0.0565 false 2024-02-29 485BPOS 0001688680 0.0597 0.2870 0.2114 0.2080 0.188 0.2485 0.0757 0.3078 0.2362 0.2730 0.1983 0.1162 0.1439 0.2507 0.2340 0.0140 0.2092 0.1554 0.0543 0.2178 0.0411 0.2241 0.0109 0.0508 0.0003 0.0693 0.0470 0.0132 0.1406 0.0594 0.0177 0.0363 0.0152 0.0570 0.0148 0.0819 0.0035 0.0665 0.0359 0.0527 0.0507 0.0905 0.0072 0.0586 0.0390 0.0014 0.0617 0.0457 0.0365 0.0893 0.1001 0.0522 0.0345 0.1282 0.1598 0.1720 0001688680 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member ck0001688680:C000176692Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member ck0001688680:C000202452Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskNotInsuredMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskLoseMoneyMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:EquitySecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentStyleRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ActiveManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ForeignSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DepositaryReceiptsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:LiquidityRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SecuritiesLendingRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MultiManagerRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SectorRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:RealEstateInvestmentTrustsREITsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentCompanyAndExchangeTradedFundsETFsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PrivatePlacementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CurrencyRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DerivativesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PreferredSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ConvertibleSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:WarrantsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056100Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176692Member 2018-01-01 2018-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176692Member 2019-01-01 2019-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176692Member 2020-01-01 2020-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176692Member 2021-01-01 2021-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176692Member 2022-01-01 2022-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176692Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176692Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176692Member 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202452Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202452Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202452Member 2018-07-16 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176692Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176692Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176692Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176692Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176692Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176692Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:index_Russell_1000_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:index_Russell_1000_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:index_Russell_1000_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202452Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Large_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176692Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member ck0001688680:C000176694Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member ck0001688680:C000202454Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskNotInsuredMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskLoseMoneyMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:EquitySecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentStyleRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ActiveManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MidCapSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SmallCapAndMicroCapSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:LiquidityRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SecuritiesLendingRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MultiManagerRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PortfolioTurnoverRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SectorRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ValueStocksRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:GrowthStockRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ForeignSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DepositaryReceiptsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentCompanyAndExchangeTradedFundsETFsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CurrencyRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PreferredSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ConvertibleSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:WarrantsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056102Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176694Member 2018-01-01 2018-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176694Member 2019-01-01 2019-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176694Member 2020-01-01 2020-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176694Member 2021-01-01 2021-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176694Member 2022-01-01 2022-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176694Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176694Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176694Member 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202454Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202454Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202454Member 2018-07-16 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176694Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176694Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176694Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176694Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176694Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176694Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:index_Russell_Mid_Cap_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:index_Russell_Mid_Cap_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:index_Russell_Mid_Cap_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:index_Russell_2000_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:index_Russell_2000_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:index_Russell_2000_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176694Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_SmallMid_Cap_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202454Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member ck0001688680:C000176695Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member ck0001688680:C000202455Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskNotInsuredMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskLoseMoneyMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:EquitySecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ForeignAndEmergingMarketsSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CurrencyRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SmallCapAndMicroCapSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MidCapSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentStyleRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ActiveManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentCompanyAndExchangeTradedFundsETFsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:LiquidityRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:EuropeAndUnitedKingdomRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:AsiaRegionRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:IndianMarketAndIndiaRegionRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SecuritiesLendingRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MultiManagerRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DerivativesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:HedgingRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DepositaryReceiptsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ConcentrationRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PreferredSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ConvertibleSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:WarrantsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056103Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176695Member 2018-01-01 2018-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176695Member 2019-01-01 2019-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176695Member 2020-01-01 2020-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176695Member 2021-01-01 2021-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176695Member 2022-01-01 2022-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176695Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176695Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176695Member 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202455Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202455Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202455Member 2018-07-16 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176695Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176695Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176695Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176695Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176695Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176695Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:index_FTSE_AllWorld_ex_US_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:index_FTSE_AllWorld_ex_US_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:index_FTSE_AllWorld_ex_US_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176695Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_International_Equity_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202455Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member ck0001688680:C000176696Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member ck0001688680:C000202456Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskNotInsuredMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskLoseMoneyMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:EquitySecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DividendIncomeRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ForeignAndEmergingMarketsSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CurrencyRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentStyleRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ActiveManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentCompanyAndExchangeTradedFundsETFsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DepositaryReceiptsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:LiquidityRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SecuritiesLendingRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SectorRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MultiManagerRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:RealEstateInvestmentTrustsREITsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PreferredSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ConvertibleSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MidCapSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SmallCapSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DerivativesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056104Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176696Member 2018-01-01 2018-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176696Member 2019-01-01 2019-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176696Member 2020-01-01 2020-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176696Member 2021-01-01 2021-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176696Member 2022-01-01 2022-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176696Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176696Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176696Member 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202456Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202456Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202456Member 2018-07-16 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176696Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176696Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176696Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176696Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176696Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176696Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:index_FTSE_AllWorld_High_Dividend_Yield_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:index_FTSE_AllWorld_High_Dividend_Yield_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:index_FTSE_AllWorld_High_Dividend_Yield_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202456Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Equity_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176696Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member ck0001688680:C000176698Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member ck0001688680:C000202458Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskNotInsuredMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskLoseMoneyMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:FixedIncomeMarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InterestRateRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MortgageBackedSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CreditRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:HighYieldJunkBondsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:AssetBackedSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PrepaymentRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ExtensionRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:USGovernmentSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:BankLoansRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ForeignSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentStyleRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ActiveManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:LiquidityRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SecuritiesLendingRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MultiManagerRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PortfolioTurnoverRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:LoanAssignmentLoanParticipationRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DerivativesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:TBAAndWhenIssuedTransactionRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CallRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:HedgingRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CurrencyRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentCompanyAndExchangeTradedFundsETFsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056106Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176698Member 2018-01-01 2018-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176698Member 2019-01-01 2019-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176698Member 2020-01-01 2020-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176698Member 2021-01-01 2021-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176698Member 2022-01-01 2022-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176698Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176698Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176698Member 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202458Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202458Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202458Member 2018-07-16 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176698Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176698Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176698Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176698Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176698Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176698Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:index_ICE_BofA_US_Broad_Market_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxes0Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:index_ICE_BofA_US_Broad_Market_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxes0Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:index_ICE_BofA_US_Broad_Market_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxes0Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176698Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Core_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202458Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member ck0001688680:C000176699Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member ck0001688680:C000202459Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskNotInsuredMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskLoseMoneyMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:FixedIncomeMarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InterestRateRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CreditRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:HighYieldJunkBondsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MortgageBackedSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ForeignAndEmergingMarketsSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:AssetBackedSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:BankLoansRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SeniorLoansRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:USGovernmentSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentStyleRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ActiveManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:LiquidityRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SecuritiesLendingRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SpecialPurposeAcquisitionCompaniesRisksMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:TaxRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentCompanyAndExchangeTradedFundsETFsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MultiManagerRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CollateralizedLoanObligationsCLOsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PrepaymentRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ExtensionRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PreferredSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CurrencyRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DerivativesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056107Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176699Member 2018-01-01 2018-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176699Member 2019-01-01 2019-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176699Member 2020-01-01 2020-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176699Member 2021-01-01 2021-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176699Member 2022-01-01 2022-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176699Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176699Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176699Member 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202459Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202459Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202459Member 2018-07-16 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176699Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176699Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176699Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176699Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176699Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176699Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:index_ICE_BofA_US_Corporate_Government_13_Year_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:index_ICE_BofA_US_Corporate_Government_13_Year_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:index_ICE_BofA_US_Corporate_Government_13_Year_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176699Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Low_Duration_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202459Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member ck0001688680:C000176700Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member ck0001688680:C000202460Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskNotInsuredMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskLoseMoneyMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:FixedIncomeMarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InterestRateRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CreditRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:HighYieldJunkBondsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ForeignAndEmergingMarketsSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PreferredSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:BankLoansRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SeniorLoansRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentStyleRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ActiveManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:LiquidityRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SecuritiesLendingRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SovereignObligationRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SpecialPurposeAcquisitionCompaniesRisksMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:TaxRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MultiManagerRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ConvertibleBondRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DerivativesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:HedgingRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentCompanyAndExchangeTradedFundsETFsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ContingentCapitalSecurityRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MunicipalSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ExtensionRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PrepaymentRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CurrencyRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CallRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056108Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176700Member 2018-01-01 2018-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176700Member 2019-01-01 2019-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176700Member 2020-01-01 2020-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176700Member 2021-01-01 2021-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176700Member 2022-01-01 2022-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176700Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176700Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176700Member 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202460Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202460Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202460Member 2018-07-16 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176700Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176700Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176700Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176700Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176700Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176700Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:index_ICE_BofA_US_High_Yield_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:index_ICE_BofA_US_High_Yield_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:index_ICE_BofA_US_High_Yield_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202460Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Global_Fixed_Income_Opportunities_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176700Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member ck0001688680:C000176701Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member ck0001688680:C000202461Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskNotInsuredMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskLoseMoneyMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:FixedIncomeMarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InterestRateRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MunicipalSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CreditRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentStyleRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ActiveManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:LiquidityRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:TaxRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SecuritiesLendingRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MultiManagerRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:HighYieldJunkBondsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PrepaymentRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ExtensionRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PuertoRicoInvestmentRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentCompanyAndExchangeTradedFundsETFsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DerivativesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056109Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176701Member 2018-01-01 2018-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176701Member 2019-01-01 2019-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176701Member 2020-01-01 2020-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176701Member 2021-01-01 2021-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176701Member 2022-01-01 2022-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176701Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176701Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176701Member 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202461Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202461Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202461Member 2018-07-16 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176701Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176701Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176701Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176701Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176701Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176701Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:index_ICE_BofA_US_Municipal_Securities_212_Year_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:index_ICE_BofA_US_Municipal_Securities_212_Year_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:index_ICE_BofA_US_Municipal_Securities_212_Year_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202461Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Municipal_Fixed_Income_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176701Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member ck0001688680:C000176693Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member ck0001688680:C000202453Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskNotInsuredMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskLoseMoneyMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:FixedIncomeMarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:EquitySecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CreditRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:HighYieldJunkBondsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MortgageBackedSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SmallCapSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MidCapSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentCompanyAndExchangeTradedFundsETFsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PrivatePlacementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:EventDrivenRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DerivativesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentStyleRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ActiveManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:HedgingRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ShortSaleRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:LiquidityRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:BankLoansRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SeniorLoansRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SpecialPurposeAcquisitionCompaniesRisksMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:TaxRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CollateralizedLoanObligationsCLOsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ForeignAndEmergingMarketsSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SecuritiesLendingRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:AssetBackedSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ConvertibleSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MultiManagerRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PortfolioTurnoverRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CashPositionRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InterestRateRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ExtensionRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:PrepaymentRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:WarrantsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ExchangeTradedNoteETNsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:USGovernmentSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SovereignObligationRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CurrencyRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DepositaryReceiptsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CommercialPaperRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:RealEstateInvestmentTrustsREITsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:S000056101Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176693Member 2018-01-01 2018-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176693Member 2019-01-01 2019-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176693Member 2020-01-01 2020-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176693Member 2021-01-01 2021-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176693Member 2022-01-01 2022-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176693Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176693Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176693Member 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202453Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202453Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202453Member 2018-07-16 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176693Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176693Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176693Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176693Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176693Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176693Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2017-03-20 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:index_ICE_BofA_US_Broad_Market_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxes0Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:index_ICE_BofA_US_Broad_Market_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxes0Member 2019-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:index_ICE_BofA_US_Broad_Market_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxes0Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000202453Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Multi_Strategy_Alternatives_FundMember ck0001688680:C000176693Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member ck0001688680:C000226066Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member ck0001688680:C000226067Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskNotInsuredMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 oef:RiskLoseMoneyMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:EquitySecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SmallCapSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:MidCapSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ForeignAndEmergingMarketsSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:FixedIncomeMarketRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:ManagementRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:USGovernmentSecuritiesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InvestmentCompanyAndExchangeTradedFundsETFsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DerivativesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:StructuredNotesRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:InterestRateRisk1Member ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:DepositaryReceiptsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:CurrencyRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:RealEstateInvestmentTrustREITsRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:HedgingRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:LiquidityRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:SecuritiesLendingRiskMember ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:S000071226Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:C000226066Member 2022-01-01 2022-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:C000226066Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:C000226066Member 2021-10-26 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:C000226067Member 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:C000226067Member 2021-11-03 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:C000226067Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:C000226067Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsMember 2021-11-03 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:C000226067Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:C000226067Member oef:AfterTaxesOnDistributionsAndSalesMember 2021-11-03 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:index_Russell_1000_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2023-01-01 2023-12-31 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:index_Russell_1000_Index_reflects_no_deduction_for_fees_expenses_or_taxesMember 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:C000226067Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 0001688680 ck0001688680:doc_Destinations_Shelter_FundMember ck0001688680:C000226066Member 2024-02-29 2024-02-29 xbrli:pure iso4217:USD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
July 1, 2024
BRINKER CAPITAL
DESTINATIONS TRUST
Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund
Class I Shares (DLCFX)
Class Z Shares (DLCZX)
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
Class I Shares (DSMFX)
Class Z Shares (DSMZX)
Destinations International Equity Fund
Class I Shares (DIEFX)
Class Z Shares (DIEZX)
Destinations Equity Income Fund
Class I Shares (DGEFX)
Class Z Shares (DGEZX)
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
Class I Shares (DCFFX)
Class Z Shares (DCFZX)
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
Class I Shares (DLDFX)
Class Z Shares (DLDZX)
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
Class I Shares (DGFFX)
Class Z Shares (DGFZX)
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund
Class I Shares (DMFFX)
Class Z Shares (DMFZX)
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
Class I Shares (DMSFX)
Class Z Shares (DMSZX)
Destinations Shelter Fund
Class I Shares (DSHFX)
Class Z Shares (DSHZX)
This Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) is not a prospectus. The SAI supplements the information contained in the current prospectus (“Prospectus”) of Brinker Capital Destinations Trust (the “Trust”), dated July 1, 2024, and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus. The most recent Annual Report for the Funds, which includes the Funds’ audited financial statements dated February 29, 2024, is incorporated by reference into this SAI. Shareholders may obtain copies of the Prospectus or Funds’ annual or semi-annual report upon request and free of charge by writing or calling the Funds at P.O. Box 2175, Milwaukee, WI 53201 or 1-877-771-7979 or on the Internet at: www.destinationsfunds.com. You will be notified by mail each time the Funds’ annual or semi-annual report is posted on the Funds’ website and provided with a link to access the report online.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS
1
1
Capitalized terms used but not defined in this SAI have the meanings accorded to them in the Prospectus.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE TRUST
Brinker Capital Destinations Trust (the “Trust”) was organized as a Delaware statutory trust under the laws of The State of Delaware on October 10, 2016. The Trust is a series company that currently consists of ten funds (individually, a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”). Each Fund is a separate series of the Trust, an open-end registered management investment company. Each Fund currently offers two classes of shares designated as Class I shares and Class Z shares.
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES, MANAGEMENT POLICIES
AND RISK FACTORS
Each Fund is diversified, which means that, with respect to 75% of its total assets, the Fund will not invest more than 5% of its assets in the securities of any single issuer, nor hold more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any single issuer (other than, in each case, securities of other investment companies, and securities issued or guaranteed by the U. S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities). The Prospectus discusses the investment objectives of the Funds, which are separate series of the Trust, and the policies to be employed to achieve those objectives. Supplemental information is set out below concerning the types of securities and other instruments in which the Funds may invest, the investment policies and strategies that the Funds may utilize and certain risks attendant to those investments, policies and strategies. The Funds may rely upon the independent advice of its respective Sub-advisers (each a “Sub-adviser,” collectively, the “Sub-advisers”) to evaluate potential investments.
Asset-Backed Securities (“ABS”)
ABS are securities backed by non-mortgage assets such as company receivables, truck and auto loans, leases and credit card receivables. Other types of ABS may be created in the future. ABS are generally issued as pass-through certificates, which represent undivided fractional ownership interests in the underlying pools of assets. ABS may also be debt instruments, which are also known as collateralized obligations and are generally issued as the debt of a special purpose entity, such as a trust, organized solely for the purpose of owning such assets and issuing debt obligations.
ABS may be traded over-the-counter and typically have a short-intermediate maturity structure depending on the paydown characteristics of the underlying financial assets which are passed through to the security holder. ABS are not issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, its agencies or instrumentalities; however, the payment of principal and interest on such obligations may be guaranteed up to certain amounts and, for a certain period, by a letter of credit issued by a financial institution (such as a bank or insurance company) unaffiliated with the issuers of such securities. The purchase of ABS raises risk considerations peculiar to the financing of the instruments underlying such securities.
For example, there is a risk that another party could acquire an interest in the obligations superior to that of the holders of the ABS. There also is the possibility that recoveries on repossessed collateral may not, in some cases, be available to support payments on those securities.
ABS may enhance the Funds’ performance; however, investing in ABS involves certain risks beyond those found in other types of mutual fund investments. For the avoidance of doubt, the Funds may invest in excess of these credit and holding limitations.
Collateralized Debt Obligations.   The Funds invest in collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”), which include collateralized bond obligations (“CBOs”), collateralized loan obligations (“CLOs”) and other similarly structured securities. CBOs and CLOs are types of ABS. A CBO is a trust which is backed by a diversified pool of high risk, below investment grade fixed income securities. A CLO is a trust typically collateralized by a pool of loans, which may include, among others, domestic and foreign senior secured loans, senior unsecured loans, and subordinate corporate loans, including loans that may be rated below investment grade or equivalent unrated loans.
For both CBOs and CLOs, the cash flows from the trust are split into two or more portions, called tranches, varying in risk and yield. The riskiest portion is the “equity” tranche that bears the bulk of defaults from the bonds or loans in the trust and serves to protect the other, more senior tranches from default in all but the most severe circumstances. Since they are partially protected from defaults, senior tranches from a CBO trust or CLO trust or trust of another CDO typically have higher ratings and lower yields than its underlying securities and can be rated investment grade. Despite the protection from the equity tranche, CBO, CLO or other CDO tranches can experience substantial losses due to actual defaults, increased sensitivity to defaults due to collateral default and disappearance of protecting tranches, market anticipation of defaults, as well as aversion to CBO, CLO or other CDO securities as a class.
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
The risks of an investment in a CBO, CLO or other CDO depend largely on the type of the collateral securities and the class of the instrument in which a Fund invests. Normally, CBOs, CLOs and other CDOs are privately offered and sold, and thus, are not registered under the securities laws. As a result, investments in CBOs, CLOs or other CDOs may be characterized by the Funds as illiquid securities; however, an active dealer market may exist for CBOs, CLOs or other CDOs allowing them to qualify for Rule 144A transactions. In addition to the normal risks associated with fixed income securities discussed elsewhere in this SAI and the Prospectus (e.g., interest rate risk and default risk), CBOs, CLOs or other CDOs carry additional risks including, but not limited to: (i) the possibility that distributions from collateral securities will not be adequate to make interest or other payments; (ii) the quality of the collateral may decline in value or default; (iii) the Funds may invest in CBOs, CLOs or other CDOs that are subordinate to other classes; and (iv) the complex structure of the security may not be fully understood at the time of investment and may produce disputes with the issuer or unexpected investment results.
Bank Capital Securities
Certain Funds may invest in bank capital securities of both non-U.S. (foreign) and U.S. issuers. Bank capital securities may be issued by banks to help fulfill their regulatory capital requirements. Bank capital securities may be of any credit quality. Bank capital securities may include, among other investments, fixed-maturity dated subordinated notes; hybrid securities with characteristics of both debt obligations and preferred stocks; perpetual callable securities with no maturity date and a cumulative interest deferral feature, which permits the issuer bank to withhold payment of interest until a later undetermined date; and convertible debt securities that can be converted at the issuer’s option to equity securities. Investments in bank capital securities are subject to the risks of other debt investments, such as default and non-payment, as well as certain other risks, such as the risk that bank regulators may force the bank to dissolve, merge, restructure its capitalization or take other actions intended to prevent its failure or ensure its orderly resolution. Bank regulators in certain jurisdictions have broad authorities they may use to prevent the failure of banking institutions or to stabilize the banking industry, all of which may adversely affect the values of investments in bank capital securities and other bank obligations, including those of other banks.
Certain Funds may invest in contingent securities structured as contingent convertible securities (also known as “CoCos”), which are typically issued by non-U.S. banks and are designed to behave like bonds in times of economic health yet absorb losses when a pre-determined trigger event occurs. A contingent convertible security is a hybrid debt security either convertible into equity at a predetermined share price or written down in value based on the specific terms of the individual security if a pre-specified trigger event occurs. Unlike traditional convertible securities, the conversion of a contingent convertible security from debt to equity is “contingent” and will occur only in the case of a trigger event. Trigger events vary by instrument and are defined by the documents governing the contingent convertible security. Such trigger events may include a decline in the issuer’s capital below a specified threshold level, increase in the issuer’s risk weighted assets, the share price of the issuer falling to a particular level for a certain period of time and certain regulatory events. Contingent convertible securities are subject to the credit, interest rate, high yield security, foreign security and market risks associated with bonds and equities, and to the risks specific to convertible securities in general. Contingent convertible securities are also subject to additional risks specific to their structure including conversion risk.
Bank Loans Risk
Commercial banks and other financial institutions or institutional investors make corporate loans to companies that need capital to grow or restructure. Borrowers generally pay interest on corporate loans at rates that change in response to changes in standardized market interest rates or the prime rates of U.S. banks. As a result, the value of corporate loan investments is generally less exposed to the adverse effects of shifts in market interest rates than investments that pay a fixed rate of interest. The market for corporate loans may be subject to irregular trading activity and wide bid/ask spreads. In addition, transactions in corporate loans may settle on a delayed basis. As a result, the proceeds from the sale of corporate loans may not be readily available to make additional investments or to meet a Fund’s redemption obligations. To the extent the extended settlement process gives rise to short-term liquidity needs, a Fund may hold additional cash, sell investments or temporarily borrow from banks and other lenders. The corporate loans in which a Fund invests are usually rated below investment grade.
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Issues
Some of the companies in which a Fund invests may be involved in complex bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings in the United States or elsewhere. There are a number of significant risks inherent in the bankruptcy or insolvency process. A Fund cannot guarantee the outcome of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding.
Under U.S. bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings, a Fund may risk taking a loss on its investment and having its claim released or discharged against the debtor and third parties. For example, under a plan of reorganization, a Fund could receive
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
a cash distribution for less than its initial investment or receive securities or other financial instruments in exchange for its claims, which then could be discharged and released against the debtor or other third parties. In addition, through U.S. bankruptcy proceedings, a debtor can effectuate a sale of assets with a purchaser acquiring such assets free and clear of any claims or liens underlying a Fund’s investment, with the Fund having only potential recourse to the proceeds of the sale.
Under certain circumstances, payments or grants of security to a Fund may be reclaimed, recharacterized or avoided if any such payment or grant is later determined by the applicable court to have been a fraudulent conveyance, fraudulent transfer, preferential payment or otherwise subject to avoidance under applicable law. In addition, especially in the case of investments made prior to the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings, creditors can lose their ranking and priority if they exercise “domination and control” of a debtor and other creditors can demonstrate that they have been harmed by such actions.
Many events in a bankruptcy are often beyond the control of the creditors. While creditors may be given an opportunity to object to or otherwise participate in significant actions, there can be no assurance that a court in the exercise of its broad powers or discretion would not approve actions that would be contrary to the interests of a Fund.
The duration of a bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding is difficult to predict. A creditor’s return on investment can be adversely impacted by delays while a plan of reorganization is being negotiated, approved by the creditors and confirmed by the bankruptcy court and until the plan ultimately becomes effective. Similar delays can occur while a court considers a sale or other restructuring transaction. In addition, the administrative costs in connection with a bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding are frequently high and will be paid out of the debtor’s estate prior to any return to unsecured creditors or equity holders. If a proceeding involves protracted or difficult litigation, or turns into a liquidation, substantial assets may be devoted to administrative costs. Also, in the early stages of the bankruptcy process, it is often difficult to estimate the extent of, or even to identify, any contingent claims that might be made. Further, certain claims that have priority by law (for example, claims for taxes) may be quite substantial.
The effect of a bankruptcy filing on or by a portfolio company may adversely and permanently affect the portfolio company. The portfolio company may lose its market position, going concern value and key employees and otherwise become incapable of restoring itself as a viable entity. If the proceeding is converted to a liquidation, the liquidation value of the portfolio company may not equal the liquidation value that was believed to exist at the time of the investment.
Borrowing
The Funds may borrow to the extent permitted under its investment restrictions and such borrowing may create leverage. Leverage increases investment risk as well as investment opportunity. If the income and investment gains on securities purchased with borrowed money exceed the interest paid on the borrowing, the NAV of the Funds’ shares will rise faster than would otherwise be the case. On the other hand, if the income and investment gains fail to cover the cost, including interest, of the borrowings, or if there are losses, the NAV of the Funds’ shares will decrease faster than otherwise would be the case. The Funds may borrow money to the extent permitted under the 1940 Act. This means that, in general, the Funds may borrow money from banks for (i) any purpose on a secured basis in an amount up to 1/3 of the Funds’ total assets, or (ii) temporary administrative purposes on an unsecured basis in an amount not to exceed 5% of the Funds’ total assets.
Commercial Paper
Commercial paper consists of short-term, promissory notes issued by banks, corporations and other entities to finance short-term credit needs. These securities generally are discounted but sometimes may be interest bearing. Commercial paper, which also may be unsecured, is subject to credit risk.
Current Market Conditions Risk
Current market conditions risk is the risk that a particular investment, or shares of the Funds in general, may fall in value due to current market conditions. As a means to fight inflation, which remains at elevated levels, the Federal Reserve and certain foreign central banks have raised interest rates and expect to continue to do so, and the Federal Reserve has announced that it intends to reverse previously implemented quantitative easing. U.S. regulators have proposed several changes to market and issuer regulations that could directly impact the Funds, and any regulatory changes could adversely impact the Funds’ ability to achieve its investment strategies or make certain investments. Recent and potential future bank failures could result in disruption to the broader banking industry or markets generally and reduce confidence in financial institutions and the economy as a whole, which may also heighten market volatility and reduce liquidity. The ongoing adversarial political climate in the United States, as well as political and diplomatic events both domestic and abroad, have and may continue to have an adverse impact on the U.S. regulatory landscape, markets and investor behavior, which could have a negative impact on the
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Fund’s investments and operations. Other unexpected political, regulatory and diplomatic events within the U.S. and abroad may affect investor and consumer confidence and may adversely impact financial markets and the broader economy. For example, ongoing armed conflicts between Russia and Ukraine in Europe and among Israel, Hamas and other militant groups in the Middle East, have caused and could continue to cause significant market disruptions and volatility within the markets in Russia, Europe, the Middle East and the United States. The hostilities and sanctions resulting from those hostilities have and could continue to have a significant impact on certain Fund investments as well as Fund performance and liquidity. The economies of the United States and its trading partners, as well as the financial markets generally, may be adversely impacted by trade disputes and other matters. If geopolitical conflicts develop or worsen, economies, markets and individual securities may be adversely affected, and the value of the Funds’ assets may go down. The COVID-19 global pandemic, or any future public health crisis, and the ensuing policies enacted by governments and central banks have caused and may continue to cause significant volatility and uncertainty in global financial markets, negatively impacting global growth prospects. While vaccines have been developed, there is no guarantee that vaccines will be effective against emerging future variants of the disease. As this global pandemic illustrated, such events may affect certain geographic regions, countries, sectors and industries more significantly than others. Advancements in technology may also adversely impact markets and the overall performance of the Funds. For instance, the economy may be significantly impacted by the advanced development and increased regulation of artificial intelligence. These events, and any other future events, may adversely affect the prices and liquidity of the Funds’ portfolio investments and could result in disruptions in the trading markets.
Currency Transactions
Currency Exchange Rates.   A Fund’s share value may change significantly when the currencies, other than the U.S. dollar, in which that Fund’s investments are quoted or denominated, strengthen or weaken against the U.S. dollar. Currency exchange rates generally are determined by the forces of supply and demand in the foreign exchange markets and the relative merits of investments in different countries as seen from an international perspective. Currency exchange rates can also be affected unpredictably by intervention by U.S. or foreign governments or central banks or by currency controls or political developments in the U.S. or abroad.
Currency Risks.   The value of the securities quoted or denominated in international currencies may be adversely affected by fluctuations in the relative currency exchange rates and by exchange control regulations. A Fund’s investment performance may be negatively affected by a devaluation of a currency in which the Fund’s investments are quoted or denominated. Further, a Fund’s investment performance may be significantly affected, either positively or negatively, by currency exchange rates because the U.S. dollar value of securities quoted or denominated in another currency will increase or decrease in response to changes in the value of such currency in relation to the U.S. dollar.
Cyber Security
As with any entity that conducts business through electronic means in the modern marketplace, the Funds, and their service providers, may be susceptible to operational and information security risks resulting from cyber-attacks. Cyber-attacks include, among other behaviors, stealing or corrupting data maintained online or digitally, denial of service attacks on websites, the unauthorized monitoring, release, misuse, loss, destruction or corruption of confidential information, unauthorized access to relevant systems, compromises to networks or devices that the Funds and their service providers use to service the Funds’ operations, operational disruption or failures in the physical infrastructure or operating systems that support the Funds and their service providers, or various other forms of cyber security breaches. Cyber-attacks affecting the Funds, Orion Portfolio Solutions LLC d.b.a. Brinker Capital Investments, the Funds’ investment adviser (the “Adviser”) or any of the Sub-advisers, the Funds’ distributor, custodian, transfer agent, or any other of the Funds’ intermediaries or service providers may adversely impact the Funds and their shareholders, potentially resulting in, among other things, financial losses or the inability of Fund shareholders to transact business. For instance, cyber-attacks may interfere with the processing of shareholder transactions, impact the Funds’ ability to calculate their NAVs, cause the release of private shareholder information or confidential business information, impede trading, subject the Funds to regulatory fines or financial losses and/or cause reputational damage. The Funds may also incur additional costs for cyber security risk management purposes designed to mitigate or prevent the risk of cyber- attacks. Such costs may be ongoing because threats of cyber-attacks are constantly evolving as cyber-attackers become more sophisticated and their techniques become more complex. Similar types of cyber security risks are also present for issuers of securities in which a Fund may invest, which could result in material adverse consequences for such issuers and may cause the Funds’ investment in such companies to lose value. There can be no assurance that the Funds, the Funds’ service providers, or the issuers of the securities in which the Funds invest will not suffer losses relating to cyber-attacks or other information security breaches in the future.
4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Debt Securities
Debt securities may be subject to credit risk, interest rate risk, prepayment and extension risk as well as call risk. Credit risk is the failure of an issuer or borrower to make timely interest or principal payments, or a decline or perception of a decline in the credit quality of a bond or creditworthiness of a borrower, which can cause the security’s price to fall, potentially lowering the applicable Fund’s share price. Credit spread risk is the risk that economic and market conditions or any actual or perceived credit deterioration may lead to an increase in the credit spreads (i.e., the difference in yield between two securities of similar maturity but different credit quality) and a decline in price of the issuer’s securities. Prices of bonds and senior loans tend to move inversely with changes in interest rates. Typically, a rise in rates will adversely affect bond and senior loans prices and, accordingly, a Fund’s share price. The longer a debt security’s effective maturity and duration, the more its price is likely to react to interest rates. Interest rate changes normally have different effects on variable or floating rate securities than they do on securities with fixed interest rates. When interest rates fall, debt securities may be repaid more quickly than expected and an investing Fund may be required to reinvest the proceeds at a lower interest rate. This is referred to as “prepayment risk.” When interest rates rise, debt securities may be repaid more slowly than expected and the value of the Fund’s holdings may fall sharply. This is referred to as “extension risk.” If an issuer “calls” its bond before its maturity date during a time of declining interest rates, the Fund might have to reinvest the proceeds in an investment offering a lower yield. A Fund may face a heightened level of interest rate risk during periods when the Federal Reserve raises interest rates.
Senior Loans
Senior loans are business loans made to borrowers that may be corporations, partnerships or other entities. These borrowers operate in a variety of industries and across geographic regions. Investing in senior loans involves investment risk and some borrowers default on their senior loan repayments. The risks associated with senior loans are similar to the risks of junk bonds, although senior loans typically are senior and secured, whereas junk bonds often are subordinated and unsecured. Investments in senior loans typically are below investment grade and are considered speculative because of the credit risks of their borrowers. Such borrowers are more likely to default on their payments of interest and principal owed, and such defaults could reduce a Fund’s net asset value and income distributions. An economic downturn generally leads to a higher non- payment rate, and a senior loan may lose significant value before a default occurs. No active trading market may exist for certain senior loans, which may impair the ability of an investing Fund to realize full value in the event of the need to sell a senior loan and which may make it difficult to value senior loans. Adverse market conditions may impair the liquidity of some actively traded senior loans. To the extent that a secondary market does exist for certain senior loans, the market may be subject to irregular trading activity, wide bid/ask spreads and extended trade settlement periods.
Senior loans are subject to the risk that when sold, such sale may not settle in a timely manner, resulting in a settlement date that may be much later than the trade date. Delayed settlement interferes with a Fund’s ability to realize the proceeds of senior loan sales in a timely way. There is no assurance that the liquidation of the collateral would satisfy the claims of the borrower’s obligations in the event of the non-payment of scheduled interest or principal, or that the collateral could be readily liquidated. Senior loans may not be deemed to be securities and, in such case, may not be afforded the anti-fraud protections of the Federal securities laws in the event of fraud or misrepresentation by a borrower.
Equity Securities
The equity oriented Funds may invest in all types of equity securities, including exchange-traded and over-the-counter common and preferred stocks, warrants, rights, convertible securities, depositary receipts and shares, trust certificates, limited partnership interests, shares of other investment companies, real estate investment trusts and equity participations.
Common Stock.   Common stock is an interest in a company, limited liability company, or similar entity that entitles the holder to a share in the profits of the company, in the form of dividends, and the proceeds from a sale or liquidation of the company.
The interests of common shareholders are the most junior in a corporate structure. This means that in the event of the bankruptcy of the company its creditors and any holders of a preferred class of equity securities are paid before the common stockholders are entitled to receive anything. However, any assets of the company in excess of the amount owed to creditors or preferred stockholders are shared pro-rata among the common stockholders. Common stockholders normally have voting control of the company and are entitled to vote on the election of directors and certain fundamental corporate actions.
Convertible Securities.   Convertible securities are preferred stocks or fixed income securities that are convertible at the option of the holder, or in some circumstances at the option of the issuing company, at a stated exchange rate or formula into
5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
the company’s common stock or other equity securities. At the time a company sells the convertible securities, the conversion price is normally higher than the market price of the common stock.
A holder of convertible securities will generally receive interest or dividends at a rate lower than comparable debt securities, but the holder has the potential for additional gain if the market value of the common stock exceeds the conversion price. When the market price of the common stock is below the conversion price, convertible securities tend to trade like fixed income securities. If the market price of the common stock is higher than the conversion price, convertible securities tend to trade like the common stock. Convertible securities rank senior to common stocks in an issuer’s capital structure and consequently may be of higher quality and entail less risk than the issuer’s common stock. The price of a convertible security will normally vary in some proportion to changes in the price of the underlying common stock because of its conversion or exercise feature. However, the value of a convertible security may not increase or decrease as rapidly as the underlying common stock. A convertible security normally also will provide income and is subject to interest rate risk. Convertible securities may be lower-rated securities and are subject to greater levels of credit risk. A Fund may be forced to convert a security before it would otherwise choose which may have an adverse effect on the Fund’s ability to achieve its investment objective.
Investing in Small and Medium Capitalization Companies.   Investing in the equity securities of small and medium capitalization companies involves additional risks compared to investing in large capitalization companies. Compared to large companies, these companies may have more limited product lines and capital resources; have less established markets for their products; have earnings that are more sensitive to changes in the economy, competition and technology; and be more dependent upon key members of management. The market value of the common stock of small and medium capitalization companies may be more volatile, particularly in response to company announcements or industry events, have less active trading markets and be harder to sell at the time and prices that a Sub-adviser considers appropriate.
Initial Public Offerings (“IPOs”).   Certain Funds may purchase securities of companies that are offered pursuant to an IPO. An IPO is a company’s first offering of stock to the public in the primary market, typically to raise additional capital. Like all equity securities, IPO securities are subject to market risk and liquidity risk, but those risks may be heightened for IPO securities. The market value of IPO securities may fluctuate considerably due to factors such as the absence of a prior public market for the security, unseasoned trading of the security, the small number of shares available for trading, limited information about the issuer, and aberrational trading activity and market interest surrounding the IPO. There is also the possibility of losses resulting from the difference between the issue price and potential diminished value of the security once it is traded in the secondary market. In addition, the purchase of IPO securities may involve high transaction costs. The Funds’ investment in IPO securities may have a significant positive or negative impact on the Funds’ performance and may result in significant capital gains.
Non-Publicly Traded Securities.   The Funds may invest in non-publicly traded securities, which may be less liquid than publicly traded securities. Although these securities may be resold in privately negotiated transactions, the prices realized from these sales could be less than those originally paid by a Fund. In addition, companies whose securities are not publicly traded are not subject to the disclosure and other investor protection requirements that may be applicable if their securities were publicly traded.
Preferred Stocks.   Preferred stocks are equity securities, but they have many characteristics of fixed income securities. Their similarities to fixed income securities generally cause preferred stocks to trade more like debt instruments than common stocks. Thus, the value of preferred stocks reflects the credit risk of the company and the dividend yield on the preferred stocks compared to prevailing interest rates. Preferred stocks are entitled to receive dividends before any dividend is paid to the holders of common stock. The dividend may be at a fixed or variable dividend payment rate, may be payable on fixed dates or at times determined by the company and may be payable in cash, additional shares of preferred stock or other securities. Many preferred stocks are redeemable at the option of the company after a certain date. Holders of preferred stock are also entitled to receive a payment upon the sale or liquidation of a company before any payment is made to the company’s common stockholders. However, preferred stock is an equity security and, therefore, is junior in priority of payment to the company’s creditors in the event of a bankruptcy, including holders of the company’s debt securities. This junior ranking to creditors makes preferred stock riskier than fixed income securities.
Warrants and Stock Purchase Rights.   Warrants and stock purchase rights are securities permitting, but not obligating, their holder to purchase other securities, normally the issuer’s common stock. Stock purchase rights are frequently issued as a dividend to a company’s stockholders and represent the right to purchase a fixed number of shares at a fixed or formula price. The price may reflect a discount to the market price. Warrants are generally sold by a company or issuer together with fixed
6

TABLE OF CONTENTS
income securities and represent the right to a fixed number of shares of common stock or other securities at a fixed or formula price. The exercise price is normally higher than the market price at the time the company sells the warrant.
Warrants and stock purchase rights do not carry with them the right to receive dividends on or to vote the securities that they entitle their holders to purchase. They also do not entitle the holder to share in the assets of the company during the company’s liquidation. The rights to purchase common stock or other securities conferred by a warrant or stock purchase right may only be exercised on specific dates or for a specific period. Trading in these instruments is affected both by the relationship of the exercise price to the current market price of the common stock or other securities and also by the period remaining until the right or warrant expires. An investment in warrants and stock purchase rights may be considered more speculative than other types of equity investments. A warrant or stock purchase right expires worthless if it is not exercised on or prior to its expiration date.
Fixed Income Securities
The market value of the obligations held by the Funds can be expected to vary inversely to changes in prevailing interest rates. Investors also should recognize that, in periods of declining interest rates, a Fund’s yield will tend to be somewhat higher than prevailing market rates and, in periods of rising interest rates a Fund’s yield will tend to be somewhat lower. Also, when interest rates are falling, the inflow of net new money to the Funds from the continuous sale of their shares will tend to be invested in instruments producing lower yields than the balance of their portfolios, thereby reducing a Fund’s current yield. In periods of rising interest rates, the opposite can be expected to occur. In addition, securities in which the Funds may invest may not yield as high a level of current income as might be achieved by investing in securities with less liquidity, less creditworthiness or longer maturities. Declines in dealer market-making capacity as a result of structural or regulatory changes could decrease liquidity and/or increase volatility in the fixed income markets.
Certain of the Funds may invest in U.S. government securities, its agencies or government-sponsored enterprises (Note that securities issued by U.S. Government agencies or government-sponsored enterprises may not be guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury), corporate debt securities of U.S. and Non-U.S. issuers, including convertible securities and corporate commercial paper, mortgage-backed and other ABS, inflation-indexed bonds issued by both governments and corporations, structured notes, including hybrid or “indexed” securities, loan participations and assignments, delayed funding loans and revolving credit facilities, bank certificates of deposit, fixed time deposits and bankers’ acceptances, repurchase agreements on fixed income instruments and reverse repurchase agreements on fixed income instruments, debt securities issued by states or local governments and their agencies, authorities and other government-sponsored enterprises, and obligations of international agencies or supranational entities.
Brady Bonds.   “Brady Bonds” is a term used to refer to fixed income instruments that are issued as part of a debt restructuring in which the bonds are issued in exchange for cash and certain of the country’s outstanding commercial bank loans. Investors should recognize that Brady Bonds do not have a long payment history. Brady Bonds may be collateralized or uncollateralized, are issued in various currencies (primarily the U.S. dollar) and are actively traded in the over-the-counter secondary market for debt of Latin American issuers. In light of the history of commercial bank loan defaults by Latin American public and private entities, investments in Brady Bonds may be viewed as speculative and subject to, among other things, the risk of default.
Dollar-denominated, collateralized Brady Bonds, which may be fixed rate par bonds or floating rate discount bonds, are collateralized in full as to principal by U.S. Treasury zero coupon bonds having the same maturity as the bonds. Interest payments on these Brady Bonds generally are collateralized by cash or securities in the amount that, in the case of fixed rate bonds, is equal to at least one year of rolling interest payments or, in the case of floating rate bonds, initially is equal to at least one year’s rolling interest payments based on the applicable interest rate at that time and is adjusted at regular intervals thereafter.
Brady Bonds are often viewed as having three or four valuation components: the collateralized repayment of principal at final maturity; the collateralized interest payments; the uncollateralized interest payments; and any uncollateralized repayment of principal at maturity (these uncollateralized amounts constituting the “residual risk”).
Corporate Debt Securities.   Corporate debt securities are subject to the risk of the issuer’s inability to meet principal and interest payments on the obligation and may also be subject to price volatility due to such factors as interest rate sensitivity, market perception of the creditworthiness of the issuer and general market liquidity. When interest rates rise, the value of corporate debt securities can be expected to decline. Debt securities with longer maturities tend to be more sensitive to interest rate movements than those with shorter maturities.
7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A Fund’s investments in U.S. dollar or foreign currency-denominated corporate debt securities of domestic or foreign issuers are limited to corporate debt securities (corporate bonds, debentures, notes and other similar corporate debt instruments, including convertible securities) which meet the minimum ratings criteria set forth for the Funds, or, if unrated, are in the Sub-adviser’s opinion comparable in quality to corporate debt securities in which the Funds may invest.
Corporate income-producing securities may include forms of preferred or preference stock. The rate of interest on a corporate debt security may be fixed, floating or variable, and may vary inversely with respect to a reference rate. The rate of return or return of principal on some debt obligations may be linked or indexed to the level of exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and a foreign currency or currencies. Debt securities may be acquired with warrants attached.
Securities rated Baa and BBB are the lowest which are considered “investment grade” obligations. Moody’s describes securities rated Baa as “medium-grade” obligations; they are “neither highly protected nor poorly secured ... [i]nterest payments and principal security appear adequate for the present but certain protective elements may be lacking or may be characteristically unreliable over any great length of time. Such bonds lack outstanding investment characteristics and in fact have speculative characteristics as well.” S&P describes securities rated BBB as “regarded as having an adequate capacity to pay interest and repay principal ... [w]hereas it normally exhibits adequate protection parameters, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity to pay interest and repay principal... than in higher rated categories.”
Debt Securities Rating Criteria.   Investment grade debt securities are those rated “BBB” or higher by the Standard & Poor’s Ratings Group (“S&P”), “Baa” or higher by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”), the equivalent rating of other nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (“NRSROs”) or determined to be of equivalent credit quality by the Sub-adviser. Debt securities rated BBB are considered medium grade obligations. Adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances may weaken the issuer’s ability to pay interest and repay principal.
Below investment grade debt securities are those rated “BB” and below by S&P, Moody’s or the equivalent rating of other NRSROs. Below investment grade debt securities or comparable unrated securities are commonly referred to as “junk bonds” and are considered predominantly speculative and may be questionable as to capacity to make principal and interest payments. Changes in economic conditions are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity to make principal payments and interest payments. The amount of junk bond securities outstanding has proliferated as an increasing number of issuers have used junk bonds for corporate financing. An economic downturn could severely affect the ability of highly leveraged issuers to service their debt obligations or to repay their obligations upon maturity. Factors having an adverse impact on the market value of lower quality securities will have an adverse effect on a Fund’s NAV to the extent it invests in such securities. In addition, the Fund may incur additional expenses to the extent they are required to seek recovery upon a default in payment of principal or interest on their portfolio holdings.
The secondary market for junk bond securities, which is concentrated in relatively few market makers, may not be as liquid as the secondary market for more highly rated securities, a factor which may have an adverse effect on a Fund’s ability to dispose of a particular security when necessary to meet its liquidity needs. Under adverse market or economic conditions, the secondary market for junk bond securities could contract further, independent of any specific adverse changes in the condition of a particular issuer. As a result, a Fund could find it more difficult to sell these securities or may be able to sell the securities only at prices lower than if such securities were widely traded. Prices realized upon the sale of such lower rated or unrated securities, under these circumstances, may be less than the prices used in calculating a Fund’s NAV.
Since investors generally perceive that there are greater risks associated with lower quality debt securities of the type in which a Fund may invest a portion of its assets, the yields and prices of such securities may tend to fluctuate more than those for higher rated securities. In the lower quality segments of the debt securities market, changes in perceptions of issuers’ creditworthiness tend to occur more frequently and in a more pronounced manner than do changes in higher quality segments of the debt securities market, resulting in greater yield and price volatility.
Lower rated and comparable unrated debt securities tend to offer higher yields than higher rated securities with the same maturities because the historical financial condition of the issuers of such securities may not have been as strong as that of other issuers. However, lower rated securities generally involve greater risks of loss of income and principal than higher rated securities. The Sub-advisers will attempt to reduce these risks through portfolio diversification and by analysis of each issuer and its ability to make timely payments of income and principal, as well as broad economic trends and corporate developments.
The definitions of the ratings of debt obligations may be found in Appendix A following this SAI.
8

TABLE OF CONTENTS
High Yield Securities.   The Funds may invest in medium or lower rated securities and unrated securities of comparable quality, sometimes referred to as “junk bonds.” Generally, such securities offer a higher current yield than is offered by higher rated securities, but also (i) will likely have some quality and protective characteristics that, in the judgment of the rating organizations, are outweighed by large uncertainties or major risk exposures to adverse conditions and (ii) are predominantly speculative with respect to the issuer’s capacity to pay interest and repay principal in accordance with the terms of the obligations.
The market values of certain of these securities also tend to be more sensitive to individual corporate developments and changes in economic conditions than higher quality bonds. In addition, medium and lower rated securities and comparable unrated securities generally present a higher degree of credit risk. The risk of loss because of default by these issuers is significantly greater because medium and lower rated securities generally are unsecured and frequently subordinated to the prior payment of senior indebtedness. In light of these risks, the Board has instructed the Sub- advisers, in evaluating the creditworthiness of an issue, whether rated or unrated, to take various factors into consideration, which may include, as applicable, the issuer’s financial resources, its sensitivity to economic conditions and trends, the operating history of and the community support for the facility financed by the issue, and the ability of the issuer’s management and regulatory matters.
In addition, the market value of securities in lower rated categories is more volatile than that of higher quality securities, and the markets in which medium and lower rated securities are traded are more limited than those in which higher rated securities are traded. The existence of limited markets may make it more difficult for a Fund to obtain accurate market quotations for purposes of valuing its securities and calculating its NAV. Moreover, the lack of a liquid trading market may restrict the availability of securities for the Funds to purchase and may also have the effect of limiting the ability of the Funds to sell securities at their fair value either to meet redemption requests or to respond to changes in the economy or the financial markets.
Lower rated debt obligations also present risks based on payment expectations. If an issuer calls the obligation for redemption, a Fund may have to replace the security with a lower yielding security, resulting in a decreased return for investors. Also, the principal value of bonds moves inversely with movements in interest rates; in the event of rising interest rates, the value of the securities held by the Funds may decline more than a portfolio consisting of higher rated securities. If the Funds experience unexpected net redemptions, it may be forced to sell its higher rated bonds, resulting in a decline in the overall credit quality of the securities held by the Funds and increasing the exposure of the Funds to the risks of lower rated securities. Investments in zero coupon bonds may be more speculative and subject to greater fluctuations in value because of changes in interest rates than bonds that pay interest currently.
Subsequent to its purchase by a Fund, an issue of securities may cease to be rated or its rating may be reduced below the minimum required for purchase by the Funds. Neither event will require sale of these securities by the Funds, but the Sub-adviser will consider the event in determining whether the Funds should continue to hold the security.
Loan Participations.   The Funds may invest in fixed and floating rate loans (“Loans”) arranged through private negotiations between a borrowing corporation, government or other entity (“Borrower”) and one or more financial institutions (“Lenders”) in the form of participations in Loans (“Participations”). Participations typically will result in the Funds having a contractual relationship only with the Lender, not with the Borrower. A Fund will have the right to receive payments of principal, interest and any fees to which it is entitled only from the Lender selling the Participation and only upon receipt by the Lender of the payments from the Borrower. In connection with purchasing Participations, a Fund generally will have no right to enforce compliance by the Borrower with the terms of the loan agreement relating to the Loan, nor any rights of set off against the Borrower, and the Funds may not directly benefit from any collateral supporting the Loan in which it has purchased the Participation. As a result, the Funds will assume the credit risk of both the Borrower and the Lender that is selling the Participation. In the event of the insolvency of the Lender selling a Participation, the Funds may be treated as a general creditor of the Lender and may not benefit from any set off between the Lender and the Borrower. The Funds will acquire Participations only if the Lender is interpositioned between the Funds and the Borrower is determined by the applicable Sub-adviser to be creditworthy.
There are risks involved in investing in Participations. The Funds may have difficulty disposing of them because there is no liquid market for such securities. The lack of a liquid secondary market will have an adverse impact on the value of such securities and on a Fund’s ability to dispose of particular Participations when necessary to meet the Fund’s liquidity needs or in response to a specific economic event, such as a deterioration in the creditworthiness of the Borrower. The lack of a liquid market for Participations also may make it more difficult for a Fund to assign a value to these securities for purposes of valuing its portfolio and calculating its NAV.
9

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ratings as Investment Criteria.   In general, the ratings of an NRSRO such as Moody’s and S&P represent the opinions of those agencies as to the quality of debt obligations that they rate. It should be emphasized, however, that these ratings are relative and subjective, are not absolute standards of quality and do not evaluate the market risk of securities. These ratings will be used by the Funds as initial criteria for the selection of portfolio securities, but the Funds also will rely upon the independent advice of their Sub-advisers to evaluate potential investments. Among the factors that will be considered are the long-term ability of the issuer to pay principal and interest and general economic trends.
Subsequent to its purchase by a Fund, an issue of debt obligations may cease to be rated or its rating may be reduced below the minimum required for purchase by that Fund. Neither event will require the sale of the debt obligation by the Fund, but the Fund’s Sub-advisers will consider the event in their determination of whether the Fund should continue to hold the obligation. In addition, to the extent that the ratings change as a result of changes in rating organizations or their rating systems or owing to a corporate restructuring of an NRSRO, a Fund will attempt to use comparable ratings as standards for its investments in accordance with its investment objectives and policies.
Trust Preferred Securities.   The fixed income oriented Funds may invest in “trust preferred securities,” or “capital notes.” Trust preferred securities or capital notes are convertible preferred shares issued by a trust where proceeds from the sale are used to purchase convertible subordinated debt from the issuer. The convertible subordinated debt is the sole asset of the trust. The coupon from the issuer to the trust exactly mirrors the preferred dividend paid by the trust. Upon conversion by the investors, the trust in turn converts the convertible debentures and passes through the shares to the investors.
Variable and Floating Rate Securities.   The Funds may invest in variable and floating rate securities. Variable and floating rate securities provide for a periodic adjustment in the interest rate paid on the obligations. The terms of such obligations provide that interest rates are adjusted periodically based upon an interest rate adjustment index as provided in the respective obligations. The adjustment intervals may be regular, and range from daily up to annually, or may be event based, such as based on a change in the prime rate.
The Funds may invest in floating rate debt instruments (“floaters”) and engage in credit spread trades. The interest rate on a floater is a variable rate which is tied to another interest rate, such as a money-market index or Treasury bill rate. The interest rate on a floater resets periodically, typically every six months. 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. A credit spread trade is an investment position relating to a difference in the prices or interest rates of two securities or currencies, where the value of the investment position is determined by movements in the difference between the prices or interest rates, as the case may be, of the respective securities or currencies.
The Funds may also invest in inverse floating rate debt instruments (“inverse floaters”). The interest rate on an inverse floater resets in the opposite direction from the market rate of interest to which the inverse floater is indexed. An inverse floating rate security may exhibit greater price volatility than a fixed rate obligation of similar credit quality.
Variable rate demand notes (“VRDNs”) are obligations issued by corporate or governmental entities which contain a floating or variable interest rate adjustment formula and an unconditional right of demand to receive payment of the unpaid principal balance plus accrued interest upon a short notice period not to exceed seven days. The interest rates are adjustable at intervals ranging from daily to up to every six months to some prevailing market rate for similar investments, such adjustment formula being calculated to maintain the market value of the VRDN at approximately the par value of the VRDN upon the adjustment date. The adjustments are typically based upon the prime rate of a bank or some other appropriate interest rate adjustment index.
Master demand notes are notes which provide for a periodic adjustment in the interest rate paid (usually tied to the Treasury bill auction rate) and permit daily changes in the principal amount borrowed. While there may be no active secondary market with respect to a particular VRDN purchased by a Fund, the Fund may, upon the notice specified in the note, demand payment of the principal of and accrued interest on the note at any time and may resell the note at any time to a third-party.
The absence of such an active secondary market, however, could make it difficult for the Funds to dispose of the VRDN involved in the event the issuer of the note defaulted on its payment obligations, and the Funds could, for this or other reasons, suffer a loss to the extent of the default.
Foreign Issuers
ADRs, EDRs and GDRs.   The Funds may purchase American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”), European Depositary Receipts (“EDRs”), Global Depositary Receipts (“GDRs”) or other securities representing underlying shares of foreign companies. ADRs are publicly traded on exchanges or over-the-counter in the U.S. and are issued through “sponsored” or “unsponsored”
10

TABLE OF CONTENTS
arrangements. In a sponsored ADR arrangement, the foreign issuer assumes the obligation to pay some or all of the depository’s transaction fees, whereas under an unsponsored arrangement, the foreign issuer assumes no obligation and the depository’s transaction fees are paid by the ADR holders. In addition, less information is available in the U.S. about an unsponsored ADR than about a sponsored ADR, and the financial information about a company may not be as reliable for an unsponsored ADR as it is for a sponsored ADR. A Fund may invest in ADRs through both sponsored and unsponsored arrangements.
Custody Services and Related Investment Costs.   Custody services and other costs relating to investment in international securities markets generally are more expensive than in the U.S. Such markets have settlement and clearance procedures that differ from those in the U.S. In certain markets there have been times when settlements have been unable to keep pace with the volume of securities transactions, making it difficult to conduct such transactions. The inability of a Fund to make intended securities purchases because of settlement problems could cause the Fund to miss attractive investment opportunities. Inability to dispose of a portfolio security caused by settlement problems could result either in losses to a Fund because of a subsequent decline in value of the portfolio security or could result in possible liability to the Fund. In addition, security settlement and clearance procedures in some emerging countries may not fully protect a Fund against loss or theft of its assets.
Economic, Political and Social Factors.   Certain non-U.S. countries, including emerging markets, may be subject to a greater degree of economic, political and social instability than is the case in the U.S. and Western European countries. Such instability may result from, among other things: (i) authoritarian governments or military involvement in political and economic decision making; (ii) popular unrest associated with demands for improved economic, political and social conditions; (iii) internal insurgencies; (iv) hostile relations with neighboring countries; and (v) ethnic, religious and racial disaffection and conflict. Such economic, political and social instability could significantly disrupt the financial markets in such countries and the ability of the issuers in such countries to repay their obligations. Investing in emerging countries also involves the risk of expropriation, nationalization, confiscation of assets and property or the imposition of restrictions on foreign investments and on repatriation of capital invested. In the event of such expropriation, nationalization or other confiscation in any emerging country, a Fund could lose its entire investment in that country.
Certain emerging market countries restrict or control foreign investment in their securities markets to varying degrees. These restrictions may limit a Fund’s investment in those markets and may increase the expenses of the Fund. In addition, the repatriation of both investment income and capital from certain markets in the region is subject to restrictions such as the need for certain governmental consents. Even where there is no outright restriction on repatriation of capital, the mechanics of repatriation may affect certain aspects of a Fund’s operation.
Economies in individual non-U.S. countries may differ favorably or unfavorably from the U.S. economy in such respects as growth of gross domestic product, rates of inflation, currency valuation, capital reinvestment, resource self-sufficiency and balance of payments positions. Many non-U.S. countries have experienced substantial, and in some cases extremely high, rates of inflation for many years. Inflation and rapid fluctuations in inflation rates have had, and may continue to have, very negative effects on the economies and securities markets of certain emerging countries.
Economies in emerging countries generally are dependent heavily upon international trade and, accordingly, have been and may continue to be affected adversely by trade barriers, exchange controls, managed adjustments in relative currency values and other protectionist measures imposed or negotiated by the countries with which they trade. These economies also have been, and may continue to be, affected adversely by economic conditions in the countries with which they trade.
Eurodollar Instruments and Yankee Bonds.   The Funds may invest in Eurodollar certificates of deposit (“ECDs”), Eurodollar bonds and Yankee bonds. Eurodollar instruments are bonds of corporate and government issuers that pay interest and principal in U.S. dollars but are issued in markets outside the U.S., primarily in Europe. Yankee bonds are bonds of foreign governments and their agencies and foreign banks and corporations that pay interest in U.S. dollars and are typically issued in the U.S. ECDs are U.S. dollar-denominated certificates of deposit issued by foreign branches of domestic banks.
Foreign Securities.   The Funds may invest in the securities of non-U.S. issuers. Funds that invest in securities denominated in foreign currencies may engage in foreign currency transactions on a spot (cash) basis and enter into forward foreign currency exchange contracts and invest in foreign currency futures contracts and options on foreign currencies and futures. A forward foreign currency exchange contract, which involves an obligation to purchase or sell a specific currency at a future date at a price set at the time of the contract, reduces a Fund’s exposure to changes in the value of the currency it will deliver and increases its exposure to changes in the value of the currency it will receive for the duration of the contract. The effect on the value of a Fund is similar to selling securities denominated in one currency and purchasing securities denominated in another currency. A contract to sell foreign currency would limit any potential gain which might be realized if the value of the
11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
hedged currency increases. A Fund may enter into these contracts to hedge against foreign exchange risk, to increase exposure to a foreign currency or to shift exposure to foreign currency fluctuations from one currency to another. Suitable hedging transactions may not be available in all circumstances and there can be no assurance that a Fund will engage in such transactions at any given time or from time to time. Also, such transactions may not be successful and may eliminate any chance for a Fund to benefit from favorable fluctuations in relevant foreign currencies. A Fund may use one currency (or a basket of currencies) to hedge against adverse changes in the value of another currency (or a basket of currencies) when exchange rates between the two currencies are positively correlated.
Frontier Markets.   “Frontier market countries” are a subset of emerging market countries with even smaller national economies, so these risks may be magnified further. Frontier market countries may also be more affected by government activities than more developed countries. For example, the governments of frontier market countries may exercise substantial influence within the private sector or subject investments to government approval, and governments of other countries may impose or negotiate trade barriers, exchange controls, adjustments to relative currency values and other measures that adversely affect a frontier market country. Governments of other countries may also impose sanctions or embargoes on frontier market countries.
Foreign Securities Markets and Regulations.   There may be less publicly available information about non-U.S. markets and issuers than is available with respect to U.S. securities and issuers. Non-U.S. companies generally are not subject to accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards, practices and requirements comparable to those applicable to U.S. companies. The trading markets for most non-U.S. securities are generally less liquid and subject to greater price volatility than the markets for comparable securities in the U.S. The markets for securities in certain emerging markets are in the earliest stages of their development. Even the markets for relatively widely traded securities in certain non-U.S. markets, including emerging countries, may not be able to absorb, without price disruptions, a significant increase in trading volume or trades of a size customarily undertaken by institutional investors in the U.S. Additionally, market making and arbitrage activities are generally less extensive in such markets, which may contribute to increased volatility and reduced liquidity.
The less liquid a market, the more difficult it may be for a Fund to accurately price its portfolio securities or to dispose of such securities at the times determined by the Sub-adviser to be appropriate. The risks associated with reduced liquidity may be particularly acute in situations in which a Fund’s operations require cash, such as in order to meet redemptions and to pay its expenses.
Risks of Non-U.S. Investments.   To the extent a Fund invests in the securities of non-U.S. issuers, those investments involve considerations and risks not typically associated with investing in the securities of issuers in the U.S. These risks are heightened with respect to investments in countries with emerging markets and economies. The risks of investing in securities of non-U.S. issuers or issuers with significant exposure to non-U.S. markets may be related, among other things, to: (i) differences in size, liquidity and volatility of, and the degree and manner of regulation of, the securities markets of certain non-U.S. markets compared to the securities markets in the U.S.; (ii) economic, political and social factors; and (iii) foreign exchange matters, such as restrictions on the repatriation of capital, fluctuations in exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the currencies in which a Fund’s portfolio securities are quoted or denominated, exchange control regulations and costs associated with currency exchange. The political and economic structures in certain non-U.S. countries, particularly emerging markets, are expected to undergo significant evolution and rapid development, and such countries may lack the social, political and economic stability characteristic of more developed countries.
Unanticipated political or social developments may affect the values of a Fund’s investments in such countries. The economies and securities and currency markets of many emerging markets have experienced significant disruption and declines. There can be no assurances that these economic and market disruptions will not continue.
Growing tensions, including trade disputes, between the United States and other nations, or among foreign powers, and possible diplomatic, trade or other sanctions could adversely impact the global economy, financial markets and the Funds. The strengthening or weakening of the U.S. dollar relative to other currencies may, among other things, adversely affect the Funds’ investments denominated in non- U.S. dollar currencies. It is difficult to predict when similar events affecting the U.S. or global financial markets may occur, the effects that such events may have, and the duration of those effects.
Investments in China.   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 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
12

