders.

 

  5.

AUDITORS

Auditor Independence

Auditors must provide an independent and objective check on the way in which the financial statements have been prepared and presented. JPMAM will vote against the appointment or re-appointment of auditors who are not perceived as being independent, or where there has been an audit failure. The length of time both the audit company and the audit partner have served in their capacity with a given company may be a factor in determining independence.

Auditor Rotation

In order to safeguard the independence of the audit, companies should rotate their auditor over time. We agree with the provisions of the UK Competition Commission, that companies should put their external audit contract out to competitive tender at least every ten years.

Auditor Remuneration

Companies should be encouraged to distinguish clearly between audit and non-audit fees. Audit committees should keep under review the non-audit fees paid to the auditor, both in relation to the size of the total audit fee and in relation to the company’s total expenditure on consultancy. A mechanism should be in place to ensure that consultancy work is put out to competitive tender.

We would oppose non-audit fees consistently exceeding audit fees, where no explanation was given to shareholders. Audit fees should never be excessive.

Auditor Indemnification

JPMAM is opposed to the use of shareholders’ funds to indemnify auditors. see Audit Committee

 

  6.

ISSUE OF CAPITAL

Issue of Equity

In most countries, company law requires that shareholder approval be obtained in order to increase the authorised share capital of the company. Any new issue of equity should take into account appropriate levels of dilution.

JPMAM believes strongly that any new issue of equity should first be offered to existing shareholders on a pre-emptive basis. Pre-emption rights are a fundamental right of ownership and we will vote

 

B-545

 

LOGO


against ‘cash box’ structures or other attempts to suspend, bypass or eliminate pre-emption rights, unless they are for purely technical reasons (e.g. rights offers which may not be legally offered to shareholders in certain jurisdictions). We prefer that these issuances are sought annually, and generally do not support multi-year capital issuances, or shares which are issued at a preferential discount to third parties as part of a related-party transaction.

JPMAM will vote against increases in capital which would allow the company to adopt ‘poison pill’ takeover defence tactics, or where the increase in authorised capital would dilute shareholder value in the long-term.

Issue of Debt

JPMAM will vote in favour of proposals which will enhance a company’s long-term prospects. We will vote against any uncapped or poorly-defined increase in bank borrowing powers or borrowing limits, as well as issuances which would result in the company reaching an unacceptable level of financial leverage, where there is a material reduction in shareholder value, or where such borrowing is expressly intended as part of a takeover defence.

Share Repurchase Programmes

JPMAM will vote in favour of share repurchase or buy-back programmes where the repurchase would be in the best interests of shareholders and where the company is not thought to be able to use the cash in a more useful way. We will vote against abusive schemes, or where shares are repurchased at an inappropriate point in the cycle, or when shareholders’ interests could be better served by deployment of the cash for alternative uses.

 

  7.

MERGERS / ACQUISITIONS

Mergers and acquisitions are always referred to individual portfolio managers and/or investment analysts for a case-by-case decision, based exclusively on the best economic interests of our clients. In exceptional circumstances, we will split our vote and vote differently for individual clients depending on the respective desired investment outcomes of our portfolio managers. JPMAM may occasionally split its vote between different client constituents for technical reasons, such as cross-border mergers where certain groups of clients may not be able to hold the resultant stock, or to reflect differing portfolio strategies and/or investment outcomes.

As a general rule, JPMAM will favour mergers and acquisitions where the proposed acquisition price represents fair value, where shareholders cannot realise greater value through other means and where all shareholders receive fair and equal treatment under the merger/acquisition terms.

 

  8.

RELATED-PARTY TRANSACTIONS

Related party transactions (RPTs) are common in a number of jurisdictions. These are transactions between a company and its related parties, and generally come in two forms: one-off transactions, typically asset purchases or disposals, and; recurring transactions occurring during the ordinary course of business, usually in the form of the ongoing sale and purchase of goods and services.

 

B-546

 

LOGO


According to the materiality and nature of the transaction, the RPT may need to be disclosed and submitted to a shareholder meeting for approval. Any shareholder who has a material interest in the transaction should abstain from voting on the resolution. If a RPT requires shareholder approval, the company should establish a board committee comprising solely of independent directors, and appoint an independent advisor to prepare a recommendation to minority shareholders.

We will assess one-off transactions on a case by case basis. Where we are convinced by the strategic rationale and the fairness of the transaction terms, we will vote in favour. At the same time, we would expect the independent directors to disclose how they have made their recommendation to minority shareholders, so that shareholders can make an informed decision on this transaction.

For recurring transactions, we would expect that details are disclosed in the Annual Report, and that they be subject to shareholders’ approval on a periodic basis. We would expect all such transactions to have been conducted on an arms-length basis, on normal commercial terms.

 

  9.

VOTING RIGHTS

JPMAM believes in the fundamental principle of ‘one share, one vote’. Accordingly, we will vote to phase out dual voting rights or classes of share which either confer special voting rights to certain stakeholders, or restricted voting rights and we will oppose attempts to introduce new ones. We are opposed to mechanisms that skew voting rights, such as voting right limits or cumulative voting; directors should represent all shareholders equally and voting power should accrue in direct proportion to the shareholder’s equity capital commitment to the company.

Minority shareholders should be protected from abusive actions by, or in the interests of, controlling shareholders, acting either directly or indirectly, and should have effective means of redress. Shareholders should also have the right to formally approve material related-party transactions at Annual General Meetings.

While certain fundamental changes to a company’s business, Articles of Association, or share capital should require a supermajority vote, voting on routine business should require a simple majority only (51%). We will generally oppose amendments to require inappropriate supermajority votes, or supermajority requirements which are being introduced as a tool to entrench management.

 

  10.

OTHERS

Poison Pills

Poison pills, or shareholder rights plans, are devices designed to defend against hostile takeover. Typically, they give shareholders of a target company or a friendly third party, the right to purchase shares at a substantial discount to market value, or shares with special conversion rights in the event of a pre-defined ‘triggering event’ occurring (such as an outsider’s acquisition of a certain percentage of stock). Corporations may or may not be able to adopt poison pills without shareholder approval, depending on the market.

JPMAM is fundamentally opposed to any artificial barrier to the efficient functioning of markets. The market for corporate control should, ultimately, be for shareholders, not managers, to decide. We find no clear evidence that poison pills enhance shareholder value. Rather, they are used as tools to entrench management.

 

B-547

 

LOGO


JPMAM will generally vote against anti-takeover devices and support proposals aimed at revoking existing plans. Where anti-takeover devices exist, they should be fully disclosed to shareholders and shareholders should be given the opportunity to review them periodically.

Composite Resolutions

Agenda items at shareholder meetings should be presented in such a way that they can be voted upon clearly, distinctly and unambiguously. We normally oppose deliberately vague, composite or ‘bundled’ resolutions, depending on the context and local market practice.

Any amendments to Articles of Association should be presented to shareholders in such a way that they can be voted on independently. Shareholders should similarly be able to vote on the election of directors individually, rather than in bundled slates.

AOB

We will generally vote against ‘any other business’ resolutions where we cannot determine the exact nature of the business to be voted on.

Social / Environmental Issues

We believe that a company’s environmental policies may have a long-term impact on the company’s financial performance. We believe that good corporate governance policies should consider the impact of company operations on the environment and the cost 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. Furthermore, we believe that corporate shareholders have a legitimate need for information to enable them to evaluate the potential risks and opportunities that climate change and other environmental matters pose to the company’s operations, sales and capital investments. We acknowledge that many companies disclose their practices relating to social and environmental issues and that disclosure is improving over time. We generally encourage a level of 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, we consider 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.

In evaluating how to vote environmental proposals, considerations may include but are not limited to the following:

Issuer Considerations

 

   

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

 

   

capital deployment of the company

 

B-548

 

LOGO


   

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, including whether senior management is incentivized for long-term returns

 

   

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

 

   

whether the company incorporates environmental or social issues in a risk assessment or risk reporting framework

Proposal Considerations

 

   

would adoption of the proposal inform and educate shareholders and have companies that adopted the proposal provide 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

 

   

does the proposal create the potential for unintended consequences such as a competitive disadvantage.

In general, we support 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.

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

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 in which the company operates, thus delivering shareholder returns. JPMAM will generally support shareholder resolutions seeking the company to disclose data on workforce demographics including diversity.

We expect engaged Boards to provide oversight of Human Capital Management (HCM); a company’s management of its workforce including human resources policies including code of conduct, 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. JPMAM will vote case by case on shareholder resolutions seeking disclosure of HCM. JPMAM will generally vote against shareholder proposals seeking HCM information which is considered confidential or sensitive information by the Board.

Shareholder Resolutions

In a number of jurisdictions, shareholders have the right to submit proposals at shareholder meetings, providing eligibility and other requirements have been met. Such proposals can be wide ranging, and may include: governance reforms, capital management issues, and disclosures surrounding environmental and social risks.

 

B-549

 

LOGO


When assessing shareholder proposals, we review each resolution on its merits. Our sole criteria of support is: does this proposal enhance shareholder rights; and is this proposal in the long term interests of all shareholders? Where we are convinced the proposal meets these objective, it will receive our vote in support. However, we will not support proposals which are frivolous or supportive of a narrow activist agenda, nor will we support those which are unduly constraining on managements, or are already in managements’ remit.

Where a proposal is focused on an issue that needs to be addressed, we would expect the board and management to demonstrate that the company will comply with the resolution within a reasonable time-frame. Where the company fails to respond sufficiently or with the appropriate sense of urgency, we may vote against the re-election of one or more directors at subsequent meetings.

Charitable Issues

Charitable donations are generally acceptable, provided they are within reasonable limits and fully disclosed to shareholders.

Political Issues

JPMAM does not support the use of shareholder funds for political donations.

Virtual Only Annual General Meeting

As annual general meetings (AGMs) should be fair, constructive, and open to dialogue between the management of the company and shareholders, in principle, we support the holding of a hybrid virtual annual general meetings. However, we have concerns that there may be restrictions on shareholder participation in a virtual only annual general meeting, so we think that such a meeting should only be held in exceptional circumstances, such as during pandemic, and that companies should explain why it is necessary to hold the meeting in this manner.

J.P. Morgan Asset Management

London Proxy Committee

1st April 2023

 

B-550

 

LOGO


  C.

Asia ex Japan

Table of Contents

 

I.   Corporate Governance Principles

     B-552  

II.   Policy and Procedures

     B-553  

III.Policy Voting Guidelines

     B-556  

 

B-551

 

LOGO


I.

Corporate Governance Principles

J.P. Morgan Asset Management (JPMAM) is committed to meeting client objectives by delivering the strongest possible risk-adjusted returns. We believe that a key contributor to this is a thorough understanding of the corporate governance practices of the companies in which we invest. We expect all our investee companies to demonstrate the highest standards of governance in the management of their businesses, as far as is reasonably practicable.

We have set out in this document some information underpinning the principles behind our proxy voting guidelines. These principles are based on the OECD’s Principles of Corporate Governance, as well as on the governance codes of the jurisdictions in which our investee companies are domiciled. But regardless of location or jurisdiction, we believe companies should abide by the following:

Board and Director Responsibilities

Companies should be headed by a strong and effective board to drive the long term success of the company. It should contain an appropriate combination of executive and non-executive directors, able to make decisions on behalf of all shareholders, separate from the individual interests of management and / or controlling shareholders. The board should set strategic objectives, oversee operational performance and establish the company’s long term values and standards. At the same time it should be responsible for establishing prudent and effective risk controls to protect the company’s assets and safeguard shareholder interests. Finally, the board should be responsible for selecting the key executives tasked with developing and executing corporate strategy, and for ensuring that executive remuneration is aligned with the longer term interests of shareholders. All directors should act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, consistent with their statutory and fiduciary obligations.

Shareholder Rights

Shareholders should have the opportunity to participate in, and vote at, general meetings, and should be furnished with sufficient information on a timely basis to make informed voting decisions. Arrangements that enable certain shareholders to obtain a disproportionate degree of control relative to their equity ownership should be disclosed upfront, and anti-takeover devices should not be used to shield management and the board from ongoing accountability.

Equitable Treatment

All shareholders of the same class should be treated equally, and all shares within the same class should carry the same rights. Impediments to cross border voting should be eliminated, and companies should not make it difficult or expensive for shareholders to cast their votes. Minority shareholders should be protected from unfair and / or abusive actions by controlling shareholders.

Stakeholders’ Rights

Stakeholders, including individual employees and their representative bodies, should be able to communicate their concerns about illegal or unethical practices to the board, and their rights should not be compromised for doing so. Where stakeholders participate in the corporate governance process, they should have access to relevant and timely information for that participation to be effective.

 

B-552

 

LOGO


Sustainability

All companies should conduct themselves in a socially responsible way. Non-financial environmental and social issues have the potential to seriously impair the value of businesses, as well as create significant reputational damage. We expect the companies in which we invest, to behave in an ethical and responsible manner, observing their wider societal obligations to their communities and to the environment. Since transparency in how a business manages ESG risks is increasingly part of the overall value proposition, we believe that companies will only thrive in the longer term if they put sustainability at the heart of their governance processes.

Disclosure and Transparency

Companies should ensure that accurate information on all matters of relevance is publicly disclosed, to allow shareholders to make an informed and balanced assessment of a company’s performance and its prospects. This should include its operating performance, its financial condition, and its governance practices and policies. Information about board members, including their qualifications, other company directorships and their level of independence should be disclosed, so that shareholders can make an informed assessment of their suitability in their proxy voting decisions.

Our assessment of corporate governance practice is based on the regulations and codes of best practice in the jurisdictions in which our investee companies are domiciled. Any company complying with these codes, and with the general principles stated above, should usually expect to receive our support. If a company chooses to deviate from the provisions of the governance codes specific to its jurisdiction, we will give its explanation due consideration and take this into account in our proxy voting, based on our assessment of its governance standards.

 

II.

Policy and Procedures

Proxy Voting

JPMAM manages the voting rights of the shares entrusted to us, as we would manage any asset, although it should be noted that not all clients delegate voting authority to us; some retain voting decisions for themselves or delegate voting to a third party. But where authorized to do so, it is the policy of JPMAM to vote shares held in client portfolios in a prudent and diligent manner, based on our reasonable judgment of what is in the best interests of clients.

JPMAM treats every proxy on a case-by-case basis, voting for or against each resolution, or actively withholding our vote as appropriate. Our concern at all times is the best economic interests of our clients. These Guidelines are therefore an indication of JPMAM’s normal voting policy, since our investment professionals always have the discretion to override these guidelines should individual circumstances dictate.

To assist us in the filing of proxies, JPMAM retains the services of Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS), a proxy voting services advisor. As part of this service, ISS makes recommendations on each board resolution requiring a shareholder vote. While we take note of these recommendations, we are not obliged to follow them if we have a contrary view; our portfolio managers vote according to our own governance principles and guidelines, and our own research insights. Records of our voting activities are maintained by our Asset Servicing group, and any deviation from our stated policies is documented, to ensure all proxies are exercised appropriately.

 

B-553

 

LOGO


So far as is practicable, we vote at all meetings called by companies in which we are invested. However, certain markets may require that shares being tendered for voting are temporarily immobilized from trading until after the shareholder meeting has taken place. Other markets may require a local representative to be hired, under a Power-of-Attorney, to attend the meeting and vote on our behalf; this can incur considerable additional cost to clients. Finally, it may not always be possible to obtain sufficient information to make an informed decision in good time to vote, or there may be specific circumstances where voting can preclude participating in certain types of corporate actions. In these instances, it may sometimes be in clients’ best interests to intentionally refrain from voting. But in all other circumstances we endeavour to safeguard clients’ interests.

We note that it can be difficult for smaller companies in emerging economies to apply the same governance standards, as it is for companies operating in developed economies and markets. We will look at any governance related issues of such companies on a case-by-case basis, and take their context into account before arriving at our voting decision. Nevertheless, we encourage all companies to apply the highest standards of governance wherever possible, in the belief that strong standards of governance will ultimately translate into higher shareholder returns.

Proxy Committee

The responsibility for JPMAM’s voting policy for portfolios managed in the Asia Pacific region (outside Japan) lies with the Asia ex-Japan Proxy Committee. The Committee’s role is to set JPMAM’s corporate governance policy and practices in respect of investee companies, and to oversee the proxy voting process. The Committee is composed of senior investors and corporate governance professionals, supported by specialists from Legal, Compliance, Risk and other relevant groups. The Committee meets quarterly and reports into the AM APAC Business Control Committee as well as the Global Head of Investment Stewardship. The Global Head of Investment Stewardship is a member of each regional committee and, working with the regional Proxy Administrators, is charged with overall responsibility for JPMAM’s approach to governance issues including proxy voting worldwide and coordinating regional proxy voting guidelines in accordance with applicable regulations and best practices. The Proxy Committees escalate to the AM Business Control Committee and/or the AM Bank Fiduciary Committee for issues and errors while strategy related matters for escalation will be escalated to the Sustainable Investing Oversight Committee.

Stewardship and Engagement

As long term owners, we regard regular, systematic and direct contact with senior company management as essential in helping us discharge our stewardship responsibilities. We therefore engage actively with our investee companies, to keep abreast of strategic, operating and financial developments in order to ensure that our clients’ interests are represented and protected. Where appropriate, our stewardship specialists may convene meetings with company representatives at the boardroom level to discuss issues of particular concern.

 

B-554

 

LOGO


JPMAM endorses the stewardship principles promoted by different regulators and industry bodies in the region. We believe our existing stewardship activities meet the standards required under these principles. Our statements of commitment can be viewed from our website or by accessing the following links:

For the Singapore Stewardship Principles for Responsible Investors supported by Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and Singapore Exchange (SGX):

https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/asiapacific/sg/en/policies/singapore-stewardship-principles-for-responsible-investors.pdf

For the Principles of Responsible Ownership issued by the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) in Hong Kong:

https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/asiapacific/hk/en/corporate-governance-pdf/PRO1609.pdf

For the Principles of Internal Governance and Asset Stewardship issued by the Financial Services Council (FSC) of Australia:

https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/asiapacific/au/en/policies/principles-internal-governance-asset-stewardship.pdf

For, more information on our stewardship activities, please refer to our white paper on Investment-led Stewardship which is available from our website, or by accessing the following link:

https://am.jpmorgan.com/blob-gim/1383664293468/83456/J.P.%20Morgan%20Asset%20Management %20investment%20stewardship%20statement.pdf

Conflicts of interest

JPMAM is part of the JP Morgan Chase group (JPMC), which provides a range of banking and investment services. Conflicts of interest arise from time to time in the normal course of business, both within and between, JPMC affiliates. However, procedures are in place to make sure these conflicts can be managed and resolved. Typical conflicts may include instances where a JPMC affiliate is involved in a transaction at an investee company, is providing banking or other services for that company, or where JPMC connected personnel may sit on a company’s board.

In order to maintain the integrity and independence of our voting decisions, businesses within the JPMC group have established formal barriers designed to restrict the flow of information between affiliated entities. This includes information from JPMC’s securities, investment banking and custody divisions to JPMAM’s investment professionals. A formal policy with respect to Conflicts of interest Disclosure has been established to manage such conflicts, and is available for download from our website.

Where a material conflict of interest is identified with respect to proxy voting, JPMAM may contact individual clients to approve any voting decision, may call upon independent third parties (eg, our proxy voting service advisor) to make the voting decision on our behalf, or may elect not to exercise the proxy. A record of all such decisions is kept by the Asset Services group and is reviewed by the relevant Proxy Committee at committee meetings. This record is available to clients upon request.

 

B-555

 

LOGO


III.

Policy Voting Guidelines

1. Report and Accounts

Annual Report

Company reports and accounts should be detailed and transparent, and should be submitted to shareholders for approval. They should meet accepted reporting standards, such as those prescribed by of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), and should meet with the spirit as well as the letter of those reporting standards. They should be fair, balanced and understandable, and the narrative sections covering corporate strategy, operating activities and risk management should accurately detail the company’s position, performance and prospects.

The annual report should include a statement of compliance with the relevant codes of best practice in the jurisdictions where they exist, together with detailed explanations regarding any instances of non- compliance.

Legal disclosure varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If, in our opinion, a company’s standards of disclosure (whilst meeting minimum legal requirements) are insufficient, we will inform company management of our concerns. Depending on the circumstances, we will either abstain from voting, or vote against the relevant resolution put to shareholders. Similar considerations, relating to the use of inappropriate or overly aggressive accounting methods, also apply.

Remuneration Report

Establishing an effective remuneration policy for senior executives is a key consideration at board level. The purpose of remuneration is to attract, retain and reward competent executives who can drive the long term growth of the company; ensuring that remuneration is appropriate for the role assigned should therefore be a particular concern of shareholders. Ideally a company’s remuneration policy, as it relates to senior management, should be presented to shareholders as a separate voting item. However we recognize that practices differ between jurisdictions, and a shareholder vote on this is not yet standard in Asia.

At the same time, we would expect companies to disclose the main components of remuneration for key directors and executives. Ideally this should take into consideration: the amounts paid and the mix between short term and long term awards, the performance criteria used to benchmark awards and whether these are capped or uncapped, and the use made of any discretionary authority by boards or remuneration committees to adjust pay outcomes. In the event that remuneration awards fall outside our guidelines (see Remuneration section below), we will endeavor to seek an explanation from the company, and may vote against remuneration reports and/or members of the remuneration committees, if satisfactory explanations are not forthcoming.

Where shareholders are able to exercise a binding vote on remuneration policies, we believe that such policies should stand the test of time. But in the event that awards are amended or revised, any material changes should be put to shareholders for approval. We 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. Companies should also have regard to gender pay gaps and to indicate to shareholders how this issue is being addressed.

 

B-556

 

LOGO


Finally in its reporting to shareholders, remuneration committees and / or boards should provide clear and concise reports that are effective at communicating how executive pay is linked to the delivery of the company’s strategy over the forecast time horizon, and how it is aligned to shareholder interests.

2. Dividends

Practice differs by jurisdiction as to whether companies are required to submit dividend resolutions for approval at shareholder meetings. In some jurisdictions, dividends can be declared by board resolution alone. However, in those jurisdictions where shareholder approval is mandated, we may vote against such proposals if we deem the payout ratio to be too low, particularly if cash is being hoarded with little strategic intent. Conversely, if we consider a proposed dividend to be too high in relation to a company’s underlying earnings capability, we may also vote against the resolution, if we believe this could jeopardize the company’s long term prospects and solvency.

3. Board and Directors

Board Oversight Responsibilities

To ensure sustainable success in the long-term, companies should be controlled by a strong and effective board, which is accountable to shareholders and considers the interests of the various stakeholders they depend on. The board should comprise competent individuals with the necessary skills, background and experience to provide objective oversight of management. All directors should submit themselves for re-election on a regular basis.

We believe that one of the key functions of a board is to set a company’s values and standards, and establish a culture that is geared to the long term success of the enterprise and be responsive to the wider stakeholders. A healthy culture serves as unifying force for the organization, and helps align the stated purpose and core values of the entity with the strategy and business model pursued. Conversely, a dysfunctional culture has the potential to undermine a business and create significant risk for shareholders.

The board should be responsible for defining the values and behaviors that will help the company excel and for ensuring that there is alignment between its purpose, core values, strategic direction and operating activities. The standards of behavior set by the board should resonate across the entire organization. We believe that there are strong links between high standards of governance, a healthy corporate culture, and superior shareholder returns.

Board Independence

We believe that a strong independent board is essential to the effective running of a company. The number of the independent non-executive directors (INEDs) on a board should be sufficient so that their views carry weight in the board’s decision-making. INEDs should be willing and able to challenge the views of the CEO and other directors to ensure that alternative viewpoints are heard. The required number of independent directors on a board is often set by governance codes, but notwithstanding this, we are strongly of the view that the majority of members should be independent to encourage the broadest diversity of opinion and representation of views.

 

B-557

 

LOGO


At a minimum, we would expect that INEDs should make up at least one third of all company boards. We will seek for greater independent representation than this where:

 

   

The Chairman and CEO role is combined, or

 

   

The Chairman and CEO are family members, or

 

   

The Chairman is not independent.

Where we believe there to be an insufficient number of INEDs, we will vote against the re-election of some, or all directors at shareholder meetings, unless an acceptable explanation is provided.

In order to help assess their individual contributions to the company, the time spent on company business by each non-executive director should be disclosed to shareholders, as well as their attendance records at board and committee meetings. Boards should also create and maintain a formal succession plan, to ensure the orderly refreshment of board membership, and to minimize over-dependence on a narrow cohort of individuals.

Chairman

Boards should be headed by an effective Chairman, who, ideally, is independent on appointment. There should be a clear division of responsibilities at the head of a company, such that no one individual has unfettered powers of decision-making. JPMAM believes that the roles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer should be separate to provide for a separation of responsibilities. But in instances where the two roles are combined, a Lead Independent Director should be identified to provide oversight over executive decisions, and to maintain an alternative channel of communication between the board and its shareholders.

In instances where a company, with no majority independent board, does not have an independent Chairman or a designated Lead Director, and where a satisfactory explanation has not been provided, we will vote against the re-election of the Chairman, and other directors, at shareholder meetings.

Board Size

Boards should be appropriate to the size and complexity of the company. JPMAM will exercise its voting powers in favor of reducing excessively large boards wherever possible. Unless the size and complexity of the company demands it, boards with more than 15 directors are usually too large, whereas boards with less than five directors are too small to provide sufficient levels of independent representation on key governance committees. A board should be large enough to manage required governance processes, and yet still sufficiently compact to promote open dialogue between directors.

Board Diversity

We are committed to supporting inclusive organizations where everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability or ethnic and religious background, can succeed on merit.

At the board level, we believe that boards which reflect a wide range of perspectives and opinion helps to enhance shareholder value. Diverse boardrooms help companies make better strategic decisions and assist in navigating increasingly complex issues, including geopolitical risks, regulatory changes and disruptive technologies. Recruiting individuals with the necessary skills, varied experiences and diverse backgrounds should be a fundamental part of strengthening a business.

 

B-558

 

LOGO


We expect boards to have a strategy to improve female representation in particular, and we will utilize our voting power to bring about change where companies are lagging in this respect. As a matter of principle we expect our investee companies to be committed to diversity and inclusiveness in all aspects of their businesses. Investee companies should provide appropriate information explaining how their companies consider diversity in its widest sense both at board level, executive level and throughout the broader business.

As a minimum standard, for all Asia ex Japan markets, we expect no single-gender boards, and 25% gender diverse representation, and 30% before 2030 (and follow the local market practice, whichever is more stringent). We will utilise our voting power to bring about change where companies are lagging and will vote against the Nomination Chair as well as engage with Nominations Committees where appropriate.

Board Committees

To strengthen the governance process, boards should delegate key oversight functions, such as responsibility for Audit, Nomination and Remuneration issues, to separate committees. The Chairman and members of any Committee should be clearly identified in the Annual Report. Any Committee should have the authority to engage independent advisers where appropriate at the company’s expense.

Audit Committees should consist solely of non-executive directors, who are independent of management. A demonstrably independent audit is essential for investor confidence. The Committee should include at least one person with an appropriate financial background, but all committee members should undergo appropriate training that provides for, and maintains, a reasonable level of financial literacy. The terms of reference of the Audit Committee should include the power to determine the scope of the audit process, to review the effectiveness of the external auditor, and to access any information arising from the internal audit process. Formal arrangements should be in place for the Committee to hold regular meetings with external auditors, without executive or staff involvement, and it should have the right of unrestricted access to all necessary company information to enable it to discharge its responsibilities.

Nomination Committees should be majority-independent and have an independent chair. The responsibilities of the Committee should include: assessing the skills and competencies of directors to ensure that the board has an appropriate range of expertise; managing the process for evaluating the performance of the board, its committees and directors, and reporting on this process to shareholders in the Annual Report; and maintaining formal and transparent arrangements for succession planning at the board and senior management level.

Remuneration Committees should be majority-independent and have an independent chair. The responsibilities of the Committee should include: reviewing and recommending policies relating to remuneration, retention and termination of senior executives; ensuring that, through these policies, executives are properly motivated to drive the long term success of the company, and that incentives are appropriately aligned; and overseeing the remuneration framework for non-executive directors. The Remuneration Committee should be ready to engage with and receive feedback from relevant stakeholders. The remuneration report should be the responsibility of the Remuneration Committee.

 

B-559

 

LOGO


Boards of banks, insurance companies, and other large or complex companies, should consider establishing a Risk Committee to provide independent oversight and advice to the board on the risk management strategy of the company. As with other committees, this Committee should give a summary of its activities in the Annual Report.

Director Independence and Tenure

A director will generally be deemed to be independent if he or she has no significant financial, familial or other ties with the company which might pose a conflict of interest. A non-executive director who has served more than three terms (or nine years) in the same capacity is no longer, normally, deemed to be independent. Directors staying on beyond this term would require the fullest explanation to shareholders. We will consider voting against appointment of independent directors who are deemed to be non-independent.

At the same time, it is essential that a company should attract and retain strong, experienced and knowledgeable board members able to contribute to its direction and success. Companies could consider re-appointing long servicing independent directors as non-executive directors or board advisors. To allow for periodic board refreshment, we would encourage companies to articulate their approach on term limits and retirement age, and insofar as exceptions arise, to explain why this should be warranted given the board’s composition and the individual director’s contribution. We also encourage boards to regularly conduct board evaluations, with a self-assessment at least annually and an evaluation facilitated by third party every three years.

In determining our vote, we will always consider independence and tenure issues on a case-by-case basis, taking into account any exceptional individual circumstances.

Multiple Directorships

To carry out their responsibilities effectively, non-executive directors must be able to commit an appropriate amount of time to board matters. In order to be able to devote sufficient time to his or her duties, we would not normally expect a non-executive director to hold more than three significant directorships at any one time. However, in the case of related group companies, we believe it is reasonable for an individual to hold up to six directorships, as long as this does not impact his/her ability to discharge his/her duties. In our view, it is the responsibility of the Chairman to ensure that all directors are participating actively, and are contributing proportionately to the work-load of the board.

For executive directors, only one additional non-executive post would normally be considered appropriate without further explanation.

Meeting Attendance

Directors should ensure they attend all board meetings and relevant committee meetings within their remit. We will consider voting against director re-election proposals for individuals with poor attendance records, unless compelling reasons for absence are disclosed.

Directors’ Liability

In certain markets, shareholders may be asked to give boards a blanket discharge from responsibility for all decisions made during the previous financial year. Depending on the jurisdiction, this resolution may or may not be legally binding, and may not release the board from its legal responsibility.

 

B-560

 

LOGO


JPMAM 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.

Companies may arrange Directors and Officers (“D&O”) liability insurance to indemnify executives in certain circumstances, such as class action lawsuits and other litigation. JPMAM generally supports such proposals, although we do not approve of arrangements where directors are given 100% indemnification, as this could absolve them of responsibility for their actions and encourage them to act recklessly. Such arrangements should not extend to third parties, such as auditors.

4. Remuneration

Key Principles

The key purpose of remuneration is to attract, retain and reward executives who are fundamental to the long term success of the company. Executive remuneration is, and will, remain a contentious area, particularly the overall quantum of remuneration. Policy in this area cannot easily be prescribed by any one code or formula to cater for all circumstances and it must depend on responsible and well- informed judgments on the part of Remuneration Committees. Any remuneration policy should be clear, transparent, simple to understand for both executives and investors, and fully disclosed to shareholders. At a senior executive level, remuneration should contain both a fixed element — set by reference to the external market — and a variable element, which fully aligns the executive with shareholder interests, and where superior awards can only be achieved by achieving superior performance against well-defined metrics.

Due consideration should be given to the effective management of risk within the business. This should be reflected in remuneration arrangements, which incentivize appropriate behavior and discourage excessive risk taking. Pay should be aligned to the long term success of the business and the returns achieved by shareholders, and due consideration should be given to claw-back arrangements, to avoid payment for failure. Remuneration committees should use the discretion afforded to them by shareholders to ensure that pay awards properly reflect the business performance achieved.

We believe firmly that executive directors should be encouraged to hold meaningful amounts of company stock throughout the duration of their board tenure. However, transaction bonuses, one-off retention awards, or other retrospective ex-gratia payments, should not be made, and we will vote against such awards when proposed at shareholder meetings. Recruitment awards for incoming executives should be limited to the value of awards forgone, and be granted on equivalent terms.

We will generally vote against shareholder proposals to restrict arbitrarily the compensation of executives or other employees. We feel that the specific amounts and types of employee compensation are within the ordinary remit of the board. At the same time, the remuneration of executive directors should be determined by independent remuneration committees and fully disclosed to shareholders. We would expect that stock option plans or long-term incentive plans should meet our compensation guidelines (see below).

Fixed Compensation

Executives are entitled to a basic salary set by reference to the external market, and in particular benchmarked against the company’s immediate peers. While acknowledging that salary often forms the

 

B-561

 

LOGO


basis for variable compensation arrangements, we believe annual increases in salary should be limited, and generally be in line with the wider workforce of the company. Substantial increases in salary, for example, where an executive has been promoted, should be fully justified to shareholders. We do not approve of large increases in fixed salary as a retention mechanism.

Variable Compensation

We generally prefer any variable compensation arrangement to have both a short-term and long-term component. Annual bonuses are now a common feature of compensation packages, and we recommend that bonuses be benchmarked against the sector in which the company operates. Whilst we recognize that annual bonus targets are often commercially sensitive, we expect a high degree of disclosure on performance metrics (pre-award) and performance against those metrics (post-award). Payment of bonuses for executives should take the form of cash and deferred shares. Claw-back arrangements should be a feature of any variable compensation scheme.

For the long-term component of variable compensation schemes, share-based Long-Term Incentive Plans (LTIPs) and Share Option Schemes (SOSs) should be designed to give executives an incentive to perform at the highest levels; grants under such schemes should be subject to appropriate performance criteria, which reflect the company’s long-term strategy and objectives over an appropriate time horizon. There should be no award for below-median performance, and awards for at- median performance should be modest at best. Beneficiaries should be encouraged to retain any resultant shares for the duration of their employment.

We will generally vote against the re-setting of performance conditions on existing awards, the cancellation and re-issue, re-testing or re-pricing of underwater awards, and the backdating of awards or discounted awards.

All incentive plans should be clearly explained and disclosed to shareholders, and, ideally, put to a shareholder vote for approval. Furthermore, each director’s awards, awarded or vested, should be detailed, including the term, performance conditions, exercise prices (if any), and the market price of the shares at the date of exercise. Best practice requires that share options be expensed fully, so that shareholders can assess their true cost to the company. The assumptions and methodology behind the expensing calculation should also be explained to shareholders.

To ensure that incentive plans operate in a way that benefits both employees and shareholders, we expect a limit on the level of dilution that can occur, and an upper performance cap or appropriate tapering arrangements for individual awards.

We will vote in favor of well-structured compensation schemes with keen incentives and clear and specific performance criteria, which are challenging in nature and fully disclosed to shareholders. We will vote against remuneration awards which we deem to be excessive, or performance criteria which are undemanding. We would expect remuneration committees to explain why criteria used are considered to be challenging, and how they align the interests of recipients with the long term interests of shareholders.

Pension Arrangements

Pension arrangements should be transparent and cost-neutral to shareholders. JPMAM believes it is inappropriate for executives to participate in pension arrangements, which are materially different to

 

B-562

 

LOGO


those of employees (such as continuing to participate in a final salary arrangement, when employees have been transferred to a defined contribution scheme). One-off payments into an individual director’s pension scheme, changes to pension entitlements, and waivers concerning early retirement provisions should be fully disclosed and justified to shareholders.

Non-Executive Director Remuneration

The role of the non-executive director is to monitor the strategy, performance and remuneration of executives and to protect the interests of shareholders. Non-executive directors should receive sufficient remuneration to attract and retain suitably qualified individuals and encourage them to undertake their role diligently.

JPMAM believes that non-executive directors should be paid, at least in part, in shares of the company wherever possible, in order to align their interests with the interests of shareholders. Performance criteria, however, should never be attached. Non-executive directors should not be awarded share options or performance based share awards. Neither should they receive retrospective ex-gratia payments at the termination of their service on the board. In the event that such remuneration schemes or payments are proposed, we will vote against these proposals.

5. Auditors

Auditor Independence

Auditors must provide an independent and objective check on the way in which the financial statements have been prepared and presented. The appointment of a company’s auditor should be reviewed and approved by shareholders on an annual basis. We will vote against the appointment or re-appointment of auditors who are not perceived as independent, or where there has been an unambiguous audit failure. The length of time that both the audit company and the audit partner have served in their capacity may be a factor in determining independence.

Auditor Rotation

In order to safeguard the independence of the audit, companies should rotate their designated auditor over time. We believe that companies should put their external audit contract out to tender at least every ten years.

Auditor Remuneration

We expect companies to make a detailed disclosure on auditor remuneration. Companies should be encouraged to distinguish clearly between audit and non-audit fees. Audit Committees should keep under review the non-audit fees paid to the auditor, both in relation to the size of the total audit fee and in relation to the company’s total expenditure on consultancy services.

Full details of all non-audit work should be disclosed. If there is a lack of explanation over the nature of non-audit services, or if there is reason to believe that the nature of these services could impair the independence of the audit, we will oppose the re-appointment of the auditor.

If the quantum of non-audit fees consistently exceed audit fees, and if no explanation is given to shareholders, we will vote against the auditor remuneration resolution.

 

B-563

 

LOGO


Auditor Indemnification

We are opposed to the use of shareholders’ funds to indemnify auditors.

6. Capital Management

Issue of Equity

Company law requires that shareholder approvals be obtained to increase the share capital of a company; at the same time, shareholders need to be aware of the expected levels of dilution resulting from new equity issuance. We will generally vote in favor of equity increases which enhance a company’s long term prospects, but we will vote against issuance terms that we consider excessively dilutive.

We believe strongly that any new issue of equity should first be offered to existing shareholders before being made available more broadly. Pre-emption rights are a fundamental right of ownership and we will generally vote against any attempts to deprive shareholders of these rights, except under very limited terms. At the same time, companies should have the ability to issue additional equity to provide flexibility in their financing arrangements. In many jurisdictions, companies routinely ask shareholders for authority to issue new equity up to a certain percentage of issued capital, and up to a maximum discount to prevailing market prices (the so-called “general mandate”).

As shareholders, we recognize the flexibility that the general mandate gives companies, and we wish to be supportive of such proposals. However, we also recognize that these mandates can be open to abuse, particularly if this results in excessively dilutive issuance. In particular, we believe the maximum number of additional shares represented by these proposals (including the re-issuance of repurchased shares if any) should be limited to 10% of existing equity capital, and the maximum discount of such issues to prevailing prices should similarly be limited to 10%.

We note that the listing rules in some jurisdictions permit issuance on considerably more relaxed terms than implied by these limits. In Hong Kong, for example, companies can seek approval to issue up to 20% of issued equity, at up to a 20% discount to prevailing market prices. We believe strongly that the dilution risk implied by these limits is excessive, and we tend to vote against such requests, unless a strong explanation has been provided justifying such terms.

When seeking shareholder approval for a general mandate, we would urge a company to provide the following details:

 

   

An explanation of the need for a general mandate request, and the rationale for the size of the issue and the discount cap,

 

   

Details of placements made under the general mandate during the preceding three years,

 

   

Details of alternative methods of financing that may have been considered by the board.

JPMAM will vote against equity issues, which allows the company to adopt “poison pill” takeover defense tactics, or where the increase in authorized capital excessively dilutes existing shareholder interests.

Debt Issuance

JPMAM will generally vote in favor of debt issuance proposals, which we believe will enhance a company’s long-term prospects. At the same time, we will vote against any uncapped or poorly-defined

 

B-564

 

LOGO


increase in bank borrowing powers or borrowing limits, as well as debt issuance which could result in an unacceptable degree of financial leverage assumed. We will also vote against proposals to increase borrowings, expressly as part of a takeover defense.

Share Repurchase Programs

JPMAM will generally vote in favor of share repurchase or buy-back programs where we believe the repurchase is in the best interests of shareholders. At the same time, we will vote against abusive repurchase schemes, or when shareholders’ interests could be better served by deployment of the cash for alternative uses. When purchased, we prefer that such shares are cancelled immediately, rather than taken into Treasury for re-issuance at a later date.

7. Mergers, Acquisitions and Related Party Transactions

Mergers and acquisitions are always considered on a case-by-case basis, and votes are determined exclusively by the best interests of our clients. In exceptional circumstances, we may split our vote and vote differently for individual clients depending on unique client circumstances. JPMAM may also split its vote between different clients for technical reasons, such as cross-border mergers, where certain clients may not be able to hold the resultant security in portfolios.

JPMAM will vote in favor of mergers/acquisitions where the proposed acquisition price represents fair value for shareholders, where shareholders cannot realize greater value through other means, and where all shareholders receive equal treatment under the merger/acquisition terms. Where the transaction involves related parties — see below — we would expect the board to establish a committee of independent directors to review the transaction and report separately to shareholders. There should be a clear value enhancing rationale for the proposed transaction.

Related Party Transactions

Related party transactions (RPTs) are common in a number of Asia Pacific jurisdictions. These are transactions between a company and its related parties, and generally come in two forms: a) one-off transactions, typically asset purchases or disposals, and b), recurring transactions occurring during the ordinary course of business, usually in the form of the ongoing sale and purchase of goods and services.

According to the materiality and nature of the transaction, the RPT may need to be disclosed and submitted to a shareholder meeting for approval. Any shareholder who has a material interest in the transaction should abstain from voting on the resolution. If a RPT requires shareholder approval, the company should establish a board committee comprising solely of independent directors, and appoint an independent advisor to prepare a recommendation to minority shareholders.

We will assess one-off transactions on a case by case basis. Where we are convinced by the strategic rationale and the fairness of the transaction terms, we will vote in favor. At the same time, we would expect the independent directors to disclose how they have made their recommendation to minority shareholders, so that shareholders can make an informed decision on this transaction.

For recurring transactions, we would expect that details are disclosed in the Annual Report, and that they be subject to shareholders’ approval on a periodic basis. We would expect all such transactions to have been conducted on an arms-length basis, on normal commercial terms.

 

B-565

 

LOGO


8. Voting Rights

Voting rights are the defining feature of equity ownership, and effective corporate governance depends on the willingness and ability of shareholders to exercise their votes. As a matter of principle, we believe that one share should equal one vote, and we are opposed to mechanisms that skew voting rights in favor of founder shareholders or other privileged groups. Unfortunately, the “one share, one vote” principle has been eroded in recent years, as regulators have permitted the listing of companies with weighted voting rights and other dual class features. This has reduced the ability of minority shareholders in these companies to use their voting power to hold their managements or controlling shareholders fully to account, in view of the lack of proportionality that unequal voting structures confer.