TABLE OF CONTENTS
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, Executive Orders have been issued prohibiting U.S. persons from purchasing or investing in publicly-traded securities of certain companies identified by the U.S. Government because of their ties to the Chinese military or China’s surveillance technology sector. These restrictions have also applied to 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 or a Sub-adviser otherwise believes is attractive, a Fund may incur losses. Certain investments that are or become designated as prohibited may have less liquidity as a result of such designation and the market price of such prohibited investments may decline, potentially causing losses to a Fund. In addition, the market for securities and other investments of other Chinese-based issuers may also be negatively impacted, resulting in reduced liquidity and price declines.
Investments in the United Kingdom.   On January 31, 2020, the UK officially withdrew from the EU (commonly known as “Brexit”). Following a transition period, the United Kingdom’s post-Brexit trade agreement with the European union passed into law in December 2020, became effective on a provisional basis on January 1, 2021, and formally entered into force on May 1, 2021.
The impact of Brexit on the UK, the EU and global markets remains unclear and will depend largely upon the UK’s ability to negotiate favorable terms with the EU with respect to trade and market access. Brexit may also impact each of these markets should it lead to the creation of divergent national laws and regulations that produce new legal regimes and unpredictable tax consequences. As a result of the uncertain consequences of Brexit, the economies of the UK and EU as well as the broader global economy could be significantly impacted, which may result in increased volatility and illiquidity, and potentially lower economic growth on markets in the UK, EU and globally that could potentially have an adverse effect on the value of a Fund’s investments.
Investments in Russia.   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. The sanctions restrict companies from doing business with Russia and Russian companies, prohibit transactions with the Russian central bank and other key Russian financial institutions and entities, ban Russian airlines and ships from using many other countries’ airspace and ports, respectively, and place a freeze on certain Russian assets. The sanctions also removed some Russian banks from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), the electronic network that connects banks globally to facilitate cross-border payments. 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 the Fund’s investments, even though the Fund does not have direct exposure to Russian issuers or issuers in other countries affected by the invasion.
Supranational Entities.   In order to qualify as regulated investment companies (“RICs”), the Funds must satisfy the diversification requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “IRC”) IRC pursuant to which each Fund, amongst other requirements described in the “Taxes” section below, is limited to investing up to 25% of its total assets in the securities of any one issuer, which includes the debt securities issued by supranational organizations such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (“World Bank”), which was chartered to finance development projects in developing member countries; and the Asian Development Bank, which is an international development bank established to lend funds, promote investment and provide technical assistance to member nations in the Asian and Pacific regions. As supranational entities do not possess taxing authority, they are dependent upon their members’ continued support in order to meet interest and principal payments.
13

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Withholding and Other Taxes.   The Funds may be subject to taxes, including withholding taxes imposed by certain non-U.S. countries on income (possibly including, in some cases, capital gains) earned with respect to a Fund’s investments in such countries. These taxes will reduce the return achieved by a Fund. Treaties between the U.S. and such countries may reduce the otherwise applicable tax rates.
Derivatives
Overview
The Funds may enter into a variety of derivatives as means to hedge its exposure to a number of risks associated with its investment strategies or otherwise implement its investment strategies. The derivatives markets consist of, among other things, (a) futures contracts and options on such futures (both of which trade exclusively on regulated futures exchanges), (b) swaps and other derivatives traded on regulated swap execution and trading facilities and privately-negotiated bilateral derivatives contracts and (c) certain securities or securities with embedded derivatives, such as options or hybrid securities (some of which may be traded on regulated securities exchanges). Transactions other than exchange-traded futures and exchange-traded options or securities are sometimes referred to as “OTC” derivatives. Derivatives contracts are available with respect to a variety of asset classes including, for example, foreign exchange, interest rates, credit, equity and commodities.
Regulation relating to a Fund’s use of derivatives and related instruments, including Rule 18f-4 under the 1940 Act, could potentially limit or impact the Fund’s ability to invest in derivatives, limit the Fund’s ability to employ certain strategies that use derivatives and/or adversely affect the value of derivatives and the Fund’s performance.
Regulation of Derivatives
In an attempt to reduce systemic and counterparty risks associated with OTC derivative transactions, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that a substantial portion of OTC derivatives be submitted for clearing to regulated clearinghouses. The CFTC also requires a substantial portion of derivative transactions that have historically been executed on a bilateral basis in the OTC markets to be executed through a regulated swap execution facility or designated contract market. The SEC is expected to eventually impose a similar requirement with respect to security-based swaps. Such requirements could limit the ability of the Funds to invest or remain invested in derivatives and may make it more difficult and costly for investment funds, including the Funds, to enter into highly tailored or customized transactions. They may also render certain strategies in which a Fund might otherwise engage impossible or so costly that they will no longer be economical to implement.
OTC trades submitted for clearing will be subject to minimum initial and variation margin requirements set by the relevant clearinghouse, as may be adjusted to a higher amount by the Fund’s Futures Commission Merchant, as well as possible SEC- or CFTC-mandated margin requirements. With respect to uncleared swaps, swap dealers are required to collect variation margin from the Fund and may be required to collect initial margin from the Fund pursuant to the CFTC’s or the Prudential Regulators’ uncleared swap margin rules. Both initial and variation margin must be in the form of eligible collateral, and may be composed of cash and/or securities, subject to applicable regulatory haircuts. These rules also mandate that collateral in the form of initial margin be posted to cover potential future exposure attributable to uncleared swap transactions for certain entities, which may include the Fund. In the event the Fund is required to post collateral in the form of initial margin in respect of its uncleared swap transactions, all such collateral will be posted with a third-party custodian pursuant to a triparty custody agreement between the Fund, its dealer counterparty and an unaffiliated custodian.
Although the Dodd-Frank Act requires many OTC derivative transactions previously entered into on a principal-to-principal basis to be submitted for clearing by a regulated clearinghouse, certain of the derivatives that may be traded by the Fund may remain principal-to-principal or OTC contracts between the Fund and third parties. The risk of counterparty non-performance can be significant in the case of these OTC instruments, and “bid-ask” spreads may be unusually wide in these markets. To the extent not mitigated by implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, if at all, the risks posed by such instruments and techniques, which can be complex, may include: (1) credit risks (the exposure to the possibility of loss resulting from a counterparty’s failure to meet its financial obligations), as further discussed below; (2) market risk (adverse movements in the price of a financial asset or commodity); (3) legal risks (the characterization of a transaction or a party’s legal capacity to enter into it could render the transaction unenforceable, and the insolvency or bankruptcy of a counterparty could pre-empt otherwise enforceable contract rights); (4) operational risk (inadequate controls, deficient procedures, human error, system failure or fraud); (5) documentation risk (exposure to losses resulting from inadequate documentation); (6) liquidity risk (exposure to losses created by inability to prematurely terminate derivative transactions); (7) systemic risk (the risk that financial difficulties in one institution or a major market disruption will cause uncontrollable financial harm to the financial system); (8) concentration risk (exposure to losses from the concentration of closely related risks such as exposure to a
14

TABLE OF CONTENTS
particular industry or exposure linked to a particular entity); and (9) settlement risk (the risk faced when one party to a transaction has performed its obligations under a contract but has not yet received value from its counterparty).
Swap dealers and major swap participants that are registered with the CFTC and with whom the Fund may trade are subject to minimum capital and margin requirements. These requirements may apply irrespective of whether the OTC derivatives in question are traded bilaterally or cleared. OTC derivatives dealers are subject to business conduct standards, disclosure requirements, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, transparency requirements, position limits, limitations on conflicts of interest, and other regulatory burdens. These requirements may increase the overall costs for OTC derivative dealers, which are likely to be passed along, at least partially, to market participants in the form of higher fees or less advantageous dealer marks. The full impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on the Fund remains uncertain, and it is unclear how the OTC derivatives markets will ultimately adapt to this new regulatory regime.
Rule 18f-4 under the 1940 Act governs the Fund’s use of derivative instruments and certain other transactions that create future payment and/or delivery obligations by the Fund. Rule 18f-4 permits the Fund to enter into Derivative 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 Fund, 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 Derivative Transactions and certain financial instruments.
Under Rule 18f-4, “Derivative Transactions” include the following: (1) any swap, security-based swap (including a contract for differences), futures contract, forward contract, option (excluding purchased options), any combination of the foregoing, or any similar instrument, under which the 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 the Fund elects to treat these transactions as Derivative Transactions under Rule 18f-4; and (4) when-issued or forward-settling securities (e.g., firm and standby commitments, including to-be-announced (“TBA”) commitments, and dollar rolls) and non-standard settlement cycle securities, unless the Fund intends to physically settle the transactions and the transaction will settle within 35 days of its trade date.
Rule 18f-4 requires that the Fund that invests in Derivative Transactions above a specified amount adopt and implement a derivatives risk management program administered by a derivatives risk manager that is appointed by and overseen by the Fund’s Board, and comply with an outer limit on Fund leverage risk based on value at risk. If the fund uses Derivative Transactions in a limited amount are considered “limited derivatives users,” as defined in Rule 18f-4, will not be subject to the full requirements of Rule 18f-4, but will have to adopt and implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to manage the Fund’s derivatives risk. The Fund will be subject to reporting and recordkeeping requirements regarding its use of Derivative Transactions.
The requirements of Rule 18f-4 may limit the Fund’s ability to engage in Derivative Transactions as part of its investment strategies. These requirements may also increase the cost of the Fund’s investments and cost of doing business, which could adversely affect the value of the Fund’s investments and/or the performance of the Fund. The rule also may not be effective to limit the 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 the Fund’s derivatives or other investments. There may be additional regulation of the use of Derivative Transactions by registered investment companies, which could significantly affect their use. The ultimate impact of the regulations remains unclear. Additional regulation of Derivative Transactions may make them more costly, limit their availability or utility, otherwise adversely affect their performance or disrupt markets.
Credit Default Swaps
Credit default swaps are a mechanism to either purchase or sell default protection. As a purchaser of a credit default swap, the Fund pays a premium to enter into an arrangement that protects a portfolio security in the event of a default with respect to the issuer of that security. As a seller of a credit default swap, the Fund collects a premium for selling protection. Consequently, credit default swaps may be used to obtain credit default protection or enhance portfolio income. The Fund may enter into these transactions to preserve a return or spread on a particular investment or portion of its assets, as a duration management technique or to protect against any increase in the price of securities the Fund anticipates purchasing at a later date. The Fund may also use these transactions for speculative purposes, such as to obtain the price performance of a security without actually purchasing the security in circumstances where, for example, the subject security is illiquid, is unavailable for direct investment or available only on less attractive terms. Although certain index credit default swaps are currently subject to
15

TABLE OF CONTENTS
mandatory clearing, single name and certain other index credit default swaps are still transacted in the bilateral OTC derivatives market. Swaps have risks associated with them, including the possible default by the counterparty to the transaction, illiquidity and, where swaps are used as hedges, the risk that the use of a swap could result in losses greater than if the swap had not been employed.
For purposes of applying a Fund’s investment policies and restrictions, swap agreements are generally valued by a Fund at market value. In the case of a credit default swap, however, in applying certain of the Fund’s investment policies and restrictions a Fund will value the swap at its notional amount or its full exposure value (i.e., the sum of the notional amount for the contract plus the market value), but may value the credit default swap at market value for purposes of applying certain of the Fund’s other investment policies and restrictions. For example, a Fund may value credit default swaps at full exposure value for purposes of the Fund’s credit quality guidelines because such value reflects the Fund’s actual economic exposure during the term of the credit default swap agreement. In this context, both the notional amount and the market value may be positive or negative depending on whether the Fund is selling or buying protection through the credit default swap. The manner in which certain securities or other instruments are valued by a Fund for purposes of applying investment policies and restrictions may differ from the manner in which those investments are valued by other types of investors.
Foreign Exchange Contracts
The Funds may invest in securities quoted or denominated in foreign currencies and may hold currencies to meet settlement requirements for foreign securities. To protect against uncertainty in the level of future exchange rates between a particular foreign currency and the U.S. dollar or between foreign currencies, the Fund may engage in different types of foreign exchange transactions (collectively, “Foreign Exchange Contracts”) including, for example, forward foreign exchange contracts, non-deliverable forward exchange transactions, foreign exchange swaps, foreign exchange options, foreign exchange futures transactions and options on foreign exchange futures transactions. Each of these transaction types is described below. The amount the Fund may invest in Foreign Exchange Contracts is limited to the amount of the Fund’s aggregate investments in foreign currencies.
Generally, forward foreign exchange contracts are privately-negotiated bilateral agreements solely involving the exchange of 2 different currencies on a specific future date at a fixed exchange rate agreed upon at the inception of the transaction. They are distinguishable from so-called non- deliverable forward foreign exchange contracts which are discussed further below. Typically, forward foreign exchange contracts (i) are traded in an interbank market conducted directly between currency traders (typically commercial banks or other financial institutions) and their customers, (ii) generally have no deposit requirements and (iii) are consummated without payment of any commissions. The Fund, however, may enter into forward foreign exchange contracts requiring deposits and/or commissions. In fact, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has implemented supervisory guidance to the effect that federally regulated banks must collect variation margin payments from certain types of financial institutions which may include the Fund in connection with forward foreign exchange contracts. There currently is no central clearing system for such forward foreign exchange contracts entered into on this market and, accordingly, if a Fund wishes to ‘close out’ any such contracts entered into on this market before the specified date, it will be reliant upon the agreement of the relevant counterparty.
At or before the maturity of a forward foreign exchange contract, a Fund may either sell a portfolio security denominated in the same currency as its obligations under the forward foreign exchange contract and use the proceeds of such sale to make delivery under the forward foreign exchange contract or retain the security and offset its obligation to deliver the currency under the forward foreign exchange contract by purchasing a second contract pursuant to which the Fund will obtain, on the same maturity date, the same amount of the currency that it is obligated to deliver. If the Fund retains the portfolio security and engages in an offsetting transaction, the Fund, at the time of execution of the offsetting transaction, will incur a gain or a loss to the extent movement has occurred in forward currency contract prices during the period between the Fund’s entering into the original forward foreign exchange contract and entering into the offsetting contract. Should forward prices decline during this period, 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.
There are a number of risks associated with entering into forward foreign exchange contracts. These may include settlement risk, which is the risk of loss when one party to the forward foreign exchange contract delivers the currency it sold but does not receive the corresponding amount of the currency it bought. Although many forward foreign exchange transactions mitigate this risk through the use of a payment-versus-payment (“PVP”) settlement arrangement (such as settling trades through CLS Bank International or an escrow arrangement), there is no assurance that all forward foreign exchange transactions entered into by a Fund will be subject to such a PVP arrangement and, therefore, they may be subject to
16

TABLE OF CONTENTS
settlement risk. In addition, the market for forward foreign exchange contracts may be limited with respect to certain currencies such that, upon a contract’s maturity, a Fund may be unable to negotiate with the dealer to enter into an offsetting transaction. Moreover, there can be no assurance that an active forward foreign exchange contract market will always exist. Another risk associated with forward foreign exchange contracts is that the correlation between movements in the prices of those contracts and movements in the price of the underlying currency hedged or used for cover may not be perfect. These factors may restrict a Fund’s ability to successfully hedge against the risk of devaluation of currencies in which the Fund holds a substantial quantity of securities and are unrelated to the qualitative rating that may be assigned to any particular security. In addition, although forward foreign exchange contracts may mitigate the risk of loss resulting from a decline in the value of a hedged currency, they may also limit the potential gain that might result should from an increase in the value of the hedged currency. If a currency devaluation is generally anticipated, a Fund may not be able to contract to sell currency at a price above the devaluation level it anticipates.
The successful use of forward foreign exchange contracts as a hedging technique draws upon special skills and experience with respect to these instruments and usually depends on the ability of the Fund’s Sub-adviser to forecast interest rate and currency exchange rate movements correctly. Should interest or exchange rates move in an unexpected manner, the Fund may not achieve the anticipated benefits of forward foreign exchange contracts or may realize losses and thus be in a worse position than if those strategies had not been used. Many forward foreign exchange contracts are subject to no daily price fluctuation limits so adverse market movements could continue with respect to those contracts to an unlimited extent over a period of time.
A non-deliverable forward foreign exchange contract or “NDF” generally is similar to a forward foreign exchange contract, except that at maturity the NDF does not require physical delivery of currencies; rather, an NDF typically is settled in U.S. dollars or another reserve currency. One of the currencies involved in the transaction, usually an emerging market currency, may be subject to capital controls or similar restrictions, and is therefore said to be “nondeliverable”. Thus, under an NDF, the transaction terms provide for the payment of a net cash settlement amount on the settlement date in lieu of delivery of the notional amounts of the bought currency and the sold currency. The cash settlement amount is determined by converting the notional amount of one of the currencies (the “reference currency”) into the other currency (the “settlement currency”) at a spot foreign exchange rate that is observed on a pre-agreed pricing source or determined using another pre-agreed method (such source or method, the “settlement rate option”) on a date (a “valuation date”) prior to the settlement date, and netting the currency amounts so that a single net payment in the settlement currency is made on the settlement date by the party owing the excess. In some NDFs, each of the bought currency and the sold currency is converted into a third currency that serves as the settlement currency. In either case, under an NDF no payment or account transfer takes place in the reference currency.
Futures and Options on Futures
The Funds may enter into futures contracts and purchase and write (sell) options on futures contracts, including but not limited to interest rate, securities index and foreign currency futures contracts and put and call options on these futures contracts. These contracts will be entered into only upon the concurrence of the Sub-adviser that such contracts are necessary or appropriate in the management of a Fund’s assets. These contracts will be entered into on exchanges designated by the CFTC or, consistent with CFTC regulations, on foreign exchanges. These transactions may be entered into for bona fide hedging and other permissible risk management purposes including protecting against anticipated changes in the value of securities a Fund intends to purchase.
The Fund may buy and sell index futures contracts with respect to any index traded on a recognized exchange or board of trade. An index futures contract is a bilateral agreement pursuant to which two parties agree to take or make delivery of an amount of cash equal to a specified dollar amount times the difference between the index value at the close of trading of the contract and the price at which the futures contract is originally struck. No physical delivery of the securities comprising the index is made. Instead, settlement in cash must occur upon the termination of the contract, with the settlement being the difference between the contract price, and the actual level of the stock index at the expiration of the contract. Generally, contracts are closed out prior to the expiration date of the contract.
A Fund may lose the expected benefit of these futures or options transactions and may incur losses if the prices of the underlying securities or commodities move in an unanticipated manner. In addition, changes in the value of a Fund’s futures and options positions may not prove to be perfectly or even highly correlated with changes in the value of its portfolio securities. Successful use of futures and related options is subject to a Sub-adviser’s ability to correctly predict movements in the direction of the securities markets generally, which ability may require different skills and techniques than predicting changes in the prices of individual securities. Moreover, futures and options contracts may only be closed out by entering into offsetting transactions on the exchange where the position was entered into (or a linked exchange), and as a result of daily
17

TABLE OF CONTENTS
price fluctuation limits there can be no assurance that an offsetting transaction could be entered into at an advantageous price at any particular time. Consequently, a Fund may realize a loss on a futures contract or option that is not offset by an increase in the value of its portfolio securities that are being hedged or the Fund may not be able to close a futures or options position without incurring a loss in the event of adverse price movements.
A Fund will incur brokerage costs whether or not its hedging is successful and will be required to post and maintain “margin” as a good-faith deposit against performance of its obligations under futures contracts and under options written by the Fund. Futures and options positions are marked to the market daily and a Fund may be required to make subsequent “variation” margin payments depending upon whether its positions increase or decrease in value. In this context margin payments involve no borrowing on the part of a Fund. After an option is purchased, it may suffer a total loss of premium (plus transaction costs) if that option expires without being exercised. An option’s time value (i.e., the component of the option’s value at any time that exceeds the in-the-money amount as of such time) tends to diminish over time. Even though an option may be in-the-money to the purchaser at various times prior to its expiration date, the purchaser’s ability to realize the value of an option depends on when and how the option may be exercised. For example, the terms of a transaction may provide for the option to be exercised automatically if it is in-the-money on the expiration date. Conversely, the terms may require timely delivery of a notice of exercise, and exercise may be subject to other conditions (such as the occurrence or non-occurrence of certain events, such as knock-in, knock-out or other barrier events) and timing requirements, including the “style” of the option.
Options on Securities and Securities Indices
The Funds may purchase put and call options on any security in which it may invest or options on any securities index based on securities in which it may invest. A Fund would also be able to enter into closing sale transactions in order to realize gains or minimize losses on options it has purchased.
Purchasing Call and Put Options.   The Funds will normally purchase call options in anticipation of an increase in the market value of securities of the type in which they may invest. The purchase of a call option will entitle a Fund, in return for the premium paid, to purchase specified securities at a specified price during the option period. A Fund will ordinarily realize a gain if, during the option period, the value of such securities exceeded the sum of the exercise price, the premium paid and transaction costs; otherwise, the Fund will realize either no gain or a loss on the purchase of the call option.
Under a conventional cash-settled option, the purchaser of the option pays a premium in exchange for the right to receive, upon exercise of the option, (i) in the case of a call option, the excess, if any, of the reference price or value of the underlier (as determined pursuant to the terms of the option) above the option’s strike price or (ii) in the case of a put option, the excess, if any, of the option’s strike price above the reference price or value of the underlier (as so determined). Under a conventional physically-settled option structure, the purchaser of a call option has the right to purchase a specified quantity of the underlier at the strike price, and the purchaser of a put option has the right to sell a specified quantity of the underlier at the strike price.
A Fund will normally purchase put options in anticipation of a decline in the market value of securities in its portfolio (“protective puts”) or in securities in which it may invest. The purchase of a put option will entitle the Fund, in exchange for the premium paid, to sell specified securities at a specified price during the option period. The purchase of protective puts is designed to offset or hedge against a decline in the market value of the Fund’s securities. Put options may also be purchased by a Fund for the purpose of affirmatively benefiting from a decline in the price of securities which it does not own. The Fund will ordinarily realize a gain if, during the option period, the value of the underlying securities decreased below the exercise price sufficiently to more than cover the premium and transaction costs; otherwise, the Fund will realize either no gain or a loss on the purchase of the put option. Gains and losses on the purchase of protective put options would tend to be offset by countervailing changes in the value of the underlying portfolio securities.
Risks of Trading Options.   The risk-return profile of an option may vary depending on the characteristics of the relevant transaction. For example, a “knock-out option” may expire prior to the scheduled expiration date if the reference price or value of the underlier falls below, in the case of a put option, or exceeds, in the case of a call option, an agreed upon price or value at specific points in time, or at any time during the exercise period, depending upon how the option is structured. The buyer of such an option bears the risk of reference price movements causing the option to expire prior to the scheduled expiration date. Transaction terms that give a party the right to extend or accelerate the scheduled termination date of a transaction are economically equivalent to options. Such features may cause holders of such options to incur significant losses if exercised against them. The option premium in respect of such features may be in the form of an explicit payment or may be implicit in other terms of the transaction.
18

TABLE OF CONTENTS
There is no assurance that a liquid secondary market on an options exchange will exist for any particular exchange-traded option, or at any particular time. If a Fund is unable to effect a closing purchase transaction with respect to covered options it has written, the Fund will not be able to sell the underlying securities or dispose of any segregated assets until the options expire or are exercised. Similarly, if a Fund is unable to effect a closing sale transaction with respect to options it has purchased, it will have to exercise the options in order to realize any profit and will incur transaction costs upon the purchase or sale of underlying securities.
Reasons for the absence of a liquid secondary market on an exchange include the following: (i) there may be insufficient trading interest in certain options; (ii) restrictions may be imposed by an exchange on opening or closing transactions or both; (iii) trading halts, suspensions or other restrictions may be imposed with respect to particular classes or series of options; (iv) unusual or unforeseen circumstances may interrupt normal operations on an exchange; (v) the facilities of an exchange or the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCCorp”) may not at all times be adequate to handle current trading volume; or (vi) one or more exchanges could, for economic or other reasons, decide or be compelled at some future date to discontinue the trading of options (or a particular class or series of options), in which event the secondary market on that exchange (or in that class or series of options) would cease to exist, although outstanding options on that exchange, if any, that had been issued by the OCC as a result of trades on that exchange would continue to be exercisable in accordance with their terms. A Fund may terminate its obligations under an exchange- traded call or put option by purchasing an option identical to the one it has written. Obligations under over-the-counter options may be terminated only by entering into an offsetting transaction with the counter-party to such option. Such purchases are referred to as “closing purchase transactions.” A Fund may purchase and sell both options that are traded on U.S. and foreign exchanges and options traded over the counter with broker-dealers who make markets in these options. The ability to terminate over-the-counter options is more limited than with exchange-traded options and may involve the risk that broker-dealers participating in such transactions will not fulfill their obligations.
Transactions by a Fund in options on securities and indices may be subject to limitations established by the CFTC, SEC, relevant self-regulatory organizations, each relevant exchange, board of trade or other trading facility governing the maximum number of options in each class which may be written or purchased by a single investor or group of investors acting in concert. Thus, the number of options that a Fund may write or purchase may be affected by options written or purchased by other investment advisory clients. An exchange, board of trade or other trading facility may order the liquidations of positions found to be in excess of these limits, and it may impose certain other sanctions.
The writing and purchase of options is a highly specialized activity that involves investment techniques and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions. The successful use of protective puts for hedging purposes depends in part on a Sub-adviser’s ability to predict future price fluctuations and the degree of correlation between the options and securities markets.
The hours of trading for options may not conform to the hours during which the underlying securities are traded. To the extent the options markets close before the markets for the underlying securities, significant price movements can take place in the underlying markets that cannot be reflected in the options markets.
In addition to the risks of imperfect correlation between a Fund’s portfolio and the index underlying the option, the purchase of securities index options involves the risk that the premium and transaction costs paid by the Fund in purchasing an option will be lost. This could occur as a result of unanticipated movements in the price of the securities comprising the securities index on which the option is based.
Writing Covered Call and Put Options on Securities and Securities Indices.   The Funds may also write (sell) covered call and put options on any securities and on any securities index composed of securities in which it may invest. Options on securities indices are similar to options on securities, except that the exercise of securities index options requires cash payments and typically 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 segments of the securities market rather than price fluctuations in a single security.
The Trust, on behalf of each Fund to which this SAI relates, has filed with the National Futures Association a notice claiming an exclusion from the definition of the term “commodity pool operator” ​(“CPO”) under CEA, and the rules of the CFTC promulgated thereunder, with respect to the Fund’s operation. Accordingly, neither the Fund nor the Adviser is subject to registration or regulation as a CPO. Although the Adviser has concluded based on its communications with and oversight of the Fund’s Sub-advisers that as of the date of this SAI the Fund currently operate within the exclusions from CFTC regulation, there is no certainty that a Fund or the Adviser will be able to continue to rely on an exclusion from CFTC regulation in the future. A Fund may determine not to use investment strategies that trigger additional CFTC regulation or may
19

TABLE OF CONTENTS
determine to operate subject to CFTC regulation, if applicable. In addition, the Sub-advisers of a Fund that registers with the CFTC as a commodity pool may have to register with the CFTC as commodity trading advisers, unless an exemption from such registration applies. If a Fund or the Adviser operates subject to CFTC regulation, it may incur additional expenses.
Equity-Linked Securities
A Fund may invest in privately issued securities whose investment results are designed to correspond generally to the performance of a specified stock index or “basket” of securities, or sometimes a single stock (referred to as “equity-linked securities”). These securities are used for many of the same purposes as derivative instruments and share many of the same risks. Equity-linked securities may be considered illiquid and thus subject to a Fund’s restrictions on investments in illiquid securities.
Global Health Events
The market value of a Fund’s investments may decline in tandem with a drop in the overall value of the markets in which the Fund invests and/or other markets based on negative developments in the U.S. and global economies. Economic, political, and financial conditions or industry or economic trends or developments may, from time to time, and for varying periods of time, cause volatility, illiquidity or other potentially adverse effects in the financial markets, including the fixed-income market. The commencement, continuation or ending of government policies and economic stimulus programs, changes in money policy, increases or decreases in interest rates, war, acts of terrorism, recessions, or other actual or perceived factors or events that affect the financial markets, including the fixed-income markets, may contribute to the development of or increase in volatility, illiquidity, shareholder redemptions, and other adverse effects that could negatively impact the Fund’s performance. Similarly, the impact of any epidemic, pandemic or natural disaster, or widespread fear that such events may occur, could negatively affect the global economy, as well as the economies of individual countries, the financial performance of individual companies and sectors, and the markets in general in significant and unforeseen ways. Any such impact could adversely affect the prices and liquidity of the securities and other instruments in which the Fund invests, which in turn could negatively impact the Fund’s performance and cause losses on your investment in the Fund.
Illiquid Securities
The Funds will not invest more than 15% of their net assets in illiquid and other securities that are not readily marketable. “Illiquid securities” 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. 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. Repurchase agreements maturing in more than seven days will be included for purposes of the foregoing limit. Securities subject to restrictions on resale under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“1933 Act”), are considered illiquid unless they are eligible for resale pursuant to Rule 144A or another exemption from the registration requirements of the 1933 Act and are determined to be liquid by the Sub-adviser. The Sub-advisers determine the liquidity of Rule 144A and other restricted securities according to procedures adopted by the Board. The Board monitors the Sub-advisers’ application of these guidelines and procedures. The inability of a Fund to dispose of illiquid investments readily or at reasonable prices could impair the Fund’s ability to raise cash for redemptions or other purposes. The Adviser and/or Sub-adviser will monitor the amount of illiquid investments in a Fund, under the oversight of, and periodic reporting to, the Board, to ensure compliance with this requirement. Illiquid investments may be priced at fair value as determined in good faith by the Adviser, with applicable input from appropriate Sub-advisers and pursuant to procedures approved by the Board. Despite such good faith efforts to determine fair value prices, a Fund’s illiquid investments are subject to the risk that the investment’s fair value price may differ from the actual price that the 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.
Investments in Investment Companies
The Funds may invest in the securities of other investment companies (including exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”)) to the extent such investments are consistent with the Fund’s investment objectives and policies and permissible under the 1940 Act. Pursuant to Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act, subject to certain exceptions, a Fund may not acquire the securities of other domestic or foreign investment companies if, as a result: (i) more than 10% of the Fund’s total assets would be invested in securities of other investment companies, (ii) such purchase would result in more than 3% of the total outstanding voting securities of any one investment company being held by the Fund, or (iii) more than 5% of the Fund’s total assets would be invested in any one investment company. These limitations do not apply to the purchase of shares of any investment company
20

TABLE OF CONTENTS
in connection with a merger, consolidation, reorganization or acquisition of substantially all the assets of another investment company. In addition, a Fund is not subject to the 3% limitation if  (i) a Fund relies on Rule 12d1-4 under the 1940 Act, as described below; or (ii) a Fund relies on Rule 12d1-3 under the 1940 Act, which allows unaffiliated mutual funds to exceed the 5% limitation and the 10% limitation, provided the aggregate sales loads any investor pays (i.e., the combined distribution expenses of both the acquiring fund and the acquired funds) does not exceed the limits on sales loads established by FINRA for funds of funds.
Rule 12d1-4 under the 1940 Act permits an investment company to invest in other investment companies beyond the statutory limits of Section 12(d)(1)(A), subject to certain conditions that are similar to those previously imposed through exemptive orders. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an investment company that is an acquired fund of a registered investment company in reliance on Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the 1940 Act, generally will not be permitted to invest in shares of other investment companies beyond the limits set forth in Section 12(d)(1)(A), other than in the limited circumstances set forth in Rule 12d1-4.
A Fund also may invest its uninvested cash reserves or cash it receives as collateral from borrowers of its portfolio securities in connection with the Fund’s securities lending program, in shares of one or more money market funds, which investments will not be subject to the limitations described above.
If a Fund invests in, and thus, is a shareholder of, another investment company, the Fund’s shareholders will indirectly bear the Fund’s proportionate share of the fees and expenses paid by such other investment company, including advisory fees, in addition to both the management fees payable directly by the Fund to the Fund’s own investment adviser and the other expenses that the Fund bears directly in connection with the Fund’s own operations.
With respect to investments in underlying ETFs, the market prices of index-based investments will fluctuate in accordance with both changes in the market value of their underlying portfolio securities and due to supply and demand for the instruments on the exchanges on which they are traded (which may result in their trading at a discount or premium to their NAVs). Investments in index-based ETFs may not replicate exactly the performance of their specific index because of transaction costs and because of the temporary unavailability of certain component securities of the index.
Lending Portfolio Securities
Consistent with applicable regulatory requirements, the Funds may lend portfolio securities to brokers, dealers and other financial organizations. A Fund will not lend securities to affiliated companies unless the Fund has applied for and received specific authority to do so from the SEC. A Fund’s loan of securities will be collateralized by cash, letters of credit or U.S. government securities. A Fund will maintain the collateral in an amount at least equal to the current market value of the loaned securities. From time to time, a Fund may pay a part of the interest earned from the investment of collateral received for securities loaned to the borrower and/or a third-party that is unaffiliated with the Fund and is acting as a “finder.” A Fund will comply with the following conditions whenever it loans securities: (i) the Fund must receive at least 100% cash collateral or equivalent securities from the borrower; (ii) the borrower must increase the collateral whenever the market value of the securities loaned rises above the level of the collateral; (iii) the Fund must be able to terminate the loan at any time; (iv) the Fund must receive reasonable interest on the loan, as well as any dividends, interest or other distributions on the loaned securities and any increase in market value; (v) the Fund may pay only reasonable custodian fees in connection with the loan; and (vi) voting rights on the loaned securities may pass to the borrower except that, if a material event adversely affecting the investment in the loaned securities occurs, the Board must terminate the loan and regain the right to vote the securities. Generally, the borrower of any portfolio securities will be required to make payments to the lending Fund in lieu of any dividends the Fund would have otherwise received had it not loaned the securities to the borrower. Any such payments, however, will not be treated as “qualified dividend income” for purposes of determining what portion of the Fund’s regular dividends (as defined below) received by individuals may be taxed at the rates generally applicable to long-term capital gains (see “Taxes” below). Should the borrower of the securities fail financially, the Fund may experience delays in recovering the loaned securities or exercising its rights in the collateral. Loans are made only to borrowers that are deemed by the Manager to be of good financial standing. In a loan transaction, the Fund will also bear the risk of any decline in value of securities acquired with cash collateral. A Fund will minimize this risk by limiting the investment of cash collateral to money market funds or high quality instruments with short maturities or funds that invest only in such instruments.
A Fund may invest the cash received as collateral through loan transactions in other eligible securities, including shares of a registered money market fund or unregistered money market fund that complies with the requirements of Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act, including funds that do not seek to maintain a stable $1.00 per share NAV. Investing the cash collateral subjects a Fund’s investments to market appreciation or depreciation. A Fund remains obligated to return all collateral to the borrower under the terms of its securities lending arrangements, even if the value of the investments made with the collateral has
21

TABLE OF CONTENTS
declined. Accordingly, if the value of an investment declines, a Fund would be required to liquidate other investments in order to return collateral to the borrower at the end of a loan.
Money Market Instruments
Money market instruments include: U.S. government securities, certificates of deposit, time deposits and bankers’ acceptances issued by domestic banks (including their branches located outside the U.S. and subsidiaries located in Canada), domestic branches of foreign banks, savings and loan associations and similar institutions; high grade commercial paper; and repurchase agreements with respect to the foregoing types of instruments. Certificates of deposit (“CDs”) are short-term, negotiable obligations of commercial banks. Time deposits (“TDs”) are non-negotiable deposits maintained in banking institutions for specified periods of time at stated interest rates. Bankers’ acceptances are time drafts drawn on commercial banks by borrowers, usually in connection with international transactions.
Mortgage-Backed Securities
The Funds may invest in mortgage-related securities including mortgage-backed securities. The average maturity of pass-through pools of mortgage-backed securities varies with the maturities of the underlying mortgage instruments. In addition, a pool’s stated maturity may be shortened by unscheduled payments on the underlying mortgages. Factors affecting mortgage prepayments include the level of interest rates, general economic and social conditions, the location of the mortgaged property and age of the mortgage. Because prepayment rates of individual pools vary widely, it is not possible to accurately predict the average life of a particular pool. Common practice is to assume that prepayments will result in an average life ranging from two to ten years for pools of fixed rate 30-year mortgages. Pools of mortgages with other maturities or different characteristics will have varying average life assumptions. Mortgage-backed securities may be classified as private, governmental or government-related, depending on the issuer or guarantor. Private mortgage-backed securities represent pass-through pools consisting principally of conventional residential mortgage loans created by non- governmental issuers, such as commercial banks, savings and loan associations and private mortgage insurance companies. Governmental mortgage-backed securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government National Mortgage Association (“GNMA”), the principal U.S. guarantor of such securities, is a wholly-owned U.S. governmental corporation within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). Government related mortgage-backed securities are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Issuers of these securities include the Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA” or “Fannie Mae”) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC” or Freddie Mac”). FNMA is a government-sponsored corporation owned entirely by private stockholders that is subject to general regulation by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Pass-through securities issued by FNMA are guaranteed as to timely payment of principal and interest by FNMA. FHLMC is a government sponsored corporation owned entirely by private stockholders that is subject to general regulation by the Secretary of HUD. Participation certificates representing interests in mortgages from FHLMC’s national portfolio are guaranteed as to the timely payment of interest and ultimate collection of principal by FHLMC. On September 6, 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) and the U.S. Treasury began a federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, placing the two federal instrumentalities under conservatorship with the FHFA. Under the plan of conservatorship, the FHFA has assumed control of, and generally has the power to direct, the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and is empowered to exercise all powers collectively held by their respective shareholders, directors and officers, including the power to (1) take over the assets of and operate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with all the powers of the shareholders, the directors, and the officers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and conduct all business of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; (2) collect all obligations and money due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; (3) perform all functions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which are consistent with the conservator’s appointment; (4) preserve and conserve the assets and property of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and (5) contract for assistance in fulfilling any function, activity, action or duty of the conservator.
In connection with the actions taken by the FHFA, the U.S. Treasury has entered into certain preferred stock purchase agreements (SPAs) with each of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae which establish the U.S. Treasury as the holder of a new class of senior preferred stock in each of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The senior preferred stock was issued in connection with financial contributions from the U.S. Treasury to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Although the SPAs are subject to amendment from time to time, currently the U.S. Treasury is obligated to provide such financial contributions up to an aggregate maximum amount determined by a formula set forth in the SPAs, and until such aggregate maximum amount is reached, there is not a specific end date to the U.S. Treasury’s obligations.
Since mid-2007, the residential mortgage market has been subject to extensive litigation and legislative and regulatory scrutiny. The result has been extensive reform legislation and regulations including with respect to loan underwriting,
22

TABLE OF CONTENTS
mortgage loan servicing, foreclosure practices and timing, loan modifications, enhanced disclosure and reporting obligations and risk retention. Numerous laws, regulations and rules related to residential mortgage loans generally, and foreclosure actions particularly, have been proposed or enacted by federal, state and local governmental authorities, which may result in delays in the foreclosure process, reduced payments by borrowers, modification of the original terms of mortgage loans, permanent forgiveness of debt, increased prepayments due to the availability of government-sponsored refinancing initiatives and/or increased reimbursable servicing expenses. Any of these factors could result in delays and reductions in distributions to residential mortgage-backed securities and may reduce the amount of investment proceeds to which a Fund would be entitled.
The conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the current uncertainty regarding the future status of these organizations may also adversely affect the mortgage market and the value of mortgage-related assets. It remains unclear to what extent the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to act as the primary sources of liquidity in the residential mortgage markets, both by purchasing mortgage loans for their own portfolios and by guaranteeing mortgage-backed securities, may be curtailed. Legislators have repeatedly unveiled various plans to reduce and reform the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage market and, possibly, wind down both institutions. Although it is unclear whether, and if so how, those plans may be implemented or how long any such wind-down or reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, if implemented, would take, a reduction in the ability of mortgage loan originators to access Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to sell their mortgage loans may adversely affect the financial condition of mortgage loan originators. In addition, any decline in the value of agency securities may affect the value of residential mortgage-backed securities as a whole.
Since March 13, 2020, there have been a number of government initiatives applicable to federally backed mortgage loans in response to the economic impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak. Although the effects of COVID-19 have decreased on a relative basis, it is difficult to predict how the future effects of COVID-19, or government initiatives relating to COVID-19, may affect the federally backed mortgage market, the U.S. mortgage market as a whole and the price of securities relating to the mortgage markets, and in turn, the Fund’s investments.
The rate and aggregate amount of distributions on mortgage-backed securities, and therefore the average lives of those securities and the yields realized by a Fund, will be sensitive to the rate of prepayments (including liquidations) and modifications of the related mortgage loans, any losses and shortfalls on the related mortgage loans allocable to the tranches held by a Fund and the manner in which principal payments on the related mortgage loans are allocated among the various tranches in the particular securitization transaction. Furthermore, mortgage-backed securities are sensitive to changes in interest rates, but may respond to those changes differently from other fixed income securities due to the possibility of prepayment of the mortgage loans. Among other factors, a significant amount of defaults, rapid prepayments or prepayment interest shortfalls may erode amounts available for distributions to a Fund. The timing of changes in the rate of prepayments of the mortgage loans may significantly affect the Funds’ actual yield to maturity, even if the average rate of principal payments is consistent with a Fund’s expectations. If prepayments of mortgage loans occur at a rate faster than that anticipated by a Fund, payments of interest on the mortgage-backed securities could be significantly less than anticipated. Similarly, if the number of mortgage loans that are modified is larger than that anticipated by a Fund, payments of principal and interest on the mortgage-backed securities could be significantly less than anticipated.
Mortgage-backed securities that are issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities, are not subject to the Fund’s industry concentration restrictions, by virtue of the exclusion from that test available to all U.S. government securities. In the case of privately issued mortgage-related securities, the Fund takes the position that mortgage-related securities do not represent interests in any particular industry or group of industries.
Foreign Mortgage-Related Securities.   Foreign mortgage-related securities are interests in pools of mortgage loans made to residential home buyers domiciled in a foreign country. These include mortgage loans made by trust and mortgage loan companies, credit unions, chartered banks, and others. Pools of mortgage loans are assembled as securities for sale to investors by various governmental, government-related and private organizations (e.g., Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and First Australian National Mortgage Acceptance Corporation Limited). The mechanics of these mortgage-related securities are generally the same as those issued in the United States. However, foreign mortgage markets may differ materially from the U.S. mortgage market with respect to matters such as the sizes of loan pools, pre-payment experience, and maturities of loans.
Uniform Mortgage-Backed Securities (“UMBS”).   Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have entered into a joint initiative to develop a common securitization platform for the issuance of UMBS (the “Single Security Initiative”) that aligns the characteristics of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac certificates. The Single Security Initiative seeks to support the overall liquidity of the to-be-announced (“TBA”) market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began issuing UMBS in June 2019. The issuance of
23

TABLE OF CONTENTS
UMBS may not achieve the intended results and may have unanticipated or adverse effects on the market for mortgage-backed securities.
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations.   CMOs are securities collateralized by mortgages, mortgage pass-throughs, mortgage pay-through bonds (bonds representing an interest in a pool of mortgages where the cash flow generated from the mortgage collateral pool is dedicated to bond repayment) and mortgage-backed bonds (general obligations of the issuers payable out of the issuers’ general funds and additionally secured by a first lien on a pool of single family detached properties). To the extent a Fund invests in CMOs, the Fund typically will seek to invest in CMOs rated in one of the two highest categories by S&P or Moody’s. Many CMOs are issued with a number of classes or series that have different expected maturities. Investors purchasing such CMOs are credited with their portion of the scheduled payments of interest and principal on the underlying mortgages plus all unscheduled prepayments of principal based on a predetermined priority schedule. Accordingly, the CMOs in the longer maturity series are less likely than other mortgage pass-through securities to be prepaid prior to their stated maturity. Although some of the mortgages underlying CMOs may be supported by various types of insurance and some CMOs may be backed by GNMA certificates or other mortgage pass- through securities issued or guaranteed by U.S. Government agencies or instrumentalities, the CMOs themselves are not generally guaranteed.
Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits.   REMICs are private entities formed for the purpose of holding a fixed pool of mortgages secured by interests in real property. REMIC Certificates issued by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac represent beneficial ownership interests in a REMIC trust consisting principally of mortgage loans or Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or GNMA-guaranteed mortgage pass- through certificates. For Freddie Mac REMIC Certificates, Freddie Mac guarantees the timely payment of interest. GNMA REMIC Certificates are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.
Parallel Pay Securities; Planned Amortization Class CMOs.   Parallel pay CMOs and REMICs are structured to provide payments of principal on each payment date to more than one class. These simultaneous payments are taken into account in calculating the stated maturity date or final distribution date of each class, which must be retired by its stated maturity date or final distribution date but may be retired earlier. PAC Bonds generally require payments of a specified amount of principal on each payment date. PAC Bonds are always parallel pay CMOs, with the required principal payment on such securities having the highest priority after interest has been paid to all classes.
Adjustable-Rate Mortgage Securities.   ARMS are a form of pass-through security representing interests in pools of mortgage loans whose interest rates are adjusted from time to time. The adjustments are usually determined in accordance with a predetermined interest rate index and may be subject to certain limits. Although the value of ARMS, like other debt securities, generally varies inversely with changes in market interest rates (increasing in value during periods of declining interest rates and decreasing in value during periods of increasing interest rates), the value of ARMS should generally be more resistant to price swings than other debt securities because the interest rates of ARMS move with market interest rates. The adjustable-rate feature of ARMS will not, however, eliminate fluctuations in the prices of ARMS, particularly during periods of extreme fluctuations in interest rates. Also, because many adjustable-rate mortgages only reset on an annual basis, it can be expected that the prices of ARMS will fluctuate to the extent that changes in prevailing interest rates are not immediately reflected in the interest rates payable on the underlying adjustable-rate mortgages.
Stripped Mortgage-Backed Securities.   Stripped mortgage-backed securities are securities that are created when a U.S. Government agency or a financial institution separates the interest and principal components of a mortgage-backed security and sells them as individual securities. The holder of the PO receives the principal payments made by the underlying mortgage-backed security, while the holder of the IO receives interest payments from the same underlying security. The prices of stripped mortgage-backed securities may be particularly affected by changes in interest rates. As interest rates fall, prepayment rates tend to increase, which tends to reduce prices of IOs and increase prices of POs. Rising interest rates can have the opposite effect.
Estimated Average Life.   Due to the possibility of prepayments of the underlying mortgage instruments, mortgage-backed securities generally do not have a known maturity. In the absence of a known maturity, market participants generally refer to an “average life estimate.” An average life estimate is a function of an assumption regarding anticipated prepayment patterns and is based upon current interest rates, current conditions in the relevant housing markets and other factors. The assumption is necessarily subjective, and thus different market participants can produce different average life estimates with regard to the same security. There can be no assurance that the estimated average life will be a security’s actual average life.
Municipal Securities
Municipal securities consist of: (i) debt obligations issued by or on behalf of public authorities to obtain funds to be used for various public facilities, refunding outstanding obligations, general operating expenses and lending such funds to other public
24

TABLE OF CONTENTS
institutions and facilities, and (ii) certain private activity and industrial development bonds issued by or on behalf of public authorities to obtain funds to provide for the construction, equipment, repair or improvement of privately operated facilities. Additional information regarding municipal securities is described below:
Municipal Bonds.   Municipal bonds are debt obligations issued to obtain funds for various public purposes. Municipal bonds include general obligation bonds, revenue or special obligation bonds, private activity and industrial development bonds, moral obligation bonds and participation interests in municipal bonds. General obligation bonds are backed by the taxing power of the issuing municipality. Revenue bonds are backed by the revenues of a project or facility, such as tolls from a toll bridge. Certificates of participation represent an interest in an underlying obligation or commitment, such as an obligation issued in connection with a leasing arrangement. The payment of principal and interest on private activity and industrial development bonds is generally dependent solely on the ability of the facility’s user to meet its financial obligations and the pledge, if any, of real and personal property so financed as security for such payment. A Fund may purchase private activity or industrial development bonds if, in the opinion of counsel for the issuers, the interest paid is exempt from federal income tax. Municipal bonds are issued by or on behalf of public authorities to raise money to finance various privately-owned or operated facilities for business and manufacturing, housing, sports and pollution control. These bonds are also used to finance public facilities such as airports, mass transit systems, ports, parking, sewage or solid waste disposal facilities and certain other facilities. The payment of the principal and interest on such bonds is dependent solely on the ability of the facility’s user to meet its financial obligations and the pledge, if any, of real and personal property so financed as security for such payment. Moral obligation bonds are normally issued by special purpose authorities. Moral obligation bonds are not backed by the full faith and credit of the state, but are generally backed by the agreement of the issuing authority to request appropriations from the state legislative body.
Municipal Leases.   Municipal leases are instruments, or participations in instruments, issued in connection with lease obligations or installment purchase contract obligations of municipalities (so-called “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 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. Municipal lease obligations are a form of financing, and the market for such obligations is still developing. Municipal leases will be treated as liquid only if they satisfy criteria set forth in guidelines established by the Board, and there can be no assurance that a market will exist or continue to exist for any municipal lease obligation. Information regarding illiquid securities is provided under the section “Illiquid Securities” above.
Municipal Notes.   Municipal notes consist of general obligation notes, tax anticipation notes (notes sold to finance working capital needs of the issuer in anticipation of receiving taxes on a future date), revenue anticipation notes (notes sold to provide needed cash prior to receipt of expected non-tax revenues from a specific source), bond anticipation notes, tax and revenue anticipation notes, certificates of indebtedness, demand notes and construction loan notes. The maturities of the instruments at the time of issue will generally range from three months to one year.
The Adviser and/or a Sub-Adviser, as applicable, may rely 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.
Pay-in-Kind Securities
The fixed income oriented Funds may invest in pay-in-kind securities. Pay-in-kind securities are debt obligations or preferred stock that pays interest or dividends in the form of additional debt obligations or preferred stock.
Private Placements
Investment in privately placed securities may be less liquid than in publicly traded securities. Although these securities may be resold in privately negotiated transactions, the prices realized from these sales could be less than those originally paid by a Fund or less than what may be considered the fair value of such securities. Furthermore, companies whose securities are not publicly traded may not be subject to the disclosure and other investor protection requirements that might be applicable if their securities were publicly traded.
25

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Put Transactions
A Fund may purchase securities at a price which would result in a yield to maturity lower than generally offered by the seller at the time of purchase when the Fund can simultaneously acquire the right to sell the securities back to the seller, the issuer or a third party (the “writer”) at an agreed-upon price at any time during a stated period or on a certain date. Such a right is generally denoted as a “standby commitment” or a “put.” The purpose of engaging in transactions involving puts is to maintain flexibility and liquidity to permit a Fund to meet redemptions and remain as fully invested as possible in municipal securities. A Fund reserves the right to engage in put transactions. The right to put the securities depends on the writer’s ability to pay for the securities at the time the put is exercised. A Fund would limit its put transactions to institutions which an adviser believes present minimum credit risks, and an adviser would use its best efforts to initially determine and continue to monitor the financial strength of the sellers of the options by evaluating their financial statements and such other information as is available in the marketplace. It may, however, be difficult to monitor the financial strength of the writers because adequate current financial information may not be available. In the event that any writer is unable to honor a put for financial reasons, a Fund would be a general creditor (i.e., on a parity with all other unsecured creditors) of the writer. Furthermore, particular provisions of the contract between a Fund and the writer may excuse the writer from repurchasing the securities; for example, a change in the published rating of the underlying municipal securities or any similar event that has an adverse effect on the issuer’s credit or a provision in the contract that the put will not be exercised except in certain special cases; for example, to maintain Fund liquidity. A Fund could, however, at any time sell the underlying portfolio security in the open market or wait until the portfolio security matures, at which time it should realize the full par value of the security.
The securities purchased subject to a put may be sold to third persons at any time, even though the put is outstanding, but the put itself, unless it is an integral part of the security as originally issued, may not be marketable or otherwise assignable. Therefore, the put would have value only to that particular Fund. Sale of the securities to third parties or lapse of time with the put unexercised may terminate the right to put the securities. Prior to the expiration of any put option, a Fund could seek to negotiate terms for the extension of such an option. If such a renewal cannot be negotiated on terms satisfactory to the Fund, the Fund could, of course, sell the portfolio security. The maturity of the underlying security will generally be different from that of the put. For the purpose of determining the “maturity” of securities purchased subject to an option to put, and for the purpose of determining the dollar-weighted average maturity of a Fund including such securities, the Fund will consider “maturity” to be the first date on which it has the right to demand payment from the writer of the put although the final maturity of the security is later than such date.
Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”)
REITs are pooled investment vehicles which invest primarily in income producing real estate or real estate related loans or interests. 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. REITs are not taxed on income distributed to shareholders provided they comply with the applicable tax laws. Debt securities issued by REITs, for the most part, are general and unsecured obligations and are subject to risks associated with REITs.
Investing in REITs involves certain unique risks in addition to those risks associated with investing in the real estate industry in general. An equity REIT may be affected by changes in the value of the underlying properties owned by the REIT. A mortgage REIT may be affected by changes in interest rates and the ability of the issuers of its Fund mortgages to repay their obligations. REITs are dependent upon the skills of their managers and are not diversified. REITs are generally dependent upon maintaining cash flows to repay borrowings and to make distributions to shareholders and are subject to the risk of default by lessees or borrowers. REITs whose underlying assets are concentrated in properties used by a particular industry, such as health care, are also subject to industry related risks.
REITs (especially mortgage REITs) also are subject to interest rate risks. When interest rates decline, the value of a REIT’s investment in fixed rate obligations can be expected to rise. Conversely, when interest rates rise, the value of a REIT’s investment in fixed rate obligations can be expected to decline. If the REIT invests in adjustable-rate mortgage loans the interest rates on which are reset periodically, yields on a REIT’s investments in such loans will gradually align themselves to reflect changes in market interest rates. This causes the value of such investments to fluctuate less dramatically in response to interest rate fluctuations than would investments in fixed rate obligations.
26

TABLE OF CONTENTS
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 larger company securities. Historically, REITs have been more volatile in price than the larger capitalization stocks included in Standard & Poor’s 500® Stock Index (“S&P 500”).
Repurchase Agreements
The Funds may enter into repurchase agreements. Under the terms of a typical repurchase agreement, a Fund would acquire an underlying debt obligation for a relatively short period (usually not more than one week) subject to an obligation of the seller to repurchase, and the Fund to resell, the obligation at an agreed upon price and time, thereby determining the yield during the Fund’s holding period. This arrangement results in a fixed rate of return that is not subject to market fluctuations during the Fund’s holding period. A Fund may enter into repurchase agreements with respect to U.S. government securities with member banks of the Federal Reserve System and certain non-bank dealers. Under each repurchase agreement, the selling institution is required to maintain the value of the securities subject to the repurchase agreement at not less than their repurchase price. A Fund’s Sub-adviser, acting under the supervision of the Trustees, reviews on an ongoing basis the value of the collateral and the creditworthiness of those non-bank dealers with whom the Fund enters into repurchase agreements. A Fund 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. In entering into a repurchase agreement, a Fund bears a risk of loss in the event the other party to the transaction defaults on its obligations and the Fund is delayed or prevented from exercising its rights to dispose of the underlying securities, including the risk of a possible decline in the value of the underlying securities during the period in which the Fund seeks to assert its rights to them, the risk of incurring expenses associated with asserting those rights and the risk of losing all or a part of the income from the agreement.
Reverse Repurchase Agreements
Reverse repurchase agreements are transactions in which a Fund sells portfolio securities to financial institutions, such as banks and broker-dealers, and agrees to repurchase them at a mutually agreed-upon date and price that is higher than the original sale price. Reverse repurchase agreements are similar to a fully collateralized borrowing by a Fund. 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. The Rule permits a Fund to elect whether to treat a reverse repurchase agreement as a borrowing, subject to the asset coverage requirements of Section 18 of the Act, or as a Derivative Transactions under Rule 18f-4. See “Derivatives” above.
Reverse repurchase agreements involve risks. Reverse repurchase agreements are a form of leverage, and the use of reverse repurchase agreements by a Fund may increase the Fund’s volatility. Reverse repurchase agreements are also subject to the risk that the other party to the reverse repurchase agreement will be unable or unwilling to complete the transaction as scheduled, which may result in losses to a Fund. Reverse repurchase agreements also involve the risk that the market value of the securities sold by a Fund may decline below the price at which it is obligated to repurchase the securities. In addition, when a Fund invests the proceeds it receives in a reverse repurchase transaction, there is a risk that those investments may decline in value. In this circumstance, a Fund could be required to sell other investments in order to meet its obligations to repurchase the securities.
Rule 144A Securities Risk
The market for Rule 144A securities typically is less active than the market for publicly traded securities. Rule 144A securities carry the risk that their liquidity may become impaired and the Fund may be unable to dispose of the securities promptly or at reasonable prices.
Special Purpose Acquisition Companies
The Fund may invest in publicly or private offered special purpose acquisition companies (“SPACs”) to the extent that 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. SPACs and similar entities may be blank check companies with no operating history or ongoing business other than to seek a potential acquisition. Certain SPACs may seek acquisitions only in limited industries or regions, which may increase the volatility of their prices. Investments in SPACs may be illiquid and/or be subject to restrictions on resale. To the extent the SPAC is invested in cash or similar securities, this may impact a Fund’s ability to meet its investment objective.
27

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SPACs involve risks. 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. SPACs and similar entities may be blank check companies with no operating history or ongoing business other than to seek a potential acquisition. Accordingly, 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. Investments in SPACs may be illiquid and/or be subject to restrictions on resale. To the extent the SPAC is invested in cash or similar securities, this may impact a Fund’s ability to meet its investment objective.
Structured Notes
Typically, the value of the principal and/or interest on these instruments is determined by reference to changes in the value of specific currencies, interest rates, indexes or other financial indicators (“Reference”) or the relevant change in two or more References. The interest rate or the principal amount payable upon maturity or redemption may be increased or decreased depending upon changes in the applicable Reference. The terms of the structured securities may provide that in certain circumstances no principal is due at maturity and, therefore, may result in the loss of the Fund’s entire investment. The value of structured securities may move in the same or the opposite direction as the value of the Reference, so that appreciation of the Reference may produce an increase or decrease in the interest rate or value of the security at maturity. In addition, the change in interest rate or the value of the security at maturity may be a multiple of the change in the value of the Reference so that the security may be more or less volatile than the Reference, depending on the multiple. Consequently, structured securities may entail a greater degree of market risk and volatility than other types of debt obligations. Structured notes are derivative debt securities, the interest rate or principal of which is determined by an unrelated indicator. Indexed securities include structured notes as well as securities other than debt securities, the interest rate or principal of which is determined by an unrelated indicator. Indexed securities may include a multiplier that multiplies the indexed element by a specified factor and, therefore, the value of such securities may be very volatile. To the extent the Funds invest in these securities, however, the Sub-adviser analyzes these securities in its overall assessment of the effective duration of the Funds’ portfolio in an effort to monitor the Funds’ interest rate risk. Certain restrictions imposed on the Funds by the IRC may limit the Funds’ ability to use structured notes.
TBAs
A Fund that purchases or sells mortgage-backed securities may choose to purchase or sell certain mortgage-backed securities on a delayed delivery or forward commitment basis through the “to-be announced” ​(TBA) market. With TBA transactions, the fund would enter into a commitment to either purchase or sell mortgage-backed securities for a fixed price, with payment and delivery at a scheduled future date beyond the customary settlement period for mortgage-backed securities. These transactions are considered to be TBA because a Fund commits to buy a pool of mortgages that have yet to be specifically identified but will meet certain standardized parameters (such as yield, duration, and credit quality) and contain similar loan characteristics. For either purchase or sale transactions, a Fund may choose to extend the settlement through a “dollar roll” transaction in which it sells mortgage-backed securities to a dealer and simultaneously agrees to purchase substantially similar securities in the future at a predetermined price. These transactions have the potential to enhance a Fund’s returns and reduce its administrative burdens when compared with holding mortgage-backed securities directly, although these transactions will increase the Fund’s portfolio turnover rate. During the roll period, a Fund forgoes principal and interest paid on the securities. However, the Fund would be compensated by the difference between the current sale price and the forward price for the future purchase, as well as by the interest earned on the cash proceeds of the initial sale. Although the particular TBA securities must meet industry-accepted “good delivery” standards, there can be no assurance that a security purchased on a forward commitment basis will ultimately be issued or delivered by the counterparty. During the settlement period, a Fund will still bear the risk of any decline in the value of the security to be delivered. Dollar roll transactions involve the simultaneous purchase and sale of substantially similar TBA securities for different settlement dates. Because these transactions do not require the purchase and sale of identical securities, the characteristics of the security delivered to the fund may be less favorable than the security delivered to the dealer.
Temporary Investments
For temporary defensive purposes, during periods when a Sub-adviser of a Fund, in consultation with the Adviser, believes that pursuing a Fund’s basic investment strategy may be inconsistent with the best interests of its shareholders, that Fund may invest its assets in the following money market instruments: U.S. government securities (including those purchased in the form of custodial receipts), repurchase agreements, CD and bankers’ acceptances issued by U.S. banks or savings and loan associations having assets of at least $500 million as of the end of their most recent fiscal year and high quality commercial
28