To provide protection for minority investors, we believe that companies with dual class structures should review these control features on a regular basis and seek periodic shareholder approvals. This should give those shareholders not enjoying such voting privileges the opportunity to affirm these structures, or to establish mechanisms, such as sunset clauses, which can phase out these unequal advantages after a prescribed period of time.

Independent directors, unaffiliated to controlling shareholders, should recognize their obligation to represent all shareholders equally, irrespective of the skew in voting rights. We will vote against the re-election of independent directors if valid concerns arise that the interests of minority shareholders are being compromised by the actions of controlling shareholders, enjoying disproportionate voting rights.

Elsewhere, while certain fundamental changes to a company’s business, Articles of Association, or share capital should require a supermajority vote, voting on routine business should require a simple majority only (51%). We will generally oppose amendments that require inappropriate supermajority votes, or use supermajority requirements as a tool to entrench existing managements.

9. Environmental and Social Issues

We believe that a company’s environmental policies may have a long-term impact on the company’s financial performance. We believe that good corporate governance policies should consider the impact of company operations on the environment and the cost 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. Furthermore, we believe that corporate shareholders have a legitimate need for information to enable them to evaluate the potential risks and opportunities that climate change and other environmental matters pose to the company’s operations, sales and capital investments. We acknowledge that many companies disclose their practices relating to social and environmental issues and that disclosure is improving over time. We generally encourage a level of 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, we consider 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.

 

B-566

 

LOGO


In evaluating how to vote environmental proposals, considerations may include but are not limited to the following—

Issuer Considerations

 

   

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

 

   

capital deployment of the company;

 

   

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, including whether senior management is incentivized for long-term returns

 

   

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

 

   

whether the company incorporates environmental or social issues in a risk assessment or risk reporting framework

Proposal Considerations

 

   

would adoption of the proposal inform and educate shareholders and have companies that adopted 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

 

   

does the proposal create the potential for unintended consequences such as a competitive disadvantage.

In general, we support 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.

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

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 in which the company operates, thus delivering shareholder returns. JPMAM will generally support shareholder resolutions seeking the company to disclose data on workforce demographics including diversity, where such disclosure is deemed inadequate.

 

B-567

 

LOGO


We expect engaged Boards to provide oversight of Human Capital Management (HCM); a company’s management of its workforce including human resources policies including code of conduct, 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. JPMAM will vote case by case on shareholder resolutions seeking disclosure of HCM. JPMAM will generally vote against shareholder proposals seeking HCM information which is considered confidential or sensitive information by the Board.

10. Shareholder Resolutions

In a number of jurisdictions, shareholders have the right to submit proposals at shareholder meetings, providing eligibility and other requirements have been met. Such proposals can be wide ranging, and may include: governance reforms, capital management issues, and disclosures surrounding environmental and social risks.

When assessing shareholder proposals, we review each resolution on its merits. Our sole criteria of support is: does this proposal enhance shareholder rights; and is this proposal in the long term interests of all shareholders? Where we are convinced the proposal meets these objective, it will receive our vote in support. However, we will not support proposals which are frivolous or supportive of a narrow activist agenda; nor will we support those which are unduly constraining on managements, or are already in managements’ remit.

Where a proposal is focused on an issue that needs to be addressed, we would expect the board and management to demonstrate that company will comply with the resolution within a reasonable time-frame. But where the company fails to respond sufficiently or with the appropriate sense of urgency, we may vote against the re-election of one or more directors at subsequent meetings.

11. Other Corporate Governance Matters

Amendments to Articles of Association

These proposals can vary from routine changes to reflect regulatory change to significant changes that can substantially alter the governance of a company. We will review these proposals on a case by case basis, and will support those proposals that we believe are in the best interests of shareholders.

Anti-takeover Devices

Poison pills, and other anti-takeover devices, are arrangements designed to defend against hostile takeover. Typically, they give shareholders of a target company or a friendly third party, the right to purchase shares at a substantial discount to market value, or shares with special conversion rights in the event of a pre-defined “triggering event” (such as an outsider’s acquisition of a certain percentage of company stock). Companies may be able to adopt poison pills without shareholder approval, depending on the jurisdiction concerned.

We are fundamentally opposed to any artificial barrier to the efficient functioning of markets. The market for corporate control should, ultimately, be for all shareholders to decide. We find no clear evidence that poison pills enhance shareholder value. Rather, they tend to be used as tools to entrench existing management.

 

B-568

 

LOGO


We will generally vote against anti-takeover devices and support proposals aimed at revoking such plans. Where anti-takeover devices exist, they should be fully disclosed to shareholders and shareholders should be given the opportunity to review them periodically.

Composite Resolutions

Agenda items at shareholder meetings should be presented so that they can be voted upon clearly, distinctly and unambiguously. We normally oppose deliberately vague, composite or “bundled” resolutions, depending on the context and local market practice. Likewise we will generally vote against “any other business” resolutions, where the exact nature of the proposal has not been presented to shareholders in advance.

Any amendments to a company’s Articles of Association, for example, should be presented to shareholders in such a way that they can be voted on independently. Shareholders should similarly be able to vote on the election of directors individually, rather than as part of bundled slates.

Charitable Donations

Charitable donations are generally acceptable, provided they are within reasonable limits and fully disclosed to shareholders.

Political Donations

We do not support the use of shareholder funds for political purposes.

Virtual Only Annual General Meeting

As annual general meetings (AGMs) should be fair, constructive, and open to dialogue between the management of the company and shareholders, in principle, we support the holding of a hybrid virtual annual general meetings. However, we have concerns that there may be restrictions on shareholder participation in a virtual only annual general meeting, so we think that such a meeting should only be held in exceptional circumstances, such as during pandemic, and that companies should explain why it is necessary to hold the meeting in this manner.

J.P. Morgan Asset Management

Asia ex Japan Proxy Committee

1st April 2023

 

B-569

 

LOGO


  D.

Japan

Table of contents

 

Basic Policy on Corporate Governance

     B-571  

1.  Purpose of proxy voting

     B-571  

2.  Proxy voting principles

     B-571  

Voting Guidelines

     B-572  

1.  Distribution of income/Dividends and share buybacks

     B-572  

2.  Boards and Directors

     B-572  

3.  Director’s Remuneration

     B-575  

4.  Appointment of external audit firms

     B-577  

5.  Poorly performing companies

     B-577  

6.  Efforts to improve capital efficiency

     B-577  

7.  Anti-social activities

     B-578  

8.  Cross-shareholdings

     B-578  

9.  Adoption of anti-hostile takeover measures

     B-578  

10.  Capital Structure

     B-579  

11.  Mergers / Acquisitions

     B-579  

12.  Virtual Only Annual General Meeting

     B-579  

13.  Social and Environmental Issues

     B-580  

14.  Conflicts of Interest

     B-581  

15.  Shareholder proposals

     B-581  

 

B-570

 

LOGO


Basic Policy on Corporate Governance

JPMorgan Asset Management (Japan) Ltd fully endorses the 2020 revision of the Japanese version of the Stewardship Code and, we have disclosed the steps we follow with regard to the principles of the Code. We recognize the importance of corporate governance when evaluating companies and we will continue with our efforts to engage with companies as responsible institutional investors.

We also positively evaluate the Corporate Governance Code introduced in June 2015 which we believe serves to further enhance corporate governance in Japan.

J.P. Morgan Asset Management is a signatory to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI) which commits participants to six Principles, with the aim of incorporating ESG criteria into their processes when making stock selection decisions and promoting ESG disclosure.

1. Purpose of proxy voting

JPMorgan Asset Management (Japan) Ltd (AMJ) manages the voting rights of the shares entrusted to it as it would manage any other asset. It is the policy of AMJ to vote in a prudent and diligent manner, based exclusively on our reasonable judgment of what will best serve the financial interests of the beneficial owners of the security. When exercising our vote, our aim is to evaluate the governance of the company concerned and maximize returns to shareholders over the medium to long term.

2. Proxy voting principles

 

   

We will vote at all of the meetings called by companies in which we are invested on behalf of our clients who have authorized us to vote.

 

   

In principle, we will not abstain or withhold our vote. This is to prevent the worst possible outcome, a shareholder meeting failing to meet its quorum and thereby not be effective.

 

   

We look to an enhancement of corporate value over the medium to long term and sustained growth of the company concerned through our proxy voting.

 

   

We recognize the importance of constructive engagements with companies, as an on-going dialogue on ways to raise corporate value can lead to maximizing medium to long term investment returns for our clients. Therefore, we ask companies to be open and responsive when we seek to have investor engagements.

 

   

If any agenda item is couched in vague terms or lacking in explanation, so that it would be possible to interpret the item in a manner detrimental to the rights of shareholders, in principle we will not support such a proposal.

1st, April 2023

JPMorgan Asset Management (Japan) Ltd.

Japan Proxy Committee

 

B-571

 

LOGO


Voting Guidelines

 

  1.

Distribution of income/Dividends and share buybacks

As investors, we are seeking sustainable earnings growth over the medium to long term and an expansion in shareholder value of the companies we invest in; thus we believe that concentrating solely on shareholders returns would not be appropriate. During different phases in a company’s development, we understand that the balance between retained earnings, capital expenditure and investment in the business, and returns to shareholders will change.

As a general rule, we will vote against any proposal for the appropriation of profits which involves a pay-out ratio of less than 50% (after taking into account other forms of pay-outs to shareholders such as share repurchase programs), if the capital ratio is equal to or greater than 50% and there is no further need to increase the level of retained earnings.

Also, even in the event that the capital ratio is less than 50%, we will vote against management if the pay-out ratio is deemed to be strikingly low (after taking into account other forms of pay-outs such as share repurchase programs) without a valid reason. We believe that, in general, companies should target a total shareholder return of 30%.

The guidelines above relating to a company’s capital ratio have not been applied in the case of financial institutions; the income allocation proposals for financial institutions have been assessed on a case by case basis. We note, however, that the capital ratio in the banking industry has improved in recent years and thus believe conditions look more favourable now for returns to shareholders to be enhanced. Thus we believe that financial institutions should also target a total shareholder return of 30%. In instances where we deem that further retention of earnings is no longer required, we believe a total shareholder return greater than 50% would be appropriate.

If the appropriation of profits is not tabled as an item at the annual general meeting, in principle, we will vote against the re-election of directors, in cases where the above conditions are not met.

In addition, we will oppose the dividend proposal where we believe it will prejudice the solvency or future prospects of the company.

When making our decision, we take into account the history of the company’s return to shareholders, not just the outcome of the most recent financial year.

Where a company seeks to amend its articles of association to allow the distribution of income by way of board resolution, we will generally vote against such a proposal We will, however, support an amendment to allow distribution of income by way of board resolution if it is clear that under normal circumstances the income allocation proposal will be presented to the annual general meeting and is thus a measure to allow the company to make distributions in exceptional circumstances.

 

  2.

Boards and Directors

Election of Directors

We will generally support the election of directors. However, if the candidate(s) infringes our guidelines with regard to the independence of directors or the number of directors, we will not support the proposal.

 

B-572

 

LOGO


In addition, in the case of the re-election of directors, we will vote against candidates who infringe our guidelines pertaining to the length of tenure, pay-out ratio, poorly performing companies, anti-social activities, cross shareholdings, stock options, anti-hostile takeover measures, mergers and acquisitions, capital raising, borrowing and share repurchase programmes. Also, we will not support the re-election of external board members (external directors and external statutory auditors) whose attendance at board meetings falls below 75%. In principle, we expect external board members to hold no more than four directorships of listed companies. Where there are no external board members, we will generally oppose the re-election of the representative director(s).

Number of Directors

Boards with more than 15 directors are deemed excessively large, and AMJ will exercise its voting powers in favour of reducing large boards wherever possible. AMJ believes a board with 15 directors or less is appropriate in Japan as well. To ensure a swift management decision-making process, in principle, we will therefore vote against a resolution for the election of directors where the premise is that the board will consist of more than 15 directors.

Director’s Term of Office

Every director should be subject to a re-election process and we believe the term of office should be one year’s duration or less. We well support amendment to the articles reducing the director’s term of office to one year; in principle, we will vote against a proposal where the term exceeds one year.

Length of tenure

We will take the length of tenure into consideration when a director is subject to re-election. In particular, when a director who has served for a long period is offered for re-election, we will take factors such as the company’s performance during that time into consideration.

Separation of Chairman and CEO

AMJ believes it is preferable if the role of Chairman and CEO is separate in Japan as well.

External Directors on the Board of Directors

We encourage the election of multiple external directors on the board of directors since we believe that having multiple external directors is essential for the board to form an objective perspective on the company and act effectively. Therefore, unless majority of the board of directors is comprised of external directors or candidates for external director at the annual general meeting (AGM), in principle, we will vote against the election of the representative directors, such as the president of the company. When making our decision on this issue, we will not take the independence of the external director or the candidate for external director into consideration. Our decision regarding the independence of an external director will be reflected in our vote on that individual candidate.

Composition of the Board of Directors

We believe that it is not only the number of external directors which is of consequence but attach importance to the composition of the board of directors. The board has a responsibility to reflect the

 

B-573

 

LOGO


interest of all the company’s stakeholders, such as its clients, employees and investors.

Thus, consideration should be given to achieving a suitable balance in terms of the areas of expertise, gender, nationality, seniority or length of tenure on the board of the individual board members. Recruiting individuals with unique skills, experiences and diverse backgrounds is a fundamental part of strengthening a business, and is an important consideration when searching for new board members. We believe directors with diverse backgrounds should make up a majority of the board, and will work toward that goal over time.

We feel that gender equality is one of the top priorities for Japanese corporate boards to resolve. We thus seek to deepen our understanding of the board structure through our engagement with companies, and we will also convey our message through our vote for or against the election of directors, where we believe our vote can contribute towards enhancing corporate value on the issues noted above. Our current policy is to vote against the election of the representative directors, such as the president of the company if there are no female directors. Beginning in 2024 we will require more than one female director, and at least 30% gender diversity before 2030.

We also expect companies to consider and address diversity in its widest sense, both at the board level and throughout the business such as the senior management level and disclose appropriate information in line with this expectation.

Independence of external directors

Even if the candidate for external director meets the standards of local Japanese requirements, we believe the following candidates cannot be deemed independent without adequate explanation from the company; and in general will oppose their election as an external director.

 

  1.

Was or is employed at an affiliate company

 

  2.

Was or is employed at a large shareholder or major business partner

 

  3.

Was or is employed at a legal firm, accounting firm, taxation firm, consultant or financial institution such as a bank where a business relationship exists with the company concerned so that a conflict of interest exists

 

  4.

Was or is employed at a company in which the investee company holds shares (cross shareholdings of equity)

 

  5.

An external director whose tenure exceeds 10 years.

 

  6.

Any other candidate who also appears subject to a conflict of interest will be opposed.

These criteria apply equally to directors at boards with committees, boards with statutory auditors and boards with supervisory committees.

We will generally support a proposal to change the structure of the board from a statutory auditor type to one with a board with committees. We support measures to delegate key oversight functions such as Remuneration, Nomination and Audit to independent committees. We will also generally support a change to a board with supervisory committee, provided the company provides a clear and rational explanation behind such a move.

 

B-574

 

LOGO


Dismissal of Directors

In principle, we will vote against measures to make the dismissal of directors more difficult.

Board Effectiveness

Board effectiveness is essential to the functioning of a governance system and to the oversight of the delivery of business objectives. We encourage boards to regularly conduct board evaluations, with a self-assessment at least annually and an evaluation facilitated by independent external professional governance consultants on occasion, as a best practice.

Election of Statutory Auditors

We will generally support the election of statutory auditors, though we will oppose candidates for external statutory auditor based on our criteria for independence described in the following section. In the case of the re-election of statutory auditors, we will vote against candidates who infringe our guidelines pertaining to anti-social activities. Also, we will not support the re-election of external statutory auditors whose attendance at board meetings falls below 75%.

Independence of external statutory auditors

Even if the candidate for external statutory auditor meets the standards of local Japanese requirements, we believe the following candidates cannot be deemed independent without adequate explanation from the company; and in general will oppose their election as an external statutory auditor.

 

  1.

Was or is employed at an affiliate company

 

  2.

Was or is employed at a large shareholder or major business partner

 

  3.

Was or is employed at a legal firm, accounting firm, taxation firm, consultant or financial institution such as a bank where a business relationship exists with the company concerned so that a conflict of interest exists

 

  4.

Was or is employed at a company in which the investee company holds shares (cross shareholdings of equity)

 

  5.

An external statutory auditor whose tenure exceeds 10 years.

 

  6.

Any other candidate who also appears subject to a conflict of interest will be opposed.

These criteria apply equally to candidates for alternate external statutory auditors.

 

  3.

Director’s Remuneration

The voting decision will be made in a comprehensive manner taking into account matters such as the recent trend in the company’s earnings. We expect the director remuneration process to be transparent and support the disclosure of individual director remuneration. We believe that director remuneration is best determined following advice from a remuneration committee independent of management; we do not support the process whereby the board gives the representative director discretion to determine the remuneration of individual directors. In principle, we will support shareholder resolutions in favour of the disclosure of individual director’s remuneration and bonus payments.

 

B-575

 

LOGO


We expect companies to have a remuneration system comprised of a reasonable mix of fixed and variable (based on short term and medium to long term incentives) compensation. The fixed component should reflect practices in the industry and also be consistent with the wider policies on employee pay. The variable element should be linked to performance and be designed in a manner to reward performance. We support the disclosure of the structure of director’s remuneration and the linkage of director’s remuneration to the company’s performance. In addition, we encourage the companies to disclose key performance indicators (KPIs) or figures that clearly explain how the overall remuneration quantum, the ratio of fixed-pay to variables, or the ratio of cash to stock-based payment are decided. We support the introduction of clawback or malus clauses in order to prevent excessive risk taking which can negatively impact shareholder value and excessive pay.

In cases where there has been anti-social activity or the company has had poor performance, votes will be cast against the re-election of directors, where this is deemed appropriate. However, where there are no other appropriate proposals, we may vote against an increase in directors’ pay or the payment of bonuses.

Retirement bonus

The voting decision will be made in a comprehensive manner taking into account matters such as the recent trend in the company’s earnings. In principle, we will support shareholder resolutions in favour of the disclosure of individual director’s retirement bonus payments.

AMJ will vote against

 

  1.

Golden parachutes

 

  2.

Retirement bonus payments to external directors, directors who are audit and supervisory committee members and statutory auditors.

In cases where there has been anti-social activity or the company has had poor performance, votes will be cast against the re-election of directors, where this is deemed appropriate. However, where there are no other appropriate proposals, we may vote against the payment of retirement bonuses to directors.

Stock Options and Equity Remuneration Plans

In terms of alignment with the interest of shareholders, we believe it is meaningful for directors and employees to hold the company stock and welcome the award of stock options and equity compensation. Long-term incentive arrangements, such as share option schemes and L-TIPs, should be dependent upon challenging performance criteria and there should be no award for below median performance. The terms should be clearly explained and fully disclosed to shareholders and participants.

We will vote against the proposal in the following cases

 

  1.

The terms of the stock option or equity remuneration plan are unclear or not fully disclosed. Deep discount stock option plans will only be supported if exercise is prohibited in the first three years following the award.

 

B-576

 

LOGO


  2.

In general, we will not support a proposal where the dilution from existing schemes and the new program requiring annual general meeting approval exceeds 10%.

 

  3.

Transaction bonuses, or other retrospective ex-gratia payments, should not be made

 

  4.

We will generally vote against the cancellation and re-issue, re-testing or re-pricing, of underwater options.

 

  5.

External directors and statutory auditors (both internal and external), as well as third parties such as clients should not be participants in stock option schemes.

 

  6.

Equity remuneration for external directors and statutory auditors (both internal and external) should not be linked to performance. Nor should third parties receive equity.

 

  4.

Appointment of external audit firms

Auditors must provide an independent and objective check on the way in which the financial statements have been prepared and presented. We will oppose an appointment where we believe a conflict of interest may exist.

Exemption from liability

Apart from those instances where local rules allow, in general, we will vote against a limitation in the legal liability of directors and statutory auditors.

We believe agreements should not be concluded with external audit firms exempting them from liability and we will oppose proposals to amend articles of association to permit the introduction of such agreements.

 

  5.

Poorly performing companies

During our scrutiny of management proposals at AGMs, we will be cognisant of the recent trend in a company’s earnings. For example, where a company has seen a recurring decline in earnings, recorded a large loss, or continuously reported a noticeably low level of return (such as a company with a permanently low ROE), we may determine the poor performance of the company needs to be reflected in our voting activity. (We do not have a ROE target as such, but look at the level and trend in ROE when evaluating companies). In such instances, AMJ will vote against the re-election of a director where shareholder value has been negatively impacted by the poor performance attributable to mistakes made during the director’s term.

 

  6.

Efforts to improve capital efficiency

We expect company management to have due regard for the cost of capital. If a company does not show signs that it is seeking to improve the efficient use of capital, where we believe the company’s capital management will lead to depressed earnings or a deterioration in corporate and shareholder value, AMJ will vote against the re-election of the representative director(s) or the director in charge.

 

B-577

 

LOGO


  7.

Anti-social activities

This is an item included within a Japanese context. There is no strict definition of anti-social activity, but in this context refers to companies, for example, subject to official sanctions from their regulatory bodies or have violated the law during the fiscal year in question. In addition, companies which have caused severe social problems or through their actions negatively impacted earnings and caused a severe loss to shareholder value will be considered. Emphasis is placed on the possibility or otherwise of the impairment of shareholder value through these activities.

AMJ expects companies which have been involved in anti-social activities to disclose such activities to shareholders, together with the countermeasures and the remedial measures adopted. If the parties directly involved in the anti-social activity remain on the board of directors, in general, we will vote against the election of those directors and/or statutory auditors concerned. However, where there are no other appropriate proposals, we may vote against the directors’ remuneration, the payment of bonuses or retirement bonuses to directors, or the award of stock options.

 

  8.

Cross-shareholdings

This is an item included within a Japanese context. Due to potential conflict of interest, the risk of the proxy vote becoming inconsequential, and capital efficiency concerns, in general, we believe companies should not have cross-shareholdings in other companies. Therefore, we will vote against the re-election of the representative director(s) or the director in charge at companies which are expanding cross-shareholdings, companies with a low likelihood of liquidating the existing cross-shareholdings, or companies who endorse the idea of cross-shareholdings.

We have observed cases where disclosures on cross-shareholdings provided by companies are either too complex or too vague; this can be obstructive for investors to have constructive engagement on the topic. Therefore, we ask the companies to provide full quantitative and qualitative explanation on past proxy voting activities, potential conflict of interest of owning shares in business partners, and the economic rationale for existing cross-shareholdings.

 

  9.

Adoption of anti-hostile takeover measures

AMJ considers such measures on a case-by-case basis. In principle we will oppose such measures, unless it is clear such measures are necessary and effective and will serve to enhance shareholder value. AMJ will generally vote against anti-takeover devices and support proposals aimed at revoking existing plans. AMJ will vote against increases in capital where the increase in authorised capital would dilute shareholder value in the long-term. Also, if management adopts other measures which fulfill the function of an anti-hostile takeover measure without seeking shareholder approval, methods of expressing a vote against management will be determined as deemed appropriate.

In a Japanese context, the following are among the steps we believe that can be viewed as “poison pill” equivalents: 1) MPO financings; 2) increases in authorized share capital without adequate explanation; 3) large scale dilution to parties other than shareholders; 4) issuance of “golden shares”; 5) deliberate changes as to the timing of re-election of directors; 6) lengthy extensions to the directors’ term. From the viewpoint of the safeguarding of shareholder rights, we will oppose the re-election of directors, for example, in this context.

 

B-578

 

LOGO


  10.

Capital Structure

Issue of classified stock

We will oppose the issue of classified stock without a rational explanation regarding the purpose of such a means of fund-raising.

Increase in the authorized share capital

AMJ will vote against the increase in the authorized share capital when we believe this will be detrimental to shareholder value.

Capital Increase

Capital increases will be judged on a case-by-case basis depending on its purpose. AMJ will vote against capital increases if the purpose is to defend against a takeover.

When new shares are issued, in principle, we believe existing shareholders should be given precedence. Even if this is not the case, we will look at each instance with due care.

If there is no opportunity to indicate our view at the shareholders meeting and we hold a negative view regarding a capital increase during the fiscal year in question, we will oppose the election of directors.

Borrowing of Funds

AMJ will vote against abrupt increases in borrowing of funds if the purpose is to defend against a takeover. If there is no opportunity to indicate our view at the shareholders meeting and we hold a negative view regarding the borrowing of funds, we will oppose the re-election of directors.

Share Repurchase Programs

AMJ will vote in favour of share repurchase programs if it leads to an increase in the value of the company’s shares. If there is no opportunity to indicate our view at the shareholders meeting and we hold a negative view regarding the share repurchase program, we will oppose the re-election of directors.

 

  11.

Mergers / Acquisitions

Mergers and acquisitions must only be consummated at a price representing fair value. If there is no opportunity to indicate our view at the shareholders meeting and we hold a negative view regarding the merger/acquisition, we will oppose the re-election of directors.

 

  12.

Virtual Only Annual General Meeting

As annual general meetings (AGMs) should be fair, constructive, and open to dialogue between the management of the company and shareholders, in principle, we support the holding of a hybrid virtual annual general meetings. However, we have concerns that there may be restrictions on shareholder participation in a virtual only annual general meeting, so we think that such a meeting should only be held in exceptional circumstances, such as during pandemic, and that companies should explain why it is necessary to hold the meeting in this manner.

 

B-579

 

LOGO


  13.

Social and Environmental Issues

We believe that a company’s environmental policies may have a long-term impact on the company’s financial performance. We believe that good corporate governance policies should consider the impact of company operations on the environment and the cost 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. Furthermore, we believe that corporate shareholders have a legitimate need for information to enable them to evaluate the potential risks and opportunities that climate change and other environmental matters pose to the company’s operations, sales and capital investments. We acknowledge that many companies disclose their practices relating to social and environmental issues and that disclosure is improving over time. We generally encourage a level of 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, we consider 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.

In evaluating how to vote environmental proposals, considerations may include but are not limited to the following—

Issuer Considerations

 

   

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

 

   

capital deployment of the company

 

   

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, including whether senior management is incentivized for long-term returns

 

   

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

 

   

whether the company incorporates environmental or social issues in a risk assessment or risk reporting framework

Proposal Considerations

 

   

would adoption of the proposal inform and educate shareholders and have companies that adopted proposal provided insightful and meaningful information that would allow shareholders to evaluate the long-term risks and performance of the company

 

B-580

 

LOGO


   

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

 

   

does the proposal create the potential for unintended consequences such as a competitive disadvantage.

In general, we support 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.

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

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 in which the company operates, thus delivering shareholder returns. JPMAM will generally support shareholder resolutions seeking the company to disclose data on workforce demographics including diversity, where such disclosure is deemed inadequate.

We expect engaged Boards to provide oversight of Human Capital Management (HCM); a company’s management of its workforce including human resources policies including code of conduct, 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. JPMAM will vote case by case on shareholder resolutions seeking disclosure of HCM. JPMAM will generally vote against shareholder proposals seeking HCM information which is considered confidential or sensitive information by the Board.

 

  14.

Conflicts of Interest

In order to maintain the integrity and independence of AMJ’s proxy-voting decisions, without undue influence from business relations with investee companies and to avoid conflicts of interest, AMJ refers to the view of third party governance specialists to form an objective and rational judgment.

There is a possibility that conflicts of interest may arise with other group companies within the JPMorgan Chase (the ultimate parent company of JPMAM) group as such companies may be providing funds or acting as the underwriter for investee companies. In order to maintain the integrity and independence of AMJ’s proxy-voting decisions, JPMorgan Chase has established formal barriers designed to restrict the flow of information between its securities, lending, investment banking and other divisions to investment professionals in the Asset Management division.

Nonetheless, where a potential material conflict of interest has been identified, AMJ, within the scope permitted by regulations and with clients, will call upon an independent third-party to make the voting decision, or it will contact individual clients to approve any voting decision, or may elect not to vote.

 

  15.

Shareholder proposals

When deciding how we will vote a shareholder proposal, we scrutinise every item on a case-by-case basis, based on our judgment of what serves to enhance corporate value over the medium to long term, keeping in mind the best economic interests of our clients.

 

B-581

 

LOGO


Lazard Asset Management

Global Proxy Voting Policy

 

A.

Introduction

Lazard Asset Management LLC and its investment advisory subsidiaries (“Lazard” or the “firm”) provide investment management services for client accounts, including proxy voting services. As a fiduciary, Lazard is obligated to vote proxies in the best interests of its clients over the long-term. Lazard has developed a structure that is designed to ensure that proxy voting is conducted in an appropriate manner, consistent with clients’ best interests, and within the framework of this Proxy Voting Policy (the “Policy”).

Lazard manages assets for a variety of clients worldwide, including institutions, financial intermediaries, sovereign wealth funds, and private clients. To the extent that proxy voting authority is delegated to Lazard, Lazard’s general policy is to vote proxies on a given issue in the same manner for all of its clients. This Policy is based on the view that Lazard, in its role as investment adviser, must vote proxies based on what it believes (i) will maximize sustainable shareholder value as a long-term investor; (ii) is in the best interest of its clients; and (iii) the votes that it casts are intended in good faith to accomplish those objectives.

This Policy recognizes that there may be times when meeting agendas or proposals may create the appearance of a material conflict of interest for Lazard. Lazard will look to alleviate the potential conflict by voting according to pre-approved guidelines. In conflict situations where a pre-approved guideline is to vote case-by-case, Lazard will vote according to the recommendation of one of the proxy voting services Lazard retains to provide independent analysis. More information on how Lazard handles material conflicts of interest in proxy voting is provided in Section F of this Policy.

 

B.

Responsibility to Vote Proxies

Generally, Lazard is willing to accept delegation from its clients to vote proxies. Lazard does not delegate that authority to any other person or entity, but retains complete authority for voting all proxies on behalf of its clients. Not all clients delegate proxy-voting authority to Lazard, however, and Lazard will not vote proxies, or provide advice to clients on how to vote proxies, in the absence of a specific delegation of authority or an obligation under applicable law. For example, securities that are held in an investment advisory account for which Lazard exercises no investment discretion are not voted by Lazard, nor are shares that a client has authorized their custodian bank to use in a stock loan program which passes voting rights to the party with possession of the shares.

 

C.

General Administration

 

  1.

Overview and Governance

Lazard’s proxy voting process is administered by members of its Operations Department (“the Proxy Administration Team”). Oversight of the process is provided by Lazard’s Legal & Compliance Department

and by a Proxy Committee comprised of senior investment professionals, members of the Legal & Compliance Department, the firm’s Co-Heads of Sustainable Investment & Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (“ESG”) and other personnel. The Proxy Committee meets regularly, generally on a quarterly basis, to review this Policy and other matters relating to the firm’s proxy voting functions. Meetings may be convened more frequently (for example, to discuss a specific proxy agenda or proposal) as needed. A representative of Lazard’s Legal & Compliance Department will participate in all Proxy Committee meetings.

A quorum for the conduct of any meeting will be met if a majority of the Proxy Committee’s members are in attendance by phone or in person. Decisions of the Proxy Committee will be made by consensus and minutes of each meeting will be taken and maintained by the Legal & Compliance Department. The Proxy

 

B-582


Committee may, upon consultation with Lazard’s Chief Compliance Officer, General Counsel or his/her designee, take any action that it believes to be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of the Policy. The Chief Compliance Officer, General Counsel or his/her designee, is responsible for updating this Policy, interpreting this Policy, and may act on behalf of the Proxy Committee in circumstances where a meeting of the members is not feasible.

 

  2.

Role of Third Parties

Lazard currently subscribes to advisory and other proxy voting services provided by Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”) and Glass, Lewis & Co. (“Glass Lewis”). These proxy advisory services provide independent analysis and recommendations regarding various companies’ proxy proposals. While this research serves to help improve our understanding of the issues surrounding a company’s proxy proposals, Lazard’s Portfolio Manager/Analysts and Research Analysts (collectively, “Portfolio Management”) are responsible for providing the vote recommendation for a given proposal except when the Conflicts of Interest policy applies (see Section F).

ISS provides additional proxy-related administrative services to Lazard. ISS receives on Lazard’s behalf all proxy information sent by custodians that hold securities on behalf of Lazard’s clients and sponsored funds. ISS posts all relevant information regarding the proxy on its password-protected website for Lazard to review, including meeting dates, all agendas and ISS’ analysis. The Proxy Administration Team reviews this information on a daily basis and regularly communicates with representatives of ISS to ensure that all agendas are considered and proxies are voted on a timely basis. ISS also provides Lazard with vote execution, recordkeeping and reporting support services. Members of the Proxy Committee, along with members of the Legal & Compliance Team, conducts periodic due diligence of ISS and Glass Lewis consisting of an annual questionnaire and, as appropriate, on site visits.

The Proxy Committee believes that the Policy is consistent with the firm’s Corporate Governance Principals and ESG and Climate Change Policies at https://www.lazardassetmanagement.com/about/esg.

 

  3.

Voting Process

The Proxy Committee has approved proxy voting guidelines applicable to specific types of common proxy proposals (the “Approved Guidelines”). As discussed more fully below in Section D of this Policy, depending on the proposal, an Approved Guideline may provide that Lazard should vote for or against the proposal, or that the proposal should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

For each shareholder meeting the Proxy Administration Team provides Portfolio Management with the agenda and proposals, the Approved Guidelines, independent vote recommendations from Glass Lewis and ISS and supporting analyses for each proposal. Unless Portfolio Management disagrees with the Approved Guideline for a specific proposal, or where a potential material conflict of interest exists, the Proxy Administration Team will generally vote the proposal according to the Approved Guideline. In cases where Portfolio Management recommends a vote contrary to the Approved Guideline, a member of the Proxy Administration Team will contact a member of the Legal & Compliance Department advising the Proxy Committee. Such communication, which may be in the form of an e-mail, shall include: the name of the issuer, a description of the proposal, the Approved Guideline, any potential conflict of interest presented and the reason(s) Portfolio Management believes a proxy vote in this manner is in the best interest of clients In such cases, the Proxy Committee and the Legal & Compliance Department will review the proposal and make a determination.

Where the Approved Guideline for a particular type of proxy proposal is to vote on a case-by-case basis, Lazard believes that Portfolio Management is best able to evaluate the potential impact to shareholders resulting from a particular proposal. Similarly, with respect to certain Lazard strategies, as discussed more fully in Sections F and G below, the Proxy Administration Team will consult with Portfolio Management to determine when it would be appropriate to abstain from voting. The Proxy Administration Team seeks

 

B-583


Portfolio Management’s recommendation on how to vote all such proposals. The Proxy Administration Team may also consult with Lazard’s Chief Compliance Officer, General Counsel or his/her designee, and may seek the final approval of the Proxy Committee regarding a recommendation by Portfolio Management.

As a global firm, we recognize that there are differing governance models adopted in various countries and that local laws and practices vary widely. Although the Approved Guidelines are intended to be applied uniformly world-wide, where appropriate, Lazard will consider regional/local law and guidance in applying the Policy.

 

D.

Specific Proxy Items

Shareholders receive proxies involving many different proposals. Many proposals are routine in nature, such as a change in a company’s name. Others are more complicated, such as items regarding corporate governance and shareholder rights, changes to capital structure, stock option plans and other executive compensation/ issues, election of directors, mergers and other significant transactions and social or political issues. Lazard’s Approved Guidelines for certain common agenda items are outlined below. The Proxy Committee will also consider any other proposals presented and determine whether to implement a new Approved Guideline.

Certain strategy-specific considerations may result in Lazard voting proxies other than according to the Approved Guidelines, not voting shares at all, issuing standing instructions to ISS on how to vote certain proxy matters on behalf of Lazard, or taking other action where unique circumstances require special voting efforts or considerations. These considerations are discussed in more detail in Section G, below.

 

  1.

Routine Items

Lazard generally votes routine items as recommended by the issuer’s management and board of directors, based on the view that management is generally in a better position to assess these matters. Lazard considers routine items to be those that do not change the structure, charter, bylaws, or operations of an issuer in any way that is material to long-term shareholder value. Routine items generally include:

 

   

issues relating to the timing or conduct of annual meetings;

 

   

provisionary financial budgets and strategy for the current year;

 

   

proposals that allow votes submitted for the first call of the shareholder meeting to be considered in the event of a second call;

 

   

proposals to receive or approve of variety of routine reports (Lazard will generally vote FOR the approval of financial statements and director and auditor reports unless there are concerns about the accounts presented or audit procedures used or the company is not responsive to shareholder questions about specific items that should be publicly disclosed); and

 

   

changes to a company’s name.

 

  2.

Amendments to Board Policy/Charter/Regulation:

Proposals to amend a company’s Articles of Association and other bylaws are commonly seen at shareholder meetings. Companies usually disclose what is being amended, or the amended bylaws, or both in their meeting circulars. Amendments are nearly always bundled together as a single voting resolution, and Lazard’s general approach is to review these amendments on a case-by-case basis and to oppose article amendments as a whole when they include changes Lazard opposes.

Lazard has Approved Guidelines generally to vote FOR bylaw amendments that are driven by regulatory changes and are technical in nature or meant to update company-specific information such as address and/or business scope.

 

B-584


Lazard has Approved Guidelines generally to vote AGAINST bylaw amendments if

 

   

there is no disclosure on the proposed amendments or full text of the amended bylaw; or

 

   

the amendments include increase in the decision authority of what is considered “excessive” and the company fails to provide a compelling justification.

 

  3.

Corporate Governance and Shareholder Rights

Many proposals address issues related to corporate governance and shareholder rights. These items often relate to a board of directors and its committees, anti-takeover measures, and the conduct of the company’s shareholder meetings.

 

  a.

Board of Directors and its Committees

Lazard votes in favor of provisions that it believes will increase the effectiveness of an issuer’s board of directors.

Lazard has Approved Guidelines generally to vote FOR the following:

 

   

the establishment of an independent nominating committee, audit committee or compensation committee of a board of directors1;

 

   

a requirement that a substantial majority (e.g., 2/3) of a company’s directors be independent;

 

   

a proposal that a majority of the entirety of the board’s committees be comprised of independent directors;

 

   

proposals seeking to de-classify a board;

 

   

the implementation of director stock retention/holding periods;

 

   

proposals relating to the establishment of directors’ mandatory retirement age and age restrictions for directors especially where such proposals seek to facilitate the improvement of the diversity of the board; and

 

   

changes to the articles of association and other relevant documents which are in the long-term interests of shareholders;

 

   

the appointment or (re)election of internal statutory auditors/fiscal council members unless (a) the name of the management nominees are not disclosed in a timely manner prior to the meeting, (b) there are serious concerns about statutory reports presented or the audit procedures used, (c) questions exist concerning any of the auditors, (d) the auditors have previously served the company in an executive capacity (or are otherwise considered affiliated) or (e) minority shareholders have presented timely disclosure of minority fiscal council nominee(s) to be elected under separate elections.

Lazard has Approved Guidelines generally to vote on a CASE by CASE Basis for the following:

 

   

proposals to require an independent board chair or the separation of chairman and CEO; and

 

   

establishment of shareholder advisory committees.

1 

However, Lazard will vote against proposals to elect or appoint such committee if the company is on the MSCI-EAFE or local main index and (1) a member of executive management would be a member of the committee; (2) more than one board member who is dependent on a major shareholder would be on the committee or (3) the chair of the board would also be the chair of the committee.

 

B-585


Lazard has Approved Guidelines generally to vote AGAINST the following:

 

   

proposals seeking to classify a board

 

   

the election of directors where the board does not have independent “key committees” or sufficient board independence;

 

   

non-independent directors who serve on key committees that are not sufficiently independent;

 

   

proposals relating to cumulative voting;

 

   

proposals where the names of the candidates (in the case of an election) or the principles for the establishment of a committee (where a new committee is being created) have not been disclosed in a timely manner;

 

   

release of restrictions on competitive activities of directors2 if (a) there is a lack of disclosure on the key information including identities of directors in question, current position in the company and outside boards they are serving on or (b) the non-nomination system is employed by the company for the director election; and

the discharge of directors, including members of the management board and/or supervisory board and auditors, unless there is reliable information about significant and compelling concerns that the board is not fulfilling its fiduciary duties3.

 

  b.

Anti-takeover Measures

Certain proposals are intended to deter outside parties from taking control of a company. Such proposals could entrench management and adversely affect shareholder rights and the value of the company’s shares.

Consequently, Lazard has adopted Approved Guidelines to vote AGAINST:

 

   

proposals to adopt supermajority vote requirements or increase vote requirements;

 

   

proposals seeking to adopt fair price provisions and on a case-by-case basis regarding proposals seeking to rescind them; and

 

   

“blank check” preferred stock.

Lazard has adopted Approved Guidelines to vote on a CASE by CASE basis regarding other provisions seeking to amend a company’s by-laws or charter regarding anti-takeover provisions or shareholder rights plans (also known as “poison pill plans”).

Lazard has adopted an Approved Guideline to vote FOR proposals that ask management to submit any new poison pill plan to shareholder vote.

 

  c.

Conduct of Shareholder Meetings

Lazard generally opposes any effort by management to restrict or limit shareholder participation in shareholder meetings, and is in favor of efforts to enhance shareholder participation. Lazard has therefore adopted Approved Guidelines to vote AGAINST:

 

   

proposals to adjourn US meetings;

 

   

proposals seeking to eliminate or restrict shareholders’ right to call a special meeting;

 

   

efforts to eliminate or restrict right of shareholders to act by written consent; and

 

   

proposals to adopt supermajority vote requirements, or increase vote requirements.

2 

This is intended to cover instances where directors engage in commercial transactions with the company and/or are involved with other companies (outside board memberships).

3 

For example, a lack of oversight or actions by board members which invoke shareholder distrust, legal issues aiming to hold the board responsible for breach of trust or egregious governance issues.

 

B-586


Lazard has adopted Approved Guidelines to vote on a CASE by CASE basis on changes to quorum requirements and FOR proposals providing for confidential voting.

 

  4.

Changes to Capital Structure

Lazard receives many proxies that include proposals relating to a company’s capital structure. These proposals vary greatly, as each one is unique to the circumstances of the company involved, as well as the general economic and market conditions existing at the time of the proposal. A board and management may have many legitimate business reasons in seeking to effect changes to the issuer’s capital structure, including investing in financial products and raising additional capital for appropriate business reasons, cash flow and market conditions. Lazard generally believes that these decisions are best left to management but will monitor these proposals closely to ensure that they are aligned with the long-term interests of shareholders.