TABLE OF CONTENTS
paper. A Fund also may hold a portion of its assets in money market instruments or cash in amounts designed to pay expenses, to meet anticipated redemptions or pending investment in accordance with its objectives and policies. Any temporary investments may be purchased on a when-issued basis. A Fund’s investment in any other short-term debt instruments would be subject to the Fund’s investment objectives and policies, and to approval by the Board. For further discussion regarding money market instruments, see the section entitled, “Money Market Instruments” above.
U.S. Government Securities
U.S. government securities are subject to market and interest rate risk, and may be subject to varying degrees of credit risk. The U.S. government securities in which the Fund may invest include debt obligations of varying maturities issued by the U.S. Treasury or issued or guaranteed by an agency or instrumentality of the U.S. government, including the Federal Housing Administration, Federal Financing Bank, Farmers Home Administration, Export-Import Bank of the U.S., Small Business Administration, GNMA, General Services Administration, Central Bank for Cooperatives, Federal Farm Credit Banks, Federal Home Loan Banks, FHLMC, FNMA, Maritime Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority, District of Columbia Armory Board, Student Loan Marketing Association, Resolution Trust Corporation and various institutions that previously were or currently are part of the Farm Credit System. Some U.S. government securities, such as U.S. Treasury bills, Treasury notes and Treasury bonds, which differ only in their interest rates, maturities and times of issuance, are supported by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Others are supported by: (i) the right of the issuer to borrow from the U.S. Treasury, such as securities of the Federal Home Loan Banks; (ii) the discretionary authority of the U.S. government to purchase the agency’s obligations, such as securities of FNMA; or (iii) only the credit of the issuer, such as securities of FHLMC. No assurance can be given that the U.S. government will provide financial support in the future to U.S. government agencies, authorities or instrumentalities that are not supported by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Securities guaranteed as to principal and interest by the U.S. government, its agencies, authorities or instrumentalities (“U.S. government securities”) include: (i) securities for which the payment of principal and interest is backed by an irrevocable letter of credit issued by the U.S. government or any of its agencies, authorities or instrumentalities; and (ii) participations in loans made to foreign governments or other entities that are so guaranteed. The secondary market for certain of these participations is limited and, therefore, may be regarded as illiquid.
U.S. government securities may include zero coupon securities, which tend to be subject to greater market risk than interest-paying securities of similar maturities, that may be purchased when yields are attractive and/or to enhance Fund liquidity. Zero coupon U.S. government securities are debt obligations that are issued or purchased at a significant discount from face value. The discount approximates the total amount of interest the security will accrue and compound over the period until maturity or the particular interest payment date at a rate of interest reflecting the market rate of the security at the time of issuance. Zero coupon U.S. government securities do not require the periodic payment of interest. These investments benefit the issuer by mitigating its need for cash to meet debt service, but also require a higher rate of return to attract investors who are willing to defer receipt of cash. These investments may experience greater volatility in market value than U.S. government securities that make regular payments of interest. A Fund accrues income on these investments for tax and accounting purposes that is distributable to shareholders and which, because no cash is received at the time of accrual, may require the liquidation of other portfolio securities to satisfy the Fund’s distribution obligations, in which case the Fund will forgo the purchase of additional income producing assets with these funds. Zero coupon U.S. government securities include Separately Traded Registered Interest and Principal Securities (“STRIPS”) and Coupons Under Book-Entry Safekeeping (“CUBES”), which are issued by the U.S. Treasury as component parts of U.S. Treasury bonds and represent scheduled interest and principal payments on the bonds.
If the total public debt of the U.S. Government as a percentage of gross domestic product reaches high levels as a result of combating financial downturn or otherwise, such high levels of debt 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.
An increase in national debt levels may also necessitate 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. Future downgrades 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 statutory debt ceiling negotiations may impact the U.S. long-term
29

TABLE OF CONTENTS
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.
Exchange Rate-Related U.S. Government Securities.   The Funds may invest up to 5% of their assets in U.S. government securities for which the principal repayment at maturity, while paid in U.S. dollars, is determined by reference to the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the currency of one or more foreign countries (“Exchange Rate-Related Securities”). The interest payable on these securities is denominated in U.S. dollars, is not subject to foreign currency risk and, in most cases, is paid at rates higher than most other U.S. government securities in recognition of the foreign currency risk component of Exchange Rate-Related Securities.
Exchange Rate-Related Securities are issued in a variety of forms, depending on the structure of the principal repayment formula. The principal repayment formula may be structured so that the security holder will benefit if a particular foreign currency to which the security is linked is stable or appreciates against the U.S. dollar. In the alternative, the principal repayment formula may be structured so that the security holder benefits if the U.S. dollar is stable or appreciates against the linked foreign currency. Finally, the principal repayment formula can be a function of more than one currency and, therefore, be designed as a combination of those forms.
Investments in Exchange Rate-Related Securities entail special risks. There is the possibility of significant changes in rates of exchange between the U.S. dollar and any foreign currency to which an Exchange Rate-Related Security is linked. If currency exchange rates do not move in the direction or to the extent anticipated by the Sub-adviser at the time of purchase of the security, the amount of principal repaid at maturity might be significantly below the par value of the security, which might not be offset by the interest earned by the Fund over the term of the security. The rate of exchange between the U.S. dollar and other currencies is determined by the forces of supply and demand in the foreign exchange markets. These forces are affected by the international balance of payments and other economic and financial conditions, government intervention, speculation and other factors. The imposition or modification of foreign exchange controls by the U.S. or foreign governments or intervention by central banks could also affect exchange rates. Finally, there is no assurance that sufficient trading interest to create a liquid secondary market will exist for a particular Exchange Rate-Related Security because of conditions in the debt and foreign currency markets. Illiquidity in the forward foreign exchange market and the high volatility of the foreign exchange market may from time to time combine to make it difficult to sell an Exchange Rate-Related Security prior to maturity without incurring a significant price loss.
When-Issued and Delayed Delivery Securities
The Funds may purchase securities, including U.S. government securities, on a when-issued basis or may purchase or sell securities for delayed delivery. When-issued and delayed delivery basis, including “TBA” ​(to be announced) basis, transactions involve the purchase of an instrument with payment and delivery taking place in the future. In such transactions, delivery of the securities occurs beyond the normal settlement period, but no payment or delivery is made by a Fund prior to the actual delivery or payment by the other party to the transaction. The purchase of securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis involves the risk that the value of the securities purchased will decline prior to the settlement date. The sale of securities for delayed delivery involves the risk that the prices available in the market on the delivery date may be greater than those obtained in the sale transaction.
Rule 18f-4 under 1940 Act permits a Fund to enter into when-issued or delayed delivery basis 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. If a when-issued or delayed delivery basis security does not satisfy those requirements, the Fund would need to comply with Rule 18f-4 under the 1940 Act with respect to its when issued or delayed delivery transactions, which are considered Derivative Transactions under the Rule. See “Derivatives” above.
INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS
The following investment restrictions have been adopted by the Trust as fundamental policies of each of the Funds. Each Fund’s investment objective, stated in the Prospectus, is not fundamental, meaning that each may be changed by a vote of a majority of the Board at any time upon at least 60 days’ prior notice to shareholders. Under the 1940 Act, a fundamental policy may not be changed without the vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, which is defined in the 1940 Act as the lesser of  (i) 67% or more of the shares present at a Fund meeting, if the holders of more than 50% of the
30

TABLE OF CONTENTS
outstanding shares of the Fund are present or represented by proxy, or (ii) more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the Fund.
Each Fund may comply with its investment policies by investing a portion of its assets in the interests of other pooled investment vehicles, in which case the Fund’s investments in such entity shall be deemed to be an investment in the underlying securities in the same proportion as such entity’s investment in such securities bears to its net assets.
Fundamental Investment Restrictions
1.   The Funds will not invest more than 25% of its total assets in securities, the issuers of which conduct their principal business activities in the same industry. For purposes of this limitation, U.S. government securities and securities of state or municipal governments and their political subdivisions are not considered to be issued by members of any industry.
2.   The Funds will not issue “senior securities” as defined in the 1940 Act, and the rules, regulations and orders thereunder, except as permitted under the 1940 Act and the rules, regulations and orders thereunder, as such statute, rules, regulations or orders may be amended or interpreted from time to time.
3.   The Funds will not borrow money, except that (a) the Funds may borrow from banks for temporary or emergency (not leveraging) purposes, including the meeting of redemption requests which might otherwise require the untimely disposition of securities, in an amount not exceeding 3313% of the value of a Fund’s total assets (including the amount borrowed) valued at the lesser of cost or market, less liabilities (not including the amount borrowed) and (b) the Funds may, to the extent consistent with its investment policies, enter into reverse repurchase agreements, forward roll transactions and similar investment strategies and techniques.
4.   The Funds will not make loans. This restriction does not apply to: (a) the purchase of debt obligations in which the Funds may invest consistent with its investment objectives and policies (including participation interests in such obligations); (b) repurchase agreements; and (c) loans of its portfolio securities.
5.   The Funds will not purchase or sell real estate, real estate mortgages, commodities or commodity contracts, but this restriction shall not prevent the Funds from: (a) investing in and selling securities of issuers engaged in the real estate business and securities which are secured by real estate or interests therein; (b) holding or selling real estate received in connection with securities it holds; (c) trading in futures contracts and options on futures contracts or (d) investing in or purchasing real estate investment trust securities.
6.   The Funds will not engage in the business of underwriting securities issued by other persons, except to the extent that the Funds may technically be deemed to be an underwriter under the 1933 Act in disposing of portfolio securities.
7.   The Funds will not purchase any securities on margin (except for such short-term credits as are necessary for the clearance of purchases and sales of portfolio securities). For purposes of this restriction, the deposit or payment by the Funds of underlying securities and other assets in escrow and collateral agreements with respect to initial or maintenance margin in connection with futures contracts and related options and options on securities, indexes or similar items is not considered to be the purchase of a security on margin.
8.   With respect to the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund, the Fund will invest, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of any borrowing for investment purposes) in debt instruments that pay interest that is exempt from regular federal income tax.
The Funds’ fundamental policies are written and will be interpreted broadly. For example, the policies will be interpreted to refer to the 1940 Act and the related rules as they are in effect from time to time, and to interpretations and modifications of or relating to the 1940 Act by the SEC and others as they are given from time to time. When a policy provides that an investment practice may be conducted as permitted by the 1940 Act, the policy will be interpreted to mean either that the 1940 Act expressly permits the practice or that the 1940 Act does not prohibit the practice.
Additional Information About Concentration
With respect to the fundamental policy relating to concentration set forth in (1) above, the 1940 Act does not define what constitutes “concentration” in an industry. The SEC staff has taken the position that investment of 25% or more of a Fund’s total assets in one or more issuers conducting their principal activities in the same industry or group of industries constitutes concentration. It is possible that interpretations of concentration could change in the future. In general, a fund that invests a significant percentage of its total assets in a single industry or group of industries may be particularly susceptible to adverse
31

TABLE OF CONTENTS
events affecting that industry or group of industries and may be more risky than a fund that does not concentrate in an industry.
The policy in (1) above will be interpreted to refer to concentration as that term may be interpreted from time to time. The policy also will be interpreted to permit investment without limit in the following: securities of the U.S. government and its agencies or instrumentalities; with respect to tax-exempt funds that invest 80% of their assets in tax-exempt securities, securities of state, territory, possession or municipal governments and their authorities, agencies, instrumentalities or political subdivisions; and repurchase agreements collateralized by any such obligations. Accordingly, issuers of the foregoing securities will not be considered to be members of any industry.
The policy also will be interpreted to give broad authority to the Funds as to how to classify issuers within or among industry groups, industries or sub-industries. When identifying sectors, industry groups, industries or sub-industries for purposes of its concentration policy, a Fund may rely upon available industry and sub-industry classifications. As of the date of the SAI, the Funds rely on the MSCI Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) classifications. For purposes of the Funds’ concentration policy, the Funds may classify and re-classify companies in a particular industry or sub-industry and define and re- define industries and sub-industries in any reasonable manner, consistent with SEC and SEC staff guidance.
For purposes of the investment limitation on concentration in a particular industry, (i) each foreign government is deemed to be its own industry, (ii) loan participations will be considered investments in the industry or sub-industry of the underlying borrower, rather than that of the seller of the loan participation, (iii) municipal obligations are not considered a separate industry, (iv) finance companies will be considered a part of the industry they finance; and (v) each sub-industry of the GICS “Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts” industry will be considered a separate industry.
The following are non-fundamental investment restrictions and may be changed by a vote of a majority of the Board at any time upon at least 60 days’ prior notice to shareholders. Each Fund’s investment objective, stated in the Prospectus, is not fundamental.
Non-Fundamental Investment Restrictions
Unless otherwise explicitly stated herein, the investment policies, strategies and restrictions of the Funds are not fundamental and may be changed by the Board, without shareholder approval. Further, the investment objectives of the Funds are not fundamental and may be changed by the Board without shareholder approval.
1.   The Funds will not invest in oil, gas or other mineral leases or exploration or development programs.
2.   The Funds will not make short sales of securities, unless it owns or has the right to obtain securities equivalent in kind and amount to the securities sold and provided that transactions in futures contracts and options are not deemed to constitute selling securities short.
3.   The Funds will not make investments for the purpose of exercising control or management.
4.   The Funds will not purchase securities of other investment companies, except as permitted by 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.
5.   The Funds will not purchase or otherwise acquire any security if, as a result, more than 15% of its net assets would be invested in securities that are illiquid.
6.   The Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund will invest, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes) in the equity securities of large capitalization companies.
7.   The Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund will invest, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes) in the equity securities of small-mid capitalization companies.
8.   The Destinations International Equity Fund will invest, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of any borrowing for investment purposes) in equity securities.
9.   The Destinations Equity Income Fund will invest, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes) in dividend-paying equity securities of both U.S.-based and foreign companies.
10.   The Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund will invest, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of any borrowing for investment purposes) in fixed income instruments.
32

TABLE OF CONTENTS
11.   The Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund will invest, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its total assets in a diversified portfolio of fixed income securities.
12.   The Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund will invest, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus the amount of any borrowing for investment purposes) in fixed income securities.
Any percentage limitations contained in the restrictions listed above or in a Fund’s investment policies, strategies and restrictions (other than with the fundamental investment restriction regarding borrowing described above) apply at the time of purchase of securities. With respect to the limitation on illiquid securities, 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 instruments back within the limitations as soon as reasonably practicable. For purposes of the Funds’ investments in illiquid instruments, the term “illiquid investment” shall be defined in reference to Rule 22e-4 under the 1940 Act, as it may be interpreted, amended or supplemented by the SEC and its staff from time to time.
The Funds will, for the purpose of determining whether a Fund’s portfolio is concentrated in a particular industry, consider the investment policies and/or concentration of its underlying investment companies when determining the Fund’s compliance with its concentration policies.
33

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS OF THE TRUST
The Trust’s Board of Trustees (“Board” or “Trustees”) is responsible for overseeing the Trust’s management and operations. The Board approves all significant agreements between the Trust and the companies that furnish services to the Funds, including agreements with the Trust’s distributor, the Adviser, the Sub-advisers, custodian, transfer agent and administrator. The Board elects officers who are responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Trust and the Funds and who execute policies authorized by the Board.
Orion Portfolio Solutions, LLC d.b.a. Brinker Capital Investments (the “Adviser”), serves as the investment adviser for the Funds. The Funds employ a “multi-manager” strategy. The Adviser selects and oversees professional money managers (each a “Sub-adviser”) who are responsible for investing the assets of the Funds allocated to them. In addition to investment advisory services, the Adviser monitors and supervises the services provided to the Trust by its administrator. The Adviser also is responsible for conducting all operations of the Trust, except those operations contracted to the Sub-advisers, the custodian, the transfer agent and the administrator.
The names of the Trustees and officers of the Trust, their addresses, and years of birth, together with information as to their principal business occupations and, for the Trustees, other board memberships they have held during the past five years, are set forth below. There is no stated term of office for the Trustees of the Trust. However, a Trustee must retire from the Board by the end of the calendar year in which the Trustee turns 78 provided that, although there shall be a presumption that each Trustee attaining such age shall retire, the Board may, if it deems doing so to be consistent with the best interest of the Trust, and with the consent of any Trustee that is eligible for retirement, by unanimous vote of the Governance Committee and majority vote of the full Board, extend the term of such Trustee for successive periods of one year. Unless otherwise noted, the business address of each Trustee is 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 250, Berwyn, PA 19312.
The executive officers of the Trust are employees of organizations that provide services to the Funds. Unless otherwise noted, the business address of each officer is 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 250, Berwyn, PA 19312.
34

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Name, Address
and Date of Birth
Position(s)
Held with
Trust
Term of
Office and
Length
of Time
Served*
Principal Occupation(s)
During Past Five Years
Number of
Funds in
Fund
Complex
Overseen
By Trustee
Other Board Memberships
Held During Past Five
Years by Trustee
INDEPENDENT TRUSTEES*
J. Scott Coleman, CFA
Birth Year: 1960
Trustee Since 2017 President and Managing Partner of Woodland Park Consulting, LLC since 2017. President and CEO of Optimum Fund Trust from 2011 to 2015. President of Delaware Distributors from 2008 to 2015. Executive Vice President, Head of Distribution and Marketing, Delaware Investments 2008 to 2015. In addition, Head of Macquarie Investment Management EMEA Distribution from 2012 to 2015. Managing Director at Goldman Sachs & Co. from 2001 to 2008.
10
Osterweis Capital Management since May 2022, Optimum Fund Trust from 2011 to 2015.
Nicholas
Marsini, Jr.
Birth Year: 1955
Trustee,
Chair of
Audit Committee
Since 2017
Retired since 2016. Regional President of PNC Delaware from 2011 to 2016. Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of PNC Global Investment Servicing from 1997 to 2010.
10
FundVantage Trust, Third Avenue Trust, Third Avenue Variable Series Trust.
Gregory E. McGowan
Birth Year: 1949
Trustee Since 2017 President and CEO, GEMPENN Global Consultancy, Inc. since 2016. Senior Strategic Advisor, Franklin Templeton Investments in 2016. Executive Vice President, Director and General Counsel of Templeton International, Inc. from 1992 to 2016. Executive Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel of Templeton Global Advisors Limited (a Bahamian corporation) from 1992 to 2016.
10
Lifestar Holdings (Formerly Global Capital PLC a Malta Public Company), Franklin Templeton Sealand Fund Management Co. Ltd., China Life Franklin Asset Management Company Limited, Templeton Investment Counsel LLC, Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Limited (India), Franklin Templeton International Services S.A. (Luxembourg), Franklin Templeton Investments (Asia) Limited, Franklin Templeton Investments Japan Ltd., Templeton Asset Management Ltd. (Singapore), Franklin Templeton Holding Limited (Mauritius), Franklin Templeton Investment Services Mexico, S. de R. L., Templeton Global Growth Fund Ltd (Australia), Franklin Liberty Shares ICAV (Ireland), Franklin Emerging Markets Debt Fund PLC (Ireland), Franklin Floating Rate Fund PLC (Ireland), The Dar Group (sub-advisory board), Hammerspace Inc. (sub-advisory board).
*
Each Trustee remains in office until he or she resigns, retires or is removed.
35

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Name, Address
and Date of Birth
Position(s)
Held with
Trust
Term of
Office and
Length
of Time
Served*
Principal Occupation(s)
During Past Five Years
Number of
Funds in
Fund 
Complex
Overseen
by Trustee
Other Board Memberships
Held During Past Five
Years by Trustee
INTERESTED TRUSTEES*
Joseph V. Del Raso**
Birth Year: 1952
Trustee Since 2017 (Chair of the Board until April 1, 2018). Partner at Troutman Pepper Hamilton LLP (law firm) since 1998.
10
Lifestar Holdings (Formerly Global Capital PLC a Malta Public Company).
Noreen D. Beaman
Birth Year: 1964
Chair of the Board of Trustees Since 2018 President of Brinker Capital Investments, LLC from 2020 until 2022. Chief Executive Officer of Brinker Capital, Inc. from 2012 to 2020. President of Brinker Capital Holdings, LLC from 2020 to 2022. President and CEO of Brinker Capital Securities, LLC from 2014 to 2022. President of Orion Advisor Solutions, Inc. from 2021 to 2022 (EVP in 2020). President of Orion Advisor Technology, LLC from 2021 to 2022 (EVP in 2020). President of Orion Portfolio Solutions, LLC from 2021 to 2022.
10
Commonwealth Financial Network, Advisory Board. May of 2023 Board of Directors/Managers for following entities since 2020 and Vice Chair since February 2022: GT Polaris GP, LLC, GT Polaris Holdings, Inc., GT Polaris Midco, Inc., Orion Advisor Solutions, Inc.
*
Each Trustee remains in office until he or she resigns, retires or is removed.
**
Mr. Del Raso became an “interested” Trustee (as such term is defined under Section 2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act) as of April 1, 2018. The law firm at which Mr. Del Raso is a partner provides legal services to a current Sub-Adviser of the Funds, making Mr. Del Raso an interested person with respect to the Trust, as a technical matter, pursuant to paragraphs (A)(iii) and (B)(iv) of Section 2(a)(19) of the 1940 Act.
36

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Name, Address and Date of
Birth
Position(s)
Held with
Trust
Term of
Office and
Length of
Time
Served
Principal Occupation(s) During Past
Five Years
OFFICERS***
Brian Ferko
Birth Year: 1971
President & Chief Operating Officer
Since March 2024 and September 2023
respectively
Chief Compliance Officer of Brinker Capital Investments from 2015 to 2023; Chief Compliance Officer of Brinker Capital Investments, LLC contracted through Cipperman Compliance Services from 2010 to 2015; Chief Operating Officer of Cipperman Compliance Services from 2012 to 2015.
Kevin Fustos
Birth Year: 1970
Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer Since December 2020 Vice President of Financial Planning and Analysis, Orion Advisor Solutions, since 2016; Omaha Public Power District from 2004 to 2016.
Peter Townsend
Birth Year: 1977
Secretary,
Chief Compliance Officer & Anti Money Laundering Officer
Since January 2017 and March 2024 respectively. Deputy Funds Chief Compliance Officer of Brinker Capital Investments since 2017; Director of Compliance of Penn Capital Management Company, Inc. from 2015 to 2017; Director of Compliance of Cipperman Compliance Services from 2013 to 2015; Associate of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. from 2008 to 2013.
Kylee Beach
Birth Year: 1984
Assistant Secretary Since March 2024 General Counsel and Secretary, Orion Advisor Solutions, Inc., since 2019; Orion Advisor Technology, LLC, since 2014; Brinker Capital Investments, since 2020 and also General Counsel for CLS Investments, LLC, now part of Brinker Capital Investments, LLC, since 2014; GT Polaris Holdings Inc., since 2020; GT Polaris Midco, Inc., since 2020; Brinker Capital Securities, LLC, since 2020; Advizr, Inc., since 2019; Orion Portfolio Solutions, LLC, since 2018; BasisCode Compliance, LLC, since 2021; Redtail Technology Inc., since 2022; TownSquare Capital, LLC, since 2022; Associate General Counsel, NorthStar Financial Services Group, LLC from 2012 to 2018.
Toni Gretsky, IACCP®
Birth Year: 1976
Assistant Secretary
Since June 2024
Senior Compliance and Fund Operations Manager of Brinker Capital Investments since 2023; Senior Compliance Associate at Orion Portfolio Solutions from 2020-2023; Compliance Coordinator at Brinker Capital from 2008-2020: Administrative Assistant/Supervisor for Brinker Capital from 2004-2008.
37

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Name, Address and Date of
Birth
Position(s)
Held with
Trust
Term of
Office and
Length of
Time
Served
Principal Occupation(s) During Past
Five Years
Timothy Holland, CFA
Birth Year: 1969
Investment Officer Since
June 2017
Chief Investment Officer of TownSquare Capital, LLC, an Orion Company, since 2023; Chief Investment Officer of Brinker Capital Investments from 2020 to 2023; Senior Vice President and Global Investment Strategist of Brinker Capital Investments, LLC from 2017 to 2020; Co-Head US Sub Advisory of Pictet Asset Management in 2016; Portfolio Manager and Partner of TAMRO Capital Partners from 2005 to 2016.
Rusty Vanneman, CFA, CMT, BFA
Birth Year: 1965
Investment Officer Since
June 2023
Chief Investment Officer and Senior Portfolio Manager at Brinker Capital Investments since 2023; Chief Investment Strategist at Brinker Capital Investments from 2020 to 2023; Chief Investment Officer at Brinker Capital Investments from 2019-2020; President at CLS Investments LLC from 2018-2019; Chief Investment Officer at CLS Investments LLC from 2012-2019.
Brian Storey, CFA
Birth Year: 1974
Investment Officer Since
June 2022
Deputy Chief Investment Officer —  Destinations Portfolios at Brinker Capital Investments since 2023; Senior Portfolio Manager at Brinker Capital Investments since 2022; Senior Vice President and Senior Portfolio Manager at First Citizens Bank & Trust from 2016 to 2021; Portfolio Manager and Senior Research Analyst at First Citizens Bank & Trust from 2010 to 2016.
Patrick Amerson
Birth Year: 1994
Investment Officer Since December 2021 Investment Analyst at Brinker Capital Investments since 2021; Client Service Representative at Brinker Capital Investments, LLC from 2019 to 2021; Operations Associate at Brinker Capital Investments, LLC from 2017-2019.
Andrew Goins, CFA
Birth Year: 1984
Investment Officer
Since June 2023
Senior Portfolio Manager at Brinker Capital Investments since 2023; Director of SMA and Mutual Fund Due Diligence at Brinker Capital Investments from 2021 to 2023; Investment Manager at Brinker Capital Investments from 2015 to 2021.
***
The President, Treasurer and Secretary hold office until their respective successors are chosen and qualified or until he or she sooner dies, resigns, is removed or becomes disqualified. Each of the other officers serves at the pleasure of the Board.
Board Composition and Leadership Structure
Three of the five Trustees on the Board (60%) are not “interested persons” ​(as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Trust and are not affiliated with the Adviser or any Sub-adviser (“Independent Trustees”). Ms. Beaman, an Interested Trustee, serves as Chair of the Board. There are two primary committees of the Board: the Audit Committee and the Governance Committee. The Audit Committee is chaired by Mr. Marsini and includes all of the Independent Trustees. The Governance Committee is
38

TABLE OF CONTENTS
chaired by Mr. Del Raso and includes all of the Trustees. The Board has determined that this leadership structure is appropriate given (i) the specific characteristics and circumstances of the Trust, (ii) the services that the Adviser and its affiliates and the Sub-advisers provide to the Trust, and (iii) the potential conflicts of interest that could arise from these relationships. The Board believes that the existing Board structure is appropriate because, among other things, it allows the Independent Trustees to exercise independent business judgment in evaluating the Trust’s management and service providers.
Board Oversight of Risk Management
The Board considers risk management as part of its general oversight responsibilities. As is the case with virtually all mutual funds, service providers to the Trust, primarily the Adviser and its affiliates and the Sub-advisers, have responsibility for the day-to-day management of the Funds, which includes responsibility for risk management (including management of investment performance and investment risk, valuation risk, issuer and counterparty credit risk, compliance risk and operational risk). As part of its oversight, the Board, acting at its scheduled meetings, or the Chair of the Board or the appropriate Committees, acting between Board meetings, regularly interacts with and receives reports from senior personnel of service providers, including the Adviser’s investment officers, the Trust’s and the Adviser’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) and the Sub- advisers’ portfolio management personnel. The Board’s Audit Committee meets during its scheduled meetings, and between meetings the Audit Committee Chair maintains contact, with the Trust’s independent registered public accounting firm and the Trust’s Chief Financial Officer. The Board receives periodic presentations from senior personnel of the Adviser or its affiliates regarding investment performance of the Funds and the applicable investment risk management process. The Board also receives periodic presentations from senior personnel of the Adviser or its affiliates and the Sub-advisers regarding risk management, as well as periodic presentations regarding specific operational, compliance or investment areas, such as business continuity, anti-money laundering, cybersecurity, personal trading, valuation, credit, investment research, portfolio trading and transactions, and securities lending. The Board has adopted policies and procedures designed to address certain risks to the Funds. In addition, the Adviser and other service providers to the Trust have adopted a variety of policies, procedures and controls designed to address particular risks to the Funds, many of which are reviewed by the Board. Different processes, procedures and controls are employed with respect to different types of risks. However, it is not possible to eliminate all risks applicable to the Funds. The Board also receives reports from counsel to the Trust, also counsel to the Adviser and the Independent Trustees’ own independent legal counsel regarding regulatory compliance and governance matters. The Board’s oversight role does not make the Board a guarantor of the Funds’ investments or activities.
Individual Trustee Qualifications
The Board believes that each Trustee’s experience, qualifications, attributes or skills individually and in combination with those of the other Trustees support the conclusion that the Board possesses the requisite attributes and skills to effectively oversee the management of the Trust and protect the interests of Fund shareholders. The Board believes that the significance of each Trustee’s experience, qualifications, attributes or skills is an individual matter (meaning that experience that is important for one Trustee may not have the same value for another) and that these factors are best evaluated at the Board level, with no single Trustee, or particular factor, being indicative of Board effectiveness. The Board also believes that Trustees must have the ability to critically review, evaluate, question and discuss information provided to them, and to interact effectively with each other and with Trust management, service providers and counsel, in order to exercise effective business judgment in the performance of their duties. The Board believes that the Trustees satisfy this standard. Experience relevant to this ability may be achieved through a Trustee’s educational background; business, professional training or practice (e.g., accounting or law), public service or academic positions; experience from service as a board member (including the Board of the Trust) or as an executive of investment funds, public companies or significant private or not-for profit entities or other organizations; or other life experiences. The Board noted that most of the Trustees had experience serving as directors on the boards of operating companies and/or other investment companies. The Board considered that the various Trustees have or had careers in the financial services or investment management industries, including holding executive positions in companies engaged in these industries, which allows these Trustees to bring valuable, relevant experience as members of the Board.
Board Committees
The Trust has an Audit Committee. The members of the Audit Committee consist of all the Independent Trustees of the Trust, namely, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Marsini Jr. and Mr. McGowan. The Trust also has a Governance Committee composed of all of the Trustees.
39

TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Audit Committee oversees each Fund’s audit, accounting and financial reporting policies and practices and its internal controls. The Audit Committee approves, and recommends to the Board for its ratification, the selection, appointment, retention or termination of the Trust’s independent registered public accounting firm and reviews the compensation of the independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee also pre-approves all audit and permissible non-audit services provided to each Fund by the independent registered public accounting firm and all permissible non-audit services provided by the Trust’s independent registered public accounting firm to the Adviser and any advisory affiliates. The Audit Committee met three times during the Trust’s most recent fiscal year.
The primary responsibility of the Governance Committee is to support the Board in providing effective and efficient governance of the Trust. The Governance Committee reviews and considers, on behalf of all of the Trustees, the Trust’s Advisory Agreement (defined below), Sub-advisory Agreements (defined below), and agreements with the Trust’s distributor, and assists the Trustees in fulfilling their responsibilities relating to the Board’s evaluation and consideration of these arrangements. The Governance Committee also reviews the compensation to be paid to the Board and coordinates the Board’s annual self-assessment for the purposes of evaluating the performance and effectiveness of the Board. The Governance Committee met five times during the Trust’s most recent fiscal year.
Securities Beneficially Owned by Each Trustee
The following table shows the dollar amount range of each Trustee’s “beneficial ownership” of shares of the Funds as of the end of the most recently completed calendar year. 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”). The Trustees and officers of the Funds, together as a group, beneficially owned less than 1% of each class of each Fund’s outstanding shares.
Name of Trustee
Dollar Range
of Equity
Securities
in the Fund
Aggregate Dollar
Range of Equity
Securities in
All Registered
Investment
Companies
Overseen
by Trustee
in the Trust
Joseph V. Del Raso
Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
Destinations International Equity Fund
Destinations Equity Income Fund
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
Destinations Shelter Fund
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
J. Scott Coleman
Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
Destinations International Equity Fund
Destinations Equity Income Fund
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
Destinations Shelter Fund
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
40

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Name of Trustee
Dollar Range
of Equity
Securities
in the Fund
Aggregate Dollar
Range of Equity
Securities in
All Registered
Investment
Companies
Overseen
by Trustee
in the Trust
Nicholas M. Marsini Jr.
Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
Destinations International Equity Fund
Destinations Equity Income Fund
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
Destinations Shelter Fund
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Gregory E. McGowan
Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
Destinations International Equity Fund
Destinations Equity Income Fund
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
Destinations Shelter Fund
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Noreen D. Beaman
Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
Destinations International Equity Fund
Destinations Equity Income Fund
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
Destinations Shelter Fund
$50,001 – $100,000
$10,001 – $50,000
$10,001 – $50,000
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Trustee Compensation
The following table shows the compensation paid by the Trust to each Independent Trustee during the last fiscal year of the Trust. Trustees who are “interested persons” of the Trust (as defined in the 1940 Act) and officers of the Trust do not receive compensation directly from the Trust. The Funds may bear a portion of the CCO’s annual compensation.
Independent Trustees each receive an annual retainer and fees for Board meeting attendance. In addition, the Chair of the Board, Audit Committee Chair and Governance Committee Chair receive an additional annual retainer. This compensation will be allocated among the various series comprising the Trust based on the net assets of each series. Independent Trustees may receive additional fees from the applicable series for any special meetings at rates assessed by the Trustees depending on
41

TABLE OF CONTENTS
whether in-person attendance is required. All Trustees are reimbursed for expenses in connection with each board meeting attended, which reimbursement is allocated among applicable series of the Trust. The Trust has no pension or retirement plan. Set forth below is the expected rate of compensation earned by the following Independent Trustees. The Trust and the Fund Complex paid the following fees to the Trustees during its most recently completed fiscal year:
Name of Person
Aggregate
Compensation from
Trust
Pension or Retirement
Benefits Accrued as
Part of Trust Expenses
Estimated Annual
Benefits Upon
Retirement
Estimated Total
Compensation from
Fund Complex*
Interested
Joseph V. Del Raso, Governance Committee Chair
$ 226,500 $ 0 None $ 226,500
Noreen D. Beaman, Board Chair
$ 210,000 $ 0 None $ 210,000
Independent
J. Scott Coleman
$ 196,500 $ 0 None $ 196,500
Nicholas M. Marsini, Jr., Audit Committee
Chair
$ 226,500 $ 0 None $ 226,500
Gregory E. McGowan
$ 196,500 $ 0 None $ 196,500
*
Excludes reimbursement for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred to attend meetings of the Board.
42

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTROL PERSONS AND PRINCIPAL HOLDERS OF SECURITIES
A control person is one who owns beneficially or through controlled companies more than 25% of the voting securities of a company or has acknowledged the existence of control. Persons who owned of record of beneficially more than 25% of a Fund’s outstanding shares may be deemed to control the Fund within the meaning of the 1940 Act. A shareholder who controls a Fund could have the ability to vote a majority of the shares of the Fund on any matter requiring the approval of shareholders of the Fund, including changes to the Fund’s fundamental policies or terms of the advisory agreement with the Adviser.
As of June 21, 2024, the following persons were the only persons who were record owners (or to the best knowledge of the Trust, beneficial owners) of 5% or more of any class of a Fund’s outstanding shares (Principal Holders). Principal Holders typically hold shares in accounts for their fiduciary, agency or custodial customers.
FUND NAME
Share
Class
Name & Address
Form of
Ownership
Percent
of
Class
Owned
Destinations Large Cap Equity Class I
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
89.56%
Destinations Large Cap Equity Class Z
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
75.55%
Destinations Large Cap Equity Class Z
Nationwide Trust Company
FSB
One Nationwide Plaza
Columbus, OH 43215
Record Owner
12.87%
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
Class I
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
88.80%
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
Class Z
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
75.78%
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
Class Z
Nationwide Trust Company FSB
One Nationwide Plaza
Columbus, OH 43215
Record Owner
12.67%
Destinations International Equity Fund
Class I
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
89.91%
Destinations International Equity Fund
Class Z
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
76.14%
Destinations International Equity Fund
Class Z
Nationwide Trust Company
FSB
One Nationwide Plaza
Columbus, OH 43215
Record Owner
12.44%
Destinations Equity Income Fund Class I
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
90.35%
Destinations Equity Income Fund Class Z
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
84.36%
Destinations Equity Income Fund Class Z
Nationwide Trust Company FSB
One Nationwide Plaza, Columbus, OH 43215
Record Owner
5.16%
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
Class I
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
89.48%
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
Class Z
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
72.26%
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
Class Z
Nationwide Trust Company FSB
One Nationwide Plaza, Columbus, OH 43215
Record Owner
13.86%
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
Class I
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
86.66%
43

TABLE OF CONTENTS
FUND NAME
Share
Class
Name & Address
Form of
Ownership
Percent
of
Class
Owned
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
Class I
LPL Financial LLC
1055 LPL Way
Fort Mill, SC 29715
Record Owner
7.32%
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
Class Z
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
74.92%
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
Class Z
Nationwide Trust Company
FSB
One Nationwide Plaza
Columbus, OH 43215
Record Owner
9.82%
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
Class Z
DCGT AS TTEE and or Custody
711 High Street De Moines IA 50392
Record Owner
5.61%
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
Class I
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
89.34%
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
Class Z
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
77.17%
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
Class Z
Nationwide Trust Company FSB
One Nationwide Plaza
Columbus, OH 43215
Record Owner
10.55%
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income
Fund
Class 1
Nationwide Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
92.84%
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income
Fund
Class Z
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
96.40%
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
Class I
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
89.56%
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
Class Z
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd, Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
77.13%
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
Class Z
Nationwide Trust Company
FSB
One Nationwide Plaza
Columbus, OH 43215
Record Owner
11.11%
Destinations Shelter Fund Class I
CTC, LLC
425 S. Financial Place,
4th Floor
Chicago, IL 60605
Record Owner
66.24%
Destinations Shelter Fund Class I
National Financial Services LLC
499 Washington Blvd
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Record Owner
17.97%
Destinations Shelter Fund Class I
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc..
3000 Schwab Way
Westlake, TX 76262
Record Owner
14.81%
Destinations Shelter Fund
Class Z
Nationwide Trust Company
FSB
One Nationwide Plaza
Columbus, OH 43215
Record Owner
99.52%
44

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS
Decisions to buy and sell securities for a Fund are made by the Sub-adviser(s), subject to the overall review of the Adviser and the Board. Although investment decisions for the Funds are made independently from those of the other accounts managed by a Sub-adviser, investments of the type that the Funds may make also may be made by those other accounts. When a Fund and one or more other accounts managed by a Sub-adviser are prepared to invest in, or desire to dispose of, the same security, available investments or opportunities for sales will be allocated in a manner believed by the Sub-adviser to be equitable to each. In some cases, this procedure may adversely affect the price paid or received by a Fund or the size of the position obtained or disposed of by a Fund.
The Board has approved procedures in conformity with Rule 10f-3 under the 1940 Act whereby the Funds may purchase securities that are offered in underwritings in which an affiliate participates. These procedures prohibit the Fund from directly or indirectly benefiting an affiliate in connection with such underwritings. In addition, for underwritings where an affiliate participates as a principal underwriter, certain restrictions may apply that could, among other things, limit the amount of securities that the Fund could purchase in the underwritings.
Transactions on U.S. stock exchanges and some foreign stock exchanges involve the payment of negotiated brokerage commissions. On exchanges on which commissions are negotiated, the cost of transactions may vary among different brokers. On most foreign exchanges, commissions are generally fixed. No stated commission is generally applicable to securities traded in the U.S. over-the-counter markets, but the underwriters include an underwriting commission or concession and the prices at which securities are purchased from and sold to dealers include a dealer’s mark-up or mark-down. U.S. government securities generally are purchased from underwriters or dealers, although certain newly issued U.S. government securities may be purchased directly from the U.S. Treasury or from the issuing agency or instrumentality.
In selecting brokers or dealers to execute securities transactions on behalf of a Fund, its Sub-adviser seeks the best overall terms available. In assessing the best overall terms available for any transaction, the Sub-adviser will consider the factors it deems relevant, including, but not limited to, the breadth of the market in the security, the price of the security, the financial condition and execution capability of the broker or dealer and the reasonableness of the commission, if any, for the specific transaction and on a continuing basis. In addition, each Advisory Agreement (as defined below) between the Adviser and the Sub-adviser authorizes the Sub-adviser, in selecting brokers or dealers to execute a particular transaction, and in evaluating the best overall terms available, to consider the brokerage and research services (as those terms are defined in Section 28(e) of the 1934 Act) provided to the Fund and/or other accounts over which the Sub-adviser or its affiliates exercise investment discretion. In doing so, a Fund may pay higher commission rates than the lowest available when the Sub-adviser believes it is reasonable to do so in light of the value of the brokerage and research services provided by the broker effecting the transaction, as discussed below. It has for many years been a common practice in the investment advisory business for advisers of investment companies and other institutional investors to receive research services from broker-dealers which execute portfolio transactions for the clients of such advisers. Consistent with this practice, a Sub-adviser receives research services from many broker-dealers with which the Sub-adviser places portfolio trades. The Sub-adviser may also receive research or research credits from brokers, which are generated from underwriting commissions when purchasing new issues of fixed income securities or other assets for a Fund. These services, which in some cases may also be purchased for cash, include such matters as general economic and security market reviews, industry and company reviews, evaluations of securities and recommendations as to the purchase and sale of securities. Some of these services are of value to a Sub-adviser in advising its clients (including the Funds), although not all of these services are necessarily useful and of value in managing the Fund. The fees under the Advisory Agreement and the Sub-Advisory Agreements, respectively, are not reduced by reason of a Fund’s Sub-adviser receiving brokerage and research services. As noted above, a Sub-adviser may purchase new issues of securities for a Fund in underwritten fixed price offerings. In these situations, the underwriter or selling group member may provide the Sub-adviser with research in addition to selling the securities (at the fixed public offering price) to the Fund or other advisory clients. Because the offerings are conducted at a fixed price, the ability to obtain research from a broker-dealer in this situation provides knowledge that may benefit the Fund, other Sub-adviser clients, and the Sub-adviser without incurring additional costs. These arrangements may not fall within the safe harbor of Section 28(e) because the broker-dealer is considered to be acting in a principal capacity in underwritten transactions. However, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) has adopted rules expressly permitting broker-dealers to provide bona fide research to advisers in connection with fixed price offerings under certain circumstances. As a general matter in these situations, the underwriter or selling group member will provide research credits at a rate that is higher than that which is available for secondary market transactions.
45

TABLE OF CONTENTS
The research services received from a broker-dealer may be complicated by MiFID II, which places restrictions on the receipt of research services by EU authorized investment firms and certain affiliated US asset managers.
The Board will periodically review the commissions paid by a Fund to determine if the commissions paid over representative periods of time were reasonable in relation to the benefits inuring to the Fund. Over-the-counter purchases and sales by a Fund are transacted directly with principal market makers except in those cases in which better prices and executions may be obtained elsewhere.
To the extent consistent with applicable provisions of the 1940 Act and the rules and exemptions adopted by the SEC under the 1940 Act, the Board has determined that transactions for a Fund may be executed through an affiliated broker-dealer if, in the judgment of its Sub-adviser, the use of an affiliated broker-dealer is likely to result in price and execution at least as favorable as those of other qualified broker-dealers, and if, in the transaction, the affiliated broker-dealer charges the Fund a fair and reasonable rate.
The Funds will not purchase any security, including U.S. government securities, during the existence of any underwriting or selling group relating thereto of which any affiliate of the Funds thereof, is a member, except to the extent permitted by the SEC.
The Funds may use an affiliated broker-dealer as a commodities broker in connection with entering into futures contracts and options on futures contracts if, in the judgment of the Sub-adviser, the use of an affiliated broker-dealer is likely to result in price and execution at least as favorable as those of other qualified broker-dealers, and if, in the transaction, the affiliated broker-dealer charges the Fund a fair and reasonable rate.
The Funds do not direct brokerage to brokers in recognition of, or as compensation for, the promotion or sale of Fund shares.
46

TABLE OF CONTENTS
BROKERAGE COMMISSIONS PAID
The following table sets forth certain information regarding each Fund’s payment of brokerage commissions for the fiscal years ended February 28, 2022, and February 28, 2023 and February 29, 2024, including payments to brokers who are affiliated persons of the Funds:
Fund
Fiscal Year
Ended
February 28
Total $
Amount of
Brokerage
Commissions
Paid (000)
Total $ Amount
of Commissions
Paid to Affiliated
Brokers (000)
% of Total
Brokerage
Commissions
Paid to
Affiliated
Brokers
% of Total
Brokerage
Transactions
Effected Through
Affiliated Brokers
Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund
2024 $ 1,348,181 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2023 $ 1,852,475 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2022 $ 1,864,645 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
2024 $ 1,213,018 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2023 $ 1,462,012 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2022 $ 1,393,228 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
Destinations Equity Income Fund
2024 $ 446,541 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2023 $ 420,632 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2022 $ 305,701 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
Destinations International Equity Fund
2024 $ 1,982,915 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2023 $ 2,553,961 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2022 $ 2,018,033 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
2024 $ 19,953 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2023 $ 5,666 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2022 $ 2,599 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
2024 $ 45,154 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2023 $ 99,797 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2022 $ 187,048 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
2024 $ 118,304 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2023 $ 108,416 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2022 $ 303,764 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund
2024 $ 0 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2023 $ 0 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2022 $ 0 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives
Fund
2024 $ 205,694 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2023 $ 665,899 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2022 $ 1,153,133 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
Destinations Shelter Fund
2024 $ 9,316 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2023 $ 6,880 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
2022 $ 17,326 $ 0 0.00% 0.00%
47

TABLE OF CONTENTS
The following table sets forth each Fund’s holdings of securities issued by the ten brokers and/or ten dealers that executed transactions for or with the Fund in the largest dollar amounts during the fiscal year ended February 29, 2024:
Fund
Amount
Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC
$ 53,767,805
Goldman Sachs & Co, LLC
$ 26,324,679
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
$ 15,078,888
Wells Fargo Securities LLC
$ 3,464,925
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
Raymond James (USA) Ltd.
$ 3,524,413
Jefferies LLC
$ 2,622,239
BNY Mellon Capital Markets, LLC
$ 178,030
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated
$ 32,923
Virtu Americas LLC
$ 7,112
Destinations Internal Equity Fund
UBS Securities LLC
$ 8,929,236
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
$ 2,246,231
BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
$ 921,996
Destinations Equity Income Fund
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC
$ 7,144,890
Morgan Stanley & Co, LLC
$ 4,007,313
Goldman Sachs & Co, LLC
$ 2,927,601
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
Bank of America
$ 14,166,154
J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC
$ 11,207,660
Goldman Sachs & Co, LLC
$ 2,711,585
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
Bank of America
$ 279,777
Goldman Sachs & Co, LLC
$ 276,170
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC
$ 3,514,675
Goldman Sachs & Co, LLC
$ 3,329,316
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
$ 3,048,060
BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
$ 1,890,812
BNY Mellon Capital Markets, LLC
$ 489,541
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund
This Fund did not hold any of its top brokers as holdings.
$
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
This Fund did not hold any of its top brokers as holdings.
$
Destinations Shelter Fund
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
$ 483,975
48

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PORTFOLIO TURNOVER
The Funds may engage in active short-term trading to benefit from yield disparities among different issues of securities, to seek short-term profits during periods of fluctuating interest rates or for other reasons. The Funds will not consider portfolio turnover rate a limiting factor in making investment decisions.
A Fund’s turnover rate is calculated by dividing the lesser of purchases or sales of its portfolio securities for the year by the monthly average value of the portfolio securities. Securities or options with remaining maturities of one year or less on the date of acquisition are excluded from the calculation. Since the Funds are authorized to engage in transactions in options, it may experience increased portfolio turnover under certain market conditions as a result of their investment strategies. For instance, the exercise of a substantial number of options written by a Fund (because of appreciation of the underlying security in the case of call options or depreciation of the underlying security in the case of put options) could result in a turnover rate in excess of 100%. A portfolio turnover rate of 100% would occur if all of a Fund’s securities that are included in the computation of turnover were replaced once during a period of one year.
Certain practices that may be employed by a Fund could result in high portfolio turnover. For example, portfolio securities may be sold in anticipation of a rise in interest rates (market decline) or purchased in anticipation of a decline in interest rates (market rise) and later sold. In addition, a security may be sold and another of comparable quality purchased at approximately the same time to take advantage of what a Sub- adviser believes to be a temporary disparity in the normal yield relationship between the two securities. These yield disparities may occur for reasons not directly related to the investment quality of particular issues or the general movement of interest rates, such as changes in the overall demand for, or supply of, various types of securities. Portfolio turnover rates may vary greatly from year to year as well as within a particular year and may be affected by cash requirements for redemptions of a Fund’s shares as well as by requirements that enable a Fund to receive favorable tax treatment.
The portfolio turnover rates for the Funds for the fiscal years ended February 28, 2023 and February 29, 2024 were as follows:
Fund
2023
2024
Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund
71% 95%
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
125% 115%
Destinations International Equity Fund
66% 69%
Destinations Equity Income Fund
46% 51%
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
198% 181%
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
98% 98%
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
58% 83%
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund
48% 58%
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
70% 79%
Destinations Shelter Fund
5% 5%
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AND OTHER SERVICES
Adviser; Sub-advisers.   Orion Portfolio Solutions, LLC d.b.a. Brinker Capital Investments (the “Adviser”) serves as investment adviser to the Trust pursuant to an investment advisory agreement (“Advisory Agreement”) between the Trust and the Adviser. Each Sub-adviser serves as investment adviser to a Fund pursuant to separate written agreements with the Adviser on behalf of the Funds (“Sub-advisory Agreements”).
Each Fund bears its own expenses, which generally include all costs not specifically borne by the Adviser, the distributor, the Sub-advisers, the Administrator, the transfer agent or other service providers. Included among the Funds’ expenses are costs incurred in connection with a Fund’s organization; investment management and administration fees; fees for necessary professional and brokerage services; fees for any pricing services; the costs of regulatory compliance; and costs associated with maintaining the Trust’s legal existence and shareholder relations.
Under the Advisory Agreement, the Fund pays the Adviser an investment advisory fee calculated daily at an annual rate based on a Fund’s average daily net assets and paid monthly in arrears. The Adviser pays each Sub-adviser a sub-advisory fee from its investment advisory fees.
For the fiscal year ended February 29, 2024 the following table shows the percentage of: (i) the aggregate amount of fees paid to the Sub-advisers by the Adviser; (ii) the fees retained by the Adviser; (iii) the fees waived by the Adviser; and (iv) the
49

TABLE OF CONTENTS
contractual advisory fee that the Adviser is entitled to receive from each Fund. Each Fund’s actual advisory fees may be less than the amounts set forth in the Prospectus due to the effect of additional voluntary fee waivers.
Aggregate
Sub-advisory
Fee Paid by
Brinker
Capital
Portion
of
Advisory
Fee
Retained
by
Brinker
Capital
Portion
of
Advisory
Fee
Waived
by
Brinker
Capital
Total
Contractual
Advisory
Fee
Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund
0.17% 0.39% 0.16% 0.75%
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
0.36% 0.39% 0.03% 0.90%
Destinations International Equity Fund
0.35% 0.39% 0.20% 1.00%
Destinations Equity Income Fund
0.24% 0.39% 0.10% 0.80%
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
0.17% 0.39% 0.08% 0.65%
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
0.20% 0.39% 0.05% 0.70%
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
0.28% 0.39% 0.14% 0.85%
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund
0.14% 0.39% 0.15% 0.70%
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
0.48% 0.39% 0.44% 1.35%
Destinations Shelter Fund
0.35% 0.39% 0.11% 0.85%
On April 1, 2024, the Adviser amended its contractual fee waiver such that the Adviser has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee as necessary to keep each Fund’s advisory fee from exceeding 0.444% more than the total amount of sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser with respect to such Fund. This fee waiver and reimbursement agreement shall remain in effect until June 30, 2025 and may be amended or terminated only with the consent of the Board of Trustees. For the periods prior to April 1, 2024, the Adviser agreed to contractually waive a portion of its advisory fee with respect to each Fund to keep the Fund’s advisory fees from exceeding 0.39% more than the total amount of sub-advisory fees paid by the Adviser with respect to such Fund.
For the fiscal years ended February 28, 2022, February 28, 2023 and February 29, 2024, the following table shows the dollar amount of: (i) the aggregate amount of fees paid to the Sub-advisers by the Adviser; (ii) the fees waived by Brinker Capital; and (iii) the contractual advisory fee that the Adviser is entitled to receive from each Fund. Each Fund’s actual advisory fees may be less than the amounts set forth in the Prospectus due to the effect of additional voluntary fee waivers.
For the fiscal year ended February 28, 2022:
Total Contractual
Advisory Fee
Portion of
Advisory
Fee Waived
by the
Adviser
Aggregate
Sub-
advisory
Fee Paid
by the Adviser
Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund
$ 39,060,667 $ 7,992,671 $ 10,756,461
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
$ 12,067,822 $ 165,934 $ 6,672,502
Destinations International Equity Fund
$ 26,917,133 $ 1,038,876 $ 15,380,583
Destinations Equity Income Fund
$ 3,563,869 $ 519,795 $ 1,306,686
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
$ 14,487,858 $ 1,815,642 $ 3,979,496
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
$ 3,726,914 $ 10,498 $ 1,639,992
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
$ 6,689,157 $ 864,912 $ 2,758,371
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund
$ 6,595,937 $ 1,566,914 $ 1,354,143
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
$ 16,801,708 $ 5,434,539 $ 6,513,341
Destinations Shelter Fund
$ 179,886 $ 27,178 $ 70,172
50

TABLE OF CONTENTS
For the fiscal year ended February 28, 2023:
Total Contractual
Advisory Fee
Portion
of
Advisory
Fee
Waived by
the Adviser
Aggregate
Sub-
advisory Fee
Paid
by the Adviser
Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund
$ 34,394,192 $ 6,417,328 $ 10,094,065
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
$ 10,458,509 $ 128,358 $ 5,798,697
Destinations International Equity Fund
$ 22,128,539 $ 2,256,045 $ 11,246,569
Destinations Equity Income Fund
$ 4,623,473 $ 557,028 $ 1,810,072
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
$ 12,970,533 $ 1,468,059 $ 3,720,180
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
$ 3,807,534 $ 62,530 $ 1,624,135
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
$ 6,146,855 $ 778,157 $ 2,548,303
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund
$ 6,023,000 $ 1,395,362 $ 1,272,618
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
$ 15,281,214 $ 5,058,090 $ 5,812,171
Destinations Shelter Fund
$ 940,389 $ 121,702 $ 387,415
For the fiscal year ended February 29, 2024:
Total Contractual
Advisory Fee
Portion
of
Advisory
Fee
Waived by
the Adviser
Aggregate
Sub-advisory Fee
Paid
by the Adviser
Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund
$ 30,521,391 $ 6,346,928 $ 8,316,515.27
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
$ 7,787,552 $ 299,962 $ 4,117,472.87
Destinations International Equity Fund
$ 24,315,745 $ 4,804,003 $ 10,027,187.50
Destinations Equity Income Fund
$ 5,128,913 $ 665,940 $ 1,963,759.26
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
$ 13,416,025 $ 1,668,338 $ 3,697,599.27
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
$ 2,898,078 $ 189,064 $ 1,095,109.90
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
$ 6,833,852 $ 1,085,313 $ 2,611,705.42
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund
$ 6,163,140 $ 1,360,480 $ 1,369,267.77
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
$ 10,913,673 $ 3,586,098 $ 4,175,418.83
Destinations Shelter Fund
$ 845,765 $ 111,003 $ 346,995.11
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.
Administrator.   Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. serves as the administrator (“Administrator”) to the Funds pursuant to a written agreement (“Administration Agreement”). For its administrative services, the Administrator receives an annual asset-based fee. The fee is calculated and allocated daily based on the relative assets of the Fund.
As administrator, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. provides various administrative services, including assisting with the supervision of the Trust’s operations, accounting and bookkeeping, calculating the Fund’s daily NAV, preparing reports to the Fund’s shareholders, preparing and filing reports with the SEC and state securities authorities, preparing and filing tax returns and preparing materials for meetings of the Trustees and its committees
The Adviser and each Sub-adviser pay the salaries of all officers and employees who are employed by them and the Trust, and the Adviser. The Adviser maintains office facilities for the Trust. The Adviser, the Sub-advisers and Administrator bear all expenses in connection with the performance of their respective services under the Advisory Agreement, the Sub-advisory Agreements, and the Administration Agreement, except as otherwise provided in the respective agreement.
51

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Disclosure of Portfolio Holdings
The Trust has adopted policies and procedures with respect to the disclosure of the Funds’ securities and any ongoing arrangements to make available information about the Funds’ securities holdings. The policy requires that consideration always be given as to whether disclosure of information about a Fund’s securities holdings is in the best interests of the Funds’ shareholders, and that any conflicts of interest between the interests of the Funds’ shareholders and those of the Adviser, the Administrator, the Distributor or their affiliates, be addressed in a manner that places the interests of Fund shareholders first. The policy provides that information regarding a Fund’s securities holdings may not be shared with non-employees of the Trust’s service providers, with investors or potential investors (whether individual or institutional), or with third-parties unless it is done for legitimate Funds’ business purposes and in accordance with the policy.
The policy generally provides for the release of details of securities positions once they are considered “stale.” Data is considered stale 5 calendar days following quarter-end with respect to the Funds. The Adviser believes that this passage of time prevents a third-party from benefiting from an investment decision made by a portfolio that has not been fully reflected by the market.
Under the policy, the Funds’ complete list of holdings (including the size of each position) may be made available to investors, potential investors, third-parties and non-employees with simultaneous public disclosure at least 5 days after quarter-end. Typically, simultaneous public disclosure is achieved by the filing of Form N-PORT or Form N-CSR in accordance with SEC rules, provided that such filings may not be made until 5 days following quarter-end and/or posting the information to the Trust’s Internet site that is accessible by the public, or through public release by a third-party vendor.
Under the policy, if information about a Fund’s securities holdings is released pursuant to an ongoing arrangement with any party, the Fund must have a legitimate business purpose for the release of the information, and either the party receiving the information must be under a duty of confidentiality, or the release of non-public information must be subject to trading restrictions and confidential treatment to prohibit the entity from sharing with an unauthorized source or trading upon any non-public information provided. The Funds, the Adviser, any service provider and any of their affiliated parties may not receive compensation or any other consideration in exchange for such arrangements. Ongoing arrangements to make available information about the Funds’ portfolio securities will be reviewed at least annually by the Trustees.
The approval of the CCO, or his or her designee, must be obtained before entering into any new ongoing arrangement or altering any existing ongoing arrangement to make available portfolio holdings information, or with respect to any exceptions to the policy. Any exceptions to the policy must be consistent with the purposes of the policy. Exceptions are considered on a case-by-case basis and are granted only after a thorough examination and consultation with the Adviser’s and Administrator’s legal department, as necessary. Exceptions to the policies are reported to the Trustees at their next regularly scheduled meeting.
Set forth below is a chart showing those parties with whom the Adviser, on behalf of the Funds, has authorized ongoing arrangements that include the release of portfolio holding information, the frequency of the release under such arrangements, and the length of the lag, if any, between the date of the below as recipients are service providers, fund rating agencies, consultants and analysts.
The Funds may release their portfolio holdings to the following recipients:
Recipient
Frequency
Delay Before Dissemination
BBH&Co. (Administrator, Fund Custodian and Accounting Agent) Daily None
FactSet Research Systems Inc. Daily None
MSCI Inc. Daily None
Morningstar Inc. Quarterly 5 days after quarter end
Bloomberg Quarterly 5 days after quarter end
Global Trading Analytics Monthly Last business day
Ernst & Young (Passive Foreign Investment Company analytics
As Needed
None
ISS (Proxy Voting Services)
As Needed
None
KPMG LLP (Audit Firm)
As Needed
None
Proxy Voting Policies
52

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Although individual Trustees may not agree with particular policies or votes by the Adviser, the Board has approved delegating proxy voting discretion to the Adviser and Sub-advisers believing that they should be responsible for voting because it is a matter relating to the investment decision making process.
Non-equity securities, such as debt obligations and money market instruments are not usually considered to be voting securities, and proxy voting, if any, is typically limited to the solicitation of consents to changes in or waivers of features of debt securities, or plans of reorganization involving the issuer of the security. In the rare event that proxies are solicited with respect to any of these securities, the Adviser or the Sub-adviser, as the case may be, would vote the proxy in accordance with the principles set forth in its proxy voting policies and procedures, including the procedures used when a vote presents a conflict between the interests of Fund shareholders, on the one hand, and those of the Adviser or the Sub-adviser or any affiliated person of the Fund and the Fund’s shareholders, on the other.
Attached as Appendix B are copies of the guidelines and procedures that the Adviser and Sub-advisers use to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities, including the procedures that the Adviser and or Sub-advisers use when a vote presents a conflict between the interests of Fund shareholders, on the one hand, and those of the Adviser or any affiliated person of the Trust or the Adviser or Sub-advisers, on the other. This summary of the guidelines gives a general indication as to how the Adviser and Sub-advisers will vote proxies relating to portfolio securities on each issue listed. However, the guidelines do not address all potential voting issues or the intricacies that may surround individual proxy votes. For that reason, there may be instances in which votes may vary from the guidelines presented. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Adviser and-or Sub-advisers as applicable always endeavors to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities in accordance with the Fund’s investment objectives.
The proxy voting policies of the Sub-advisers, or summaries thereof, are also found in Appendix B.
Information on how each Fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 will be available, without charge, on the Trust’s website at: www.destinationsfunds.com.
Code of Ethics
Pursuant to Rule 17j-1 of the 1940 Act, each of the Trust, the Adviser, each Sub-adviser and distributor has adopted a code of ethics that permits personnel to invest in securities for their own accounts, including securities that may be purchased or held by a Fund of the Trust. All personnel must place the interests of clients first and avoid activities, interests and relationships that might interfere with the duty to make decisions in the best interests of the clients. All personal securities transactions by employees must adhere to the requirements of the code and must be conducted in such a manner as to avoid any actual or potential conflict of interest, the appearance of such a conflict, or the abuse of an employee’s position of trust and responsibility.
Copies of the codes of ethics of the Trust, the Adviser, Sub-advisers, and distributor are on file with the SEC.
COUNSEL AND INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, located at 2222 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, serves as counsel to the Trust. Kathryn B. McGrath, Esq. of the Law Offices of Ian M. McGrath PLC serves as independent counsel to the Independent Trustees and Mr. Del Raso.
KPMG LLP located at 1601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, serves as the independent registered public accounting firm of the Trust.
In the interest of economy and convenience, certificates representing shares in the Trust are not physically issued. UMB Fund Services, Inc., the Trust’s transfer agent, maintains a record of each shareholder’s ownership of Trust shares. Shares do not have cumulative voting rights, meaning that holders of more than 50% of the shares voting for the election of Trustees can elect all Trustees. Shares are transferable, but have no preemptive, conversion or subscription rights. Shareholders generally vote on a Trust-wide basis, except with respect to proposals affecting an individual Fund, such as those with respect to the Advisory Agreement.
PORTFOLIO MANAGER DISCLOSURE
Portfolio Managers
Orion Portfolio Solutions, LLC d.b.a. Brinker Capital Investments
53

TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Adviser compensates each portfolio manager with both salary and a discretionary bonus. The portfolio manager’s discretionary bonus is determined first by overall company performance and then by the performance of the individual team member, of which the results for the Destinations advisory portfolios performance in which the portfolio manager has responsibilities and other goals is one component. As it relates to the portfolio manager’s discretionary annual bonus that is impacted by the results of the advisory portfolios (which utilize the Funds and are offered by Brinker), performance is evaluated over both a short-term and long-term time horizon. Additional factor in the discretionary annual bonus for each portfolio manager includes a qualitative review of the portfolio manager’s contributions to the Adviser and the overall performance of the Adviser.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   The following table sets forth the dollar range of shares beneficially owned by each Portfolio Manager as of February 29, 2024:
Name of Fund
Name of Portfolio Manager
Dollar Range of
Fund Shares
Beneficially Owned
Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund
Brian Storey, CFA
$100,001 – $500,000
Timothy Holland, CFA
None
Rusty Vanneman, CFA, CMT, BFA
None
Andrew Goins, CFA
$10,001 – $50,000
Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund
Brian Storey, CFA
Timothy Holland, CFA
$10,001 – $50,000
None
Rusty Vanneman, CFA, CMT, BFA
None
Andrew Goins, CFA
$1 – $10,000
Destinations International Equity Fund
Brian Storey, CFA
Timothy Holland, CFA
$50,001 – $100,000
None
Rusty Vanneman, CFA, CMT, BFA
None
Andrew Goins, CFA
$1 – $10,000
Destinations Equity Income Fund
Brian Storey, CFA
Timothy Holland, CFA
$1 – $10,000
None
Rusty Vanneman, CFA, CMT, BFA
None
Andrew Goins, CFA
$1 – $10,000
Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund
Brian Storey, CFA
Timothy Holland, CFA
$50,001 – $100,000
None
Rusty Vanneman, CFA, CMT, BFA
None
Andrew Goins, CFA
$1 – $10,000
Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income Fund
Brian Storey, CFA
Timothy Holland, CFA
$1 – $10,000
None
Rusty Vanneman, CFA, CMT, BFA
None
Andrew Goins, CFA
$1 – $10,000
Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Fund
Brian Storey, CFA
Timothy Holland, CFA
$10,001 – 50,000
None
Rusty Vanneman, CFA, CMT, BFA
None
Andrew Goins, CFA
$1 – $10,000
54

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Name of Fund
Name of Portfolio Manager
Dollar Range of
Fund Shares
Beneficially Owned
Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund
Brian Storey, CFA
Timothy Holland, CFA
None
None
Rusty Vanneman, CFA, CMT, BFA
None
Andrew Goins, CFA
None
Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund
Brian Storey, CFA
Timothy Holland, CFA
$10,001 – 50,000
None
Rusty Vanneman, CFA, CMT, BFA
None
Andrew Goins, CFA
$1 – $10,000
Destinations Shelter Fund
Brian Storey, CFA
Timothy Holland, CFA
None
None
Rusty Vanneman, CFA, CMT, BFA
None
Andrew Goins, CFA
None
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Brian Storey, CFA
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 5,549 $ 1,515
Rusty Vanneman, CFA, CMT, BFA
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 23,999 $ 4,300
Timothy Holland, CFA
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0
Andrew Goins, CFA
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0
None of the accounts above are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   The portfolio managers’ management of registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles or other accounts may give rise to actual or potential conflicts of interest in connection with their day-to-day oversight of the Funds’ investments. The other accounts might have similar investment objectives as the Funds or hold, purchase or sell securities that are eligible to be held, purchased or sold by the funds.
While the portfolio managers’ management of the other accounts may give rise to the following potential conflicts of interest, the Adviser does not believe that the conflicts, if any, are material or, to the extent any such conflicts are material, the Adviser believes that it has designed policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to manage such conflicts in an appropriate way.
Knowledge of the Timing and Size of Fund Trades.   A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio managers’ day-to-day oversight of the Funds. Because of their positions with the Funds, the portfolio managers may know the size, timing and possible market impact of Fund trades. It is theoretically possible that the portfolio managers could use this information to the advantage of the other accounts and to the possible detriment of the Funds. However, the Adviser has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to allocate investment opportunities on a fair and equitable basis over time.
Investment Opportunities.   A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio managers’ oversight of the Funds and other accounts, which, in theory, may allow them to allocate investment opportunities in a way that favors the other accounts over the Funds. This conflict of interest may be exacerbated to the extent that the Adviser or the portfolio managers receive, or expect to receive, greater compensation from their management of the other accounts than the Funds. Notwithstanding this theoretical conflict of interest, it is the Adviser’s policy to manage each account based on its investment objectives and related restrictions and, as discussed above, the Adviser has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to allocate investment opportunities on a fair and equitable basis over time and in a manner consistent with each account’s investment objectives and related restrictions. For example, while the portfolio managers may buy for other
55

TABLE OF CONTENTS
accounts securities that differ in identity or quantity from securities bought for the Funds, such an approach might not be suitable for the Funds given their investment objectives and related restrictions.
BAMCO, Inc.
BAMCO, Inc. (“BAMCO”) serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations International Equity Fund. BAMCO is a New York Corporation and has been an SEC-registered investment adviser since March 6, 1987. As of May 11, 2023, BAMCO had assets under management of approximately $36 billion.
Compensation.   The compensation for Michael Kass and Anuj Aggarwal includes a base salary and an annual bonus, which are based, in part, on Michael and Anuj’s individual long-term investment performance and their overall contribution to BAMCO and its profitability. Their annual bonuses are also based, in part, on the amount of assets managed.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio manager did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations International Equity Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations International Equity Fund, the portfolio manager was responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Michael Kass
4 $ 4,812 3 $ 200 1 $ 702
Anuj Aggarwal
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0
None of the accounts above are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   Conflicts of interest could arise in connection with managing the Destinations International Equity Fund along with other funds and accounts of other clients of BAMCO and of clients of BAMCO’s affiliated investment adviser, Baron Capital Management, Inc. Because of market conditions, client investment restrictions, BAMCO imposed investment guidelines, and the consideration of factors such as cash availability and diversification considerations, not all investment opportunities will be available to the Fund and all clients at all times. BAMCO has joint trading policies and procedures designed to ensure that no fund or client is systematically given preferential treatment over time. The Chief Compliance Officer monitors allocations for consistency with this policy and reports to the Board annually. Because an investment opportunity may be suitable for multiple accounts, the Fund may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity because the opportunity may be allocated among many of the accounts of clients managed by BAMCO and its affiliate.
To the extent that the Destination International Income Fund’s portfolio manager has responsibilities for managing other client accounts, the portfolio manager may have conflicts of interest with respect to his time and attention among relevant accounts.
In addition, differences in the investment restrictions or strategies of the Destinations International Equity Fund and other accounts may cause the portfolio manager to take action with respect to another account that differs from the action taken with respect to the Fund. In some cases, another account managed by the portfolio manager may provide more revenue to BAMCO. While this may create additional conflicts of interest for the portfolio manager in the allocation of management time, resources, and investment opportunities, BAMCO takes all necessary steps to ensure that the portfolio manager endeavors to exercise his discretion in a manner that is equitable to the Fund and other accounts.
BAMCO believes that it has policies and procedures in place that address the Destinations International Equity Fund’s potential conflicts of interest. Such policies and procedures address, among other things, trading practices (e.g., brokerage commissions, cross trading, aggregation and allocation of transactions, sequential transactions, allocations of orders for execution to brokers, and portfolio performance dispersion review), disclosure of confidential information, and employee trading.
Barrow, Hanley, Mewhinney & Strauss, LLC
Barrow, Hanley, Mewhinney & Strauss, LLC (“Barrow Hanley”) serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations International Equity Fund. Barrow Hanley is a Delaware limited liability company and an indirect majority-owned affiliate of Perpetual Limited, a publicly traded company. Barrow Hanley is an investment management firm
56

TABLE OF CONTENTS
that focuses on value focused investment strategies. As of March 28, 2024, Barrow Hanley had approximately $49.9 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays Barrow Hanley a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations International Equity Income Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between Barrow Hanley and the Adviser.
The compensation of Barrow Hanley’s investment professionals is tied to their overall contribution to the success of Barrow Hanley. In addition to base salary, all portfolio managers and analysts are eligible to participate in a bonus pool. The amount of bonus compensation is based on quantitative and qualitative factors and may be substantially higher than an investment professional’s base compensation. Portfolio managers and analysts are evaluated on the value each adds to the overall investment process and to performance, as well as their contributions in other areas, such as meetings with clients and consultants. Bonus compensation for analysts is directly tied to their investment recommendations, which are evaluated every six months versus the appropriate industry group/sector benchmark based on trailing one-year and three-year relative performance.
The final component of compensation of key employees, including portfolio managers and analysts, is their interests in Barrow Hanley’s equity plan. Each quarter, equity owners receive a share of Barrow Hanley’s profits in the form of a distribution payment, which is related to the performance of the entirety of Barrow Hanley.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, Barrow Hanley’s portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations International Equity Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations International Equity Fund, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
($mm)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
($mm)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
($mm)
Rand Wrighton, CFA
5 $ 938.3 3 $ 627.2 5 $ 1,294.0
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1* $ 476.8
Patrik H.H. Wibom
1 $ 546.3 2 $ 55.9 2 $ 961.2
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1* $ 405.0
*
These accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   As a fiduciary, Barrow Hanley must act in its clients’ best interests and must care for the clients’ assets in such a manner as to benefit the client. Barrow Hanley has adopted a Conflicts of Interest Policy provided in the firm’s Compliance Manual and also disclosed in its Form ADV. Within the following areas of its business, Barrow Hanley has identified potential conflicts of interest, adopted policies and procedures to mitigate potential conflicts, and disclosed conflicts including the following: a) Advisory agreements and fees, and performance-based fees; b) Investment risk management; c) Valuation of securities that cannot be priced by the third-party pricing service, particularly illiquid securities held in the Bank Loan investment strategy; d) Capital structure conflicts between investments in bonds, and/or bank debt, and/or equity holdings acquired for clients; e) Custody and affiliates deemed to have custody; f) Clients’ directed brokerage arrangements; g) Communication of holdings and duty of confidentiality; h) Material non-public information; i) Personal securities transactions; j) Personal political contributions; k) Proxy voting; l) Side by side management of clients’ assets; m) Client commission arrangements and purchasing research; n) Solicitation arrangements or compensation for referrals; o) Best execution, trade aggregation, allocation, IPOs, cross trading; and p) Whistleblowing and retaliation.
Barrow Hanley makes investments in numerous issuers/companies for clients’ portfolios, which include equity and/or debt (bonds or credit). Potential conflicts can arise when the firm makes investments in senior and/or junior securities, or securities with competing interests for different investment strategies. Barrow Hanley manages potential conflicts between investment strategies through allocation policies and procedures, internal review processes, and oversight by the CCO, directors and independent third-parties.
Actual or potential conflicts of interest may arise when a Portfolio Manager has management responsibilities for more than one account including mutual fund, CLO, or Private Fund accounts. When one Client has a relationship or a fee arrangement with the adviser that is more valuable or could accelerate the fees due to the adviser than another Client’s, the adviser might
57

TABLE OF CONTENTS
have an incentive to favor that Client when allocating investment opportunities among multiple Client accounts. Barrow Hanley manages potential conflicts between funds, CLOs, and/or types of accounts through trade allocation policies and procedures, internal review processes, and oversight by the CCO, directors, and independent third parties. Barrow Hanley’s investment management and trading policies are designed to address potential conflicts in situations where two or more funds, CLOs, or accounts participate in investment decisions involving the same securities or issuer.
Causeway Capital Management, LLC
Causeway Capital Management (“Causeway”) serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations International Equity Fund. Causeway is a Delaware limited liability company wholly-owned by Causeway Capital Holdings LLC. Causeway is headquartered in Los Angeles, California, conducting its portfolio management, research, trading, operations, client service, business development, marketing production, investment technology, finance, legal risk, and compliance functions from that location. As of March 26, 2024, Causeway had approximately $40.6 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays Causeway a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations International Equity Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between Causeway and the Adviser.
Messrs. Gubler, Jayaraman, Kuhnert, and Myers receive salaries and may receive incentive compensation (including potential cash awards of growth units, or awards of equity units). Portfolio managers also receive, directly or through estate planning vehicles, distributions of Causeway’s profit based on their minority ownership interests in Causeway’s parent company. Causeway’s Compensation Committee, weighing a variety of objective and subjective factors determines salary and incentive compensation and, subject to the approval of the holding company’s Board of Managers, may award equity units. Portfolios are team-managed and salary and incentive compensation are not based on the specific performance of the Destinations International Equity Fund or any single client account managed by Causeway but take into account the performance of the individual portfolio manager, the relevant team and Causeway’s overall performance and financial results. For portfolio managers of the Destinations International Equity Fund, the performance of stocks selected for client portfolios within a particular industry or sector over a multi-year period relative to appropriate benchmarks will be relevant for portfolio managers assigned to that industry or sector. Causeway takes into account both quantitative and qualitative factors in determining the amount of incentive compensation awarded, including the following factors: individual research contribution, portfolio and team management contribution, group research contribution, client service and recruiting contribution, and other contributions to client satisfaction and Causeway development.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, Causeway’s portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations International Equity Fund
Other Accounts:   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations International Equity Fund, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Joe Gubler, CFA
7 $ 3,450 9 $ 515 16 $ 5,650
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1* $ 642
Arjun Jayaraman
7 $ 3,450 9 $ 515 23 $ 5,650
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1* $ 642
MacDuff Kuhnert
7 $ 3,450 9 $ 515 22 $ 5,650
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1* $ 642
Ryan Myers
7 $ 3,450 9 $ 515 15 $ 5,650
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1* $ 580
*
These accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest:   The portfolio managers who manage the Destinations International Equity Fund also manage their own personal accounts and other accounts, including accounts for corporations, pension plans, public retirement plans, sovereign wealth funds, superannuation funds, Taft- Hartley pension plans, endowments and foundations, mutual funds and other collective investment vehicles, charities, private trusts, SMA programs, and other institutions (collectively, “Other Accounts”). In managing certain of the Other Accounts, the portfolio managers employ investment strategies similar to those used in
58

TABLE OF CONTENTS
managing the Destinations International Equity Fund, subject to certain variations in investment restrictions. The portfolio managers purchase and sell securities for the Destinations International Equity Fund that they also recommend to Other Accounts. The portfolio managers at times give advice or take action with respect to certain accounts that differs from the advice given to other accounts with similar investment strategies. Certain of the Other Accounts may pay higher or lower management fee rates than the Destinations International Equity Fund or pay performance-based fees to Causeway. All of the portfolio managers have personal investments in one or more of the funds sponsored and managed by Causeway or similarly-managed collective investment trusts. Ms. Ketterer and Mr. Hartford each holds (through estate planning vehicles) a controlling voting interest in Causeway’s parent holding company and Messrs. Cho, Eng, Muldoon, Valentini and Nguyen, and Ms. Lee (directly or through estate planning vehicles) have minority ownership interests in Causeway’s parent holding company.
Actual or potential conflicts of interest arise from the portfolio managers’ management responsibilities with respect to the Other Accounts and their own personal accounts. These responsibilities may cause portfolio managers to devote unequal time and attention across client accounts and the differing fees, incentives and relationships with the various accounts provide incentives to favor certain accounts. Causeway has written compliance policies and procedures designed to mitigate or manage these conflicts of interest. These include policies and procedures to seek fair and equitable allocation of investment opportunities (including IPOs and new issues) and trade allocations among all client accounts and policies and procedures concerning the disclosure and use of portfolio transaction information. Causeway also has a Code of Ethics which, among other things, limits personal trading by portfolio managers and other employees of Causeway. There is no guarantee that any such policies or procedures will cover every situation in which a conflict of interest arises.
Ceredex Value Advisors LLC
Ceredex Value Advisors LLC (“Ceredex”) serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund. Ceredex is a Delaware limited liability company and an SEC-registered investment adviser. The firm was established in 2008 after 19 years functioning as RidgeWorth Investments’ value style investment management team. Ceredex is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Virtus Partners, Inc., which is wholly-owned by Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. (“Virtus”).
As of March 28, 2024, Ceredex had approximately $6.2 billion in assets under management. Ceredex is a value equity asset management firm that seeks to identify catalysts that may lead to appreciation in undervalued, dividend-paying stocks.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays Ceredex a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between Ceredex and the Adviser. Ceredex pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the sub-advisory fees earned with respect to the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund. Ceredex’s compensation structure is designed to attract and retain high caliber investment professionals necessary to deliver high quality investment management services to its clients. The following information relates to the period ended February 29, 2024.
Portfolio manager compensation generally consists of base salary, bonus, and various employee benefits and may also include long-term stock awards, retention bonuses, or incentive guarantees. These components are tailored in an effort to retain high quality investment professionals and to align compensation with performance.
A portfolio manager’s base salary is determined by the individual’s experience, responsibilities within the firm, performance in the role, and market rate for the position.
Each portfolio manager’s bonus may be structured differently but generally incorporates an evaluation of the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund’s investment performance as well as other subjective factors. Investment performance may be evaluated directly against a peer group and/or benchmark, or indirectly by measuring overall business unit financial performance over a period of time. Where applicable, investment performance is determined by comparing a fund’s pre-tax total return to the returns of the fund’s peer group and/or benchmark over multi-year periods. Where portfolio managers are responsible for multiple funds or other managed accounts, the size and relative strategic importance to the Sub-adviser is taken into consideration when determining bonuses. Other subjective factors that may be considered in the calculation of incentive bonuses include: adherence to compliance policies, risk management practices, sales/marketing, leadership, communications, corporate citizenship, and overall contribution to the firm. Bonuses are typically paid annually.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity, the portfolio manager was responsible for the day- to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
59

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Don Wordell, CFA
1 $ 2,163.8 1 $ 21.7 3 $ 40.4
1 $ 99.4 0 $ 0 12 $ 813.4
Cody P. Smith, CFA
1 $ 2,163.8 1 $ 21.7 3 $ 40.4
None of the accounts above are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   A conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio manager being responsible for multiple accounts, including certain assets of the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund, which may have different investment guidelines and objectives. In addition to the Fund, these accounts may include accounts of registered investment companies, other pooled investment vehicles and other types of accounts. In particular, this conflict of interest may arise as a result of Ceredex’s management of the Fund and other accounts, which, in theory, may allow Ceredex to allocate investment opportunities in a way that favors other accounts over the Fund. This conflict of interest may be exacerbated to the extent Ceredex or the portfolio manager receive, or expect to receive, greater compensation from their management of the other accounts than the Fund. Ceredex may give advice or take action with respect to the other accounts that differs from the advice given with respect to the Fund. To the extent a particular investment is suitable for both the Fund and the other accounts, such investments will be allocated between the Fund and the other accounts in a manner Ceredex determines is fair and equitable under the circumstances to all clients, including the Fund.
To address and manage these potential conflicts of interest, Ceredex has adopted compliance policies and procedures to allocate investment opportunities and to ensure each of their clients are treated on a fair and equitable basis.
Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC
Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC (“CMIA”) is located at 290 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02210 and serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund. CMIA is a registered investment adviser and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ameriprise Financial, Inc. (“Ameriprise Financial”). CMIA’s management experience covers all major asset classes, including equity securities, debt instruments and money market instruments. In addition to serving as an investment adviser to traditional mutual funds, exchange-traded funds and closed-end funds, CMIA acts as an investment adviser for itself, its affiliates, individuals, corporations, retirement plans, private investment companies and financial intermediaries. As of April 24, 2024, CMIA had approximately $427.1 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays CMIA a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between CMIA and the Adviser. CMIA pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the sub-advisory fees earned with respect to the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund. CMIA’s compensation structure is designed to attract and retain high caliber investment professionals necessary to deliver high quality investment management services to its clients. The following information relates to the period ended February 29, 2024.
Portfolio manager direct compensation is typically comprised of a base salary, and an annual incentive award that is paid either in the form of a cash bonus if the size of the award is under a specified threshold, or, if the size of the award is over a specified threshold, the award is paid in a combination of a cash bonus, an equity incentive award, and deferred compensation. Equity incentive awards are made in the form of Ameriprise Financial restricted stock or, for more senior employees, both Ameriprise Financial restricted stock and stock options. The investment return credited on deferred compensation is based on the performance of specified funds advised by CMIA (“CMIA Funds”), in most cases including the CMIA Funds the portfolio manager manages.
Base salary is typically determined based on market data relevant to the employee’s position, as well as other factors including internal equity. Base salaries are reviewed annually, and increases are typically given as promotional increases, internal equity adjustments, or market adjustments.
Under the CMIA annual incentive plan for investment professionals, awards are discretionary, and the amount of incentive awards for investment team members is variable based on (1) an evaluation of investment performance of the investment team of which the investment professional is a member, reflecting the performance (and client experience) of the funds or accounts the investment professional manages and, if applicable, reflecting the individual’s work as an investment research analyst, (2) the results of a peer and/or management review of the individual, taking into account attributes such as team participation,
60

TABLE OF CONTENTS
investment process followed, communications, and leadership, and (3) the amount of aggregate funding of the plan determined by senior management of Columbia Threadneedle Investments and Ameriprise Financial, which takes into account Columbia Threadneedle Investments’ revenues and profitability, as well as Ameriprise Financials’ profitability, historical plan funding levels and other factors. Columbia Threadneedle Investments’ revenues and profitability are largely determined by assets under management. In determining the allocation of incentive compensation to investment teams, the amount of assets and related revenues managed by the team is also considered, alongside investment performance. Individual awards are subject to a comprehensive risk adjustment review process to ensure proper reflection in remuneration of adherence to CMIA’s controls and Code of Conduct.
Investment performance for a fund or other account is measured using a scorecard that compares account performance against benchmarks, custom indexes and/or peer groups. Account performance may also be compared to unaffiliated passively managed ETFs, taking into consideration the management fees of comparable passively managed ETFs, when available and as determined by CMIA. Consideration is given to relative performance over the one-, three- and five- year periods, with the largest weighting on the three-year comparison. For individuals and teams that manage multiple strategies and accounts, relative asset size is a key determinant in calculating the aggregate score, with weighting typically proportionate to actual assets. For investment leaders who have group management responsibilities, another factor in their evaluation is an assessment of the group’s overall investment performance. Exceptions to this general approach to bonuses exist for certain teams and individuals.
Equity incentive awards are designed to align participants’ interests with those of the shareholders of Ameriprise Financial. Equity incentive awards vest over multiple years, so they help retain employees.
Deferred compensation awards are designed to align participants’ interests with the investors in the CMIA Funds and other accounts they manage. The value of the deferral account is based on the performance of CMIA Funds. Employees have the option of selecting from various CMIA Funds for their deferral account, however portfolio managers must (other than by strict exception) allocate a minimum of 25% of their incentive awarded through the deferral program to the CMIA Fund(s) they manage. Deferrals vest over multiple years, so they help retain employees.
For all employees the benefit programs generally are the same and are competitive within the financial services industry. Employees participate in a wide variety of plans, including options in Medical, Dental, Vision, Health Care and Dependent Spending Accounts, Life Insurance, Long Term Disability Insurance, 401(k), and a cash balance pension plan.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Thomas Galvin, CFA
1 $ 1,230 1 $ 494.32 764 $ 1,230
Richard Carter
1 $ 1,230 1 $ 494.32 764 $ 1,200
Todd Herget
1 $ 1,220 1 $ 494.32 767 $ 1,200
None of the accounts above are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   Like other investment professionals with multiple clients, the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund’s portfolio manager(s) may face certain potential conflicts of interest in connection with managing both the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund and other accounts at the same time. CMIA has adopted compliance policies and procedures that attempt to address certain of the potential conflicts that portfolio managers face in this regard. Certain of these conflicts of interest are summarized below.
The management of funds or other accounts with different advisory fee rates and/or fee structures, including accounts, such as CMIA’s hedge funds, that pay advisory fees based on account performance (performance fee accounts), may raise potential conflicts of interest for a portfolio manager by creating an incentive to favor accounts that pay higher fees, including performance fee accounts, such that the portfolio manager may have an incentive to allocate attractive investments disproportionately to performance fee accounts.
61

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Similar conflicts of interest also may arise when a portfolio manager has personal investments in other accounts that may create an incentive to favor those accounts. When CMIA determines it necessary or appropriate in order to ensure compliance with restrictions on joint transactions under the 1940 Act, the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund may not be able to invest in privately-placed securities in which other accounts advised by CMIA using a similar style, including performance fee accounts, are able to invest, even when CMIA believes such securities would otherwise represent attractive investment opportunities. As a general matter and subject to CMIA’s Code of Ethics and certain limited exceptions, including for investments in CMIA’s hedge funds, CMIA’s investment professionals do not have the opportunity to invest in client accounts, other than the funds advised by CMIA.
A portfolio manager who is responsible for managing multiple funds and/or accounts may devote unequal time and attention to the management of those funds and/or accounts. The effects of this potential conflict may be more pronounced where funds and/or accounts managed by a particular portfolio manager have different investment strategies.
A portfolio manager may be able to select or influence the selection of the broker/dealers that are used to execute securities transactions for the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund. A portfolio manager’s decision as to the selection of broker/dealers could produce disproportionate costs and benefits among the Fund and the other accounts the portfolio manager manages.
A potential conflict of interest may arise when a portfolio manager buys or sells the same securities for the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund and other accounts. On occasions when a portfolio manager considers the purchase or sale of a security to be in the best interests of the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund as well as other accounts, CMIA’s trading desk may, to the extent consistent with applicable laws and regulations, aggregate the securities to be sold or bought in order to obtain the best execution and lower brokerage commissions, if any. Aggregation of trades may create the potential for unfairness to the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund or another account if a portfolio manager favors one account over another in allocating the securities bought or sold. CMIA and its investment advisory affiliates (“Participating Affiliates”) may coordinate their trading operations for certain types of securities and transactions pursuant to personnel-sharing agreements or similar intercompany arrangements. However, typically CMIA does not coordinate trading activities with a Participating Affiliate with respect to accounts of that Participating Affiliate unless such Participating Affiliate is also providing trading services for accounts managed by CMIA. Similarly, a Participating Affiliate typically does not coordinate trading activities with CMIA with respect to accounts of CMIA unless CMIA is also providing trading services for accounts managed by such Participating Affiliate. As a result, it is possible that CMIA and its Participating Affiliates may trade in the same instruments at the same time, in the same or opposite direction or in different sequence, which could negatively impact the prices paid by the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund on such instruments. Additionally, in circumstances where trading services are being provided on a coordinated basis for CMIA’s accounts (including the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund) and the accounts of one or more Participating Affiliates in accordance with applicable law, it is possible that the allocation opportunities available to the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund may be decreased, especially for less actively traded securities, or orders may take longer to execute, which may negatively impact the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund’s performance.
“Cross trades,” in which a portfolio manager sells a particular security held by the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund to another account (potentially saving transaction costs for both accounts), could involve a potential conflict of interest if, for example, a portfolio manager is permitted to sell a security from one account to another account at a higher price than an independent third party would pay. CMIA and the Funds have adopted compliance procedures that provide that any transactions between the Fund and another account managed by CMIA are to be made at a current market price, consistent with applicable laws and regulations.
Another potential conflict of interest may arise based on the different investment objectives and strategies of the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund and other accounts managed by its portfolio manager(s). Depending on another account’s objectives and other factors, a portfolio manager may give advice to and make decisions for the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund that may differ from advice given, or the timing or nature of decisions made, with respect to another account. A portfolio manager’s investment decisions are the product of many factors in addition to basic suitability for the particular account involved. Thus, a portfolio manager may buy or sell a particular security for certain accounts, and not for the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund, even though it could have been bought or sold for the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund at the same time. A portfolio manager also may buy a particular security for one or more accounts when one or more other accounts are selling the security (including short sales). There may be circumstances when a portfolio manager’s purchases or sales of portfolio securities for one or more accounts may have an adverse effect on other accounts, including the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund.
62

TABLE OF CONTENTS
In addition, a portfolio manager’s responsibilities may include working as a securities analyst. This dual role may give rise to conflicts with respect to making investment decisions for accounts that he/she manages versus communicating his/her analyses to other portfolio managers concerning securities that he/she follows as an analyst.
The Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund’s portfolio managers also may have other potential conflicts of interest in managing the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund, and the description above is not a complete description of every conflict that could exist in managing the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund and other accounts. Many of the potential conflicts of interest to which CMIA’s portfolio managers are subject are essentially the same or similar to the potential conflicts of interest related to the investment management activities of CMIA and its affiliates.
CrossingBridge Advisors, LLC
CrossingBridge Advisors, LLC (“CrossingBridge”) serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and the Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds. CrossingBridge is a Delaware limited liability company and an SEC- registered investment adviser which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ENDI Corp. As of April 29, 2024, CrossingBridge had approximately $2.8 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays CrossingBridge a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and the Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between CrossingBridge and the Adviser. CrossingBridge pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the sub-advisory fees earned with respect to the Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and the Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds.
CrossingBridge’s compensation structure is designed to attract and retain high caliber investment professionals necessary to deliver high quality investment management services to its clients. The following information relates to the period ended February 29, 2024.
As Portfolio Manager, Mr. Sherman receives a compensation and benefits package. Mr. Sherman’s compensation is based on the performance of his accounts and contribution to the overall growth and profitability of CrossingBridge. Mr. Sherman is provided no financial incentive to favor one fund or account over another. In addition, Mr. Sherman ultimately receives compensation based on the CrossingBridge’s overall profitability.
As Assistant Portfolio Manager, Mr. Berg receives a compensation and benefits package. Mr. Berg’s compensation is based on the performance of his accounts and contribution to the overall growth and profitability of CrossingBridge. Mr. Berg is provided no financial incentive to favor one fund or account over another. In addition, Mr. Berg receives compensation based on CrossingBridge’s overall profitability.
As Assistant Portfolio Manager, Mr. Whitney receives a compensation and benefits package. Mr. Whitney’s compensation is based on the performance of his accounts and contribution to the overall growth and profitability of CrossingBridge. Mr. Whitney is provided no financial incentive to favor one fund or account over another. In addition, Mr. Whitney receives compensation based on CrossingBridge’s overall profitability.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and the Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and the Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
David K. Sherman
6 $ 2,104.9 2 $ 76.5 6 $ 62.9
0 $ 0 1* $ 6.1 0 0
Jonathan Berg
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0
Kirk Whitney
4 $ 928.5 0 $ 0 0 $ 0
*
These accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
63

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Conflicts of Interest.   Potential conflicts of interest may arise when Crossing Bridge is presented with investment opportunities that are suitable for more than one of its accounts, including the Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and the Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds. CrossingBridge’s Trade Allocation Policy mandates that no client shall receive preferential treatment in the allocation of investment opportunities and that the amount of fees payable to CrossingBridge will not be a factor in the decision of how to allocate investment opportunities. To the extent possible, CrossingBridge will aggregate transactions for its clients and will select a pre-trade allocation methodology as set forth in CrossingBridge’s policies and procedures.
DoubleLine Capital LP
DoubleLine Capital LP (“DoubleLine”), located at 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, California 90071 serves a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Core Fixed Income, Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds. DoubleLine is registered as an investment adviser under the 1940 Act. DoubleLine provides investment management and sub- advisory services to public as well as various institutional and sub-advised accounts. As of March 28, 2024, DoubleLine had approximately $93 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays DoubleLine a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Core Fixed Income, Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between DoubleLine and the Adviser. DoubleLine pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the sub-advisory fees earned with respect to the Destinations Core Fixed Income, Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds. The following information relates to the period ended February 29, 2024.
The overall objective of the compensation program for the portfolio managers employed by DoubleLine is for DoubleLine to attract competent 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 DoubleLine’s portfolio managers for their contribution to the success of the clients and DoubleLine. The DoubleLine portfolio managers are compensated through a combination of base salary, discretionary bonus and, in some cases, equity participation in DoubleLine.
Salary.   Salary is agreed to with managers at 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 managers’ compensation.
Discretionary Bonus/Guaranteed Minimums.   Portfolio managers receive discretionary bonuses. However, in some cases, pursuant to contractual arrangements, some portfolio managers may be entitled to a mandatory minimum bonus if the sum of their salary and profit sharing does not reach certain levels.
Equity Incentives.   Some portfolio managers participate in equity incentives based on overall firm performance of DoubleLine, through direct ownership interests in DoubleLine. These ownership interests or participation interests provide eligible portfolio managers the opportunity to participate in the financial performance of DoubleLine. Participation is generally determined in the discretion of DoubleLine, taking into account factors relevant to a portfolio manager’s contribution to the success of DoubleLine.
Other Plans and Compensation Vehicles.   Portfolio managers may elect to participate in DoubleLine’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. DoubleLine may also choose, from time to time, to offer certain other compensation plans and vehicles, such as a deferred compensation plan, to portfolio managers.
Summary.   As described above, an investment professional’s total compensation is determined through a subjective process that evaluates numerous quantitative and qualitative factors, including the contribution made to the overall investment process. Not all factors apply to each employee and there is no particular weighting or formula for considering certain factors. Among the factors considered are: relative investment performance of portfolios (although there are no specific benchmarks or periods of time used in measuring performance); complexity of investment strategies; participation in the investment team’s dialogue; contribution to business results and overall business strategy; success of marketing/business development efforts and client servicing; seniority/length of service with the firm; management and supervisory responsibilities; and fulfillment of DoubleLine’s leadership criteria.
64

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024 the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Core Fixed Income, Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Core Fixed Income, Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Jeffrey Gundlach
31 $ 65,188 21 $ 6,813 70 $ 15,281
0 $ 0 2* $ 909.9 3* $ 1,271
Jeffrey Sherman
23 $ 32,420 14 3,019 18 $ 4,002
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0
Luz M. Padilla
7 $ 8,857 3 $ 855.6 4 $ 1,487
0 $ 0 1* $ 840.4 1* $ 634.7
Su Fei Koo
5 $ 1,273 1 $ 296.7 1 $ 634.7
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1* $ 634.7
Mark Christensen
5 $ 1,273 1 $ 296.7 1 $ 634.7
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1* $ 634.7
Robert Cohen
3 $ 7,474 11 $ 3,235 3 $ 852.3
0 $ 0 10* $ 3,231 0 $ 0
*
These accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
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 the Destinations Core Fixed Income, Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds, on the one hand, and the management of other accounts, on the other. Potential and actual conflicts of interest also may result because of DoubleLine’s other business activities. Other accounts managed by a portfolio manager might have similar investment objectives or strategies as the Funds, be managed (benchmarked) against the same index the Funds track, 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.
Knowledge and Timing of Fund Trades.   A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio manager’s management of the Destinations Core Fixed Income, Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds. Because of their positions with the Funds, the portfolio managers know the size, timing and possible market impact of the Funds’ trades. It is theoretically possible that a portfolio manager could use this information to the advantage of other accounts under management, and also theoretically possible that actions could be taken (or not taken) to the Funds.
Investment Opportunities.   A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio manager’s management of a number of accounts with varying investment guidelines. Often, an investment opportunity may be suitable for both the Destinations Core Fixed Income, Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds and other accounts managed by the portfolio manager, but securities may not be available in sufficient quantities for both the Funds and the other accounts to participate fully. Similarly, there may be limited opportunity to sell an investment held by the Funds and another account. DoubleLine has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to allocate investment opportunities on a fair and equitable basis over time.
Under DoubleLine’s allocation procedures, investment opportunities are allocated among various investment strategies based on individual account investment guidelines, DoubleLine’s investment outlook, cash availability and a series of other factors. DoubleLine has also adopted additional internal practices 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 Destinations Core Fixed Income, Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds and certain pooled investment vehicles, including investment opportunity allocation issues.
65

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Broad and Wide-Ranging Activities.   The portfolio managers, DoubleLine and its affiliates engage in a broad spectrum of activities. In the ordinary course of their business activities, the portfolio managers, DoubleLine and its affiliates may engage in activities where the interests of certain divisions of DoubleLine and its affiliates or the interests of their clients may conflict with the interests of the shareholders of the Destinations Core Fixed Income, Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds.
Possible Future Activities.   DoubleLine and its affiliates may expand the range of services that it provides over time. Except as provided herein, DoubleLine and its affiliates will not be restricted in the scope of its business or in the performance of any such services (whether now offered or undertaken in the future) even if such activities could give rise to conflicts of interest, and whether or not such conflicts are described herein.
DoubleLine and its affiliates have, and will continue to develop, relationships with a significant number of companies, financial sponsors and their senior managers, including relationships with clients who may hold or may have held investments similar to those intended to be made by the Destinations Core Fixed Income, Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds. These clients may themselves represent appropriate investment opportunities for the Funds or may compete with the Funds for investment opportunities.
Performance Fees and Personal Investments.   A portfolio manager may advise certain accounts with respect to which the advisory fee is based entirely or partially on performance or in respect of which the portfolio manager may have made a significant personal investment. Such circumstances may create a conflict of 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 the Destinations Core Fixed Income, Destinations Low Duration Fixed Income and Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds. DoubleLine has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to allocate investment opportunities between the Funds and performance fee based accounts on a fair and equitable basis over time.
Driehaus Capital Management LLC
Driehaus Capital Management LLC (“Driehaus”) serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity and the Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Funds. Driehaus is a Delaware limited liability company and an SEC-registered investment adviser established in 1982 and is owned by Driehaus Capital Holdings LLLP and RHD Holdings LLC. The principal nature of Driehaus’ business is investment advisory services. As of May 6, 2024, Driehaus had approximately $15.2 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays Driehaus a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity and the Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Funds as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between Driehaus and the Adviser. Driehaus pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the sub-advisory fees earned with respect to the Destinations Small- Mid Cap Equity Fund and the Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund. Driehaus Capital 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. The following information relates to the period ended February 29, 2024.
Driehaus compensates the lead portfolio manager, portfolio managers and assistant portfolio manager for their management of the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity and the Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Funds. The portfolio managers are paid a fixed salary plus a bonus. Bonuses are determined based on the terms of a Revenue Sharing Plan and include a base amount calculated as a percentage of management fees paid by the accounts managed. In addition, if performance 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 within the strategy. The portfolio managers and assistant portfolio manager 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 manager, portfolio managers and assistant portfolio manager also would receive such contribution. The lead portfolio manager, portfolio managers and assistant portfolio manager participate in a deferred compensation plan.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity and the Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Funds.
66

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity and the Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Funds the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Jeff James
3 $ 992.1 1 $ 101.2 52 $ 5,900
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 5* $ 752.6
Michael Buck
3 $ 992.1 1 $ 101.2 52 $ 5,900
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 5* $ 752.6
Prakash Vijayan, CFA
3 $ 992.1 1 $ 101.2 52 $ 5,900
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 5* $ 752.6
Michael Caldwell
1 $ 213.3 2 $ 340.3 0 $ 0
0 $ 0 2* $ 340.3 0 $ 0
Yoav Sharon
1 $ 213.3 0 $ 0 0 $ 0
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0
Thomas McCauley
1 $ 213.3 0 $ 0 0 $ 0
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0
*
These accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   The portfolio managers may manage the assets of more than one registered investment company (for this section only, each a “Fund”), other pooled investment vehicles and/or other accounts (collectively, the “Accounts”) for Driehaus. Both clients and affiliated persons of Driehaus, including the portfolio managers, may own interests in these Accounts. The same or related securities may be appropriate and desirable investments for both a Fund and 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 the Accounts in securities held by a Fund or that a Fund is seeking to buy or sell (or transactions in related securities) may have an adverse impact on the prices that a Fund 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 a Fund 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 effected for a Fund. This presents a conflict between the interests of the Fund and the interests of the Accounts as well as the affiliates of Driehaus who invest in the Accounts.
Conflicts also may arise between the interests of a Fund 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 the Fund. In addition, Driehaus’ affiliates, including the Fund’s 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 a Fund when dividing their time and attention between them or when presented with limited investment opportunities that would be desirable and suitable for both a Fund and the 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 either a Fund or the Accounts. These policies and procedures include requirements that transactions by a Fund and the Accounts in the same securities that occur on the same day are average priced 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 a Fund and the Accounts for compliance with Driehaus’ policies and procedures.
Federated Equity Management Company of Pennsylvania
Federated Equity Management Company of Pennsylvania (“FEMCOPA”) serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Equity Income Fund. FEMCOPA is a Delaware statutory trust and an SEC-registered investment adviser. Federated Advisory Services Company, an affiliate of the Sub-adviser and located at the same address, provides research, quantitative analysis, equity trading and transaction settlement and certain support services to the Sub-Adviser. The fee for
67

TABLE OF CONTENTS
these services is paid by the Sub-adviser and not by the Destinations Equity Income Fund. As of December 31, 2023, FEMCOPA had approximately $13.8 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays FEMCOPA a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Equity Income Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between FEMCOPA and the Adviser. FEMCOPA pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the sub-advisory fees earned with respect to the Destinations Equity Income Fund. FEMCOPA’s compensation structure is designed to attract and retain high caliber investment professionals necessary to deliver high quality investment management services to its clients. The following information relates to the period ended February 29, 2024.
Daniel Peris, Deborah Bickerstaff, Michael Tucker, and Jared Hoff are paid a fixed base salary and a variable annual incentive. Base salary is determined within a market competitive, position-specific salary range, based on the portfolio manager’s experience and performance. The annual incentive amount is determined based primarily on Investment Product Performance (IPP) and may also include a discretionary component based on a variety of factors deemed relevant, such as financial measures and performance and may be paid entirely in cash, or in a combination of cash and restricted stock of Federated Hermes, Inc. (“Federated Hermes”). The total combined annual incentive opportunity is intended to be competitive in the market for this portfolio manager role.
IPP is calculated based on certain other accounts managed by the portfolio managers. IPP is measured for the rolling one, three and five calendar year periods, typically, on pre-tax gross total return on an absolute basis and versus the other accounts’ designated peer group of comparable accounts. In addition, performance is, typically, measured based on the other accounts’ average gross one-year distribution yield for one, three and five calendar year periods on an absolute basis and versus a designated peer group of comparable accounts. Typically, performance is also measured on the other accounts’ average one, three and five year dividend growth rate on an absolute basis. Performance periods are adjusted if a portfolio manager has been managing an account for less than five years; accounts with less than one year of performance history under a portfolio manager may be excluded. As noted above, Mr. Peris, Ms. Bickerstaff, Mr. Tucker, and Mr. Hoff are also the portfolio managers for other accounts. Such other accounts may have different benchmarks and performance measures. The allocation or weighting given to the performance of the other accounts for which Mr. Peris, Ms. Bickerstaff, Mr. Tucker, and Mr. Hoff are responsible when their compensation is calculated may be equal or can vary. For purposes of calculating the annual incentive amount, each account managed by the portfolio managers may be categorized into multiple IPP groups (which may be adjusted periodically). Within each performance measurement period and IPP group, IPP currently is calculated on the basis of an assigned weighting to each of the other accounts managed by the portfolio managers and included in the IPP groups. Although the performance of each of the other accounts is considered in calculating the annual incentive amount, the weighting of the IPP group weightings differ. A portion of the bonus tied to the IPP score may be adjusted based on management’s assessment of overall contributions to account performance and any other factors as deemed relevant.
Any individual allocations from the discretionary pool may be determined, by executive management on a discretionary basis using various factors, such as, for example, on a product, strategy or asset class basis, and considering overall contributions and any other factors deemed relevant (and may be adjusted periodically).
Pursuant to the terms of a confidential business agreement with Federated Hermes, Mr. Peris’ annual incentives may now include certain guaranteed amounts.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Equity Income Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to Destinations Equity Income Fund, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to- day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Daniel Peris, CFA
4 $ 8,800 1 $ 182.9 147 $ 21,600
Deborah D. Bickerstaff
4 $ 8,800 1 $ 182.9 147 $ 21,600
Michael Tucker
4 $ 8,800 1 $ 182.9 147 $ 21,600
Jared Hoff
4 $ 8,800 1 $ 182.9 147 $ 21,600
None of the accounts above are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
68

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Conflicts of Interest.   As a general matter, certain conflicts of interest may arise in connection with a portfolio manager’s management of a fund’s investments, on the one hand, and the investments of other funds/pooled investment vehicles or accounts (collectively, including the Fund, as applicable, “accounts”) for which the portfolio manager is responsible, on the other. For example, it is possible that the various products managed could have different investment strategies that, at times, might conflict with one another to the possible detriment of the Destinations Equity Income Fund. Alternatively, to the extent that the same investment opportunities might be desirable for more than one account, possible conflicts could arise in determining how to allocate them. Other potential conflicts can include, for example, conflicts created by specific portfolio manager compensation arrangements (including, for example, the allocation or weighting given to the performance of the Destinations Equity Income Fund or other accounts or activities for which the portfolio manager is responsible in calculating the portfolio manager’s compensation), and conflicts relating to selection of brokers or dealers to execute Destinations Equity Income Fund portfolio trades and/or specific uses of commissions from Destinations Equity Income Fund portfolio trades (for example, research or “soft dollars”). FEMCOPA has adopted policies and procedures and has structured the portfolio managers’ compensation in a manner reasonably designed to safeguard the Destinations Equity Income Fund from being negatively affected as a result of any such potential conflicts.
Gateway Investment Advisers, LLC
Gateway Investment Advisers, LLC (“Gateway”) serves as a Sub-Adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Shelter Fund. Gateway is a Delaware limited liability company and an SEC-registered investment adviser. Gateway is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Natixis Investment Advisers, LLC. As of March 26, 2024, Gateway had approximately $8.8 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   Brinker pays Gateway Investment Advisers, LLC (Gateway) a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Shelter Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between Gateway and Brinker. Gateway’s compensation structure is designed to attract and retain high caliber investment professionals necessary to deliver high quality investment management services to its clients. The following information relates to the period ended February 29, 2024.
Gateway’s compensation for Portfolio Managers or Management Team Members is based on a base salary, allocations from Gateway’s bonus pool, and a retirement plan. The size of the bonus pool is based on the overall profitability of Gateway (as opposed to a portfolio performance-based payment). A substantial portion of each bonus is deferred for up to three years and invested in Gateway-managed products while deferred. This compensation structure is incorporated into the Employment Agreement that certain portfolio managers and senior executives have signed. All employees at Gateway participate in the bonus pool based on factors such as job responsibility and seniority. Messrs. Buckius, Stewart and Toft are parties to employment agreements that provide for automatic renewals for successive one-calendar-year periods and, among other things, a specified base salary and certain undertakings not to compete with the Adviser or solicit its clients. The non-competition and non-solicitation undertakings will expire one year from the termination of employment.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Shelter Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Shelter Fund, Gateway Investment Advisers, LLC’s portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Company
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager(s)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Michael Buckius
5
$8,351.1
0 $ 0 37
$427.6
Daniel Ashcraft
5
$8,351.1
0 $ 0 37
$379.6
Kenneth Toft
5
$8,351.1
0 $ 0 12
$238.0
Mitchell Trotta
4
$8,216.7
0 $ 0 20
$282.0
None of the accounts above are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   A conflict of interest may arise as a result of the portfolio manager being responsible for multiple accounts, including the Destinations Shelter Fund, which may have different investment guidelines and objectives. In addition to the Fund, these accounts may include accounts of registered investment companies, private pooled investment vehicles and other accounts. A conflict of interest may exist if Gateway identifies a limited investment opportunity that may be appropriate
69

TABLE OF CONTENTS
for more than one account, but the Fund is not able to take full advantage of that opportunity due to the need to allocate that opportunity among multiple accounts. In addition, Gateway may execute transactions for another account that may adversely impact the value of securities held by the Fund. However, Gateway believes that these risks are mitigated by the fact that accounts with like investment strategies managed by Gateway are generally managed in a similar fashion, subject to exceptions, such as those resulting from different cash availability and/or liquidity requirements, investment restrictions or policies, the time competing accounts have had funds available for investment or have had investments available for sale, an account’s participation in other opportunities, tax considerations and the relative size of portfolio holdings of the same or comparable securities. In addition, Gateway has adopted trade allocation procedures that require equitable allocation of trade orders for a particular security among participating accounts.
In addition, since Gateway does not manage any performance-based fee accounts, nor is the compensation of the Portfolio Manager’s or Management Team Member’s based on the performance of any one account or strategy, Gateway’s compensation arrangements do not present any material conflicts of interest in connection with the simultaneous management of the Fund and other accounts.
Leeward Investments, LLC
Leeward Investments, LLC (“Leeward”) serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund. Leeward is a Massachusetts limited liability company and is independently owned and controlled by its employees. Leeward’s Small Cap Value team applies a classic value investment style focusing on quality companies whose stock is temporarily out of favor in the market. As of March 26, 2024, Leeward had $ 2.8 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   Leeward believes in aligning investment team compensation with overall client outcomes. Portfolio managers and other investment team members at Leeward are compensated through a combination of base salary, incentive bonus and equity ownership. Leeward’s base salaries are competitive within the industry. Leeward’s incentive bonus plan for these investment personnel is a revenue-share model based on strategy performance relative to a peer group universe of institutional managers. Incentive bonuses are not calculated on specific client or specific fund assets. Investment team members are also equity owners at Leeward, which further aligns investment team incentives with client success.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024 Leeward’s portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024 in addition to the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Company
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager(s)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
R. Todd Vingers, CFA
6 $ 1,117.1 20 $ 652.6 33 $ 896.1
Jay C. Willadsen, CFA
6 $ 1,117.1 20 $ 652.6 33 $ 896.1
None of the accounts above are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   Leeward’s portfolio managers are often responsible for managing one or more funds as well as other accounts, including proprietary accounts, separate accounts and other pooled investment vehicles. A portfolio manager may also manage a separate account or other pooled investment vehicle which may have materially higher fee arrangements than the Destinations Small-Mid Cap Equity Fund and may also have a performance-based fee. The side-by-side management of these funds may raise potential conflicts of interest relating to the allocation of investment opportunities and the aggregation and allocation of trades. Leeward has a fiduciary responsibility to manage all client accounts in a fair and equitable manner. It seeks to provide best execution of all securities transactions and aggregate and then allocate securities to client accounts in a fair and timely manner. Similarly, trading in securities by Leeward personnel for their own accounts potentially could conflict with the interests of clients. Leeward has policies and procedures in place to detect, monitor and resolve these and other potential conflicts of interest that are inherent to its business as a registered investment adviser.
Leeward’s Compliance Office is responsible for developing, implementing, monitoring and enforcing a system of compliance policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to assure that day-to-day business activities are conducted in compliance with the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the 1940 Act (where applicable) and the internal policies and procedures applicable to Leeward’s investment advisory business. The goal of Leeward’s Code of Ethics and Leeward’s policies, procedures and organizational structure is to establish standards and corresponding processes that put the interests of Leeward’s clients first;
70

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ensure that no client or account is favored over another; and identify and disclose conflicts of interest as they relate to personal interests of individuals in the firm and/or completing interests of clients that could occur as the result of relationship size or fee structure.
LMCG Investments, LLC
LMCG Investments, LLC (“LMCG”) serves as a Sub-Adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund. LMCG is a Delaware limited liability company and an SEC-registered investment adviser. LMCG is a board-managed limited liability company that is independently owned and controlled by its employees. As of February 28, 2024, LMCG had approximately $5.1 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays LMCG a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between LMCG and the Adviser. LMCG pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the sub-advisory fees earned with respect to the Fund. The following information relates to the period ended February 29, 2024.
LMCG’s Serenitas Investment team is compensated through a combination of a base salary and an incentive bonus based on revenue sharing. The team’s incentive plan is predicated on overall revenue growth so that as fees increase over time, the team’s bonus pool will increase.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Multi Strategy Alternatives Fund, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
David Weeks
0 $ 0 2 $ 1,180.2 2 $ 733.6
0 $ 0 1* $ 1,118.5 2* $ 733.6
Ajit Kumar, CFA
0 $ 0 2 $ 1,180.2 2 $ 733.6
0 $ 0 1* $ 1,118.5 2* $ 733.6
Edwin Tsui, CFA
0 $ 0 2 $ 1,180.2 2 $ 733.6
0 $ 0 1* $ 1,118.5 2* $ 733.6
Andreas Eckner, PhD
0 $ 0 2 $ 1,180.2 2 $ 733.6
0 $ 0 1* $ 1,118.5 2* $ 733.6
Guillaume Horel, PhD
0 $ 0 2 $ 1,180.2 2 $ 733.6
0 $ 0 1* $ 1,118.5 2* $ 733.6
*
These accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   LMCG’s Legal and Compliance Office is responsible for developing, implementing, monitoring and enforcing a system of compliance policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to assure that day-to-day business activities are conducted in compliance with the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the 1940 Act (where applicable) and the internal policies and procedures applicable to LMCG’s investment advisory business.
The goal of LMCG’s Code of Ethics and LMCG’s policies, procedures and organizational structure is to establish standards and corresponding processes that put the interests of LMCG’s clients first; ensure that no client or account is favored over another; and identify and disclose conflicts of interest as they relate to personal interests of individuals in LMCG and/or competing interests of clients that could occur as the result of relationship size or fee structure.
While there are several potential conflicts in the investment advisory business, below are some examples of some that LMCG’s Legal and Compliance team monitors:
Code of Ethics, Insider Trading and Personal Trading:   Employee trading is continually monitored and the Code of Ethics is reasonably designed to prevent conflicts of interest between LMCG and its clients.
71

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Performance Fees:   LMCG acknowledges that managing client accounts (1) where performance based fees may be received, or (2) a portfolio manager (“PM”) employed by LMCG is invested in proprietary funds managed by LMCG or an affiliate, or (3) where a relationship may exist between a PM and a client, may create the potential for conflicts with other client accounts. LMCG’s procedures are designed to address these conflicts as well as ensure equitable treatment for all accounts as LMCG employs aggregation in pursuit of best overall trade execution.
Trade Allocation:   In no event shall one client be given preference over another client for the allocation of trades on the basis of factors not driven by the appropriateness of the investment in that security under the circumstances at that time.
Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.
Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. (“Loomis Sayles”) serves as a sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations International Equity Fund. Loomis Sayles is a Delaware Limited Partnership, and an indirect subsidiary of Natixis Investment Managers, LLC. Loomis Sayles is headquartered at One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. As of March 29, 2024, Loomis Sayles’ had approximately $301.4 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   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, Loomis Sayles 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 Loomis Sayles’ 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 Loomis Sayles prior to May 3, 2003. The profit sharing contribution to the retirement plan for 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).
Portfolio Manager 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 Loomis Sayles, and personal conduct. Investment performance is the primary component of the annual bonus and generally represents at least 70% of the total for equity managers. The other factors are used to determine the remainder of the annual incentive bonus, subject to the discretion of Loomis Sayles’ Chief Investment Officer (“CIO”) and senior management. The 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. 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.
72

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations International Equity Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations International Equity Fund, Loomis Sayles’ portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Company
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager(s)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Ashish Chugh
0 $ 0 3 $ 260.5 14 $ 18.1
None of the accounts above are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   Conflicts of interest may arise in the allocation of investment opportunities and the allocation of aggregated orders among the Destinations International Equity 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 within the Destinations International Equity 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 Destination International Equity Fund, or sells a stock for some accounts while buying the stock for others, and through the use of  “soft dollar arrangements,” which are discussed in Loomis Sayles’ Brokerage Allocation Policies and Procedures and Loomis Sayles’ Trade Aggregation and Allocation Policies and Procedures.
Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC
Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC (“Lord Abbett”) serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund. Lord Abbett is a Delaware Limited Liability Company wholly-owned by its members, including the Managing Partner. Lord Abbett is headquartered at 90 Hudson Street, Jersey City, New Jersey 07302. As of December 18, 2023, Lord Abbett had approximately $200.7 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays Lord Abbett a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between Lord Abbett and the Adviser. Messrs. Solender and Shuman each receive compensation from Lord Abbett consisting of a salary, bonus, and profit-sharing plan contributions. The level of base compensation takes into account the portfolio manager’s experience, reputation, and competitive market rates, as well as the portfolio manager’s leadership and management of the investment team. Fiscal year-end bonuses, which can be a substantial percentage of overall compensation, are determined after an evaluation of various factors. These factors include the portfolio manager’s investment results and style consistency, the dispersion among funds with similar objectives, the risk taken to achieve the returns, and similar factors. In considering the portfolio manager’s investment results for the purposes of determining the amount of the bonus payments, Lord Abbett’s senior leaders may evaluate the Fund’s performance against one or more benchmarks from among the Fund’s primary benchmark and any supplemental benchmarks as disclosed in the prospectus, indices disclosed as performance benchmarks by the portfolio manager’s other accounts, and other indices within one or more of the Fund’s peer groups (as defined from time to time by third party investment research companies), as well as the Fund’s peer group. In particular, investment results are evaluated
73

TABLE OF CONTENTS
based on an assessment of the portfolio manager’s one-, three-, and five-year investment returns on a pre-tax basis versus the benchmark. Finally, there is a component of the bonus that rewards leadership and management of the investment team. The evaluation does not follow a formulaic approach, but rather is reached following a review of these factors. No part of the bonus payment is based on the portfolio manager’s assets under management, the revenues generated by those assets, or the profitability of the portfolio manager’s team. In addition, Lord Abbett may designate a bonus payment to a portfolio manager for participation in Lord Abbett’s deferred compensation plan. Depending on the employee’s level they will receive either an award under the Managing Director Award Plan or the Investment Capital Appreciation Plan. Both of these plans, following a three-year qualification period, provide for a deferred payout over a five-year period. The plan’s earnings are based on the overall average net asset growth of Lord Abbett as a whole or percentile performance of its funds against benchmarks as a whole. Lord Abbett believes these incentives focus portfolio managers on the impact the Fund’s performance has on the overall reputation of Lord Abbett as a whole and encourages exchanges of investment ideas among investment professionals managing different mandates.
Lord Abbett provides a 401(k) profit-sharing plan for all eligible employees. Contributions to a portfolio manager’s profit-sharing account are based on a percentage of the portfolio manager’s total base and bonus paid during the fiscal year, subject to a specified maximum amount.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund, Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC’s portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Company
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager(s)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Daniel Solender
9 $ 16,923.37 0 $ 0 9,415 $ 9,211.70
Gregory Shuman
5 $ 9,901.99 0 $ 0 6,241 $ 6,118.47
None of the accounts above are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   Conflicts of interest may arise in connection with the portfolio managers’ management of the investments of the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund and the investments of the other accounts. Such conflicts may arise with respect to the allocation of investment opportunities among the Fund and other accounts with similar investment objectives and policies. A portfolio manager potentially could use information concerning a fund’s transactions to the advantage of other accounts and to the detriment of that fund. To address these potential conflicts of interest, Lord Abbett has adopted and implemented a number of policies and procedures, including policies that address client brokerage and soft dollars, as well as Evaluation of Proprietary Research Policy and Procedures. The objective of these policies and procedures is to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of transactions and allocation of investment opportunities on behalf of all accounts managed by Lord Abbett. In addition, Lord Abbett’s Code of Ethics sets forth general principles for the conduct of employee personal securities transactions in a manner that avoids any actual or potential conflicts of interest with the interests of Lord Abbett’s clients, including the Fund. Moreover, Lord Abbett’s Insider Trading and Receipt of Material Non-Public Information Policy and Procedure sets forth procedures for personnel to follow when they have material non-public information. Lord Abbett is not affiliated with a full service broker-dealer and, therefore, does not execute any portfolio transactions through such an entity, a structure that could give rise to additional conflicts. Lord Abbett does not conduct any investment banking functions and does not manage any hedge funds. Lord Abbett does not believe that any material conflicts of interest exist in connection with the portfolio managers’ management of the investments of the Fund and the investments of the other accounts.
Merganser Capital Management Inc.
Merganser Capital Management, LLC (“Merganser”) serves as a sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund. Merganser is a Delaware limited liability company. Merganser is an investment management firm dedicated exclusively to managing fixed income assets. As of March 26, 2024, Merganser has $15.6 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays Merganser a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between Merganser and the Adviser. All members of the
74