Lazard has adopted Approved Guidelines to vote FOR:

 

   

management proposals to increase or decrease authorized common or preferred stock (unless it is believed that doing so is intended to serve as an anti-takeover measure);

 

   

stock splits and reverse stock splits;

 

   

investments in financial products unless the company fails to provide meaningful shareholder vote or there are significant concerns with the company’s previous similar investments;4

 

   

requests to reissue any repurchased shares unless there is clear evidence of abuse of authority in the past;

 

   

management proposals to adopt or amend dividend reinvestment plans; and

 

   

dividend distribution policies unless (a) the dividend payout ratio has been consistently below 30% without adequate explanation or (b) the payout is excessive given the company’s financial position.

Lazard has adopted Approved Guidelines to vote on a CASE by CASE basis for:

 

   

matters affecting shareholder rights, such as amending votes-per-share;

 

   

management proposals to issue a new class of common or preferred shares (unless covered by an Approved Guideline relating to the disapplication of pre-emption rights);

 

   

the use of proceeds and the company’s past share issuances5;

 

   

proposals seeking to approve or amend stock ownership limitations or transfer restrictions; and

 

   

loan and financing proposals. In assessing requests for loan financing provided by a related party the following factors will be considered: (a) use of proceeds, size or specific amount of loan requested, interest rate and relation of the party providing the loan.

Lazard has adopted Approved Guidelines to vote AGAINST:

 

   

changes in capital structure designed to be used in poison pill plans or which seeks to disregard pre-emption rights in a way that does not follow guidance set by the UK Pre-Emption Group’s Statement of Principles;

4 

Evaluate (a) any known concerns with previous investments, (b) amount of the proposed investment relative to the company’s assets and (c) disclosure of the nature of products in which the company proposed to invest and associated risks of the investment.

5 

Specifically, with respect to the issuance of shares to raise funds for general financing purposes, Lazard will consider the Measures for the Administration of the Issuance of Securities by Listed Companies 2006 and the Detailed Rules for Private Placement by Listed Companies, the China Securities Regulatory Commission.

 

B-587


   

the provision of loans to clients, controlling shareholders and actual controlling persons of the company; and

 

   

the provision of loans to an entity in which the company’s ownership stake is less than 75% and the financing provision is not proportionate to the company’s equity stake.

 

  5.

Executive Compensation Issues

Lazard supports efforts by companies to adopt compensation and incentive programs to attract and retain the highest caliber management possible, and to align the interests of a board, management and employees with those of long-term shareholders. Lazard generally favors programs intended to reward management and employees for positive and sustained, long-term performance but will take into account various considerations such as whether compensation appears to be appropriate for the company after an analysis of the totality of the circumstances (including the company’s time in history and evolution).

Lazard has Approved Guidelines generally to vote FOR

 

   

employee stock purchase plans, deferred compensation plans, stock option plans and stock appreciation rights plans that are in the long-term interests of shareholders;

 

   

proposals to submit severance agreements to shareholders for approval;

 

   

annual advisory votes on compensation outcomes where the outcomes are considered to be aligned with the interest of shareholders; and

 

   

annual compensation policy votes where the policy structures are considered to be aligned with the interest of shareholders.

Lazard has Approved Guidelines generally to vote on a CASE by CASE basis regarding:

 

   

restricted stock plans that do not define performance criteria; and

 

   

proposals to approve executive loans to exercise options.

Lazard has Approved Guidelines generally to vote AGAINST:

 

   

proposals to re-price underwater options;

 

   

annual advisory votes on remuneration outcomes where the outcomes are considered not to be in the interests of shareholders; and

 

   

annual remuneration policy vote where the policy structures are considered not to be in the interests of shareholders.

 

  6.

Mergers and Other Significant Transactions

Shareholders are asked to consider a number of different types of significant transactions, including mergers, acquisitions, sales of all or substantially all of a company’s assets, reorganizations involving business combinations and liquidations. Each of these transactions is unique. Therefore, Lazard’s Approved Guideline is to vote on a CASE by CASE basis for these proposals.

 

  7.

Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance

Proposals involving environmental, social, and corporate governance issues take many forms and cover a wide array of issues. Some examples may include: proposals to have a company increase its environmental disclosure; adoption of principles to limit or eliminate certain business activities; adoption of certain conservation efforts; adoption of proposals to improve the diversity of the board, the senior management team and the workforce in general; adoption of proposals to improve human capital management or the

 

B-588


adoption of certain principles regarding employment practices or discrimination policies. These items are often presented by shareholders and are often opposed by the company’s management and its board of directors.

As set out in Lazard’s separate ESG Policy, Lazard is committed to an investment approach that incorporates ESG considerations in a comprehensive manner in order to safeguard the long-term interests of our clients and to manage more effectively long-term investment risks and opportunities related to ESG matters. Lazard generally supports the notion that corporations should be expected to act as good citizens. Lazard generally votes on environmental, social and corporate governance proposals in a way that it believes will most increase long-term shareholder value.

Lazard’s Approved Guidelines are structured to evaluate many environmental, social and corporate governance proposals on a case-by-case basis.

However, as a guide, Lazard will generally vote FOR proposals:

 

   

asking for a company to increase its environmental/social disclosures (e.g., to provide a corporate sustainability report);

 

   

seeking the approval of anti-discrimination policies;

 

   

which are considered socially responsible agenda items;

 

   

which improve an investee company’s ESG risk management and related disclosures; and

 

   

deemed to be in the long-term interests of shareholders.

 

  8.

Shareholder Proposals

Lazard believes in the ability of shareholders to leverage their rights related to the use of shareholder proposals to address deficits in best practices and related disclosures by companies. Many ESG issues are improved through such use of shareholder proposals. For example, some companies are collaborating with shareholders on such proposals by voicing their support and recommending that shareholders vote in-line with such proposals.

Lazard has Approved Guidelines generally to vote FOR shareholder proposals which:

 

   

seek improved disclosure of an investee company’s ESG practices over an appropriate timeframe;

 

   

seek improved transparency over how the investee company is supporting the transition to a low carbon economy;

 

   

seek to improve the diversity of the board;

 

   

seek improved disclosures on the diversity of the board and the wider workforce;

 

   

seek to establish minimum stock-ownership requirements for directors over an appropriate time frame;

 

   

seek to eliminate or restrict severance agreements, or

 

   

are deemed to be in the long-term interests of shareholders including Lazard’s clients.

Lazard has Approved Guidelines generally to vote AGAINST shareholder proposals which:

 

   

seek to infringe excessively on management’s decision-making flexibility;

 

   

seek to establish additional board committees (absent demonstrable need);

 

   

seek to establish term limits for directors if this is unnecessary;

 

   

seek to change the size of a board (unless this facilitates improved board diversity);

 

   

seek to require two candidates for each board seat; or

 

   

are considered not to be in the long-terms interests of shareholders.

 

B-589


E.

Voting Securities in Different Countries

Laws and regulations regarding shareholder rights and voting procedures differ dramatically across the world. In certain countries, the requirements or restrictions imposed before proxies may be voted may outweigh any benefit that could be realized by voting the proxies involved. For example, certain countries restrict a shareholder’s ability to sell shares for a certain period of time if the shareholder votes proxies at a meeting (a practice known as “share blocking”). In other instances, the costs of voting a proxy (i.e., by being routinely required to send a representative to the meeting) may simply outweigh any benefit to the client if the proxy is voted. Generally, the Proxy Administration Team will consult with Portfolio Management in determining whether to vote these proxies.

There may be other instances where Portfolio Management may wish to refrain from voting proxies (See Section G.1. below).

 

F.

Conflicts of Interest

 

  1.

Overview

This Policy and related procedures implemented by Lazard are designed to address potential conflicts of interest posed by Lazard’s business and organizational structure. Examples of such potential conflicts of interest are:

 

   

Lazard Frères & Co. LLC (“LF&Co.”), Lazard’s parent company and a registered broker- dealer, or a financial advisory affiliate, has a relationship with a company the shares of which are held in accounts of Lazard clients, and has provided financial advisory or related services to the company with respect to an upcoming significant proxy proposal (i.e., a merger or other significant transaction);

 

   

Lazard serves as an investment adviser for a company the management of which supports a particular proposal;

 

   

Lazard serves as an investment adviser for the pension plan of an organization that sponsors a proposal; or

 

   

A Lazard employee who would otherwise be involved in the decision-making process regarding a particular proposal has a material relationship with the issuer or owns shares of the issuer.

 

  2.

General Policy

All proxies must be voted in the best long-term interest of each Lazard client, without consideration of the interests of Lazard, LF&Co. or any of their employees or affiliates. The Proxy Administration Team is responsible for all proxy voting in accordance with this Policy after consulting with the appropriate member or members of Portfolio Management, the Proxy Committee and/or the Legal & Compliance Department. No other employees of Lazard, LF&Co. or their affiliates may influence or attempt to influence the vote on any proposal. Violations of this Policy could result in disciplinary action, including letter of censure, fine or suspension, or termination of employment. Any such conduct may also violate state and Federal securities and other laws, as well as Lazard’s client agreements, which could result in severe civil and criminal penalties being imposed, including the violator being prohibited from ever working for any organization engaged in a securities business. Every officer and employee of Lazard who participates in any way in the decision-making process regarding proxy voting is responsible for considering whether they have a conflicting interest or the appearance of a conflicting interest on any proposal. A conflict could arise, for example, if an officer or employee has a family member who is an officer of the issuer or owns securities of the issuer. If an officer or employee believes such a conflict exists or may appear to exist, he or she should notify the Chief Compliance Officer immediately and, unless determined otherwise, should not continue to participate in the decision-making process.

 

B-590


  3.

Monitoring for Conflicts and Voting When a Material Conflict Exists

The Proxy Administration Team monitors for potential conflicts of interest that could be viewed as influencing the outcome of Lazard’s voting decision. Consequently, the steps that Lazard takes to monitor conflicts, and voting proposals when the appearance of a material conflict exists, differ depending on whether the Approved Guideline for the specific item is clearly defined to vote for or against, or is to vote on a case-by-case basis. Any questions regarding application of these conflict procedures, including whether a conflict exists, should be addressed to Lazard’s Chief Compliance Officer or General Counsel.

 

  a.

Where Approved Guideline Is For or Against

Lazard has an Approved Guideline to vote for or against regarding most proxy agenda/proposals. Generally, unless Portfolio Management disagrees with the Approved Guideline for a specific proposal, the Proxy Administration Team votes according to the Approved Guideline. It is therefore necessary to consider whether an apparent conflict of interest exists when Portfolio Management disagrees with the Approved Guideline. The Proxy Administration Team will use its best efforts to determine whether a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest exists. If conflict appears to exist, then the proposal will be voted according to the Approved Guideline. In situations where the Approved Guideline is to vote Case by Case, Lazard will vote in accordance with the recommendations of one of the proxy voting services Lazard retains to provide independent analysis. Lazard also reserves its right to Abstain.

In addition, in the event of a conflict that arises in connection with a proposal for Lazard to vote shares held by Lazard clients in a Lazard mutual fund, Lazard will typically vote each proposal for or against proportion to the shares voted by other shareholders.

 

  b.

Where Approved Guideline Is Case-by-Case

In situations where the Approved Guideline is to vote case-by-case and a material conflict of interest appears to exist, Lazard’s policy is to vote the proxy item according to the majority recommendation of the independent proxy services to which we subscribe. Lazard also reserves the right to Abstain.

 

G.

Other Matters

 

  1.

Issues Relating to Management of Specific Lazard Strategies

Due to the nature of certain strategies managed by Lazard, there may be times when Lazard believes that it may not be in the best interests of its clients to vote in accordance with the Approved Guidelines, or to vote proxies at all. In certain markets, the fact that Lazard is voting proxies may become public information, and, given the nature of those markets, may impact the price of the securities involved. Lazard may simply require more time to fully understand and address a situation prior to determining what would be in the best interests of shareholders. In these cases the Proxy Administration Team will look to Portfolio Management to provide guidance on proxy voting rather than vote in accordance with the Approved Guidelines, and will obtain the Proxy Committee’s confirmation accordingly.

Additionally, Lazard may not receive notice of a shareholder meeting in time to vote proxies for or may simply be prevented from voting proxies in connection with a particular meeting. Due to the compressed time frame for notification of shareholder meetings and Lazard’s obligation to vote proxies on behalf of its clients, Lazard may issue standing instructions to ISS on how to vote on certain matters.

Different strategies managed by Lazard may hold the same securities. However, due to the differences between the strategies and their related investment objectives, one Portfolio Management team may desire to vote differently than the other, or one team may desire to abstain from voting proxies while the other may desire to vote proxies. In this event, Lazard would generally defer to the recommendation of the Portfolio Management teams to determine what action would be in the best interests of its clients. The Chief

 

B-591


Compliance Officer or General Counsel, in consultation with members of the Proxy Committee will determine whether it is appropriate to approve a request to split votes among one or more Portfolio Management teams.

 

  2.

Stock Lending

As noted in Section B above, Lazard does not generally vote proxies for securities that a client has authorized their custodian bank to use in a stock loan program, which passes voting rights to the party with possession of the shares. Under certain circumstances, Lazard may determine to recall loaned stocks in order to vote the proxies associated with those securities. For example, if Lazard determines that the entity in possession of the stock has borrowed the stock solely to be able to obtain control over the issuer of the stock by voting proxies, or if the client should specifically request Lazard to vote the shares on loan, Lazard may determine to recall the stock and vote the proxies itself. However, it is expected that this will be done only in exceptional circumstances. In such event, Portfolio Management will make this determination and the Proxy Administration Team will vote the proxies in accordance with the Approved Guidelines.

 

H.

Reporting

Separately managed account clients of Lazard who have authorized Lazard to vote proxies on their behalf will receive information on proxy voting with respect to that account. Additionally, the US mutual funds managed by Lazard will disclose proxy voting information on an annual basis on Form N-PX which is filed with the SEC.

 

I.

Recordkeeping

Lazard will maintain records relating to the implementation of the Approved Guidelines and this Policy, including a copy of the Approved Guidelines and this Policy, proxy statements received regarding client securities, a record of votes cast and any other document created by Lazard that was material to a determination regarding the voting of proxies on behalf of clients or that memorializes the basis for that decision. Such proxy voting books and records shall be maintained in the manner and for the length of time required in accordance with applicable regulations.

 

J.

Review of Policy and Approved Guidelines

The Proxy Committee will review this Policy at least annually to consider whether any changes should be made to it or to any of the Approved Guidelines. The Proxy Committee will make revisions to its Approved Guidelines when it determines it is appropriate or when it sees an opportunity to materially improve outcomes for clients. Questions or concerns regarding the Policy should be raised with Lazard’s General Counsel or Chief Compliance Officer.

Revised As Of April 1, 2022

 

B-592


LOOMIS, SAYLES & COMPANY

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

March 24, 2022

 

 

 

 

 

LOGO

 

B-593


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

1.

GENERAL

 

A.

Introduction.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. (“Loomis Sayles”) will vote proxies of the securities held in its clients’ portfolios on behalf of each client that has delegated proxy voting authority to Loomis Sayles as investment adviser. Loomis Sayles has adopted and implemented these policies and procedures (“Proxy Voting Procedures”) to ensure that, where it has voting authority, proxy matters are handled in the best interests of clients, in accordance with Loomis Sayles’ fiduciary duty, and all applicable law and regulations. The Proxy Voting Procedures, as implemented by the Loomis Sayles Proxy Committee (as described below), are intended to support good corporate governance, including those corporate practices that address environmental and social issues (“ESG Matters”), in all cases with the objective of protecting shareholder interests and maximizing shareholder value.

Loomis Sayles uses the services of third parties (each a “Proxy Voting Service” and collectively the “Proxy Voting Services”), to provide research, analysis and voting recommendations and to administer the process of voting proxies for those clients for which Loomis Sayles has voting authority. Any reference in these Proxy Voting Procedures to a “Proxy Voting Service” is a reference either to the Proxy Voting Service that provides research, analysis and voting recommendations to Loomis Sayles or to the Proxy Voting Service that administers the process of voting proxies for Loomis Sayles or to both, as the context may require. Loomis Sayles will generally follow its express policy with input from the Proxy Voting Service that provides research, analysis and voting recommendations to Loomis Sayles unless the Proxy Committee determines that the client’s best interests are served by voting otherwise.

 

B.

General Guidelines.

The following guidelines will apply when voting proxies on behalf of accounts for which Loomis Sayles has voting authority.

 

  1.

Client’s Best Interests. The Proxy Voting Procedures are designed and implemented in a way that is reasonably expected to ensure that proxy matters are conducted in the best interests of clients. When considering the best interests of clients, Loomis Sayles has determined that this means the best investment interest of its clients as shareholders of the issuer. To protect its clients’ best interests, Loomis Sayles has integrated the consideration of ESG Matters into its investment process. The Proxy Voting Procedures are intended to reflect the impact of these factors in cases where they are material to the growth and sustainability of an issuer. Loomis Sayles has established its Proxy Voting Procedures to assist it in making its proxy voting decisions with a view toward enhancing the value of its clients’ interests in an issuer over the period during which it expects its clients to hold their investments. Loomis Sayles will vote against proposals that it believes could adversely impact the current or future market value of the issuer’s securities during the expected holding period. Loomis Sayles also believes that protecting the best interests of clients requires the consideration of potential material impacts of proxy proposals associated with ESG Matters.

For the avoidance of doubt, and notwithstanding any other provisions of these Proxy Voting Procedures, in all instances in which Loomis Sayles votes proxies on behalf of clients that are employee benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), Loomis Sayles (a) will act solely in accordance with the economic interest of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries, and (b) will not subordinate the interests of the participants and

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-594


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

beneficiaries in their retirement income or financial benefits under the plan to any other objective, or promote benefits or goals unrelated to those financial interests of the plan’s participants and beneficiaries.

 

  2.

Client Proxy Voting Policies. Rather than delegating proxy voting authority to Loomis Sayles, a client may (a) retain the authority to vote proxies on securities in its account; (b) delegate voting authority to another party; or (c) instruct Loomis Sayles to vote proxies according to a policy that differs from the Proxy Voting Procedures. Loomis Sayles will honor any of these instructions if the instruction is agreed to in writing by Loomis Sayles in its investment management agreement with the client. If Loomis Sayles incurs additional costs or expenses in following any such instruction, it may request payment for such additional costs or expenses from the client.

 

  3.

Stated Policies. In the interest of consistency in voting proxies on behalf of its clients where appropriate, Loomis Sayles has adopted policies that identify issues where Loomis Sayles will (a) generally vote in favor of a proposal; (b) generally vote against a proposal; (c) generally vote as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service; and (d) specifically consider its vote for or against a proposal. However, these policies are guidelines and each vote may be cast differently than the stated policy, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances at the time of the vote. In certain cases where the recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service and the recommendation of the issuer’s management are the same, the vote will generally be cast as recommended and will not be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Proxy Committee. In cases where the portfolio manager of an account that holds voting securities of an issuer or the analyst covering the issuer or its securities recommends a vote, the proposal(s) will be voted according to these recommendations after a review for any potential conflicts of interest is conducted and will not be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Proxy Committee. There may be situations where Loomis Sayles casts split votes despite the stated policies. For example, Loomis Sayles may cast a split vote when different clients may be invested in strategies with different investment objectives, or when different clients may have different economic interests in the outcome of a particular proposal. Loomis Sayles also may cast a split vote on a particular proposal when its investment teams have differing views regarding the impact of the proposal on their clients’ investment interests.

 

  4.

Abstentions and Other Exceptions. Loomis Sayles’ general policy is to vote rather than abstain from voting on issues presented, unless the Proxy Committee determines, pursuant to its best judgment, that the client’s best interests require abstention. However, in the following circumstances Loomis Sayles may not vote a client’s proxy:

 

   

The Proxy Committee has concluded that voting would have no meaningful, identifiable economic benefit to the client as a shareholder, such as when the security is no longer held in the client’s portfolio or when the value of the portfolio holding is insignificant.

 

   

The Proxy Committee has concluded that the costs of or disadvantages resulting from voting outweigh the economic benefits of voting. For example, in some non-US jurisdictions, the sale of securities voted may be legally or practically prohibited or subject to some restrictions for some period of time, usually between the record and meeting dates (“share blocking”). Loomis Sayles believes that the loss of investment flexibility resulting from share blocking generally outweighs the benefit to be gained by voting. Information about share blocking is often incomplete or contradictory. Loomis Sayles relies on the client’s custodian and on its Proxy Voting Service to identify share blocking jurisdictions. To the extent such information is wrong, Loomis Sayles

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-595


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

 

could fail to vote shares that could have been voted without loss of investment flexibility, or could vote shares and then be prevented from engaging in a potentially beneficial portfolio transaction.

 

   

Administrative requirements for voting proxies in certain foreign jurisdictions (which may be imposed a single time or may be periodic), such as providing a power of attorney to the client’s local sub-custodian, cannot be fulfilled due to timing of the requirement, or the costs required to fulfill the administrative requirements appear to outweigh the benefits to the client of voting the proxy.

 

   

The client, as of the record date, has loaned the securities to which the proxy relates and Loomis Sayles has concluded that it is not in the best interest of the client to recall the loan or is unable to recall the loan in order to vote the securities1.

 

   

The client so directs Loomis Sayles.

The Proxy Committee will generally vote against, rather than abstain from voting on, ballot issues where the issuer does not provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. In addition, there may be instances where Loomis Sayles is not able to vote proxies on a client’s behalf, such as when ballot delivery instructions have not been processed by a client’s custodian, when the Proxy Voting Service has not received a ballot for a client’s account (e.g., in cases where the client’s shares have been loaned to a third party), when proxy materials are not available in English, and under other circumstances beyond Loomis Sayles’ control.

 

  5.

Oversight. All issues presented for shareholder vote are subject to the oversight of the Proxy Committee, either directly or by application of this policy. All non-routine issues will generally be considered directly by the Proxy Committee and, when necessary, the investment professionals responsible for an account holding the security, and will be voted in the best investment interests of the client. All routine “for” and “against” issues will be voted according to this policy unless special factors require that they be considered by the Proxy Committee and, when necessary, the investment professionals responsible for an account holding the security.

 

  6.

Availability of Procedures. Loomis Sayles publishes these Proxy Voting Procedures, as updated from time to time, on its public website, www.loomissayles.com, and includes a description of its Proxy Voting Procedures in Part 2A of its Form ADV. Upon request, Loomis Sayles also provides clients with a copy of its Proxy Voting Procedures.

 

  7.

Disclosure of Vote. Loomis Sayles makes certain disclosures regarding its voting of proxies in the aggregate (not specific as to clients) on its website, www.loomissayles.com. For mutual funds that it manages, Loomis Sayles is required by law to make certain disclosures regarding its voting of proxies annually. This information is also available on the Loomis Sayles website. Additionally, Loomis Sayles will, upon request by a client, provide information about how each proxy was voted with respect to the securities in that client’s account. Loomis Sayles’ policy is not to disclose a client’s proxy voting records to third parties except as required by applicable law and regulations.

1 

Loomis Sayles does not engage in securities lending. However, some clients do opt to lend securities, availing themselves of their custodians’ services.

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-596


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

C.

Proxy Committee.

 

  1.

Proxy Committee. Loomis Sayles has established a Proxy Committee. The Proxy Committee is composed of senior representatives from firm investment teams and members of the Legal and Compliance Department, and other employees of Loomis Sayles as needed. In the event that any member is unable to participate in a meeting of the Proxy Committee, he or she may designate another individual to act on his or her behalf. A vacancy in the Proxy Committee is filled by the prior member’s successor in position at Loomis Sayles or a person of equivalent experience. Each portfolio manager of an account that holds voting securities of an issuer or the analyst covering the issuer or its securities may be an ad hoc member of the Proxy Committee in connection with voting proxies of that issuer. Voting determinations made by the Proxy Committee generally will be memorialized electronically (e.g., by email).

 

  2.

Duties. The Proxy Committee’s specific responsibilities include the following:

 

  a.

developing, authorizing, implementing and updating the Proxy Voting Procedures, including:

(i) annually reviewing the Proxy Voting Procedures to ensure consistency with internal policies and regulatory agency policies, including determining the continuing adequacy of the Proxy Voting Procedures to confirm that they have been formulated reasonably and implemented effectively, including whether they continue to be reasonably designed to ensure that proxy votes are cast in clients’ best interest,

(ii) annually reviewing existing voting guidelines and developing of additional voting guidelines to assist in the review of proxy proposals, and

(iii) annually reviewing the proxy voting process and addressing any general issues that relate to proxy voting;

 

  b.

overseeing the proxy voting process, including:

(i) overseeing the vote on proposals according to the predetermined policies in the voting guidelines,

(ii) directing the vote on proposals where there is reason not to vote according to the predetermined policies in the voting guidelines or where proposals require special consideration,

(iii) consulting with the portfolio managers and analysts for the accounts holding the security when necessary or appropriate, and

(iv) periodically sampling or engaging an outside party to sample proxy votes to ensure they comply with the Proxy Voting Procedures and are cast in accordance with the clients’ best interests;

 

  c.

engaging and overseeing third-party vendors that materially assist Loomis Sayles with respect to proxy voting, such as the Proxy Voting Services, including:

(i) determining and periodically reassessing whether, as relevant, the Proxy Voting Service has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues by considering:

(a) the adequacy and quality of the Proxy Voting Service’s staffing, personnel and technology,

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-597


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

(b) whether the Proxy Voting Service has adequately disclosed its methodologies in formulating voting recommendations, such that Loomis Sayles can understand the factors underlying the Proxy Voting Service’s voting recommendations,

(c) the robustness of the Proxy Voting Service’s policies and procedures regarding its ability to ensure that its recommendations are based on current, materially complete and accurate information, and

(d) the Proxy Voting Service’s policies and procedures regarding how it identifies and addresses conflicts of interest, including whether the Proxy Voting Service’s policies and procedures provide for adequate disclosure of its actual and potential conflicts of interest with respect to the services it provides to Loomis Sayles.

(ii) providing ongoing oversight of the Proxy Voting Services to ensure that proxies continue to be voted in the best interests of clients and in accordance with these Proxy Voting Procedures and the determinations and directions of the Proxy Committee,

(iii) receiving and reviewing updates from the Proxy Voting Services regarding relevant business changes or changes to the Proxy Voting Services’ conflict policies and procedures, and

(iv) in the event that the Proxy Committee becomes aware that a recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service was based on a material factual error (including materially inaccurate or incomplete information): investigating the error, considering the nature of the error and the related recommendation, and determining whether the Proxy Voting Service has taken reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood of similar errors in the future; and

 

  d.

further developing and/or modifying these Proxy Voting Procedures as otherwise appropriate or necessary.

 

  3.

Standards.

 

  a.

When determining the vote of any proposal for which it has responsibility, the Proxy Committee shall vote in the client’s best interests as described in section 1(B)(1) above. In the event a client believes that its other interests require a different vote, Loomis Sayles shall vote as the client instructs if the instructions are provided as required in section 1(B)(2) above.

 

  b.

When determining the vote on any proposal, the Proxy Committee shall not consider any benefit to Loomis Sayles, any of its affiliates, any of its or their clients or service providers, other than benefits to the owner of the securities to be voted.

 

  c.

If Loomis Sayles becomes aware of additional information relevant to the voting of a shareholder meeting after a vote has been entered but before the applicable voting deadline has passed, it will consider whether or not such information impacts the vote determination entered, and if necessary, use reasonable efforts to change the vote instruction.

 

D.

Conflicts of Interest.

Loomis Sayles has established policies and procedures to ensure that proxy votes are voted in its clients’ best interests and are not affected by any possible conflicts of interest. First, except in certain limited instances, Loomis Sayles votes in accordance with its pre-determined policies set forth in these Proxy

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-598


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

Voting Procedures. Second, where these Proxy Voting Procedures allow for discretion, Loomis Sayles will generally consider the recommendations of the Proxy Voting Service in making its voting decisions. However, if the Proxy Committee determines that the Proxy Voting Service’s recommendation is not in the best interests of the firm’s clients, then the Proxy Committee may use its discretion to vote against the Proxy Voting Service’s recommendation, but only after taking the following steps: (1) conducting a review for any material conflict of interest Loomis Sayles may have, and (2) if any material conflict is found to exist, excluding anyone at Loomis Sayles who is subject to that conflict of interest from participating in the voting decision in any way. However, if deemed necessary or appropriate by the Proxy Committee after full disclosure of any conflict, that person may provide information, opinions or recommendations on any proposal to the Proxy Committee. In such event, prior to directing any vote, the Proxy Committee will make reasonable efforts to obtain and consider information, opinions and recommendations from or about the opposing position.

 

E.

Recordkeeping.

Loomis Sayles or the Proxy Voting Service will maintain records of proxies voted pursuant to Rule 204-2 under the Advisers Act. The records include: (1) a copy of its Proxy Voting Procedures; (2) proxy statements received regarding client securities; (3) a record of each vote cast; (4) a copy of any document created by Loomis Sayles that is material to making a decision how to vote proxies on behalf of a client or that memorializes the basis for that decision; and (5) each written client request for proxy voting records and Loomis Sayles’ written response to any (written or oral) client request for such records.

Proxy voting books and records are maintained in an easily accessible place for a period of five years, the first two in an appropriate office of Loomis Sayles.

 

2.

PROXY VOTING

 

A.

Introduction

Loomis Sayles has established certain specific guidelines intended to achieve the objective of the Proxy Voting Procedures: to support good corporate governance, including ESG Matters, in all cases with the objective of protecting shareholder interests and maximizing shareholder value.

 

B.

Board of Directors

Loomis Sayles believes that an issuer’s independent, qualified board of directors is the foundation of good corporate governance. Loomis Sayles supports proxy proposals that reflect the prudent exercise of the board’s obligation to provide leadership and guidance to management in fulfilling its obligations to its shareholders. As an example, it may be prudent not to disqualify a director from serving on a board if they participated in affiliated transactions if all measures of independence and good corporate governance were met.

Annual Election of Directors: Vote for proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors annually.

Chairman and CEO are Separate Positions: Vote for proposals that require the positions of chairman and CEO to be held by different persons.

Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection:

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-599


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

  A.

Vote against proposals concerning director and officer indemnification and liability protection that limit or eliminate entirely director and officer liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of care, or that would expand coverage beyond legal expenses to acts such as gross negligence that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligations than mere carelessness.

 

  B.

Vote for only those proposals that provide such expanded coverage in cases when a director’s or officer’s legal defense was unsuccessful if (i) the director or officer was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that the director or officer reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company, and (ii) if the director’s or officer’s legal expenses only would be covered.

Director Nominees in Contested Elections: Votes in a contested election of directors or a “vote no” campaign must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors: (1) long-term financial performance of the issuer relative to its industry; management’s track record; (2) background to the proxy contest; qualifications of director nominees (both slates); (3) evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders as well as the likelihood that the proposed objectives and goals can be met; and (4) stock ownership positions.

Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections:

 

  A.

Vote for proposals involving routine matters such as election of directors, provided that at least two-thirds of the directors would be independent, as determined by the Proxy Voting Service, and affiliated or inside nominees do not serve on any key board committee, defined as the Audit, Compensation, Nominating and/or Governance Committees.

 

  B.

Vote against nominees that are CFOs of the subject company. Generally, vote against nominees that the Proxy Voting Service has identified as not acting in the best interests of shareholders (e.g., due to over-boarding, risk management failures, a lack of diversity, etc.). Vote against nominees that have attended less than 75% of board and committee meetings, unless a reasonable cause (e.g., health or family emergency) for the absence is noted and accepted by the Proxy Voting Service and the board. Vote against affiliated or inside nominees who serve on a key board committee (as defined above). Vote against affiliated and inside nominees if less than two-thirds of the board would be independent. Vote against Governance or Nominating Committee members if both the following are true: a) there is no independent lead or presiding director; and b) the position of CEO and chairman are not held by separate individuals. Generally, vote against Audit Committee members if auditor ratification is not proposed, except in cases involving: (i) investment company board members, who are not required to submit auditor ratification for shareholder approval pursuant to Investment Company Act of 1940 rules; or (ii) any other issuer that is not required by law or regulation to submit a proposal ratifying the auditor selection. Vote against Compensation Committee members when Loomis Sayles or the Proxy Voting Service recommends a vote against the issuer’s “say on pay” advisory vote.

 

  C.

Generally, vote against all members of a board committee and not just the chairman or a representative thereof in situations where the Proxy Voting Service finds that the board committee has not acted in the best interests of shareholders.

 

  D.

Vote as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service when directors are being elected as a slate and not individually.

 

  E.

When electing directors for any foreign-domiciled issuer to which the Proxy Voting Service believes it is reasonable to apply U.S. governance standards, we generally will vote in accordance with our

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-600


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

  policies set forth in (A) through (D) above. When electing directors for any other foreign-domiciled issuers, a recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed in lieu of the above stipulations.

Independent Audit, Compensation and Nominating and/or Governance Committees: Vote for proposals requesting that the board Audit, Compensation and/or Nominating and/or Governance Committees include independent directors exclusively.

Independent Board Chairman:

 

  A.

Vote for shareholder proposals that generally request the board to adopt a policy requiring its chairman to be “independent” (based on some reasonable definition of that term) with respect to any issuer whose enterprise value is, according to the Proxy Voting Service, greater than or equal to $10 billion.

 

  B.

Vote such proposals on a case-by-case basis when, according to the Proxy Voting Service, the issuer’s enterprise value is less than $10 billion.

Multiple Directorships: Generally vote against a director nominee who serves as an executive officer of any public company while serving on more than two total public company boards and any other director nominee who serves on more than five total public company boards, unless a convincing argument to vote for that nominee is made by the Proxy Voting Service, in which case, the recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed.

Staggered Director Elections: Vote against proposals to classify or stagger the board.

Stock Ownership Requirements: Generally vote against shareholder proposals requiring directors to own a minimum amount of company stock in order to qualify as a director, or to remain on the board.

Term of Office: Vote against shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of outside directors.

 

C.

Ratification of Auditor

Loomis Sayles generally supports proposals for the selection or ratification of independent auditors, subject to consideration of various factors such as independence and reasonableness of fees.

 

  A.

Generally vote for proposals to ratify auditors.

 

  B.

Vote against ratification of auditors where an auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent; or there is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion which is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position.

 

  C.

In general, if non-audit fees amount to 35% or more of total fees paid to a company’s auditor we will vote against ratification and against the members of the Audit Committee unless the Proxy Voting Service states that the fees were disclosed and determined to be reasonable. In such instances, the recommendation of the Proxy Voting service will generally be followed.

 

  D.

Vote against ratification of auditors and vote against members of the Audit Committee where it is known that an auditor has negotiated an alternative dispute resolution procedure.

 

  E.

Vote against ratification of auditors if the Proxy Voting Service indicates that a vote for the ratification of auditors it is not in the best long term interest of shareholders.

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-601


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

D.

Remuneration and Benefits

Loomis Sayles believes that an issuer’s compensation and benefit plans must be designed to ensure the alignment of executives’ and employees’ interests with those of its shareholders.

401(k) Employee Benefit Plans: Vote for proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.

Compensation Plans: Proposals with respect to compensation plans generally will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.

Compensation in the Event of a Change in Control: Votes on proposals regarding executive compensation in the event of a change in control of the issuer will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Director Related Compensation: Vote proposals relating to director compensation, that are required by and comply with applicable laws (domestic or foreign) or listing requirements governing the issuer, as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (“ESOPs”): Vote for proposals that request shareholder approval in order to implement an ESOP or to increase authorized shares for existing ESOPs, except in cases when the number of shares allocated to the ESOP is “excessive” (i.e., generally greater than five percent of outstanding shares), in which case the recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed.

Golden Coffins: Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals relating to the obligation of an issuer to provide remuneration or awards to survivors of executives payable upon such executive’s death.

Golden and Tin Parachutes:

 

  A.

Vote for shareholder proposals to have golden (top management) and tin (all employees) parachutes submitted for shareholder ratification.

 

  B.

Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals to ratify or cancel golden or tin parachutes.

OBRA (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act)-Related Compensation Proposals:

 

  A.

Vote for proposals to amend shareholder-approved plans to include administrative features or place a cap on the annual grants any one participant may receive to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.

 

  B.

Vote for amendments to add performance goals to existing compensation plans to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.

 

  C.

Vote for cash or cash-and-stock bonus plans to exempt the compensation from taxes under the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.

 

  D.

Votes on amendments to existing plans to increase shares reserved and to qualify the plan for favorable tax treatment under the provisions of Section 162(m) should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Shareholder Proposals to Limit Executive and Director Pay Including Executive Compensation Advisory Resolutions (“Say on Pay”):

 

  A.

Generally, vote for shareholder proposals that seek additional disclosure of executive and director pay information.

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-602


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

  B.

Review on a case-by-case basis (1) all shareholder proposals that seek to limit executive and director pay and (2) all advisory resolutions on executive pay other than shareholder resolutions to permit such advisory resolutions.

 

  C.

Vote against proposals to link all executive or director variable compensation to performance goals.

 

  D.

Vote for an annual review of executive compensation.

 

  E.

Non-binding advisory votes on executive compensation will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.

 

  F.

For foreign domiciled issuers where a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation is proposed concurrently with a binding vote on executive compensation, and the recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service is the same for each proposal, a vote will be entered as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.

Share Retention by Executives: Generally vote against shareholder proposals requiring executives to retain shares of the issuer for fixed periods unless the board and the Proxy Voting Service recommend voting in favor of the proposal.

Stock Option Plans: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed using the following as a guide:

 

  A.

Vote against stock option plans which expressly permit repricing of underwater options.

 

  B.

Vote against proposals to make all stock options performance based.

 

  C.

Vote against stock option plans that could result in an earnings dilution above the company specific cap considered by the Proxy Voting Service.

 

  D.

Vote for proposals that request expensing of stock options.

 

E.

Capital Structure Management Issues

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock: Vote for management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock.

Authority to Issue Shares: Vote for proposals by boards to authorize the issuance of shares (with or without preemptive rights) to the extent the size of the proposed issuance in proportion to the issuer’s issued ordinary share capital is consistent with industry standards and the recommendations of the issuer’s board and the Proxy Voting Service are in agreement. Proposals that do not meet the above criteria will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Blank Check Preferred Authorization:

 

  A.

Vote for proposals to create blank check preferred stock in cases when the company expressly states that the stock will not be used as a takeover defense or carry superior voting rights, and expressly states conversion, dividend, distribution and other rights.

 

  B.

Vote for shareholder proposals to have blank check preferred stock placements, other than those shares issued for the purpose of raising capital or making acquisitions in the normal course of business, submitted for shareholder ratification.

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-603


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

  C.

Review proposals to increase the number of authorized blank check preferred shares on a case-by-case basis.

Common Stock Authorization: Vote against proposed common stock authorizations that increase the existing authorization by more than 100% unless a clear need for the excess shares is presented by the company. A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed.

Greenshoe Options (French issuers only): Vote for proposals by boards of French issuers in favor of greenshoe options that grant the issuer the flexibility to increase an over-subscribed securities issuance by up to 15% so long as such increase takes place on the same terms and within thirty days of the initial issuance, provided that the recommendation of the issuer’s board and the Proxy Voting Service are in agreement. Proposals that do not meet the above criteria will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Reverse Stock Splits: Vote for management proposals to reduce the number of outstanding shares available through a reverse stock split.

Share Cancellation Programs: Vote for management proposals to reduce share capital by means of cancelling outstanding shares held in the issuer’s treasury.

Share Repurchase Programs: Vote for management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms.

Stock Distributions, Splits and Dividends: Generally vote for management proposals to increase common share authorization, provided that the increase in authorized shares following the split or dividend is not greater than 100 percent of existing authorized shares.

 

F.

Mergers, Asset Sales and Other Special Transactions

Proposals for transactions that have the potential to affect the ownership interests and/or voting rights of the issuer’s shareholders, such as mergers, asset sales and corporate or debt restructuring, will be considered on a case-by-case basis, based on (1) whether the best economic result is being created for shareholders, (2) what changes in corporate governance will occur, (3) what impact they will have on shareholder rights, (4) whether the proposed transaction has strategic merit for the issuer, and (5) other factors as noted in each section below, if any.

Asset Sales: Votes on asset sales will be determined on a case-by-case basis after considering the impact on the balance sheet/working capital, value received for the asset, and potential elimination of inefficiencies.

Conversion of Debt Instruments: Votes on the conversion of debt instruments will be considered on a case-by-case basis after the recommendation of the relevant Loomis Sayles equity or fixed income analyst is obtained.

Corporate Restructuring: Votes on corporate restructuring proposals, including minority squeeze-outs, leveraged buyouts, spin-offs, liquidations, and asset sales will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Debt Restructurings: Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt-restructuring plan. Consider the following issues:

 

  A.

Dilution—How much will ownership interest of existing shareholders be reduced, and how extreme will dilution to any future earnings be?

 

  B.

Change in Control—Will the transaction result in a change in control of the company?

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-604


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

  C.

Bankruptcy— Loomis Sayles’ Corporate Actions Department is responsible for consents related to bankruptcies and debt holder consents related to restructurings.

 

  D.

Potential Conflicts of Interest —For example, clients may own securities at different levels of the capital structure; in such cases, Loomis Sayles will exercise voting or consent rights for each such client based on that client’s best interests, which may differ from the interests of other clients.

Delisting a Security: Proposals to delist a security from an exchange will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Fair Price Provisions:

 

  A.

Vote for fair price proposals, as long as the shareholder vote requirement embedded in the provision is no more than a majority of disinterested shares.

 

  B.

Vote for shareholder proposals to lower the shareholder vote requirement in existing fair price provisions.

Greenmail:

 

  A.

Vote for proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.

 

  B.

Review anti-greenmail proposals on a case-by-case basis when they are bundled with other charter or bylaw amendments.

 

  C.

Vote for proposals to eliminate an anti-greenmail bylaw if the recommendations of management and the Proxy Voting Service are in agreement. If they are not in agreement, review and vote such proposals on a case-by-case basis.

Liquidations: Proposals on liquidations will be voted on a case-by-case basis after reviewing relevant factors including but not necessarily limited to management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives, the appraisal value of assets, and the compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation.

Mergers and Acquisitions: Votes on mergers and acquisitions should be considered on a case-by-case basis, generally taking into account relevant factors including but not necessarily limited to: anticipated financial and operating benefits; offer price (cost vs. premium); prospects of the combined companies; how the deal was negotiated; golden parachutes; financial benefits to current management; and changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights.

Poison Pills:

 

  A.

Vote for shareholder proposals that ask a company to submit its poison pill for shareholder ratification.

 

  B.

Review on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals to redeem a company’s poison pill.

 

  C.

Review on a case-by-case basis management proposals to ratify a poison pill.

Reincorporation Provisions: Proposals to change a company’s domicile will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Right to Adjourn: Vote for the right to adjourn in conjunction with a vote for a merger or acquisition or other proposal, and vote against the right to adjourn in conjunction with a vote against a merger or acquisition or other proposal.

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-605


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

Spin-offs: Votes on spin-offs will be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on relevant factors including but not necessarily limited to the tax and regulatory advantages, planned use of sale proceeds, market focus, and managerial incentives.

Tender Offer Defenses: Proposals concerning tender offer defenses will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

 

G.

Shareholder Rights

Loomis Sayles believes that issuers have a fundamental obligation to protect the rights of their shareholders. Pursuant to its fiduciary duty to vote shares in the best interests of its clients, Loomis Sayles considers proposals relating to shareholder rights based on whether and how they affect and protect those rights.

Appraisal Rights: Vote for proposals to restore, or provide shareholders with, rights of appraisal.

Bundled Proposals: Review on a case-by-case basis bundled or “conditioned” proxy proposals. In the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, examine the benefits and costs of the packaged items. In instances when the joint effect of the conditioned items is not in shareholders’ best interests, vote against the proposals. If the combined effect is positive, support such proposals.

Confidential Voting: Vote for shareholder proposals that request corporations to adopt confidential voting, use independent tabulators and use independent inspectors of election as long as the proposals include clauses for proxy contests as follows: in the case of a contested election, management should be permitted to request that the dissident group honor its confidential voting policy. If the dissidents agree, the policy remains in place. If the dissidents do not agree, the confidential voting policy is waived. Vote for management proposals to adopt confidential voting.

Counting Abstentions: Votes on proposals regarding counting abstentions when calculating vote proposal outcomes will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Cumulative Voting: Vote for proposals to permit cumulative voting, except where the issuer already has in place a policy of majority voting.

Equal Access: Vote for shareholder proposals that would allow significant company shareholders equal access to management’s proxy material in order to evaluate and propose voting recommendations on proxy proposals and director nominees, and in order to nominate their own candidates to the board.

Exclusive Forum Provisions: Vote against proposals mandating an exclusive forum for any shareholder lawsuits. Vote against the members of the issuer’s Governance Committee in the event of a proposal mandating an exclusive forum without shareholder approval.

Independent Proxy: Vote for proposals to elect an independent proxy to serve as a voting proxy at shareholder meetings.

Majority Voting: Vote for proposals to permit majority rather than plurality or cumulative voting for the election of directors/trustees.

Preemptive Rights: Votes with respect to preemptive rights generally will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service subject to the Common Stock Authorization requirements above.

Proxy Access: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed with regard to proposals intended to grant shareholders the right to place nominees for director on the issuer’s proxy ballot

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-606


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

(“Proxy Access”). Vote for such proposals when they require the nominating shareholder(s) to hold, in aggregate, at least 3% of the voting shares of the issuer for at least three years, and be allowed to nominate up to 25% of the nominees. All other proposals relating to Proxy Access will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board:

 

  A.

Vote for proposals that seek to fix the size of the board.

 

  B.

Vote against proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board without shareholder approval.

Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors:

 

  A.

Vote against proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.

 

  B.

Vote against proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies.

 

  C.

Vote for proposals to restore shareholder ability to remove directors with or without cause and proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.

Shareholder Advisory Committees: Proposals to establish a shareholder advisory committee will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Shareholder Rights Regarding Special Meetings:

 

  A.

Vote for proposals that set a threshold of 10% of the outstanding voting stock as a minimum percentage allowable to call a special meeting of shareholders. Vote against proposals that increase or decrease the threshold from 10%.

 

  B.

Vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to call special meetings.

Supermajority Shareholder Voting Requirements: Vote for all proposals to replace supermajority shareholder voting requirements with simple majority shareholder voting requirements, subject to applicable laws and regulations. Vote against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve charter and bylaw amendments.

Unequal Voting Rights:

 

  A.

Vote against dual class exchange offers and dual class recapitalizations.

 

  B.

Vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to eliminate an existing dual class voting structure.

Written Consent: Vote for proposals regarding the right to act by written consent when the Proxy Voting Service recommends a vote for the proposal. Proposals regarding the right to act by written consent where the Proxy Voting Service recommends a vote against will be sent to the Proxy Committee for determination. Generally vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to take action by written consent.

 

H.

Environmental and Social Matters

Loomis Sayles has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of its clients.

Loomis Sayles believes good corporate governance, including those practices that address ESG Matters, is essential to the effective management of a company’s financial, litigation and reputation risk, the

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-607


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

maximization of its long-term economic performance and sustainability, and the protection of its shareholders’ best interests, including the maximization of shareholder value.

Proposals on environmental and social matters cover a wide range of issues, including environmental and energy practices and their impacts, labor matters, diversity and human rights. These proposals may be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service or may, in the determination of the Proxy Committee, be reviewed on a case-by-case basis if the Proxy Committee believes that a particular proposal (i) could have a material impact on an industry or the growth and sustainability of an issuer; (ii) is appropriate for the issuer and the cost to implement would not be excessive; (iii) is appropriate for the issuer in light of various factors such as reputational damage or litigation risk; or (iv) is otherwise appropriate for the issuer.

Loomis Sayles will consider whether such proposals are likely to enhance the value of the client’s investments after taking into account the costs involved, pursuant to its fiduciary duty to its clients.

Climate Reporting: Generally vote for proposals requesting the issuer produce a report, at reasonable expense, on the issuer’s climate policies. A recommendation against such proposals by the Proxy Voting Service will be considered by the Proxy Committee.

Workplace Diversity Reporting: Generally vote for proposals requesting the issuer produce a report, at reasonable expense, on the issuer’s workforce diversity or equity policies and/or performance. A recommendation against such proposals by the Proxy Voting Service will be considered by the Proxy Committee.

 

I.

General Corporate Governance

Loomis Sayles has a fiduciary duty to its clients with regard to proxy voting matters, including routine proposals that do not present controversial issues. The impact of proxy proposals on its clients’ rights as shareholders must be evaluated along with their potential economic benefits.

Changing Corporate Name: Vote for management proposals to change the corporate name.

Charitable and Political Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures: Votes on proposals regarding charitable contributions, political contributions, and lobbying expenditures, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Proposals of UK issuers concerning political contributions will be voted for if the issuer states that (a) it does not intend to make any political donations or incur any expenditures in respect to any political party in the EU; and (b) the proposal is submitted to ensure that the issuer does not inadvertently breach the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and sections 366 and 367 of the Companies Act 2006.

Delivery of Electronic Proxy Materials: Vote for proposals to allow electronic delivery of proxy materials to shareholders.

Disclosure of Prior Government Service: Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals to disclose a list of employees previously employed in a governmental capacity.

Financial Statements: Generally, proposals to accept and/or approve the delivery of audited financial statements shall be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service. In certain non-US jurisdictions where local regulations and/or market practices do not require the release of audited financial statements in advance of custodian vote deadlines (e.g., Korea), and the Proxy Voting Service has not identified any

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-608


LOGO
  Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

issues with the company’s past financial statements or the audit procedures used, then Loomis Sayles shall vote for such proposals.

Non-Material Miscellaneous Bookkeeping Proposals: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed regarding miscellaneous bookkeeping proposals of a non-material nature.

Ratification of Board and/or Management Acts: Generally, proposals concerning the ratification or approval of the acts of the board of directors and/or management of the issuer for the past fiscal year shall be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.

Reimbursement of Proxy Contest Defenses: Generally, proposals concerning all proxy contest defense cost reimbursements should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Reimbursement of Proxy Solicitation Expenses: Proposals to provide reimbursement for dissidents waging a proxy contest should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

State Takeover Statutes: Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including control share acquisition statutes, control share cash-out statutes, freeze out provisions, fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, anti-greenmail provisions, and disgorgement provisions).

Technical Amendments to By-Laws: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed regarding technical or housekeeping amendments to by-laws or articles designed to bring the by-laws or articles into line with current regulations and/or laws.

Transaction of Other Business: Vote against proposals asking for authority to transact open-ended other business without any information provided by the issuer at the time of voting.

Transition Manager Ballots: Any ballot received by Loomis Sayles for a security that was held for a client by a Transition Manager prior to Loomis Sayles’ management of the client’s holdings will be considered on a case-by case basis by the Proxy Committee (without the input of any Loomis Sayles analyst or portfolio manager) if such security is no longer held in the client’s account with Loomis Sayles.

 

J.

Investment Company Matters

Election of Investment Company Trustees: Vote for nominees who oversee fewer than 60 investment company portfolios. Vote against nominees who oversee 60 or more investment company portfolios that invest in substantially different asset classes (e.g., if the applicable portfolios include both fixed income funds and equity funds). Vote on a case-by-case basis for or against nominees who oversee 60 or more investment company portfolios that invest in substantially similar asset classes (e.g., if the applicable portfolios include only fixed income funds or only equity funds). These policies will be followed with respect to funds advised by Loomis Sayles and its affiliates, as well as funds for which Loomis Sayles acts as subadviser and other third parties.

Mutual Fund Distribution Agreements: Votes on mutual fund distribution agreements should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Investment Company Fundamental Investment Restrictions: Votes on amendments to an investment company’s fundamental investment restrictions should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Investment Company Investment Advisory Agreements: Votes on investment company investment advisory agreements should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

B-609


LSV ASSET MANAGEMENT

PROXY VOTING POLICY

LSV Asset Management’s (“LSV” or the “Firm”) proxy voting responsibilities on behalf of a client’s account are expressly stated in the applicable agreement with such client. If LSV is responsible for voting proxies, the agreement with each client will typically state whether the votes will be cast in accordance with this proxy voting policy or in accordance with the client’s proxy voting policy. In either case, LSV will make appropriate arrangements with each account custodian to have proxies forwarded on a timely basis, and will endeavor to correct delays or other problems relating to timely delivery of proxies and proxy materials to the extent it is aware of such delays or problems. If the client elects to retain proxy voting responsibility, LSV will have no involvement in the proxy voting process for that client.

To satisfy its fiduciary duty in making any voting determination, an investment adviser must make the determination in the best interests of the client and must not place the investment adviser’s own interests ahead of the interests of the client. In addition, with respect to Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) plan clients, LSV directs its voting activity solely in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses.

In general, LSV’s quantitative investment process does not provide output or analysis that would be functional in analyzing proxy issues. As a result, LSV does not consider proxy voting to be a material factor in its investment strategy or results. LSV, therefore, has retained an expert independent third party to assist in proxy voting, currently Glass Lewis & Co. (“GLC”). LSV’s selection of GLC was made after careful consideration of GLC’s proxy voting services, including related voting policies and expertise. GLC implements LSV’s proxy voting process, develops proxy voting guidelines, and provides analysis of proxy issues on a case-by-case basis. Where LSV has been responsible for voting proxies for a client, LSV typically votes in accordance with GLC’s standard guidelines, as updated from time to time, which can be found at https://www.glasslewis.com/guidelines. For new clients who wish to make LSV responsible for voting proxies, LSV intends to vote in accordance with GLC’s climate guidelines, as updated from time to time, which are described by GLC at https://www.glasslewis.com/climate-policy, and which may be obtained from LSV and applied to existing clients’ accounts upon request. LSV describes available GLC guidelines to clients on at least an annual basis. Those guidelines generally are aligned with LSV’s investment goals, and LSV’s use of GLC, therefore, is not a delegation of LSV’s fiduciary obligation to vote proxies for clients. GLC’s guidelines have been developed based on, among other things, GLC’s focus on facilitating shareholder voting in favor of governance structures that drive performance and create shareholder value. LSV believes that GLC’s guidelines are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interests of LSV’s clients. Although it is expected to be rare, LSV reserves the right to vote issues contrary to, or issues not covered by, GLC’s guidelines when LSV believes it is in the best interests of the client and LSV does not have a material conflict of interest. In certain circumstances, clients are permitted to direct their vote in a particular solicitation. Direction from a client on a particular proxy vote will take precedence over GLC’s guidelines. Where the client has engaged LSV to vote proxies and has also provided proxy voting guidelines to LSV, those guidelines will be followed with the assistance of GLC.

GLC assists LSV with voting execution, including through an electronic vote management system that allows GLC to: (1) populate each client’s votes shown on GLC’s electronic voting platform with GLC’s recommendations under applicable guidelines (“pre-population”); and (2) automatically submit the client’s votes to be counted (“automated voting”). There will likely be circumstances where, before the submission deadline for proxies to be voted at the shareholder meeting, an issuer intends to file or has filed additional soliciting materials with the SEC regarding a matter to be voted upon. It is possible in such circumstances that LSV’s use of pre-population and automated voting could result in votes being cast that do not take into account such additional information. In order to address this concern, GLC actively monitors information sources for supplemental or updated information and has in place a system to allow for issuer feedback on its voting recommendations. Such updated information and feedback is considered by GLC and voting recommendations are modified as

 

B-610


appropriate. LSV’s pre-populated votes would then also be automatically updated. GLC’s processes in this area are part of LSV’s review of their services as described below.

LSV conducts a number of periodic reviews to seek to ensure votes are cast in accordance with this policy and applicable GLC guidelines. In addition, on a semi-annual basis, LSV requires GLC to, among other things, provide confirmations regarding its policies and procedures and reporting on any changes to such policies and procedures. As part of such semi-annual process, LSV also obtains information regarding the capacity and competency of GLC to provide proxy advisory services to LSV.

In the voting process, conflicts can arise between LSV’s interests and that of its clients, or between clients’ interests due to each client’s objectives. In such situations, LSV will continue to vote the proxies in accordance with the recommendations of GLC based on each client’s applicable guidelines. A written record will be maintained explaining the reasoning for the vote recommendation. LSV also monitors GLC’s conflicts of interest policies and procedures on a periodic basis.

LSV may be unable or may choose not to vote proxies in certain situations. For example, and without limitation, LSV may refrain from voting a proxy if (i) the cost of voting the proxy exceeds the expected benefit to the client, (ii) LSV is not given enough time to process the vote, (iii) voting the proxy requires the security to be “blocked” or frozen from trading or (iv) it is otherwise impractical or impossible to vote the proxy, such as in the case of voting a foreign security that must be cast in person.

Clients may receive a copy of this proxy voting policy and LSV’s voting record for their account by request. In addition, clients are sent a copy of their respective guidelines and a summary of other available options on an annual basis and may elect to change their guidelines at any time. LSV will additionally provide any mutual fund for which LSV acts as adviser or sub-adviser, a copy of LSV’s voting record for the fund so that the fund may fulfill its obligation to report proxy votes to fund shareholders.

LSV may modify this policy and use of GLC from time to time.

Recordkeeping

LSV will retain:

 

  1.

Copies of its proxy voting policies and procedures.

 

  2.

A copy of each proxy statement received regarding client securities (maintained by the proxy voting service and/or available on EDGAR).

 

  3.

A record of each vote cast on behalf of a client (maintained by the proxy voting service).

 

  4.

A copy of any document created that was material to the voting decision or that memorializes the basis for that decision (maintained by the proxy voting service and/or the Firm).

 

  5.

A copy of clients’ written requests for proxy voting information and a copy of LSV’s written response to a client’s request for proxy voting information for the client’s account.

LSV will ensure that it may obtain access to the proxy voting service’s records promptly upon LSV’s request.

The above listed information is intended to, among other things, enable clients to review LSV’s proxy voting procedures and actions taken in individual proxy voting situations.

LSV will maintain required materials in an easily accessible place for not less than five years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry took place.

 

B-611


Consideration of Environmental, Social and Governance Factors

LSV became a signatory to the Principles for Responsible Investment (“PRI”) in April 2014. GLC is also a signatory to the PRI. The PRI provides a framework, through its six principles, for consideration of environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) factors in portfolio management and investment decision-making. The six principles ask an investment manager, to the extent consistent with its fiduciary duties, to seek to: (1) incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes; (2) be an active owner and incorporate ESG issues into its ownership policies and practices; (3) obtain appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which it invests; (4) promote acceptance and implementation of the PRI principles within the investment industry; (5) work to enhance its effectiveness in implementing the PRI principles; and (6) report on its activities and progress toward implementing the PRI principles. Voting in favor of effective disclosure and governance of ESG issues to drive performance and create shareholder value is incorporated into GLC’s standard guidelines, as well as a supplement GLC maintains for shareholder initiatives. GLC’s climate guidelines are substantially similar, but go further to encourage enhanced disclosure of climate-related governance measures, risk mitigation, and metrics or targets. In each case, GLC’s guidelines emphasize assessing the financial implications of ESG issues in context of a company’s operations. Thus, by utilizing these GLC guidelines, LSV seeks to apply the PRI and incorporate ESG issues into its proxy voting decision-making processes in a manner consistent with its fiduciary duties. Further, LSV is able to offer to interested clients upon request, GLC’s ESG-focused guidelines that include an additional level of analysis intended to encourage outcomes that are consistent with widely-accepted enhanced ESG practices.

 

B-612


MacKay Shields LLC

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

January 2023

1. Introduction

MacKay Shields LLC (“MacKay Shields” or the “Firm”), has adopted these “Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures” (the “Policy”) to ensure the Firm’s compliance with Rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”) and other applicable fiduciary obligations. The Policy applies to proxies relating to securities held by clients of MacKay Shields who have delegated the responsibility of voting proxies to the Firm. The Policy is designed to assist Firm employees in meeting their specific responsibilities in this area and to reasonably ensure that proxies are voted in the best interests of the Firm’s clients.

2. Statement of Policy

2.1 It is the policy of MacKay Shields that where the Firm has voting authority, all proxies are to be voted in the best interest of the client without regard to the interests of MacKay Shields or other related parties. Specifically, MacKay Shields shall not subordinate the interests of clients to unrelated objectives, including MacKay Shields’ interests. MacKay Shields shall act with the care, skill, prudence and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims. For purposes of the Policy, the “best interests of clients” shall mean, unless otherwise specified by the client, the clients’ best economic interests over the long term as determined by MacKay Shields – that is, the common interest that all MacKay Shields clients share in seeing the value of a common investment increase over time. It is further the policy of the Firm that complete and accurate disclosure concerning its proxy voting policies and procedures and proxy voting records as required by the Advisers Act, be made available to its clients.

2.2 When proxies with respect to securities held by clients of MacKay Shields have not been received by MacKay Shields or its proxy voting service provider, MacKay Shields will make reasonable efforts to obtain missing proxies. MacKay Shields is not responsible for voting proxies it or its proxy voting service provider does not receive.

2.3 MacKay Shields may choose not to vote proxies when it believes that it is appropriate. This may occur, without limitation, under the following circumstances:

 

   

If the effect on the client’s economic interests or the value of the portfolio holding is indeterminable or insignificant;

 

   

If the cost of voting the proxy outweighs the possible benefit to the client; or

 

   

If a jurisdiction imposes share blocking restrictions which prevent the Firm from trading shares.

3. Use of Third Party Proxy Voting Service Provider

To discharge its responsibility, MacKay Shields has examined third-party services that assist in the researching and voting of proxies and the development of voting guidelines. After such review, the Firm has selected Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc., (“ISS”), to research voting proposals, analyze the financial implications of voting proposals and vote proxies. MacKay Shields utilizes the research and analytical services, operational implementation, administration, record-keeping and reporting services provided by ISS.

 

B-613


4. Proxy Voting Guidelines

4.1  To the extent that a client has authorized Mackay Shields to vote proxies on its behalf, and except as set forth Sections 6 & 7 of this Policy or at otherwise directed by a client in writing, MacKay has determined to adopt the following proxy voting guidelines:

4.1.a Proxies for non-union clients will generally be voted in accordance with the voting recommendations contained in the applicable ISS non-union domestic or global proxy voting guidelines, as in effect from time to time (“Non-Union Guidelines”). Refer to Exhibit A for the current U.S. Summary Proxy Voting Guidelines.

4.1.b  Proxies for union or Taft-Hartley clients will generally be voted in accordance with the voting recommendations contained in the applicable ISS Taft-Hartley domestic or international proxy voting guidelines, as in effect from time to time (“Union Guidelines”). A summary of the current Taft-Hartley U.S. Voting Guidelines and Taft-Hartley International Voting Guidelines are attached as Exhibit B.

4.1.c Notwithstanding Section 4.1.a of this Policy, proxies for non-union clients whose investment strategy directs MacKay Shields to invest primarily in assets that satisfy Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) criteria, as determined by MacKay Shields, in its discretion, will be voted in accordance with the voting recommendations contained in the applicable ISS Sustainability U.S. or International proxy voting guidelines, as in effect from time to time (“Sustainability Guidelines”). Refer to Exhibit C for the current U.S. and International Sustainability Proxy Voting Guidelines.

4.2 For purposes of the Policy, the Non-Union Guidelines, Union Guidelines, and Sustainability Guidelines are collectively referred to as the “Standard Guidelines.”

4.3 A client may choose to use proxy voting guidelines different from the Standard Guidelines (“Custom Guidelines”). Any Custom Guidelines must be furnished by the client to MacKay Shields in writing and MacKay Shields will general vote proxies for any such client in accordance with the applicable Custom Guidelines.

4.4 In the event the Standard Guidelines or any client’s Custom Guidelines do not address how a proxy should be voted or state that the vote is to be determined on a “case-by-case” basis, the proxy will be voted in accordance with ISS recommendations, subject to Section 6. In the event that ISS has not made a recommendation, MacKay Shields will follow the procedure set forth in Section 7.

4.5 For clients using the Standard Guidelines, the Firm will instruct ISS to cast votes in accordance with the Standard Guidelines. For clients using Custom Guidelines, the Firm will provide ISS with a copy of such Custom Guidelines and will instruct ISS to cast votes in accordance with such Custom Guidelines. ISS will cast votes in accordance with the Standard Guidelines or Custom Guidelines, as the case may be, unless instructed otherwise by MacKay Shields as set forth in Sections 6 and 7. Upon receipt of a specific request from a client pursuant to Section 4.6, the Firm will instruct ISS to cast such client’s proxy in accordance with such request.

4.6  Notwithstanding the foregoing, MacKay Shields will vote a proxy with respect to a particular security held by a client in accordance with such client’s specific request even if it is in a manner inconsistent with the Standard Guidelines or the client’s Custom Guidelines, as the case may be. Any such specific requests must be furnished to MacKay Shields by the client in writing and must be received by MacKay on a timely basis for instructing ISS how to cast the vote.

4.7 In an effort to avoid possible conflicts of interest, MacKay Shields has determined to generally vote proxies based on the Standard Guidelines or a client’s Custom Guidelines, as the case may be. For the avoidance of doubt, however, it is recognized that the Firm’s portfolio management teams have the ultimate responsibility determining how to vote proxies in the best interest of a client voting.

 

B-614


5.  Client Account Set-up and Review

5.1 Initially, MacKay Shields must verify whether the client has duly authorized MacKay Shields to vote proxies on its behalf, or if the client has retained the responsibility of voting proxies. The Marketing and Client Services departments, in conjunction with the Legal and/or Compliance Department, will have primary responsibility for making that determination. MacKay’s Compliance Department will be responsible for ensuring that a record of each client’s proxy voting status and, to the extent applicable, the type of proxy voting guidelines in maintained. In its sole discretion, the Firm may decline to accept authority to vote a client’s proxies. Any such refusal shall be in writing.

5.2 In most cases, the delegation of voting authority to MacKay Shields, and the Firm’s use of a third-party proxy voting service provider shall be memorialized in the client’s investment management agreement.

5.3 MacKay Shields shall notify ISS of new client accounts using such form as ISS shall specify from time to time. Designated personnel within the Firm will be responsible for ensuring that each new client’s account for which the Firm has proxy voting authority is established on the appropriate systems and that each such account is properly coded for voting under the appropriate Non-Union Guidelines, Union Guidelines or Custom Guidelines, as the case may be.

6. Overriding Guidelines

A portfolio manager may propose that a particular proxy vote be cast in a manner different from the Standard Guidelines or an ISS voting recommendation, or may propose an abstention from voting, if they believe that to do so, based on all facts and circumstances, is in the best interest of the Firm’s clients as a whole. Any portfolio manager who proposes to override the Standard Guidelines or an ISS voting recommendation on a particular vote or to abstain from voting must complete a Proxy Vote Override/Decision Form, which is set forth in Schedule D.

7. Referral of Voting Decision by ISS to MacKay Shields

7.1 In the event that the Standard Guidelines or a client’s Custom Guidelines do not address how a proxy should be voted on a specific proposal for an issuer and ISS has not made a recommendation as to how such proxy should be voted, ISS will so advise MacKay Shields. In that event, the Legal and/or Compliance Departments will request that the appropriate portfolio manager makes a voting recommendation and complete a Proxy Vote Override/Decision Form.

7.2 In the event that the Standard Guidelines or a client’s Custom Guidelines require a “case-by-case” determination on a particular proxy vote and ISS has not made a recommendation as to how such proxy should be voted, ISS will so advise MacKay Shields. In that event, the Legal and/or Compliance Departments will request that the appropriate portfolio manager make a voting recommendation and complete a Proxy Vote Override/Decision Form.

7.3 In the event that ISS determines that a conflict of interest exists as a result of which ISS is precluded from making a recommendation as to how a proxy should be voted on a specific proposal for an issuer, ISS will so advise MacKay Shields. In that event, the Legal and/or Compliance Departments will request that the appropriate portfolio manager make a voting recommendation and complete a Proxy Vote Override/Decision Form.

8.  Conflicts of Interest

8.1 The Firm’s portfolio managers may make proxy voting decisions in connection with (i) overriding the Standard Guidelines or an ISS voting recommendation pursuant to Section 6, or (ii) deciding on a vote pursuant to Section 7. In such event, the portfolio managers have an affirmative duty to disclose to the Legal and/or Compliance Departments any potential conflict of interest known to them that exists between the Firm and the client on whose behalf the proxy is to be voted (“Conflict”).

 

B-615


8.2.  By way of example, Conflicts may exist in situations where the Firm is called to vote on a proxy involving an issuer or proponent of a proxy proposal regarding the issuer where MacKay Shields or an affiliated person of the Firm also:

 

   

Manages the issuer’s or proponent’s pension plan;

 

   

Administers the issuer’s or proponent’s employee benefit plan;

 

   

Provided brokerage, underwriting, insurance or banking services to the issuer or proponent; or

 

   

Manages money for an employee group.

Additional Conflicts may exist, among others, if an executive of the Firm or its control affiliates is a close relative of, or has a personal or business relationship with:

 

   

An executive of the issuer or proponent;

 

   

A director of the issuer or proponent;

 

   

A person who is a candidate to be a director of the issuer;

 

   

A participant in the proxy contest; or

 

   

A proponent of a proxy proposal.

8.3 Whether a relationship creates a Conflict will depend on the facts and circumstances. Even if these parties do not attempt to influence the Firm with respect to voting, the value of the relationship to MacKay Shields or an affiliate can create a Conflict.

8.4 After a Proxy Vote Override/Decision Form is completed pursuant to Sections 6 or 7, such Form, which elicits information as to whether a potential Conflict exists, must be submitted to the Legal and/or Compliance Departments for review. If the Firm’s General Counsel (“GC”), Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) or their designee determines that there is no potential Conflict, the GC, CCO or their designee, may instruct ISS to vote the proxy issue as set forth in the completed Form.

8.5 If the GC, CCO or their designee determines that there exists or may exist a Conflict, he or she will refer the issue to the Compliance Committee for consideration by convening (in person or via telephone) an emergency meeting of the Compliance Committee. For purposes of this Policy, a majority vote of those members present shall resolve any Conflict. The Compliance Committee will consider the facts and circumstances of the pending proxy vote and the potential or actual Conflict and make a determination as to how to vote the proxy – i.e., whether to permit or deny the recommendation of the portfolio manager, or whether to take other action, such as delegating the proxy vote to an independent third party or obtaining voting instructions from clients.

8.6 In considering the proxy vote and potential Conflict, the Compliance Committee may review the following factors, including but not limited to:

 

   

The percentage of outstanding securities of the issuer held on behalf of clients by the Firm.

 

   

The nature of the relationship of the issuer or proponent with the Firm, its affiliates or its executive officers.

 

   

Whether there has been any attempt to directly or indirectly influence the portfolio manager’s decision.

 

   

Whether the direction (for or against) of the proposed vote would appear to benefit the Firm or a related party.

 

   

Whether an objective decision to vote in a certain way will still create a strong appearance of a Conflict.

MacKay Shields may not abstain from voting any such proxy for the purpose of avoiding Conflict.

 

B-616


9.  Securities Lending

If MacKay Shields portfolio managers or their designees become aware of an upcoming shareholder meeting where there is an important vote to be taken, or become aware of a request for consent of security holders on a material matter affecting the investment, MacKay Shields will consider whether to request that clients call back securities loans, if applicable. In determining whether to request that clients call back securities loans, the relevant portfolio manager(s) shall consider whether the benefit to the client in voting the matter or giving or withholding consent outweighs the benefit to the client in keeping the security on loan. There may be instances when MacKay Shields may not be aware of the upcoming shareholder meeting or request for consent with sufficient time in advance to make such a request, or when MacKay Shields’ request that a client call back a securities loan in sufficient time to vote or give or withhold consent may not be successful.

10.  Reporting

Upon request, MacKay Shields shall report annually (or more frequently if specifically requested) to its clients on proxy votes cast on their behalf. MacKay Shields will provide any client who makes a written or verbal request with a copy of a report disclosing how MacKay Shields voted securities held in that client’s portfolio. The report will generally contain the following information:

 

   

The name of the issuer of the security;

 

   

The security’s exchange ticker symbol;

 

   

The security’s CUSIP number;

 

   

The shareholder meeting date;

 

   

A brief identification of the matter voted on;

 

   

Whether the matter was proposed by the issuer or by a security holder;

 

   

Whether MacKay Shields cast its vote on the matter on behalf of the client;

 

   

How MacKay Shields voted on behalf of the client; and

 

   

Whether MacKay Shields voted for or against management on behalf of the client.

11.  Record-Keeping

Either MacKay Shields or ISS as indicated below will maintain the following records:

 

   

A copy of the Policy and MacKay’s Standard Guidelines and Custom Guidelines;

 

   

A copy of each proxy statement received by MacKay Shields or forwarded to ISS by the client’s custodian regarding client securities;

 

   

A record of each vote cast by MacKay Shields on behalf of a client;

 

   

A copy of all documents created by MacKay Shields that were material to making a decision on the proxy voting (or abstaining from voting) of client securities or that memorialize the basis for that decision including the resolution of any Conflict, a copy of all guideline override requests and all supporting documents; and

 

   

A copy of each written request by a client for information on how MacKay Shields voted proxies on behalf of the client, as well as a copy of any written response by MacKay Shields to any request by a client for information on how MacKay Shields voted proxies on behalf of the client; records of oral requests for information or oral responses will not be kept.

Such records must be maintained for at least eight years, the first two years in an appropriate office of MacKay Shields.

 

B-617


12.

Review of Voting and Guidelines

As part of its periodic reviews, MacKay Shields’ Compliance Department will conduct an annual review of the prior year’s proxy voting as well as the guidelines established for proxy voting. Documentation shall be maintained of this review and a report setting forth the results of the review will be presented annually to the Compliance Committee. In addition, MacKay Shields’ Compliance Department maintains a list of non-voting accounts.

13. How to Request Information On How the Firm Voted Proxies

Clients may, at anytime, request and receive information from MacKay Shields as to how the Firm voted proxies for securities held in their account. Any such proxy information request should be in writing to:

MacKay Shields LLC

1345 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10105

43rd Floor

Attention: Head of Client Services

Exhibits:

 

Exhibit

A - 2023 U.S. Summary Proxy Voting Guidelines (Standard Guidelines for non-union clients). Effective for Meetings on or after February 1, 2023

 

Exhibit

B (Part I and II) - 2023 U.S. Taft-Hartley Proxy Voting Guidelines and 2023 International Taft-Hartley Proxy Voting Guidelines (Standard Guidelines for union clients (Taft-Hartley) (US and International))

 

Exhibit

C (Part I and II) - 2023 U.S. Sustainability Proxy Voting Guidelines and 2023 International Sustainability Proxy Voting Guidelines (Standard Guidelines for ESG investment objective mandates)

 

Schedule

D - Proxy Vote Override/Decision Form

Access to the ISS Voting Guidelines mentioned above and other ISS Voting Guidelines are available at https://www.issgovernance.com/policy-gateway/voting-policies/

 

B-618


LOGO

 

Marathon Asset Management Limited (“Marathon”)

Policy statement in relation to Proxy Voting

General

Marathon considers that the ability to influence management is an integral part of the investment management function. Marathon strongly adheres to the policy that good corporate governance is totally consistent with enhancing shareholder value. It is Marathon’s policy to exercise voting rights wherever it is practical to do so and if permitted under a client’s IMA/IAA.

A Proxy Voting Dashboard is available on the Marathon Asset Management website showing our vote history with a 180-day lag. Marathon has also been a member of the Principles for Responsible Investment since January 2019. Separately, the firm is a signatory to the UK Stewardship Code by the UK’s Financial Reporting Council. Marathon is also a signatory to the Japanese Stewardship Code.

Proxy advisors

In order to facilitate the proxy voting process, Marathon Asset Management has retained Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) as an expert in the proxy voting and corporate governance area. ISS are an independent proxy advisor firm who specialise in providing a variety of fiduciary-level proxy advisory and voting services.

ISS also assist the firm by developing and updating their own set of guidelines which are incorporated into our guidelines by reference. They provide research and analysis on stock within all of Marathon’s portfolios, they will vote the ballots through their online portal and will give recommendations based on each agenda item compiled by their analysts in each region.

Marathon does not automatically accept the pre-populated responses input by ISS, nor automatically submits the clients’ votes. Instead all proxy events & supporting documentation (including internal research) are reviewed by the relevant portfolio manager(s)/analyst(s) for their consideration. Each PM has the option to accept the ISS recommendation, or to vote against the rationale provided by ISS. In these cases, a written explanation on the reasons to vote against the recommendation will be retained. This will include any new information filed by an issuer that may impact their decision. Typically, Marathon aims to submit a response at the date of the earliest custodian date (not ISS date, which can be later). If it becomes apparent that new information is about to be filed by an issuer that could have a significant bearing on the proxy voting decision, the team responsible for submitting Marathon’s response would be asked to reach out to the relevant custodian to discuss delaying submission.

Written confirmation of the portfolio managers’ decision with regards to a proxy voting matter is received in writing by the relevant team, prior to submission via the ISS platform. In extremis, if matters materially altered as a result of information released by the issuer and Marathon had already filed, the relevant team would look to re-submit, talking to custodians as needed.

Where possible, all agenda items will be voted on a case by case basis with no pre-defined policy on how to vote certain events with PMs following any pre-defined client instructions accordingly. Marathon may engage with clients where voting authority has been retained by the client in order to discuss Marathon’s view on a matter. Separately, on any contentious issue Marathon may also look to contact clients to ensure their respective

 

For use by Marathon’s clients only.

Please seek consent for further use or distribution.

   Last updated: July-23

 

B-619


LOGO

 

custodian recalls and restrict any stock on loan to enable all share to be voted. Note: Marathon’s overriding objective when investing or voting proxies is to achieve economic benefit for our clients within their agreed risk parameters. Portfolio Managers will expressly prioritise these economic aims over unrelated objectives which would lead them either to sacrifice investment return or take on additional investment risk to promote non-pecuniary goals.

The decision by Marathon to retain ISS is reviewed each year with input from investment managers, compliance and the proxy voting team. This review precedes the annual service review.

Proxy voting process

In addition to providing advice on specific policy voting issues, ISS also coordinate the actual exercise of the proxy vote. This entails receiving voting instructions from Marathon and transmitting them to each clients’ custodian for processing.

Marathon’s proxy team have access to the ISS web platform where ballots are collated from each custodian and linked to the appropriate meeting. These meetings are monitored and recorded in a central spreadsheet. Once the research has been updated, it will be sent to the Investment Manager to solicit their response by the stated deadline. From time to time, proxy votes will be solicited which involves special circumstances and require additional research and discussion. Any additional discussion may be conducted as soon as practical and with best endeavours before the ballot deadlines.

ISS provide a full reporting facility to Marathon detailing voting recommendations and actual votes transmitted to custodians; this reporting is available to clients on request. Marathon’s voting history is also published on its website 180 days after the meeting.

There may, from time to time, be instances when votes cast by Marathon on a client’s behalf are rejected. This could be for various reasons outside of Marathon’s control; including missing documentation that needs to be provided by the beneficial owner. E.g. There are some countries that require Power of Attorney documentation which authorises a local agent to facilitate the voting instruction on behalf of the client in the local market. If the appropriate documentation is not available for use, a vote instruction may be rejected. On a best efforts’ basis, Marathon requests custodians to provide a list of missing POAs for each of our clients on an annual basis to avoid these issues.

Quarterly checks are also completed across different markets and mandates to ensure ballots are being received from the custodian. Quarterly checks on voting will also be conducted by Risk to ensure accuracy and to flag any concerns or breaches to this policy.

Special Circumstances

Marathon considers their ability to engage with management of companies in which it invests carefully but also considers the right to be able to call a special meeting an important stewardship tool. As such, Marathon may from time to time, either independently or in collaboration with other shareholders call for special meetings.

 

For use by Marathon’s clients only.

Please seek consent for further use or distribution.

   Last updated: July-23

 

B-620


LOGO

 

Conflicts of Interest

Occasions may arise during the voting process where a potential conflict of interest could arise. Such conflicts could include: (i) where portfolio managers have opposing views in connection with voting shares of a company they are both invested in; (ii) where Marathon has a separate material relationship with, or is soliciting business from, a company lobbying for proxies; or (iii) where a personal relationship exists, such as where a friend or relation is serving as a director of a company soliciting proxies. A conflict could also exist if a material business relationship exists with a proponent or opponent of a particular initiative. Where Marathon identifies a material conflict of interest, the team involved will raise the matter with Compliance. Such reporting will include full details of the issue including why the conflict is deemed material with confirmation how the proxy vote is to be undertaken in the best interests of all clients thereby helping to mitigate any conflict identified.

 

For use by Marathon’s clients only.

Please seek consent for further use or distribution.

   Last updated: July-23

 

B-621


MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

January 1, 2023

At MFS Investment Management, our core purpose is to create value responsibly. In serving the long-term economic interests of our clients, we rely on deep fundamental research, risk awareness, engagement, and effective stewardship to generate long-term risk-adjusted returns for our clients. A core component of this approach is our proxy voting activity. We believe that robust ownership practices can help protect and enhance long-term shareholder value. Such ownership practices include diligently exercising our voting rights as well as engaging with our issuers on a variety of proxy voting topics. We recognize that environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) issues may impact the long-term value of an investment, and, therefore, we consider ESG issues in light of our fiduciary obligation to vote proxies in what we believe to be in the best long- term economic interest of our clients.

MFS Investment Management and its subsidiaries that perform discretionary investment activities (collectively, “MFS”) have adopted these proxy voting policies and procedures (“MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures”) with respect to securities owned by the clients for which MFS serves as investment adviser and has been delegated the power to vote proxies on behalf of such clients. These clients include pooled investment vehicles sponsored by MFS (an “MFS Fund” or collectively, the “MFS Funds”).

Our approach to proxy voting is guided by the overall principle that proxy voting decisions are made in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of our clients, and not in the interests of any other party, including company management, or in MFS’ corporate interests, including interests such as the distribution of MFS Fund shares and institutional client relationships. These Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures include voting guidelines that govern how MFS generally will vote on specific matters as well as how we monitor potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS that could arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS’ clients.

Our approach to proxy voting is guided by the following additional principles:

 

  1.

Consistency in application of the policy across multiple client portfolios: While MFS generally votes consistently on the same matter when securities of an issuer are held by multiple client portfolios, MFS may vote differently on the matter for different client portfolios under certain circumstances. For example, we may vote differently for a client portfolio if we have received explicit voting instructions to vote differently from such client for its own account. Likewise, MFS may vote differently if the portfolio management team responsible for a particular client account believes that a different voting instruction is in the best long-term economic interest of such account.

 

  2.

Consistency in application of policy across shareholder meetings in most instances: As a general matter, MFS seeks to vote consistently on similar proxy proposals across all shareholder meetings. However, as many proxy proposals (e.g., mergers, acquisitions, and environmental, social and governance shareholder proposals) are analyzed on a case-by-case basis in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the issuer and proposal MFS may vote similar proposals differently at different shareholder meetings. In addition, MFS also reserves the right to override the guidelines with respect to a particular proxy proposal when such an override is, in MFS’ best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients.

 

  3.

Consideration of company specific context and informed by engagement: As noted above MFS will seek to consider a company’s specific context in determining its voting decision. Where there are significant, complex or unusual voting items we may seek to engage with a company before making the

 

B-622


  vote to further inform our decision. Where sufficient progress has not been made on a particular issue of engagement, MFS may determine a vote against management may be warranted to reflect our concerns and influence for change in the best long-term economic interests of our clients.

 

  4.

Clear decisions to best support issuer processes and decision making: To best support improved issuer decision making we strive to generally provide clear decisions by voting either For or Against each item. We may however vote to Abstain in certain situations if we believe a vote either For or Against may produce a result not in the best long-term economic interests of our clients.

 

  5.

Transparency in approach and implementation: In addition to the publication of the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures on our website, we are open to communicating our vote intention with companies, including ahead of the annual meeting. We may do this proactively where we wish to make our view or corresponding rationale clearly known to the company. Our voting data is reported to clients upon request and publicly on a quarterly and annual basis on our website (under Proxy Voting Records & Reports). For more information about reporting on our proxy voting activities, please refer to Section F below.

A. VOTING GUIDELINES

The following guidelines govern how MFS will generally vote on specific matters presented for shareholder vote. These guidelines are not exhaustive, and MFS may vote on matters not identified below. In such circumstances, MFS will be governed by its general policy to vote in what MFS believes to be in the best long-term economic interest of its clients.

These guidelines are written to apply to the markets and companies where MFS has significant assets invested. There will be markets and companies, such as controlled companies and smaller markets, where local governance practices are taken into consideration and exceptions may need to be applied that are not explicitly stated below. There are also markets and companies where transparency and related data limit the ability to apply these guidelines.

Board structure and performance

MFS generally supports the election and/or discharge of directors proposed by the board in uncontested or non-contentious elections, unless concerns have been identified, such as in relation to:

Director independence

MFS believes that good governance is enabled by a board with at least a simple majority of directors who are “independent” (as determined by MFS in its sole discretion)1 of management, the company and each other. MFS may not support the non-independent nominees, or other relevant director (e.g., chair of the board or the chair of the nominations committee), where insufficient independence is identified and determined to be a risk to the board’s and/or company’s effectiveness.