TABLE OF CONTENTS
investment team are compensated based on their experience level, contribution to Merganser and team performance relative to peers. Merganser reviews investment team performance and compensation at least annually by their manager and senior management. The primary components of the compensation system are base salary and an annual bonus based on the financial success of Merganser. Additionally, the majority of senior members of the investment team are under employment contracts.
Team performance relative to peers is at a strategy composite level. Thus, there is no incentive or conflict of interest to favor one account over another. In addition, such rankings are gross of fees which mitigates the potential to make decisions based on clients’ fees.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, Merganser’s portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Company
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager(s)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Todd Copenhaver, CFA
0 $ 0 3 $ 102.2 44 $ 3,733
Andrew Smock, CFA
1 $ 19.4 2 $ 61.9 31 $ 2,317
None of the accounts above are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   Merganser and its affiliates engage in a broad range of activities, including investment activities for clients, for their own account and for the account of their clients. Certain affiliates of Merganser provide transaction-related, advisory, management and other services to operating companies. Generally, however, conflicts between Merganser and its affiliates are mitigated because Merganser and its affiliates are separately operated and generally do not share trading or investment information.
Merganser’s clients are permitted to pursue investment opportunities similar to those pursued by another client. The allocation of investment opportunities among clients will be determined by Merganser in its good faith judgment and in accordance with the organizational documents and IMAs of the relevant clients. Allocation decisions can raise conflicts, for example, if clients have different fee structures. Subject to a client’s investment guidelines, IMA, and Merganser’s policies, Merganser generally allocates investment opportunities among eligible clients on a pro rata basis based upon account size. Other contributing factors or deviations from pro rata allocations include (i) client investment guidelines, (ii) sector and issuer diversification, (iii) cash available for investment, (iv) realized gain/loss limitations, (v) new client startups, (vi) anticipated cashflows, (vii) client terminations and (viii) liquid lot sizes. Merganser makes allocation determinations based on its expectations at the time such investments are made, however investments and their characteristics may change and there can be no assurance that an investment may prove to have been more suitable for another client in hindsight.
All employees of Merganser have committed to a Code of Ethics which includes three main sections: (1) Conflicts of Interest, (2) Insider Trading, and (3) Employee Securities Reporting. The Code of Ethics requires each of Merganser’s employees to deal honestly and fairly with all persons with whom he or she has contact. Employees always must place the interests of Merganser’s clients first. To prevent conflicts of interest, all employees must submit quarterly attestations validating their outside accounts and transaction activity. This process is managed through the MyComplianceOfficer Technologies System and reviewed by the CCO. Mutual funds sub-advised by Merganser and securities issued by clients which are publicly traded are on the Merganser restricted list. The CCO reviews and maintains the restricted list and updates it whenever there is a change to Merganser’s client base. The personal trading reviews seek to ensure that employees’ personal trading does not affect the markets, or conflict with Merganser’s fiduciary duty to its clients.
All potential conflicts of interest must be reported to and reviewed by Merganser’s Chief Compliance Officer. Additionally, Merganser prohibits employees from engaging in any business activity or relationships that may result in any financial or other conflict of interest between themselves and clients or Merganser. The potential conflicts of interest encountered by a client include those discussed above but does not necessarily describe all of the conflicts that may be faced by a client account. Other conflicts are disclosed in Merganser’s Form ADV, Part 2A Brochure.
75

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MFS Investment Management
MFS Investment Management (“MFS”) serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations International Equity Fund. MFS is a Delaware Corporation and an SEC-registered investment adviser. MFS and its predecessor organizations have a history of money management dating from 1924. MFS is a 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). As of December 31, 2023, MFS had approximately $598.1 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays MFS a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations International Equity Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between MFS and the Adviser. MFS pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the sub-advisory fees earned with respect to the Destinations International Equity Fund. The following information relates to the period ended December 31, 2023.
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, 2023, 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/​strategy 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”).
As of December 31, 2023, MFS uses the MSCI EAFE (Europe, Australasia, Far East) Value Index (net div) as the benchmark(s) to measure the performance of Messrs. Evans and Stone for the Destinations International Equity Fund.
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 contributions to the MFS investment process and the client experience (distinct from fund and other account performance).
The performance bonus may be in the form of cash and/​or a deferred cash award, at the discretion of management. 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. A selected fund may, but is not required to, be a fund that is managed 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.
76

TABLE OF CONTENTS
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.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations International Equity Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to Destinations International Equity Fund, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Benjamin Stone
9 $ 2,670 3 $ 859.1 10 $ 4.4
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1* $ 238.7
Philip Evans
7 $ 26,600 2 $ 827.4 10 $ 4.4
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1* $ 238.7
*
These accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Each portfolio managers manages one other account with respect to which the advisory fee is based on the performance, the value of which as of February 29, 2024 was $238.7 million. Performance fees for any particular account are paid to MFS, not the portfolio manager, and the portfolio manager’s compensation is not determined by reference to the level of performance fees received by MFS.
Conflicts of Interest:   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 reasonably 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). 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 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.
Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC
Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC (“NBIA”) serves as a Sub-adviser to the Destinations Equity Income Fund. NBIA is directly owned by Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers Holdings LLC and Neuberger Berman AA LLC, which
77

TABLE OF CONTENTS
are subsidiaries of Neuberger Berman Group LLC (“NBG”). NBG is a holding company the subsidiaries of which provide a broad range of global investment solutions to institutions and individuals. NBG’s voting equity is wholly-owned by NBSH Acquisition, LLC, which is controlled by Neuberger Berman employees. As of April 17, 2024, NBIA had approximately $337.3 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays NBIA a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Equity Income Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between NBIA and the Adviser. NBIA’s compensation philosophy is one that focuses on rewarding performance and incentivizing our employees. NBIA is also focused on creating a compensation process that it believes is fair, transparent, and competitive with the market.
Compensation for Portfolio Managers consists of either (i) fixed (salary) and variable (discretionary bonus) compensation but is more heavily weighted on the variable portion of total compensation (ii) on a production model, whereby formulaic compensation is paid from the team compensation pool on a fixed schedule (typically monthly) or (iii) a combination of salary, bonus and/or production compensation. Compensation is paid from a team compensation pool made available to the portfolio management team with which the Portfolio Manager is associated. The size of the team compensation pool is determined based on a formula that takes into consideration a number of factors including the pre-tax revenue that is generated by that particular portfolio management team, less certain adjustments. The amount allocated to individual Portfolio Managers is determined on the basis of a variety of criteria, including investment performance (including the aggregate multi-year track record), utilization of central resources (including research, sales and operations/support), business building to further the longer term sustainable success of the investment team, effective team/people management, and overall contribution to the success of Neuberger Berman (“NB”). Certain Portfolio Managers may manage products other than mutual funds, such as high net worth separate accounts. The share of pre-tax revenue a Portfolio Manager receives pursuant to any such arrangement will vary based on certain revenue thresholds.
The terms of NBIA’s long-term retention incentives are as follows:
Employee-Owned Equity.   Certain employees (primarily senior leadership and investment professionals) participate in NB’s equity ownership structure, which was launched as part of NB’s management buyout in 2009 and designed to incentivize and retain key personnel. NB currently offers an equity acquisition program which allows employees a more direct opportunity to invest in NB. For confidentiality and privacy reasons, we cannot disclose individual equity holdings or program participation.
Contingent Compensation.   Certain employees may participate in the NB Group Contingent Compensation Plan (the “CCP”) to serve as a means to further align the interests of its employees with the success of NB and the interests of its clients, and to reward continued employment. Under the CCP, up to 20% of a participant’s annual total compensation in excess of $500,000 is contingent and subject to vesting. The contingent amounts are maintained in a notional account that is tied to the performance of a portfolio of NB investment strategies as specified by NB on an employee-by-employee basis. By having a participant’s contingent compensation tied to NB investment strategies, each NB employee is given further incentive to operate as a prudent risk manager and to collaborate with colleagues to maximize performance across all business areas. In the case of members of investment teams, including Portfolio Managers, the CCP is currently structured so that such employees have exposure to the investment strategies of their respective teams as well as the broader NB portfolio.
Restrictive Covenants.   Most investment professionals, including Portfolio Managers, are subject to notice periods and restrictive covenants which include employee and client non-solicit restrictions as well as restrictions on the use of confidential information. In addition, depending on participation levels, certain senior professionals who have received equity grants have also agreed to additional notice and transition periods and, in some cases, non-compete restrictions. For confidentiality and privacy reasons, we cannot disclose individual restrictive covenant arrangements.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Equity Income Fund.
78

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Equity Income Fund, the portfolio manager was responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Richard S. Levine
2 $ 989 1 $ 43 3,079 $ 4,650
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 13* $ 17
Alexandra Pomeroy
2 $ 989 1 $ 43 3,079 $ 4,650
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 13* $ 17
William D. Hunter
2 $ 989 1 $ 43 3,079 $ 4,650
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 13* $ 17
Shawn Trudeau
2 $ 989 1 $ 43 3,079 $ 4,650
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 13* $ 17
*
These accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   Actual or apparent conflicts of interest may arise when a Portfolio Manager for NBIA has day-to-day management responsibilities with respect to more than one fund or other account. The management of multiple funds and accounts (including proprietary accounts) may give rise to actual or potential conflicts of interest if the funds and accounts have different or similar objectives, benchmarks, time horizons, and fees, as the Portfolio Manager must allocate his or her time and investment ideas across multiple funds and accounts. The Portfolio Manager may execute transactions for another fund or account that may adversely impact the value of securities or instruments held by a fund, and which may include transactions that are directly contrary to the positions taken by a fund. For example, a Portfolio Manager may engage in short sales of securities or instruments for another account that are the same type of securities or instruments in which a fund it manages also invests. In such a case, the Portfolio Manager could be seen as harming 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 or instruments to fall.
Additionally, if a Portfolio Manager identifies a limited investment opportunity that may be suitable for more than one fund or other account, a fund may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity. There may also be regulatory limitations that prevent a fund from participating in a transaction that another account or fund managed by the same Portfolio Manager will invest. For example, the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, prohibits the mutual funds from participating in certain transactions with certain of its affiliates and from participating in “joint” transactions alongside certain of its affiliates. The prohibition on “joint” transactions may limit the ability of the funds to participate alongside its affiliates in privately negotiated transactions unless the transaction is otherwise permitted under existing regulatory guidance and may reduce the amount of privately negotiated transactions that the funds may participate in. Further, NBIA may take an investment position or action for a fund or account that may be different from, inconsistent with, or have different rights than (e.g., voting rights, dividend or repayment priorities or other features that may conflict with one another), an action or position taken for one or more other funds or accounts, including a fund, having similar or different objectives.
A conflict may also be created by investing in different parts of an issuer’s capital structure (e.g., equity or debt, or different positions in the debt structure). Those positions and actions may adversely impact, or in some instances benefit, one or more affected accounts, including the funds. Potential conflicts may also arise because portfolio decisions and related actions regarding a position held for a fund or another account may not be in the best interests of a position held by another fund or account having similar or different objectives. If one account were to buy or sell portfolio securities or instruments shortly before another account bought or sold the same securities or instruments, it could affect the price paid or received by the second account. Securities selected for funds or accounts other than a fund may outperform the securities selected for the fund.
Finally, a conflict of interest may arise if NBIA and a Portfolio Manager have a financial incentive to favor one account over another, such as a performance-based management fee that applies to one account but not all funds or accounts for which the Portfolio Manager is responsible. In the ordinary course of operations, certain businesses within NB will seek access to material non-public information. For instance, NBIA portfolio managers may obtain and utilize material non-public information in purchasing loans and other debt instruments and certain privately placed or restricted equity instruments. From time to time, NBIA portfolio managers will be offered the opportunity on behalf of applicable clients to participate on a creditors or other similar committee in connection with restructuring or other “work-out” activity, which participation could provide access to material non-public information.
79

TABLE OF CONTENTS
NB maintains procedures that address the process by which material non-public information may be acquired intentionally by NB. When considering whether to acquire material non-public information, NB will attempt to balance the interests of all clients, taking into consideration relevant factors, including the extent of the prohibition on trading that would occur, the size of NB’s existing position in the issuer, if any, and the value of the information as it relates to the investment decision-making process. The acquisition of material non-public information would likely give rise to a conflict of interest since NB may be prohibited from rendering investment advice to clients regarding the securities or instruments of such issuer and thereby potentially limiting the universe of securities or instruments that NB, including a fund, may purchase or potentially limiting the ability of NB, including a fund, to sell such securities or instruments. Similarly, where NB declines access to (or otherwise does not receive or share within NB) material non-public information regarding an issuer, the portfolio managers could potentially base investment decisions with respect to assets of such issuer solely on public information, thereby limiting the amount of information available to the portfolio managers in connection with such investment decisions. In determining whether or not to elect to receive material non-public information, NB will endeavor to act fairly to its clients as a whole. NB reserves the right to decline access to material non-public information, including declining to join a creditors or similar committee.
NBIA has adopted certain compliance procedures which are designed to address these types of conflicts. However, there is no guarantee that such procedures will detect each and every situation in which a conflict arises.
Newton Investment Management North America, LLC
Newton Investment Management North America, LLC (“NIMNA”), is located at 200 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10166. NIMNA serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund. NIMNA is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and is an indirect subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (“BNYM”). As of March 29, 2024, NIMNA has assets under management of approximately $47.9 billion.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays NIMNA a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between NIMNA and the Adviser. NIMNA pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the sub-advisory fees earned with respect to the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund. The following information relates to the period ended February 29, 2024.
NIMNA’s employees are remunerated using a combination of base salary and discretionary annual incentive which is delivered in a mix of cash and deferred incentive depending on the level of incentive and appropriateness for the role.
Discretionary deferred incentive arrangements can include a mix of a long-term incentive plan (LTIP), which has Newton real equity, and awards made under a deferred cash plan linked to the performance of a basket of Newton-managed portfolios (pooled vehicles). This approach aligns NIMNA closely with clients and provides employees with an appropriately balance discretionary incentive arrangement. Most discretionary incentive-eligible employees now receive 100% of their deferred awards in the deferred cash plan linked to the performance of a basket of Newton-managed portfolios (pooled vehicles), with members of the executive team receiving a portion of their incentive award in the Newton real equity plan and a portion in the deferred cash plan linked to the performance of a basket of Newton-managed portfolios (pooled vehicles).
For portfolio managers, a portion of the deferred cash award is linked to the performance of a portfolio (pooled vehicle) where they form part of the portfolio management team, and the remaining portion is linked to the performance of the Newton-wide basket of portfolios, providing a tangible and direct link between compensation and the performance of the fund they are responsible for.
For awards made under the Newton equity plan the value of Newton equity is calculated twice a year. The valuation is based on current and future forecasted financial performance of the Newton business. The class of shares, which the participants hold, is non-voting and non-dividend-bearing and the parent company (holding dividend-bearing NIMNA shares with voting rights) retains 100% control of Newton.
It is intended that discretionary incentive awards will be made annually with deferred elements having a three-year vesting period. For the Newton equity awards, the vesting period will be followed by a minimum further six-month and one-day holding period.
Note: The approach described to reward structures above is applied consistently to Newton’s go forward business in both the UK and US, albeit the fund baskets used in each jurisdiction differ slightly (in part to ensure appropriate alignment with clients). NIMNA regularly reviews its compensation approach, including mixture and features of the deferred compensation
80

TABLE OF CONTENTS
schemes and will make changes that it considers appropriate to ensure that it remains aligned with regulatory requirements, client outcomes and market practices.
Newton’s compensation structure is designed to reward those professionals who deliver strong long-term performance and do not create inappropriate risk exposure for the firm or its clients. NIMNA utilizes an online appraisal system to evaluate the performance of all employees (including our investment professionals) on an annual basis. Additionally, input from the risk and compliance team on employees’ conduct is collected as part of the appraisal process and can have an impact on discretionary incentive awards, this aims to protect against excessive risk-taking and to seek to emphasize appropriate conduct/behavior.
Portfolio managers and analysts’ annual performance appraisals consist of both quantitative and qualitative contributions. The quantitative piece is based upon the portfolio performance and the performance of the analyst’s investment recommendations over one, three and five years, weighted heavily towards the three- and five-year numbers. Factors considered are performance versus benchmark, performance relative to peers, up/down capture delta, and information ration. Qualitative assessment includes contribution to the investment debates; interaction with, and responsiveness to, the wider team and their specific requirements; leadership and communication skills; and collaborative behavior.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio manager did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund, the portfolio manager was responsible for the day-to- day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Brian C. Ferguson
8 $ 9,037 6 $ 416 34 $ 5,789
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 4* $ 100
John Bailer
8 $ 9,037 6 $ 416 35 $ 7,644
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 4* $ 100
Keith Howell Jr,
7 $ 8,720 6 $ 416 35 $ 5,888
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 4* $ 100
*
These accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   It is the policy of NIMNA to make business decisions free from conflicting outside influences. NIMNA’s objective is to recognize potential conflicts of interest and work to eliminate or control and disclose such conflicts as they are identified. NIMNA’s business decisions are based on its duty to its clients, and not driven by any personal interest or gain. As an asset manager with a diverse client base in a variety of strategies, conflicts of interest are inherent. Furthermore, as an indirect subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (“BNY Mellon”), potential conflicts may also arise between NIMNA and other BNY Mellon companies. NIMNA will take steps to provide reasonable assurance that no client or group of clients is advantaged at the expense of any other client. As such, NIMNA has adopted policies and procedures to address such conflicts, which are designed to ensure that all client accounts are treated equitably over time. Additionally, NIMNA has structured compensation of investment personnel to reasonably safeguard client accounts from being adversely impacted by any potential or related conflicts.
All material conflicts of interest are presented in greater detail within Part 2A of NIMNA’s Form ADV.
Northern Trust Investments, Inc.
Northern Trust Investments, Inc. (“NTI”) serves as a Sub-adviser to the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund. NTI, a subsidiary of Northern Trust Corporation, is an Illinois State Banking Corporation and an investment adviser registered under the 1940 Act. It primarily manages assets for institutional and individual separately managed accounts, investment companies and bank common and collective funds.
Northern Trust Corporation is regulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System as a financial holding company under the U.S. Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. As of March 28, 2024, Northern Trust Corporation, through its affiliates, had assets under management of  $1.02 trillion.
81

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Compensation.   The Adviser pays NTI a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between NTI and the Adviser. NTI pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the sub-advisory fees earned with respect to the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund. NTI’s compensation structure is designed to attract and retain high caliber investment professionals necessary to deliver high quality investment management services to its clients. The following information relates to the period ended February 29, 2024.
The compensation for the portfolio managers of the funds is based on the competitive marketplace and consists of a fixed base salary plus a variable annual cash incentive award. In addition, non-cash incentives, such as stock options or restricted stock of Northern Trust Corporation, may be awarded from time to time. The annual incentive award is discretionary and is based on a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of each portfolio manager’s investment performance and contribution to his or her respective team plus the financial performance of the investment business unit and Northern Trust Corporation as a whole. The annual incentive award is not based on performance of the funds or the amount of assets held in the funds. Moreover, no material differences exist between the compensation structure for fund accounts and other types of accounts.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund, the portfolio manager was responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Adam Shane
8 $ 5,710 0 $ 0 393 $ 3,890
Nate Miller
2 $ 914 0 $ 0 524 $ 8,186
None of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   NTI’s portfolio managers are often responsible for managing one or more funds, as well as other client accounts, including ETFs, separate accounts and other pooled investment vehicles. A fund’s manager may manage various client accounts that may have materially higher or lower fee arrangements than the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund. The side-by-side management of these accounts may raise potential conflicts of interest relating to cross trading, the allocation of investment opportunities and the aggregation and allocation of trades. In addition, while portfolio managers generally only manage accounts with similar investment strategies, it is possible, that due to varying investment restrictions among accounts certain investments are made for some accounts and not others or conflicting investment positions could be taken among accounts. Some portfolio managers may be dual officers of one or more NTI’s affiliates and undertake investment advisory duties for the affiliates. The portfolio managers have a responsibility to manage all client accounts in a fair and equitable manner. NTI seeks to provide best execution of all securities transactions and aggregate and then allocate securities to client accounts in a fair and timely manner. To this end, NTI has developed policies and procedures designed to mitigate and manage the potential conflicts of interest that may arise from side-by-side management. As NTI becomes aware of additional potential or actual conflicts of interest, they will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
NTI manages its client accounts consistent with applicable law and follows its own policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to treat clients fairly and to prevent any client or group of clients from being systematically favored or disadvantaged.
Nuveen Asset Management, LLC
Nuveen Asset Management, LLC, (“Nuveen Asset Management”), serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Equity Income and Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds. Nuveen Asset Management is a Delaware limited liability company and an SEC-registered investment adviser. Nuveen Asset Management is a subsidiary of Nuveen, LLC, the investment management arm of Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America. As of March 15, 2024, Nuveen Asset Management had approximately $240 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays Nuveen Asset Management a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Equity Income and Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between Nuveen Asset Management and the Adviser. Nuveen Asset Management pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the sub-advisory fees earned with respect to the Destinations Equity Income
82

TABLE OF CONTENTS
and Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds. Nuveen Asset 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.
Portfolio managers are compensated through a combination of base salary and variable components consisting of  (i) a cash bonus; (ii) a long-term performance award; and (iii) participation in a profits interest plan.
Base salary.
A portfolio manager’s base salary is determined based upon an analysis of the portfolio manager’s general performance, experience and market levels of base pay for such position.
Cash bonus.
A portfolio manager is eligible to receive an annual cash bonus that is based on three variables: risk-adjusted investment performance relative to benchmark generally measured over the most recent one, three and five year periods (unless the portfolio manager’s tenure is shorter), ranking versus Morningstar peer funds generally measured over the most recent one, three and five year periods (unless the portfolio manager’s tenure is shorter), and management and peer reviews.
Long-term performance award.
A portfolio manager is eligible to receive a long-term performance award that vests after three years. The amount of the award when granted is based on the same factors used in determining the cash bonus. The value of the award at the completion of the three-year vesting period is adjusted based on the risk-adjusted investment performance of Fund(s) managed by the portfolio manager during the vesting period and the performance of the TIAA organization as a whole.
Profits interest plan.
Portfolio managers are eligible to receive profits interests in Nuveen Asset Management and its affiliate, Teachers Advisors, LLC, which vest over time and entitle their holders to a percentage of the firms’ annual profits. Profits interests are allocated to each portfolio manager based on such person’s overall contribution to the firms.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Equity Income Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Equity Income Destinations Global Fixed Income Opportunities Funds, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Douglas M. Baker, CFA
5 $ 10,625.2 1 $ 100.5 3,426 $ 2,253.6
Brenda A. Langenfeld, CFA
9 $ 11,962.7 2 $ 106.7 3,429 $ 3,118.0
James T. Stephenson, CFA
2 $ 235.5 1 $ 206.5 1,481 $ 437.9
Thomas J. Ray, CFA
2 $ 1,252.3 4 $ 3,536.3 1,865 $ 1,499.4
Peter Boardman
2 $ 235.5 1 $ 206.5 1,482 $ 783.3
None of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
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 account. More specifically, portfolio managers who manage multiple accounts are presented a number of potential conflicts, including, among others, those discussed below.
The management of multiple accounts may result in a portfolio manager devoting unequal time and attention to the management of each account. Nuveen Asset Management seeks to manage such competing interests for the time and attention of portfolio managers by having portfolio managers focus on a particular investment discipline. Most accounts managed by a portfolio manager in a particular investment strategy are managed using the same investment models.
If a portfolio manager identifies a limited investment opportunity which may be suitable for more than one account, an account may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity due to an allocation of filled purchase or sale orders across
83

TABLE OF CONTENTS
all eligible accounts. To deal with these situations, Nuveen Asset Management has adopted procedures for allocating limited opportunities across multiple accounts.
With respect to many of its clients’ accounts, Nuveen Asset Management determines which broker to use to execute transaction orders, consistent with its duty to seek best execution of the transaction. However, with respect to certain other accounts, Nuveen Asset Management may be limited by the client with respect to the selection of brokers or may be instructed to direct trades through a particular broker. In these cases, Nuveen Asset Management may place separate, non-simultaneous, transactions for the Fund and other accounts which may temporarily affect the market price of the security or the execution of the transaction, or both, to the detriment of the Fund or the other accounts.
Some clients are subject to different regulations. As a consequence of this difference in regulatory requirements, some clients may not be permitted to engage in all the investment techniques or transactions or to engage in these transactions to the same extent as the other accounts managed by a portfolio manager. Finally, the appearance of a conflict of interest may arise where Nuveen Asset Management has an incentive, such as a performance-based management fee, which relates to the management of some accounts, with respect to which a portfolio manager has day-to-day management responsibilities.
Conflicts of interest may also arise when Nuveen Asset Management invests one or more of its client accounts in different or multiple parts of the same issuer’s capital structure, including investments in public versus private securities, debt versus equity, or senior versus junior/subordinated debt, or otherwise where there are different or inconsistent rights or benefits. Decisions or actions such as investing, trading, proxy voting, exercising, waiving or amending rights or covenants, workout activity, or serving on a board, committee or other involvement in governance may result in conflicts of interest between clients holding different securities or investments. Generally, individual portfolio managers will seek to act in a manner that they believe serves the best interest of the accounts they manage. In cases where a portfolio manager or team faces a conflict among its client accounts, it will seek to act in a manner that it believes best reflects its overall fiduciary duty, which may result in relative advantages or disadvantages for particular accounts.
Nuveen Asset Management has adopted certain compliance procedures which are designed to address these types of conflicts common among investment managers. However, there is no guarantee that such procedures will detect each and every situation in which a conflict arises.
Nuveen Asset Management or its affiliates, including TIAA, sponsor an array of financial products for retirement and other investment goals, and provide services worldwide to a diverse customer base. Accordingly, from time to time, a Fund may be restricted from purchasing or selling securities, or from engaging in other investment activities because of regulatory, legal or contractual restrictions that arise due to another client account’s investments and/or the internal policies of Nuveen Asset Management, TIAA or its affiliates designed to comply with such restrictions. As a result, there may be periods, for example, when Nuveen Asset Management will not initiate or recommend certain types of transactions in certain securities or instruments with respect to which investment limits have been reached.
The investment activities of Nuveen Asset Management or its affiliates may also limit the investment strategies and rights of the Funds. For example, in certain circumstances where the Funds invest in securities issued by companies that operate in certain regulated industries, in certain emerging or international markets, or are subject to corporate or regulatory ownership definitions, or invest in certain futures and derivative transactions, there may be limits on the aggregate amount invested by Nuveen Asset Management or its affiliates for the Funds and other client accounts that may not be exceeded without the grant of a license or other regulatory or corporate consent. If certain aggregate ownership thresholds are reached or certain transactions undertaken, the ability of Nuveen Asset Management, on behalf of the Funds or other client accounts, to purchase or dispose of investments or exercise rights or undertake business transactions may be restricted by regulation or otherwise impaired. As a result, Nuveen Asset Management, on behalf of the Funds or other client accounts, may limit purchases, sell existing investments, or otherwise restrict or limit the exercise of rights (including voting rights) when Nuveen Asset Management, in its sole discretion, deems it appropriate in light of potential regulatory or other restrictions on ownership or other consequences resulting from reaching investment thresholds.
River Road Asset Management, LLC
River Road Asset Management, LLC (“River Road”) serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund. River Road is a limited liability company and an SEC-registered investment adviser. As of March 28, 2024, River Road had approximately $7.8 billion in assets under management.
84

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Compensation.   The Adviser pays River Road a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between River Road and the Adviser. The following information relates to the period ended February 29, 2024.
Compensation for portfolio managers includes an annual fixed base salary and a potential performance-based bonus. All portfolio managers also own equity in River Road, which entitles them to a portion of River Road’s profits.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Daniel R. Johnson, CFA, CPA
2 $ 396 1 $ 48 0 $ 0
Matt W. Moran, CFA
2 $ 396 1 $ 48 0 $ 0
None of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   The portfolio managers for the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund manage multiple accounts, including the Fund. The portfolio managers make decisions for each account based on the investment objectives, policies, practices and other relevant investment considerations that the portfolio managers believe are applicable to that account. Consequently, the portfolio managers 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. A portfolio manager may place transactions on behalf of other accounts that are contrary to investment decisions made on behalf of the Fund, or make investment decisions that are similar to those made for the Fund, both of which have the potential to adversely affect the price paid or received by the Fund or the size of the security position obtainable for the Fund. River Road 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.
SSGA Funds Management, Inc.
SSGA Funds Management, Inc. (“SSGA FM”) serves as the Sub-Adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Large Cap Equity, Destination Small-Mid Cap Equity and Destinations International Equity Funds. SSGA FM is a wholly-owned subsidiary of State Street Global Advisors, Inc., which itself is a wholly-owned subsidiary of State Street Corporation (“State Street”), a publicly held financial holding company. SSGA FM and other advisory affiliates of State Street make up State Street Global Advisors (“SSGA”), the investment management arm of State Street.
Compensation.   SSGA’s culture is complemented and reinforced by a total rewards strategy that is based on a pay for performance philosophy which seeks to offer a competitive pay mix of base salary, benefits, cash incentives and deferred compensation.
Salary is based on a number of factors, including external benchmarking data and market trends, and performance both at the business and individual level. SSGA’s Global Human Resources department regularly participates in compensation surveys in order to provide SSGA with market-based compensation information that helps support individual pay decisions.
Additionally, subject to State Street and SSGA business results, an incentive pool is allocated to SSGA to reward its employees. The size of the incentive pool for most business units is based on the firm’s overall profitability and other factors, including performance against risk-related goals. For most SSGA investment teams, SSGA recognizes and rewards performance by linking annual incentive decisions for investment teams to the firm’s or business unit’s profitability and business unit investment performance over a multi-year period.
Incentive pool funding for most active investment teams is driven in part by the post-tax investment performance of fund(s) managed by the team versus the return levels of the benchmark index(es) of the fund(s) on a one-, three- and, in some cases, five-year basis. For most active investment teams, a material portion of incentive compensation for senior staff is deferred over a four-year period into the SSGA Long-Term Incentive (“SSGA LTI”) program. For these teams, The SSGA LTI program indexes the performance of these deferred awards against the post-tax investment performance of fund(s) managed by the
85

TABLE OF CONTENTS
team. This is intended to align our investment team’s compensation with client interests, both through annual incentive compensation awards and through the long-term value of deferred awards in the SSGA LTI program.
For the index equity investment team, incentive pool funding is driven in part by the post-tax 1 and 3-year tracking error of the funds managed by the team against the benchmark indexes of the funds.
The discretionary allocation of the incentive pool to the business units within SSGA is influenced by market-based compensation data, as well as the overall performance of each business unit. Individual compensation decisions are made by the employee’s manager, in conjunction with the senior management of the employee’s business unit. These decisions are based on the overall performance of the employee and, as mentioned above, on the performance of the firm and business unit. Depending on the job level, a portion of the annual incentive may be awarded in deferred compensation, which may include cash and/or Deferred Stock Awards (State Street stock), which typically vest over a four-year period. This helps to retain staff and further aligns SSGA employees’ interests with SSGA clients’ and shareholders’ long-term interests.
SSGA recognizes and rewards outstanding performance by:

Promoting employee ownership to connect employees directly to the company’s success.

Using rewards to reinforce mission, vision, values and business strategy.

Seeking to recognize and preserve the firm’s unique culture and team orientation.

Providing all employees the opportunity to share in the success of SSGA.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Large Cap Equity, Destination Small-Mid Cap Equity and Destinations International Equity Funds.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Large Cap Equity, Destination Small-Mid Cap Equity and Destinations International Equity Funds, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in billions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in billions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in billions)
Juan Acevedo
129 $ 1,090.13 362 $ 855.29 466 $ 513.48
Lisa Hobart
129 $ 1,090.13 362 $ 855.29 466 $ 513.48
John Law, CFA
129 $ 1,090.13 362 $ 855.29 466 $ 513.48
Karl Schneider, CAIA
129 $ 1,090.13 362 $ 855.29 466 $ 513.48
None of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   A portfolio manager that has responsibility for managing more than one account may be subject to potential conflicts of interest because he or she is responsible for other accounts in addition to the Funds. Those conflicts could include preferential treatment of one account over others in terms of: (a) the portfolio manager’s execution of different investment strategies for various accounts; or (b) the allocation of resources or of investment opportunities.
Portfolio managers may manage numerous accounts for multiple clients. These accounts may include registered investment companies, other types of pooled accounts (e.g., collective investment funds), and separate accounts (i.e., accounts managed on behalf of individuals or public or private institutions). Portfolio managers make investment decisions for each account based on the investment objectives and policies and other relevant investment considerations applicable to that portfolio. A potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of a portfolio manager’s responsibility for multiple accounts with similar investment guidelines. Under these circumstances, a potential investment may be suitable for more than one of the portfolio manager’s accounts, but the quantity of the investment available for purchase is less than the aggregate amount the accounts would ideally allocate to the opportunity. Similar conflicts may arise when multiple accounts seek to dispose of the same investment. The portfolio managers may also manage accounts whose objectives and policies differ from that of the Funds. These differences may be such that under certain circumstances, trading activity appropriate for one account managed by the portfolio manager may have adverse consequences for another account managed by the portfolio manager. For example, an account may sell a significant position in a security, which could cause the market price of that security to decrease, while a Fund maintained its position in that security.
86

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A potential conflict may arise when the portfolio managers are responsible for accounts that have different advisory fees — the difference in fees could create an incentive for the portfolio manager to favor one account over another, for example, in terms of access to investment opportunities. This conflict may be heightened if an account is subject to a performance-based fee, as applicable. Another potential conflict may arise when the portfolio manager has a personal investment in one or more accounts that participate in transactions with other accounts. His or her personal investment(s) may create an incentive for the portfolio manager to favor one account over another. The Adviser has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to address these potential material conflicts. For instance, portfolio managers 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, the Adviser and its advisory affiliates have processes and procedures for allocating investment opportunities among portfolios that are designed to provide a fair and equitable allocation. With respect to conflicts arising from personal investments, all employees, including portfolio managers, must comply with personal trading controls established by each of SSGA FM’s and the SSGA Trusts’ Code of Ethics.
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (“T. Rowe Price”) serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations International Equity Fund. T. Rowe Price is a wholly owned subsidiary of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., a publicly-traded financial services holding company. As of March 28, 2024, T. Rowe Price had $1.75 trillion in assets under management.
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 Australia, T. Rowe Price Hong Kong, T. Rowe Price Singapore, T. Rowe Price Japan, T. Rowe Price International, and 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 (as described under the “Disclosure of Fund Portfolio Information” section) 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 pretax basis, although tax efficiency is considered.
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, can 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.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Large Cap Equity or the Destinations International Equity Funds.
87

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Large Cap Equity and the Destinations International Equity Funds, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Richard N. Clattenburg
3 $ 15,549 3 $ 12,549 0 $ 0
None of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   Portfolio managers at T. Rowe Price and its affiliates may manage multiple accounts. These accounts may include, among others, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, business development companies, separate accounts (assets managed on behalf of institutions such as pension funds, colleges and universities, and foundations), offshore funds, private 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 they 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. Investments made by a fund and the results achieved by a fund at any given time are not expected to be the same as those made by other funds for which T. Rowe Price acts as investment adviser, including funds with names, investment objectives and policies, and/or portfolio management teams, similar to a fund. This may be attributable to a wide variety of factors, including, but not limited to, large shareholder purchases or redemptions or specific investment restrictions.
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 funds, including the T. Rowe Price funds. T. Rowe Price acts as sub-adviser 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
88

TABLE OF CONTENTS
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. Additional potential conflicts may be inherent in our use of multiple strategies. Regulatory requirements may prohibit T. Rowe Price or its affiliates from investing in certain companies on behalf of some of their clients, including the T. Rowe Price funds, while at the same time not prohibiting T. Rowe Price or its affiliates from making those same investments on behalf of other clients that are not subject to such requirements. T. Rowe Price or its affiliates’ ability to negotiate certain rights, remedies, or take other actions on behalf of the T. Rowe Price funds with respect to an investment also may be limited in situations in which an affiliate of the T. Rowe Price funds (or certain other interested persons) have a direct or indirect interest in the same issuer. When permitted by applicable law, other clients of T. Rowe Price or its affiliates, on the one hand, and one or more T. Rowe Price funds, on the other hand, may invest in or extend credit to different classes of securities or different parts of the capital structure of a single issuer. T. Rowe Price or its affiliates may pursue rights, provide advice or engage in other activities, or refrain from pursuing rights, providing advice or engaging in other activities, on behalf of themselves or one or more clients other than the T. Rowe Price funds with respect to an issuer in which a T. Rowe Price fund has invested, and such actions (or refraining from action) may have a material adverse effect on such T. Rowe Price fund. In addition, as a result of regulatory requirements or otherwise, in situations in which T. Rowe Price clients (including the T. Rowe Price funds) hold positions in multiple parts of the capital structure of an issuer, T. Rowe Price or its affiliates may not pursue certain actions that may otherwise be available. T. Rowe Price and its affiliates address these and other potential conflicts of interest based on the facts and circumstances of particular situations. For example, T. Rowe Price may determine to rely on one or more information barriers between different advisers, business units, or portfolio management teams, or to rely on the actions of similarly situated holders of loans or securities rather than, or in connection with, taking such actions itself on behalf of a client. In these situations, investment personnel are mindful of potentially conflicting interests of our clients with investments in different parts of an issuer’s capital structure and seek to take appropriate measures to ensure that the interests of all clients are fairly represented. As a result of the various conflicts and related issues described in this paragraph, a T. Rowe Price fund could sustain losses during periods in which T. Rowe Price or its affiliates and other clients of T. Rowe Price or its affiliates achieve profits generally or with respect to particular holdings, or could achieve lower profits or higher losses than would have been the case had the conflicts described above not existed.
Seix Investment Advisors, a division of Virtus Fixed Income Advisers, LLC
Seix Investment Advisors, a division of Virtus Fixed Income Advisers, LLL (“Seix”) serves as a sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund. Seix is a Delaware limited liability company and an indirect wholly-owned affiliate of Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. (“Virtus”), a publicly traded company. Seix is an investment management firm dedicated exclusively to managing fixed income assets. As of March 29, 2024, Seix had $32.8 billion in assets under management, including the assets of two private funds managed by an affiliate of Seix that shares staff with Seix.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays Seix a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between Seix and the Adviser. Seix pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the sub-advisory fees earned with respect to the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund.
Seix’s compensation package is composed of two components: base salary and an annual incentive award. Base salary is set at competitive market levels for comparable positions at major institutional asset management firms. In addition, there is an equity plan. A portfolio manager’s incentive compensation is based predominately on investment performance relative to relevant peer groups over the one- and three-year rolling periods. Incentive compensation awards are purposefully capped at the attainment of peer group rankings that reward competitive results, but do not encourage excessive risk taking. Consistency is the overriding objective and as such incentive compensation is capped at the attainment of the 35th percentile in a competitive institutional fixed income universe. The rationale for the aforementioned is that consistent attainment of returns within the top 35th percentile of the universe should result in top quartile performance over a full market cycle with a lower risk profile, thereby generating superior risk adjusted returns. With regard to analyst incentive compensation, it is tied to investment performance as outlined above. A qualitative review is conducted at year-end by senior portfolio managers to determine how analysts added value to the overall portfolio return through idea generation, and buy/sell recommendations within their respective industries. Seix maintains a performance-oriented culture that entails a purposeful approach to total compensation for senior investment and business professionals. To that end, the primary component of total compensation is a performance oriented incentive compensation plan that is designed to explicitly align client and business interests in a way that supports measured growth of our business as our clients’ assets increase.
In addition, equity ownership by employees, particularly investment professionals, including those at Seix, is an important element in the alignment of interests, and certain investment professionals at Seix have equity ownership. Seix incorporates
89

TABLE OF CONTENTS
equity awards in conjunction with its performance-based incentive compensation plans for executives and employees, including investment professionals.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, Seix’s portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Dusty L. Self
4 $ 321 0 $ 0 13 $ 572
Phillip Hooks
3 $ 235 0 $ 0 13 $ 572
None of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   To identify the types of conflicts of interests that arise in the course of providing services and which may damage the interests of an advised/sub-advised fund, Seix takes into account, by way of minimum criteria, the question of whether the firm or a relevant person, or a person directly or indirectly linked by way of control to the firm, is in any of the following situations, whether as a result of providing collective portfolio management activities or otherwise:

Seix or that person is likely to make a financial gain, or avoid a financial loss, at the expense of the fund.

Seix or that person has an interest, distinct from that of the fund, in the outcome of a service or an activity provided to the fund or another client, or of a transaction carried out on behalf of the fund or another client.

Seix or that person has a financial or other incentive to favor the interest of another client or group of clients over the interests of the fund.

Seix or that person carries out the same activities for the fund and for another client or clients, which are not funds.

Seix or that person receives or will receive from a person, other than the fund, an inducement in relation to collective portfolio management activities provided to the fund, in the form of monies, goods, or services, other than the standard commission or fee for that service.
When identifying the types of conflict of interests, Seix takes into account the interests of the firm, including those deriving from its affiliation with Seix or from the performance of services and activities, the interests of the clients, and the duty of the firm towards the fund, and the interests of two or more managed funds. Seix identifies, eliminates or mitigates, and manages potential conflicts through its policies and procedures, established committees, and monitoring program.
Wasatch Advisors, Inc.
Wasatch Advisors, Inc. (“Wasatch Advisors”) serves as a Sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations International Equity Fund. Wasatch Advisors is a Utah corporation and an SEC-registered investment adviser. Wasatch Advisors was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. Wasatch Advisors provides discretionary investment advice for a variety of clients, including the Wasatch Funds Trust, a series of domestic, international and global mutual funds, separately managed accounts, and sub-advised products. As of April 24, 2024, Wasatch Advisors had $26.7 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays Wasatch Advisors a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations International Equity Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between Wasatch Advisors and the Adviser. Wasatch Advisors pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the sub-advisory fees earned with respect to the Destinations International Equity Fund. Wasatch Advisors’ compensation structure is designed to attract and retain high caliber investment professionals necessary to deliver high quality investment management services to its clients.
The elements of total compensation for the Portfolio Managers (“PMs”) are base salary, performance-based bonus, partner bonus and team bonus. Wasatch has balanced the components of pay to provide PMs with an incentive to focus on both shorter and longer-term performance. By design, PM compensation levels fluctuate, both up and down, with the relative investment performance of the Funds that they manage. Wasatch seeks to be a meritocracy and rewards those who drive performance for clients.
90

TABLE OF CONTENTS
The below compensation structure applies to all PMs/Assistant Portfolio Managers (“APMs”) and Sr. Analysts. Jr. Analysts (typically those with less than 5 years of experience) are compensated separately based on a variety of factors.
Base Salary
All PMs and APMs have the same base salary.
Partner Bonus
Approximately 20% of expected bonus. Each PM/APM/Sr. Analyst is eligible for a partner bonus which is calculated as a percentage of firm revenue. The size of the bonus is not linked to equity and may vary depending on a number of factors including: experience, leadership, performance, process, products managed, etc.
Team Bonus
Approximately 20% of expected bonus. The team bonus gives each team member an opportunity to earn an amount equal to their partner bonus based on the weighted average performance of all the products on their respective teams. Teams are broad based, i.e. domestic and international. The performance is based on the 1, 3, and 5-year performance (equal weighted) as compared to peers. Top quartile results in 100% of the max bonus being earned, whereas there is no team bonus for aggregate team performance that is less than 50th percentile. The team bonus is adjusted ratable for performance between 25th and 50th percentile.
Performance Bonus
Approximately 60% of expected bonus. Calculated similar to the team bonus, all PM/APM/Sr. Analysts have the ability to earn a performance bonus that is calculated as a percentage of total firm revenues. The amount that is earned is based on the 1, 3, and 5-year performance (equal weighted) of their specific product(s) as compared to peers. Top quartile results in 100% of the max bonus being earned, whereas there is no bonus for performance that is less than 50th percentile. The performance bonus is adjusted ratable for performance between 25th and 50th percentile.
Deferred Compensation
Considered separate from “total pay.” Each year Wasatch grants deferred compensation to key employees. Deferred compensation grants are a specific dollar amount to be paid in 6 years. The dollar amount rises and falls relative to the growth/shrinkage of Wasatch revenues at the firm level.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, the portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations International Equity Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations International Equity Fund, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Linda Lasater, CFA
4 $ 715.2 0 $ 0 7 $ 1,048
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1* $ 252.8
Dan Chace, CFA
3 $ 653.4 0 $ 0 11 $ 1,560
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1* $ 327.6
Allison He, CFA
1 $ 299.5 0 $ 0 0 $ 0
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0
*
These accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   There may be certain inherent conflicts of interest that arise in connection with a portfolio manager’s management of the respective Destinations International Equity Fund’s investments and the investments of any other fund, client or proprietary accounts Wasatch or the respective Fund’s individual team members also manage. Such conflicts include allocation of investment opportunities among the Destinations International Equity Fund and other accounts managed by Wasatch or the portfolio manager; the aggregation of purchase and sale orders believed to be in the best interest of more than one account managed by Wasatch or the portfolio manager and the allocation of such orders across such accounts; and any soft dollar arrangements that Wasatch may have in place that could benefit the Destinations International Equity Fund and/or
91

TABLE OF CONTENTS
other accounts. Additionally, some funds or accounts managed by a portfolio manager may have different fee structures, including performance fees, which are, or have the potential to be, higher or lower than the fees paid by another fund or account. To minimize the effects of these inherent conflicts of interest, Wasatch has adopted and implemented policies and procedures, including trade aggregation and allocation procedures, that it believes are reasonably designed to mitigate the potential conflicts associated with managing portfolios for multiple clients, including the Destinations International Equity Fund, and seeks to ensure that no one client is intentionally favored at the expense of another.
Wellington Management Company LLP
Wellington Management Company LLP (“Wellington”) serves as a sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund. Wellington is a Delaware limited liability partnership. The firm is an independent private partnership owned entirely by its active partners. As of March 29, 2024, Wellington has $1.3 trillion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The Adviser pays Wellington a fee based on the assets under management of the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund as set forth in an investment sub-advisory agreement between Wellington and the Adviser. Wellington pays its investment professionals out of its total revenues, including the sub-advisory fees earned with respect to the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund. The following information is as of December 31, 2023.
Wellington’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’s compensation of the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund’s managers listed in the prospectus who are primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund (“The Portfolio Managers”) includes a base salary and incentive components. The base salary for each Portfolio Manager who is a partner (a “Partner”) of Wellington Management Group LLP, the ultimate holding company of Wellington, is generally a fixed amount that is determined by the managing partners of Wellington Management Group LLP. The base salary for the other Portfolio Manager is determined by the Portfolio Manager’s experience and performance in his role as a Portfolio Manager. Base salaries for Wellington’s employees are reviewed annually and may be adjusted based on the recommendation of a Portfolio Manager’s manager, using guidelines established by Wellington’s Compensation Committee, which has final oversight responsibility for base salaries of employees of the firm. Each Portfolio Manager is eligible to receive an incentive payment based on the revenues earned by Wellington from the Fund and generally each other account managed by such Portfolio Manager. Each Portfolio Manager’s incentive payment relating to the Fund is linked to the gross pre-tax performance of the portion of the Fund compared to the Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index over one, three, and five year periods, with an emphasis on five year results. Wellington applies similar incentive compensation structures (although the benchmarks or peer groups, time periods, and rates may differ) to other accounts managed by these Portfolio Managers, 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 Portfolio Managers may also be eligible for bonus payments based on their overall contribution to Wellington’s business operations. Senior management at Wellington 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. Marvan. Goodman, and Burns are Partners.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, Wellington’s portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund.
92

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
in millions
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
in millions
Number of
Accounts
Total Assets
in millions
Joseph Marvan, CFA
19 $ 13,125 23 $ 10,082 64 $ 29,972
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1* $ 289.1
Campe Goodman, CFA
18 $ 12,817 16 $ 10,151 42 15,896
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1* $ 289.1
Robert Burn, CFA
18 $ 12,817 13 $ 8,920 39 15,695
0 $ 0 0 $ 0 1* $ 289.1
*
These accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   Individual investment professionals at Wellington 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. The Fund’s portfolio managers listed above who are primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund (“Portfolio Managers”) generally manages 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 the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund. The Portfolio Managers makes investment decisions for each account, including the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund, based on the investment objectives, policies, practices, benchmarks, cash flows, tax and other relevant investment considerations applicable to that account. Consequently, the Portfolio Managers 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 the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund and thus the accounts may have similar, and in some cases nearly identical, objectives, strategies and/or holdings to those of the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund.
The Portfolio Managers or other investment professionals at Wellington may place transactions on behalf of other accounts that are directly or indirectly contrary to investment decisions made on behalf of the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund, or make investment decisions that are similar to those made for the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund, both of which have the potential to adversely impact the Destinations Core Fixed Income 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, the Portfolio Managers may purchase the same security for the Destinations Core Fixed Income 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 Destinations Core Fixed Income 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 receives for managing the Destinations Core Fixed Income Fund. Messrs. Burn, Goodman, and Marvan also manage accounts which pay performance allocations to Wellington or its affiliates. Because incentive payments paid by Wellington to the Portfolio Managers are tied to revenues earned by Wellington and, where noted, to the performance achieved by the managers in each account, the incentives associated with any given account may be significantly higher or lower than those associated with other accounts managed by the given Portfolio Managers. Finally, the Portfolio Managers may hold shares or investments in the other pooled investment vehicles and/or other accounts identified above.
Wellington’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 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 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 periodically review the performance of Wellington’s investment professionals. Although Wellington does not track the time an investment professional spends on a single account, Wellington does periodically assess whether an
93

TABLE OF CONTENTS
investment professional has adequate time and resources to effectively manage the investment professional’s various client mandates.
William Blair Investment Management, LLC
William Blair Investment Management, LLC (“William Blair”) serves as a sub-adviser to a portion of the assets of the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund. William Blair is a global investment firm that was established in 2014 and is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC. William Blair is affiliated with William Blair & Company, L.L.C. (“William Blair & Company”). William Blair and William Blair & Company are wholly owned subsidiaries of WBC Holdings, L.P., which is wholly owned by current William Blair and William Blair & Company employees. As of March 28, 2024, William Blair had approximately $67.2 billion in assets under management.
Compensation.   The compensation of William Blair’s portfolio managers is based on the firm’s mission: “Empower Colleagues, Deliver Client Success and Engage in our Communities.” Messrs. Golan and Ricci are Partners of the William Blair. As of February 28, 2024, compensation for Partners of William Blair consists of a fixed base salary, a share of the firm’s profits and, in most instances, a discretionary bonus. The discretionary bonus as well as any potential changes to the Partners’ ownership stakes are determined by the head of William Blair’s Investment Management Department and William Blair’s Executive Committee, and are based on both quantitative and qualitative factors, rather than a formula. The discretionary bonus rewards the specific accomplishments in the prior year, including short-term and long-term investment performance, quality of research ideas, and other contributions to William Blair and its clients. Changes in ownership stake are based on an individual’s sustained, multi-year contribution to long-term investment performance, and to William Blair’s revenue, profitability, intellectual capital and brand reputation. The compensation process is a subjective one that takes into account the factors described above. Portfolio managers do not receive any direct compensation based upon the performance of any individual client account. In addition, there is no formula for evaluating the factors.
Ownership of Fund Shares.   As of February 29, 2024, William Blair’s portfolio managers did not beneficially own any shares of the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund.
Other Accounts.   As of February 29, 2024, in addition to the Destinations Large Cap Equity Fund, the portfolio managers were responsible for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, as follows:
Registered Investment
Companies
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
Other Accounts
Portfolio Manager
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total
Assets
(in millions)
Number
of Accounts
Total Assets
(in millions)
Jim Golan, CFA
2 $ 2,871 6 $ 3,514 36 $ 3,860
David Ricci, CFA
2 $ 2,871 6 $ 3,514 36 $ 3,860
None of these accounts are subject to a performance-based advisory fee.
Conflicts of Interest.   Since William Blair’s portfolio managers manage other accounts in addition to the Fund, conflicts of interest may arise in connection with the portfolio managers’ management of the Fund’s investments on the one hand and the investments of such other accounts on the other hand. The conflicts of interest that arise in managing multiple accounts include, for example, conflicts due to investment strategies, objectives, restrictions, time horizon and fees. William Blair has adopted policies and procedures designed to address such conflicts, including, among others, policies and procedures relating to allocation of investment opportunities, soft dollars and aggregation of trades. William Blair seeks to conduct itself in a manner it considers to be the most fair and consistent with its fiduciary obligations to clients, including the Fund, and make investment decisions based on an account’s investment objectives, restrictions, permitted investment techniques, available cash and other relevant considerations.
PURCHASE OF SHARES
Class I Shares and Class Z Shares of the Funds are primarily available to participants in the Adviser’s Investment Advisory Program, or through certain third-party advisory programs, and are generally designed to relieve investors of the burden of devising an asset allocation strategy to meet their individual needs as well as selecting individual investments within each asset category among the myriad choices available. The Investment Advisory Program generally provides investment advice in connection with investments among the Funds by identifying the investor’s risk tolerances and investment objectives through evaluation of an investment questionnaire; identifying and recommending in writing an appropriate allocation of assets
94

TABLE OF CONTENTS
among the Funds that conform to those tolerances and objectives in a written recommendation; and providing, on a periodic basis, a written monitoring report to the investor containing an analysis and evaluation of an investor’s account and recommending any appropriate changes in the allocation of assets among the Funds. Notwithstanding the Funds having been designed for asset allocation-based advisory programs, the Funds are also available individually through the Orion platform or certain other investment platforms. Subject to the structure of their overall investment portfolio, investors who invest in a single Fund, or who invest in a group of Funds other than through an advisory program, may not obtain the same investment exposure or receive the expense economies that result from investing in the Funds through an investment advisory program.
CONVERSION OF SHARES
Depending on the share class you are invested in and your authorized financial institutions or intermediary’s polices, you may covert certain classes of shares you own of a Fund for shares of different class of shares of that Fund. You must meet any applicable initial minimum investment requirement and investor eligibility requirements stated in the Prospectus or required by your authorized financial institution or intermediary. The transaction will be based on the respective NAV of each class to be exchanged on the trade date for the conversion.
A conversion between share classes of the same Fund is generally considered to be a nontaxable event. However, you should consult with your authorized financial institution or intermediary and your tax adviser for more information.
REDEMPTION OF SHARES
Detailed information on how to redeem shares of a Fund is included in the Prospectus. The right of redemption of shares of a Fund may be suspended or the date of payment postponed: (i) for any periods during which the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE™”) is closed (other than for customary weekend and holiday closings), (ii) when trading in the markets a Fund normally utilizes is restricted, or an emergency, as defined by the rules and regulations of the SEC, exists making disposal of a Fund’s investments or determination of its NAV not reasonably practicable or (iii) for such other periods as the SEC by order may permit for the protection of a Fund’s shareholders.
REDEMPTIONS IN KIND
If the Trustees determine that it would be detrimental to the best interests of a Fund’s shareholders to make a redemption payment wholly in cash, the Fund may pay, in accordance with rules adopted by the SEC, any portion of a redemption in excess of the lesser of  $250,000 or one percent (1%) of the Fund’s net assets by a distribution in kind of readily marketable portfolio securities in lieu of cash. Redemptions failing to meet this threshold must be made in cash. Shareholders receiving distributions in kind of portfolio securities may incur brokerage commissions when subsequently disposing of those securities.
CLASSES OF SHARES
The Trust offers more than one class of shares. The Trust has adopted a multiple class plan pursuant to Rule 18f-3 under the 1940 Act, detailing the attributes of each class of the Funds, and has reserved the right to create and issue additional series or classes. Currently, the Funds have two classes of shares: Class I Shares and Class Z Shares. Each class of shares has equal rights to voting, redemption, dividends and liquidation, except that each class bears different class expenses and each has exclusive voting rights with respect to matters that relate solely to that class or for which the interests of one class differ from the interests of another class.
NET ASSET VALUE
The Fund’s NAV per share is calculated by the Fund’s administrator, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., on each day, Monday through Friday, except days on which the NYSE is closed. The NYSE is currently scheduled to be closed on 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, and on the preceding Friday when one of those holidays falls on a Saturday or on the subsequent Monday when one of those holidays falls on a Sunday. On those days, securities held by a Fund may nevertheless be actively traded and the value of that Fund’s shares could be significantly affected.
NAV per share is determined as of the close of regular trading on the NYSE and is computed by dividing the value of a Fund’s net assets by the total number of its shares outstanding. A security that is primarily traded on a domestic or foreign stock
95

TABLE OF CONTENTS
exchange is valued at the last sale price on that exchange as reported to a Fund or, if no sales occurred during the day, these investments are quoted at the most recent quoted bid prices. Securities that are primarily traded on foreign exchanges are generally valued for purposes of calculating a Fund’s NAV at the preceding closing values of the securities on their respective exchanges, except that, when an occurrence subsequent to the time a value was so established is likely to have changed that value, the securities will be fair valued pursuant to procedures adopted by the Board. Fund securities listed on the NASDAQ National Market System for which market quotations are available are valued at the official closing price. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued for purposes of calculating a Fund’s NAV at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for the security. Options are valued at the last sale price in the market where such contracts are principally traded, and futures are valued at the settlement price established each day by the board or exchange on which they are traded. Securities traded in the over-the-counter (“OTC”) market are valued at the last sale price or, if no sales occurred during the day, these investments are valued at the most recent quoted bid price. Debt securities of U.S. issuers (other than U.S. government securities and short-term investments) are valued by independent pricing services. When, in the judgment of the pricing services, quoted bid prices are available and are representative of the bid side of the market, these investments are valued at the mean between the quoted bid and ask prices. Investments for which no readily obtainable market quotations are available, in the judgment of the pricing service, are carried at market value as determined by using various pricing matrices. For futures contracts, on days when there is excessive volume or market volatility, the settlement price may not be available at the time at which a Fund calculates its NAV. On such days, the best available price (which is typically the last sales price) may be used to value a Fund’s futures position. A Fund that uses the best available price when the settlement price is not available will not consider any difference between the eventual settlement price and the best available price used to be a basis for determining that an incorrect NAV calculation has occurred.
Swaps are valued using quotes from approved broker-dealers. Other securities, options and other assets (including swaps and structured notes agreements) for which market quotations are not readily available are valued at fair value as determined pursuant to procedures adopted by the Trustees.
Foreign currency contracts will be valued using the interpooled forward exchange rates. All assets and liabilities initially expressed in foreign currency values will be converted into U.S. dollar values using the current exchange rate as provided by an appropriate pricing service. If the bid and offered quotations are not available, the rate of exchange will be determined in good faith pursuant to procedures adopted by the Board of Trustees. In carrying out the Trust’s valuation policies, the Adviser, in its capacity as the Valuation Designee, may consult with others, including an independent pricing service retained by the Trust.
The valuation of a security held by a Fund in U.S. dollar-denominated securities with less than 60 days to maturity is based upon their amortized cost, which does not take into account unrealized capital gains or losses. Amortized cost valuation involves initially valuing an instrument at its cost and, thereafter, assuming a constant amortization to maturity of any discount or premium, regardless of the impact of fluctuating interest rates on the market value of the instrument. While this method provides certainty in valuation, it may result in periods during which value, as determined by amortized cost, is higher or lower than the price the Fund would receive if it sold the instrument.
TAXES
The following is a summary of certain material U.S. federal income tax considerations affecting the Funds and their shareholders. This summary does not address all of the potential U.S. federal income tax consequences that may be applicable to a Fund or to all categories of investors, some of which may be subject to special tax rules. Each prospective shareholder is urged to consult their own tax adviser with respect to the specific U.S. federal, state, local and foreign tax consequences of investing in a Fund. The summary is based on the IRC and the laws in effect on the date of this SAI and existing judicial and administrative interpretations thereof, all of which are subject to change, possibly with retroactive effect.
The Funds and Their Investments
Each Fund intends to qualify in each year as a separate RIC under Subchapter M of the IRC. To so qualify, a Fund must, among other things: (a) derive at least 90% of its gross income in each taxable year from dividends, interest, payments with respect to certain securities loans and gains from the sale or other disposition of stock, securities or foreign currencies, other income (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 currencies, and net income derived from interests in “qualified publicly traded partnerships” ​(i.e., partnerships that are traded on an established securities market or tradable on a secondary market, other than partnerships that derive 90% of their income from interest, dividends, capital gains, and other traditional permitted
96

TABLE OF CONTENTS
mutual fund income) (the “Qualifying Income Test”); and (b) diversify its holdings so that, at the end of each quarter of the Fund’s taxable year, (i) at least 50% of the market value of the Fund’s total assets is represented by cash, securities of other RICs, U.S. government securities and other securities, with such other securities limited, in respect of any one issuer, to an amount not greater than 5% of the Fund’s total assets and not greater than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer and (ii) not more than 25% of the value of its assets is invested, including through corporations in which the Fund owns a 20% or more voting stock interest, in the securities (other than U.S. government securities or securities of other RICs) of any one issuer, in the securities (other than the securities of other RICs) of any two or more issuers in which Fund maintains 20% or more of the voting power and which are determined to be engaged in the same or similar trades or businesses, or related trades or businesses or in the securities of one or more qualified publicly traded partnerships (the “Asset Test”). A Fund’s investments in partnerships, including in qualified publicly traded partnerships, may result in that Fund’s being subject to state, local or foreign income, franchise or withholding tax liabilities.
As a RIC, a Fund will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax on the portion of its net investment income and capital gains that it distributes to its shareholders in a timely manner, provided that it satisfies a minimum distribution requirement. To satisfy the minimum distribution requirement, a Fund must distribute to its shareholders at least the sum of  (i) 90% of its “investment company taxable income” ​(i.e., income, including dividends and taxable interest, other than its net realized long-term capital gain over its net realized short-term capital loss), plus or minus certain adjustments, and (ii) 90% of its net tax-exempt income for the taxable year. A Fund will be subject to income tax at the 21% corporate rate on any taxable income or gains that it does not distribute to its shareholders.
Notwithstanding the distribution requirement described above, the IRC imposes a 4% nondeductible excise tax on a Fund to the extent it does not distribute by the end of any calendar year at least the sum of  (i) 98% of its ordinary income for that year and (ii) 98.2% of its capital gain net income (both long-term and short-term) for the one-year period ending, as a general rule, on October 31 of that year. For this purpose, however, any ordinary income or capital gain net income retained by a Fund that is subject to corporate income tax will be considered to have been distributed by year-end. In addition, the minimum amounts that must be distributed in any year to avoid the excise tax will be increased or decreased to reflect any under distribution or over distribution, as the case may be, from the previous year. Each Fund anticipates that it will pay such dividends and intends to make such distributions as are necessary in order to avoid the application of this excise tax, although it can make no assurances that it will entirely eliminate any such tax liability. For example, a Fund may receive delayed or corrected tax reporting statements from its investments that cause such Fund to accrue additional income and gains after such Fund has already made its excise tax distributions for the year. In such a situation, a Fund may incur an excise tax liability resulting from such delayed receipt of such tax information statements.
If, in any taxable year, a Fund fails to qualify as a RIC under the IRC or fails to meet the distribution requirement, such 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 Asset Test 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, such Fund will be taxed in the same manner as an ordinary corporation and distributions to its shareholders will not be deductible by the Fund in computing its taxable income. In addition, in the event of a failure to qualify, a Fund’s distributions, to the extent derived from its current or accumulated earnings and profits, will constitute dividends that are taxable to shareholders as dividend income, even though those distributions might otherwise (at least in part) have been treated in the shareholders’ hands as a long-term capital gain or as tax-exempt interest. However, such dividends may be eligible (i) to be treated as qualified dividend income in the case of shareholders taxed as individuals and (ii) for the dividends received deduction in the case of corporate shareholders. Moreover, if a Fund fails to qualify as a RIC in any year, it must pay out its earnings and profits accumulated in that year in order to qualify again as a RIC. If a Fund fails to qualify as a RIC for a period greater than two taxable years, the Fund may be required to recognize any net built-in gains with respect to certain of its assets (i.e., the excess of the aggregate gains, including items of income, over aggregate losses that would have been realized with respect to such assets if the portfolio had been liquidated) in order to qualify as a RIC in a subsequent year. The Board reserves the right not to maintain the qualification of a Fund as a RIC if it determines such course of action to be beneficial to shareholders.
A 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.
97