As a general matter we will not support a nominee to a board if, as a result of such nominee being elected to the board, the board will consist of less than a simple majority of members who are “independent.” However, there are also governance structures and markets where we may accept lower levels of independence, such as companies required to have non-shareholder representatives on the board, controlled companies, and companies in certain Asian or emerging markets. In these circumstances we generally expect the board to be at least one-third independent or at least half of shareholder representatives to be independent, and as a general matter we will not support the nominee to the board if as a result of such nominee’s elections these expectations are not met. In certain circumstances, we may not support another relevant director’s election. For example, in Japan, we will generally not support the most senior director where the board is not comprised of at least one-third independent directors.

1 

MFS’ determination of “independence” may be different than that of the company, the exchange on which the company is listed, or of third party (e.g., proxy advisory firm).

 

B-623


MFS also believes good governance is enabled by a board whose key committees, in particular audit, nominating and compensation/remuneration, consist entirely of “independent” directors. For US and Canadian companies, MFS generally votes against any non-independent nominee that would cause any of the audit, compensation, nominating committee to not be fully independent. For Switzerland and UK issuers MFS generally votes against any non-independent nominee which would cause the audit or compensation/remuneration committee to not be fully independent.

In other markets MFS generally votes against non-independent nominees or other relevant director if a majority of committee members or the chair of the audit committee are not independent. However, there are also governance structures (e.g., controlled companies or boards with non-shareholder representatives) and markets where we may accept lower levels of independence for these key committees.

Tenure in leadership roles

For a board with a lead independent director whose overall tenure on the board equals or exceeds twenty (20) years, we will generally engage with the company to encourage refreshment of that role, and we may vote against the long tenured lead director if progress on refreshment is not made or being considered by the company’s board.

Overboarding

All directors on a board should have sufficient time and attention to fulfil their duties and play their part in achieving effective oversight, both in normal and exceptional circumstances. As a general matter, we vote against a director’s election if they:

 

   

Are not a CEO of a public company, but serve on more than four (4) public company boards in total at US companies and more than five (5) in other markets.

 

   

Are a CEO of a public company, and serve on more than two (2) public company boards in total at US companies and two (2) outside companies in other markets. In these cases, MFS would only apply a vote against at the meetings of the companies where the director is non-executive.

MFS may also vote against any director if we deem such nominee to have board roles or outside time commitments that we believe would impair their ability to dedicate sufficient time and attention to their director role. MFS may consider exceptions to this policy if: (i) the company has disclosed the director’s plans to step down from the number of public company boards exceeding the above limits, as applicable, within a reasonable time; or (ii) the director exceeds the permitted number of public company board seats solely due to either his/her board service on an affiliated company (e.g., a subsidiary), or service on more than one investment company within the same investment company complex (as defined by applicable law).

Diversity

MFS believes that a well-balanced board with diverse perspectives is a foundation for sound corporate governance, and this is best spread across the board rather than concentrated in one or a few individuals. We take a holistic view on the dimensions of diversity that can lead to diversity of perspectives and stronger oversight and governance.

Gender diversity is one such dimension and where good disclosure and data enables a specific expectation and voting policy.

On gender representation specifically MFS wishes to see companies in all markets achieve a consistent minimum representation of women of at least a third of the board, and we are likely to increase our voting policy towards this over time.

 

B-624


Currently, MFS will generally vote against the chair of the nominating and governance committee or other most relevant position at any company whose board is comprised of an insufficient representation of directors who are women for example:

 

   

At US, Canadian, European, Australian companies: less than 22%.

 

   

At Japanese companies: less than 10%.

As a general matter, MFS will vote against the chair of the nominating committee of US S&P 500 companies and UK FTSE 100 companies that have failed to appoint at least one director who identifies as either an underrepresented ethnic/racial minority or a member of the LGBTQ+ community.

MFS may consider exceptions to these guidelines if we believe that the company is transitioning towards these goals or has provided clear and compelling reasons for why they have been unable to comply with these goals.

For other markets, we will engage on board diversity and may vote against the election of directors where we fail to see progress.

Board size

MFS believes that the size of the board can have an effect on the board’s ability to function efficiently and effectively. While MFS may evaluate board size on a case-by-case basis, we will typically vote against the chair of the nominating and governance committee in instances where the size of the board is greater than sixteen (16) members. An exception to this is companies with requirements to have equal representation of employees on the board where we expect a maximum of twenty (20) members.

Other concerns related to director election:

MFS may also not support some or all nominees standing for election to a board if we determine:

 

   

There are concerns with a director or board regarding performance, governance or oversight, which may include:

 

   

Clear failures in oversight or execution of duties, including the identification, management and reporting of material risks and information, at the company or any other at which the nominee has served. This may include climate-related risks;

 

   

A failure by the director or board of the issuer to take action to eliminate shareholder unfriendly provisions in the issuer’s charter documents;

 

   

Allowing the hedging and/or significant pledging of company shares by executives.

 

   

A director attended less than 75% of the board and/or relevant committee meetings in the previous year without a valid reason stated in the proxy materials or other annual governance reporting;

 

   

The board or relevant committee has not adequately responded to an issue that received majority support or significant dissent from shareholders;

 

   

The board has implemented a poison pill without shareholder approval since the last annual meeting and such poison pill is not on the subsequent shareholder meeting’s agenda (including those related to net-operating loss carry-forwards); or

 

   

In Japan, the company allocates a significant portion of its net assets to cross-shareholdings.

Unless the concern is commonly accepted market practice, MFS may also not support some or all nominees standing for election to a nominations committee if we determine the chair is not independent and there is no strong lead independent director role in place or an executive director is a member of a key board committee.

 

B-625


Where individual directors are not presented for election in the year MFS may apply the same vote position to votes on the discharge of the director. Where the election of directors is bundled MFS may vote against the whole group if there is concern with an individual director and no other vote related to that director.

Proxy contests

From time to time, a shareholder may express alternative points of view in terms of a company’s strategy, capital allocation, or other issues. Such a shareholder may also propose a slate of director nominees different than the slate of director nominees proposed by the company (a “Proxy Contest”). MFS will analyze Proxy Contests on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the track record and current recommended initiatives of both company management and the dissident shareholder(s). MFS will support the slate of director nominees that we believe is in the best, long-term economic interest of our clients.

Other items related to board accountability:

Majority voting for the election of directors: MFS generally supports reasonably crafted proposals calling for directors to be elected with an affirmative majority of votes cast and/or the elimination of the plurality standard for electing directors (including binding resolutions requesting that the board amend the company’s bylaws), provided the proposal includes a carve-out for a plurality voting standard when there are more director nominees than board seats (e.g., contested elections).

Declassified boards: MFS generally supports proposals to declassify a board (i.e., a board in which only a sub-set of board members is elected each year) for all issuers other than for certain closed-end investment companies. MFS generally opposes proposals to classify a board for issuers other than for certain closed-end investment companies.

The right to call a special meeting or act by written consent: MFS will generally support management proposals to establish these rights. We will also support shareholder proposals to establish the right for shareholders to call a special meeting.

If a company already provides shareholders the right to call a special meeting at a threshold of 15% or below, MFS will generally vote against shareholder proposals to establish or amend the threshold at a lower level.

MFS will support shareholder proposals to establish the right to act by majority written consent if shareholders do not have the right to call a special meeting at a 15% or lower threshold.

Independent chairs: MFS believes boards should include some form of independent leadership responsible for amplifying the views of independent directors and setting meeting agendas, and this is often best positioned as an independent chair of the board. We review the merits of a change in leadership structure on a case-by-case basis.

Proxy access: MFS believes that the ability of qualifying shareholders to nominate a certain number of directors on the company’s proxy statement (“Proxy Access”) may have corporate governance benefits. However, such potential benefits must be balanced by its potential misuse by shareholders. Therefore, MFS generally supports Proxy Access proposals at U.S. issuers that establish ownership criteria of 3% of the company held continuously for a period of 3 years. In our view, such qualifying shareholders should have the ability to nominate at least 2 directors. We also believe companies should be mindful of imposing any undue impediments within their bylaws that may render Proxy Access impractical, including re-submission thresholds for director nominees via Proxy Access.

Items related to shareholder rights:

Anti-takeover measures: In general, MFS votes against any measure that inhibits capital appreciation in a stock, including proposals that protect management from action by shareholders. These types of proposals

 

B-626


take many forms, ranging from “poison pills” and “shark repellents” to super-majority requirements. While MFS may consider the adoption of a prospective “poison pill” or the continuation of an existing “poison pill” on a case-by-case basis, MFS generally votes against such anti-takeover devices.

MFS will consider any poison pills designed to protect a company’s net-operating loss carryforwards on a case-by-case basis, weighing the accounting and tax benefits of such a pill against the risk of deterring future acquisition candidates. MFS will also consider, on a case-by-case basis, proposals designed to prevent tenders which are disadvantageous to shareholders such as tenders at below market prices and tenders for substantially less than all shares of an issuer.

MFS generally supports proposals that seek to remove governance structures that insulate management from shareholders. MFS generally votes for proposals to rescind existing “poison pills” and proposals that would require shareholder approval to adopt prospective “poison pills.”

Cumulative voting: MFS generally opposes proposals that seek to introduce cumulative voting and supports proposals that seek to eliminate cumulative voting. In either case, MFS will consider whether cumulative voting is likely to enhance the interests of MFS’ clients as minority shareholders.

One-share one-vote: As a general matter, MFS supports proportional alignment of voting rights with economic interest, and may not support a proposal that deviates from this approach. Where multiple share classes or other forms of disproportionate control are in place, we expect these to have sunset provisions of generally no longer than seven years after which the structure becomes single class one-share one-vote.

Reincorporation and reorganization proposals: When presented with a proposal to reincorporate a company under the laws of a different state, or to effect some other type of corporate reorganization, MFS considers the underlying purpose and ultimate effect of such a proposal in determining whether or not to support such a measure. MFS generally votes with management in regards to these types of proposals, however, if MFS believes the proposal is not in the best long-term economic interests of its clients, then MFS may vote against management (e.g., the intent or effect would be to create additional inappropriate impediments to possible acquisitions or takeovers).

Other business: MFS generally votes against “other business” proposals as the content of any such matter is not known at the time of our vote.

Items related to capitalization proposals, capital allocation and corporate actions:

Issuance of stock: There are many legitimate reasons for the issuance of stock. Nevertheless, as noted above under “Stock Plans,” when a stock option plan (either individually or when aggregated with other plans of the same company) would substantially dilute the existing equity (e.g., by more than approximately 10-15%), MFS generally votes against the plan.

MFS typically votes against proposals where management is asking for authorization to issue common or preferred stock with no reason stated (a “blank check”) because the unexplained authorization could work as a potential anti-takeover device. MFS may also vote against the authorization or issuance of common or preferred stock if MFS determines that the requested authorization is excessive or not warranted. MFS will consider the duration of the authority and the company’s history in using such authorities in making its decision.

Repurchase programs: MFS generally supports proposals to institute share repurchase plans in which all shareholders have the opportunity to participate on an equal basis. Such plans may include a company acquiring its own shares on the open market, or a company making a tender offer to its own shareholders.

Mergers, acquisitions & other special transactions: MFS considers proposals with respect to mergers, acquisitions, sale of company assets, share and debt issuances and other transactions that have the potential to affect ownership interests on a case-by-case basis.

 

B-627


Independent Auditors

MFS generally supports the election of auditors but may determine to vote against the election of a statutory auditor and/or members of the audit committee in certain markets if MFS reasonably believes that the statutory auditor is not truly independent, sufficiently competent or there are concerns related to the auditor’s work or opinion. To inform this view, MFS may evaluate the use of non-audit services in voting decisions when the percentage of non-audit fees to total auditor fees exceeds 40%, in particular if recurring.

Executive Compensation

MFS believes that competitive compensation packages are necessary to attract, motivate and retain executives. We seek compensation plans that are geared towards durable long-term value creation and aligned with shareholder interests and experience, such as where:

 

   

The plan is aligned with the company’s strategic priorities with clear, suitably challenging and measurable performance conditions such that future pay is likely to reflect performance;

 

   

Substantial portions of awards paid in deferred shares and based on long performance periods (e.g., at least three years);

 

   

Potential awards, and any increases to this, reflect the role and business; and

 

   

Awards reflect the policies approved by shareholders at previous meetings with appropriate use of discretion (positive and negative).

MFS will analyze votes on executive compensation on a case-by-case basis. MFS will vote against an issuer’s executive compensation practices if MFS determines that such practices are misaligned with shareholders or include incentive metrics or structures that are poorly aligned with the best, long-term economic interest of its clients. When analyzing whether an issuer’s compensation practices are geared towards durable long-term value creation, we use a variety of materials and information, including our own internal research and engagement with issuers as well as the research of third-party service providers. We also have identified the following practices in compensation plans that we believe may be problematic and we review any plan that contains four (4) or more of these practices with extra scrutiny:

 

   

Relative total shareholder return (TSR) performance thresholds requiring less than median performance.

 

   

Qualitative (i.e., strategic or individual) goals that account for 30% or more of a given short- or long-term award.

 

   

Performance-based long-term incentives that have less than a 3-year performance period.

 

   

CEO perks of more than $100,000.

 

   

A long-term performance plan that has no financial performance requirements.

 

   

Executive or director pledging of shares.

 

   

CEO pay that is four times the average pay of the company’s next named executive officers (NEO).

MFS may also vote against an issuer’s executive compensation practices if there is insufficient disclosure about the issuer’s practices.

MFS generally supports proposals to include an advisory shareholder vote on an issuer’s executive compensation practices on an annual basis.

MFS does not have formal voting guideline in regards to the inclusion of ESG incentives in a company’s compensation plan; however, where such incentives are included, we believe:

 

   

The incentives should be tied to quantitative or other externally verifiable outcomes rather than qualitative measures.

 

   

The weighting of incentives should be appropriately balanced with other strategic priorities.

 

B-628


We believe non-executive directors may be compensated in cash or stock but these should not be performance-based.

Stock Plans

MFS may oppose stock option programs and restricted stock plans if they:

 

   

Provide unduly generous compensation for officers, directors or employees, or could result in excessive dilution to other shareholders. As a general guideline, MFS votes against restricted stock, stock option, non-employee director, omnibus stock plans and any other stock plan if all such plans for a particular company involve potential excessive dilution (which we typically consider to be, in the aggregate, of more than 15%). MFS will generally vote against stock plans that involve potential dilution, in aggregate, of more than 10% at U.S. issuers that are listed in the Standard and Poor’s 100 index as of December 31 of the previous year.

 

   

Allow the board or the compensation committee to re-price underwater options or to automatically replenish shares without shareholder approval.

 

   

Do not require an investment by the optionee, give “free rides” on the stock price, or permit grants of stock options with an exercise price below fair market value on the date the options are granted.

In the cases where a stock plan amendment is seeking qualitative changes and not additional shares, MFS will vote on a case-by-case basis.

MFS will consider proposals to exchange existing options for newly issued options, restricted stock or cash on a case-by-case basis, taking into account certain factors, including, but not limited to, whether there is a reasonable value-for-value exchange and whether senior executives are excluded from participating in the exchange.

From time to time, MFS may evaluate a separate, advisory vote on severance packages or “golden parachutes” to certain executives at the same time as a vote on a proposed merger or acquisition. MFS will vote on a severance package on a case-by-case basis, and MFS may vote against the severance package regardless of whether MFS supports the proposed merger or acquisition.

MFS supports the use of a broad-based employee stock purchase plans to increase company stock ownership by employees, provided that shares purchased under the plan are acquired for no less than 85% of their market value and do not result in excessive dilution.

MFS may also not support some or all nominees standing for election to a compensation/remuneration committee if:

 

   

MFS votes against consecutive pay votes;

 

   

MFS determines that a particularly egregious executive compensation practice has occurred. This may include use of discretion to award excessive payouts. MFS believes compensation committees should have flexibility to apply discretion to ensure final payments reflect long-term performance as long as this is used responsibly; or

 

   

An advisory pay vote is not presented to shareholders, or the company has not implemented the advisory vote frequency supported by a plurality/majority of shareholders.

Shareholder Proposals on Executive Compensation

MFS generally opposes shareholder proposals that seek to set rigid restrictions on executive compensation as MFS believes that compensation committees should retain flexibility to determine the appropriate pay package for executives.

 

B-629


MFS may support reasonably crafted shareholder proposals that:

 

   

Require shareholder approval of any severance package for an executive officer that exceeds a certain multiple of such officer’s annual compensation that is not determined in MFS’ judgment to be excessive;

 

   

Require the issuer to adopt a policy to recover the portion of performance-based bonuses and awards paid to senior executives that were not earned based upon a significant negative restatement of earnings, or other significant misconduct or corporate failure, unless the company already has adopted a satisfactory policy on the matter;

 

   

Expressly prohibit the backdating of stock options; or,

 

   

Prohibit the acceleration of vesting of equity awards upon a broad definition of a “change-in-control” (e.g., single or modified single-trigger).

Environmental and Social Proposals

Where management presents climate action/transition plans to shareholder vote, we will evaluate the level of ambition over time, scope, credibility and transparency of the plan in determining our support. Where companies present climate action progress reports to shareholder vote we will evaluate evidence of implementation of and progress against the plan and level of transparency in determining our support.

Most vote items related to environmental and social topics are presented by shareholders. As these proposals, even on the same topic, can vary significantly in scope and action requested, many must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

For example, MFS may support proposals reasonably crafted proposals:

 

   

On climate change: that seek disclosure consistent with the recommendations of a generally accepted global framework (e.g., Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures) that is appropriately audited and that is presented in a way that enables shareholders to assess and analyze the company’s data; or request appropriately robust and ambitious plans or targets.

 

   

Other environmental: that request the setting of targets for reduction of environmental impact or disclosure of key performance indicators or risks related to the impact, where materially relevant to the business. An example of such a proposal could be reporting on the impact of plastic use or waste stemming from company products or packaging.

 

   

On diversity: that seek to amend a company’s equal employment opportunity policy to prohibit discrimination; that request good practice employee-related DEI disclosure; or that seek external input and reviews on specific related areas of performance.

 

   

On lobbying: that request good practice disclosure regarding a company’s political contributions and lobbying payments and policy (including trade organizations and lobbying activity).

 

   

On tax: that request reporting in line with the GRI 207 Standard on Tax.

 

   

On corporate culture and/or human/worker rights: that request additional disclosure on corporate culture factors like employee turnover and/or management of human and labor rights.

MFS is unlikely to support a proposal if we believe that the proposal is unduly costly, restrictive, unclear, burdensome, has potential unintended consequences, is unlikely to lead to tangible outcomes or we don’t believe the issue is material or the action a priority for the business. MFS is also unlikely to support a proposal where the company already provides publicly available information that we believe is sufficient to enable shareholders to evaluate the potential opportunities and risks on the subject of the proposal, if the request of the proposal has already been substantially implemented, or if through engagement we gain assurances that it will be substantially implemented.

 

B-630


The laws of various states or countries may regulate how the interests of certain clients subject to those laws (e.g., state pension plans) are voted with respect to environmental, social and governance issues. Thus, it may be necessary to cast ballots differently for certain clients than MFS might normally do for other clients.

B. GOVERNANCE OF PROXY VOTING ACTIVITIES

From time to time, MFS may receive comments on the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures from its clients. These comments are carefully considered by MFS when it reviews these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures and revises them as appropriate, in MFS’ sole judgment.

1. MFS Proxy Voting Committee

The administration of these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures is overseen by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, which includes senior personnel from the MFS Legal and Global Investment and Client Support Departments as well as members of the investment team. The Proxy Voting Committee does not include individuals whose primary duties relate to client relationship management, marketing, or sales. The MFS Proxy Voting Committee:

 

  a.

Reviews these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures at least annually and recommends any amendments considered to be necessary or advisable;

 

  b.

Determines whether any potential material conflict of interest exists with respect to instances in which MFS (i) seeks to override these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures; (ii) votes on ballot items not governed by these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures; (iii) evaluates an excessive executive compensation issue in relation to the election of directors; or (iv) requests a vote recommendation from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst (e.g., mergers and acquisitions);

 

  c.

Considers special proxy issues as they may arise from time to time; and

 

  d.

Determines engagement priorities and strategies with respect to MFS’ proxy voting activities

The day-to-day application of the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures are conducted by the MFS stewardship team led by MFS’ Director of Global Stewardship. The stewardship team are members of MFS’ investment team.

2. Potential Conflicts of Interest

These policies and procedures are intended to address any potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS or its subsidiaries that are likely to arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS’ clients. If such potential material conflicts of interest do arise, MFS will analyze, document and report on such potential material conflicts of interest (see below) and shall ultimately vote the relevant ballot items in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of its clients. The MFS Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for monitoring and reporting with respect to such potential material conflicts of interest.

The MFS Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for monitoring potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS or its subsidiaries that could arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS’ clients. Due to the client focus of our investment management business, we believe that the potential for actual material conflict of interest issues is small. Nonetheless, we have developed precautions to assure that all votes are cast in the best long-term economic interest of its clients.2 Other MFS internal policies

2 

For clarification purposes, note that MFS votes in what we believe to be the best, long-term economic interest of our clients entitled to vote at the shareholder meeting, regardless of whether other MFS clients hold “short” positions in the same issuer or whether other MFS clients hold an interest in the company that is not entitled to vote at the shareholder meeting (e.g., bond holder).

 

B-631


require all MFS employees to avoid actual and potential conflicts of interests between personal activities and MFS’ client activities. If an employee (including investment professionals) identifies an actual or potential conflict of interest with respect to any voting decision (including the ownership of securities in their individual portfolio), then that employee must recuse himself/herself from participating in the voting process. Any significant attempt by an employee of MFS or its subsidiaries to unduly influence MFS’ voting on a particular proxy matter should also be reported to the MFS Proxy Voting Committee.

In cases where ballots are voted in accordance with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, no material conflict of interest will be deemed to exist. In cases where (i) MFS is considering overriding these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, (ii) matters presented for vote are not governed by these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, (iii) MFS evaluates a potentially excessive executive compensation issue in relation to the election of directors or advisory pay or severance package vote, or (iv) a vote recommendation is requested from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst (e.g., mergers and acquisitions); (collectively, “Non-Standard Votes”); the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will follow these procedures:

 

  a.

Compare the name of the issuer of such ballot or the name of the shareholder making such proposal against a list of significant current (i) distributors of MFS Fund shares, and (ii) MFS institutional clients (the “MFS Significant Distributor and Client List”);

 

  b.

If the name of the issuer does not appear on the MFS Significant Distributor and Client List, then no material conflict of interest will be deemed to exist, and the proxy will be voted as otherwise determined by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee;

 

  c.

If the name of the issuer appears on the MFS Significant Distributor and Client List, then the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will be apprised of that fact and each member of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee (with the participation of MFS’ Conflicts Officer) will carefully evaluate the proposed vote in order to ensure that the proxy ultimately is voted in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in MFS’ corporate interests; and

 

  d.

For all potential material conflicts of interest identified under clause (c) above, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will document: the name of the issuer, the issuer’s relationship to MFS, the analysis of the matters submitted for proxy vote, the votes as to be cast and the reasons why the MFS Proxy Voting Committee determined that the votes were cast in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in MFS’ corporate interests. A copy of the foregoing documentation will be provided to MFS’ Conflicts Officer.

The members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee are responsible for creating and maintaining the MFS Significant Distributor and Client List, in consultation with MFS’ distribution and institutional business units. The MFS Significant Distributor and Client List will be reviewed and updated periodically, as appropriate.

For instances where MFS is evaluating a director nominee who also serves as a director/trustee of the MFS Funds, then the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will adhere to the procedures described in section (c) above regardless of whether the portfolio company appears on our Significant Distributor and Client List. In doing so, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will adhere to such procedures for all Non-Standard Votes at the company’s shareholder meeting at which the director nominee is standing for election.

If an MFS client has the right to vote on a matter submitted to shareholders by Sun Life Financial, Inc. or any of its affiliates (collectively “Sun Life”), MFS will cast a vote on behalf of such MFS client as such client instructs or in the event that a client instruction is unavailable pursuant to the recommendations of Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc.’s (“ISS”) benchmark policy, or as required by law. Likewise, if an MFS client has the right to vote on a matter submitted to shareholders by a public company for which an MFS Fund director/trustee serves as an executive officer, MFS will cast a vote on behalf of such MFS client as such client instructs or in the event that client instruction is unavailable pursuant to the recommendations of ISS or as required by law.

 

B-632


Except as described in the MFS Fund’s Prospectus, from time to time, certain MFS Funds (the “top tier fund”) may own shares of other MFS Funds (the “underlying fund”). If an underlying fund submits a matter to a shareholder vote, the top tier fund will generally vote its shares in the same proportion as the other shareholders of the underlying fund. If there are no other shareholders in the underlying fund, the top tier fund will vote in what MFS believes to be in the top tier fund’s best long-term economic interest. If an MFS client has the right to vote on a matter submitted to shareholders by a pooled investment vehicle advised by MFS (excluding those vehicles for which MFS’ role is primarily portfolio management and is overseen by another investment adviser), MFS will cast a vote on behalf of such MFS client in the same proportion as the other shareholders of the pooled investment vehicle.

3. Review of Policy

The MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures are available on www.mfs.com and may be accessed by both MFS’ clients and the companies in which MFS’ clients invest. The MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures are reviewed by the Proxy Voting Committee annually. From time to time, MFS may receive comments on the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures from its clients. These comments are carefully considered by MFS when it reviews these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures and revises them as appropriate, in MFS’ sole judgment.

C. OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS & USE OF PROXY ADVISORY FIRMS

1. Use of Proxy Advisory Firms

MFS, on behalf of itself and certain of its clients (including the MFS Funds) has entered into an agreement with an independent proxy administration firm pursuant to which the proxy administration firm performs various proxy vote related administrative services such as vote processing and recordkeeping functions. Except as noted below, the proxy administration firm for MFS and its clients, including the MFS Funds, is ISS. The proxy administration firm for MFS Development Funds, LLC is Glass, Lewis & Co., Inc. (“Glass Lewis”; Glass Lewis and ISS are each hereinafter referred to as the “Proxy Administrator”).

The Proxy Administrator receives proxy statements and proxy ballots directly or indirectly from various custodians, logs these materials into its database and matches upcoming meetings with MFS Fund and client portfolio holdings, which are inputted into the Proxy Administrator’s system by an MFS holdings data-feed. The Proxy Administrator then reconciles a list of all MFS accounts that hold shares of a company’s stock and the number of shares held on the record date by these accounts with the Proxy Administrator’s list of any upcoming shareholder’s meeting of that company. If a proxy ballot has not been received, the Proxy Administrator and/or MFS may contact the client’s custodian requesting the reason as to why a ballot has not been received. Through the use of the Proxy Administrator system, ballots and proxy material summaries for all upcoming shareholders’ meetings are available on-line to certain MFS employees and members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee.

MFS also receives research reports and vote recommendations from proxy advisory firms. These reports are only one input among many in our voting analysis, which includes other sources of information such as proxy materials, company engagement discussions, other third-party research and data. MFS has due diligence procedures in place to help ensure that the research we receive from our proxy advisory firms is materially accurate and that we address any material conflicts of interest involving these proxy advisory firms. This due diligence includes an analysis of the adequacy and quality of the advisory firm staff, its conflict of interest policies and procedures and independent audit reports. We also review the proxy policies, methodologies and peer-group-composition methodology of our proxy advisory firms at least annually. Additionally, we also receive reports from our proxy advisory firms regarding any violations or changes to conflict of interest procedures.

 

B-633


2. Analyzing and Voting Proxies

Proxies are voted in accordance with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures. The Proxy Administrator, at the prior direction of MFS, automatically votes all proxy matters that do not require the particular exercise of discretion or judgment with respect to these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures as determined by MFS. In these circumstances, if the Proxy Administrator, based on MFS’ prior direction, expects to vote against management with respect to a proxy matter and MFS becomes aware that the issuer has filed or will file additional soliciting materials sufficiently in advance of the deadline for casting a vote at the meeting, MFS will consider such information when casting its vote. With respect to proxy matters that require the particular exercise of discretion or judgment, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee or its representatives considers and votes on those proxy matters. In analyzing all proxy matters, MFS uses a variety of materials and information, including, but not limited to, the issuer’s proxy statement and other proxy solicitation materials (including supplemental materials), our own internal research and research and recommendations provided by other third parties (including research of the Proxy Administrator). As described herein, MFS may also determine that it is beneficial in analyzing a proxy voting matter for members of the Proxy Voting Committee or its representatives to engage with the company on such matter. MFS also uses its own internal research, the research of Proxy Administrators and/or other third party research tools and vendors to identify (i) circumstances in which a board may have approved an executive compensation plan that is excessive or poorly aligned with the portfolio company’s business or its shareholders, (ii) environmental, social and governance proposals that warrant further consideration, or (iii) circumstances in which a company is not in compliance with local governance or compensation best practices. Representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee review, as appropriate, votes cast to ensure conformity with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

For certain types of votes (e.g. mergers and acquisitions, proxy contests and capitalization matters), MFS’ stewardship team will seek a recommendation from the MFS investment analyst that is responsible for analyzing the company and/or portfolio managers that holds the security in their portfolio.3 For certain other votes that require a case-by-case analysis per these policies (e.g., potentially excessive executive compensation issues, or certain shareholder proposals), the stewardship team will likewise consult with MFS investment analysts and/or portfolio managers.3 However, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will ultimately be responsible for the manner in which all ballots are voted.

As noted above, MFS reserves the right to override the guidelines when such an override is, in MFS’ best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients. Any such override of the guidelines shall be analyzed, documented and reported in accordance with the procedures set forth in these policies.

In accordance with its contract with MFS, the Proxy Administrator also generates a variety of reports for the MFS Proxy Voting Committee and makes available on-line various other types of information so that the MFS Proxy Voting Committee or its representatives may review and monitor the votes cast by the Proxy Administrator on behalf of MFS’ clients.

For those markets that utilize a “record date” to determine which shareholders are eligible to vote, MFS generally will vote all eligible shares pursuant to these guidelines regardless of whether all (or a portion of) the shares held by our clients have been sold prior to the meeting date.

3. Securities Lending

From time to time, certain MFS Funds may participate in a securities lending program. In the event MFS or its agent receives timely notice of a shareholder meeting for a U.S. security, MFS and its agent will attempt

3 

From time to time, due to travel schedules and other commitments, an appropriate portfolio manager or research analyst may not be available to provide a vote recommendation. If such a recommendation cannot be obtained within a reasonable time prior to the cut-off date of the shareholder meeting, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee may determine to abstain from voting.

 

B-634


to recall any securities on loan before the meeting’s record date so that MFS will be entitled to vote these shares. However, there may be instances in which MFS is unable to timely recall securities on loan for a U.S. security, in which cases MFS will not be able to vote these shares. MFS will report to the appropriate board of the MFS Funds those instances in which MFS is not able to timely recall the loaned securities. MFS generally does not recall non-U.S. securities on loan because there may be insufficient advance notice of proxy materials, record dates, or vote cut-off dates to allow MFS to timely recall the shares in certain markets on an automated basis. As a result, non-U.S. securities that are on loan will not generally be voted. If MFS receives timely notice of what MFS determines to be an unusual, significant vote for a non-U.S. security whereas MFS shares are on loan and determines that voting is in the best long-term economic interest of shareholders, then MFS will attempt to timely recall the loaned shares.

4. Potential impediments to voting

In accordance with local law or business practices, some companies or custodians prevent the sale of shares that have been voted for a certain period beginning prior to the shareholder meeting and ending on the day following the meeting (“share blocking”). Depending on the country in which a company is domiciled, the blocking period may begin a stated number of days prior or subsequent to the meeting (e.g., one, three or five days) or on a date established by the company. While practices vary, in many countries the block period can be continued for a longer period if the shareholder meeting is adjourned and postponed to a later date. Similarly, practices vary widely as to the ability of a shareholder to have the “block” restriction lifted early (e.g., in some countries shares generally can be “unblocked” up to two days prior to the meeting whereas in other countries the removal of the block appears to be discretionary with the issuer’s transfer agent). Due to these restrictions, MFS must balance the benefits to its clients of voting proxies against the potentially serious portfolio management consequences of a reduced flexibility to sell the underlying shares at the most advantageous time. For companies in countries with share blocking periods or in markets where some custodians may block shares, the disadvantage of being unable to sell the stock regardless of changing conditions generally outweighs the advantages of voting at the shareholder meeting for routine items. Accordingly, MFS will not vote those proxies in the absence of an unusual, significant vote that outweighs the disadvantage of being unable to sell the stock.

From time to time, governments may impose economic sanctions which may prohibit us from transacting business with certain companies or individuals. These sanctions may also prohibit the voting of proxies at certain companies or on certain individuals. In such instances, MFS will not vote at certain companies or on certain individuals if it determines that doing so is in violation of the sanctions.

In limited circumstances, other market specific impediments to voting shares may limit our ability to cast votes, including, but not limited to, late delivery of proxy materials, untimely vote cut-off dates, power of attorney and share re-registration requirements, or any other unusual voting requirements. In these limited instances, MFS votes securities on a best-efforts basis in the context of the guidelines described above.

D. ENGAGEMENT

As part of its approach to stewardship MFS engages with companies in which it invests on a range of priority issues. Where sufficient progress has not been made on a particular issue of engagement, MFS may determine a vote against management may be warranted to reflect our concerns and influence for change in the best long-term economic interests of our clients.

MFS may determine that it is appropriate and beneficial to engage in a dialogue or written communication with a company or other shareholders specifically regarding certain matters on the company’s proxy statement that are of concern to shareholders, including environmental, social and governance matters. This may be to discuss and build our understanding of a certain proposal, or to provide further context to the company on our vote decision.

A company or shareholder may also seek to engage with members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee or Stewardship Team in advance of the company’s formal proxy solicitation to review issues more generally or

 

B-635


gauge support for certain contemplated proposals. For further information on requesting engagement with MFS on proxy voting issues or information about MFS’ engagement priorities, please contact [email protected].

E. RECORDS RETENTION

MFS will retain copies of these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures in effect from time to time and will retain all proxy voting reports submitted to the Board of Trustees of the MFS Funds for the period required by applicable law. Proxy solicitation materials, including electronic versions of the proxy ballots completed by representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, together with their respective notes and comments, are maintained in an electronic format by the Proxy Administrator and are accessible on-line by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee and other MFS employees. All proxy voting materials and supporting documentation, including records generated by the Proxy Administrator’s system as to proxies processed, including the dates when proxy ballots were received and submitted, and the votes on each company’s proxy issues, are retained as required by applicable law.

F. REPORTS

U.S. Registered MFS Funds

MFS publicly discloses the proxy voting records of the U.S. registered MFS Funds on a quarterly basis. MFS will also report the results of its voting to the Board of Trustees of the U.S. registered MFS Funds. These reports will include: (i) a summary of how votes were cast (including advisory votes on pay and “golden parachutes”); (ii) a summary of votes against management’s recommendation; (iii) a review of situations where MFS did not vote in accordance with the guidelines and the rationale therefore; (iv) a review of the procedures used by MFS to identify material conflicts of interest and any matters identified as a material conflict of interest; (v) a review of these policies and the guidelines; (vi) a review of our proxy engagement activity; (vii) a report and impact assessment of instances in which the recall of loaned securities of a U.S. issuer was unsuccessful; and (viii) as necessary or appropriate, any proposed modifications thereto to reflect new developments in corporate governance and other issues. Based on these reviews, the Trustees of the U.S. registered MFS Funds will consider possible modifications to these policies to the extent necessary or advisable.

Other MFS Clients

MFS may publicly disclose the proxy voting records of certain other clients (including certain MFS Funds) or the votes it casts with respect to certain matters as required by law. A report can also be printed by MFS for each client who has requested that MFS furnish a record of votes cast. The report specifies the proxy issues which have been voted for the client during the year and the position taken with respect to each issue and, upon request, may identify situations where MFS did not vote in accordance with the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

Firm-wide Voting Records

MFS also publicly discloses its firm-wide proxy voting records on a quarterly basis.

Except as described above, MFS generally will not divulge actual voting practices to any party other than the client or its representatives because we consider that information to be confidential and proprietary to the client. However, as noted above, MFS may determine that it is appropriate and beneficial to engage in a dialogue with a company regarding certain matters. During such dialogue with the company, MFS may disclose the vote it intends to cast in order to potentially effect positive change at a company in regards to environmental, social or governance issues.

 

B-636


Appendix A

METROPOLITAN WEST ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC

GLOBAL PORTFOLIO PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

April 2023

TCW, through certain subsidiaries and affiliates of acts as investment advisor for a variety of clients, including US-registered investment companies. TCW has the right to vote proxies on behalf of its registered investment company clients, and believes that proxy voting rights can be a significant asset of its clients’ holdings. Accordingly, TCW seeks to exercise that right consistent with its fiduciary duties on behalf of its clients. This policy applies to all discretionary accounts over which TCW has proxy voting responsibility or an obligation to provide proxy voting guidance with respect to the holdings it advises on a model or wrap basis.

While the Global Portfolio Proxy Voting Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) outlined here are written to apply internationally, differences in local practice and law make a universal application of these guidelines impractical. As a consequence, it is important to note that each proposal is considered individually, reflecting the effects on the specific company and unique attributes of the industry and/or geography. In addition, this document serves as a set of general guidelines, not hardcoded rules, which are designed to aid us in voting proxies for TCW and not necessarily in making investment decisions. At TCW, we reserve the right in all cases to vote in contravention of these Guidelines, where doing so is judged to represent the best interests of its clients in the specific situation.

Engagement Philosophy

Engagement and stewardship are integral components of our research and investment processes, as we seek to deliver on our clients’ financial objectives. We are guided by our role as fiduciaries and have implemented our stewardship practices in pursuit of strong financial performance. We believe our deep fundamental research model positions us well for constructive engagement, including proxy voting, with companies and other entities around the world. Through informed, active ownership, we are confident we can help encourage positive issuer behavior in ways that we consider to be best practices on material issues to benefit our clients, financial markets, and the global economy. Accordingly, our engagement practices are continuing to evolve.

TCW has a large and important platform, providing opportunity to engage with issuers. Direct engagement with issuers covers a range of issues, including balance sheet management, corporate strategy, financial performance and risk, governance, adaptability, and sustainability themes. This engagement is an essential and a growing part of our investment process. Portfolio managers, industry analysts, and ESG analysts all collaborate in an ongoing dialogue with issuers, as well as suppliers, customers, and competitors. Maintaining this ongoing dialogue is central to how we implement our stewardship responsibilities and informs the investment decisions we make on behalf of our clients. For ESG engagement in particular, it should be noted that just dialoguing with issuers that already demonstrate a comprehensive approach to ESG is only one key facet of engagement. It’s also important to engage with issuers that have less advanced sustainability practices. By engaging with those early in their sustainability journey, or those that have begun to implement sustainability goals but not yet fully achieved the desired results, TCW may be able to have a direct influence with issuers. Such engagement may benefit all stakeholders, including financial market participants, the global community, environment, and individual constituents. TCW is continuing to evaluate and build on its ability to have meaningful dialogues that will lead to such benefits.

Engagement is a long-term and dynamic process that evolves over multiple years. While change may take years to materialize, analysts will continue to enhance, reinforce and monitor ESG engagement objectives as part of a regular interaction with issuers. The lack of response or progress from issuers will be reflected in ESG assessments. Insufficient progress on engagement themes and/or reluctance to engage with TCW will be flagged and may result in investment changes.

 

LOGO   B-637  

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

 

PPc6091  04/25/23 


Proxy Voting Procedures

TCW will make every reasonable effort to execute on proxy votes on behalf of its clients prior to the applicable deadlines. However, TCW often relies on third parties, including custodians and clients, for the timely provision of proxy ballots. TCW may be unable to execute on proxy votes if it does not receive requisite materials with sufficient time to review and process them.

Additionally, TCW may receive ballots for some strategies for which the typical expression of our engagement and stewardship policies may not be possible. For instance, quantitative strategies use machine learning models that employ algorithms for security selection, and these securities may only be held for a short period of time. For ballots received for securities held in these strategies, TCW may elect not to vote.

Proxy Committee

In order to carry out its fiduciary responsibilities in the voting of proxies for its clients, TCW has established a proxy voting committee (the “Proxy Committee”). The Proxy Committee generally meets quarterly (or at such other frequency as determined by the Proxy Committee), and its duties include establishing and maintaining proxy voting guidelines and procedures (the “Guidelines”), overseeing the internal proxy voting process, and reviewing proxy voting proposals and issues that may not be covered by the Guidelines. The Proxy Committee has been working with TCW’s equity investment teams to evolve TCW’s engagement process, proxy voting philosophy, scope of coverage, and execution.

Proxy Voting Services

TCW also uses outside proxy voting services (each an “Outside Service”) to help manage the proxy voting process. An Outside Service facilitates TCW’s voting according to the Guidelines (or, if applicable, according to guidelines submitted by TCW’s clients) by providing proxy research, an enhanced voting technology solution, and record keeping and reporting system(s). To supplement its own research and analysis in determining how best to vote a particular proxy proposal, TCW may utilize research, analysis or recommendations provided by the proxy voting service on a case-by-case basis. TCW does not as a policy follow the assessments or recommendations provided by the proxy voting service without its own determination and review. Under specified circumstances described below involving potential conflicts of interest, an Outside Service may also be requested to help decide certain proxy votes. In those instances, the Proxy Committee shall review and evaluate the voting recommendations of such Outside Service to ensure that recommendations are consistent with TCW’s clients’ best interests.

Sub-Advisor

Where TCW has retained the services of a Sub-adviser to provide day-to-day portfolio management for the portfolio, the Adviser may delegate proxy voting authority to the Sub-Adviser; provided that the Sub-Adviser either (1) follows the Adviser’s Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures; or (2) has demonstrated that its proxy voting policies and procedures (“Sub-Adviser’s Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures”) are in the best interests of the Adviser’s clients and appear to comply with governing regulations. TCW also shall be provided the opportunity to review a Sub-Adviser’s Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures as deemed necessary or appropriate by TCW.

Conflicts of Interest

In the event a potential conflict of interest arises in the context of voting proxies for TCW’s clients, TCW will cast its votes according to the Guidelines or any applicable guidelines provided by TCW’s clients. In cases where a conflict of interest exists and there is no predetermined vote, the Proxy Committee will vote the proposals in a manner consistent with established conflict of interest procedures.

 

LOGO   B-638  

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

 

PPc6091  04/25/23 


Proxy Voting Information and Recordkeeping

Upon request, TCW provides proxy voting records to its clients. TCW shall disclose the present policy as well as the results of its implementation (including the way TCW has voted) on its website in accordance with applicable law.

TCW or an Outside Service will keep records of the following items: (i) Proxy Voting Guidelines and any other proxy voting procedures; (ii) proxy statements received regarding client securities (unless such statements are available on the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system); (iii) records of votes cast on behalf of clients (if maintained by an Outside Service, that Outside Service will provide copies of those records promptly upon request); (iv) records of written requests for proxy voting information and TCW’s response; and (v) any documents prepared by TCW that were material to making a decision how to vote, or that memorialized the basis for the decision. Additionally, TCW or an Outside Service will maintain any documentation related to an identified material conflict of interest.

TCW or an Outside Service will maintain these records in an easily accessible place for at least five years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry was made on such record. For the most recent two years, TCW or an Outside Service will store such records at its principal office.

International Proxy Voting

While TCW utilizes these Proxy Voting Guidelines for both international and domestic portfolios and clients, there are some significant differences between voting U.S. company proxies and voting non-U.S. company proxies. For U.S. companies, it is relatively easy to vote proxies, as the proxies are automatically received and may be voted by mail or electronically.

For proxies of non-U.S. companies, although it is typically both difficult and costly to vote proxies, TCW will make every reasonable effort to vote such proxies.

Our Approach to Proxy Voting

The Guidelines reflect TCW’s general position and practice on certain key issues, including ESG issues. To preserve the ability of its portfolio managers to make the best decisions in each case as stated previously, the Guidelines listed are intended only to provide context on topical issues. The full set of Guidelines are reviewed and updated as necessary, but at least annually, by the Proxy Committee.

In making proxy voting decisions, one key consideration, among other themes discussed below, is the materiality of ESG to a company’s business activity and relevance to shareholder value. TCW believes that ESG issues can affect the performance of investment portfolios (to varying degrees across companies, sectors, regions, asset classes and through time). As a signatory to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment, TCW also recognizes that applying certain ESG principles may better align investors with broader objectives of society.

ESG factors constitute an increasingly important component of TCW’s overall proxy voting philosophy, which continues to be founded on the investment teams’ assessment of the best interests of our clients, always guided by their particular investment objectives. In addressing corporate issues, ESG factors typically play a role consistent with TCW’s analysis. It is ultimately the portfolio manager’s decision, what is in the best interests of the clients in each particular case.

 

LOGO   B-639  

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

 

PPc6091  04/25/23 


GUIDELINES

Governance

Election of Directors

TCW believes boards that reflect a wide range of perspectives create shareholder value. The selection and screening process for identifying qualified candidates for a company’s board of directors requires the consideration of many critical factors, including relevant skills, talents and background experience, in addition to a diversity of candidates and corresponding diversity of the broader Board. We believe strongly that the diversity of skills, abilities, backgrounds, experiences and points of view can foster the development of a more creative, effective and dynamic Board, which, in turn, helps support shareholder value creation. We believe it is not in shareholders’ best interests for the full board to be comprised of directors from the same industry, gender, race, nationality, education background or ethnic group.

We may vote against the reelection of Nominating/Governance Committee chair if we believe the board is not meeting local market standards from a diversity perspective. In the case of local standards, we refer to quotas established by local governance codes, which exist in many European markets, and in some U.S. states. In the US broadly and Japan, we look for a least one female on the board as a minimum standard. To support these efforts, we may vote against the reelection of Nominating/Governance Committee Chairs of S&P 500 companies that do not disclose the racial and ethnic composition of their boards.

Independence and Commitment

TCW will typically vote in support of proposals calling for improved independence of board members. To determine appropriate minimum levels of board independence, we tend to evaluate considering international best practices. We also believe that an independent chair is the preferred structure for board leadership, as this structure can help avoid inherent conflict of self-oversight and can help ensure robust debate and diversity of thought within the boardroom. Consequently, we will tend to support management proposals to separate the chair and CEO or establish a lead director.

TCW considers director attendance and commitment to board activities as important for shareholder value creation. We expect directors to attend a minimum number of board meetings. We may vote against directors who consistency fall below that minimum threshold. Additionally, we want to consider how extended a director is with respect to other Board activities and will take this factor into consideration in appropriate resolutions.

Compensation

TCW carefully reviews executive compensation, as we believe this is an important area in which the board’s priorities and effectiveness are revealed. We believe compensation should be closely aligned with company performance, with reference to compensation paid by the company’s peers, and compensation programs should be designed to promote sustainable shareholder returns while discouraging excessive risk taking. We believe strongly that executive compensation plans help established the incentive structure that plays a role in strategy, decision-making and risk management for an organization. There is broad variety in compensation design and structure depending on the unique features of companies. We believe the most effective compensation plans attract and retain high caliber executives, foster a culture of performance and accountability, and align management’s interests with those of long-term shareholders.

 

LOGO   B-640  

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

 

PPc6091  04/25/23 


Ownership

TCW believes that a firm’s ownership structure should be transparent and provide for the alignment of shareholders’ interests. As such, we generally will oppose multiple common stock share classes with unequal voting rights, but are supportive of capital structure changes such as share issuances which protect minority shareholders’ interests by limiting dilution. Likewise, we generally will oppose anti-takeover positions such as supermajority provisions, poison pills, undue restrictions on the right to call special meetings, and any other provision that limits or eliminates minority shareholders’ rights. We are generally supportive of mergers and restructurings that we believe will be accretive to minority shareholders, but we may oppose those which appear unreasonable from a valuation prospective or entail a questionable strategic and/or financial rationale. Many of our proxy voting requests involve capital structure issues, such as issuance or repurchase of shares, issuance of debt, allocations, and employee stock option plans. In each of these cases, TCW will generally vote in favor of management where appropriate, but only if the proposal does not conflict with our criteria for transparency and alignment with shareholders’ interests.

Other Corporate Matters

Other frequent proxy voting requests involve such matters as roles of executives, appointments of accountants and other professional advisors, amendments to corporate documents, and procedures for consents. In these and similar corporate matters, TCW will also generally vote in favor of management where appropriate, but again, only if the proposal does not conflict with our criteria for transparency and alignment with shareholders’ interests.

Environmental and Social Issues

As outlined in our ESG Investment Policy Statement, we understand that the incorporation of material sustainability factors into the investment research process – consistent with existing investment processes – helps achieve our goal to improve risk-adjusted returns over the long-term for our investors. We believe fundamentally that ESG issues tend to have an impact on investment outcomes due to the changing global landscape, regulations, consumer preferences, and employee trends. Sustainability related data, including climate metrics, also provides increasingly relevant information by which to evaluate investment opportunities. ESG integration is not only consistent with our fiduciary duty, but more specifically, supports the fulfillment of this duty.

TCW’s ESG integration efforts will support both risk mitigation and the identification of opportunities based on relevant sustainability factors. ESG analysis helps us to avoid investments where we believe that we are not being sufficiently compensated in the market for the recognized risks. ESG integration also supports our evaluation of key opportunities to business models or firms with strong sustainability characteristics that may not yet be reflected in market pricing.

ESG integration does not mean that sustainability factors are the sole consideration for an investment decision; instead, TCW’s investment teams evaluate a variety of traditional and sustainability factors to make informed investment decisions. By increasing the information assessed by the portfolio management teams, we believe we are able to generate a more holistic view of an investment, which we believe may generate enhanced risk-adjusted returns for our clients around the world. If we believe that ESG risks – particularly governance – are substantial or the range of possible outcomes is too broad and/or the market technicals unfavorable, then we may decide not to invest.

In the context of proxy voting, TCW will evaluate shareholder resolutions regarding environmental and social issues in the context of financial materiality of the issue to the company’s operations. We believe that all companies face risks associated with environmental and social factors. However, we recognize that these risks manifest themselves differently at each company as a result of their individual operations, workforce, structure

 

LOGO   B-641  

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

 

PPc6091  04/25/23 


and geography, among many other important factors. Accordingly, we place a significant emphasis on the financial implications of a company adopting, or indeed not adopting, any proposed shareholder resolution. To assist our analysis and perspective, we often utilize the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) to better assess and understand the materiality of such factors on business models.

Climate Risk

TCW is proud to support the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). As a long-term investor, we believe the impact of climate change is broad and material to investment decisions, creating both risks and opportunities across financial markets and the global economy. Our ESG integration efforts embed our views on climate change into the investment research processes. This integrated approach enables our analysts and portfolio managers to focus on where we see climate risk and opportunities as material financial factors.

Physical and transition risks stemming from climate change will have significant societal, economic, and political consequences, particularly over medium- and long-term horizons. As an active manager across diverse asset classes, our deep fundamental research focuses on assessing risk while seeking to identify attractive investment opportunities in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

It is important to note that TCW reviews climate change in the context of broader sustainability risk and not in isolation. Biodiversity, natural resource utilization and other sustainability factors are interrelated to climate change and should be evaluated in coordination with each other. TCW supports the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as the reference framework to assess wide-ranging opportunities.

Reporting on climate readiness will help stakeholders understand companies’ willingness and ability to adapt to or mitigate physical risks posed to their business by a changing climate. We continue to focus our voting practices in this area, and will encourage companies to provide more detail. In general, we will favor proposals seeking greater disclosure on plans to reduce total contribution to climate change, GHG emissions reduction targets, environmental reporting and use of renewables or energy efficient technologies.

Climate-Related Lobbying

Increasingly, companies have begun providing additional disclosure concerning how they ensure corporate funds are spent in ways consistent with their stated climate policy. There is growing recognition by investors and companies that alignment between stated values on climate and lobbying activity is important. In general, TCW will support proposals requesting more information on a company’s climate-related lobbying.

Corporate Culture, Human Capital and Diversity & Inclusion

We believe human capital management is an area of material importance for most companies. Maintaining a diverse and engaged workforce can help mitigate risks related to low worker productivity, employee turnover and lawsuits based on discrimination or harassment. Given the importance of this issue, we believe management should provide shareholders with adequate information to be able to assess can be management of this important business aspect. We believe diversity, equity and inclusion or “DEI” practices can be a material input to long-term performance, so as our clients’ fiduciaries, we seek to better understand how and to what extent a company’s approach to diversity is integrated with talent management at all levels. This is only possible when there is a consistent and robust disclosure in place. We believe diversity among directors, leaders and employees can positively contribute to shareholder value by imbuing a company with a myriad of perspectives that help it to better navigate complex challenges. A strong culture of diversity and inclusion begins in the boardroom.

We will also generally support shareholder proposals asking for improved workforce diversity disclosure, e.g., EEO-1 reporting and gender pay equity reporting.

 

LOGO   B-642  

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

 

PPc6091  04/25/23 


Human Rights

While human rights across a company’s business operations and supply chains is part of our research process, we seek to assess companies’ exposures to these risks, determine the sectors for which this risk is most material (i.e. highest possibility of supply-chain exposure), enhance our engagement points and potentially work with external data providers to gain insights on specific companies and industries. Consequently, we will generally support proposals requesting enhanced disclosure on companies’ approach to mitigating the risk of human rights violations in their business operations and supply chains, unless this disclosure is seen as duplicative of other efforts by the company.

Additional Information

A description of TCW’s policies and procedures relating to proxy voting and class actions may also be found in the firm’s Part 2A of Form ADV. A copy of TCW’s Form ADV is available to clients upon request to the Proxy Specialist.

 

LOGO   B-643  

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

 

PPc6091  04/25/23 


LOGO

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

February 2023

Introduction

Mondrian Investment Partners Limited (“Mondrian”) is a registered investment adviser with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) pursuant to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, (the “Advisers Act”) and is authorised and regulated in the United Kingdom by the Financial Conduct Authority. Mondrian provides investment advisory services to various types of clients such as registered and unregistered commingled funds, defined benefit plans, defined contribution plans, private and public pension funds, foundations, endowment funds and other types of institutional investors.

Mondrian pursues an active investment management approach. As long-term investors, stewardship considerations are part of the initial purchase decision, subsequent monitoring of an investment and ongoing dialogue with an investee company. All of Mondrian’s fundamental equity investment products are driven by extensive, bottom-up fundamental company analysis and comprehensive engagement that includes active participation through the proxy voting process.

Mondrian has developed the following Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures (the “Procedures”) in accordance with Rule 206(4)-6 of the Advisers Act to enable it to meet its fiduciary obligation to vote proxies in the best interests of its clients.

Voting Authority

Mondrian’s client agreements define the scope of its authority and responsibilities to vote proxies on behalf of each client.

These typically fall into four categories:

 

1.

Clients that delegate full discretion to Mondrian to vote proxies on their behalf

 

2.

Clients that vary the scope of Mondrian’s voting authority by imposing specific guidelines

 

3.

Clients that receive proxy voting advice from Mondrian in specific circumstances but undertake voting themselves

 

4.

Clients that undertake to vote proxies themselves

Mondrian’s proxy voting procedures apply to all clients who grant discretion to vote proxies on their behalf. Where clients have adopted specific proxy voting policies, Mondrian will assess the extent to which they are consistent with its adopted guidelines. Where a client’s own proxy voting policy diverges significantly from Mondrian’s own guidelines, that client’s policy will be considered separately in order to vote those client’s proxies pursuant to their individual guidelines.

Proxy Voting Committee

Mondrian has established a Proxy Voting Committee (“the Committee”) to oversee the proxy voting process and ensure client proxies are voted according to the Procedures. The Committee consists of the following Mondrian personnel (i) two senior equity investment staff; (ii) Chief Operating Officer; and (iii) Chief Compliance Officer. Other senior investment staff are available to act as alternates in cases where conflicts of interest are identified. The Committee will meet as necessary to enable Mondrian to fulfill its fiduciary duty to vote proxies for clients.

 

B-644


LOGO

 

General Voting Principles

Mondrian is committed to voting all proxies where possible. Mondrian’s aim is to vote in the best interests of all clients, providing overall value to clients by focusing on risk-adjusted returns and maximising the value of the underlying company shares. Recognising that proposals may be unique to a specific company’s circumstances, Mondrian does not have a default voting position. It votes proposals based on the merit of the proposal itself on a case-by-case basis. Each motion is reviewed by a portfolio manager from the investment team responsible for research coverage of that stock. This includes matters to be voted on proposed by shareholders and proposals related to social and environmental items, including climate change.

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Mondrian contracts with a Proxy Voting Adviser for the provision of voting advice and to facilitate the process of voting proxies. Proxy Voting Advisers commonly produce guidelines for proxy voting (“the Guidelines”) that summarise their approach to voting on commonly occurring issues. The Committee reviews these Guidelines annually to determine whether voting proxies pursuant to the Guidelines is in the best interests its clients. If the Guidelines remain consistent with Mondrian’s fiduciary duty and expectations for good corporate governance, Mondrian will adopt the Guidelines as the basis for its own proxy voting policy.

Mondrian may vote certain issues counter to the Guidelines if, after a thorough review, it determines that a client’s best interests would be served by such a vote. In situations where the Guidelines do not cover a specific voting issue, Mondrian will vote on such issues in a manner consistent with the spirit of the Guidelines and that promotes the best interests of the client.

Mondrian has appointed Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) as its Proxy Voting Adviser in 2023. Details of the Proxy Adviser’s voting guidelines are published on their website (https://www.issgovernance.com/policy-gateway/voting-policies/). Mondrian has procedures to monitor and evaluate the performance of its Proxy Voting Adviser to ensure Mondrian’s ongoing ability to casts votes in the best interest of its clients.

Determining the Proxy Voting Procedures

The Committee reviews and approves the Procedures on a yearly basis. The Procedures are reviewed during the first quarter of the year and may be reviewed at other times as necessary. When reviewing the Procedures, the Committee seeks to establish if the Procedures are consistent with the goal of voting in the best interests of all clients and maximising the value of the underlying shares. The Committee will also review the Procedures to ensure compliance with rules promulgated by the SEC and other relevant regulatory bodies. After the Procedures are approved by the Committee, Mondrian will vote proxies or give advice on voting proxies in accordance with such Procedures.

Procedure for Voting Proxies

Mondrian authorises and instructs client custodians to forward proxy materials to Mondrian’s Proxy Voting Adviser to enable them to vote the proxies. Mondrian provides the Proxy Adviser with a list of client accounts and security holdings to make the adviser aware of which proxies it will vote on. This list of clients and client holdings is regularly updated.

 

B-645


LOGO

 

For active equity products, proxy voting items are forwarded to the investment teams when they are received. Mondrian does not have a default voting position. Each motion is reviewed by a portfolio manager from the investment team responsible for research coverage of that stock. This includes matters to be voted on proposed by shareholders and proposals related to ESG, including climate change. The portfolio manager considers each motion, taking into account the relevant facts and circumstances that apply to that company, the Proxy Voting Adviser’s recommendation and any conflicts of interest that may exist. Where voting items are more complex, the portfolio manager will conduct further research and analysis as necessary to determine the voting action that is in the best interests of the client. In conducting the review, portfolio managers consider the advice of the Proxy Voting Adviser critically and are watchful for material errors of fact or methodology, particularly where these impact the voting recommendation. Where the portfolio manager’s review identifies potential errors or omissions in advice, they may conduct further research, including, but not limited to engaging with the company to gather further information, engaging with the Proxy Voting Adviser and reviewing such other Proxy Adviser’s advice that may be available to us. As a result of this engagement, Proxy Voting Advisers may issue updated advice and recommendations. Any material inaccuracies, methodological weakness, potential factual errors, and deficiencies in the Proxy Voting Advisers’ advice will be addressed to them at the time, during periodic service reviews and escalated to the Committee as part of its performance evaluation.

Where Mondrian’s analysis indicates that it is in the client’s best interests to vote contrary to the Proxy Adviser’s recommendation, the proxy motion will be referred to the Committee. The Committee will review the recommendations of the portfolio manager and the proxy voting adviser and conduct such further research and analysis as may be necessary to determine the vote that is most consistent with Mondrian’s Procedures.

Mondrian’s systematic equity portfolios will generally follow the Proxy Voting Adviser’s recommendation. Periodic sampling of their recommendations is conducted to ensure the recommendations are based on accurate information and are in clients’ best interests

All proxy voting decisions are actioned using an online platform (Sunrise) before being sent to the Proxy Voting Adviser and the client’s custodian. This mitigates the risks the pre-population of votes and ensures good record keeping practices. Sunrise is a multi-purpose workflow management tool which houses the audit trail for all votes including the portfolio manager decision.

Mondrian will attempt to vote every proxy which they or their agents receive where we have authority to do so. However, there are situations in which Mondrian may not be able to process a proxy. For example, Mondrian may not have sufficient time to process a vote because it or its agents received a proxy statement in an untimely manner. Use of a proxy voting service and relationships with multiple custodians help avoid a situation where Mondrian is unable to vote a proxy.    

Exceptions to Proxy Voting Procedure:

Shareblocking

In a number of countries in which Mondrian invests client assets local laws require the imposition of a trading block on shareholders once they have voted their proxies in relation to companies registered in that country. These trading blocks are usually for a defined period and can be for a number of weeks. Mondrian believes that in certain circumstances it is in the client’s greater interest to retain the ability to sell the shares rather than to

 

B-646


LOGO

 

participate in the proxy vote. In such countries, provided that the criteria set out below are met, neither registration to vote for a specific proxy nor the approval of the Proxy Voting Committee for a “no vote” decision will be required. The following criteria must be met before a “no vote” decision may be made:

 

 

the Mondrian analyst does not consider the proxy items to be material

 

 

a “no vote” decision by Mondrian would be unlikely to impact the outcome of the vote

 

 

the Mondrian analyst is not aware of any conflicts of interest in deciding not to vote

 

 

there is a possibility that Mondrian will wish to sell the shares in the near future

 

 

the Mondrian analyst is satisfied that by not voting the clients would not be disadvantaged relative to the risk of not being able to sell the shares during the share blocking period, and

 

 

a record is made justifying the decision

Qatar

Qatar’s commercial code now states that voting must be done in person at the AGM, this may limit Mondrian’s ability to vote in this region.

Conflicts of Interest

Mondrian has established the procedures below to manage material conflicts of interest arising from proxy voting issues.

Where Mondrian is considering voting a proxy contrary to the Proxy Adviser’s recommendation, the Committee will assess the issue to see if there is any possible conflict of interest involving Mondrian. If there is no conflict of interest, the Committee will vote the proxy according to the process described in “Procedures for Voting Proxies”. If at least one member of the Committee identifies a conflict of interest, the Committee will normally use another independent analyst to do additional research on the particular issue in order to make a recommendation to the Committee on how to vote the proxy in the best interests of the client. The Committee will then review the proxy voting materials and recommendation provided by the proxy voting adviser and any independent analyst to determine how to vote the issue in a manner which the Committee believes is consistent with Mondrian’s Procedures. In these instances, the Committee must come to a majority decision regarding how to vote the proxy or they will be required to vote the proxy in accordance with the proxy voting adviser’s recommendation.

Where proxy voting decisions are referred to the Committee, any members from investment teams that are invested in that stock will be recused from the Committee for that decision and alternates appointed in their place.

Mondrian will review, as part of its due diligence process and on an ongoing basis, that proxy voting advisers have robust policies and procedures to identify and address conflicts of interest. The Proxy Adviser has undertaken to disclose to Mondrian material conflicts of interest on an issuer level when a voting recommendation is received and provide a list of material conflicts of interest each quarter. Such conflicts include those relating to, but not limited to, provision of proxy voting recommendations or activities and services

 

B-647


LOGO

 

other than providing proxy voting recommendations (includes conflicts presented by certain affiliations, third parties with significant influence taking a position in a voting issue, conflicts where the Proxy Adviser provides consulting services to an issuer and in turn receives compensation).

There are a number of oversight and compliance monitoring functions incorporated into Mondrian’s Procedures to detect and assess that material conflict of interests are disclosed and monitored.

Oversight of Proxy Voting Advisers

Procedures for appointing and monitoring a Proxy Voting Advisory Firm

Mondrian utilises a third party firm to provide proxy voting advice and facilitate the proxy voting process. Mondrian conducts a due diligence process review prior to appointing and renewing contracts with a Proxy Adviser. Mondrian will continuously assess the Proxy Adviser in their capacity to provide proxy voting services, addressing any concerns as they arise and where necessary, escalating these concerns to the Committee.

Mondrian’s due diligence procedures considers factors including, but not limited to, the adviser’s capacity and competency to adequately discharge contracted services, disclosure on methods for formulating voting recommendations, procedures to identify and correct material deficiencies and provide updates regarding its methodologies, guidelines, and voting recommendations on an ongoing basis, including relevant business changes.

Mondrian maintains a Vendor Oversight Matrix as part of its Risk Management process. This is included as part of the Risk Management reporting that is assessed by the Compliance and Risk Committee and the Board of Directors. Proxy Advisers are risk rated and ongoing due diligence is based on this risk rating.

Compliance Monitoring Review

Mondrian’s Compliance & Risk team carries out periodic reviews to ensure that proxy votes are in accordance with its proxy voting policy and procedures. The reviews include:

 

   

Checking that adopted and implemented Procedures for voting proxies are properly documented;

 

   

Examining the integrity and the robustness of the Procedures, including accurate retention of records documenting voting decisions and ensuring votes cast are in accordance with these decisions;

 

   

Ensuring that conflicts of interest are clearly identified, disclosed and managed in accordance with the Procedures;

 

   

Reviewing sample votes to validate whether the Procedures were complied with, including where more analysis was needed on more complex motions (e.g. mergers); sampling votes where client has specific guidelines and evaluating that client specified policies were complied with.

Availability of Proxy Voting Information and Recordkeeping

Mondrian’s Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures are provided to clients at the inception of a relationship and are available in Mondrian’s ADV and on Mondrian’s website.

 

B-648


LOGO

 

Clients may request information on how their proxies were voted from Mondrian at any time. Mondrian retains extensive records regarding proxy voting on behalf of clients. Mondrian will keep records of the following items: (i) the Procedures; (ii) proxy statements received regarding client securities; (iii) records of votes cast on behalf of Mondrian’s clients; (iv) records of a client’s written request for information on how Mondrian voted proxies for the client, and any Mondrian written response to an oral or written client request for information on how Mondrian voted proxies for the client; and (v) any documents prepared by Mondrian that were material to making a decision how to vote or that memorialised the basis for that decision. These records will be maintained for at least five years.

In accordance with the FCA Shareholder Rights Directive, Mondrian publicly discloses its voting records for the reporting period on its website.

 

B-649


PIMCO

Global Proxy Voting Policy Summary

Policy Statement: PIMCO adopted a written proxy voting policy (“Proxy Policy”) as required by Rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act. The Proxy Policy is intended to foster PIMCO’s compliance with its fiduciary obligations and applicable law. The Proxy Policy applies to any voting or consent rights with respect to securities held in accounts over which PIMCO has discretionary voting authority. The Proxy Policy is designed in a manner reasonably expected to ensure that voting and consent rights are exercised in the best interests of PIMCO’s clients.

Overview: As a general matter, PIMCO will adhere to its fiduciary obligations for any proxies it has the authority to vote on behalf of its clients. Each proxy is voted on a case-by-case basis, taking into account relevant facts and circumstances. When considering client proxies1, PIMCO may determine not to vote a proxy in limited circumstances.

Equity Securities.2 PIMCO has retained an Industry Service Provider (“ISP”)3 to provide research and voting recommendations for proxies relating to Equity Securities in accordance with the ISP’s guidelines. By following the guidelines of an independent third party, PIMCO seeks to mitigate potential conflicts of interest PIMCO may have with respect to proxies covered by the ISP.

PIMCO will follow the recommendations of the ISP unless: (i) the ISP does not provide a voting recommendation; or (ii) a PM/Analyst decides to override the ISP’s voting recommendation. In each case as described above, the Legal and Compliance department will review the proxy to determine whether an actual or potential conflict of interest exists. When the ISP does not provide a voting recommendation, the relevant PM/Analyst will make a determination regarding how, or if, the proxy will be voted by completing required documentation.

Fixed Income Securities. Fixed income securities can be processed as proxy ballots or corporate action-consents4 at the discretion of the issuer/ custodian.

When processed as proxy ballots, the ISP generally does not provide a voting recommendation and their role is limited to election processing and recordkeeping. In such instances, any elections would follow the standard process discussed above for Equity Securities.

When processed as corporate action-consents, the Legal and Compliance department will review all election forms to determine whether an actual or potential conflict of interest exists with respect to the PM’s consent election. PIMCO’s Credit Research and Portfolio Management Groups are responsible for issuing recommendations on how to vote proxy ballots and corporation action-consents with respect to fixed income securities.

Resolution of potential/identified conflicts of interest. The Proxy Policy permits PIMCO to seek to resolve material conflicts of interest by pursuing any one of several courses of action. With respect to material conflicts of interest between PIMCO and a client account, the Proxy Policy permits PIMCO to either: (i) convene a working group to assess and resolve the conflict (the “Proxy Working Group”); or

1 

Proxies generally describe corporate action consent rights (relative to fixed income securities) and proxy voting ballots (relative to fixed income or equity securities) as determined by the issuer or custodian.

2 

The term “Equity Securities” means common and preferred stock, including common and preferred shares issued by investment companies; it does not include debt securities convertible into equity securities.

3 

The ISP for Equity Securities proxy voting is Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”), Inc., 1177 Avenue of the Americas 2nd Floor, New York NY 10036.

4 

Voting or consent rights shall not include matters which are primarily decisions to buy or sell investments, such as tender offers, exchange offers, conversions, put options, redemptions, and Dutch auctions.

 

  B-650    GLOBAL PROXY VOTING POLICY SUMMARY  |  MAY 2020


PIMCO

 

(ii) vote in accordance with protocols previously established by the Proxy Policy, the Proxy Working Group and/or other relevant procedures approved by PIMCO’s Legal and Compliance department or PIMCO’s Conflict Committee with respect to specific types of conflicts.

PIMCO will supervise and periodically review its proxy voting activities and the implementation of the Proxy Policy. PIMCO’s Proxy Policy, and information about how PIMCO voted a client’s proxies, is available upon request.

ISP Oversight: Consistent with its fiduciary obligations, PIMCO will perform periodic due diligence and oversight of ISP’s engaged to provide PIMCO with proxy voting research and recommendations. PIMCO’s due diligence and oversight process includes, but is not limited to, the evaluation of: the ISP’s capacity and competency to provide proxy voting research and recommendations5 and the ISP’s compliance program.

Sub-Adviser Engagement: As an investment manager, PIMCO may exercise its discretion to engage a Sub-Adviser to provide portfolio management services to certain PIMCO-affiliated Funds. Consistent with its management responsibilities, the Sub-Adviser will assume the authority for voting proxies on behalf of PIMCO for these Funds. Sub-Advisers may utilize third parties to perform certain services related to their portfolio management responsibilities. As a fiduciary, PIMCO will maintain oversight of the investment management responsibilities (which may include proxy voting) performed by the Sub-Adviser and contracted third parties.

5 

This includes the adequacy and quality of the ISP’s operational infrastructure as it relates to its process for seeking timely input from issuers and its voting methodologies.

 

  B-651    GLOBAL PROXY VOTING POLICY SUMMARY  |  MAY 2020


PGIM, INC.

PROXY VOTING POLICIES OF THE SUBADVISER

VOTING APPROACH OF PGIM ASSET MANAGEMENT UNITS

PGIM Fixed Income. PGIM Fixed Income is a business unit of PGIM. PGIM Fixed Income’s policy is to vote proxies in the best interests of its clients. In the case of pooled accounts, the policy is to vote proxies in the best interests of the pooled account. The proxy voting policy contains detailed voting guidelines on a wide variety of issues commonly voted upon by shareholders. These guidelines reflect PGIM Fixed Income’s judgment of how to further the best interests of its clients through the shareholder or debt-holder voting process.

PGIM Fixed Income invests primarily in debt securities, thus there are few traditional proxies voted by it. PGIM Fixed Income generally votes with management on routine matters such as the appointment of accountants or the election of directors. From time to time, ballot issues arise that are not addressed by the policy or circumstances may suggest a vote not in accordance with the established guidelines. In these cases, voting decisions are made on a case-by-case basis by the applicable portfolio manager taking into consideration the potential economic impact of the proposal. Not all ballots are received by PGIM Fixed Income in advance of voting deadlines, but when ballots are received in a timely fashion, PGIM Fixed Income strives to meet its voting obligations. It cannot, however, guarantee that every proxy will be voted prior to its deadline.

With respect to non-U.S. holdings, PGIM Fixed Income takes into account additional restrictions in some countries that might impair its ability to trade those securities or have other potentially adverse economic consequences. PGIM Fixed Income generally votes non-U.S. securities on a best efforts basis if it determines that voting is in the best interests of its clients.

Occasionally, a conflict of interest may arise in connection with proxy voting. For example, the issuer of the securities being voted may also be a client of PGIM Fixed Income. When PGIM Fixed Income identifies an actual or potential material conflict of interest between the firm and its clients with respect to proxy voting, the matter is presented to senior management who will resolve such issue in consultation with the compliance and legal departments. Proxy voting is reviewed by the trade management oversight committee.

Any client may obtain a copy of PGIM Fixed Income’s proxy voting policy, guidelines and procedures, as well as the proxy voting records for that client’s securities, by contacting the account management representative responsible for the client’s account.

 

B-652


LOGO    PROXY VOTING

 

Proxy Voting

Revised April 2023

INTRODUCTION

As a registered investment adviser and fiduciary, Pzena Investment Management, LLC (“PIM”) exercises our responsibility, where applicable, to vote in a manner that, in our judgement, is solely in the client’s best interest and will maximize long-term shareholder value. The following policies and procedures have been established to ensure decision making is consistent with PIM’s fiduciary responsibilities and applicable regulations under the Investment Company Act, Advisers Act and ERISA.

GENERAL APPROACH

Each proxy that comes to PIM to be voted shall be evaluated per the prudent process described below, in terms of what is in the best interest of our clients. We deem the best interest of clients to be solely that which maximizes shareholder value and yields the best economic results (e.g., higher stock prices, long-term financial health, and stability). We will not subordinate the interests of our clients to any non-pecuniary interests nor will we promote non-pecuniary benefits or goals unrelated to our clients’ long-term financial interests.

PIM’s standard Investment Advisory Agreement provides that until notified by the client to the contrary, PIM shall have the right to vote all proxies for securities held in that client’s account. Where PIM has voting responsibility on behalf of a client, and absent any client specific instructions, we generally follow the Voting Guidelines (“Guidelines”) set forth below. These Guidelines, however, are not intended as rigid rules and do not cover all possible proxy topics. Each proxy issue will be considered individually and PIM reserves the right to evaluate each proxy vote on a case-by-case basis, as long as voting decisions reflect what is in the best interest of our clients.

To the extent that, in voting proxies for an account subject to ERISA, PIM determines that ERISA would require voting a proxy in a manner different from these Guidelines, PIM may override these Guidelines as necessary in order to comply with ERISA. Additionally, because clients, including ERISA clients, do not pay any additional fees or expenses specifically related to our proxy voting, there is not a need to consider the costs related to proxy voting impacting the value of an investment or investment performance.

In those instances where PIM does not have proxy voting responsibility, we shall forward any proxy materials to the client or to such other person as the client designates.

Proxy Voting Limitations

While, subject to the considerations discussed above, PIM uses our best efforts to vote proxies, in certain circumstances it may be impractical or impossible to do so. Such instances include but are not limited to share blocking, securities lending, if PIM concludes that abstention is in our clients’ economic interests and/or the value of the portfolio holding is indeterminable or insignificant.

VOTING GUIDELINES

The following Guidelines summarize PIM’s positions on various issues of concern to investors and give an indication of how portfolio securities generally will be voted. These Guidelines are not exhaustive and do not cover all potential voting issues or the intricacies that may surround individual proxy votes. Actual proxy votes may also differ from the Guidelines presented, as we will evaluate each individual proxy on its own merit. ,

 

Compliance Manual   B-653    Version 3.1


LOGO    PROXY VOTING

 

It is also worth noting that PIM considers the reputation, experience and competence of a company’s management and board when it researches and evaluates the merits of investing in a particular security. In general, PIM has confidence in the abilities and motives of the board and management of the companies in which we invest.

 

1)

ROUTINE BUSINESS

PIM will typically vote in accordance with the board and management on the items below and other routine issues when adequate information on the proposal is provided.

 

  i.

Change in date and place of annual meeting (if not associated with a takeover);

 

  ii.

Change in company name;

 

  iii.

Approval of financial statements;

 

  iv.

Reincorporation (unless to prevent takeover attempts);

 

  v.

Stock splits; or

 

  vi.

Amend bylaws/articles of association to bring in line with changes in local laws and regulations.

PIM will oppose vague, overly broad, open-ended, or general “other business” proposals for which insufficient detail or explanation is provided or risks or consequences of a vote in favor cannot be ascertained.

 

2)

CAPITAL STRUCTURE

Stock Issuance

PIM will consider on a case-by-case basis all proposals to increase the issuance of common stock, considering company-specific factors that include, at a minimum:

 

  i.

Past board performance (use of authorized shares during the prior three years);

 

  ii.

Stated purpose for the increase;

 

  iii.

Risks to shareholders of not approving the request; or

 

  iv.

Potential dilutive impact.

PIM will generally vote for such proposals (without preemptive rights) up to a maximum of 20% more than currently issued capital over a specified period, while taking into account management’s prior use of these preemptive rights. PIM will, however, vote against such proposals if restrictions on discounts are inadequate and/or the limit on the number of times the mandate may be refreshed are not in line with local market practices.

 

3)

AUDIT SERVICES

PIM is likely to support the approval of auditors unless,

 

  i.

Independence is compromised;

 

Compliance Manual   B-654    Version 3.1


LOGO    PROXY VOTING

 

  ii.

Non-audit (“other”) fees are greater than the sum of the audit fees1, audit-related fees2 and permissible tax fees3;

 

  iii.

There is reason to believe the independent auditor has rendered an opinion which is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position; or

 

  iv.

Serious concerns about accounting practices are identified such as fraud, misapplication of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) and material weaknesses identified in Section 404 disclosures of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

PIM will also apply a case-by-case assessment to shareholder proposals asking companies to prohibit their auditors from engaging in non-audit services (or capping the level of non-audit services), taking into account whether the non-audit fees are excessive (per the formula above) and whether the company has policies and procedures in place to limit non-audit services or otherwise prevent conflicts of interest.

 

4)

COMPENSATION

PIM supports reasonable incentive programs designed to attract and retain key talent. PIM typically supports management’s discretion to set compensation for executive officers, so long as the plan aligns management and shareholder interests. PIM evaluates each plan in detail to assess whether the plan provides adequate incentive to reward long-term performance and the impact on shareholder value (e.g. dilution).

Say on Pay

PIM prefers a shareholder vote on compensation plans to provide a mechanism to register discontent with the plan itself or management team performance. As long as such proposals are non-binding and worded in a generic manner (unrestrictive to actual company plans), PIM will support them. In evaluating these proposals, PIM will generally consider, at minimum: company performance, pay practices relative to industry peers, potentially problematic pay practices and/or past unresponsive behavior.

Circumstances where PIM may oppose these proposals include:

 

  i.

Restricts the company’s ability to hire new, suitable management; or

 

  ii.

Restricts an otherwise responsible management team in some other way harmful to the company.

Pay for Performance

PIM will generally support plans under which 50% or more of the shares awarded to top executives are tied to performance goals. Maintaining appropriate pay-for-performance alignment means executive pay practices must be designed to attract, retain, and appropriately motivate the key employees who drive

1 

Audit fees shall mean fees for statutory audits, comfort letters, attest services, consents, and review of filings with the SEC

2 

Audit-related fees shall mean fees for employee benefit plan audits, due diligence related to M&A, audits in connection with acquisitions, internal control reviews, consultation on financial accounting and reporting standards

3 

Tax fees shall mean fees for tax compliance (tax returns, claims for refunds and tax payment planning) and tax consultation and planning (assistance with tax audits and appeals, tax advice relating to M&A, employee benefit plans and requests for rulings or technical advice from taxing authorities)

 

Compliance Manual   B-655    Version 3.1


LOGO    PROXY VOTING

 

shareholder value creation over the long term. Our evaluation of this issue will take into consideration, among other factors, the link between pay and performance; the mix between fixed and variable pay; performance goals; equity-based plan costs; and dilution.

Incentive Options

PIM is generally supportive of incentive options that provide the appropriate degree of pay-for-performance alignment (as per the above) and are therefore in shareholder best interest. PIM will vote on a case-by-case basis depending on certain plan features and equity grant practices, where positive factors may counterbalance negative factors, and vice versa.

However, the following would generally cause PIM to vote against a management incentive arrangement:

 

  i.

The proposed plan is in excess of 10% of shares;

 

  ii.

Company has issued 3% or more of outstanding shares in a single year in the recent past;

 

  iii.

The new plan replaces an existing plan before the existing plan’s termination date and some other terms of the new plan are likely to be adverse to the maximization of investment returns; or

 

  iv.

The proposed plan resets options, or similarly compensates executives, for declines in a company’s stock price. This includes circumstances where a plan calls for exchanging a lower number of options with lower strike prices for an existing larger volume of options with high strike prices, even when the option valuations might be considered the same total value. However, this would not include instances where such a plan seeks to retain key executives who have been undercompensated in the past.

Golden Parachutes / Severance Agreements

PIM will vote on a case-by-case basis, considering at minimum existing change-in-control arrangements maintained with named executive officers and new or extended arrangements.

PIM will generally vote against such proposals if:

 

  i.

The proposed arrangement is excessive or not reasonable in light of similar arrangements for other executives in the company or in the company’s industry;

 

  ii.

The proposed parachute or severance arrangement is considerably more financially attractive than continued employment. Although PIM will apply a case-by-case analysis of this issue, as a general rule, a proposed severance arrangement which is three or more times greater than the affected executive’s then current compensation shall be voted against; or

 

  iii.

The triggering mechanism in the proposed arrangement is solely within the recipient’s control (e.g., resignation).

Tax Deductibility

Votes to amend existing plans to increase shares reserved and to qualify for tax deductibility under the provisions of Section 162(m) should be considered on a case-by-case basis, considering the overall impact of the amendment(s).

 

Compliance Manual   B-656    Version 3.1


LOGO    PROXY VOTING

 

Pay Peer Groups

PIM prefers that compensation peer groups are based on the industry, not size, revenue or balance sheet.

 

5)

BOARD

Director Elections

PIM generally will evaluate director nominees individually and as a group based on our assessment of record and reputation, business knowledge and background, shareholder value mindedness, accessibility, corporate governance abilities, time commitment, attention and awareness, independence, and character. PIM will apply a case-by-case approach to determine whether to vote for or against directors nominated by outside parties whose interests may conflict with our interests as shareholders, regardless of whether management agrees with the nomination.

Board Independence

PIM will generally withhold votes from or vote against any insiders on audit, compensation or nominating committees, and from any insiders and affiliated outsiders on boards that are not at least majority independent. PIM also prefers companies to have compensation and audit committees composed of entirely independent directors.

PIM may vote in favor of any such directors in exceptional circumstances where the company has shown significant improvement.

Board Size

PIM believes there is no optimal size or composition that fits every company. However, PIM prefers that the number of directors cannot be altered significantly without shareholder approval; otherwise, potentially allowing the size of the board to be used as an anti-takeover defense.

Board Tenure

PIM believes that any restrictions on a director’s tenure, such as a mandatory retirement age or length of service limits, could harm shareholder interests by forcing experienced and knowledgeable directors off the board. However, PIM prefers that boards do not have more than 50% of members serving for longer than ten years to avoid board entrenchment and ‘group-think’.

Chairman/CEO

PIM will evaluate and vote proposals to separate the Chairman and CEO positions in a company on a case-by-case basis based on our assessment of the strength of the company’s governing structure, the independence of the board and compliance with NYSE and NASDAQ listing requirements, among other factors. When the positions of Chairman and CEO are combined, PIM prefers that the company has a lead independent director to provide some independent oversight.

 

Compliance Manual   B-657    Version 3.1


LOGO    PROXY VOTING

 

Cumulative Voting

PIM will generally vote against proposals to establish cumulative voting, as this leads to misaligned voting and economic interest in a company. PIM will, however, vote in favor of proposals for cumulative voting at controlled companies where insider voting power is greater than 50%.

Director Over-Boarding

PIM will vote such proposals on a case-by-case basis but prefers that directors do not sit on more than three additional boards. In evaluating these proposals PIM will consider, at minimum, management tenure, director business expertise and director performance.

Classified Boards

PIM generally opposes classified boards because this makes a change in board control more difficult and hence may reduce the accountability of the board to shareholders. However, these proposals will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and will consider, at minimum, company and director performance.