TABLE OF CONTENTS
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 IRC.
As a general rule, a Fund’s gain or loss on a sale or exchange of an investment will be a long-term capital gain or loss if the Fund has held the investment for more than one year and will be a short-term capital gain or loss if it has held the investment for one year or less. Gains or losses on the sale of debt securities denominated in a foreign currency may be re-characterized as ordinary income or losses, as described below.
In general, gain or loss on a short sale is recognized when a Fund closes the sale by delivering the borrowed property to the lender, not when the borrowed property is sold. Gain or loss from a short sale is generally considered as capital gain or loss to the extent that the property used to close the short sale constitutes a capital asset in a Fund’s hands. Except with respect to certain situations where the property used by a Fund to close a short sale has a long-term holding period on the date of the short sale, special rules would generally treat the gains on short sales as short-term capital gains. These rules may also terminate the running of the holding period of  “substantially identical property” held by a Fund. Moreover, a loss on a short sale will be treated as a long-term capital loss if, on the date of the short sale, “substantially identical property” has been held by a Fund for more than one year. In general, a Fund will not be permitted to deduct payments made to reimburse the lender of securities for dividends paid on borrowed stock if the short sale is closed on or before the 45th day after the short sale is entered into.
Complex Securities.   A Fund’s transactions in complex securities, including zero coupon securities, foreign currencies, forward contracts, options and futures contracts (including options and futures contracts on foreign currencies), other derivatives and securities lending, will be subject to special provisions of the IRC (including provisions relating to “hedging transactions” and “straddles”) that, among other things, may affect a Fund’s ability to qualify as a RIC, affect the character of gains and losses realized by that Fund (i.e., may affect whether gains or losses are ordinary or capital), accelerate recognition of income to the Fund and defer Fund losses. These rules could therefore affect the character, amount and timing of distributions to shareholders and may require a Fund to sell securities to mitigate the effect of these rules and prevent disqualification of the Fund as a RIC at a time when an adviser might not otherwise have chosen to do so. These provisions also (i) will require a Fund to mark-to-market certain types of the positions in its portfolio (i.e., treat them as if they were closed out at the end of each year), and (ii) may cause the Fund to recognize income without receiving cash with which to pay dividends or make distributions in amounts necessary to satisfy the distribution requirements for avoiding income and excise taxes.
Certain derivative investment by the Funds, such as exchange-traded products and over-the-counter derivatives may not produce qualifying income for purposes of the “Qualifying Income Test” described above, which must be met in order for a Fund to maintain its status as a RIC under the IRC. In addition, the determination of the value and the identity of the issuer of such derivative investments are often unclear for purposes of the “Asset Test” described above. The Funds intend to carefully monitor such investments to ensure that any non-qualifying income does not exceed permissible limits and to ensure that they are adequately diversified under the Asset Test. The Funds, however, may not be able to accurately predict the non-qualifying income from these investments and there are no assurances that the IRS will agree with the Funds’ determination of the “Asset Test” with respect to such derivatives.
The Funds will monitor their transactions, intend to make the appropriate tax elections, if any, and intend to make the appropriate entries in their books and records when they acquire any zero coupon security, foreign currency, forward contract, option, futures contract or hedged investment in order to mitigate the effect of these rules and seek to prevent disqualification of any Fund as a RIC.
With respect to investments in STRIPS, CUBES and other zero coupon securities which are sold at original issue discount and thus do not make periodic cash interest payments, a 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.
Any market discount recognized by a Fund 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
98

TABLE OF CONTENTS
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.
Certain futures and options contracts subject to section 1256 of the IRC (“Section 1256 Contracts”) held by a Fund at the end of its taxable year are required to be marked to their market value, and any unrealized gain or loss on those positions will be included in the Fund’s income as if each position had been sold for its fair market value at the end of the taxable year. The resulting gain or loss will be combined with any gain or loss realized by the Fund from positions in Section 1256 Contracts closed during the taxable year. Provided such positions were held as capital assets and were not part of a “hedging transaction” nor part of a “straddle,” 60% of the resulting net gain or loss will be treated as long-term capital gain or loss, and 40% of such net gain or loss will be treated as short-term capital gain or loss, regardless of the period of time the positions were actually held by the Fund.
As a result of entering into swap contracts, a Fund may make or receive periodic net payments. A Fund may also make or receive a payment when a swap is terminated prior to maturity through an assignment of the swap or other closing transaction. Periodic net payments will generally constitute ordinary income or deductions, while termination of a swap will generally result in capital gain or loss (which will be a long-term capital gain or loss if a Fund has been a party to the swap for more than one year). With respect to certain types of swaps, the Fund may be required to currently recognize income or loss with respect to future payments on such swaps or may elect under certain circumstances to mark such swaps to market annually for tax purposes as ordinary income or loss. The tax treatment of many types of credit default swaps is uncertain.
A Fund may be required to treat amounts as taxable income or gain, subject to the distribution requirements referred to above, even though no corresponding amounts of cash are received concurrently, as a result of  (1) marking to market (e.g., with respect to Section 1256 Contracts), constructive sales or rules applicable to “passive foreign investment companies” ​(“PFICs”) or partnerships or trusts in which the Fund invests or to certain options, futures or forward contracts, or “appreciated financial positions,” ​(2) the inability to obtain cash distributions or other amounts due to currency controls or restrictions on repatriation imposed by a foreign country with respect to a Fund’s investments (including through depositary receipts) in issuers in such country or (3) tax rules applicable to debt obligations acquired with “original issue discount,” including zero-coupon or deferred payment bonds and pay-in-kind debt obligations, or to market discount if an election is made with respect to such market discount. A Fund may therefore be required to obtain cash to be used to satisfy these distribution requirements by selling securities at times that it might not otherwise be desirable to do so or borrowing the necessary cash, thereby incurring interest expenses.
A Fund may invest in U.S. REITs. Investments in REIT equity securities may require a Fund to accrue and distribute income not yet received. To generate sufficient cash to make the requisite distributions, a 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 a Fund’s receipt of cash in excess of the REIT’s earnings; if a Fund distributes these amounts, these distributions could constitute a return of capital to such 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 capital gain distributions.
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 21% 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.
“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 such 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
99

TABLE OF CONTENTS
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.
Foreign Investments.   Dividends or other income (including, in some cases, capital gains) received by a Fund from investments in foreign securities may be subject to withholding and other taxes imposed by foreign countries. Foreign taxes paid by a Fund will reduce the return from the Fund’s investments. Tax conventions between certain countries and the U.S. may reduce or eliminate such taxes in some cases. If, as of the end of a Fund’s taxable year, more than 50% of the Fund’s assets consist of foreign securities, that Fund may elect to permit shareholders to claim a credit or deduction on their income tax returns for their pro rata portions of qualified taxes paid by that Fund during that taxable year to foreign countries in respect of foreign securities that the Fund has held for at least the minimum period specified in the IRC. In such a case, shareholders will include in gross income from foreign sources their pro rata shares of such taxes and must treat the amount so included as if the shareholder had paid the foreign tax directly. The shareholder may then either deduct the taxes deemed paid by the shareholders in computing the shareholders taxable income or, alternatively, use the foregoing information in calculating any foreign tax credit they may be entitled to use against the shareholders’ federal income tax. If a Fund makes the election, such Fund (or its administrative agent) will report annually to their shareholders the respective amounts per share of the Fund’s income from sources within, and taxes paid to, foreign countries and U.S. possessions. Shareholders of Funds that do not hold sufficient foreign securities to meet the above 50% threshold will not be entitled to claim a credit or further deduction with respect to foreign taxes paid by those Funds.
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 IRC, which may result in the shareholder not getting a full credit or deduction 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 not a 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 the Fund.
Foreign tax credits, if any, received by a Fund as a result of an investment in another RIC (including an ETF which is taxable as a RIC) will not be passed through to you unless the Fund qualifies as a “qualified fund-of-funds” under the IRC. If a Fund is a “qualified fund-of- funds” it will be eligible to file an election with the IRS that will enable the Fund to pass along these foreign tax credits to its shareholders. A Fund will be treated as a “qualified fund-of-funds” under the IRC if at least 50% of the value of the Fund’s total assets (at the close of each quarter of the Fund’s taxable year) is represented by interests in other RICs.
If a Fund purchases shares in a PFIC, it may be subject to U.S. federal income tax on a portion of any “excess distribution” or gain from the disposition of such shares even if such income is distributed as a taxable dividend by the Fund to its shareholders. Additional charges in the nature of interest may be imposed on the Fund in respect of deferred taxes arising from such distributions or gains.
If a Fund were to invest in a PFIC and elect to treat the PFIC as a “qualified electing fund” ​(“QEF”) under the IRC, in lieu of the foregoing requirements, the Fund might be required to include in income each year a portion of the ordinary earnings and net capital gains of the qualified electing fund, even if not distributed to the Fund, and such amounts would be subject to the 90% and excise tax distribution requirements described above. In order to make this election, the Fund would be required to obtain certain annual information from the PFICs in which it invests, which may be difficult or impossible to obtain. 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.
100

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Alternatively, a Fund may make a mark-to-market election that will result in the Fund being treated as if it had sold and repurchased all of the PFIC stock at the end of each year. In such case, the Fund would report any such gains as ordinary income and would deduct any such losses as ordinary losses to the extent of previously recognized gains. The election must be made separately for each PFIC owned by the Fund and, once made, would be effective for all subsequent taxable years of the Fund, unless revoked with the consent of the IRS. By making the election, a Fund could potentially ameliorate the adverse tax consequences with respect to its ownership of shares in a PFIC, but in any particular year may be required to recognize income in excess of the distributions it receives from PFICs and its proceeds from dispositions of PFIC stock. The Fund may have to distribute this “phantom” income and gain to satisfy the 90% distribution requirement and to avoid imposition of the 4% excise tax. In order to distribute this income and avoid a tax at the fund level, a Fund might be required to liquidate portfolio securities that it might otherwise have continued to hold, potentially resulting in additional taxable gain or loss.
Dividends paid by PFICs are not eligible to be treated as qualified dividend income. If a Fund indirectly invests in PFICs by virtue of the Fund’s investment in other funds, it may not make such PFIC elections; rather, the underlying funds directly investing in the PFICs would decide whether to make such elections. Because it is not always possible to identify a foreign corporation as a PFIC, a Fund may incur the tax and interest charges described above in some instances.
Each Fund intends to make the appropriate tax elections, if possible, and take any additional steps that are necessary to mitigate the effect of these rules; however, there can be no assurances that a Fund will make such elections. 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 such Fund, if such Fund derives such income from its business of investing in stock, securities or currencies.
Under Section 988 of the IRC, gains or losses attributable to fluctuations in exchange rates between the time a Fund accrues income or receivables or expenses or other liabilities denominated in a foreign currency and the time the Fund actually collects such income or pays such liabilities are generally treated as ordinary income or ordinary loss. Similarly, gains or losses on foreign currency, foreign currency forward contracts, certain foreign currency options or futures contracts and the disposition of debt securities denominated in foreign currency, to the extent attributable to fluctuations in exchange rates between the acquisition and disposition dates, are also treated as ordinary income or loss unless a Fund were to elect otherwise. Any such net gains could require a larger dividend toward the end of the calendar year. Any such net losses will generally reduce and potentially require the recharacterization of prior ordinary income distributions. Such ordinary income treatment may accelerate Fund distributions to shareholders and increase the portion of distributions taxed to shareholders as ordinary income. Any net ordinary losses so created cannot be carried forward by a Fund to offset income or gains earned in subsequent taxable years.
In addition to the above, a Fund’s transactions in foreign currencies and forward foreign currency contracts will generally be subject to special provisions of the Code that may accelerate recognition of income to the Fund and defer losses. These rules could therefore affect the character, amount and timing of distributions to shareholders. 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 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.
The U.S. Treasury Department has authority to issue regulations that would exclude foreign currency gains from the Qualifying Income Test described above if such gains are not directly related to a Fund’s business of investing in stock or securities (or options and futures with respect to stock or securities). Accordingly, regulations may be issued in the future that could treat some or all of a Fund’s non-U.S. currency gains as non-qualifying income, thereby potentially jeopardizing the Fund’s status as a RIC for all years to which the regulations are applicable.
Taxation of U.S. Shareholders
Dividends and Distributions.   Dividends and other distributions by a Fund are generally treated under the IRC as received by the shareholders at the time the dividend or distribution is made. However, any dividend or distribution declared by a Fund in October, November or December of any calendar year and payable to shareholders of record on a specified date in such a month shall be deemed to have been received by each shareholder on December 31 of such calendar year. Under this rule, therefore, a shareholder may be taxed in one year on dividends or distributions actually received in January of the following calendar year.
101

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Each Fund intends to distribute annually to its shareholders substantially all of its investment company taxable income, and any net realized long- term capital gains in excess of net realized short-term capital losses (including any capital loss carryovers). However, if a Fund retains for investment an amount equal to all or a portion of its net long-term capital gains in excess of its net short-term capital losses (including any capital loss carryovers), it will be subject to federal corporate income tax of 21% and may also be subject to a state tax on the amount retained. In that event, the Fund will report such retained amounts as undistributed capital gains in a notice to its shareholders who (a) will be required to include in income for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as long-term capital gains, their proportionate shares of the undistributed amount, (b) will be entitled to credit their proportionate shares of the 21% tax paid by the Fund on the undistributed amount against their U.S. federal income tax liabilities, if any, and to claim refunds to the extent their credits exceed their liabilities, if any, and (c) will be entitled to increase their tax basis, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, in their shares by an amount equal to 79% of the amount of undistributed capital gains included in the shareholder’s income. Organizations or persons not subject to U.S. federal income tax on such capital gains will be entitled to a refund of their pro rata share of such taxes paid by the Fund upon filing appropriate returns or claims for refund with the IRS.
Distributions of net realized long-term capital gains, if any, that a Fund reports as capital gains dividends are taxable as long-term capital gains, whether paid in cash or in shares and regardless of how long a shareholder has held shares of the Fund. All other dividends paid by a Fund (including dividends from short-term capital gains) from its current and accumulated earnings and profits (“regular dividends”) are generally subject to tax as ordinary income. However, any dividends paid by the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund that are properly reported as exempt- interest dividends will not be subject to regular federal income tax.
Special rules may apply, however, to certain dividends paid to individuals. Such a dividend may be subject to tax at the rates generally applicable to long-term capital gains for individuals (currently set at a maximum rate of 20%), provided that the individual receiving the dividend satisfies certain holding period and other requirements. Dividends subject to these special rules are not actually treated as capital gains, however, and thus are not included in the computation of an individual’s net capital gain and generally cannot be used to offset capital losses. The long-term capital gains rates will apply to (i) 100% of the regular dividends paid by a Fund to an individual in a particular taxable year if 95% or more of the Fund’s gross income (ignoring gains attributable to the sale of stocks and securities except to the extent net short-term capital gain from such sales exceeds net long-term capital loss from such sales) in that taxable year is attributable to qualified dividend income received by the Fund; or (ii) the portion of the regular dividends paid by a Fund to an individual in a particular taxable year that is attributable to qualified dividend income received by the Fund in that taxable year if such qualified dividend income accounts for less than 95% of the Fund’s gross income (ignoring gains attributable to the sale of stocks and securities except to the extent net short-term capital gain from such sales exceeds net long-term capital loss from such sales) for that taxable year. For this purpose, “qualified dividend income” generally means income from dividends received by the Fund from U.S. corporations and certain foreign corporations, provided that the Fund and the individual satisfy certain holding period requirements and have not hedged their positions in certain ways. Also, dividends received by a Fund from a REIT or another RIC generally are qualified dividend income only to the extent the dividend distributions are made out of qualified dividend income received by such a REIT or other RIC. Fixed income funds generally do not generate a significant amount of income that is eligible for treatment as qualified dividend income. In addition, certain Funds’ investment strategies may limit their ability to distribute income that is eligible for treatment as qualified dividend income.
Any distribution of income that is attributable to (i) income received by a Fund in lieu of dividends with respect to securities on loan pursuant to a securities lending transaction or (ii) dividend income received by a Fund on securities if temporarily purchased from a counterparty pursuant to a repurchase agreement that is treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a loan by the Fund, will not constitute qualified dividend income to individual shareholders and will not be eligible for the dividends-received deduction for corporate shareholders. Similarly, any distribution of income that is attributable to (i) income received by a Fund in lieu of tax-exempt interest with respect to securities on loan or (ii) tax-exempt interest received by the Fund on tax-exempt securities it temporarily purchased from a counterparty pursuant to a repurchase agreement that is treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a loan by the Fund, will not constitute an exempt-interest dividend to shareholders. If a shareholder elects to treat Fund dividends as investment income for purposes of the limitation on the deductibility of investment interest, such dividends would not be a qualified dividend income.
You will receive information at or near the end of each calendar year setting forth the amount of dividends paid by us that are eligible for the reduced rates.
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
102

TABLE OF CONTENTS
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 Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).
Distributions in excess of a Fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits will, as to each shareholder, be treated as a tax-free return of capital to the extent of a shareholder’s basis in the shares of the Fund, and as a capital gain thereafter (if the shareholder holds shares of the Fund as capital assets). Shareholders receiving dividends or distributions in the form of additional shares should be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as receiving a distribution in an amount equal to the amount of money that the shareholders receiving cash dividends and should have a cost basis in the shares received equal to such amount.
Regular dividends paid by a Fund that are attributable to certain dividends received by that Fund from U.S. corporations may qualify for the federal dividends-received deduction for corporations. The portion of the dividends received from a Fund that qualifies for the dividends-received deduction for corporations will be reduced to the extent that a Fund holds dividend-paying stock for fewer than 46 days (91 days for certain preferred stocks). A Fund’s holding period requirement must be satisfied separately for each dividend during a prescribed period before and after the ex-dividend date and will not include any period during which that Fund has reduced its risk of loss from holding the stock by purchasing an option to sell, granting an option to buy, or entering into a short sale of substantially identical stock or securities, such as securities convertible into the stock. The holding period for stock may also be reduced if a Fund diminishes its risk of loss by holding one or more other positions with respect to substantially similar or related properties. Dividends-received deductions will be allowed only with respect to dividends paid on Fund shares for which a corporate shareholder satisfies the same holding period rules applicable to the Fund, and the deduction is subject to limitations on debt financing at both the Fund and shareholder levels. Such a shareholder should also consult its tax adviser regarding the possibility that its federal tax basis in its Fund shares may be reduced by the receipt of  “extraordinary dividends” from a Fund, and to the extent such basis would be reduced below zero, current recognition of income would be required. Fixed income funds generally do not generate a significant amount of income that is eligible for the dividends received deduction. In addition, certain Funds’ investment strategies may limit their ability to distribute income that is eligible for the dividends received deduction.
Investors considering buying shares of a Fund on or just prior to the record date for a taxable dividend or capital gain distribution should be aware that, although the price of shares just purchased at that time may reflect the amount of the forthcoming distribution, such dividend or distribution may nevertheless be taxable to them.
Unless a shareholder falls within certain exceptions, the custodian, broker or other administrative agent holding shares in the Fund on a shareholder’s behalf must report to the IRS and furnish to the shareholder the cost basis information for Fund shares. In addition to reporting the gross proceeds from the sale of shares of a Fund, an affected shareholder will receive cost basis information for such shares which will indicate whether these shares had a short-term or long-term holding period. For each sale of shares of a Fund, a shareholder is to elect from among several IRS-accepted cost basis methods, including the average cost basis method. In the absence of an election, the custodian, broker or other administrative agent holding shares in the Fund will use a default cost basis method they have chosen which should have been communicated to such shareholders. The cost basis method elected by a shareholder (or the cost basis method applied by default) for each sale of shares of a Fund may not be changed after the settlement date of each such sale. Shareholders should consult with your tax advisors to determine the best IRS-accepted cost basis method for your tax situation and to obtain more information about cost basis reporting. Shareholders also should carefully review any cost basis information provided to them and make any additional basis, holding period or other adjustments that are required when reporting these amounts on their federal income tax returns.
Tax Considerations Related to the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund.   If at least 50% of the value of the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income 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 the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income 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. The Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund intends to qualify and to provide shareholders
103

TABLE OF CONTENTS
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.
Exempt-interest dividends generally are excluded from your gross income for federal income tax purposes. Interest on indebtedness incurred by a shareholder to purchase or carry shares of the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund will not be deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In addition, the IRC may require a shareholder that receives exempt-interest dividends to treat as taxable income a portion of certain otherwise non-taxable social security and railroad retirement benefit payments. Furthermore, a portion of any exempt-interest dividend paid by the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund that represents income derived from certain revenue or private activity bonds held by the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund may not retain its tax-exempt status in the hands of a shareholder who is a “substantial user” of a facility financed by such bonds, or a “related person” thereof. Moreover, some or all of the exempt-interest dividends distributed by the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund may be a specific preference item, or a component of an adjustment item, for purposes of the federal individual alternative minimum tax applicable to certain shareholders. Interest paid on a municipal bond issued to advance or refund another municipal bond is subject to federal income tax. In addition, the receipt of dividends and distributions from the Destinations Municipal Fixed Income Fund may affect a foreign corporate shareholder’s federal “branch profits” tax liability and the federal “excess net passive income” tax liability of a shareholder of an S corporation. The IRS may challenge the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds held by municipal bond investments. If the IRS were successful in its challenge, shareholders may be liable for taxes on past and future distributions received with respect to such bonds.
Shareholders should consult their own tax advisors as to whether they are (i) “substantial users” with respect to a facility or “related” to such users within the meaning of the IRC or (ii) subject to a federal alternative minimum tax, the federal “branch profits” tax, or the federal “excess net passive income” tax. Furthermore, although tax-exempt interest dividends are generally exempt from U.S. Federal income tax, there may not be a similar exemption under the laws of a particular state or local taxing jurisdiction. Thus, tax-exempt interest dividends may be subject to state and local taxes.
Sales Exchanges or Redemptions of Shares.   Upon the sale or exchange of his shares, a shareholder will realize a taxable gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount realized and the shareholder’s basis in the shares. For tax purposes, an exchange of your Fund Shares for shares of a different fund is the same as a sale. A redemption of shares by a Fund will be treated as a sale for this purpose. Such gain or loss will be treated as capital gain or loss if the shares are capital assets in the shareholder’s hands, and will be long-term capital gain or loss if the shares are held for more than one year and short-term capital gain or loss if the shares are held for one year or less. Any loss realized on a sale or exchange will be disallowed to the extent the shares disposed of are replaced, including replacement through the reinvesting of dividends and capital gains distributions in the Fund, within a 61-day period beginning 30 days before and ending 30 days after the disposition of the shares. In such a case, the basis of the shares acquired will be increased to reflect the disallowed loss. Any loss realized by a shareholder on the sale of a Fund share held by the shareholder for six months or less will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a long- term capital loss to the extent of any distributions or deemed distributions of long-term capital gains received by the shareholder with respect to such share. Furthermore, if shares on which a shareholder has received 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 disallowed to the extent of tax-exempt interest dividend distributions. If a shareholder incurs a sales charge in acquiring shares of the Fund, disposes of those shares within 90 days and then acquires shares in a mutual fund for which the otherwise applicable sales charge is reduced by reason of a reinvestment right (e.g., an exchange privilege), the original sales charge will not be taken into account in computing gain/loss on the original shares to the extent the subsequent sales charge is reduced.
Instead, the disregarded portion of the original sales charge will be added to the tax basis of the newly acquired shares. Furthermore, the same rule also applies to a disposition of the newly acquired shares made within 90 days of the second acquisition. This provision prevents a shareholder from immediately deducting the sales charge by shifting the shareholder’s his or her investment within a family of mutual funds.
Net Investment Income Tax.   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). “Net investment income” does not include distributions of exempt-interest. This 3.8% tax also applies to all or a portion of the undistributed net investment income of certain shareholders that are estates and trusts.
104

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Notices.   Shareholders will also receive, if appropriate, various written notices after the close of a Fund’s taxable year regarding the U.S. federal income tax status of certain dividends, distributions and deemed distributions that were paid (or that are treated as having been paid) by the Fund to its shareholders during the preceding taxable year.
Backup Withholding.   A Fund may be required to withhold at a rate of 24% and remit to the U.S. Treasury the amount withheld on amounts payable to shareholders who (i) fail to provide the Fund with their correct taxpayer identification number, (ii) have failed to make required certifications such as that they are not subject to backup withholding or are U.S. persons, or (iii) are subject to backup withholding. Certain shareholders are exempt from backup withholding. Backup withholding is not an additional tax and any amount withheld may be credited against a shareholder’s U.S. federal income tax liability.
Other Tax Considerations.   Dividends, distributions and redemption proceeds may also be subject to additional state, local and foreign taxes depending on each shareholder’s particular situation. 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.
Certain types of income received by a Fund from real estate mortgage investment conduits (“REMICs”), 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 other investments may cause the Fund to designate some or all of its distributions as “excess inclusion income.” To Fund shareholders such excess inclusion income may (1) constitute taxable income as “unrelated business taxable income” (“UBTI”) for those shareholders who would otherwise be tax-exempt such as individual retirement accounts, 401(k) accounts, Keogh plans, pension plans and certain charitable entities; (2) not be offset against net operating losses for tax purposes; (3) not be eligible for reduced US withholding for non-US shareholders even from tax treaty countries; and (4) cause the Fund to be subject to tax if certain “disqualified organizations” as defined by the IRC are Fund shareholders. 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. Because each shareholder’s tax situation is different, shareholders should consult their tax advisor about the tax implications of an investment in the Funds.
If a shareholder recognizes a loss with respect to a Fund’s shares 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 exempted from this reporting requirement, but under current guidance, shareholders of a RIC are not exempt. 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.
Taxation of Non-U.S. Shareholders
Any non-U.S. shareholders in the Fund may be subject to U.S. withholding and estate tax and are encouraged to consult their tax advisors prior to investing in the Fund.
Dividends paid by a Fund to non-U.S. shareholders are generally subject to withholding tax at a 30% rate or a reduced rate specified by an applicable income tax treaty to the extent derived from investment income and short-term capital gains. In order to obtain a reduced rate of withholding, a non-U.S. shareholder will be required to provide an IRS Form W-8BEN or W-8-BEN-E certifying its entitlement to benefits under a treaty. The withholding tax does not apply to regular dividends paid to a non-U.S. shareholder who provides a Form W-8ECI, certifying that the dividends are effectively connected with the non-U.S. shareholder’s conduct of a trade or business within the U.S. Instead, the effectively connected dividends will be subject to regular U.S. income tax as if the non-U.S. shareholder were a U.S. shareholder. A non-U.S. corporation receiving effectively connected dividends may also be subject to additional “branch profits tax” imposed at a rate of 30% (or lower treaty rate).
In general, U.S. federal withholding tax will not apply to any gain or income realized by a non-U.S. shareholder in respect of any distributions of net long-term capital gains over net short-term capital losses, exempt-interest dividends, or upon the sale or other disposition of shares of the Fund.
Properly-designated dividends are generally exempt from U.S. federal withholding tax where they (i) are paid in respect of the Fund’s “qualified net interest income” ​(generally, the Fund’s U.S. source interest income, other than certain contingent
105

TABLE OF CONTENTS
interest and interest from obligations of a corporation or partnership in which the Fund is at least a 10% shareholder, reduced by expenses that are allocable to such income) and (ii) are paid in respect of the Fund’s “qualified short-term capital gains” (generally, the excess of the Fund’s net short-term capital gain over the Fund’s long- term capital loss for such taxable year). However, depending on its circumstances, the fund may designate all, some or none of its potentially eligible dividends as such qualified net interest income or as qualified short-term capital gains, and/or treat such dividends, in whole or in part, as eligible for this exemption from withholding. In order to qualify for this exemption from withholding, a non-U.S. shareholder will need to comply with applicable certification requirements relating to its non-U.S. status (including, in general, furnishing an IRS Form W-8BEN or substitute Form). In the case of shares held through an intermediary, the intermediary may withhold even if a Fund designates the payment as qualified net interest income or qualified short-term capital gains. Non-U.S. shareholders should contact their intermediaries with respect to the application of these rules to their accounts.
Under legislation generally known as “FATCA” ​(the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act), unless certain foreign entities that hold Fund shares comply with IRS requirements that will generally require them to report information regarding U.S. persons investing in, or holding accounts with, such entities, a 30% withholding tax may apply to Fund distributions payable to such entities. 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 their 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 U.S. owners), and an NFFE generally must identify and provide other required information to the Funds 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.
A distribution from a Fund to foreign shareholders who have held more than 5% of a class of Fund shares at any time during the one-year period ending on the date of distribution is treated as real property gain with certain tax filing requirements applicable, if such distribution is attributable to a distribution of real property gain received by the Fund from a REIT and if 50% or more of the value of the Fund’s assets are invested in REITs and other U.S. real property holding corporations. In such case the foreign shareholder would be subject to a 21% withholding tax with respect to such distribution and such distribution would be treated as income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. Such treatment may give rise to an obligation on the part of the foreign shareholder to file a U.S. federal income tax return. Moreover, such distribution may be subject to a 30% branch profits tax in the hands of a foreign shareholder that is a corporation.
Foreign shareholders of a Fund also may be subject to “wash sale” rules to prevent the avoidance of the tax-filing and payment obligations discussed above through the sale and repurchase of Fund shares.
The foregoing is only a summary of certain material U.S. federal income tax considerations generally affecting the Fund and its shareholders and is not intended as a substitute for careful tax planning. Shareholders are urged to consult their tax advisers with specific reference to their own tax situations, including their state and local tax liabilities.
DISTRIBUTOR
Foreside Fund Services, LLC (the “Distributor”) is the distributor (also known as principal underwriter) of the shares of the Funds and is located at Three Canal Plaza, Suite 100, Portland, Maine 04101. The Distributor is a registered broker-dealer and is a member of the FINRA.
Under a Distribution Agreement with the Trust, the Distributor acts as the principal underwriter of the Trust in connection with the continuous offering of shares of the Funds. The Distributor continually distributes shares of the Funds on a best efforts basis. The Distributor has no obligation to sell any specific quantity of Fund shares. The Distributor and its officers have no role in determining the investment policies or which securities are to be purchased or sold by the Trust.
106

TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Distributor may enter into agreements with selected broker-dealers, banks or other financial intermediaries for distribution of shares of the Funds. With respect to certain financial intermediaries and related fund “supermarket” platform arrangements, the Funds and/or the Adviser, rather than the Distributor, typically enter into such agreements. These financial intermediaries may charge a fee for their services and may receive shareholder service or other fees from parties other than the Distributor. These financial intermediaries may otherwise act as processing agents and are responsible for promptly transmitting purchase, redemption and other requests to the Funds.
Investors who purchase shares through financial intermediaries will be subject to the procedures of those intermediaries through which they purchase shares, which may include charges, investment minimums, cutoff times and other restrictions in addition to, or different from, those listed herein. Information concerning any charges or services will be provided to customers by the financial intermediary through which they purchase shares. Investors purchasing shares of the Funds through financial intermediaries should acquaint themselves with their financial intermediary’s procedures and should read the Prospectus in conjunction with any materials and information provided by their financial intermediary. The financial intermediary, and not its customers, will be the shareholder of record, although customers may have the right to vote shares depending upon their arrangement with the intermediary. The Distributor does not receive compensation from the Funds for its distribution services. The Adviser pays the Distributor a fee for certain distribution-related related services.
The Adviser pays the Distributor for the services rendered under the Distribution Agreement pursuant to a Distribution Services Agreement.
CUSTODIAN AND TRANSFER AGENT
Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“BBH”), located at 50 Post Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts, 02110, serves as the Trust’s custodian, fund accountant and administrator. Under its agreements with the Trust, BBH holds the Trust’s Fund securities, calculates each Fund’s daily NAV, provides various administrative services and keeps all required accounts and records. For its custody services, BBH receives a monthly fee based upon the month-end market value of securities held in custody and also receives certain securities transaction charges and out-of-pocket expenses.
UMB Fund Services, Inc. located at 235 W. Galena Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53212, serves as a transfer agent and provides shareholder services to the Trust to render certain shareholder record keeping and accounting services.
SECURITIES LENDING ACTIVITY
BBH acts as securities lending agent for the Funds. The services provided by BBH include (i) entering into loans subject to guidelines or restrictions provided by the Funds; (ii) establishing and maintaining collateral accounts; (iii) monitoring daily the value of the loaned securities and collateral; (iv) seeking additional collateral as necessary from borrowers, and returning collateral to borrowers; (v) receiving and holding collateral from borrowers, and facilitating the investment and reinvestment of cash collateral; (vi) negotiating loan terms; (vii) selecting securities to be loaned subject to guidelines or restrictions provided by the Funds; (viii) recordkeeping and account servicing; (ix) monitoring dividend and proxy activity relating to loaned securities; and (x) arranging for return of loaned securities to the Funds at loan termination.
The table below sets forth the gross income received by the Funds from securities lending activities during the fiscal year ended February 29, 2024. The table also shows the fees and/or other compensation paid by the applicable Funds, any other fees or payments incurred by each Fund resulting from lending securities providers, and the net income earned by the Funds for securities lending activities.
Destinations
Large Cap
Equity Fund
Destinations
Small-Mid
Cap Equity
Fund
Destinations
International
Equity Fund
Destinations
Equity Income
Fund
Destinations
Core Fixed
Income Fund
Gross Income from securities lending activities (including income from cash collateral reinvestment)
$ 453,948.47 $ 954,365.01 $ 1,134,750.91 $ 318,198.40 $ 1,641.00
Fees and/or compensation for securities lending activities and related services
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Fees paid to securities lending agent from a revenue split
$ 33,162.80 $ 53,139.09 $ 70,765.08 $ 20,785.61 $ 15.58
107

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Destinations
Large Cap
Equity Fund
Destinations
Small-Mid
Cap Equity
Fund
Destinations
International
Equity Fund
Destinations
Equity Income
Fund
Destinations
Core Fixed
Income Fund
Fees paid for any cash collateral management
service (including fees deducted from a pooled
cash collateral reinvestment vehicle) that are not
included in the revenue split
$ 12,479.81 $ 28,414.52 $ 32,515.85 $ 8,832.71 $ 69.69
Administrative fees not included in revenue split
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Indemnification fee not included in revenue split
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Rebate (paid to borrower)
$ 275,654.38 $ 660,246.84 $ 748,400.21 $ 205,435.82 $ 1,493.35
Other fees not included in revenue split
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Aggregate fees/compensation for securities lending
activities
$ 321,296.99 $ 741,800.45 $ 851,681.14 $ 235,054.14 $ 1,578.62
Net Income from securities lending activities
$ 132,651.48 $ 212,564.56 $ 283,069.77 $ 83,144.26 $ 62.38
Destinations
Low Duration
Fixed
Income Fund
Destinations
Global
Fixed
Income Fund
Destinations
Municipal Fixed
Income Fund
Destinations
Multi Strategy
Alternatives
Fund
Destinations
Shelter
Fund
Gross Income from securities lending activities (including income from cash collateral reinvestment)
$ 162,200.25 $ 113,972.19 $ 247,105.46 $ 82,613.85 $ 0
Fees and/or compensation for securities lending activities and related services
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Fees paid to securities lending agent from a revenue split
$ 3,829.21 $ 17,273.05 $ 37,131.99 $ 2,031.52 $ 0
Fees paid for any cash collateral management service
(including fees deducted from a pooled cash
collateral reinvestment vehicle) that are not
included in the revenue split
$ 5,428.76 $ 1,405.63 $ 8,053.16 $ 2,737.54 $ 0
Administrative fees not included in revenue split
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Indemnification fee not included in revenue split
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Rebate (paid to borrower)
$ 137,625.49 $ 26,200.80 $ 53,391.47 $ 69,717.29 $ 0
Other fees not included in revenue split
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Aggregate fees/compensation for securities lending activities
$ 146,883.46 $ 44,879.48 $ 98,576.62 $ 74,486.35 $ 0
Net Income from securities lending activities
$ 15,316.79 $ 69,092.71 $ 148,528.84 $ 8,127.50 $ 0
108

TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS
Description of Ratings
The following descriptions of securities ratings have been published by Moody’s Investors Services, Inc. (“Moody’s”), S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”), and Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”), respectively.
Description of Moody’s Global Ratings
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 Ratings
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.
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 Ratings
P-1 Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Prime-1 have a superior ability to repay short-term debt obligations.
P-2 Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Prime-2 have a strong ability to repay short-term debt obligations.
P-3 Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Prime-3 have 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.
A-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description of Moody’s U.S. Municipal Short-Term 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. Under certain circumstances, the MIG scale is used to rate bond anticipation notes with maturities of up to five years.
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. 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 S&P’s Issue Credit 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
A-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
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

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.
BB; B; CCC; CC; and C 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.
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 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
A-3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
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 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.
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.
A-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description of Fitch’s Credit Ratings
Fitch’s credit ratings relating to issuers are an opinion on the relative ability of an entity to meet financial commitments, such as interest, preferred dividends, repayment of principal, insurance claims or counterparty obligations. Credit ratings relating to securities and obligations of an issuer can include a recovery expectation. Credit ratings are used by investors as indications of the likelihood of receiving the money owed to them in accordance with the terms on which they invested.
Fitch’s credit rating scale for issuers and issues is expressed using the categories ‘AAA’ to ‘BBB’ (investment grade) and ‘BB’ to ‘D’ (speculative grade) with an additional +/- for AA through CCC levels indicating relative differences of probability of default or recovery for issues. The terms “investment grade” and “speculative grade” are market conventions and do not imply any recommendation or endorsement of a specific security for investment purposes. Investment grade categories indicate relatively low to moderate credit risk, while ratings in the speculative categories signal either a higher level of credit risk or that a default has already occurred.
Fitch may also disclose issues relating to a rated issuer that are not and have not been rated. Such issues are also denoted as ‘NR’ on its web page.
Fitch’s credit ratings do not directly address any risk other than credit risk. Credit ratings do not deal with the risk of market value loss due to changes in interest rates, liquidity and/or other market considerations. However, market risk may be considered to the extent that it influences the ability of an issuer to pay or refinance a financial commitment.
Ratings nonetheless do not reflect market risk to the extent that they influence the size or other conditionality of the obligation to pay upon a commitment (for example, in the case of payments linked to performance of an index).
In the default components of ratings assigned to individual obligations or instruments, the agency typically rates to the likelihood of non-payment or default in accordance with the terms of that instrument’s documentation. In limited cases, Fitch may include additional considerations (i.e. rate to a higher or lower standard than that implied in the obligation’s documentation).
Description of Fitch’s Long-Term Corporate Finance Obligations Ratings
AAA Highest credit quality. ‘AAA’ ratings denote the lowest expectation of credit risk. They are assigned only in cases of exceptionally strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is highly unlikely to be adversely affected by foreseeable events.
AA Very high credit quality. ‘AA’ ratings denote expectations of very low credit risk. They indicate very strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is not significantly vulnerable to foreseeable events.
A High credit quality. ‘A’ ratings denote expectations of low credit risk. The capacity for payment of financial commitments is considered strong. This capacity may, nevertheless, be more vulnerable to adverse business or economic conditions than is the case for higher ratings.
BBB Good credit quality. ‘BBB’ ratings indicate that expectations of credit risk are currently low. The capacity for payment of financial commitments is considered adequate, but adverse business or economic conditions are more likely to impair this capacity.
BB Speculative. ‘BB’ ratings indicate an elevated vulnerability to credit risk, particularly in the event of adverse changes in business or economic conditions over time; however, business or financial alternatives may be available to allow financial commitments to be met.
B Highly speculative. ‘B’ ratings indicate that material credit risk is present.
CCC Substantial credit risk. ‘CCC’ ratings indicate that substantial credit risk is present.
CC Very high levels of credit risk. ‘CC’ ratings indicate very high levels of credit risk.
C Exceptionally high levels of credit risk. ‘C’ ratings indicate exceptionally high levels of credit risk.
Ratings in the categories of  ‘CCC’, ‘CC’ and ‘C’ can also relate to obligations or issuers that are in default. In this case, the rating does not opine on default risk but reflects the recovery expectation only.
Defaulted obligations typically are not assigned ‘RD’ or ‘D’ ratings, but are instead rated in the ‘CCC’ to ‘C’ rating categories, depending on their recovery prospects and other relevant characteristics. This approach better aligns obligations that have comparable overall expected loss but varying vulnerability to default and loss.
A-5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description of Fitch’s Short-Term Ratings
A short-term issuer or obligation rating is based in all cases on the short-term vulnerability to default of the rated entity and relates to the capacity to meet financial obligations in accordance with the documentation governing the relevant obligation. Short-term deposit ratings may be adjusted for loss severity. Short-Term Ratings are assigned to obligations whose initial maturity is viewed as “short term” based on market convention (a long-term rating can also be used to rate an issue with short maturity). Typically, this means up to 13 months for corporate, sovereign, and structured obligations and up to 36 months for obligations in U.S. public finance markets.
Fitch’s short-term ratings are as follows:
F1 Highest short-term credit quality. Indicates the strongest intrinsic capacity for timely payment of financial commitments; may have an added “+” to denote any exceptionally strong credit feature.
F2 Good short-term credit quality. Good intrinsic capacity for timely payment of financial commitments.
F3 Fair short-term credit quality. The intrinsic capacity for timely payment of financial commitments is adequate.
B Speculative short-term credit quality. Minimal capacity for timely payment of financial commitments, plus heightened vulnerability to near term adverse changes in financial and economic conditions.
C High short-term default risk. Default is a real possibility.
RD Restricted default. Indicates an entity that has defaulted on one or more of its financial commitments, although it continues to meet other financial obligations. Typically applicable to entity ratings only.
D Default. Indicates a broad-based default event for an entity, or the default of a short-term obligation.
A-6

TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX B
BRINKER CAPITAL DESTINATIONS TRUST
Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures Pursuant to Rule 38a-1
Under the Investment Company Act of 1940
PROXY VOTING POLICY AND PROCEDURES
Portfolio management activities are performed by the Adviser and Sub-Advisers. As such all proxy voting responsibilities are performed by the Adviser and Sub-Advisers.
Each Adviser/Sub-Adviser shall vote the proxies appurtenant to all shares of corporate stock owned by each Fund for which it serves as adviser/sub- adviser
Each Adviser/Sub-Adviser shall vote said proxies strictly in accordance with the proxy voting policies submitted by that firm to and approved by the Trusts’ Board of Trustees
In the event that a Sub-Adviser does not or cannot vote the proxies appurtenant to shares of stock of a companies or companies held by a Fund managed by that sub-adviser, the sub-adviser shall notify Brinker Capital Investments (“Brinker”) of that fact and Brinker shall vote said proxy(s) in accordance with its proxy voting policies (stated below).
Brinker acts as fiduciary in relation to the portfolios of the Trust and any other clients that if may manage in the future and the assets entrusted by them to their management. Where the assets placed in Brinker’s care include shares of corporate stock, and except where the client has expressly reserved to itself or another party the duty to vote proxies, it is Brinker’s duty as a fiduciary to vote all proxies relating to such shares.
Brinker has an obligation to vote all proxies received from shares of corporate stock owned by its client accounts in the best interests of those clients. In voting these proxies, Brinker may not be motivated by, or subordinate the client’s interests to, its own objectives or those of persons or parties unrelated to the client. Brinker will exercise all appropriate and lawful care, skill, prudence and diligence in voting proxies, and shall vote all proxies relating to shares owned by its client accounts and received by Brinker. Brinker shall not be responsible, however, for voting proxies that it does not receive in sufficient time to respond.
In order to carry out its responsibilities in regard to voting proxies, Brinker must track all shareholder meetings convened by companies whose shares are held in Brinker client accounts, identify all issues presented to shareholders at such meetings, formulate a principled position on each such issue and ensure that proxies pertaining to all shares owned in client accounts are voted in accordance with such determinations.
Investment advisers registered with the SEC, and which exercise voting authority with respect to client securities, are required by Rule 206(4)-6 of the Advisers Act to (a) 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 adviser’s interests and those of its clients; (b) to disclose to clients how they may obtain information from the adviser with respect to the voting of proxies for their securities; (c) to describe to clients a summary of its proxy voting policies and procedures and, upon request, furnish a copy to its clients; and (d) maintain certain records relating to the adviser’s proxy voting activities when the adviser does have proxy voting authority.
In the event that a Sub-Adviser does not or cannot vote the proxies appurtenant to shares of stock of a companies or companies held by a Fund managed by that sub-adviser, Brinker shall utilize the formal proxy guidelines (set forth below) to appropriately assess each proxy issue. Generally, Brinker seeks to vote proxies in the best interests of its clients. In the ordinary course, this entails voting proxies in a way which Brinker believes will maximize the monetary value of each portfolio’s holdings. Brinker’s Compliance Department will address any unusual or undefined voting issues that may arise during the year.
In addition, Brinker may engage the services of an independent third party (“Proxy Firm”) to cast proxy votes according to Brinker’s established guidelines. The Proxy Firm will promptly notify Brinker of any proxy issues that do not fall under the guidelines set forth below. Brinker does not believe that conflicts of interest will generally arise in connection with its proxy voting policies.
B-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Generally, Brinker views that proxy proposals can be grouped into six broad categories as follows:
I.
Election of Board of Directors

Brinker will generally vote in support of management’s nominees for the board of directors; however, Brinker may choose not to support management’s proposed board if circumstances warrant such consideration.
II.
Appointment of Independent Auditors

Brinker will support the recommendation of the respective corporation’s board of directors.
III.
Issues of Corporate Structure and Shareholder Rights

Proposals may originate from either management or shareholders, and among other things, may request revisions to the corporate bylaws that will affect shareholder ownership rights. Brinker does not generally support obstacles erected by corporations to prevent mergers or takeovers with the view that such actions may depress the corporation’s marketplace value.

Brinker supports the following types of corporate structure and shareholder rights proposals:

Management proposals for approval of stock repurchase programs; stock splits (including reverse splits).

Authorization to increase shares outstanding.

The ability of shareholders to vote on shareholder rights plans (poison pills).

Shareholder rights to eliminate or remove supermajority provisions.

Shareholders’ rights to call special meetings and to act by written consent.

Shareholders’ rights to call special meetings and to act by written consent.

Brinker votes against 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 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 bylaws which would require super-majority shareholder votes 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

Proposals requesting re-election of insiders or affiliated directors who serve on audit, compensation, and nominating committees.
B-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
IV.
Mergers and Acquisitions.
Brinker evaluates Mergers and Acquisitions on a case-by-case basis. Brinker uses its discretion in order to maximize shareholder value. Brinker generally votes as follows:

Against offers with potentially damaging consequences for minority shareholders because of illiquid stock, especially in some non-US markets

For offers that concur with index calculators’ treatment and our ability to meet our clients’ return objectives for passive funds

For proposals to restructure or liquidate closed end investment funds in which the secondary market price is substantially lower than the net asset value
V.
Executive and Director Equity-Based Compensation

Brinker is generally in favor of properly constructed equity-based compensation arrangements. Brinker will support proposals that provide management with the ability to implement compensation arrangements that are both fair and competitive. However, Brinker may oppose management proposals that could potentially significantly dilute shareholders’ ownership interests in the corporation.
VI.
Corporate Social and Policy Issues

Proposals usually originate from shareholders and may require a revision of certain business practices and policies.
Brinker believes, however, that typical business matters that directly or indirectly effect corporate profitability are primarily the responsibility of management. Brinker believes it is inappropriate to use client assets to address socio-political issues. Therefore, social and policy issues reflected in shareholder proposals should be subject to the approval of the corporation’s board of directors.
Conflicts
From time to time, Brinker will review a proxy which presents a potential material conflict. As a fiduciary to its clients, Brinker takes these potential conflicts very seriously. While Brinker’s only goal in addressing any such potential conflict is to ensure that proxy votes are cast in the clients’ best interests and are not affected by Brinker’s potential conflict, there are a number of courses Brinker may take. The final decision about which course to follow shall be made by Brinker’s Compliance Department.
When the matter falls clearly within one of the proposals enumerated above, casting a vote which simply follows Brinker’s pre-determined policy would eliminate Brinker’s discretion on the particular issue and hence avoid the conflict.
In other cases, where the matter presents a potential material conflict and is not clearly within one of the enumerated proposals, or is of such a nature that Brinker believes more active involvement is necessary, Brinker may employ the services of a Proxy Firm, wholly independent of Brinker, and those parties involved in the proxy issue, to determine the appropriate vote.
Second, in certain situations Brinker’s Compliance Department may determine that the employment of a Proxy Firm is unfeasible, impractical or unnecessary. In such situations, the Compliance Department shall make a decision about the voting of the proxy. The basis for the voting decision, including the basis for the determination that the decision is in the best interests of Brinker’s clients, shall be formalized in writing. As stated above, which action is appropriate in any given scenario would be the decision of the Compliance Department in carrying out his duty to ensure that the proxies are voted in the clients’, and not Brinker’s, best interests.
Proxy Voting Procedures
The following describes the standard procedures that are to be followed with respect to carrying out Brinker’s proxy policy:
1.   When a Sub-Adviser notifies Brinker that Brinker will need to vote a proxy, all relevant information in the proxy materials requested from the Sub-Adviser and when received (e.g., the record date of the meeting and date of the shareholder meeting) will be recorded immediately by Brinker in a database to maintain control over such materials. Brinker will confirm the relevant client’s holdings of the securities and that the client is eligible to vote.
B-3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.   Brinker will review the proxy and if necessary compile information on each proxy. Brinker will consider whether there are any conflicts or other issues that warrant the engagement of a Proxy Firm.
3.   In determining how to vote, Brinker will consider the Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures set forth above, Brinker’s knowledge of the company, any readily available information and research about the company and its agenda items, and the recommendations if any put forth by any Proxy Firm.
4.   Brinker will maintain the documentation that supports its voting position. Such documentation will include, but is not limited to, any information provided by proxy service providers, and, especially as to non-routine, materially significant or controversial matters, memoranda describing the position it has taken, why that position is in the best interest of its clients, an indication of whether it supported or did not support management and any other relevant information. Additionally, Brinker may include documentation obtained from a research analyst and/or portfolio manager.
5.   After the proxy is completed but before it is returned to the issuer and/or its agent, Brinker may review those situations including special or unique documentation to determine that the appropriate documentation has been created, including conflict of interest screening.
6.   Brinker will submit its vote on all proxies in a timely fashion. Brinker will attempt to submit proxies for processing at least three days prior to the meeting for U.S. securities and 10 days prior to the meeting for foreign securities. However, in certain foreign jurisdictions it may be impossible to return the proxy 10 days in advance of the meeting. In these situations, Brinker will use its best efforts to send its proxy vote in sufficient time for the vote to be lodged.
7.   Brinker will retain a (a) copy of each proxy statement that Brinker receives regarding client securities; (b) a record of each vote cast by Brinker on behalf of a client; (c) a copy of any document created by Brinker that was material to making a decision how to vote proxies on behalf of a client or that memorializes the basis for that decision; (d) a copy of each written client request for information on how Brinker voted proxies on behalf of the client, and (e) a copy of any written response by Brinker to any (written or oral) client request for information on how the adviser voted proxies on behalf of the requesting client.
8.   Brinker will periodically review these policies and procedures to ensure compliance.
Obtaining Proxy Voting Information:
To obtain information on how Brinker voted proxies, please contact:
Brinker Capital Investments
1055 Westlakes Drive
Suite 250
Berwyn, PA 19312
Attn: Chief Compliance Officer
Recordkeeping:
Brinker shall retain its (i) proxy voting policies and procedures; (ii) proxy statements received regarding portfolio securities of Brinker’s clients; (iii) records or votes it casts on behalf of clients; (iv) records of client requests for proxy voting information and responses to such requests, and (v) any documents prepared by Brinker that are material in making a proxy voting decision. Such records may be maintained with a third party, such as a proxy voting service, that will provide a copy of the documents promptly upon request.
B-4

 

BAMCO, Inc. 

Baron Capital Management, Inc.

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

Last updated: February 16, 2023

 

Baron Capital Management, Inc. and BAMCO, Inc. (each an “Adviser” and collectively referred to as the “Advisers” or as “we” below) have adopted the following proxy voting policies and procedures (the "Policies and Procedures") in order to fulfill our fiduciary duty to vote client proxies in the best interest of our clients. The Policies and Procedures are intended to comply with the standards set forth in Rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and apply to client accounts for which we have authority to vote proxies.

 

In general, it is our policy in voting proxies to consider and vote each proposal with the objective of maximizing long-term investment returns for our clients. To ensure consistency in voting proxies on behalf of our clients, we utilize the guidelines set forth in Exhibit I (the “Proxy Voting Guidelines”). The Adviser reviews research provided by Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”), however, the Adviser does not vote proxies based on ISS’ recommendations.

 

The Advisers use guidelines that are reviewed quarterly by the Proxy Review Committee established by the Advisers. The Proxy Review Committee addresses all questions relating to the Advisers’ Proxy Voting Guidelines, which may include:

 

1. a general review of proposals being put forth at shareholder meetings of portfolio companies;

2. adopting changes to the Proxy Voting Guidelines;

3. determining whether matters present material conflicts of interest;

4. determining how to vote matters for which specific direction has not been provided in the Proxy Voting Guidelines (i.e., “case by case” matters); and

5. reviewing instances in which the Advisers have voted against the Proxy Voting Guidelines.

 

If a portfolio manager wishes to recommend voting against the Proxy Voting Guidelines, he or his designee must provide the rationale for that request to the General Counsel in writing. The President, in consultation with the General Counsel, will make the final decision with respect to how the matter will be voted.

 

In providing investment advisory services to our clients, we try to avoid material conflicts of interest. However, a material conflict of interest may arise in cases where:

 

(i) we have a direct or indirect investment advisory relationship with portfolio companies or individual executives of portfolio companies the management for which is soliciting proxies and where the revenue earned from such a direct or indirect advisory relationship is greater than 0.10% of the Advisers’ total revenues.

(ii) we manage assets or administer employee benefit plans for companies whose management is soliciting proxies;

 

1 

 

 

(iii) we manage money for an employee group who is the proponent of a proxy proposal;

(iv) we have a personal relationship with participants in a proxy solicitation or a director or candidate for director of one of our portfolio companies; or

(v) we otherwise have a personal interest in the outcome in a particular proxy vote.

 

The categories above are not exhaustive and the determination of whether a material conflict exists depends on all of the facts and circumstances of the particular situation. If it is determined that there is a material conflict of interest between the interests of the Advisers’ and the interests of a client, the Proxy Review Committee will review the matter and may either (i) request that the client consent to the Advisers’ vote, (ii) vote in accordance with the published recommendations of an independent proxy voting service or (iii) appoint an independent third party to vote.

 

We acknowledge that the authority to vote proxies is part of our fiduciary duty to our clients. There may be cases in which the cost of doing so would exceed the expected benefits to the client. This may be particularly true in the case of non-U.S. securities. Voting proxies of non-US companies located in certain jurisdictions, particularly in emerging markets, may involve a number of logistical issues that may negatively affect the Advisers’ ability to vote such proxies. Accordingly, the Advisers will not vote client proxies if the Advisers determine that the costs associated with a vote outweigh the benefits to the clients.

 

Client Disclosure

 

The Policies and Procedures are available online at www.BaronFunds.com.

 

Clients of Baron Capital Management, Inc. and BAMCO, Inc. can obtain a report of how their respective proxies were voted by sending a written request to the Legal Department.

 

The proxy record for Baron Investment Funds Trust and Baron Select Funds (the “Baron Funds”) for the most recent 12-month period ended June 30th is available online at www.BaronFunds.com and through the SEC’s website on Form N-PX. The Legal Department will file Form N-PX with the SEC no later than August 31st for each year ended June 30th. BAMCO, Inc., the adviser to the Baron Funds, will provide a quarterly proxy voting report to the Board of Trustees of the Baron Funds.

 

2 

 

 

Exhibit I

 

Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

These guidelines are divided into proposal themes that group together the issues that frequently appear on the agenda of annual and extraordinary meetings of shareholders. We generally vote proposals in accordance with these guidelines.

 

In addition, these guidelines are not intended to address all issues that may appear on the agenda of annual and extraordinary meetings of shareholders. We will evaluate on a case-by-case basis any proposal not specifically addressed by these guidelines, whether submitted by management or shareholders, always keeping in mind our fiduciary duty to make voting decisions that, by maximizing long-term shareholder value, are in our clients’ best interests.

 

The proposal themes are:

 

A. Board and Director Proposals;

B. Auditors Proposals;

C. Capital Structure, Anti-Takeover, and Corporate Transaction Proposals;

D. Compensation Proposals;

E. Corporate Governance Proposals; and

F. Social, Ethical and Environmental Proposals

 

A. Board and Director Proposals

 

1. Director elections

 

We generally support management’s nominees for directors in most uncontested elections. We may withhold votes from certain directors or members of particular board committees (or prior members, as the case may be) in certain situations, including, but not limited to:

 

Failure to implement shareholder proposals that receive a majority of votes

 

We believe that directors have a duty to respond to shareholder actions that have received significant shareholder support. We may withhold votes from members of the governance committee where the board fails to implement shareholder proposals that receive a majority of votes cast at a prior shareholder meeting, and the proposals, in our view, have a direct and substantial impact on shareholders’ fundamental rights or long-term economic interests.

 

3 

 

 

Adoption of certain charter or bylaw provisions

 

The board may adopt or amend certain charter and/or bylaw provisions that have the effect of entrenching directors or adversely impacting shareholder rights. In such cases, we may withhold votes from members of the governance committee (except new nominees, who should be considered case-by-case).

 

Ineffective internal control over financial reporting

 

We may withhold votes from members of the audit committee when a material weakness under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act rises to a level of serious concern, there are chronic internal control weaknesses, or when the audit committee has demonstrated ineffective internal control over financial reporting.

 

Hedging and/or pledging of company stock

 

We support full disclosure of the policies of the company regarding pledging and/or hedging of company stock by executives and directors. We may withhold votes from members of the audit committee if it is determined that significant pledging and/or hedging of company stock in the aggregate by the officers and directors of a company has occurred, and the audit committee has failed to adequately oversee this risk.

 

Pay-for-performance misalignments

 

We may withhold votes from members of the compensation committee during a period in which executive compensation appears excessive relative to performance and peers, and where we believe the compensation committee has not already substantially addressed this issue.

 

To the extent an executive compensation (“Say on Pay”) proposal is not presented for voting due to the board’s adoption of a triennial say-on-pay voting system, we may express our concern with executive compensation through our vote on the members of the compensation committee.

 

Over-boarding

 

We may withhold votes from certain directors who commit themselves to service on many boards, such that we deem it unlikely that the director will be able to commit sufficient focus and time to a particular company (commonly referred to as “over-boarding”). While each situation will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, we are most likely to withhold votes for over- boarding where a director is: 1) serving on more than five public company boards; or 2) is a chief executive officer at a public company and is serving on more than two additional public company boards (withhold only at their outside boards).

 

4 

 

 

2. Board and Committee independence

 

We believe companies should have a majority of independent directors and independent key committees. However, we will incorporate local market regulation and corporate governance codes into our decision making. We will generally regard a director as independent if the director satisfies the criteria for independence:

 

(i) espoused by the primary exchange on which the company’s shares are traded; or

(ii) set forth in the code we determine to be best practice in the country where the subject company is domiciled.

 

For controlled companies, notwithstanding whether their board composition complies with the criteria for independence espoused by the primary exchange on which the company’s shares are traded, we expect that at least 51% of the company’s board members be comprised of independent directors.

 

We consider the election of directors who are “bundled” on a single slate on a case-by-case basis, considering the amount of information available and an assessment of the group’s qualifications.

 

3. Qualification of directors

 

We believe that the nominating committee of a board has the ability to ensure that the board remains qualified and effective. While we encourage boards to routinely refresh their membership, we are not opposed to long-tenured directors nor do we believe that long board tenure is necessarily an impediment to director independence. We generally defer to the board’s determination in setting age limits, term limits and stock ownership requirements for ensuring the board remains qualified.

 

4. Classified board of directors/staggered terms

 

Where boards are classified, director entrenchment is more likely because review of board service generally only occurs every three years. Therefore:

 

We generally oppose efforts to adopt classified board structures and generally support proposals which attempt to declassify boards.

 

5. Majority vote requirements

 

We generally support proposals seeking to require director election by majority vote.

 

We note that majority voting is not appropriate in all circumstances, for example, in the context of a contested election. We also recognize that 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.

 

5 

 

 

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.

 

6. Cumulative voting for directors

 

A cumulative voting structure is not consistent with a majority voting requirement, as it may further the candidacy of minority shareholders whose interests do not coincide with our fiduciary responsibility. Therefore:

 

We generally support any proposal to eliminate cumulative voting.