Board Diversity

PIM is generally supportive of a diverse board (age, race, gender etc.) that is representative of its customers and stakeholders. That said, PIM does not believe in board quotas or any restrictions on director tenure that could harm shareholder interests by preventing qualified board candidates from being nominated or forcing experienced or knowledgeable directors off the board.

 

6)

SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS

In general PIM does not support any proposals designed to limit shareholder rights; below we have outlined some of the issues we consider most important.

Special Meetings

PIM generally supports proposals enabling shareholders to call a special meeting of a company so long as at least a 15% threshold with a one-year holding period is necessary for shareholders to do so. However, on a case-by-case basis, a 10% threshold may be deemed more appropriate should particular circumstances warrant; for example, in instances where executive compensation or governance has been an issue for a company.

One Share, One Vote

PIM is generally opposed to proposals to create dual-class capitalization structures as these provide disparate voting rights to different groups of shareholders with similar economic investments. However, PIM will review proposals to eliminate a dual-class structure on a case-by-case basis, considering, at minimum, management’s prior record.

 

Compliance Manual   B-658    Version 3.1


LOGO    PROXY VOTING

 

Supermajority

PIM does not support supermajority voting provisions with respect to corporate governance issues unless it would be in the best interest of shareholders. In general, vesting a minority with veto power over shareholder decisions could deter tender offers and hence adversely affect shareholder value.

Proxy Access

PIM will assess these proposals on a case-by-case basis, but generally supports proxy access proposals that include an ownership level and holding period of at least 3% for three years or 10% for one year.

 

7)

SOCIAL/ENVIRONMENTAL

PIM will consider environmental and social proposals on their own merits and make a case-by-case assessment. PIM will consider supporting proposals that address material issues if we believe they will protect and/or enhance the long-term value of the company.

While PIM is generally supportive of resolutions seeking additional ESG disclosures, such proposals will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration whether the requested disclosure is material, incremental and of reasonable cost to the business.

 

8)

ANTI-TAKEOVER

PIM generally supports anti-takeover measures that are in the best interest of shareholders and does not support anti-takeover measures such as poison pills that entrench management and/or thwart maximization of investment returns.

ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

Role of ISS

PIM has engaged Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) to provide a proxy analysis with research and a vote recommendation for each shareholder meeting of the companies in our client portfolios. In engaging and continuing to engage ISS, PIM has determined that, where applicable, ISS proxy voting guidelines are consistent with ERISA’s fiduciary duties including that the votes are made in the best interest of our clients, focus on yielding the best economic results for our clients. ISS also votes, records and generates a voting activity report for our clients and assists us with recordkeeping and the mechanics of voting. In no circumstance shall ISS have the authority to vote proxies except in accordance with standing or specific instructions given to it by PIM. PIM retains responsibility for instructing ISS how to vote, and we still apply our own Guidelines as set forth herein. PIM does not utilize pre-population or automated voting except as a safeguard mechanism designed to ensure that, in the unlikely event that we fail to submit vote instructions for a particular proxy, our shares will still get voted. If PIM does not issue instructions for a particular vote, the default is for ISS to mark the ballots in accordance with our Guidelines (when they specifically cover the item being voted on), and to refer all other items back to PIM for instruction (when there is no PIM policy covering the vote).

When voting a proxy for a security that PIM’s Research team does not cover, we will vote in accordance with our Guidelines (when they specifically cover the item being voted on) and defer to ISS’s recommendations on all other items.

 

Compliance Manual   B-659    Version 3.1


LOGO    PROXY VOTING

 

Periodically, PIM’s Vendor Management Committee conducts a due diligence review of ISS, through which it reviews and evaluates certain key policies and procedures submitted to us by ISS. PIM’s Proxy Coordinator reconciles votable holdings against the ISS portal sharecount before each meeting. PIM also samples and reviews proxy votes when testing our Proxy Voting Policy, as part of our regular compliance testing procedures. Further, PIM reviews ISS’ procedures for receiving additional information from issuers after a proxy has been sent, incorporating that information into its recommendations, and sending that information and/or updated recommendations to PIM.

Role of Analyst

The analyst who is responsible for covering the company also votes the associated proxies since they have first-hand in-depth knowledge of the company. In evaluating proxy issues, the analyst will utilize a variety of sources to help come to a decision:

 

  i.

Information gathered through in-depth research and on-going company analyses performed by our investment team in making buy, sell and hold decisions for our client portfolios. This process includes regular external engagements with senior management of portfolio companies and internal discussions with Portfolio Managers (“PMs”) and the Chief Investment Officer (“CIO”), as needed;

 

  ii.

ISS reports to help identify and flag factual issues of relevance and importance;

 

  iii.

Information from other sources, including the management of a company presenting a proposal, shareholder groups, and other independent proxy research services; and/or

 

  iv.

Where applicable, any specific guidelines designated in writing by a client.

Proxy Voting Committee

To help make sure that PIM votes client proxies in accordance with our fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder value, we have established a Proxy Voting Committee (“the Committee”) which is responsible for overseeing the Guidelines. The Committee consists of representatives from Legal, Compliance, Research, and Operations, including our Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), Director of Research (“DOR”), and at least one PM (who represents the interests of all PIM’s portfolio managers and is responsible for obtaining and expressing their opinions at committee meetings). The Committee will meet at least once annually and as often as necessary to oversee our approach to proxy voting.

The DOR is responsible for monitoring the analyst’s compliance with the Guidelines, the CCO is responsible for monitoring overall compliance with these procedures and an internally-designated “Proxy Coordinator” is responsible for day-to-day proxy voting activities.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

PIM is sensitive to conflicts of interest that may arise in the proxy voting process. PIM believes that application of the Guidelines should, in most cases, adequately address any potential conflicts of interest. However, if an actual or potential material conflict of interest has been identified, PIM has put in place a variety of different mitigation strategies as outlined below.

 

Compliance Manual   B-660    Version 3.1


LOGO    PROXY VOTING

 

A potential material conflict of interest could exist in the following situations:

 

  i.

PIM manages any pension or other assets affiliated with a publicly traded company, and also holds that company’s or an affiliated company’s securities in one or more client portfolios;

 

  ii.

PIM has a client relationship with an individual who is a corporate director, or a candidate for a corporate directorship of a public company whose securities are in one or more client portfolios; or

 

  iii.

A PIM officer, director or employee, or an immediate family member thereof is a corporate director, or a candidate for a corporate directorship of a public company whose securities are in one or more client portfolios. For purposes hereof, an immediate family member is generally defined as a spouse, child, parent, or sibling.

If a potential material conflict of interest exists, the following procedures will be followed:

 

  i.

If our proposed vote is consistent with the Guidelines, above, we will vote in accordance with our proposed vote;

 

  ii.

If our proposed vote is inconsistent with or not covered by our Guidelines, but is consistent with the recommendations of ISS, we will vote in accordance with ISS recommendations; and

 

  iii.

If our proposed vote is inconsistent with or not covered by our Guidelines, and is inconsistent with the recommendations of ISS, the CCO and the DOR (or their respective designees) (the “Conflicts Committee”) will review the potential conflict and determine whether the potential conflict is material.

 

  a.

If the Conflicts Committee determines that the potential conflict is not material, we will vote in accordance with the proposed vote.

 

  b.

If the Conflicts Committee determines the potential conflict is material, the Conflicts Committee will review the proposed vote, the analysis and rationale for the vote recommendation, the recommendations of ISS and any other information the Conflicts Committee may deem necessary in order to determine whether the proposed vote is reasonable and not influenced by any material conflicts of interest. The Conflicts Committee may seek to interview the research analysts or portfolio managers or any other party it may deem necessary for making its determination.

 

  i.

If the Conflicts Committee determines the proposed vote is reasonable and not influenced by any conflicts of interest, we will vote in accordance with our proposed vote.

 

  ii.

If the Conflicts Committee cannot determine that the proposed vote is reasonable and not influenced by any conflict of interest, the Conflicts Committee will determine the best course of action in the best interest of the clients which may include deferring to the ISS recommendation or notifying each client who holds the relevant securities of the potential conflict, to seek such client’s voting instruction.

On an annual basis, we will review and assess the conflicts policies and Code of Conduct that ISS posts on its website for sufficiency in addressing potential conflict of interest, self-dealing and improper influence issues that may affect voting recommendations by ISS. PIM will also periodically review samples of ISS’ recommendations for voting proxies, after the vote has occurred, to ensure that ISS’ recommendations are consistent with ISS’

 

Compliance Manual   B-661    Version 3.1


LOGO    PROXY VOTING

 

proxy voting guidelines, as applicable. PIM’s analysts also incorporate information regarding ISS’ potential conflicts of interest into their process when evaluating and voting proxies, and on a annual basis, our DOR reviews an updated list of ISS’ significant client relationships.

Other Situations

Client Conflict

Where PIM manages the assets of a proponent of a shareholder proposal for a company whose securities are in one or more client portfolios, the following guidance should be followed:

 

  i.

The identity of the proponent of a shareholder proposal shall not be given any substantive weight (either positive or negative) and shall not otherwise influence an analyst’s determination whether a vote for or against a proposal is in the best interest of our clients.

 

  ii.

Where PIM determines that it is in the best interest of our clients to vote against that proposal, a designated member of PIM’s client service team will notify the client-proponent and give that client the option to direct PIM in writing to vote the client’s proxy differently than it is voting the proxies of our other clients.

 

  iii.

If the proponent of a shareholder proposal is a PIM client whose assets under management with PIM constitute 30% or more of PIM’s total assets under management, and PIM has determined that it is in the best interest of our clients to vote for that proposal, PIM will disclose its intention to vote for such proposal to each additional client who also holds the securities of the company soliciting the vote on such proposal and for whom PIM has authority to vote proxies. If a client does not object to the vote within three business days of delivery of such disclosure, PIM will be free to vote such client’s proxy as stated in such disclosure.

Analyst Conflict

If the analyst voting the proxy also beneficially owns shares of the company in his/her personal trading accounts, they must notify the Proxy Coordinator and the DOR must sign off on the analyst’s votes for that company. It is the responsibility of each analyst to disclose such personal interest and obtain such approval. Any other owner, partner, officer, director, or employee of PIM who has a personal or financial interest in the outcome of the vote is prohibited from attempting to influence the proxy voting decision of PIM personnel responsible for voting client securities.

VOTING PROCEDURES

If an analyst desires to vote contrary to the Guidelines set forth in this proxy voting policy or the written proxy voting policy designated by a specific client, the analyst will discuss the vote with the CIO, and/or DOR and/or a PM for the strategy in which the security is held. The CIO, DOR and/or the PM, shall, in turn, determine how to vote the proxy based on the analyst’s recommendation and the long-term economic impact such vote will have on the securities held in client portfolios. If the CIO, DOR and/or the PM agree with the analyst’s recommendation and determine that a contrary vote is advisable the analyst will provide written documentation of the reasons for the vote.

 

Compliance Manual   B-662    Version 3.1


LOGO    PROXY VOTING

 

Vote Processing

It is understood that PIM’s and ISS’ ability to commence voting proxies for new or transferred accounts is dependent upon the actions of custodian’s and banks in updating their records and forwarding proxies. PIM will not be liable for any action or inaction by any Custodian or bank with respect to proxy ballots and voting.

Client Communication

PIM will include a copy of these proxy voting policies and procedures, as they may be amended from time to time, in each new account pack sent to prospective clients. We also will update our ADV disclosures regarding these policies and procedures to reflect any material additions or other changes to them, as needed. Such ADV disclosures will include an explanation of how to request copies of these policies and procedures as well as any other disclosures required by Rule 206(4)-6 of the Advisers Act.

Return Proxies

The CCO or designee shall send or cause to be sent (or otherwise communicate) all votes to the company or companies soliciting the proxies within the applicable time period designated for return of such votes, unless not possible to do so due to late receipt or other exigent circumstances.

CORPORATE ACTIONS

PIM is responsible for monitoring both mandatory (e.g. calls, cash dividends, exchanges, mergers, spin-offs, stock dividends and stock splits) and voluntary (e.g. rights offerings, exchange offerings, and tender offers) corporate actions. Operations personnel will ensure that all corporate actions received are promptly reviewed and recorded in PIM’s portfolio accounting system, and properly executed by the custodian banks for all eligible portfolios. On a daily basis, a file of PIM’s security database is sent to a third-party service, Vantage, via an automated upload which then provides corporate action information for securities included in the file. This information is received and acted upon by the Operations personnel responsible for corporate action processing. In addition, PIM receives details on voluntary and mandatory corporate actions from the custodian banks via email or online system and all available data is used to properly understand each corporate event.

Voluntary Corporate Actions

The Portfolio Management team is responsible for providing guidance to Operations on the course of action to be taken for each voluntary corporate action received in accordance with the standards described above for proxy voting, including, but not limited to, acting in the best interest of clients to maximize long-term shareholder value and yield the best economic results. In some instances, if consistent with such standards, the Portfolio Management team may maintain standing instructions on particular event types. As appropriate, Legal and Compliance may be consulted to determine whether certain clients may participate in certain corporate actions. Operations personnel will then notify each custodian bank, either through an online interface, via email, or with a signed faxed document of the election selected. Once all necessary information is received and the corporate action has been vetted, the event is processed in the portfolio accounting system and filed electronically. A log of holdings information related to the corporate action is maintained for each portfolio in order to confirm accuracy of processing.

 

Compliance Manual   B-663    Version 3.1


LOGO    PROXY VOTING

 

CLASS ACTIONS

PIM shall not have any responsibility to initiate, consider or participate in any bankruptcy, class action or other litigation against or involving any issue of securities held in or formerly held in a client account or to advise or take any action on behalf of a client or former client with respect to any such actions or litigation.

RECORD KEEPING

PIM or ISS, on PIM’s behalf, maintains (i) copies of the proxy materials received by PIM for client securities; (ii) records of proxies that were not received and what actions were taken to obtain them; (iii) votes cast on behalf of clients by account; (iv) records of any correspondence made regarding specific proxies and the voting thereof; (v) client requests for proxy voting information (including reports to mutual fund clients for whom PIM has proxy voting authority containing information they need to satisfy their annual reporting obligations under Rule 30b-1-4 and to complete Form N-PX); (vi) documents prepared by PIM to inform and/or memorialize a voting decision, including these policies and procedures and any documentation related to a material conflict of interest; and (vii) records of any deviations from broad Guidelines. Such records will be maintained for a minimum of six years.

POLICY REVIEW

The Proxy Voting Committee reviews these Voting Guidelines and procedures at least annually and makes such changes as it deems appropriate, considering current trends and developments in corporate governance and related issues, as well as operational issues facing PIM and applicable regulations under the Investment Company Act, Advisers Act and ERISA.

 

Compliance Manual   B-664    Version 3.1


 

LOGO

 

 

 

COMPLIANCE POLICY MEMORANDUM

 

 

 

Policies and Procedures Regarding

Proxy Voting

January 2022

Supersedes all previous Compliance Policies regarding this subject matter.

 

B-665


Silvercrest may be responsible for voting on shareholder proxies in connection with the securities held by its clients. Silvercrest will do so only in accordance with these policies and procedures, in the best interests of our clients, and/or as instructed by a specific client.

All capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Firm’s Code of Conduct and Ethics, unless otherwise defined herein.

A. General

In voting proxies, and determining whether to vote proxies, Silvercrest is guided by general fiduciary principles. The firm’s goal is to act prudently, and solely in the best interest of the beneficial owners of the accounts it manages. Silvercrest attempts to consider all aspects of its vote that could affect the value of the investment and will vote proxies in the manner that it believes will be consistent with efforts to maximize shareholder values. Silvercrest does not necessarily have an obligation to vote every proxy; for example, Silvercrest may forego voting proxies if the client account that held the position no longer holds the position at the time of the vote, or the cost of voting (such as in the case of a vote regarding a foreign issuer that requires being physically present to vote) outweighs the anticipated benefit to the client’s account.

B. Glass Lewis

In 2011, Silvercrest contracted with Broadridge Investor Communications Solutions, Inc. to receive its ProxyEdge product. Using the product, we subscribe to receive the corporate governance voting recommendations of Glass Lewis, the leading independent governance analysis and proxy voting firm in the industry. Pursuant to the agreement with Broadridge, Silvercrest has provided it with portfolio holdings data and, unless Silvercrest makes an independent determination that the recommendation of Glass Lewis is not in the best interest of the beneficial owners of the accounts it manages, Broadridge automatically votes in accordance with Glass Lewis’ recommendations.

Each year, Glass Lewis publishes, and we review its guidelines for analysis of proxy materials and voting. These guidelines will be provided to clients who request a more detailed description of the firm’s proxy policies.

Silvercrest conducted initial due diligence on Broadridge’s ProxyEdge product in order to ensure that Silvercrest continues to vote proxies in the best interests of our clients. However, a proxy advisory firm’s business and/or policies and procedures regarding conflicts of interest could change after Silvercrest’s initial assessment, and some changes could alter the effectiveness of the policies and procedures and require that Silvercrest make a subsequent assessment. Consequently, Silvercrest requires that Broadridge notify Silvercrest of business changes we consider relevant (i.e., with respect to Broadridge’s capacity and competency to provide proxy voting advice) or conflict policies and procedures. Silvercrest will verify its initial due diligence on an annual basis.

Clients continue to have the option to provide instructions regarding a specific vote of which they are aware.

C.  Custodians that do not utilize Broadridge ProxyEdge services

Clients who maintain their positions at certain custodians are not able to participate in the ProxyEdge service. Silvercrest votes proxies for those positions through other electronic means. In those cases, Silvercrest generally divides the proxies into two categories in determining how to vote: management proposals and shareholder proposals. Attached as Exhibit A hereto are guidelines to be applied in determining how to vote in each case. These guidelines are not strict, and each Silvercrest vote will depend on the facts and circumstances of each proposal, on a case-by-case basis, as determined by the Proxy Committee, which shall be a committee comprised of the Director of Operations, a member of the relevant trading desk and a member of the Compliance Department. Depending on the facts of a specific vote, Silvercrest may deviate from the guidelines entirely where the Proxy Committee deems it necessary in the best interests of our clients, and/or as instructed by a specific client.

 

B-666


D. Voting Responsibilities

The Director of Operations, or his or her designee is the primary individual responsible for Proxy Voting. ProxyEdge reports and email notifications are reviewed periodically by the Director of Operations, or his or her designee, to ensure that 1) all proxy votes are recorded properly, 2) proxy voting guidelines are set up correctly for new portfolios, and 3) Silvercrest relinquishes all proxy voting for Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc. (SAMG) to Silvercrest clients. In addition, Compliance conducts periodic reviews as well.

Although uncommon, Silvercrest may deem it necessary to vote against the recommendations of Glass Lewis. The Director of Operations, or his or her designee, will coordinate with the appropriate member of the Equity Research Group to determine whether the Glass Lewis recommendation is in our client’s best interest. Any vote placed against a Glass Lewis recommendation is documented by the appropriate member of the Equity Research Group.

E. Conflicts of Interest

The firm’s policies and procedures regarding conflicts of interest, including those contained in the firm’s Code of Conduct and Ethics, govern those conflicts that arise in the context of proxy voting. Because Silvercrest’s business does not include proprietary trading, investment banking or short selling, few conflicts are likely to arise in the context of proxy voting. However, where they do, the following procedures should be followed.

All conflicts of interest must be brought to the attention of the Proxy Committee and the Chief Compliance Officer for resolution. The Chief Compliance Officer will work with the Proxy Committee to determine whether a conflict of interest is material. A conflict of interest will be considered material to the extent that it is determined that such conflict has the potential to influence Silvercrest’s decision-making in voting the proxy. A conflict of interest shall be deemed material in the event that the issuer or a member of management of the issuer that is the subject of the proxy has a client relationship with Silvercrest. All other materiality determinations will be based on an assessment of the particular facts and circumstances. A member of the Proxy Committee shall maintain a written record of all materiality determinations.

If it is determined that a conflict of interest is not material, Silvercrest may vote proxies notwithstanding the existence of the conflict. If it is determined that a conflict of interest is material, the Chief Compliance Officer will work with the Proxy Committee to agree upon a method to resolve such conflict of interest before voting proxies affected by the conflict of interest. Such methods may include:

 

   

disclosing the conflict to clients and obtaining their consent before voting;

 

   

suggesting to clients that they engage another party to vote the proxy on their behalf;

 

   

engaging a third party to recommend a vote with respect to the proxy based on application of the policies set forth herein; or

 

   

such other action as is deemed appropriate under the circumstances given the nature of the conflict.

F. Notice to Clients

Silvercrest delivers to clients notice of its proxy voting procedures in a form and format attached hereto as Exhibit B, with which is enclosed a copy of the guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit A. This notice is sent upon opening an account and clients are also notified annually that they may obtain a copy of the notice upon request. 

Associated Persons are encouraged to contact the Chief Compliance Officer with any questions regarding the Firm’s Policies and Procedures Regarding Proxy Voting.

 

B-667


Exhibit A

Proxy Voting General Guidelines

Management Proposals

 

I.

Vote in support of management on the following ballot items, which are fairly common management-sponsored initiatives:

 

   

Elections of directors who do not appear to have been remiss in the performance of their oversight responsibilities

 

   

Approval of auditors

 

   

Directors’ and auditors’ compensation

 

   

Directors’ liability and indemnification

 

   

Discharge of board members and auditors

 

   

Financial statements and allocation of income

 

   

Dividend payouts that are greater than or equal to country and industry standards

 

   

Authorization of share repurchase programs

 

   

General updating of or corrective amendments to charter

 

   

Change in Corporation Name

 

   

Elimination of cumulative voting

 

II.

Vote in support of management on the following items, which have potentially substantial financial or best-interest impact:

 

   

Capitalization changes which eliminate other classes of stock and voting rights

 

   

Changes in capitalization authorization for stock splits, stock dividends, and other specified needs which are no more than 50% of the existing authorization for U.S. companies and no more than 100% of existing authorization for non-U.S. companies

 

   

Elimination of pre-emptive rights for share issuance of less than a given percentage (country specific - ranging from 5% to 20%) of the outstanding shares

 

   

Elimination of “poison pill” rights

 

   

Stock purchase plans with an exercise price of not less that 85% of fair market value

 

   

Stock option plans which are incentive based and not excessive

 

   

Other stock-based plans which are appropriately structured

 

   

Reductions in super-majority vote requirements

 

   

Adoption of anti-“greenmail” provisions

 

III.

Vote against management (or do not vote in favor of management) on the following items, which have potentially substantial financial or best interest impact:

 

   

Capitalization changes that add “blank check” classes of stock or classes that dilute the voting interests of existing shareholders

 

B-668


   

Changes in capitalization authorization where management does not offer an appropriate rationale or which are contrary to the best interest of existing shareholders

 

   

Anti-takeover and related provisions that serve to prevent the majority of shareholders from exercising their rights or effectively deter appropriate tender offers and other offers

 

   

Amendments to by-laws which would require super-majority shareholder vote to pass or repeal certain provisions

 

   

Elimination of Shareholders’ Right to Call Special Meetings

 

   

Establishment of classified boards of directors

 

   

Reincorporation in a state which has more stringent anti-takeover and related provisions

 

   

Shareholder rights plans that allow the board of directors to block appropriate offers to shareholders or which trigger provisions preventing legitimate offers from proceeding

 

   

Excessive compensation

 

   

Change-in-control provisions in non-salary compensation plans, employment contracts, and severance agreements which benefit management and would be costly to shareholders if triggered

 

   

Adjournment of Meeting to Solicit Additional Votes

 

   

“Other business as properly comes before the meeting” proposals which extend “blank check” powers to those acting as proxy

Shareholder Proposals

Traditionally, shareholder proposals have been used to encourage management and other shareholders to address socio-political issues. ERISA requires that the investment manager avoid using plan assets to attempt to affect such issues, instead examining shareholder proposals primarily to determine their economic impact on shareholders.

 

I.

Vote in support of shareholders on the following ballot items, which are fairly common shareholder-sponsored initiatives:

 

   

Requirements that auditors attend the annual meeting of shareholders

 

   

Establishment of an annual election of the board of directors

 

   

Mandates requiring a majority of independent directors on the Board of Directors and the audit, nominating, and compensation committees

 

   

Mandates that amendments to bylaws or charters have shareholder approval

 

   

Mandates that shareholder-rights plans be put to a vote or repealed

 

   

Establishment of confidential voting

 

   

Expansions to reporting of financial or compensation-related information, within reason

 

   

Repeals of various anti-takeover related provisions

 

   

Reduction or elimination of super-majority vote requirements

 

   

Repeals or prohibitions of “greenmail” provisions

 

   

“Opting-out” of business combination provisions

 

II.

Vote against shareholders (or do not vote in favor of shareholders) on the following initiatives, which are fairly common shareholder-sponsored initiatives:

 

   

Limits to tenure of directors

 

B-669


   

Requirements that candidates for directorships own large amounts of stock before being eligible to be elected

 

   

Restoration of cumulative voting in the election of directors

 

   

Requirements that the company provide costly, duplicative, or redundant reports; or reports of a non-business nature

 

   

Restrictions related to social, political, or special interest issues which affect the ability of the company to do business or be competitive and which have significant financial or best-interest impact

 

   

Proposals which require inappropriate endorsements or corporate actions

 

B-670


Exhibit B

NOTICE TO CLIENTS CONCERNING SILVERCREST ASSET MANAGEMENT’S

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Silvercrest Asset Management Group LLC is guided by general fiduciary principles. The firm’s goal is to act prudently, and solely in the best interest of the beneficial owners of the accounts it manages. Silvercrest has always considered all aspects of its vote that could affect the value of the investment and will vote proxies in the manner that it believes will be consistent with efforts to maximize shareholder values.

In the spirit of those principles and to ensure maximization of shareholder value, in 2011, Silvercrest contracted with Broadridge Investor Communications Solutions, Inc. to receive its ProxyEdge product. Using the product, we subscribe to receive the corporate governance voting recommendations of Glass Lewis, the leading independent governance analysis and proxy voting firm in the industry. Silvercrest has provided Broadridge with portfolio holdings data and, unless Silvercrest makes an independent determination that the recommendation of Glass Lewis is not in the best interest of the beneficial owners of the accounts it manages, Broadridge automatically votes in accordance with Glass Lewis’ recommendations. Broadridge continues to provide proxy data collection, vote submission and record storage.

Each year, Glass Lewis publishes its Proxy Paper Guidelines for the year’s proxy season. That document is a detailed description of the Glass Lewis approach to proxy advice. That document will be provided to Clients upon request.

Clients who maintain their positions at custodians that do not utilize the ProxyEdge voting service will have these positions voted through other electronic means. Enclosed are the firm’s guidelines with respect to proxy voting determinations for those clients. These guidelines are not strict, and each Silvercrest vote will depend on the facts and circumstances of each proposal, on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the facts of a specific vote, Silvercrest may deviate from the guidelines entirely where it deems it necessary in the best interests of our clients, and/or as instructed by a specific client.

All clients continue to have the option to provide instructions regarding a specific vote of which they are aware.

If you have any questions or concerns about any of this information, please feel free to contact our Operations Group at [email protected] or by phone at (212) 649-0672.

 

B-671


Stephens Investment Management Group, LLC

Description of Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures

Stephens Investment Management Group, LLC (“SIMG”) provides this summary of our Proxy Voting Policy (the “Policy”) concerning proxies voted by SIMG on behalf of each investment advisory client who delegates voting authority to SIMG (each a “Client”). The Procedures may be changed from time to time as necessary to remain current with regulatory requirements and SIMG internal policies and procedures.

SIMG votes proxies consistent with the best economic interests of our Clients. SIMG is a fiduciary and owes each of its clients a duty of care and loyalty with respect to the services it has undertaken to provide, including the voting of proxies. SIMG’s Board of Managers has responsibility for determining SIMG’s Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures and the framework for how SIMG will vote Proxies. SIMG’s Board of Managers has appointed a Proxy Committee to implement SIMG’s Proxy Voting Policy. SIMG has elected to retain an independent proxy voting adviser (the “Proxy Adviser”) to vote proxies for Client accounts. The Proxy Adviser has established a set of guidelines which SIMG has reviewed and has determined to adhere to (“Guidelines”). The Guidelines describe the manner in which SIMG will vote on matters that come up for shareholder vote. The Proxy Adviser will review each matter on a case-by-case basis, and vote the proxies in accordance with the Guidelines.

Prior to voting a proxy, the Proxy Adviser makes available to SIMG its recommendation on how to vote in light of the Guidelines. SIMG retains the authority to overrule the Proxy Adviser’s recommendation on any specific proxy proposal and to instruct the Proxy Adviser to vote in a manner determined by SIMG’s Proxy Committee. Before doing so, SIMG’s Proxy Committee will determine whether SIMG may have a material conflict of interest regarding the proposal. If the Proxy Committee determines that SIMG has such a material conflict, SIMG (i) may instruct the Proxy Adviser to vote in accordance with the Proxy Adviser’s recommendation, or (ii) will fully disclose to each client holding the security at issue the nature of the conflict and obtain the client’s consent to voting in the manner determined by the Committee (or otherwise obtains instructions from the client as to how to vote on the proposal).

SIMG complies with its obligation to collect data regarding how it votes proxies for securities over which it exercises voting power to influence voting decisions regarding say-on-pay issues. SIMG will comply with its obligation to report this data no later than August 31, 2024, and annually thereafter. SIMG has engaged a third-party service provider to assist with meeting its say-on-pay data collection and reporting obligations. SIMG will periodically review its say-on-pay service provider to ensure it continues to demonstrate the technology, personnel, and other resources capable of assisting SIMG in meeting its regulatory obligations.

For each proxy, SIMG maintains all related records as required by applicable law. A Client may obtain a copy of SIMG’s Procedures and Guidelines, or a copy of the specific voting record for their account, by calling SIMG at 1-501-377-2000, or writing to SIMG at 111 Center Street: Little Rock Arkansas 72201.

 

B-672


SUSTAINABLE GROWTH ADVISERS LP

Amendment Dated April 8, 2020

5.2.8 Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

Sustainable Growth recognizes that the act of managing assets of clients consisting of equity securities can include the voting of proxies related to such equity securities. Each client can either: (i) delegate the power to vote proxies to the adviser; or (ii) retain the authority to vote his or her proxy. Where a client has delegated the power to vote proxies in his or her account, Sustainable Growth will vote the proxies in a manner that is in the best interests of the client. When Sustainable Growth has such responsibility, it will follow the Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

Sustainable Growth when administering the voting of proxies will comply with “Commission Guidance Regarding Proxy Voting Responsibilities of Investment Advisers” (August 29, 2019). Sustainable Growth may also take into consideration proxy voting guidance of other regulators including the EU, UK, Canadian and Australia regulatory authorities (as applicable).

5.2.8.1 Proxy Voting

5.2.8.1.1 Proxy Voting Responsibility

At the inception of each investment adviser-client relationship, Sustainable Growth shall require the client to indicate whether the client or Sustainable Growth is responsible for voting proxies in one or more of the following documents:

 

   

Client’s investment advisory contract; or

 

   

Separate agreement between client and Sustainable Growth authorizing Sustainable Growth to vote client’s proxies.

5.2.8.1.2 Client Responsibility to Vote Proxies

If Sustainable Growth receives proxies related to a client’s securities and Sustainable Growth is not responsible for voting such proxies, Sustainable Growth shall make arrangements with the client and/or client’s custodian or take such other steps to ensure that the client timely receives such proxies.

5.2.8.1.3 Firm Responsibility to Vote Proxies

Unless the power to vote proxies for a client is reserved to that client (or in the case of an employee benefit plan, the plan’s trustee or other fiduciaries), Sustainable Growth is responsible for voting the proxies related to that account. When exercising its authority to vote proxies, Sustainable Growth shall:

 

   

satisfy its duties of care and loyalty to each client with respect to voting that client’s proxies;

 

   

conduct a reasonable investigation into matters on which the Sustainable Growth votes;

 

   

consider whether voting all of its clients’ shares the same and/or in accordance with a uniform voting policy would be in the best interest of each of its clients, including the potential effect of the vote on the value of a client’s investments that have different investment objectives;

 

   

make the determination with respect to each proxy vote that its vote or recommendation is in the best interest of the client; and

 

   

not place its own interests ahead of the interests of any client with respect to any proxy vote or recommendation.

 

B-673


5.2.8.1.4 Proxy Voting Responsibility Monitoring

The Portfolio Manager shall maintain records identifying those clients where Sustainable Growth exercises proxy voting authority and those clients where Sustainable Growth does not have such authority.

5.2.8.2 Retaining Third Party Proxy Advisory Firms

Sustainable Growth may retain a third-party company (“Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm”) to provide it with research and recommendations with voting client proxies only after Sustainable Growth:

 

   

Obtains and reviews the proxy voting policies and procedures of the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm (or summaries of such policies and procedures), and finds them acceptable and in the best interests of its clients;

 

   

Determines that the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm has the capacity and competency to analyze proxy issues;

 

   

Considers the following:

 

   

the adequacy and quality of the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm’s staffing, personnel, and technology;

 

   

how the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm incorporates appropriate input in formulating its methodologies and construction of issuer peer groups;

 

   

where relevant, how the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm, in constructing peer groups, takes into account the unique characteristics regarding the issuer, to the extent available, such as the issuer’s size; its governance structure; its industry and any particular practices unique to that industry; its history; and its financial position;

 

   

the extent to which the Third Party Proxy Advisory Proxy Firm has adequately disclosed its methodologies in formulating voting recommendations;

 

   

the nature of any third-party information sources that the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm uses as a basis for its voting recommendations; and

 

   

how the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm would expect to engage with issuers and third parties;

 

   

Obtains sufficient information from the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm initially and on an ongoing basis to conclude that the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm is independent and can make recommendations in an impartial manner;

 

   

Requires the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm to disclose any relevant facts concerning the Firm’s relationships with issuers of publicly traded securities that are the subject of the proxy, such as the amount of compensation the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm receives from such issuers;

 

   

Obtains representations from the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm that it faced no conflict of interest with respect to recommendations or votes and that it will promptly inform Sustainable Growth if there is a conflict of interest; and

 

   

Obtains representations from the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm that no member of its staff providing services to issuers of publicly traded companies play a role in the preparation of its analyses or vote on proxy issues.

5.2.8.3 Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm Advice

In the event Sustainable Growth retains a Third-Party Proxy Advisory Firm to assist it in voting proxies received from issuers, Sustainable Growth shall:

 

   

vote proxies in a manner that is in the best interest of its clients;

 

B-674


   

exercise its independent judgment when deciding how to vote a proxy, while taking into account any recommendations from the Third-Party Proxy Advisory Firm;

 

   

periodically review:

 

   

the internal guidelines published by the Third-Party Proxy Advisory Firm to ensure the firm is following its guidelines, including how such firm addresses conflicts of interest;

 

   

reports prepared by the Third-Party Proxy Advisory Firm for accuracy;

 

   

the Third-Party Proxy Advisory Firm’s efforts to correct any identified material deficiencies in the Third-Party Proxy Advisory Firm’s analysis;

 

   

periodically review the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm’s disclosure to Sustainable Growth regarding the sources of information and methodologies used in formulating voting recommendations or executing voting instructions;

 

   

request the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm to notify Sustainable Growth regarding business changes it considers relevant (e.g., with respect to the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm’s capacity and competency to provide independent proxy voting advice or carry out voting instructions);

 

   

inquire whether the Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm appropriately updates its methodologies, guidelines, and voting recommendations on an ongoing basis, including in response to feedback from issuers and their shareholders; and

 

   

periodically review how Sustainable Growth has voted client proxies and compare to the recommendations of the Third-Party Proxy Advisory Firm and, if applicable, investigate high correlations between its votes and Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm recommendations (which may suggest “rote” reliance on proxy advisory firms).

5.2.8.3 Proxy Voting Guidelines

Sustainable Growth shall vote proxies related to securities held by any client in a manner solely in the best interests of the client. Sustainable Growth shall consider only those factors that relate to the client’s investment, including how its vote will economically impact and affect the value of the client’s investment. Proxy votes will be cast in favor of proposals that maintain or strengthen the shared interests of shareholders and management, increase shareholder value, and maintain or increase the rights of shareholders. Proxy votes will be cast against proposals having the opposite effect. In voting on each and every issue, Sustainable Growth shall vote in a prudent and diligent fashion and only after a careful evaluation of the issue presented on the ballot.

Prior to electing to follow any specific guidelines, Sustainable Growth will:

 

   

Determine the impact of following such guidelines on all clients, including whether the guidelines would be more appropriate for one group of clients and not for others;

 

   

Identify any direct or indirect benefits that might flow to Sustainable Growth as a result of choosing one guideline over other guidelines;

 

   

Address any conflicts of interest raised by the selection of such guidelines by following the Proxy Voting Conflicts of Interest section of these Procedures; and

 

   

Refrain from using such guidelines if it provides an advantage to one group of clients while disadvantaging or otherwise not being in the best interest of any of the remaining clients.

 

B-675


Sustainable Growth has adopted the following specific voting guidelines:

5.2.8.3.1 Corporate Governance

Unless exceptional circumstances exist, Sustainable Growth will vote against proposals that make it more difficult to replace Board members, including proposals to:

 

   

Stagger the Board

 

   

Overweight management on the Board

 

   

Introduce cumulative voting

 

   

Introduce unequal voting rights

 

   

Create super majority voting

 

   

Establish pre-emptive rights

5.2.8.3.2 Takeovers

Sustainable Growth will vote against proposals that make it more difficult for a company to be taken over by outsiders, and in favor of proposals that attempt to do the opposite.

5.2.8.3.3 Capital Structure

Sustainable Growth will vote against proposals to move the company to another jurisdiction less favorable to shareholders’ interests, or to restructure classes of stock in such a way as to benefit one class of shareholders at the expense of another, such as dual classes (A and B shares) of stock.

5.2.8.3.4 Outside Directors

Sustainable Growth will vote against any proposal to allow the Chief Executive Officer of a company to appoint outside directors, and in favor of any proposal to eliminate this ability.

5.2.8.3.5 Social & Environmental Considerations

Sustainable Growth takes into consideration environmental, social and governance issues both in its investment process and proxy voting. Sustainable Growth will generally support standards-based ESG proposals that enhance long-term shareholder value while aligning the interests of an issuer with those of society at large. In particular, Sustainable Growth will focus on proxy proposals seeking greater transparency and adherence to internationally recognized standards and principals.

In determining how to vote Sustainable Growth will analyze and consider the following:

 

   

Whether the proposal is well framed and reasonable

 

   

Whether the proposal (if adopted) would have either a positive/negative impact on the issuer’s short or long term share value

 

   

The percentage of sales, assets and/or earnings affected

 

   

Whether the issuer has already appropriately or adequately addressed the matter(s) at issue

 

   

The issuer’s analysis and recommendation on the proposal

 

   

The issuer’s past practices with respect to the proposal (ie., past controversies, fines, litigation with respect to any such environmental and/or social practices)

 

B-676


   

How other companies have addressed similar issues and proposals

 

   

Other risk factors including economic and reputational risks that may impact the issuer’s business

5.2.8.4 Proxy Voting Conflicts of Interest

Sustainable Growth recognizes that conflicts between itself and clients may arise in voting the proxies of issuers of equity securities and that these conflicts must be addressed. The designated Investment Committee member is responsible for identifying potential conflicts of interest in regard to the proxy voting process. Where appropriate, Sustainable Growth will use one of the following methods to resolve such conflicts, provided such method results in a decision to vote the proxies that is based on the clients’ best interest and is not the product of the conflict:

 

  1.

provide the client with sufficient information regarding the shareholder vote and Sustainable Growth’s potential conflict to the client and obtain the client’s consent before voting;

 

  2.

vote securities based on a pre-determined voting policy;

 

  3.

vote client securities based upon the recommendations of a Third-Party Proxy Advisory that itself does not have a conflict of interest; or

 

  4.

request the client to engage another party to determine how the proxies should be voted.

Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm

If Sustainable Growth utilizes a Third Party Proxy Advisory Firm, Sustainable Growth will review such firm’s policies and procedures regarding how it identifies and addresses conflicts of interest.

5.2.8.5 Proxy Voting Review

Sustainable Growth periodically will review the votes cast for clients.

Sustainable Growth will test whether its casting of votes on behalf of clients is consistently following its voting policies and procedures including:

 

   

sampling proxy votes that relate to proposals that may require more issuer-specific analysis (e.g., mergers and acquisition transactions, dissolutions, conversions, or consolidations); and

 

   

sampling proxy votes to determine whether they were consistent with its voting policies and procedures and in its client’s best interest.

Third-Party Proxy Advisory Firm Voting

If Sustainable Growth retains a Third-Party Proxy Advisory Firm to provide voting recommendations, Sustainable Growth will periodically evaluate whether the Third-Party Proxy Advisory Firm’s voting recommendations are consistent with its voting policies and procedures and in the client’s best interest.

 

B-677


T. ROWE PRICE ASSOCIATES, INC. AND CERTAIN OF ITS

INVESTMENT ADVISER AFFILIATES

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

RESPONSIBILITY TO VOTE PROXIES

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. and certain of its investment adviser affiliates1 (collectively, “T. Rowe Price”) have adopted these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures (“Policies and Procedures”) for the purpose of establishing formal policies and procedures for performing and documenting their fiduciary duty with regard to the voting of client proxies. This document is reviewed at least annually and updated as necessary.

T. Rowe Price recognizes and adheres to the principle that one of the privileges of owning stock in a company is the right to vote in the election of the company’s directors and on matters affecting certain important aspects of the company’s structure and operations that are submitted to shareholder vote. The U.S.-registered investment companies which T. Rowe Price sponsors and serves as investment adviser (the “Price Funds”) as well as other investment advisory clients have delegated to T. Rowe Price certain proxy voting powers. As an investment adviser, T. Rowe Price has a fiduciary responsibility to such clients when exercising its voting authority with respect to securities held in their portfolios. T. Rowe Price reserves the right to decline to vote proxies in accordance with client-specific voting guidelines.

Fiduciary Considerations. It is the policy of T. Rowe Price that decisions with respect to proxy issues will be made in light of the anticipated impact of the issue on the desirability of investing in the portfolio company from the viewpoint of the particular advisory client or Price Fund. Proxies are voted solely in the interests of the client, Price Fund shareholders or, where employee benefit plan assets are involved, in the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries. Our intent has always been to vote proxies, where possible to do so, in a manner consistent with our fiduciary obligations and responsibilities.