 

7. Liability and/or indemnification of directors and officers

 

We evaluate proposals to limit directors’ liability and to broaden the indemnification of directors on a case-by-case basis.

 

8. Separation of Chairman and CEO positions

 

We generally oppose proposals requiring separate Chairman and CEO positions.

 

9. Proxy Access

 

We evaluate management and shareholder proposals to adopt proxy access and to amend proxy access bylaw provisions on a case-by-case basis.

 

B. Auditor Proposals

 

1. Ratification of auditors

 

We believe that the company is in the best position to choose its accounting firm, and we generally support management's recommendation absent evidence that auditors have not performed their duties adequately.

 

2. Approval of financial statements

 

In some markets, companies are required to submit their financial statements for shareholder approval. This is generally a routine item and, as such, we will generally vote for the approval of financial statements unless there are appropriate reasons to vote otherwise.

 

3. Auditor indemnification and limitation of liability

 

We generally oppose auditor indemnification and limitation of liability proposals.

 

6 

 

 

 

C. Capital Structure, Anti-Takeover, and Corporate Transaction Proposals

 

1. Increase authorized common stock

 

We consider specific industry best practices in our analysis of these proposals, as well as a company’s history with respect to the use of its common stock. Generally, we will support a company’s proposed increase if:

 

(i) a clear and legitimate business purpose is stated; and

(ii) the number of shares requested is reasonable in relation to the purpose for which authorization is requested.

 

That said, we generally oppose a particular proposed increase where there is evidence that the shares are to be used to implement a “poison pill” or another form of anti-takeover device, or if the issuance of new shares would, in our judgment, excessively dilute the value of the outstanding shares upon issuance.

 

2. Increase or issuance of preferred stock

 

Preferred stock may be used to provide management with the flexibility to consummate beneficial acquisitions, combinations or financings on terms not necessarily available via other means of financing. We generally support these proposals in cases where the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion and other rights or terms appear reasonable.

 

That said, we will also consider the impact of an issuance or increase of preferred stock on the current and future rights of shareholders and may oppose a particular proposed increase or issuance where the rights or terms appear unreasonable.

 

3. Blank check preferred stock

 

Blank check preferred stock proposals authorize the issuance of a class of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution and other rights at some future point in time and may be used as a potential anti-takeover device. Accordingly, we generally oppose these types of proposals unless the company expressly states that the stock will not be used for anti-takeover purposes and will not be issued without shareholder approval.

 

4. Stock splits and reverse stock splits

 

We generally support stock splits if a legitimate business purpose is set forth and the split is in shareholders' best interests.

 

7 

 

 

We generally support reverse splits if management proportionately reduces the number of authorized shares or if the effective increase in authorized shares (relative to outstanding shares) complies with the guidelines set forth herein for common stock increases.

 

5. Share repurchases

 

We generally support share repurchase proposals that are part of a well-articulated and well- conceived capital strategy.

 

6. Elimination of preemptive rights

 

Preemptive rights can be prohibitively expensive to widely-held companies. Therefore, we generally support proposals to eliminate preemptive rights.

 

7. Issuance of equity with and without preemptive rights

 

We generally support issuances of equity without preemptive rights unless there is concern that the issuance will be used in a manner that could hurt shareholder value. Conversely, we generally oppose issuances of equity which carry preemptive rights or super voting rights.

 

8. Reduce or eliminate number of authorized shares

 

We generally support proposals to reduce the number of authorized shares of common or preferred stock, or to eliminate classes of preferred stock, provided such proposals have a legitimate business purpose.

 

9. Capitalization changes

 

We generally oppose proposals relating to changes in capitalization by 100% or more, where management does not offer an appropriate rationale or where it is contrary to the best interests of existing shareholders.

 

10. Poison pill plans

 

Also known as shareholder rights plans, these plans are often adopted by the board without being subject to shareholder vote. We believe that poison pill plans not only infringe on the rights of shareholders but also may have a detrimental effect on the value of the company.

 

We generally support proposals that require the company to submit a poison pill plan to a shareholder vote or to rescind a poison pill plan.

 

8 

 

 

Where a poison pill is put to a shareholder vote, our policy is to examine these plans individually.

 

We generally oppose proposals to adopt a poison pill plan which allows appropriate offers to shareholders to be blocked by the board or trigger provisions which prevent legitimate offers from proceeding.

 

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.

 

11. Mergers, acquisitions and other special corporate transactions

 

Proposals requesting shareholder approval of mergers, acquisitions and other special corporate transactions (i.e., takeovers, spin-offs, sales of assets, reorganizations, restructurings and recapitalizations) are determined on a case-by-case basis.

 

D. Compensation Proposals

 

1. Advisory resolutions on executive compensation (“Say on Pay”)

 

It is challenging applying a rules-based framework when evaluating executive compensation plans because every pay program is a unique reflection of the company’s performance, industry, size, geographic mix and competitive landscape. For these reasons, we take a case-by-case approach to executive compensation (“Say on Pay”) proposals. Although we expect proxy disclosures to be the primary mechanism for companies to explain their executive compensation practices, we may engage with members of management and/or the compensation committee of the board, where concerns are identified or where we seek to understand a company’s approach to executive compensation better. We may also decline opportunities to engage with companies where we do not have any questions or concerns or believe that these guidelines already cover the issues at hand.

 

We assess each plan on a case-by-case basis while considering the following beliefs and expectations related to executive compensation plans:

 

Companies should have compensation plans that are reasonable and that align shareholder and management interests over the longer term.

 

Disclosure of compensation programs should provide absolute transparency to shareholders regarding the sources and amounts of, and the factors influencing, executive compensation.

 

We expect companies to select peers that are broadly comparable to the company in question, based on objective criteria that are directly relevant to setting competitive compensation; we evaluate peer group selection based on factors including, but not limited to, business size, relevance, complexity, risk profile, and/or geography.

 

9 

 

 

We expect compensation committees to consider and respond to the shareholder voting results of relevant proposals at previous years’ annual meetings, and other feedback received from shareholders, as they evaluate compensation plans. At the same time, compensation committees should ultimately be focused on incentivizing long-term shareholder value creation and not necessarily on achieving a certain level of support on Say on Pay at any particular shareholder meeting.

 

We may determine to vote against the election of compensation committee members and/or Say on Pay proposals in certain instances, including but not limited to when:

 

We identify a misalignment over time between target pay and/or realizable compensation and company performance;

 

We determine that compensation is excessive relative to peers without appropriate rationale or explanation, including the appropriateness of the company’s selected peers;

 

We observe an overreliance on discretion or extraordinary pay decisions to reward executives, without clearly demonstrating how these decisions are aligned with shareholders’ interests;

 

We determine that company disclosure is insufficient to undertake our pay analysis; and/or

 

We observe a lack of board responsiveness to significant investor concern on executive compensation issues.

 

2. Elimination of single-trigger change in control agreements

 

Companies sometimes include single trigger change in control provisions (e.g., a provision stipulating that an employee’s unvested equity awards or cash severance becomes fully vested upon a change in control of the company without any additional requirement) in employment agreements, severance agreements, and compensation plans.

 

We may oppose directors who establish these provisions and we generally oppose compensation plans that include them.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals calling for future employment agreements, severance agreements, and compensation plans to include double trigger change in control provisions (e.g., a provision stipulating that an employee’s unvested equity awards or cash severance becomes fully vested only after a change in control of the company and termination of employment).

 

3. Elimination of excise tax gross-up agreements

 

When severance payments exceed a certain amount based on the executive’s previous compensation, the payments may be subject to an excise tax. Some compensation plans provide for full excise tax gross-ups, which means that the company pays the executive sufficient additional amounts to cover the cost of the excise tax. We believe that the benefits of providing full excise tax gross-ups to executives are outweighed by the cost to the company of the gross-up payments. Accordingly:

 

We may oppose directors who establish these provisions and we generally oppose compensation plans that include them.

 

10 

 

 

We generally support shareholder proposals calling to curtail excise tax gross-up payments.

 

We generally oppose compensation plans that provide for excise tax gross-up payments for perquisites.

 

4. Advisory votes on the frequency of Say on Pay resolutions

 

We generally opt for an annual vote on Say on Pay, which provides the most consistent and clear communication channel for shareholder concern about a company’s executive compensation plan.

 

5. Approve remuneration for Directors and Auditors

 

We generally support remuneration for directors or auditors, unless disclosure relating to the details of such remuneration is inadequate, or remuneration is excessive relative to local market practice.

 

6. Employee stock purchase plans

 

An employee stock purchase plan (“ESPP”) gives the issuer’s employees the opportunity to purchase stock in the issuer, typically at a discount to market value. We believe these plans can provide performance incentives and help align employees’ interests with those of shareholders.

 

We generally support the establishment of ESPPs and other employee ownership plans.

 

We generally support ESPPs that permit discounts up to 15%, but only for grants that are part of a broad-based employee plan, including all non-executive employees, and are fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of shareholders.

 

7. Equity compensation plans

 

We support equity plans that are incentive based and align the economic interests of directors, managers and other employees with those of shareholders. The total number of shares reserved under a company's equity plan should be reasonable and not excessively dilutive. We believe that boards should establish policies prohibiting use of equity awards in a manner that could disrupt the intended alignment with shareholder interests. 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.

 

11 

 

 

We generally oppose plans that contain “evergreen” provisions allowing for the unlimited increase of shares reserved without requiring further shareholder approval after a reasonable time period.

 

We generally oppose plans that allow for repricing without shareholder approval.

 

We generally oppose plans that provide for the acceleration of vesting of equity awards even in situations where an actual change in control may not occur. We encourage companies to structure their change in control provisions to require the termination of the covered employee before acceleration or special payments are triggered.

 

We support plans that allow a company to receive a business expense deduction due to favorable tax treatment attributable to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

8. Golden parachutes

 

Golden Parachutes assure key officers of a company lucrative compensation packages if the company is acquired and/or if the new owners terminate such officers. We recognize that offering generous compensation packages that are triggered by a change in control may help attract qualified officers. However, such compensation packages cannot be so excessive that they are unfair to shareholders or make the company unattractive to potential bidders, thereby serving as a constructive anti-takeover mechanism.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals requesting that implementation of such arrangements require shareholder approval.

 

When determining whether to support or oppose an advisory vote on a golden parachute plan, we normally support the plan unless it appears to result in payments that are excessive or detrimental to shareholders. In evaluating golden parachute plans, we may consider several factors, including:

 

Whether excessively large excise tax gross up payments are part of the payout;

 

Whether single trigger change in control provisions are part of the plan; and

 

Whether payments exceed three times the executive’s total compensation (salary plus bonus).

 

9. Pay-for-Superior Performance

 

These are typically shareholder proposals requesting that compensation committees adopt policies under which a portion of equity compensation requires the achievement of performance goals as a prerequisite to vesting.

 

12 

 

 

We generally oppose such proposals, as we believe these matters are best left to the compensation committee of the board and that shareholders should not set executive compensation or dictate the terms thereof.

 

10. Supplemental executive retirement plans

 

We evaluate shareholder proposals requesting to put extraordinary benefits contained in Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (“SERP”) agreements to a shareholder vote on a case- by-case basis.

 

We evaluate shareholder proposals limiting benefits under SERP agreements on a case-by-case basis.

 

E. Corporate Governance Proposals

 

1. Amendments to charter/articles/by-laws

 

When voting on a management or shareholder proposal to make changes to charter/articles/by-laws, 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 changes to the charter/articles/by-laws where the benefits to shareholders, including the costs of failing to make those changes, demonstrably outweigh the costs or risks of making such changes.

 

We evaluate shareholder proposals requiring shareholder approval for bylaw or charter amendments on a case-by-case basis.

 

2. Shareholders’ right to call a special meeting

 

We believe that shareholders should have the right to call a special meeting in cases where a reasonably high percentage of shareholders are required to agree to such a meeting before it is called, in order to avoid the waste of corporate resources in addressing narrowly supported interests. We may oppose this right in cases where the proposal is structured for the benefit of a dominant shareholder to the exclusion of others.

 

We generally oppose proposals to eliminate/restrict the right of shareholders to call a special meeting.

 

13 

 

 

3. Shareholders’ right to act by written consent

 

We believe that shareholders should have the right to act by written consent, however, we may oppose shareholder proposals requesting this right in cases where the proposal is structured for the benefit of a dominant shareholder to the exclusion of others.

 

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.

 

4. Supermajority voting requirements

 

We generally favor a simple majority voting requirement to pass proposals. Therefore:

 

We will support the reduction or the elimination of supermajority voting requirements.

 

We generally oppose amendments to bylaws that would require anything other than a simple majority vote requirement to pass or repeal certain provisions.

 

5. Exclusive forum provisions

 

We will generally support proposals mandating an exclusive forum for shareholder lawsuits and will generally oppose proposals that ask the board to repeal the company’s exclusive forum bylaw. The courts within the state of incorporation are considered best suited to interpret that state’s laws.

 

6. Other business

 

We generally oppose “Other Business” proposals that allow shareholders to raise and discuss other issues at the meeting. As the content of these issues cannot be known prior to the meeting, we are unable to make an informed decision.

 

7. Conduct of the annual meeting

 

We generally support proposals relating to the conduct of the annual meeting (meeting time, place, etc.) as these are considered routine administrative proposals.

 

8. Adjourn meeting

 

We generally support such proposals unless the agenda contains items that we judge to be detrimental to shareholders’ best long-term economic interests.

 

14 

 

 

F. Environmental, Social and Disclosure Proposals

 

It is our policy to analyze every shareholder proposal of an environmental and social nature on a case- by-case basis. Generally speaking, we support proposals targeting issues that are either a significant potential threat or realized harm to shareholders’ interests that have not yet been adequately addressed by management. In deciding our course of action, we will assess whether there is a clear and material economic disadvantage to the company if the issue is not addressed.

 

Baron believes that climate change represents a material risk for all businesses and that every company may be impacted by climate-related risks and opportunities. We believe it is imperative that both the public and private sector play a key role in aligning greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction efforts with science- based targets to 1) achieve a scenario in which the global temperature rise is limited to below 2ᵒC by 2100 and 2) is consistent with global goals, as conveyed by the 2016 Paris Agreement, to reach net zero GHG emissions by 2050. As such, we are broadly supportive of the work of the Task Force on Climate- related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). Issuers can look to those frameworks as leading best practices for disclosure and reporting of material climate and other ESG-related issues. We expect executives and directors to be familiar with those recommendations and be able to discuss how they relate to the risk assessment for their business.

 

In analyzing requests for additional disclosure, we will assess whether the request: 1) is costly to provide; 2) would require duplicative efforts or expenditures that are of a non-business nature; or 3) would provide no pertinent information from the perspective of institutional shareholders.

 

1. Climate Change

 

We generally support shareholder proposals asking companies to disclose the identification, assessment, management, and oversight of climate-related risks in accordance with the four key pillars of the TCFD.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals calling for the reduction of GHG emissions.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals requesting that companies establish and disclose goals and/or science-based targets for GHG emission reductions from company operations and/or products.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals that ask a company to incorporate life-cycle design in their business processes, addressing such issues as energy efficiency, renewable fuels, pollution prevention, waste minimization, and recycling and reuse.

 

15 

 

 

2. Lobbying and Political Spending

 

We generally support shareholder proposals requesting increased disclosure of political contributions and lobbying expenses, including those paid to trade organizations and political action committees, whether at the federal, state, or local level.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals asking companies to disclose the budgets dedicated to public policy lobbying activities.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals asking companies to support public policy activities, including lobbying or political spending that are consistent with shareholder or other stakeholder efforts to strengthen policies that protect workers, communities, the environment, and public safety.

 

We generally oppose restrictions related to social, political or special interest issues that impact the ability of the company to do business or be competitive and that have a significant financial or best-interest impact to the shareholders.

 

3. Work Place: Diversity

 

We generally support shareholder proposals calling for disclosure and/or implementation of diversity policies and practices, taking into account existing policies and practices of the company and whether the proposed information is of added benefit to shareholders.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals asking companies to report on efforts to comply with federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) mandates.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals that request disclosure of a company’s workforce diversity data, pay ratios by demographic categories and those that request that companies expand their EEO statement to include sexual orientation, gender identity and/or expression.

 

4. Gender Equality

 

We generally support shareholder proposals that seek increased disclosure of policies and programs aimed at promoting gender equality and empowerment.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals that would require the board to consider women and minority candidates in director searches.

 

16 

 

 

5. Human Rights

 

We generally support shareholder proposals that request companies to operate in accordance with the principles and standards set out in the United Nations Global Compact.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals that request companies to increase reporting around any involvement with repressive regimes or conflict zones.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals that request companies to adopt policies to prohibit human trafficking or programs to educate employees and consumers about related risks.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals that request companies to develop policies governing the use of images of indigenous peoples, women or other identifiable group in their advertising, brand, or mascots.

 

6. Other

 

We generally support shareholder proposals that request companies to develop policies or programs to prevent or mitigate harm to indigenous peoples, or that request that companies report on their impacts to indigenous peoples.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals that request companies take steps to improve product-related safety performance or report on product safety and integrity uses. These issues may include privacy and data security, toxicity, animal welfare, nanomaterials, and product recalls.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals that request companies to adopt policies to address workplace health and safety and increase disclosure of workplace safety practices and performance.

 

We generally support shareholder proposals that request companies to adopt policies or report on practices that govern community engagement.

 

We may vote against a chair of a committee responsible for providing oversight of ESG matters and/or risk where we believe the company is lagging peers in terms of disclosure, business practices, or targets.

 

We may also vote against committee members, lead independent director(s) and/or board chair of companies that have lagged over several years.

 

17 

 

 

 

 

Proxy Voting Policy and 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 for handling research, voting, reporting, and disclosing proxy votes, and this set of Proxy Voting 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 and 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 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 Responsible Investing Committee Lead (chair), the CCO, the Head of Investment Operations, an At-Large Portfolio Manager, and another rotating member of the investment team.

 

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.

 

Research Analysts are responsible to review and evaluate proposals and make recommendations to the Proxy Voting Committee to ensure that votes are consistent with the Firm’s analysis.

 

BARROW HANLEY GLOBAL INVESTORS

 

2200 Ross Avenue, 31st Floor | Dallas, TX 75201 | (214) 665-1900

 

DALLAS | HONG KONG | LONDON | SINGAPORE | SYDNEY

Revised February 15, 2024

 

1

 

 

 

 

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:

 

o Investment selection is based on a quantitative model

 

o 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:

 

o Making voting decisions for the benefit of the shareholder(s), our clients,

 

o Uniformly voting every proxy based on Barrow Hanley’s internal research and consideration of Glass Lewis’ recommendations, and

 

o 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 Proxy 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 Proxy 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.

 

2

 

 

 

 

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:

 

o These policies, procedures, and amendments.

 

o Proxy statements regarding our clients’ securities.

 

o A record of each proxy voted.

 

o Proxy voting reports that are sent to clients annually.

 

o Internal documents related to voting decisions; and

 

o 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.

 

Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

Barrow Hanley’s set of 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.

 

3

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

4

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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:

 

5

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

6

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

7

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

8

 

 

 

 

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.

 

9

 

 

CAUSEWAY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC 

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

 

Overview

 

As an investment adviser with fiduciary responsibilities to its clients, Causeway Capital Management LLC (“Causeway”) votes the proxies of companies owned by investment vehicles managed and sponsored by Causeway, and institutional and private clients who have granted Causeway such voting authority. Causeway has adopted these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures to govern how it performs and documents its fiduciary duty regarding the voting of proxies.

 

Proxies are voted solely in what Causeway believes is the best interests of the client, a fund’s shareholders or, where employee benefit assets are involved, plan participants and beneficiaries (collectively “clients”). Causeway’s intent is to vote proxies, wherever possible to do so, in a manner consistent with its fiduciary obligations. Practicalities involved in international investing may make it impossible at times, and at other times disadvantageous, to vote proxies in every instance.

 

The Chief Operating Officer of Causeway supervises the proxy voting process. Proxy voting staff monitor upcoming proxy votes, review proxy research, identify potential conflicts of interest and escalate such issues to the Chief Operating Officer, receive input from portfolio managers, and ultimately submit proxy votes in accordance with these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures. The Chief Operating Officer and President have final decision-making authority over case-by-case votes. To assist in fulfilling its responsibility for voting proxies, Causeway currently uses Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”) for proxy research, which assists the decision-making process, and for proxy voting services, which include organizing and tracking pending proxies, communicating voting decisions to custodian banks, and maintaining records. Causeway will conduct periodic due diligence on ISS and its capacity and competency to provide proxy research and the proxy voting services provided to Causeway.

 

Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

Causeway generally votes on specific matters in accordance with the proxy voting guidelines set forth below. However, Causeway reserves the right to vote proxies on behalf of clients on a case-by-case basis if the facts and circumstances so warrant.

 

Causeway’s proxy voting guidelines are designed to cast votes consistent with certain basic principles: (i) increasing shareholder value; (ii) maintaining or increasing shareholder influence over the board of directors and management; (iii) establishing and enhancing strong and independent boards of directors; (iv) maintaining or increasing the rights of shareholders; and (v) aligning the interests of management and employees with those of shareholders with a view toward the reasonableness of executive compensation and shareholder dilution. Causeway’s guidelines also recognize that a company’s management is charged with day-to-day operations and, therefore, Causeway generally votes on routine business matters in favor of management’s proposals or positions.

 

  -1- June 30, 2021

 

 

 

Causeway generally votes for:

 

distributions of income

 

appointment of auditors

 

director compensation, unless deemed excessive

 

boards of directors – Causeway generally votes for management’s slate of director nominees. However, it votes against incumbent nominees with poor attendance records, or who have otherwise acted in a manner Causeway believes is not in the best interests of shareholders. Causeway recognizes that, in certain jurisdictions, local law or regulation may influence Board composition.

 

financial results/director and auditor reports

 

share repurchase plans

 

changing corporate names and other similar matters

 

Causeway generally votes the following matters on a case-by-case basis:

 

amendments to articles of association or other governing documents

 

changes in board or corporate governance structure

 

changes in authorized capital including proposals to issue shares

 

compensation – Causeway believes that it is important that a company’s equity-based compensation plans, including stock option or restricted stock plans, are aligned with the interests of shareholders, including Causeway’s clients, and focus on observable long-term returns. Causeway evaluates compensation plans on a case-by-case basis, with due consideration of potential consequences of a particular compensation plan. Causeway generally opposes packages that it believes provide excessive awards or create excessive shareholder dilution. Causeway generally opposes proposals to reprice options because the underlying stock has fallen in value.

 

social and environmental issues – Causeway believes that it is generally management’s responsibility to address such issues within the context of increasing long-term shareholder value. To the extent that management’s position on a social or environmental issue is inconsistent with increasing long-term shareholder value, Causeway may vote against management or abstain. Causeway may also seek to engage in longer-term dialogue with management on these issues, either separately or in connection with proxy votes on the issue.

 

  -2- June 30, 2021

 

 

 

debt issuance requests

 

mergers, acquisitions and other corporate reorganizations or restructurings

 

changes in state or country of incorporation

 

related party transactions

 

Causeway generally votes against:

 

anti-takeover mechanisms – Causeway generally opposes anti-takeover mechanisms including poison pills, unequal voting rights plans, staggered boards, provisions requiring supermajority approval of a merger and other matters that are designed to limit the ability of shareholders to approve merger transactions.

 

Conflicts of Interest

 

Causeway’s interests may, in certain proxy voting situations, be in conflict with the interests of clients. Causeway may have a conflict if a company that is soliciting a proxy is a client of Causeway or is a major business partner or vendor for Causeway. Causeway may also have a conflict if Causeway personnel have significant business or personal relationships with participants in proxy contests, corporate directors or director candidates.

 

The Chief Operating Officer determines the issuers with which Causeway may have a significant business relationship. For this purpose, a “significant business relationship” is one that: (1) represents 1.5% or more of Causeway’s prior calendar year gross revenues; (2) represents $2,000,000 or more in payments from a sponsored vehicle during the prior calendar year; or (3) may not directly involve revenue to Causeway or payments from its sponsored vehicles, but is otherwise determined by the Chief Operating Officer to be significant to Causeway or its affiliates or sponsored vehicles, such as a primary service provider of a fund or vehicle managed and sponsored by Causeway, or a significant relationship with the company that might create an incentive for Causeway to vote in favor of management.

 

The Chief Operating Officer will identify issuers with which Causeway’s employees who are involved in the proxy voting process may have a significant personal or family relationship. For this purpose, a “significant personal or family relationship” is one that would be reasonably likely to influence how Causeway votes proxies.

 

  -3- June 30, 2021

 

 

 

Proxy voting staff will seek to identify potential conflicts of interest in the first instance and escalate relevant information to the Chief Operating Officer. The Chief Operating Officer will reasonably investigate information relating to conflicts of interest. For purposes of identifying conflicts under this policy, the Chief Operating Officer will rely on publicly available information about Causeway and its affiliates, information about Causeway and its affiliates that is generally known by Causeway’s employees, and other information actually known by the Chief Operating Officer. Absent actual knowledge, the Chief Operating Officer is not required to investigate possible conflicts involving Causeway where the information is (i) non-public, (ii) subject to information blocking procedures, or (iii) otherwise not readily available to the Chief Operating Officer.

 

Proxy voting staff will maintain a list of issuers with which there may be a conflict and will monitor for potential conflicts of interest on an ongoing basis.

 

Proxy proposals that are “routine,” such as uncontested elections of directors or those not subject to a vote withholding campaign, meeting formalities, and approvals of annual reports/financial statements are presumed not to involve material conflicts of interest. For non-routine proposals, the Chief Operating Officer in consultation with Causeway’s General Counsel/Chief Compliance Officer decides if they involve a material conflict of interest.

 

If a proposal is determined to involve a material conflict of interest, Causeway may, but is not required to, obtain instructions from the client on how to vote the proxy or obtain the client’s consent for Causeway’s vote. If Causeway does not seek the client’s instructions or consent, Causeway will vote as follows:

 

If a “for” or “against” or “with management” guideline applies to the proposal, Causeway will vote in accordance with that guideline.

 

If a “for” or “against” or “with management” guideline does not apply to the proposal, Causeway will follow the recommendation of an independent third party such as ISS. If Causeway seeks to follow the recommendation of a third party, the Chief Operating Officer will assess the third party’s capacity and competency to analyze the issue, as well as the third party’s ability to identify and address conflicts of interest it may have with respect to the recommendation.

 

To monitor potential conflicts of interest regarding the research and recommendations of independent third parties, such as ISS, proxy voting staff will review the third party’s disclosures of significant relationships. The Chief Operating Officer will review proxy votes involving issuers where a significant relationship has been identified by the proxy research provider.

 

  -4- June 30, 2021

 

 

 

Practical Limitations Relating to Proxy Voting

 

While the proxy voting process is well established in the United States and other developed markets with numerous tools and services available to assist an investment manager, voting proxies of non-US companies located in certain jurisdictions may involve a number of problems that may restrict or prevent Causeway’s ability to vote such proxies. These problems include, but are not limited to: (i) proxy statements and ballots being written in a language other than English; (ii) untimely and/or inadequate notice of shareholder meetings relative to deadlines required to submit votes; (iii) restrictions on the ability of holders outside the issuer’s jurisdiction of organization to exercise votes; (iv) requirements to vote proxies in person; (v) restrictions on the sale of the securities for a period of time prior to the shareholder meeting; and (vi) requirements to provide local agents with powers of attorney (which Causeway will typically rely on clients to maintain) to facilitate Causeway’s voting instructions. As a result, Causeway will only use its best efforts to vote clients’ non-US proxies and Causeway may decide not to vote a proxy if it determines that it would be impractical or disadvantageous to do so.

 

In addition, regarding US and non-US companies, Causeway will not vote proxies if it does not receive adequate information from the client’s custodian in sufficient time to cast the vote.

 

For clients with securities lending programs, Causeway may not be able to vote proxies for securities that a client has loaned to a third party. Causeway recognizes that clients manage their own securities lending programs. Causeway may, but is not obligated to, notify a client that Causeway is being prevented from voting a proxy due to the securities being on loan. There can be no assurance that such notice will be received in time for the client, if it so chooses, to recall the security.

 

  -5- June 30, 2021

 

 

 

 

POLICY

 

PROXY POLICY

POLICY SECTION NUMBER

 

6.12

Implementation Date

 

January 1, 2009

Revision Date

 

January 1, 2024

 

 

Page  1 of 3

     

6.12 PROXY

 

Under SEC Rule 206(4)-6, investment advisors have fiduciary obligations to their clients if the advisors have authority to vote their clients’ proxies. Under our standard contractual agreements, Ceredex Value Advisors LLC (“Ceredex” or the “Firm”) is authorized to vote proxies on behalf of client accounts.

 

The rule requires an investment advisor that exercises voting authority over client proxies to adopt policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the advisor: 1) votes proxies in the best interests of clients, 2) discloses information about those policies and procedures, 3) discloses how clients may obtain information regarding individual security proxy votes cast on their behalf, and 4) maintains appropriate records relating to actual proxy voting.

 

The Firm has a Proxy Committee (“Committee”) that is responsible for establishing policies and procedures reasonably designed to enable the Firm to ethically and effectively discharge its fiduciary obligation to vote all applicable proxies on behalf of all client accounts and funds where the Firm has proxy voting authority and ensure compliance with all the requirements. Annually (or more often as needed), the Committee will review, reaffirm and/or amend guidelines, strategies and proxy policies for all client accounts, funds and product lines.

 

The firm votes all shares per the firm Proxy Guidelines unless the client chooses custom guidelines. In the case that a ballot item is not covered under the policy or is coded as case-by-case in Ceredex’s proxy guidelines, a research analyst or portfolio manager will review the available information and will utilize such information, along with knowledge of the company, to make a vote recommendation to the Proxy Committee. The Proxy Committee members consider the information and recommendation and will then vote on that ballot item.

 

The Firm utilizes a third-party proxy service provider for support services related to the Firm’s proxy voting processes/procedures, which include, but are not limited to:

 

1. The collection of proxy material from our clients’ custodians.

2. The review of proxy proposals and appropriate voting recommendations on behalf of the Firm.

3. The facilitation of proxy voting, reconciliation, and disclosure, in accordance with the Firm’s proxy policies and the Committee’s direction.

4. Recordkeeping and voting record retention.

 

The Firm will continue to utilize all available resources to make well-informed and qualified proxy vote decisions.

 

 

 

 

 

POLICY

 

PROXY POLICY

POLICY SECTION NUMBER

 

6.12

Implementation Date

 

January 1, 2009

Revision Date

 

January 1, 2024

 

 

Page  2 of 3

     

As reflected in the Firm’s proxy guidelines, the Committee will vote proxies in a manner deemed to be in the best economic interest of its clients, as a whole, as shareholders and beneficiaries of those actions.

 

The Committee recognizes that each proxy vote must be evaluated on its own merits. Factors such as a company’s organizational structure, executive and operational management, Board of Directors structure, corporate culture and governance process, and the impact of economic, environmental and social implications remain considerations in our voting decisions.

 

The Committee will consider client-specific preferences and/or develop and apply criteria unique to its client base and product lines, where appropriate. As needed, the Firm will communicate this information to its service provider so those clients’ proxies will be voted accordingly. The Committee will review the service provider’s capabilities as agent for the contracted services noted above.

 

An Independent, Objective Approach to Proxy Issues

 

The Firm maintains its own proxy guidelines for U.S. domestic proxy voting issues. ERISA accounts will be voted in accordance with the Firm’s U.S. Domestic Proxy Guidelines; as such guidelines include ERISA-specific guidelines and requirements.

 

The Firm currently provides and maintains the following standard proxy voting guidelines:

 

U.S. Domestic Proxy Guidelines (applied to both ERISA- and Non-ERISA-related accounts and funds)

 

Exceptions to Policy

 

The Firm may choose not to vote proxies in certain situations, or for certain accounts, such as but not limited to when the cost of voting would exceed any anticipated benefit to the respective client(s); when a proxy is received for a client account that has been terminated; when a proxy is received for a security no longer managed; and/or when the exercise of voting rights could restrict the ability of an account’s portfolio manager to freely trade the security in question (for example, in certain foreign jurisdictions known as “blocking markets”).

 

Conflicts of Interest

 

Due to the Firm’s diversified client base and product lines, the Committee may determine a potential conflict exists in connection with a proxy vote. The Committee will determine how to address the conflict that may include voting strictly in accordance with policy, voting with management, and/or allowing the third-party service provider to vote in accordance with its guidelines.

 

 

 

 

POLICY

 

PROXY POLICY

POLICY SECTION NUMBER

 

6.12

Implementation Date

 

January 1, 2009

Revision Date

 

January 1, 2024

 

 

Page 3 of 3

     

Additional conflicts of interest will be evaluated by the Committee on an individual basis.

 

Although the Firm does its best to alleviate or diffuse known conflicts, there is no guarantee that all situations have been or will be mitigated through proxy policy incorporation.

 

Securities Lending Program

 

The Firm manages assets for several clients (including the Virtus Funds in the Virtus Asset Trust (“Virtus Funds”)) that engage in “securities lending” programs. In a typical securities lending program, clients or funds lend securities from their accounts/portfolios to approved broker-dealers against cash collateral. On behalf of clients and the Virtus Funds, the Firm seeks to balance the economic benefits of continuing to participate in an open securities lending transaction against the inability to vote proxies. On behalf of clients and the Virtus Funds, the Firm will call loaned securities back to vote proxies, or to otherwise obtain rights to vote or consent with respect to a material event affecting securities on loan when the advisor believes it is necessary to vote.

 

Additional Information

 

Records Related to Proxy Voting:

 

All proxy voting records, including policy and procedures, proxy statements, votes cast and any correspondence relative thereto will be maintained in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (as amended) and pursuant to the Firm’s Data Retention Policy.

 

Firm clients:

 

Individual client Proxy Voting records are available to clients upon request. Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures are available on the firm’s website. For any information related to proxy voting, or to obtain information about specific voting issues, please e-mail at: [email protected].

 

Virtus Funds shareholders: 

 

Shareholders of the Virtus Funds may request fund-related proxy voting information by calling 1-800-243-1574.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B — CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES

 

Contents

 

1 Overview of key principles and approach B-1
2 Role, structure and operation of boards B-2
3 Board committees B-5
4 Compensation B-6
5 Audit, risk and control B-7
6 Shareholder rights B-8
7 Reporting B-9
8 Social and environmental factors B-11
9 Voting matters B-13

 

The following guidelines apply to Columbia Threadneedle Investments’ client accounts to the extent agreed upon and/or permissible including voting on behalf of reo® (Responsible Engagement Overlay) service clients, which gives investors access to our overall engagement and proxy voting service offerings.i

 

As an asset management business, we seek to act in the best economic interests of clients when carrying out our investment activities. Our investment clients are retail and institutional investors, including corporate pension funds.

 

Our voting guidelines are applied to all listed equity client portfolios. However, our institutional clients always have the right to determine how we vote their securities. We will always comply with those requests.

 

In addition to these guidelines, general and country-specific voting guidelines are maintained and applied within the voting process. Voting guidelines provide greater detail on resolutions that will (and will not) be supported and are drawn directly from the Corporate Governance Guidelines.

 

In executing votes, where companies put forward a strong case for not complying with our voting guidelines, we will take this into account and adjust our vote if we believe the company is acting in the best economic interests of shareholders (and, thus, our clients). We apply our guidelines to client portfolios in a manner that considers our clients’ respective investment objectives and best economic interests. This could result in our voting on a matter the same way (or differently) for different clients. If you wish to clarify anything in these guidelines, please email your relationship manager or the Responsible Investment team at [email protected]. The Responsible Investment team is responsible for and reviews this document annually.

 

1 Overview of key principles and approach

 

Well governed companies are better positioned to manage risks, identify opportunities, and deliver sustainable growth and returns for our clients. These guidelines establish a consistent philosophy and approach to corporate governance and the exercise of voting rights. The approach is based on the overarching principles of:

 

An empowered and effective board and management;
   
Appropriate checks and balances in company management structures;
   
Effective systems of internal control and risk management covering all material risks, including environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) issues;
   
A commitment to promoting throughout the company a culture of transparency and accountability that is grounded in sound business ethics;
   
Compensation policies that reward the creation of long-term shareholder value through the achievement of corporate objectives; and
   
A commitment to protecting the rights and interests of all.

 

We recognize that such principles may be expressed differently in different markets. Therefore, our voting policies take account of local practices and are applied in a pragmatic fashion that reflects an integrated understanding of local and international good practice. In all cases, we aim to achieve the same result: the preservation and enhancement of long-term shareholder value through management accountability and transparency in reporting.

 

Statement of Additional Information – March 1, 2024 B-1

 

 

 

We also recognize that companies are not homogeneous and some variation in governance structures and practice is to be expected. Achieving best practice in corporate governance is a dynamic process between the board, management, and shareholders.

 

We encourage companies to engage in the process of shaping and meeting evolving standards of best practice. Although our voting is strongly rooted in a clear set of corporate governance principles, we approach each company’s case on its merits using our expertise, discretion, and dialogue with companies to do so. For this reason, we encourage companies to contact us with information about any governance practices and challenges unique to the company. When we do not vote with management’s or the board’s recommendations, we may choose to inform the company of our voting decision and provide comments to explain the specific concerns with the resolutions we did not support.

 

2 Role, structure and operation of boards

 

We use the term “board” to describe the board of directors and similar supervisory decision-making bodies. The board is ultimately responsible for the management of the company.

 

This is mainly achieved through the delegation of powers to executive management. The board should receive the report of executive management on the conduct of the business and regularly question management on these matters. However, certain matters should be reserved for the board.

 

The board is responsible for setting and testing strategy proposed by executive management, determining the risk appetite for the business, ensuring the independence and effectiveness of external audit, and for succession planning of both executive management and the board.

 

The structure, composition and operation of boards will vary from country to country and company to company. Certain elements of effective boards are universal, and these are detailed below under the following sub-headings:

 

Roles and independence;

 

Competence, objectivity and refreshment;

 

Effective functioning of boards; and

 

Communication and accountability to shareholders.

 

Roles and independence

 

The composition of the board is of the utmost importance. Boards should have meaningful representation of both executive and non-executive directors. Non-executives should be wholly independent of the company, although we recognize that, in certain cases, connected non-executives have a valuable role to play.

 

The role of the chair and separation of principal roles

 

The roles of the chair and chief executive officer (CEO) are substantively different and should be separated. We regard separation of the roles as important for securing a proper balance of authority and responsibility between executive management and the board, as well as preserving accountability within the board. If for any reason the roles are combined (e.g., over an unexpected transitional period) this should be explained and justified in the report and accounts. In all such cases, a strong senior independent non-executive director should be nominated (i.e., a lead independent director).

 

Executive directors

 

Including executives in board meetings is essential to enhance discussion and allow independent directors to gain the fullest understanding of company operations. In markets where customary, we encourage the appointment of key executives to the board alongside the CEO and the chief financial officer (CFO). The presence of other executives provides additional company knowledge for the board and ensures the board is not solely dependent on the CEO for input relating to the company’s operations and strategies. However, the number of executive directors should not outweigh the number of independent non-executives.

 

Non-executive directors

 

We assess the number of directorships an individual director holds to ensure they have sufficient time and energy to perform their role as a non-executive director properly as this is a demanding role. Factors that determine the appropriate number of directorships are the size of the company, its complexity, its circumstances, other commitments that a director has and the results of board evaluation, among others. We consider that holding multiple directorships in large companies can be excessive even for a full-time non-executive director, especially when considering board committee participation. Multiple directorships should be avoided for a full-time executive. For complex companies, particularly in developed markets, we may vote against non-executive directors who hold more than five directorships.

 

Statement of Additional Information – March 1, 2024 B-2

 

 

 

Proportion of non-executive directors on the board

 

Difficult decisions that center on the best interest of shareholders arise from open and direct interplay between boards and company executives. It is important to have enough independent non-executive directors for an adequate diversity of views and to fulfil committee membership quotas. We expect all widely-held companies to have a majority of independent directors.

 

For companies with controlling shareholders, we expect there to be a minimum of one-third of fully independent directors on the board.

 

Independence of non-executive directors

 

Independence of individual directors is valued, but a well- balanced board is valued above all. We will support non- independent directors when they bring skills, sector knowledge and other experience that justify their presence on the board, particularly where the appropriate balance of independence is maintained.

 

The criteria for the independence of directors draw on a variety of standards, including the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Principles of Corporate Governance, national corporate governance codes, listing rules, and guidance provided by the International Corporate Governance Network, among others. We favor a principles-based approach, which seeks to ensure that directors can act in the interests of the company and its shareholders. Companies should consider using the corporate governance report or annual shareholder meeting materials to explain the board evaluation process, and to justify the value that non-independent directors bring to the board.

 

Not have close family ties with the company’s advisers, directors or senior employees;

 

Not serve as a board committee chair if they have served on the board for a period of time that may hinder their independence of thought;

 

Not hold cross-directorships or have significant links with other directors (see “Interlocking boards” below);

 

Not be major shareholders or representatives of any special interest group, including government representatives in cases of state ownership or representatives of affiliated companies;

 

Have no significant commercial involvement with the company as professional advisers, major suppliers or customers;

 

Not be entitled to performance-related pay, stock options, pensions, or benefit from large donations to charitable causes of their choice;

 

Not normally hold other directorships in companies in a closely-related industry so as to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

 

Interlocking boards

 

We seek to ensure that directors are not only independent from the company, but also of one another. We expect companies to disclose interlocking board relationships and to explain how the independence of individual directors is preserved when directors jointly serve on two or more of the same boards.ii

 

Extensive board service and independence

 

Prolonged membership on a board jeopardizes independence as directors may become close with management and overly invested in prior strategic decisions. Independence is critical to ensuring shareholders have adequate voice inside the boardroom. After a certain length of board service, directors may not be considered fully independent and it may be inappropriate for such directors to serve on committees, such as the audit committee, where absolute independence is a key requirement.

 

We recognize that there is no fixed time period where a director categorically loses independence. Nonetheless, we will leverage a respective country’s own regulatory requirement regarding independence where specified. In North America, we will assess whether the average board tenure of the company is significantly beyond the respective market’s average when considering the board’s overall balance.

 

Where the appropriate balance of independence is not met, we will analyze whether to support the re-election of long-standing directors.

 

Independence of employee representatives

 

While a number of countries have legislation mandating a certain percentage of employee representatives on the board, we do not consider these individuals to be fully independent. Hence, we expect companies domiciled in countries with mandatory co-determination (the process by which employees elect their representatives to the board) or employee representation to ensure that the board and its committees have adequate representation of truly independent directors.

 

Competence, objectivity and renewal

 

Diversity, competencies and perspectives

 

A relevant and suitably diverse mix of skills and perspectives is critical to the quality of the board and the strategic direction of the company. Companies should therefore strive to widen the pool of potential candidates for board and management roles to ensure they draw on the richest possible combination of competencies and experiences.

 

Statement of Additional Information – March 1, 2024 B-3

 

 

 

In all cases, candidates must be selected for their ability to oversee and enhance long-term company performance. Boards should recruit members with the appropriate combination of skills and experience, and should affirm the value of individual diversity, including gender, racial, ethnic, national origin, professional background and other relevant factors that may enhance the board’s overall performance. As boards cannot be transformed overnight, we look for a statement that sets out the board’s approach to promoting diversity at the board, executive management, and companywide workforce level. We welcome disclosure of specific diversity targets set by the board and subsequent reporting on performance against these targets. Where disclosure is absent and appropriate diversity levels across gender, racial and ethnic representation have not been met, we will normally not support the re-election of nomination committee chairs or other relevant directors.

 

Re-election of directors

 

To ensure that it retains an open and critical perspective, the board should be continually refreshed. For this reason, all directors should be required to submit themselves for re-election at regular intervals. We prefer to have all directors standing for annual election to strengthen the accountability of the board to shareholders. Failing that, we encourage the chair of the board, as well as the chairs of the audit, compensation and nomination committees to stand for annual re-election to strengthen accountability for the core functions of the board. We also believe that a minimum of one-third of board members should stand for election annually.

 

Nomination of directors

 

We strongly believe that a board nominating committee composed of a majority of independent non-executive directors is best placed to identify and put forward suitable candidates for the board. Shareholders should only put forward candidates where there is clear evidence of ineffective board oversight and unwillingness to correct the problem—or where a cumulative voting system or similar arrangement encourages direct shareholder participation in board nominations. We expect companies to put forward only one candidate for each available position as an indication that the company is clear about the value each director brings to the board. We encourage companies to specify each candidate’s qualifications, experiences and skills that are of relevance and importance to the board’s oversight of company strategy.

 

Balanced composition

 

We will consider voting against the chair or members of nominating committees who have not constructed appropriately balanced, independent boards. Indicators include: an overreliance on long-standing members; an over-reliance on affiliated directors; and a lack of appropriate diversity characteristics, including gender, race, nationality, ethnicity, etc., that reflect the nature, scope and aspirations of the business.

 

Effective functioning of boards

 

Board size

 

In the case of a two-tier board structure, neither board should be large: between five and 10 members typically is appropriate. A unitary board normally should have between five and 15 members. In the case of overly large boards and in the absence of a commitment to reduce board size, we may withhold support from the nominating or corporate governance committee chair unless clear justification has been provided explaining the need for such a large board.

 

Two-tier boards

 

We are agnostic as to the merits of a two-tier board as opposed to a unitary board, and we recognize that a two-tier board structure is the norm in many markets. At the same time, we are aware that there can be challenges in communication between a supervisory board and a management board. Where there is more than one body forming the board, companies should maintain an effective mechanism for the various elements of the board to work together and should explain how this happens. This system should ensure the most effective use is made of all individuals involved so that the company can optimize the unique skills and experiences of their directors.

 

Board evaluation

 

Board evaluations are an important tool for improving board performance. All boards should implement an evaluation process that considers the effectiveness of the entire board, its committees, the contributions made by each member, including its systems for interaction between the board and company management, areas for improvement, and behaviors and overall board culture. The nominating or governance committee may oversee the evaluation process and should report general findings and areas for improvement publicly to shareholders. Large or systemically important companies should leverage professional, independent assistance to facilitate evaluations on a periodic basis (typically every three years).

 

Board meetings & attendance

 

The board should meet at regular intervals to ensure effective oversight of the company. We regard six meetings per year as a minimum guidance, and often more frequent meetings are necessary.

 

Statement of Additional Information – March 1, 2024 B-4

 

 

 

We also expect directors to attend the annual general meeting (AGM), and to facilitate communication with the shareholders whom they represent. The company should disclose the attendance record of individual directors in the AGM report, as well as mechanisms for shareholders to communicate directly with the board. We may withhold support from directors with poor attendance records or boards who fail to accommodate shareholder dialogue.

 

Non-executive director (NED) only meetings

 

NEDs should meet without executive board members present on a regular basis and when circumstances demand. They should also have at least one meeting per year to hold an unconstrained discussion away from day-to-day business matters. Ideally, this should be chaired by a senior or lead independent director, although the chair may be present (provided they are a non- executive). Conversely, in the case of two-tiered boards, supervisory boards should meet with executives on a regular basis to minimize the risk that NEDs could become marginalized from the business.

 

Training and mentorship

 

All directors should receive appropriate training when being onboarded. Ideally, the onboarding process should include assignment of a board mentor. Mentors are normally long- or medium-standing directors willing to take on the responsibility of providing ad hoc support and context for new directors.

 

All directors should regularly be provided opportunities to attend conferences, classes, or webinars to upskill and remain relevant. Such offerings may be an outcome of the board evaluation process or a request from directors or management directly. We encourage companies to develop regular director training plans that include educating directors on relevant environmental, social and governance matters.

 

Communication and accountability

 

The board should proactively and regularly make itself available for consultation with shareholders. To this end, boards should appoint a senior or lead independent director to fulfil a formal liaison role with key stakeholders. This is most important in cases where the CEO also holds the chair position, has executive responsibilities or was not independent on appointment.

 

Where appropriate, NEDs should be prepared to discuss matters of strategy, performance, risk, capital structure, standards of operational practice, and oversight of company-specific environmental and social matters.

 

3 Board committees

 

We encourage companies to move towards fully independent audit and compensation committees, as well as a nomination committee composed of a majority of independent directors. All board committees should report on their activities annually to shareholders (see section on “Reporting” below).

 

Audit

 

The audit committee provides an important safeguard for shareholders and for other stakeholders that rely upon the integrity of the report and accounts as a basis for their investing in the company.

 

The audit committee should consist exclusively of NEDs, all of whom should be independent, and consist of at least three individuals. At least one should have recent and relevant financial, accounting or audit experience, and all audit committee members should be financially literate. The committee should be responsible for assessing the effectiveness, independence, qualifications, expertise and resources of the external auditors (including the quality of audit) and oversee the process of review and issue of the accounts.

 

The audit committee should also be responsible for monitoring and approving related-party transactions and should ensure that any material related-party transactions do not disadvantage minority shareholders.

 

The audit committee is also responsible for publishing the annual audit report, which is essential for investors to evaluate the overall health of the business (see “Reporting” below). The audit committee report should provide meaningful disclosure on the committee’s work and the issues it has addressed. In the event of a significant restatement of accounts or material weakness in internal controls, we may not support the election of members of the audit committee who we consider have not fulfilled their duty to shareholders. We may also not support the election of these director to the boards of other unrelated companies.

 

Compensation

 

The compensation (or remuneration) committee is responsible for setting the compensation of executive directors and senior executives and should coordinate with the company’s human resources function to develop a coherent and effective compensation strategy throughout the company. As a best practice we believe that compensation committees should consist exclusively of independent non-executive directors. We encourage compensation committees to engage in direct dialogue with shareholders when developing compensation policies. (See “4. Compensation” below).

 

Statement of Additional Information – March 1, 2024 B-5

 

 

 

The compensation committee must consult with other board functions to ensure that pay mechanisms are well aligned with strategic goals and the company’s appetite for risk. In particular, the compensation committee should work with the board and its committees to determine the appropriate balance in the allocation of profits to employees as incentive payment, to shareholders as dividends, and for retention or reinvestment in the business itself.

 

The committee’s fiduciary duty is also to ensure that the amount of payment to management is fair and appropriate. Finally, the committee should be attentive to compensation across the company to ensure management is delivering on strategic priorities, especially those that enhance shareholder returns, and managing risk effectively.

 

We may withhold our support from the chair and/or members of the compensation committee where there are significant concerns with the committee’s decision-making, or where issues we have identified with pay policies and practices remain unaddressed.

 

Nomination

 

A nomination committee should oversee all board and senior executive appointments. Normally it should be a committee of independent non-executive directors and the board chair. In certain instances, it may be appropriate for the committee to leverage management’s advice. Although we prefer a fully independent committee, we recognize that a non-independent director or representative of a large shareholder may be appropriate in some circumstances.

 

Corporate governance

 

We recognize that companies may choose to have the nominating committee or a specific corporate governance committee responsible for corporate governance practices and procedures. Regardless of the structure, the committee should monitor emerging regulatory and industry standards, strive to achieve global best practice, and should consult with shareholders to understand investor expectations.

 

Corporate responsibility and sustainability

 

We believe that committees with responsibilities related to oversight of corporate social responsibility, ethics or sustainability are prudent for purposes of risk management. For large companies exposed to significant ESG risks, such committees are essential to protecting shareholder value and managing reputational risk.

 

Business ethics

 

Whether it is through a committee such as the audit committee or a general board review, it is important that the board affirm its responsibility for reviewing internal business ethics systems, practices, and processes.

 

4 Compensation

 

Levels of compensation and other incentives should be designed to promote sustainable, long-term shareholder value creation and reflect the executives’ work and contribution to the company. No director should be involved in setting their own compensation. Given the consistent upward trend in total compensation, we expect careful usage and robust justification of benchmarks. We also wish to see comprehensive disclosure of performance targets as well as actual performance against pre-set targets. We expect justification of base pay levels awarded, and that a significant proportion of total compensation be variable and subject to appropriately challenging performance conditions. We do not set guidelines for levels of compensation beyond the principles mentioned below.

 

Level of pay

 

We expect boards to demonstrate an understanding of (and sensitivity to) the views and expectations of shareholders and other key stakeholders, such as employees, when setting executive pay.

 

Relationship to strategy and risk

 

We expect companies to demonstrate the alignment of their compensation policy with their overall business strategy and planning. Performance metrics should relate to the company’s articulated strategy and risk tolerance. Targets should be constructed to align executive incentives to the interests of long-term shareholders and should not create incentives for executives to undertake short-term risks that might imperil sustainable long-term performance. We advocate for risk-related preconditions to bonus awards to ensure inappropriate incentive payments are not awarded in the event the company’s financial strength or credit quality deteriorates.

 

We seek appropriately detailed disclosure of board and disclosure management compensation packages (See “Compensation report” below). The purpose of the compensation report should not simply be related to compliance, rather it should be to enhance investors’ understanding of the committee’s practices, processes, and goals.

 

Following the award of the bonus, companies should provide a meaningful analysis in the compensation report of the extent to which relevant targets were met. The compensation report should be written in plain language and include the tax implications for the company.

Statement of Additional Information – March 1, 2024 B-6

 

 

 

At a minimum, the compensation of all directors, including all nonexecutive and executive directors, should be disclosed individually. We look for banded disclosure of those individuals at sub-board level who make a significant contribution to the company.

 

Executive contracts and pensions

 

Prior to employment contract agreements, companies should actively consider the potential rewards concerning severance in the event of inadequate performance and clarify the performance conditions under which such severance benefits are to be payable. We encourage companies to seek mitigation in case a director has taken up employment elsewhere and to adjust the length and size of any payments accordingly. We recommend that companies make larger severance packages the subject of a shareholder vote.

 

Share schemes/share compensation arrangements

 

We believe that strict guidelines should be observed regarding the issue, or potential issue, of shares for incentive schemes (also known as equity-based compensation plans) both as to the proportion of shares issued and to the rate at which these are issued each year. For us to accept large share schemes, the commercial drivers must outweigh the dilutive impacts. If the company is insufficiently transparent regarding the details of such schemes, we may abstain or vote against them.

 

Equity incentive plans

 

We support the principle of motivating and rewarding executives through the granting of equity incentives.

 

Performance targets for equity incentive plans should be clearly disclosed and challenging. We believe that the compensation committee is in the best position to determine the most appropriate performance metrics for driving the long-term business strategy. However, overall compensation packages should reflect a range of performance.

 

Generally, we believe executive pay plans should reflect a balance of financial, operational, and relative performance targets. We strongly believe that exceptional performance over a significant period merits an exceptional level of compensation. We oppose retesting of performance conditions and may withhold support of compensation plans where the compensation committee has used its discretion to relax any performance targets previously approved by shareholders.

 

We will consider one-off equity awards on a case-by-case basis in light of justification provided by the company. However, frequent use of exceptional awards raises questions over the adequacy of the overall compensation strategy and effectiveness of succession planning. We will take particular care when reviewing equity awards granted for the purposes of recruitment or retention when such awards are not linked to meaningful performance targets.

 

We encourage the inclusion of environmental and social factors in performance bonus payments where they could have a material impact on shareholder returns. We also expect a discussion of the process undertaken by the company to identify such factors and an explanation as to why it considers these factors to be relevant.

 

Holding periods, vesting and malus/clawback policies

 

Bonus payments and long-term incentive schemes should be structured to reward long-term growth in shareholder value and be subject to performance-vesting conditions. We encourage companies to include deferred shares as a portion of short-term bonuses. Longer-term incentive plans should be fully sharebased, and vesting periods should extend from at least three to five years or longer. We also encourage companies to require longer-term holding periods post vesting. The compensation committee should maintain a malus authority to withhold all or part of performance-based pay from executives before it has vested in cases where it deems it appropriate. The compensation committee should also have clawback authority to recover sums already paid out to executives. This might occur following a significant restatement of accounts, where previously granted awards were paid on the basis of inaccurate figures, or where the long-term outcomes of a specific strategy result in significant value destruction for shareholders.

 

Employee ownership

 

Widespread employee ownership can contribute positively to shareholder value, as it further aligns employees’ interests with those of shareholders. Such devices should not, however, be instituted as anti-takeover devices, and should be included within company-wide dilution limits.

 

5 Audit, risk and control

 

We recommend that the independent members of the audit committee meet on a regular basis with the company’s auditors and without company management. This may enable a better flow of information between auditors and the board.

 

Appointment of auditors

 

The auditors’ performance and appointment should be reviewed periodically. Where the same firm remains as auditor for a period of time, there should be a policy of regular rotation of the lead audit partner. We believe that systematic rotation of audit firms is both desirable and in the best interests of shareholders.

Statement of Additional Information – March 1, 2024 B-7

 

 

 

We expect audit quality to be the main consideration in the selection of the auditor and expect that shareholders should be given the opportunity to vote on the appointment and payment of auditors.

 

Auditor liability

 

We recognize the disproportionate risk that joint & several liability may place upon audit firms. However, we will only consider supporting arrangements to cap auditor liability in exceptional circumstances (e.g., where the risk of a catastrophic and disproportionate claim can be demonstrated).

 

Fees paid to a company’s auditors in addition to audit fees

 

Companies should disclose when auditors carry out consultancy work in addition to auditing the company and the audit committee should consider whether there is a risk that an auditor’s impartiality may be jeopardized. The range, nature and tendering process for any such non-audit work should be supervised by the audit committee, whose responsibilities in this area should be fully disclosed. Where substantial non-audit fees are paid for more than one year, we may not support the reappointment of the auditor or the payment of auditor fees in its voting at AGMs.

 

Related-party transactions

 

Many companies are involved in material related-party transactions, which represent a significant risk to shareholders. This risk is mitigated in companies with fully independent audit committees whose responsibility it is to ensure that such transactions are conducted on the basis of arm’s-length valuations. We strongly encourage companies to use such committees for scrutiny, and to secure prior shareholder approval for material related-party transactions.

 

In the circumstance of continued concerns, we recommend that each company disclose any shareholdings that its controlling shareholders may have in other companies or investment vehicles that have a material interest in the company.

 

Risk management

 

The board as a whole is responsible for defining a company’s risk tolerance relative to its strategy and operations—it is also responsible for monitoring the company’s performance relative to defined risks. Financial, operational, and reputational risks that are relevant to the company’s business and performance should be included in this oversight, including material ESG and ethical risks.

 

Depending on the size and complexity of the company, a standalone risk management committee may be warranted.

 

6 Shareholder rights

 

While the precise nature and scope of shareholder rights vary across jurisdictions and many related aspects of our expectations are touched upon in other parts of these guidelines, a number merit direct mention:

 

Liaison with shareholders

 

Board and management teams should be ready, where practicable, to engage in dialogue with shareholders based on an understanding of shared objectives. They should also be proactive in making sure important news is imparted, subject to appropriate inside information procedures, and should react helpfully to investor inquiries.

 

In investment meetings with shareholders, companies should be prepared to address relevant corporate ESG issues.

 

Issuance of Shares

 

We respect a company’s right to issue shares to raise capital. However, share issuance should be strictly limited to that which is necessary to maintain business operations and drive company strategy. We will not support requests to increase authorized share capital that exceed 50% of existing capital, unless specific justification has been provided (e.g., to complete a strategically important acquisition or undertake a necessary stock split).

 

Pre-emption Rights

 

We believe that pre-emptive rights for existing shareholders are essential. Shares may be issued for cash without pre-emptive rights or for compensation purposes, subject to shareholder approval. Companies should adhere to strict limits for issuing new shares as a proportion of the issued share capital. Furthermore, they should also be subject to flow rates, where appropriate.

 

Share repurchases

 

We expect companies to repurchase shares in the market when it is advantageous for the company and its shareholders.

 

Authority to repurchase shares should be subject to shareholder approval.

 

Controlled companies and share classes with differential voting rights

 

We favor a share structure that gives all shares equal voting rights. We do not support the issue of shares with impaired or enhanced voting rights.

 

Where differential voting structures exist, this structure should be transparently disclosed to the market. In the case of controlled companies, we will review any request to issue shares with enhanced voting rights to determine why these are necessary and how they will reflect the interests of minority shareholders. We support the principle of one share, one vote, and encourage companies to take steps to eliminate differential voting structures over time or prevent their introduction. Where there are unequal voting rights, we encourage clear and comprehensive disclosure of a timeline regarding the retirement of unequal voting structures (otherwise known as sunset provisions).

 

Statement of Additional Information – March 1, 2024 B-8

 

 

 

 

Voting caps

 

We oppose voting caps in principle and believe that all shares should be entitled to full voting rights irrespective of the holding period. However, we recognize the widespread use of voting caps in certain markets, and the benefits accruing to shareholders not subject to a cap. Therefore, at a minimum, we expect companies to clearly disclose any caps and encourage them not to introduce new caps while phasing out existing caps over time.

 

Mergers and acquisitions, spin-offs and other corporate restructuring

 

We expect boards to conduct thorough due diligence prior to pursuing any merger or acquisition and to maximize shareholder value in any deal. Where major transactions are not subject to shareholder approval, companies should consider the views of their major shareholders, subject to regulatory constraints and shareholders’ policies concerning insiders.

 

We consider the ESG risk implications of any corporate activity as part of the assessment of such activity, particularly in high-impact industries. We also expect the board to evaluate any potential ESG or ethical risks or liabilities of any business combination, including supply chains.

 

Poison pills

 

We regard artificial devices to deter bids, known as poison pills, as inappropriate and inefficient unless they are strictly controlled and very limited in duration. We believe that any control-enhancing mechanism or poison pill that entrenches management and protects the company from market pressures is not in the interests of shareholders.

 

Pension and other similar significant corporate liabilities

 

Companies should be aware of, and report to shareholders on, significant liabilities such as those arising from unfunded or under-funded pension commitments. The extent of the liability should be reported, and the plans put in place to cover the deficit should also be reported within a reasonable timeframe for action. The principal assumptions used in calculating amounts should form part of this disclosure. Other significant liabilities could include specific operational or ESG risks that the company faces. The company should provide some indication of how these risks can result in “contingent liabilities.”