One of the primary factors T. Rowe Price considers when determining the desirability of investing in a particular company is the quality and depth of its management. We recognize that a company’s management is entrusted with the day-to-day operations of the company, as well as its long-term direction and strategic planning, subject to the oversight of the company’s board of directors. Accordingly, our proxy voting guidelines are not intended to substitute our judgment for management’s with respect to the company’s day-to-day operations. Rather, our proxy voting guidelines are designed to promote accountability of a company’s management and board of directors to its shareholders; to align the interests of management with those of shareholders; and to encourage companies to adopt best practices in terms of their corporate governance and disclosure. In addition to our proxy voting guidelines, we rely on a company’s public filings, its board recommendations, its track record, country-specific best practices codes, our research providers and – most importantly – our investment professionals’ views in making voting decisions. T. Rowe Price investment personnel do not coordinate with investment personnel of its affiliated investment adviser, TRPIM, with respect to proxy voting decisions.

T. Rowe Price seeks to vote all of its clients’ proxies. In certain circumstances, T. Rowe Price may determine that refraining from voting a proxy is in a client’s best interest, such as when the cost of voting outweighs the expected benefit to the client. For example, the practicalities and costs involved with international investing may make it impossible at times, and at other times disadvantageous, to vote proxies in every instance.

1 

This document is not applicable to T. Rowe Price Investment Management, Inc. (“TRPIM”). TRPIM votes proxies independently from the other T. Rowe Price-related investment advisers and has adopted its own proxy voting policy.

 

TRPA 2023 Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.doc

Updated: February 2023

 

B-678


ADMINISTRATION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Environmental, Social and Governance Investing Committee. T. Rowe Price’s Environmental, Social and Governance Investing Committee (“TRPA ESG Investing Committee” or the “Committee) is responsible for establishing positions with respect to corporate governance and other proxy issues. Certain delegated members of the Committee also review questions and respond to inquiries from clients and mutual fund shareholders pertaining to proxy issues. While the Committee sets voting guidelines and serves as a resource for T. Rowe Price portfolio management, it does not have proxy voting authority for any Price Fund or advisory client. Rather, voting authority and responsibility is held by the Chairperson of the Price Fund’s Investment Advisory Committee or the advisory client’s portfolio manager. The Committee is also responsible for the oversight of third-party proxy services firms that T. Rowe Price engages to facilitate the proxy voting process.

Global Proxy Operations Team. The Global Proxy Operations team is responsible for administering the proxy voting process as set forth in the Policies and Procedures.

Governance Team. Our Governance team is responsible for reviewing the proxy agendas for all upcoming meetings and making company-specific recommendations to our global industry analysts and portfolio managers with regard to the voting decisions in their portfolios.

Responsible Investment Team. Our Responsible Investment team oversees the integration of environmental and social factors into our investment processes across asset classes. In formulating vote recommendations for matters of an environmental or social nature, the Governance team frequently consults with the appropriate sector analyst from the Responsible Investment team.

HOW PROXIES ARE REVIEWED, PROCESSED AND VOTED

In order to facilitate the proxy voting process, T. Rowe Price has retained Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) as an expert in the proxy voting and corporate governance area. ISS specializes in providing a variety of fiduciary-level proxy advisory and voting services. These services include custom vote recommendations, research, vote execution, and reporting. Services provided by ISS do not include automated processing of votes on our behalf using the ISS Benchmark Policy recommendations. Instead, in order to reflect T. Rowe Price’s issue-by-issue voting guidelines as approved each year by the TRPA ESG Investing Committee, ISS maintains and implements custom voting policies for the Price Funds and other advisory client accounts.

Meeting Notification

T. Rowe Price utilizes ISS’ voting agent services to notify us of upcoming shareholder meetings for portfolio companies held in client accounts and to transmit votes to the various custodian banks of our clients. ISS tracks and reconciles our clients’ holdings against incoming proxy ballots. If ballots do not arrive on time, ISS procures them from the appropriate custodian or proxy distribution agent. Meeting and record date information is updated daily and transmitted to T. Rowe Price through ProxyExchange, an ISS application.

Vote Determination

Each day, ISS delivers into T. Rowe Price’s customized ProxyExchange environment a comprehensive summary of upcoming meetings, proxy proposals, publications discussing key proxy voting issues, and custom vote recommendations to assist us with proxy research and processing. The final authority and responsibility for proxy voting decisions remains with T. Rowe Price. Decisions with respect to proxy matters are made primarily in light of the anticipated impact of the issue on the desirability of investing in the company from the perspective of our clients.

 

TRPA 2023 Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.doc

Updated: February 2023

 

B-679


Portfolio managers execute their responsibility to vote proxies in different ways. Some have decided to vote their proxies generally in line with the guidelines as set by the TRPA ESG Investing Committee. Others review the customized vote recommendations and approve them before the votes are cast. Portfolio managers have access to current reports summarizing all proxy votes in their client accounts. Portfolio managers who vote their proxies inconsistent with T. Rowe Price guidelines are required to document the rationale for their votes. The Global Proxy Operations team is responsible for maintaining this documentation and assuring that it adequately reflects the basis for any vote which is contrary to our proxy voting guidelines.

T. Rowe Price Voting Guidelines

Specific proxy voting guidelines have been adopted by the TRPA ESG Investing Committee for all regularly occurring categories of management and shareholder proposals. A detailed set of proxy voting guidelines is available on the T. Rowe Price website, www.troweprice.com/esgpolicy.

Global Portfolio Companies

The TRPA ESG Investing Committee has developed custom international proxy voting guidelines based on our proxy advisor’s general global policies, regional codes of corporate governance, and our own views as investors in these markets. We apply a two-tier approach to determining and applying global proxy voting policies. The first tier establishes baseline policy guidelines for the most fundamental issues, which span the corporate governance spectrum without regard to a company’s domicile. The second tier takes into account various idiosyncrasies of different countries, making allowances for standard market practices, as long as they do not violate the fundamental goals of good corporate governance. The goal is to enhance shareholder value through effective use of the shareholder franchise, recognizing that application of a single set of policies is not appropriate for all markets.

Fixed Income and Passively Managed Strategies

Proxy voting for our fixed income and indexed portfolios is administered by the Global Proxy Operations team using T. Rowe Price’s guidelines as set by the TRPA ESG Investing Committee. Indexed strategies generally vote in line with the T. Rowe Price guidelines. Fixed income strategies generally follow the proxy vote determinations on security holdings held by our equity accounts unless the matter is specific to a particular fixed income security such as consents, restructurings, or reorganization proposals. 

Shareblocking

Shareblocking is the practice in certain countries of “freezing” shares for trading purposes in order to vote proxies relating to those shares. In markets where shareblocking applies, the custodian or sub-custodian automatically freezes shares prior to a shareholder meeting once a proxy has been voted. T. Rowe Price’s policy is generally to refrain from voting shares in shareblocking countries unless the matter has compelling economic consequences that outweigh the loss of liquidity in the blocked shares.

Securities on Loan

The Price Funds and our institutional clients may participate in securities lending programs to generate income for their portfolios. Generally, the voting rights pass with the securities on loan; however, lending agreements give the lender the right to terminate the loan and pull back the loaned shares provided sufficient notice is given to the custodian bank in advance of the applicable deadline. T. Rowe Price’s policy is generally not to vote securities on loan unless we determine there is a material voting event that could affect the value of

 

TRPA 2023 Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.doc

Updated: February 2023

 

B-680


the loaned securities. In this event, we have the discretion to pull back the loaned securities in order to cast a vote at an upcoming shareholder meeting. A monthly monitoring process is in place to review securities on loan and how they may affect proxy voting.

Monitoring and Resolving Conflicts of Interest

The TRPA ESG Investing Committee is also responsible for monitoring and resolving potential material conflicts between the interests of T. Rowe Price and those of its clients with respect to proxy voting. We have adopted safeguards to ensure that our proxy voting is not influenced by interests other than those of our fund shareholders and other investment advisory clients. While membership on the Committee is diverse, it does not include individuals whose primary duties relate to client relationship management, marketing, or sales. Since T. Rowe Price’s voting guidelines are predetermined by the Committee, application of the guidelines by portfolio managers to vote client proxies should in most instances adequately address any potential conflicts of interest. However, consistent with the terms of the Policies and Procedures, which allow portfolio managers to vote proxies opposite our general voting guidelines, the Committee regularly reviews all such proxy votes that are inconsistent with the proxy voting guidelines to determine whether the portfolio manager’s voting rationale appears reasonable. The Committee also assesses whether any business or other material relationships between T. Rowe Price and a portfolio company (unrelated to the ownership of the portfolio company’s securities) could have influenced an inconsistent vote on that company’s proxy. Issues raising potential conflicts of interest are referred to designated members of the Committee for immediate resolution prior to the time T. Rowe Price casts its vote.

With respect to personal conflicts of interest, T. Rowe Price’s Code of Ethics and Conduct requires all employees to avoid placing themselves in a “compromising position” in which their interests may conflict with those of our clients and restrict their ability to engage in certain outside business activities. Portfolio managers or Committee members with a personal conflict of interest regarding a particular proxy vote must recuse themselves and not participate in the voting decisions with respect to that proxy.

Specific Conflict of Interest Situations - Voting of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. common stock (sym: TROW) by certain T. Rowe Price Index Funds will be done in all instances in accordance with T. Rowe Price voting guidelines and votes inconsistent with the guidelines will not be permitted. In the event that there is no previously established guideline for a specific voting issue appearing on the T. Rowe Price Group proxy, the Price Funds will abstain on that voting item. In addition, T. Rowe Price has voting authority for proxies of the holdings of certain Price Funds that invest in other Price Funds. In cases where the underlying fund of an investing Price Fund, including a fund-of-funds, holds a proxy vote, T. Rowe Price will mirror vote the fund shares held by the upper-tier fund in the same proportion as the votes cast by the shareholders of the underlying funds (other than the T. Rowe Price Reserve Investment Fund).

Limitations on Voting Proxies of Banks

T. Rowe Price has obtained relief from the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (the “FRB Relief”) which permits, subject to a number of conditions, T. Rowe Price to acquire in the aggregate on behalf of its clients, 10% or more of the total voting stock of a bank, bank holding company, savings and loan holding company or savings association (each a “Bank”), not to exceed a 15% aggregate beneficial ownership maximum in such Bank. One such condition affects the manner in which T. Rowe Price will vote its clients’ shares of a Bank in excess of 10% of the Bank’s total voting stock (“Excess Shares”). The FRB Relief requires that T. Rowe Price use its best efforts to vote the Excess Shares in the same proportion as all other shares voted, a practice generally referred to as “mirror voting,” or in the event that such efforts to mirror vote are unsuccessful, Excess Shares will not be

 

TRPA 2023 Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.doc

Updated: February 2023

 

B-681


voted. With respect to a shareholder vote for a Bank of which T. Rowe Price has aggregate beneficial ownership of greater than 10% on behalf of its clients, T. Rowe Price will determine which of its clients’ shares are Excess Shares on a pro rata basis across all of its clients’ portfolios for which T. Rowe Price has the power to vote proxies.2

REPORTING, RECORD RETENTION AND OVERSIGHT

The TRPA ESG Investing Committee, and certain personnel under the direction of the Committee, perform the following oversight and assurance functions, among others, over T. Rowe Price’s proxy voting: (1) periodically samples proxy votes to ensure that they were cast in compliance with T. Rowe Price’s proxy voting guidelines; (2) reviews, no less frequently than annually, the adequacy of the Policies and Procedures to make sure that they have been implemented effectively, including whether they continue to be reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interests of our clients; (3) performs due diligence on whether a retained proxy advisory firm has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues, including the adequacy and quality of the proxy advisory firm’s staffing and personnel and its policies; and (4) oversees any retained proxy advisory firms and their procedures regarding their capabilities to (i) produce proxy research that is based on current and accurate information and (ii) identify and address any conflicts of interest and any other considerations that we believe would be appropriate in considering the nature and quality of the services provided by the proxy advisory firm.

T. Rowe Price will furnish Vote Summary Reports, upon request, to its institutional clients that have delegated proxy voting authority. The report specifies the portfolio companies, meeting dates, proxy proposals, and votes which have been cast for the client during the period and the position taken with respect to each issue. Reports normally cover quarterly or annual periods and are provided to such clients upon request. 

T. Rowe Price retains proxy solicitation materials, memoranda regarding votes cast in opposition to the position of a company’s management, and documentation on shares voted differently. In addition, any document which is material to a proxy voting decision such as the T. Rowe Price proxy voting guidelines, Committee meeting materials, and other internal research relating to voting decisions are maintained in accordance with applicable requirements.

2 

The FRB Relief and the process for voting of Excess Shares described herein apply to the aggregate beneficial ownership of T. Rowe Price and TRPIM.

 

TRPA 2023 Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.doc

Updated: February 2023

 

B-682


Vaughan Nelson Investment Management, L.P.

Description of Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures

Policy

Vaughan Nelson undertakes to vote all client proxies in a manner reasonably expected to ensure the client’s best interest is upheld and in a manner that does not subrogate the client’s best interest to that of the firm’s in instances where a material conflict exists. Vaughan Nelson’s procedures are intended to support good corporate governance, including those corporate practices that address environmental, social and governmental issues (“ESG Matters”), in all cases with the objective of protecting shareholder interests and maximizing shareholder value.

Approach

Vaughan Nelson has created a Proxy Voting Guideline (“Guideline”) believed to be in the best interest of clients relating to common and recurring issues found within proxy voting material. The Guideline, reviewed annually, is the work product of Vaughan Nelson’s Investment Team and it considers the nature of its business, the types of securities being managed and other sources of information including, but not limited to, research provided by an independent research firm Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), internal research, published information on corporate governance and experience. The Guideline helps to ensure voting consistency on issues common amongst issuers and to serve as evidence that a vote was not the product of a conflict of interest but rather a vote in accordance with a pre-determined policy. However, in many recurring and common proxy issues a “blanket voting approach” cannot be applied. In these instances, the Guideline indicates that such issues will be addressed on a case-by-case basis in consultation with a portfolio manager to determine how to vote the issue in the client’s best interest.

Vaughan Nelson uses ISS in a limited capacity to collect proxy ballots for clients, provide a platform in which to indicate our vote, provide company research as a point of information and assist our firm in generating proxy voting reports.

Vaughan Nelson, in executing its duty to vote proxies, may encounter a material conflict of interest. Vaughan Nelson does not envision a large number of situations where a conflict of interest would exist, if any, given the nature of Vaughan Nelson’s business, client base, relationships, and the types of securities managed. Notwithstanding, if a conflict of interest arises, Vaughan Nelson will undertake to vote the proxy or proxy issue in the client’s continued best interest. This will be accomplished by either casting the vote in accordance with the Guideline, if the application of such policy to the issue at hand involves little discretion on Vaughan Nelson’s part, or casting the vote as indicated by the independent third-party research firm, ISS. If a conflict involves ISS, Vaughan Nelson will take that into consideration when evaluating a proxy item that is not addressed in the firm’s recurring Proxy Voting Guideline.

Vaughan Nelson, as an indirect subsidiary of a Bank Holding Company, is restricted from voting the shares it has invested in banking entities on the fund’s behalf in instances where the aggregate ownership of all the Bank Holding Company’s investment management subsidiaries exceed 5% of the outstanding share class of a bank. Where the aggregate ownership described exceeds the 5% threshold, the firm will instruct ISS, an independent third party, to vote the proxies in line with ISS’s recommendation.

Finally, there may be circumstances or situations that may preclude or limit the manner in which a proxy is voted. These may include: 1) Mutual funds – whereby voting may be controlled by restrictions within the fund or the actions of authorized persons, 2) International Securities – whereby the perceived benefit of voting an international proxy does not outweigh the anticipated costs of doing so, 3) New Accounts – instances where security holdings assumed will be sold in the near term thereby limiting any benefit to be obtained by a vote of proxy material, 4) Small Combined Holdings / Unsupervised Securities – where the firm does not have a significant holding or basis on which to offer advice, 5) a security is out on loan (voting rights have been passed to the borrower), or 6) securities held on record date but divested prior to meeting date.

In summary, Vaughan Nelson’s goal is to vote proxy material in a manner that is believed to assist in maximizing the value of the portfolio.

 

B-683


Victory Capital Management Inc. (“Victory Capital”)

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

To assist Victory Capital in making proxy-voting decisions, Victory Capital has adopted a Proxy Voting Policy (“Policy”) that establishes voting guidelines (“Proxy Voting Guidelines”) with respect to certain recurring issues. The Policy is reviewed on an annual basis by Victory Capital’s Proxy Committee (“Proxy Committee”) and revised when the Committee determines that a change is appropriate. The Board annually reviews the Trust’s Proxy Voting Policy and Victory Capital’s Policy and determines whether amendments are necessary or advisable.

Voting under Victory Capital’s Policy may be executed through administrative screening per established guidelines with oversight by the Proxy Committee or upon vote by a quorum of the Proxy Committee. Victory Capital delegates to Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”), an independent service provider, the non-discretionary administration of proxy voting for the Trust, subject to oversight by Victory Capital’s Proxy Committee. In no circumstances shall ISS have the authority to vote proxies except in accordance with standing or specific instructions given to it by Victory Capital.

Victory Capital votes proxies in the best interests of the Funds and their shareholders. This entails voting client proxies with the objective of increasing the long-term economic value of Fund assets. Victory Capital’s Proxy Committee determines how proxies are voted by following established guidelines, which are intended to assist in voting proxies and are not considered to be rigid rules. The Proxy Committee is directed to apply the guidelines as appropriate. On occasion, however, a contrary vote may be warranted when such action is in the best interests of the Funds or if required by the Board or the Funds’ Proxy Voting Policy. In such cases, Victory Capital may consider, among other things:

 

   

the effect of the proposal on the underlying value of the securities

 

   

the effect on marketability of the securities

 

   

the effect of the proposal on future prospects of the issuer

 

   

the composition and effectiveness of the issuer’s board of directors

 

   

the issuer’s corporate governance practices

 

   

the quality of communications from the issuer to its shareholders

Victory Capital may also take into account independent third-party, general industry guidance or other corporate governance review sources when making decisions. It may additionally seek guidance from other senior internal sources with special expertise on a given topic where it is appropriate. The Adviser generally votes on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration whether implementation of an Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”)-related proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder value. The investment team’s opinion concerning the management and prospects of the issuer may be taken into account in determining whether a vote for or against a proposal is in a Fund’s best interests. Insufficient information, onerous requests or vague, ambiguous wording may indicate that a vote against a proposal is appropriate, even when the general principal appears to be reasonable.

The following examples illustrate Victory Capital’s policy with respect to some common proxy votes. This summary is not an exhaustive list of all the issues that may arise or of all matters addressed in the Guidelines, and whether Victory Capital supports or opposes a proposal will depend upon the specific facts and circumstances described in the proxy statement and other available information.

 

B-684


Directors

 

   

Victory Capital generally supports the election of directors in uncontested elections, except when there are issues of accountability, responsiveness, composition, and/or independence.

 

   

Victory Capital generally supports proposals for an independent chair taking into account factors such as the current board leadership structure, the company’s governance practices, and company performance.

 

   

Victory Capital generally supports proxy access proposals that are in line with the market standards regarding the ownership threshold, ownership duration, aggregation provisions, cap on nominees, and do not contain any other unreasonably restrictive guidelines.

 

   

Victory Capital reviews contested elections on a case-by-case basis taking into account such factors as the company performance, particularly the long-term performance relative to the industry; the management track record; the nominee qualifications and compensatory arrangements; the strategic plan of the dissident and its critique of the current management; the likelihood that the proposed goals and objectives can be achieved; the ownership stakes of the relevant parties; and any other context that is particular to the company and the nature of the election.

Capitalization & Restructuring

 

   

Victory Capital generally supports capitalization proposals that facilitate a corporate transaction that is also being supported and for general corporate purposes so long as the increase is not excessive and there are no issues of superior voting rights, company performance, previous abuses of capital, or insufficient justification for the need for additional capital.

Mergers and Acquisitions

 

   

Victory Capital reviews mergers and acquisitions on a case-by-case basis to balance the merits and drawbacks of the transaction and factors such as valuation, strategic rationale, negotiations and process, conflicts of interest, and the governance profile of the company post-transaction.

Compensation

 

   

Victory Capital reviews all compensation proposals for pay-for-performance alignment, with emphasis on long-term shareholder value; arrangements that risk pay for failure; independence in the setting of compensation; inappropriate pay to non-executive directors, and the quality and rationale of the compensation disclosure.

 

   

Victory Capital will generally vote FOR advisory votes on executive compensation (“say on pay”) unless there is a pay-for-performance misalignment; problematic pay practice or non-performance-based element; incentive for excessive risk-taking, options backdating; or a lack of compensation committee communication and/or responsiveness to shareholder concerns.

 

   

Victory Capital will vote case-by-case on equity-based compensation plans taking into account factors such as the plan cost; the plan features; and the grant practices as well as any overriding factors that may have a significant negative impact on shareholder interests.

Social and Environmental Issues

 

   

Victory Capital will vote case-by-case on topics such as consumer and product safety; environment and energy; labor standards and human rights; workplace and board diversity; and corporate and political issues, taking into account factors such as the implementation of the proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder value; whether the company has already responded in an appropriate and sufficient manner to the issue raised; whether the request is unduly burdensome; and whether the issue is more appropriately or effectively handled through legislation or other regulations.

 

B-685


Occasionally, conflicts of interest arise between Victory Capital’s interests and those of a Fund or another client. When this occurs, the Proxy Committee must document the nature of the conflict and vote the proxy in accordance with the Proxy Voting Guidelines unless such guidelines are judged by the Proxy Committee to be inapplicable to the proxy matter at issue. In the event that the Proxy Voting Guidelines are inapplicable or do not mitigate the conflict, Victory Capital will seek the opinion of Victory Capital’s Chief Compliance Officer or consult with an external independent adviser. In the case of a Proxy Committee member having a personal conflict of interest (e.g. a family member is on the board of the issuer), such member will abstain from voting. Finally, Victory Capital reports to the Board annually any proxy votes that took place involving a conflict, including the nature of the conflict and the basis or rationale for the voting decision made.

 

B-686


WCM INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC

 

A.

Proxy Voting Procedures

WCM accepts responsibility for voting proxies whenever requested by a Client or as required by law. Each Client’s investment management agreement should specify whether WCM is to vote proxies relating to securities held for the Client’s account. If the agreement is silent as to the proxy voting and no instructions from the client are on file, WCM will assume responsibility of proxy voting.

In cases in which WCM has proxy voting authority for securities held by its advisory clients, WCM will ensure securities are voted for the exclusive benefit, and in the best economic interest, of those clients and their beneficiaries, subject to any restrictions or directions from a client. Such voting responsibilities will be exercised in a manner that is consistent with the general antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act, the Proxy Voting Rule, Rule 206(4)-6, and for ERISA accounts, the DOL’s Proxy Voting Rule, as well as with WCM’s fiduciary duties under federal and state law to act in the best interests of its clients. Even when WCM has proxy voting authority, a Client may request that WCM vote in a certain manner. Any such instructions shall be provided to WCM, in writing or electronic communication, saved in the Client files and communicated to the Portfolio Associate and Proxy Admin.

Special Rules for ERISA.

Unless proxy voting responsibility has been expressly reserved by the plan, trust document, or investment management agreement, and is being exercised by another “named fiduciary” for an ERISA Plan Client, WCM, as the investment manager for the account, has the exclusive authority to vote proxies or exercise other shareholder relating to securities held for the Plan’s account. The interests or desires of plan sponsors should not be considered. In addition, if a “named fiduciary” for the plan has provided WCM with written proxy voting guidelines, those guidelines must be followed, unless the guidelines, or the results of following the guidelines, would be contrary to the economic interests of the plan’s participants or beneficiaries, imprudent or otherwise contrary to ERISA.

Investors in WCM Private Funds which are deemed to hold “plan assets” under ERISA accept WCM’s investment policy statement and a proxy voting policy before they are allowed to invest.

 

  1.

Role of the Independent Proxy Adviser

WCM utilizes the proxy voting recommendations of Glass Lewis (our “Proxy Adviser”). The purpose of the Proxy Advisers proxy research and advice is to facilitate shareholder voting in favor of governance structures that will drive performance, create shareholder value and maintain a proper tone at the top. Because the Proxy Adviser is not in the business of providing consulting services to public companies, it can focus solely on the best interests of investors. The Proxy Adviser’s approach to corporate governance is to look at each company individually and determine what is in the best interests of the shareholders of each particular company. Research on proxies covers more than just corporate governance – the Proxy Adviser analyzes accounting, executive compensation, compliance with regulation and law, risks and risk disclosure, litigation and other matters that reflect on the quality of board oversight and company transparency.

The voting recommendations of the Proxy Adviser are strongly considered; however, the final determination for voting in the best economic interest of the clients is the responsibility of the relevant strategy Investment Strategy Group (“ISG”). When a decision is reached to vote contrary to the recommendation of the Proxy Adviser, the ISG will address any potential conflicts of interest (as described in this policy) and proceed accordingly. They will maintain documentation to support the decision, which will be reviewed by the Compliance Team.

WCM will take reasonable steps under the circumstances to make sure that all proxies are received and for those that WCM has determined should be voted, are voted in a timely manner.

 

B-687


  2.

Role of the Portfolio Associate.

The Portfolio Associate is responsible for the onboarding and maintenance of Client accounts. For each Client, the Portfolio Associate:

 

  a.

Determines whether WCM is vested with proxy voting responsibility or whether voting is reserved to the Client or delegated to another designee;

 

  b.

Instructs registered owners of record (e.g. the Client, Trustee or Custodian) that receive proxy materials from the issuer or its information agent to send proxies electronically directly to Broadridge/ProxyEdge, a third party service provider, to: (1) provide notification of impending votes; (2) vote proxies based on the Proxy Adviser and/or WCM recommendations; and (3) maintain records of such votes electronically.

 

  c.

Assigns the appropriate proxy voting guidelines based on a Client’s Investment Policy Guidelines;

 

  d.

Reports proxy voting record to Client, as requested.

 

  3.

Role of the Proxy Admin.

The Proxy Admin circulates proxy ballot information and administers the proxy vote execution process. The Proxy Admin:

 

  a.

Monitors the integrity of the data feed between the Client’s registered owner of record and Broadridge/Proxy Edge;

 

  b.

Executes votes based on the recommendation of the Proxy Adviser or ISG;

 

  c.

Ensures all votes are cast in a timely manner.

 

  4.

Role of the ISG and Analysts

With the support of the Analysts, and in consideration of the voting recommendation of the Proxy Adviser, the Investment Strategy Group (ISG) is responsible for review of the Proxy Adviser policy and final vote determination. The ISG:

 

  a.

Annually, reviews the policy of the Proxy Adviser to ensure voting recommendations are based on a Client’s best interest;

 

  b.

Reviews the ballot voting recommendations of the Proxy Adviser;

 

  c.

Investigates ballot voting issues during the normal course of research, company visits, or discussions with company representatives.

If the ISG:

 

  a.

Agrees with the voting recommendation of the Proxy Adviser, no further action is required;

 

  b.

Disagrees with the voting recommendation of the Proxy Adviser, they will:

 

  1)

Deal with conflicts of interest, as described below;

 

  2)

Provide updated voting instructions to the Proxy Admin;

 

  3)

Document the rationale for the decision, which is provided to Compliance.

 

B-688


  5.

Certain Proxy Votes May Not Be Cast

In some cases, WCM may determine that it is in the best interests of our clients to abstain from voting certain proxies. WCM will abstain from voting in the event any of the following conditions are met with regard to a proxy proposal:

 

  a.

Neither the Proxy Adviser’ recommendation nor specific client instructions cover an issue;

 

  b.

In circumstances where, in WCM’s judgment, the costs of voting the proxy exceed the expected benefits to the Client.

In addition, WCM will only seek to vote proxies for securities on loan when such a vote is deemed to have a material impact on the account. In such cases, materiality is determined and documented by the ISG.

Further, in accordance with local law or business practices, many foreign companies prevent the sales of shares that have been voted for a certain period beginning prior to the shareholder meeting and ending on the day following the meeting (“share blocking”). Depending on the country in which a company is domiciled, the blocking period may begin a stated number of days prior to the meeting (e.g., one, three or five days) or on a date established by the company. While practices vary, in many countries the block period can be continued for a longer period if the shareholder meeting is adjourned and postponed to a later date. Similarly, practices vary widely as to the ability of a shareholder to have the “block” restriction lifted early (e.g., in some countries shares generally can be “unblocked” up to two days prior to the meeting whereas in other countries the removal of the block appears to be discretionary with the issuer’s transfer agent). WCM believes that the disadvantage of being unable to sell the stock regardless of changing conditions generally outweighs the advantages of voting at the shareholder meeting for routine items. Accordingly, WCM generally will not vote those proxies subject to “share blocking.”

 

  6.

Identifying and Dealing with Material Conflicts of Interest between WCM and Proxy Issuer

WCM believes the use of the Proxy Adviser’s independent guidelines helps to mitigate proxy voting related conflicts between the firm and its clients. Notwithstanding WCM may choose to vote a proxy against the recommendation of the Proxy Adviser, if WCM believes such vote is in the best economic interest of its clients. Such a decision will be made and documented by the ISG. Because WCM retains this authority, it creates a potential conflict of interest between WCM and the proxy issuer. As a result, WCM may not overrule the Proxy Adviser’s recommendation with respect to a proxy unless the following steps are taken by the CCO:

 

  a.

The CCO must determine whether WCM has a conflict of interest with respect to the issuer that is the subject of the proxy. The CCO will use the following standards to identify issuers with which WCM may have a conflict of interest.

 

  1)

Significant Business Relationships – The CCO will determine whether WCM may have a significant business relationship with the issuer, such as, for example, where WCM manages a pension plan. For this purpose, a “significant business relationship” is one that: (i) represents 1% or $1,000,000 of WCM’s revenues for the fiscal year, whichever is less, or is reasonably expected to represent this amount for the current fiscal year; or (ii) may not directly involve revenue to WCM but is otherwise determined by the CCO to be significant to WCM.

 

  2)

Significant Personal/Family Relationships – the CCO will determine whether any Supervised Persons who are involved in the proxy voting process may have a significant personal/family relationship with the issuer. For this purpose, a “significant personal/family relationship” is one that would be reasonably likely to influence how WCM votes proxies. To identify any such relationships, the CCO shall obtain information about any significant personal/family relationship between any Supervised Person of WCM who is

 

B-689


  involved in the proxy voting process (e.g., ISG members) and senior Supervised Persons of issuers for which WCM may vote proxies.

 

  b.

If the CCO determines that WCM has a conflict of interest with respect to the issuer, the CCO shall determine whether the conflict is “material” to any specific proposal included within the proxy. The CCO shall determine whether a proposal is material as follows:

 

  1)

Routine Proxy Proposals – Proxy proposals that are “routine” shall be presumed not to involve a material conflict of interest for WCM, unless the ISG has actual knowledge that a routine proposal should be treated as material. For this purpose, “routine” proposals would typically include matters such as the selection of an accountant, uncontested election of directors, meeting formalities, and approval of an annual report/financial statements.

 

  2)

Non-Routine Proxy Proposals – Proxy proposals that are “non-routine” shall be presumed to involve a material conflict of interest for WCM, unless the CCO determines that WCM’s conflict is unrelated to the proposal in question (see 3. below). For this purpose, “non-routine” proposals would typically include any contested matter, including a contested election of directors, a merger or sale of substantial assets, a change in the articles of incorporation that materially affects the rights of shareholders, and compensation matters for management (e.g., stock option plans, retirement plans, profit sharing or other special remuneration plans).

 

  3)

Determining that a Non-Routine Proposal is Not Material – As discussed above, although non-routine proposals are presumed to involve a material conflict of interest, the CCO may determine on a case-by-case basis that particular non-routine proposals do not involve a material conflict of interest. To make this determination, the CCO must conclude that a proposal is not directly related to WCM’s conflict with the issuer or that it otherwise would not be considered important by a reasonable investor. The CCO shall record in writing the basis for any such determination.

 

  c.

For any proposal where the CCO determines that WCM has a material conflict of interest, WCM may vote a proxy regarding that proposal in any of the following manners:

 

  1)

Obtain Client Consent or Direction– If the CCO approves the proposal to overrule the recommendation of the Proxy Adviser, WCM shall fully disclose to each client holding the security at issue the nature of the conflict and obtain the client’s consent to how WCM will vote on the proposal (or otherwise obtain instructions from the client as to how the proxy on the proposal should be voted).

 

  2)

Use the Proxy Adviser’ Recommendation – Vote in accordance with the Proxy Adviser’ recommendation.

 

  d.

For any proposal where the CCO determines that WCM does not have a material conflict of interest, the ISG may overrule the Proxy Adviser’s recommendation if the ISG reasonably determines that doing so is in the best interests of WCM’s clients. If the ISG decides to overrule the Proxy Adviser’s recommendation, the ISG will maintain documentation to support their decision.

 

  7.

Dealing with Material Conflicts of Interest between a Client and the Proxy Adviser or Proxy Issuer

If WCM is notified by a client regarding a conflict of interest between them and the Proxy Adviser or the proxy issuer, The CCO will evaluate the circumstances and either

 

  a.

elevate the decision to the ISG who will make a determination as to what would be in the Client’s best interest;

 

B-690


  b.

if practical, seek a waiver from the Client of the conflict; or

 

  c.

if agreed upon in writing with the Clients, forward the proxies to affected Clients allowing them to vote their own proxies.

 

  8.

Maintenance of Proxy Voting Records

As required by Rule 204-2 under the Advisers Act, and for ERISA accounts, the DOL’s Proxy Voting Rule, WCM will maintain or procure the maintenance of the following records relating to proxy voting for a period of at least five years:

 

  a.

a copy of these Proxy Policies, as they may be amended from time to time;

 

  b.

copies of proxy statements received regarding Client securities;

 

  c.

a record of each proxy vote cast on behalf of its Clients;

 

  d.

a copy of any internal documents created by WCM that were material to making the decision how to vote proxies on behalf of its Clients; and

 

  e.

each written Client request for information on how WCM voted proxies on behalf of the Client and each written response by WCM to oral or written Client requests for this information.

As permitted by Rule 204-2(c), electronic proxy statements and the record of each vote cast on behalf of each Client account will be maintained by ProxyEdge. WCM shall obtain and maintain an undertaking from ProxyEdge to provide it with copies of proxy voting records and other documents relating to its Clients’ votes promptly upon request. WCM and ProxyEdge may rely on the SEC’s EDGAR system to keep records of certain proxy statements if the proxy statements are maintained by issuers on that system (e.g., large U.S.-based issuers).

 

  9.

Disclosure

WCM will provide all Clients a summary of these Proxy Policies, either directly or by delivery to the Client of a copy of its Form ADV, Part 2A containing such a summary, and information on how to obtain a copy of the full text of these Proxy Policies and a record of how WCM has voted the Client’s proxies. Upon receipt of a Client’s request for more information, WCM will provide to the Client a copy of these Proxy Policies and/or in accordance with the Client’s stated requirements, how the Client’s proxies were voted during the period requested. Such periodic reports will not be made available to third parties absent the express written request of the Client. However, to the extent that WCM serves as a sub-adviser to another adviser to a Client, WCM will be deemed to be authorized to provide proxy voting records on such Client accounts to such other adviser.

 

  10.

Oversight of the Proxy Adviser

Prior to adopting the proxy guidelines and recommendations of a Proxy adviser, WCM will exercise prudence and diligence to determine that the guidelines for proxy recommendations are consistent with WCM’s fiduciary obligations. Each year, Compliance, in conjunction with input from the Proxy Admin, the ISG and others as determined by the CCO, will review WCM’s relationship with, and services provided by the Proxy Adviser. To facilitate this review, WCM will request information from the Proxy Adviser in consideration of the Proxy Adviser processes, policies and procedures to:

 

   

Analyze and formulate voting recommendations on the matters for which WCM is responsible for voting and to disclose its information sources and methods used to develop such voting recommendations;

 

B-691


   

Ensure that it has complete and accurate information about issuers when making recommendations and to provide its clients and issuers timely opportunities to provide input on certain matters;

 

   

Resolve any identified material deficiencies in the completeness or accuracy of information about issuers for whom voting recommendations are made; and

 

   

Identify, resolve, and disclose actual and potential conflicts of interest associated with its recommendations;

Additionally, WCM will review the Proxy Adviser’s proposed changes to its proxy voting guidelines to ensure alignment with the ISG’s expectations. The Proxy Adviser typically distributes proposed changes to its guidelines annually; therefore, WCM’s review of these proposed changes will typically coincide with the Proxy Adviser’ schedule.

 

B-692


WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT   LOGO

GLOBAL PROXY POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Wellington Management has adopted and implemented policies and procedures that it believes are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interests of clients for whom it exercises proxy-voting discretion.

Wellington Management’s Proxy Voting Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) set forth broad guidelines and positions on common proxy issues that Wellington Management uses in voting on proxies In addition, Wellington Management also considers each proposal in the context of the issuer, industry and country or countries in which the issuer’s business is conducted. The Guidelines are not rigid rules and the merits of a particular proposal may cause Wellington Management to enter a vote that differs from the Guidelines. Wellington Management seeks to vote all proxies with the goal of increasing long-term client value and, while client investment strategies may differ, applying this common set of guidelines is consistent with the investment objective of achieving positive long-term investment performance for each client.

Wellington Management:

 

1)

Votes client proxies for which clients have affirmatively delegated proxy-voting authority, in writing, unless it has arranged in advance with the client to limit the circumstances in which it would exercise voting authority or determines that it is in the best interest of one or more clients to refrain from voting a given proxy.

 

2)

Votes all proxies in the best interests of the client for whom it is voting.

 

3)

Identifies and resolves all material proxy-related conflicts of interest between the firm and its clients in the best interests of the client.

The Investment Research Group (“Investment Research”) monitors regulatory requirements with respect to proxy voting and works with the firm’s Legal and Compliance Group and the Investment Stewardship Committee to develop practices that implement those requirements. Investment Research also acts as a resource for portfolio managers and research analysts on proxy matters as needed. Day-to-day administration of the proxy voting process is the responsibility of Investment Research. The Investment Stewardship Committee is responsible for oversight of the implementation of the Global Proxy Policy and Procedures, review and approval of the Guidelines, identification and resolution of conflicts of interest, and for providing advice and guidance on specific proxy votes for individual issuers. The Investment Stewardship Committee reviews the Global Proxy Policy and Procedures annually.

PROCEDURES

Use of Third-Party Voting Agent

Wellington Management uses the services of a third-party voting agent for research, voting recommendations, and to manage the administrative aspects of proxy voting. The voting agent processes proxies for client accounts, casts votes based on the Guidelines and maintains records of proxies voted. Wellington Management complements the research received by its primary voting agent with research from another voting agent.

 

B-693


WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT

GLOBAL PROXY POLICY AND PROCEDURES

 

Receipt of Proxy

If a client requests that Wellington Management votes proxies on its behalf, the client must instruct its custodian bank to deliver all relevant voting material to Wellington Management or its voting agent.

Reconciliation

Each public security proxy received by electronic means is matched to the securities eligible to be voted and a reminder is sent to any custodian or trustee that has not forwarded the proxies as due. This reconciliation is performed at the ballot level. Although proxies received for private securities, as well as those received in non- electronic format, are voted as received, Wellington Management is not able to reconcile these ballots, nor does it notify custodians of non-receipt.

Research

In addition to proprietary investment research undertaken by Wellington Management investment professionals, Investment Research conducts proxy research internally, and uses the resources of a number of external sources including third-party voting agents to keep abreast of developments in corporate governance and of current practices of specific companies.

Proxy Voting

Following the reconciliation process, each proxy is compared against the Guidelines, and handled as follows:

 

   

Generally, issues for which explicit proxy voting guidance is provided in the Guidelines (i.e., “For”, “Against”, “Abstain”) are voted in accordance with the Guidelines.

 

   

Issues identified as “case-by-case” in the Guidelines are further reviewed by Investment Research. In certain circumstances, further input is needed, so the issues are forwarded to the relevant research analyst and/or portfolio manager(s) for their input.

 

   

Absent a material conflict of interest, the portfolio manager has the authority to decide the final vote. Different portfolio managers holding the same securities may arrive at different voting conclusions for their clients’ proxies.

Wellington Management reviews a subset of the voting record to ensure that proxies are voted in accordance with these Global Proxy Policy and Procedures and the Guidelines; and ensures that documentation and reports, for clients and for internal purposes, relating to the voting of proxies are promptly and properly prepared and disseminated.

Material Conflict of Interest Identification and Resolution Processes

Wellington Management’s broadly diversified client base and functional lines of responsibility serve to minimize the number of, but not prevent, material conflicts of interest it faces in voting proxies. Annually, the Investment Stewardship Committee sets standards for identifying material conflicts based on client, vendor, and lender relationships, and publishes those standards to individuals involved in the proxy voting process. In addition, the Investment Stewardship Committee encourages all personnel to contact Investment Research about apparent conflicts of interest, even if the apparent conflict does not meet the published materiality criteria. Apparent conflicts are reviewed by designated members of the Investment Stewardship Committee to determine if there is a conflict and if so whether the conflict is material.

 

B-694


WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT

GLOBAL PROXY POLICY AND PROCEDURES

 

If a proxy is identified as presenting a material conflict of interest, the matter must be reviewed by designated members of the Investment Stewardship Committee, who will resolve the conflict and direct the vote. In certain circumstances, the designated members may determine that the full Investment Stewardship Committee should convene.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

In certain instances, Wellington Management may be unable to vote or may determine not to vote a proxy on behalf of one or more clients. While not exhaustive, the following are potential instances in which a proxy vote might not be entered.

Securities Lending

In general, Wellington Management does not know when securities have been lent out pursuant to a client’s securities lending program and are therefore unavailable to be voted. Efforts to recall loaned securities are not always effective, but, in rare circumstances, Wellington Management may determine voting would outweigh the benefit to the client resulting from use of securities for lending and recommend that a client attempt to have its custodian recall the security to permit voting of related proxies.

Share Blocking and Re-registration

Certain countries impose trading restrictions or requirements regarding re-registration of securities held in omnibus accounts in order for shareholders to vote a proxy. The potential impact of such requirements is evaluated when determining whether to vote such proxies.

Lack of Adequate Information, Untimely Receipt of Proxy Materials, or Excessive Costs

Wellington Management may abstain from voting a proxy when the proxy statement or other available information is inadequate to allow for an informed vote, when the proxy materials are not delivered in a timely fashion or when, in Wellington Management’s judgment, the costs exceed the expected benefits to clients (such as when powers of attorney or consularization are required).

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Wellington Management maintains records related to proxies pursuant to Rule 204-2 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), and other applicable laws. In addition, Wellington Management discloses annually how it has exercised its voting rights for significant votes, as require by the EU Shareholder Rights Directive II (“SRD II”).

Wellington Management provides clients with a copy of its Global Proxy Policy and Procedures, including the Guidelines, upon written request. In addition, Wellington Management will provide specific client information relating to proxy voting to a client upon written request.

Dated: 1 September 2020

 

B-695