 

Shareholder resolutions

 

We consider all shareholder resolutions that appear on the ballot and vote in accordance with our view of the long-term economic benefit to shareholders. On this basis we will typically support requests to improve board accountability, executive pay practices, ESG disclosure and climate change scenario analyses where we agree with both the broader issue highlighted as well as the implementation proposed. We also typically support shareholder proposals asking companies to report on implementation of environmental and social policies and assessments where there is reason for concern that links to financially material risks that could impact the performance of the company. We will review company and outside data and information, assess peers for benchmarking and consider the proponents’ and company’s arguments in full.

 

7 Reporting

 

Companies should have meaningful and transparent disclosure so that investors can obtain a clear understanding of all important and relevant issues. The annual report should provide a full review of the business model and strategy; key performance indicators used to gauge how the company is progressing against its objectives; principal (material) risks and any significant factors affecting the company’s future performance, including significant ESG or ethical issues; key achievements; and standards followed during the accounting period.

 

In all markets, we favor reports that are:

 

Comprehensive, covering the strategic direction of the business and all material issues, including any significant changes in the regulatory context and key ESG issues;

 

Balanced, with even-handed treatment of both good and bad aspects of a company;

 

Transparent, with narrative text that leverages plain language, and accounting notes that provide investors with a full understanding of the circumstances underlying the reported figures;

 

Underpinned by Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that drive business performance, are comparable over time, and are supported by detailed information on how they are calculated;

 

Consistent and joined-up with other company reporting, including the compensation policy and corporate social responsibility or sustainability reporting.

Statement of Additional Information – March 1, 2024 B-9

 

 

Directors

 

Adequate biographical information on the directors should be provided for shareholders in advance of the AGM. This should include information about directors’ qualifications and experience, term of office, date of first appointment, level of independence, board committee memberships and other personal and professional commitments that may influence the quality of their contribution and independence (e.g., other directorships, family and social ties, and affiliations with related companies or organizations). For all newly appointed directors, we encourage disclosure of qualifications, experiences and skills that are considered by the board to be of relevance and importance to its oversight of company strategy. To this end, we encourage disclosure of a clear and concise board skills matrix in the proxy voting materials and annual report.

 

Nomination committee report

 

The committee should report annually on its activity and the report should provide a detailed discussion of its process for identifying and appointing executive and non-executive directors, including the processes it employs to ensure board membership reflects an appropriate diversity of perspectives, experiences, gender and racial or ethnic representation as well as cultural backgrounds. Where necessary, the report should include a thorough discussion of the board’s view of the independence of certain members. The report should also include a robust description of the board evaluation process, cadence, and outcomes (including strengths and opportunities identified).

 

Audit committee report

 

The audit committee should report on its conduct during the year and, in particular, any specific matters of judgement relating to the application of accounting principles or the scope of the audit. It should also comment on the process for ensuring the independence of the auditors and for evaluating the impact of non-audit work. The audit committee report should include a narrative description of any related-party transactions, with reference to how these might impact the interests of minority shareholders. Any qualification of the audit statement and all matters raised in the auditor’s report must be fully explained.

 

System of internal controls and risk management

 

If the audit committee’s remit includes risk management, the audit committee report should also address the board’s oversight of enterprise-wide risks. Either as part of the audit committee report or a standalone report, the company should explain the results of the board’s review of internal controls, including any identified (or potential) weaknesses in internal controls and how the board plans to respond to these.

 

Compensation report

 

We expect all companies to publish an annual compensation report in line with international good governance standards. Good compensation reporting outlines a company’s overall philosophy and its policies and formulas for determining annual, short- and long-term pay. We look for compensation reports to break down fixed versus variable pay and to clearly align total pay packages with long-term shareholder value. The compensation report should clearly disclose specific long-term performance targets and total potential pay-outs.

 

If short-term performance targets cannot be disclosed due to commercial sensitivity, we expect retrospective disclosure of short- term targets and of actual performance against these targets.

 

We recommend that all companies put the compensation report to a shareholder vote and encourage compensation committee members to actively consult their shareholders prior to the AGM.

 

Sustainability reporting

 

We encourage companies to report on any significant ESG or ethical risks and opportunities in their annual reports including the systems in place to manage these risks. This may be supported by more detailed disclosure in a separate corporate social responsibility or sustainability report.

 

Code of corporate governance

 

Companies should provide a full and clear statement of all matters relating to the application of the provisions of the relevant national code of corporate governance. The way the provisions are put into effect should be clearly discussed. Any deviations should be supported by meaningful explanations.

 

Code of conduct

 

Companies should maintain a code of conduct reflecting corporate values and promotion of ethical business practices. Such codes should address business-critical compliance issues including anti-corruption practices.

 

Reincorporation in a tax or governance haven

 

Irrespective of the potential benefits a smaller tax burden may bring, we will typically vote against resolutions for a company to reincorporate in a new legal jurisdiction that offers lower legal and governance protections to shareholders. Aggressive tax strategies, even if structured legally, can pose potentially significant reputational and commercial risks for companies.

Statement of Additional Information – March 1, 2024 B-10

 

 

 

We expect boards to ensure the company’s approach to tax policy is both prudent and sustainable. To that end, we therefore expect companies to disclose how the board is providing such oversight. Companies should provide a suitable amount of information for investors to understand their tax practices and associated risks

 

Listings

 

Companies that are listed on an exchange should comply with the rules and listing requirements of that exchange.

 

Shareholder resolutions and access to the proxy statement

 

Shareholder resolutions represent the exercise of a key shareholder right and may encompass a wide range of issues. We encourage companies to engage in constructive dialogue with shareholders and other key stakeholders. Where engagement is unsuccessful, we support shareholders’ right to submit a shareholder proposal for consideration by all investors. In these instances, companies should behave respectfully by communicating promptly and fully with shareholders while refraining from obstructing the process. The board should provide a full and reasoned response to any shareholder proposal on the ballot. We consider all shareholder resolutions put forward and vote in accordance with our understanding of the long-term economic benefit to shareholders. We may support shareholder resolutions relating to the right to nominate or remove directors, including those related to an advisory shareholder vote on pay. We will incorporate into our decision whether a shareholder resolution is binding in nature or advisory (non-binding) in applying the above considerations.

 

8 Social and environmental factors

 

Environmental and social factors can present serious risks to corporations and their ability to generate shareholder returns. A well-run company should, therefore, have formal systems to identify, assess and manage significant risks associated with financially material environmental and social factors. Companies should publicly disclose such factors on a regular basis and detail any management-related strategies and targets.

 

Disclosure should cover both direct operations and, where relevant, the policies applied to their supply chains. Companies should make appropriate and integrated disclosures reflecting touch points to their strategy, research and development, capital expenditures, operational performance, and commercial aspirations.

 

In general, we evaluate environmental and social proposals based on the relevance of the issue to the company and the desirability of the specific action requested in the proposals to advance long-term shareholder value. We recognize that some proposals may identify important company risks even if the proposal is poorly constructed. In such cases, we encourage companies to identify, mitigate and report on their respective risk management approach effectively.

 

Environmental and social management

 

Companies should determine how financially material environmental and social risks and opportunities are addressed via their core business strategy. As part of this process, companies should proactively identify, assess and manage those risks and opportunities, as well as implement robust sustainability governance frameworks to promote accountability and ensure effective oversight. We expect companies to align their disclosure of environmental and social policies, management systems and performance according to internationally accepted standards. We also expect companies to quantify impacts from environmental and social factors and set targets to mitigate and manage material sustainability risks and impacts.

 

We have set out our detailed thoughts for environmental and social practices in stand-alone documents available on our website.

 

We may withhold support from management resolutions should we deem companies’ responses to involvement in significant environmental or social controversies as insufficient, or where we have concerns about recurrent weak practices by companies in high-impact industries.

 

We may vote in favor of shareholder resolutions seeking improvements in reporting and/or management of environmental or social practices where we have concerns, acting in the best economic interest of our clients, or improvements are proportionate to the risks faced.

 

Climate change

 

We recognize that climate change and the global transition to a lower-carbon economy present both risks and opportunities to businesses. We are supporters of both CDP (formerly, the Carbon Disclosure Project) and the recommendations of the Taskforce on Climate Related Financial Disclosuresiii and expect to see companies report climate risks and strategy against the proper standards and frameworks. We also support company efforts to implement net zero targets; however, the company should disclose specifics as to how they will accomplish this.

 

Some companies may be exposed to business risks stemming from the effects of climate change either directly via their business operations, regulations, changing consumer demand or through supply chains. Where these are financially material risks, companies should describe how their business strategy incorporates climate risk and ensure adequate disclosure.

 

Statement of Additional Information – March 1, 2024 B-11

 

 

Where companies in high-impact sectors—e.g., those requested to disclose to CDP Climate Change—fail to provide investment-relevant climate disclosure or do not have a robust climate change risk management strategy, we may not support management resolutions, including the report and accounts or the election of directors if we think this is in the best economic interests of our clients.

 

Where there are matters of concern, we may support shareholder resolutions calling on companies to improve their business planning and public disclosure in relation to climate change risks and opportunities.

 

We will make use of investor tools such as the Climate Action 100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark, the Transition Pathway Initiative, our own proprietary net zero tool as well as engagements we’ve conducted to identify companies that fail to follow best practice.

 

Biodiversity

 

Loss of biodiversity degrades ecosystems which underpin the Earth’s ability to provide regulating, provisioning, cultural and supporting ecosystem benefits. For companies in sectors with high biodiversity impact that fail to provide appropriate disclosure (e.g., CDP Water Security and/or Forests disclosures), we may not support management resolutions if we think this is in the best economic interests of our clients.

 

Sustainability and integrated reporting

 

A company’s recognition and management of financially material environmental and social exposures and related disclosures provides shareholders with an additional lens through which to assess the quality, leadership, strategic focus, risk management and operational standards of practice of the business.

 

Disclosure of significant environmental and social risk factors should be included in the annual report. Certain high risk or high impact operations that are of substantial interest to investors and the public may require modular reporting alongside reporting that aggregates all company activity. We recommend disclosure in line with internationally accepted standards of best practice which enhances our understanding of a company’s ability to create and sustain value in the short, medium and long term.

 

Audit of social and environmental management systems

 

We appreciate that auditing and assurance practices for environmental and social systems require further development; nevertheless, we consider third-party auditing of sustainability reports to be best practice. We encourage companies to move towards third-party verification.

 

Labour practices and standards

 

Companies may incur significant risks because of the employment practices of their own operations and those of their suppliers and sub-contractors. Codes of conduct that address such risks and include detailed and effective procedures for their supply chain are usually in companies’ best interests.

 

Where there is cause for concern, we favor codes based on internationally recognized standards (e.g., core conventions of the International Labour Organization), independent monitoring or auditing of implementation, and reporting of aggregate audit results. We look for regular, public reporting on code implementation.

 

Human rights

 

Companies may incur extraordinary risks to their operations, staff, or reputation as a result of operating in conflict zones or in locations at risk of human rights abuses. Risks may also be encountered via supply chains when primary product inputs are sourced from at-risk areas. Where there is cause for concern, we support resolutions asking companies to develop and implement policies and management systems addressing human rights and security management. These policies should reflect internationally recognized standards (e.g., United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and should apply to suppliers and sub-contractors.

 

Severe human and labor rights issues often affect the most vulnerable communities and can represent a threat to reputational and operational corporate performance. They are referenced in various international standards and conventions and are linked to existingiv or evolvingv regulations that issuers may be subject to.

 

We believe that effective mitigation of these issues can contribute to sustainable long-term value creation by the companies in which we choose to invest. At companies identified as being most at risk with insufficient mitigation strategies, we may not support management resolutions, including the report and accounts or election of directors if we think this is in the best economic interests of our clients.

 

Diversity and equal employment opportunity

 

Recruiting and hiring from the widest possible talent pool is in the best interests of companies, as is maintaining a diverse workforce. We support efforts to strengthen non-discrimination policies, achieve diversity objectives and address glass ceilings at all levels within organizations. We welcome disclosure of specific diversity targets and reporting on performance against these targets, as well as reporting on gender and ethnicity pay gaps within companies and plans to address these. We will look for disclosure of how measures to increase diversity have been applied and the management and oversight of these measures. In an environment where many industries and companies are facing shortages of skilled workers, thus increasing competition for talent, it is advisable and appropriate for company policies and practices to exceed legal requirements in order to attract and retain employees.

Statement of Additional Information – March 1, 2024 B-12

 

 

 

Political and charitable donations

 

Charitable and political donations should be consistent with the company’s stated sustainability strategy. (See “Reporting” above). We recommend that the board provide ultimate oversight for political donations and related activity. Furthermore, we believe that companies that undertake charitable giving should have transparent policies and undertake charitable giving programs with due regard for the interests of shareholders and key stakeholders.

 

Environmental stewardship

 

Companies should determine how key environmental risks and opportunities fit into their core business strategy. As part of this process, companies should identify, assess, and manage their environmental impacts. This may include minimizing key environmental impacts, reporting on environmental management systems and performance, and discussing related financial impacts. Areas of increasing business interest include energy use, emissions, water, waste, and the utilization of natural resources.

 

9 Voting matters

 

Annual general meetings

 

Although we supported company efforts to hold virtual-only AGMs during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, we encourage a return to physical annual meetings of the shareholders that are supplemented with a robust and accessible virtual (or hybrid) option. If the company decides to provide a hybrid meeting, shareholders joining virtually should be provided the same treatment and transparency as those attending in-person.

 

Vote disclosure

 

We expect companies to disclose the voting results of their general meetings, both at the meeting and on their websites. This should include a detailed breakdown of votes for and against, as well as abstentions.

 

In the spirit of transparency, we also make available to both our institutional and retail fund customers, as well as to the public, a comprehensive record of our voting by publishing all our votes and comments on our website.vi A summary of our voting statistics can be found in our annual Stewardship report.

 

Shareblocking

 

We believe that shareblocking—the practice of preventing shares from being transferred for a fixed period prior to the vote at a company meeting—discourages shareholder participation and should be replaced with a record date. Where shareblocking exists, we will follow client policy and may be prevented from voting because of concerns about failed trade settlements and extraordinary cost to clients.

 

Electronic voting and of use proxy advisory services

 

We typically exercise voting rights electronically. We currently vote using ProxyExchange, the electronic voting platform provided by Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). We do not follow ISS vote recommendations, except as provided for in our Conflict of Interest Policy or if instructed by clients. Instead, ISS assists us though pre-populating our vote instructions in accordance with our vote policies. Our Responsible Investment team reviews a proportion of meetings based on an internal prioritization model.

 

Position on abstentions

 

Our standard voting approach is to either vote for or against resolutions where these options are available to shareholders. However, there are cases where we consider abstaining to be appropriate—for example, where company practices have improved significantly but do not fully meet our expectations.

 

With respect to shareholder resolutions, we may abstain in cases where we agree with the broader issue highlighted but do not agree with the way in which the resolution prescribes change.

 

Additional soliciting materials

 

If we become aware that an issuer has filed additional soliciting materials prior to a proxy vote submission deadline, then we endeavor to review and reflect those in the application of our voting policy where: (a) the submission is published at least five days prior to our earliest client vote cut-off; and (b) the enclosed information is considered to be material towards impacting our voting position.

 

Statement of Additional Information – March 1, 2024 B-13

 

 

 

Stocklending

 

We observe that stock lending is a widespread market practice involving the sale and contractually pre-agreed repurchase of a stock. We believe that stock lending is an important factor in preserving the liquidity of markets and in facilitating hedging strategies; it can also provide investors with a significant additional return on their investments as the sale repurchase transaction may include a profit margin. Importantly, however, if the term of the instrument coincides with an annual or extraordinary general meeting, the transfer of the voting right impairs the ability of the underlying shareowner to exercise their voting rights. In rare instances, this has led to abuse, where borrowers have deliberately entered into transactions to sway the outcome of a shareholder vote without any intention of owning the stock long-term. We consider the balance struck between stock lending and voting to be a matter for individual decision-making by clients.

 

Record dates

 

We recommend that a record date be set a maximum of five working days prior to AGMs for custodians and registrars to clearly establish those shareholders eligible to vote. This will give time for all relevant formalities to be completed and serves the same purpose as shareblocking without the disruptions noted above.

 

Voting systems

 

All companies should conduct voting by poll, rather than relying on a show of hands.

 

We believe that shareholders have the right to appoint any reasonable person as proxy to vote their shares, either in person or electronically.

 

We encourage the introduction of electronic voting systems that are accurate and provide an effective audit trail of votes cast.

 

Bundled resolutions

 

Resolutions put to company meetings should cover single issues, or issues that are clearly interdependent. Any other practice potentially reduces the value of votes and can lead to opposition to otherwise acceptable proposals. We will normally oppose resolutions that contain such inappropriately bundled provisions.

 

Any other business

 

We expect to vote on resolutions where the content has been made clear to shareholders and is in the interests of the company and its shareholders. Where a resolution invites shareholders to vote on “any other business,” we will systematically vote against.

 

Political and charitable donations

 

We welcome the opportunity to vote on company donations if material. With respect to donations to political parties or to organizations closely associated with political parties, we believe the board is best positioned to oversee the appropriateness of such spending and should review as often as is necessary to ensure congruency with both corporate strategy and values.

 

Amendments to Articles

 

We are generally unsupportive of amendments to the articles of incorporation which limits the liability of company officers.

 

Endnotes:

 

i The following guidelines do not apply to Pyrford International Ltd.

 

ii Such interlocking relationships can raise concerns when there is an imbalance of power between the two directors.

 

iii https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/final-recommendations-report/.

 

iv UK Modern Slavery Act, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

 

v EU corporate mandatory human rights due diligence, Swiss mandatory human rights DD (focus weapons), German Supply Chain Code

 

vi See vote disclosure webpage here.

 

Statement of Additional Information – March 1, 2024 B-14

 

 

 

 

PROXY VOTING

 

(As of 11/28/2023)

 

A. General Proxy Voting Policies

 

1. CrossingBridge understands and appreciates the importance of proxy voting. CrossingBridge will endeavor to actively vote proxies.

 

2. To the extent that CrossingBridge has discretion to vote the proxies of its Advisory Clients, CrossingBridge will vote any such proxies in what it believes is the best interests of Advisory Clients and Investors (as applicable) and in accordance with the procedures outlined below (as applicable).

 

B. Proxy Voting Procedures

 

(1) All proxies sent to Advisory Clients that are actually received by CrossingBridge (to vote on behalf of the Advisory Clients) will be provided to the Chief Compliance Officer and/or Portfolio Manager.

 

(2) The Chief Compliance Officer and/or Portfolio Manager will generally adhere to the following procedures (subject to limited exception):

 

a. A written or electronic record of each voted proxy by CrossingBridge (on behalf of its Advisory Clients) will be kept in CrossingBridge’s files;

 

b. The Chief Compliance Officer and/or Portfolio Manager will determine which of CrossingBridge’s Advisory Clients hold the security to which the proxy relates and whether the Advisory Client has its own specific voting guidelines;

 

c. The Portfolio Manager will review the proxy and determine how to vote the proxy in question in accordance with the Advisory Client’s guidelines or the guidelines set forth in Section D below.

 

d. Prior to voting any proxies, the Portfolio Manager and/or Chief Compliance Officer will determine if there are any conflicts of interest related to the proxy in question in accordance with the general guidelines in Section C below. If a conflict is identified, the Chief Compliance Officer will make a determination (which may be in consultation with outside legal counsel) as to whether the conflict is material or not.

 

i. If no material conflict is identified pursuant to these procedures, the Portfolio Manager will make a decision on how to vote the proxy in question in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Section D below.

 

 

 

 

e. Although not presently intended to be used on a regular basis, CrossingBridge is empowered to retain an independent third party to vote proxies in certain situations (including situations where a material conflict of interest is identified)

 

f. The Portfolio Manager and/or Chief Compliance Officer shall coordinate with Mutual Fund Advisory Clients and such Advisory Client’s Fund Administrator to assist in the preparation of the Mutual Funds proxy voting annual report on Form N-PX.

 

C. Handling of Conflicts of Interest

 

(1) As stated above, in evaluating how to vote a proxy, the Portfolio Manager and/or the Chief Compliance Officer will first determine whether there is a conflict of interest related to the proxy in question between CrossingBridge and its Advisory Clients. This examination will include (but will not be limited to) an evaluation of whether CrossingBridge (or any affiliate of CrossingBridge) has any relationship with the company (or an affiliate of the company) to which the proxy relates outside an investment in such company by an Advisory Client of CrossingBridge.

 

(2) If a conflict is identified and deemed “material” by the Portfolio Manager and/or the Chief Compliance Officer, CrossingBridge will determine whether voting in accordance with the proxy voting guidelines outlined in Section D below is in the best interests of affected Advisory Clients (which may include utilizing an independent third party to vote such proxies).

 

(3) With respect to material conflicts, CrossingBridge will determine whether it is appropriate to disclose the conflict to affected Advisory Clients and give them the opportunity to vote the proxies in question themselves except that if the Advisory Client is subject to the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), and the investment management agreement between CrossingBridge and the ERISA Advisory Client reserves the right to vote proxies when CrossingBridge has determined that a material conflict exists that does affect its best judgment as a fiduciary to the ERISA Advisory Client, CrossingBridge will:

 

a. Give the ERISA Advisory Client the opportunity to vote the proxies in question themselves; or

 

b. Follow designated special proxy voting procedures related to voting proxies pursuant to the terms of the investment management agreement with such ERISA Advisory Clients (if any).1

 

 

1 At this time, CrossingBridge does not have any ERISA Advisory Clients.

 

 

 

 

D. Voting Guidelines

 

In the absence of specific voting guidelines mandated by a particular Advisory Client, CrossingBridge will endeavor to vote proxies in what it deems to be the best interests of each Advisory Client.

 

In some foreign markets where proxy voting demands fee payment for agent services, CrossingBridge will balance the cost and benefit of proxy voting and may give up the proxy voting if the cost associated is greater than the benefits from voting.

 

(1) Although voting certain proxies may be subject to the discretion of CrossingBridge, CrossingBridge is of the view that voting proxies in accordance with the following general guidelines is in the best interests of its Advisory Clients:

 

a. CrossingBridge will generally vote in favor of routine corporate housekeeping proposals including, but not limited to, the following:

 

i. election of directors (where there are no related corporate governance issues);

 

ii. selection or reappointment of auditors; or

 

iii. increasing or reclassification of common stock.

 

E. Disclosure of Procedures

 

To the extent applicable to CrossingBridge and if CrossingBridge were to engage Advisory Clients other than Mutual Funds, a brief summary of these proxy voting procedures will be included in CrossingBridge’s Form ADV Part 2 and will be updated whenever these policies and procedures are updated. Through the Brochure, Advisory Clients will also be provided with contact information as to how such Advisory Clients can obtain information about: (a) the details of CrossingBridge’s proxy voting procedures (i.e., a copy of these procedures); and (b) how CrossingBridge has voted proxies that are relevant to the affected Advisory Client.

 

 

 

 

F. Record-keeping Requirements

 

The Chief Compliance Officer will be responsible for maintaining files relating to CrossingBridge’s proxy voting procedures. Records will be maintained and preserved for five years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry was made on a record, with records for the first two years kept in the offices of CrossingBridge. Records of the following will be included in the files:

 

(1) Copies of these proxy voting policies and procedures, and any amendments thereto;

 

(2) A copy of each proxy statement that CrossingBridge actually receives; provided, however, that CrossingBridge may rely on obtaining on an as needed basis a copy of proxy statements from the SEC’s EDGAR system or other generally accepted sources for those proxy statements that are so available. As a general rule CrossingBridge relies on the SEC’s EDGAR system, or systems provided by Custodians, or other generally accepted sources.

 

(3) A record of each vote that CrossingBridge casts;

 

(4) A copy of any document that CrossingBridge created that was material to making a decision how to vote the proxies, or memorializes that decision (if any); and

 

A copy of each written request for information on how CrossingBridge voted such Advisory Client’s proxies and a copy of any written response to any request for information on how CrossingBridge voted proxies on behalf of Advisory Clients.

 

 

 

 

DoubleLine Capital LP

DoubleLine Alternatives LP

DoubleLine ETF Adviser LP

DoubleLine Funds Trust

DoubleLine ETF Trust

DoubleLine Closed-End Funds

 

Proxy Voting, Corporate Actions and Class Actions Policy

 

I. Background

 

Rule 206(4)-6 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), requires investment advisers that exercise voting authority with respect to client securities to: (i) adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that client securities are voted in the best interest of clients, which must include how an adviser addresses material conflicts that may arise between an adviser's interests and those of its clients; (ii) provide a concise summary of its proxy voting policies and procedures and, upon request, furnish a copy of the full policies and procedures to its clients; and (iii) disclose how clients may obtain information with respect to how the adviser voted their securities.

 

This Proxy Voting, Corporate Actions and Class Actions Policy (the “Proxy Policy”) is adopted by DoubleLine Capital LP, DoubleLine Alternatives LP and DoubleLine ETF Adviser LP (the “Advisers,” or each applicable “Adviser”) to govern the Advisers’ proxy voting, corporate actions and class actions activities involving client investments, and along with the DoubleLine Funds Trust (“DFT”), the DoubleLine ETF Trust (“DET”), the DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit Fund (“DBL”), the DoubleLine Income Solutions Fund (“DSL”), and the DoubleLine Yield Opportunities Fund (“DLY”) (DBL, DSL, and DLY are collectively, the “DoubleLine Closed-End Funds” and together with DFT and DET, each a “Fund,” collectively the “Funds,” and together with the Advisers, “DoubleLine”), to help ensure compliance with applicable disclosure and reporting requirements.

 

II. Policy

 

Employees must handle all proxy voting, corporate actions and class actions (“Proxy Matters”) with reasonable care and diligence, and solely in the best interest of DoubleLine clients. Accordingly, all Proxy Matter proposals must immediately be forwarded to the Trade Management team to ensure that each proposal is processed timely and in accordance with the Proxy Policy.

 

The Adviser generally will exercise proxy voting, corporate actions and class actions authority on behalf of clients only where the client has expressly delegated such authority in writing. If directed to do so by the client, the Adviser will process each proposal in a manner that seeks to enhance the economic value of client investments.

 

Proxy Voting Guidelines and Corporate Actions

 

Designated employees from the Portfolio Management team will review the specific facts and circumstances surrounding each proxy and corporate action proposal to determine a course of action that promotes the best interest of clients (including, if so directed, to maximize the value of client investments). The Advisers adopt the Proxy Voting Guidelines (the “Guidelines,” see Attachment A) as a framework for analyzing proxy and corporate action proposals on a consistent basis.

 

The Portfolio Management team may, in their discretion, vote proxies and corporate actions in a manner that is inconsistent with the Guidelines (or instruct applicable parties to do so) when they determine, after conducting reasonable due diligence, that doing so is in the best interest of the client. They may consult with the Proxy Voting Committee (the “Proxy Committee”), DoubleLine senior management or a third-party expert such as a proxy voting service provider to make such determinations.

 

 

 

 

Class Actions

 

In the event that a client investment becomes the subject of a class action lawsuit, the Adviser will assess, among other factors, the potential financial impact of participating in such legal action. If the Adviser determines that participating in the class action is in the best interest of the client, the Adviser will recommend that the client or its custodian submit appropriate documentation on the client’s behalf, subject to contractual or other authority. The Adviser may consider other factors in determining whether participation in a class action lawsuit is in the best interest of the client, including (i) the costs that likely would be incurred by the client, (ii) the resources that likely would be expended in participating in the class action, and (iii) other available options for pursuing legal recourse against the issuer. If appropriate, the Adviser may also notify the client about the class action without making a recommendation as to participation, which would allow clients to decide on how to proceed. The Advisers provide no assurance to former clients that applicable class action information will be delivered to them.

 

Conflicts of Interest

 

Employees must be diligent with respect to actual and potential conflicts of interest when handling client investments. This covers conflicts between the interests of DoubleLine, employees and clients, including conflicts between two or more clients. As a general matter, conflicts should be avoided where practicable. In cases where it cannot be avoided, the conflict must be mitigated as much as possible and then fully and fairly disclosed to the client, such that the client can make an informed decision and, where applicable, provide an informed consent. As required under the Code of Ethics and the Outside Business Activities and Affiliations Policy, employees must report, and in some cases request pre-approval for, certain transactions, activities and affiliations that may present a conflict of interest. Moreover, employees from the Portfolio Management and Trade Management teams who are directly involved in the implementation of the Proxy Policy and members of the Proxy Committee should seek to identify, and report to the Proxy Committee, any conflict of interest related to any proposal or the Proxy Policy in general.

 

If a material conflict involving a client is deemed to exist with respect to a proposal, the Proxy Committee will generally seek to resolve such conflicts in the best interest of the applicable client by pursuing any one of the following courses of action: (i) voting (or not voting) in accordance with the Guidelines; (ii) convening a Proxy Committee meeting to assess and implement available measures; (iii) voting in accordance with the recommendation of an independent third-party service provider chosen by the Proxy Committee; (iv) voting (or not voting) in accordance with the instructions of such client; or (v) not voting with respect to the proposal if consistent with the Adviser’s fiduciary obligations.

 

In the event that an Adviser invests in a Fund with other public shareholders, the Adviser will vote the shares of such Fund in the same proportion as the votes of the other shareholders. Under this “echo voting” approach, the Adviser’s potential conflict is mitigated by replicating the voting preferences expressed by the other shareholders.

 

Client Inquiries

 

Employees must immediately forward any inquiry about DoubleLine’s proxy voting policy and practices, including historical voting records, to the Trade Management team. The Trade Management team will record the identity of the client, the date of the request, and the disposition of each request and coordinate the appropriate response with the Investor Services team or other applicable party.

 

The Adviser shall furnish the information requested, free of charge, to the client within ten (10) business days. A copy of the written response should be attached and maintained with the client’s written request, if applicable, and stored in an appropriate file. Clients can require the delivery of the proxy voting record relevant to their accounts for the five-year period prior to their request.

 

 

 

 

The Funds are required to furnish a description of the Proxy Policy within three (3) business days of receipt of a shareholder request, by first-class mail or other means designed to ensure equally prompt delivery. The Funds rely upon the fund administrator to process such requests.

 

The Trade Management team shall forward to the Proxy Committee all Proxy Matter inquiries, including proxy solicitations or an Adviser’s voting intention on a pending proposal, from third parties that are not duly authorized by a client.

 

III. Third-Party Proxy Agent

 

To assist in carrying out its proxy voting obligations, DoubleLine has retained a third-party proxy voting service provider, currently Glass, Lewis & Co. (“Glass Lewis”), as its proxy voting agent. Pursuant to an agreement with DoubleLine, Glass Lewis obtains proxy ballots related to client investments, evaluates the facts and circumstances relating to each proposal and communicates to the Adviser the recommendation from the issuer’s management (where available) and Glass Lewis’ broad recommendation. The Adviser shall vote on proposals in its discretion and in a manner consistent with the Proxy Policy or instructs Glass Lewis to do so on its behalf.

 

In the event that DoubleLine determines that a recommendation from Glass Lewis (or from any other third-party proxy voting service provider retained by DoubleLine) was based on a material factual error, DoubleLine will investigate the error, taking into account, among other things, the nature of the error and the recommendation, and seek to determine whether the vote or other actions related to the proposal would change in light of the error and whether the service provider is taking reasonable steps to reduce similar errors in the future. DoubleLine will also inform the Proxy Committee of the error to determine if it is a material compliance matter under Rule 206(4)-7 of the Advisers Act or Rule 38a-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), or if further remedial action is necessary.

 

IV. Environmental, Social and Governance Matters

 

The Advisers integrate environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) factors into its research and decision-making process to gain a more holistic view of the relevant investment risks, better understand the potential drivers of performance, and strive for better risk-adjusted returns. In particular, the Advisers seek to identify and understand material ESG factors that have a potential financial impact on an issuer and the valuation of client investments. As stewards of client investments, the Advisers view proxy voting as an opportunity to influence the financial impact of such material ESG factors (if applicable) and, through the Guidelines, ensure that proposals are consistently reviewed and voted in a manner that seeks to enhance the economic value of client investments. The Advisers also may consider material ESG factors in determining how to address corporate actions and class actions.

 

V. Limitations

 

Securities on Loan

 

The Adviser may not be able to take action with respect to a proposal when the client’s relevant securities are on loan in accordance with a securities lending program or are controlled by a securities lending agent or custodian acting independently of DoubleLine. In addition, the Adviser will not recall securities if the potential economic impact of the proposal is insignificant or less than the economic benefit gained if the securities remained on loan (such as the interest income from the loan arrangement) or if recalling the securities is otherwise not in the best interest of the client. In the event that the Adviser determines that a proposal could reasonably enhance the economic value of the client’s investment, the Adviser will make reasonable efforts to inform the client and recall the securities. Employees cannot make any representation that any securities on loan will be recalled successfully or in time for submitting a vote on a pending proposal.

 

 

 

 

Foreign Markets

 

In certain markets, shares of securities may be blocked or frozen at the custodian or other designated depositary for certain periods typically around the shareholder meeting date. In such cases, the Adviser cannot guarantee that the blocked securities can be processed in time for submitting a vote on a pending proposal. In addition, where the Adviser determines that there are unusual costs to the client or administrative difficulties associated with voting on a proposal, which more typically might be the case with respect to proposals involving non-U.S. issuers and foreign markets, the Adviser reserves the right to not vote on the proposal unless the Adviser determines that the potential benefits exceed the anticipated cost to the client.

 

Proofs-of-Claim

 

The Advisers do not complete proofs-of-claim on behalf of clients for current or historical holdings other than for the Funds and private funds offered by DoubleLine; however, an Adviser may provide reasonable assistance to other existing clients by sharing related information that is in the Adviser’s possession. The Advisers do not undertake to complete, or provide any assistance for, proofs-of-claim involving securities that had been held by any former client. The Advisers will complete proofs-of-claim for the Funds and private funds offered by DoubleLine or provide reasonable access to the applicable administrator to file such proofs-of-claim when appropriate.

 

Contractual Obligations

 

In certain limited circumstances, particularly in the area of structured finance, the Adviser may, on behalf of clients, enter into voting agreements or other contractual obligations that govern proxy and corporate action proposals. In the event of a conflict between any such contractual requirements and the Guidelines, the Adviser will vote in accordance with its contractual obligations.

 

VI. Other Regulatory Matters and Responsibilities

 

Form N-PX Filings

 

A. Rule 30b1-4 under the 1940 Act requires open-end and closed-end management investment companies to file an annual record of proxies voted on Form N-PX. The Funds shall file Form N-PX in compliance with Rule 30b1-4, including certain new requirements which include, but are not limited to, the following:

 

Identification of Proxy Voting Matters – funds must use the same language as the issuer’s proxy card (where a proxy card is required under Rule 14a-4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the “Exchange Act”); and if the matter relates to an election of directors, identify each director separately in the same order as on the proxy card, even if the election of directors is presented as a single matter.

 

Categorization of Voting Matters – funds are required to categorize the votes reported on Form N-PX consistent with a list of categories outlined in the amended form. The categories will be non-exclusive, and funds must select all categories applicable to each proxy matter.

 

Quantitative Disclosures and Securities Lending – funds must disclose the number of shares voted or instructed to be cast (if the fund had not received confirmation of the actual number of votes cast) and how those shares were voted (e.g., for, against or abstain). If the votes were cast in multiple manners (e.g., both for and against), funds will be required to disclose the number of shares voted or instructed to be voted in each manner. Additionally, funds must disclose the number of shares loaned but not recalled and, therefore, not voted by the fund.

 

Structured Data Language – funds must file their reports using a custom XML format.

 

 

 

 

Joint Reporting – funds are permitted to report on its Form N-PX on behalf of a series or a manager so long as the fund presents the complete voting record of each included series separately and provide the required quantitative information for each included manager separately. Funds must also provide certain information (generally, their name and other identifying information such as their legal entity identifier) in the summary page about the included series or managers.

 

Standardized Order – funds must submit information based on the specific Form N-PX format and standardized order of disclosure requirements.

 

Fund Notice Reports – funds are now permitted to indicate on the cover page of Form N-PX if no securities were subject to a vote and, therefore, do not have any proxy votes to report.

 

Website Posting – funds that have a website must make the most recently filed Form N-PX report publicly available as soon as reasonably practicable. Funds may satisfy the requirement by providing a direct link to the relevant HTML-rendered Form N-PX report on EDGAR.

 

B. Rule 14Ad-1 under the Exchange Act requires institutional investment managers subject to section 13(f) of the Exchange Act, which may include certain Advisers, to report annually on Form N-PX how the managers voted proxies relating to executive compensation matters (commonly referred to as “say-on-pay” votes). When reporting say-on-pay votes, managers are required to comply with the other requirements of Form N-PX for their say-on-pay votes (including the new requirements as described above, except that a manager is not required to disclose or provide access to its proxy voting records on its website).

 

The Legal team shall be primarily responsible for DoubleLine’s Form N-PX filings. DoubleLine may rely on the applicable fund administrator or other service provider to prepare and submit required Form N-PX filings. The Trade Management team shall assist the Legal team and, as necessary, the relevant service provider by furnishing complete and accurate information required under Form N-PX (including by causing such information to be provided by any third-party proxy voting service provider). Form N-PX must be filed each year no later than August 31 and must contain applicable proxy voting records for the most recent twelve-month period ending June 30.

 

Proxy Voting Disclosures

 

The Legal team will ensure that (i) a concise summary of the Proxy Policy which includes how conflicts of interest are addressed, and (ii) instructions for obtaining a copy of the Proxy Policy and accessing relevant proxy voting records free of charge (e.g., via a toll-free telephone number, the Funds’ website, etc.) are provided within each Adviser’s Form ADV Part 2A and the Funds’ Statement of Additional Information, registration statement and Form N-CSR, in accordance with applicable legal requirements.

 

VII. Policy Governance

 

DoubleLine established the Proxy Voting Committee to help ensure compliance with the Proxy Policy. The Proxy Committee, whose members include the Chief Risk Officer and the Chief Compliance Officer (or their respective designees), meets on an as-needed basis. The Proxy Committee will (i) monitor compliance with the Proxy Policy, including by periodically sampling Proxy Matters for review, (ii) review, no less frequently than annually, the adequacy of the Proxy Policy to ensure it has been effectively implemented and that it continues to be designed to ensure that Proxy Matters are addressed in a manner that promotes the best interest of clients, (iii) periodically review, as needed, the adequacy and effectiveness of Glass Lewis or other third-party proxy voting service provider retained by DoubleLine, and (iv) review conflicts of interest that may arise under the Proxy Policy, including changes to the businesses of DoubleLine or the service provider retained by DoubleLine to determine whether those changes present new or additional conflicts of interest that should be addressed pursuant to the Proxy Policy.

 

The Proxy Committee shall have primary responsibility for managing DoubleLine’s relationship with Glass Lewis and any other third-party proxy voting service provider, including overseeing their compliance with the Proxy Policy, as well as reviewing periodically instances in which Glass Lewis does not provide a recommendation with respect to a proposal, or when Glass Lewis commits material errors.

 

 

 

 

VIII. Books and Records

 

The Trade Management team shall maintain all proxy voting records whether internally or through a third party in compliance with Rule 204-2 of the Advisers Act. The Trade Management team will maintain records which include, but are not limited to: (i) copies of each proxy statement that each Adviser receives regarding securities held by clients; (ii) a record of each vote that each Adviser cast on behalf of each client; (iii) any documentation that is material to each Adviser’s decision on voting a proxy or that describes the basis for that decision; (iv) a written description of each Adviser’s analysis when deciding to vote a proxy in a manner inconsistent with the Guidelines or when an Adviser has identified a material conflict of interest, (v) each written request from a client for information about how the Adviser voted proxies; and (vi) the Adviser’s written response to each client oral or written request for such information. The Trade Management team shall also ensure that comparable documentation related to corporate actions and class actions involving client investments is maintained.

 

The Legal team shall maintain investment management agreements which may include the Adviser’s written authorization to process Proxy Matters or client-specified proxy voting guidelines.

 

DoubleLine must maintain all books and records described in the Proxy Policy for a period of not less than five (5) years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry was made on such record, the first two (2) years of which shall be onsite at its place of business.

 

 

 

 

History of Amendments:

 

Effective as of August 2023

Approved by the Boards of DFT, DET and DoubleLine Closed-End Funds: August 17, 2023

 

Effective as of August 2022

Approved by the Boards of DFT, DET and Closed-End Funds: August 18, 2022

 

Updated and effective as of May 2022

Approved by the Boards of DFT, DET and Closed-End Funds: May 19, 2022

 

Updated and effective as of February 15, 2022

Approved by the Boards of DFT, DET, DSL, DBL and DLY: February 15, 2022

 

Updated and effective as of January 2022

Effective as of January 2021

Approved by the boards of DFT, DSL, DBL and DLY: December 15, 2020

Last reviewed December 2020

 

Updated and effective as of February 2020

Approved by the boards of DFT, DSL, DBL and DLY: November 21, 2019

Last reviewed November 2019

 

Reviewed and approved by the Boards of the DoubleLine Funds Trust, DoubleLine Equity Funds, DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit Fund and DoubleLine Income Solutions Fund: August 20, 2015

 

Adopted by the DoubleLine Equity Funds Board of Trustees: March 19, 2013

Renewed, reviewed and approved by the DoubleLine Equity Funds Board: May 22, 2013

Renewed, reviewed and approved by the DoubleLine Equity Funds Board: November 20, 2013

Renewed, reviewed and approved by the DoubleLine Equity Funds Board: August 21, 2014

Adopted by the DoubleLine Income Solutions Board of Trustees: March 19, 2013

Renewed, reviewed and approved by the DoubleLine Income Solutions Board of Trustees: May 22, 2013

Renewed, reviewed and approved by the DoubleLine Income Solutions Board of Trustees: November 20, 2013

Renewed, reviewed and approved by the DoubleLine Income Solutions Board of Trustees: August 21, 2014

 

Adopted by the DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit Fund Board of Trustees: August 24, 2011

Renewed and approved by the DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit Fund Board of Trustees: March 19, 2013

Renewed, reviewed and approved by the DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit Fund Board of Trustees: May 22, 2013

Renewed, reviewed and approved by the DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit Fund Board of Trustees: November 20, 2013

Renewed, reviewed and approved by the DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit Fund Board of Trustees: August 21, 2014

 

Adopted by the DoubleLine Funds Trust Board: March 25, 2010

Renewed, reviewed and approved by the DoubleLine Funds Trust Board: March 1, 2011

Renewed, reviewed and approved by the DoubleLine Funds Trust Board: August 25, 2011

Renewed and approved by the DoubleLine Funds Trust Board of Trustees: March 19, 2013

Renewed, reviewed and approved by the DoubleLine Funds Trust Board: May 22, 2013

Renewed, reviewed and approved by the DoubleLine Funds Trust Board: November 20, 2013

Renewed, reviewed and approved by the DoubleLine Funds Trust Board: August 21, 2014

 

 

 

 

Attachment A to the Proxy Voting, Corporate Actions and Class Actions Policy

Effective July 1, 2023

 

Guidelines

 

The Advisers have a fiduciary duty to clients, and shall exercise diligence and care, with respect to its proxy voting authority. Accordingly, the Advisers will review each proposal to determine the relevant facts and circumstances and adopt the following guidelines as a framework for analysis in seeking to maximize the value of client investments. The guidelines do not address all potential voting matters and actual votes by the Advisers may vary based on specific facts and circumstances.

 

A. Director Elections

 

Directors play a critical role in ensuring that the company and its management serve the interests of its shareholders by providing leadership and appropriate oversight. We believe that the board of directors should have the requisite industry knowledge, business acumen and understanding of company stakeholders in order to discharge its duties effectively.

 

Proposal Shareholder
Proposal
Anticipated Vote
Frequency of Elections
Electing all directors annually.
  For
Uncontested Elections
Voting management nominees, unless the nominee lacks independence or focus, has had chronic absences or presents other material concerns to the detriment of the effectiveness of the board.
  For
Majority Voting
Allowing majority voting unless incumbent directors must resign if they do not receive a majority vote in an uncontested election.
  For
Cumulative Voting
Allowing cumulative voting unless the company previously adopted a majority voting policy.
  For
Changes in Board Structure
Changing the board structure, such as the process for vacancies or director nominations, or the board size, unless there is an indication that the change is an anti-takeover device, or it diminishes shareholder rights.
  For
Stock Ownership
Requiring directors to own company shares.
X Against
Contested Elections
The qualifications of nominees on both slates, management track record and strategic plan for enhancing shareholder value, and company financial performance generally will be considered when voting nominees in a contested election.
X Case-by-Case

 

 

 

 

B. Section 14A Say-On-Pay Votes

 

Current law requires companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding advisory votes on the compensation for named executive officers, including the frequency of such votes. The Advisers generally support proposals for annual votes, as well as the ratification of executive compensation unless the compensation structure or any prior actions taken by the board or compensation committee warrant a case-by-case analysis.

 

Proposal Shareholder
Proposal
Anticipated Vote
Frequency of Say-On-Pay Votes
Annual shareholder advisory votes regarding executive compensation.
X For
Compensation Disclosures
Seeking additional disclosures related to executive and director pay unless similar information is already provided in existing disclosures or reporting.
X For
Executive Compensation Advisory
Executive compensation proposals generally will be assessed based on its structure, prevailing industry practice and benchmarks, and any problematic prior pay practices or related issues involving the board/compensation committee.
X Case-by-Case
Golden Parachute Advisory
Golden parachute proposals, in general, will be assessed based on the existing change-in-control arrangements, the nature and terms of the triggering event(s) and the amount to be paid.
X Case-by-Case

 

C. Audit-Related

 

The Advisers generally support proposals for the selection or ratification of independent auditors, subject to a consideration of any conflicts of interest, poor accounting practices or inaccurate prior opinions and related fees.

 

Proposal Shareholder
Proposal
Anticipated Vote
Appointment of Auditors
Selecting or ratifying independent auditors, unless there is a material conflict of interest, a history of poor accounting practice or inaccurate opinions, or excessive fees.
  For
Non-Audit/Consulting Services
Other alternative service providers, conflicts of interest, and company disclosures are areas of consideration when voting proposals to limit other engagements with auditors.
X Case-by-Case
Indemnification of Auditors
Indemnification of auditors generally will be assessed based on the nature of the engagement, the auditor's work history and field of expertise, and the terms of the agreement such as its impact on the ability of shareholders to pursue legal recourse against the auditor for certain acts or omissions.
X Case-by-Case
Rotation of Auditors
Shareholder proposals requiring auditor rotation generally will be assessed based on any audit issues involving the company, the auditor's tenure with the company, and policies and practices surrounding auditor evaluations.
X Case-by-Case

 

 

 

 

D. Investment Company Matters

 

When the Advisers invest in a DoubleLine Fund with other public shareholders, the Advisers will vote the shares of such fund in the same proportion as the votes of the other shareholders. Under this “echo voting” approach, the Advisers’ potential conflict is mitigated by replicating the voting preferences expressed by the other shareholders. With respect to specific proposals involving the DoubleLine Funds, the Advisers generally support recommendations by the fund’s board unless applicable laws and regulations prohibit the Advisers from doing so.

 

Proposal Shareholder
Proposal
Anticipated Vote
Share Classes
Issuance of new classes or series of shares.
  For
Investment Objectives
Changing a fundamental investment objective to nonfundamental.
  Against
Investment Restrictions
Changing fundamental restrictions to nonfundamental generally will be assessed in consideration of the target investments, reason(s) for the change and its impact on the portfolio.
  Case-by-Case
Distribution Agreements
Distribution agreements generally will be assessed based on the distributor's services and reputation, applicable fees, and other terms of the agreement.
  Case-by-Case
Investment Advisory Agreements
 Investment advisory agreements generally will be assessed based on the applicable fees, fund category and investment objective, and performance.
  Case-by-Case

 

E. Shareholder Rights and Defenses

 

The Advisers believe that companies have a fundamental obligation to protect the rights of shareholders. Therefore, the Advisers generally support proposals that hold the board and management accountable in serving the best interest of shareholders and that uphold their rights. However, the Advisers generally will not support proposals from certain shareholders that are hostile, disruptive, or are otherwise counter to the best interest of the Advisers’ clients.

 

Proposal Shareholder
Proposal
Anticipated Vote
Appraisal Rights
Providing shareholders with rights of appraisal.
X For
Fair Price Provision
Fair price provisions that ensures each shareholder's securities will be purchased at the same price if the company is acquired in disagreement with the board. However, fair price provisions may not be supported if it is used as an anti-takeover device by the board.
X For

 

 

 

 

Special Meetings
Providing or restoring rights to call a special meeting so long as the threshold to call a meeting is no less than 10 percent of outstanding shares.
X For
Confidential Voting
Allowing shareholders to vote confidentially.
X For
Written Consents
Allowing shareholders to act by written consent.
X For
Greenmail
Adopting anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise restricting the company's ability to make greenmail payments for repurchasing shares at a premium to prevent a hostile takeover.
X For
Supermajority Vote
Requiring a supermajority vote, unless there are disproportionate substantial shareholders that weaken minority votes.
  Against
Bundled Proposals
Bundled or conditional proposals generally will be reviewed to determine the benefit or cost of the matters included or if there is a controversy or any matter that is adverse to shareholder interests.
  Case-by-Case
Preemptive Rights
Preemptive rights, in general, will be assessed based on the size of the company and its shareholder base, for which larger publicly held companies with a broad shareholder base may be less ideal.
  Case-by-Case
Shareholder Rights Plans (Poison Pills)
Poison pills generally will be assessed based on the company's governance practices, existing takeover defenses, and the terms of the plan, including the triggering mechanism, duration, and redemption/rescission features. Requests to have shareholders ratify plans generally will be supported.
X Case-by-Case

 

F. Extraordinary Transactions

 

Proposals for transactions that may affect the ownership interests or voting rights of shareholders, such as mergers, asset sales and corporate or debt restructuring, will be assessed on a case-by-case basis generally in consideration of the economic outcome for shareholders, the potential dilution of shareholder rights and its impact on corporate governance, among other relevant factors.

 

Proposal Shareholder
Proposal
Anticipated Vote
Reincorporation
Reincorporating in another state or country in support of the rights and economic interests of shareholders.
  For
Merger, Corporate Restructuring and Spin Offs
Merger, corporate restructuring and spin off proposals generally will be assessed with the view of maximizing the economic value of shareholder interests. The purchase or sale price and other deal terms will be reviewed, among other factors, to ensure that that the transaction is aligned with the long-term interests of shareholders.
  Case-by-Case

 

 

 

 

Debt Restructuring
The terms of the transaction, current capital markets environment, and conflicts of interest are factors that generally will be considered for ensuring that the proposal enhances the economic value of shareholder interests.
  Case-by-Case
Liquidations and Asset Sales
As with other transaction proposals, the long-term economic impact of the transaction will be the focus of review of such proposals and, in general, factors such as the sale price, costs and conflicts of interest will be considered.
  Case-by-Case

 

G. Capital Structure

 

The Advisers believe that the prudent management of debt and equity to finance company operations and growth, and which is supportive of shareholders’ rights and economic interests, is critical to financial viability.

 

Proposal Shareholder
Proposal
Anticipated Vote
Common Stock
Issuing common stock for recapitalizations, stock splits, dividends or otherwise reasonably amending outstanding shares for a specific purpose.
  For
Multi-Class Shares
Adopting multi-class share structures so long as they have equal voting rights.
  For
Repurchase Programs
Adopting plans to repurchase shares in the open market unless shareholders cannot participate on equal terms.
  For
Blank Check Preferred Stock
Allowing the board to issue preferred shares without prior shareholder approval and setting the terms and voting rights of preferred shares at the board's discretion.
  Against
Recapitalization Plans
The rationale and objectives; current capital markets environment; impact on shareholder interests including conversion terms, dividends and voting rights; and any material conflicts of interest are factors that generally will be considered when reviewing proposals to reclassify debt or equity capital.
  Case-by-Case

 

 

 

 

H. Compensation

 

The Advisers believe that compensation arrangements should align the economic interests of directors, management, and employees with those of shareholders and consider factors such as (1) local norms, (2) industry-specific practices and performance benchmarks, and (3) the structure of base and incentive compensation. The Advisers generally support transparency (e.g., disclosures related to the performance metrics and how they promote better corporate performance, etc.) and periodic reporting with respect to compensation.

 

Proposal Shareholder
Proposal
Anticipated Vote
Employee 401 (k) Plan
Adopting a 401 (k) plan for employees.
  For
Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP)
Requiring shareholder approval to adopt a broad-based ESOP or to increase outstanding shares for an existing plan unless the allocation of outstanding shares to the ESOP exceeds five percent or 10 percent among all stock-based plans.
  For
Recoupment Provisions (Clawbacks)
Adopting clawback provisions in cases of revised financial results or performance indicators on which prior compensation payments were based, as well as for willful misconduct or violations of law or regulation that result in financial or reputational harm to the company.
X For
Limits on Executive or Director Compensation
Setting limits on executive or director compensation unless there is a substantial deviation from industry practice or any problematic issue involving the board/compensation committee or prior pay practices.
X Against
Equity-Based and Other Incentive Plans
Incentive plans, in general, will be assessed based on the prevailing local and industry-specific practices and performance benchmarks, the terms of the plan and whether they are aligned with company goals and shareholder interests, the cost of the plan, and the overall compensation structure.
  Case-by-Case
Severance Agreements for Executives (Golden Parachutes)
Golden parachutes generally will be assessed based on the existing change-in-control arrangements, the nature and terms of the triggering event(s) and the amount to be paid.
  Case-by-Case

 

I. Corporate Governance

 

The Advisers believe that authority and accountability for establishing business strategies, corporate policies and compensation generally should rest with the board and management. The independence, qualifications, and integrity of the board as well as the effectiveness of management and their oversight, which must be aligned with shareholder interests, are essential to good governance. The following general guidelines reflect these principles although material environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, which have a potential financial impact on the company and the valuation of client investments, if any, are also considered.

 

Proposal Shareholder
Proposal
Anticipated Vote
Quorum Requirements
Establishing a majority requirement, unless shareholder turnout has been an issue, or a reduced quorum is reasonable based on applicable laws or regulations and the market capitalization or ownership structure of the company.
  For
Annual Meetings
Changing the date, time, or location of annual meetings, unless the proposed schedule or location is unreasonable.
  For

 

 

 

 

Board Size
Setting the board size, so long as the proposal is consistent with the prevailing industry practice and applicable laws or regulations.
  For
Proxy Access
Allowing shareholders to nominate director candidates in proxy ballots with reasonable limitations (e.g., minimum percentage and duration of ownership and a cap on board representation) for preventing potential abuse by certain shareholders.
X For
Independent Directors
Requiring the board chair and a majority of directors to be independent directors. Proposals for a lead independent director may be supported in cases where the board chair is not independent.
X For
Independent Committees
Requiring independent directors exclusively for the audit, compensation, nominating and governance committees.
X For
Removal of Directors
Removing a director without cause.
X For
Indemnification of Directors and Officers
Indemnifying directors and officers for acts and omissions made in good faith and were believed to be in the best interest of the company. Limitations on liability involving willful misconduct or violations of law or regulation, or a breach of fiduciary duty, generally will be voted against.
  For
Term Limits for Directors
Imposing term limits on directors unless the director evaluation process is ineffective and related issues persist.
X Against
Classified Boards
Establishing a classified board.
  Against
Adjournment of Meetings
Providing management the authority to adjourn annual or special meetings without reasonable grounds.
  Against
Amendments to Bylaws
Giving the board the authority to amend bylaws without shareholder approval.
  Against

 

J. Environment or Climate

 

The Advisers would generally consider the recommendations of management for shareholder proposals involving environmental issues as it believes that, in most cases, elected directors and management are in the best position to address such matters. In addition, reporting that provides meaningful information for evaluating the financial impact of environmental policies and practices is generally supported unless it is unduly costly or burdensome or it places the company at a competitive disadvantage. Material ESG factors, which have a potential financial impact on the company and the valuation of client investments, if any, are also considered.

 

Proposal Shareholder
Proposal
Anticipated Vote
Environmental and Climate Disclosures
Providing environmental/climate-related disclosures and reporting unless it is duplicative or unsuitable.
  For
Environmental and Climate Policies
Environmental and climate policies generally will be assessed based on the company's related governance practices, local and industry-specific practices, the nature and extent of environmental and climate risks applicable to the company, and the economic benefit to shareholders.
  Case-by-Case

 

 

 

 

K. Human Rights or Human Capital/Workforce

 

The Advisers would generally consider the recommendations of management for shareholder proposals involving social issues as it believes that, in most cases, elected directors and management are in the best position to address such matters. In addition, reporting that provides meaningful information for evaluating the financial impact of social policies and practices is generally supported unless it is unduly costly or burdensome or it places the company at a competitive disadvantage. Material ESG factors, which have a potential financial impact on the company and the valuation of client investments, if any, are also considered.

 

Proposal Shareholder
Proposal
Anticipated Vote
Human Rights and Labor Disclosures
Providing human rights and labor-related disclosures and reporting unless it is duplicative or unsuitable.
  For
Human Rights and Labor Policies
Human rights and labor policies generally will be assessed based on the company's related governance practices, applicable law or regulations, local and industry-specific practices, the nature and extent of supply chain or reputational risks applicable to the company, and their economic benefit to shareholders.
  Case-by-Case

 

L. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

 

The Advisers generally support reporting that provides meaningful information for evaluating the financial impact of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and practices unless it is unduly costly or burdensome. For policy proposals, the Advisers will consider existing policies, regulations and applicable local standards and best practices, to determine if they provide an added benefit to shareholders. Material ESG factors, which have a potential financial impact on the company and the valuation of client investments, if any, are also considered.

 

Proposal Shareholder
Proposal
Anticipated Vote
DEI Disclosures
Providing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO-1) Reports, and other additional disclosures or reporting unless it is duplicative or unsuitable.
  For
Anti-Discrimination Policy
Adopting an anti-discrimination and harassment policy.
  For
Other DEI Policies
Other DEI policies generally will be assessed based on the company's related governance practices, applicable law or regulations, and local and industry-specific practices.
  Case-by-Case

 

 

 

 

M. Other Social Issues

 

Proposal Shareholder
Proposal
Anticipated Vote
Political Contribution and Activities
Political contributions and lobbying activities generally will be reviewed in consideration of legal restrictions and requirements, applicable policies and historical practice, and its cost-benefit to the company. Related disclosures to shareholders generally are supported.
  Case-by-Case
Charitable Contributions
Charitable contributions, in general, will be reviewed in consideration of applicable policies and historical practice, conflicts of interests, as well as the cost-benefit of charitable spending. Related disclosures to shareholders generally are supported.
  Case-by-Case

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRIEHAUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC

 

SUMMARY OF PROXY VOTING POLICY

 

MAY 1, 2024

 

For those clients for whom Driehaus Capital Management LLC (“DCM,”) has undertaken to vote proxies, we retain the final authority and responsibility for such voting. On behalf of our valued clients, we (i) provide our clients with this written summary of our proxy voting policy and our complete proxy voting policy upon request; (ii) disclose to our clients how to obtain voting information; (iii) apply the proxy voting policy consistently; (iv) document the rationale for our votes; (v) maintain records of our voting activities for clients and regulating authorities; (vi) generally aim to vote securities based on a pre-determined voting policy, following the recommendations of an independent third-party proxy advisory firm to avoid conflicts of interest; and (vii) follow a formal process in the event of a deviation from such third-party’s proxy advisory firm’s voting recommendations.

 

In order to facilitate this proxy voting process, we retain Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”) as a third-party proxy advisory firm to provide in-depth proxy research, vote recommendations and execution, as well as the record keeping necessary for the appropriate management of our client accounts as well as client transparency into the voting activities performed by us on their behalf. ISS is an investment adviser that specializes in providing a variety of fiduciary-level services related to proxy voting. We have 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 our clients. ISS offers a selection of voting guidelines including “benchmark” guidelines as well as a number of specialty guidelines. DCM utilizes the benchmark guidelines for vote recommendations and research unless we determine that a specialty policy is more aligned with a specific strategy or if directed otherwise by a client.

 

DCM’s full proxy voting policy sets forth the general voting guidelines that ISS follows on various 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 making 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 seeks to vote proxies for all securities held in accounts for which we retain proxy voting authority. However, in certain markets administrative issues beyond our control may sometimes prevent us from voting such proxies. For example, some markets outside the US require periodic renewals of powers of attorney that local agents must have from our clients prior to implementing voting instructions. In certain instances, we 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 us 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.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Federated Equity management company of pennsylvania

 

Proxy Voting Policies

 

As an investment adviser with a fiduciary duty to the Fund and its shareholders, the general policy of Federated Equity Management Company of Pennsylvania (the “Sub-Adviser”) is to cast proxy votes in favor of management proposals and shareholder proposals that the Sub-Adviser anticipates will enhance the long-term value of the securities being voted in a manner that is consistent with the investment objectives of the Fund. Generally, this will mean voting for proposals that the Sub-Adviser believes will improve the management of a company, increase the rights or preferences of the voted securities, or increase the chance that a premium offer would be made for the company or for the voted securities. This approach to voting proxy proposals will be referred to hereafter as the “General Policy.”

 

The Sub-Adviser generally votes consistently on the same matter when securities of an issuer are held by multiple client portfolios. However, the Sub-Adviser may vote differently if a client’s investment objectives differ from those of other clients or if a client explicitly instructs the Sub-Adviser to vote differently.

 

The following examples illustrate how the General Policy may apply to the most common management proposals and shareholder proposals. However, whether the Sub-Adviser supports or opposes a proposal will always depend on a thorough understanding of the Fund’s investment objectives and the specific circumstances described in the proxy statement and other available information.

 

On matters related to the board of directors, generally the Sub-Adviser will vote to elect nominees to the board in uncontested elections except in certain circumstances, such as where the director: (1) had not attended at least 75% of the board meetings during the previous year; (2) serves as the company’s chief financial officer, unless the company is headquartered in the UK where this is market practice; (3) has become overboarded (more than five boards for retired executives and more than two boards for CEOs); (4) is the chair of the nominating or governance committee when the roles of chairman of the board and CEO are combined and there is no lead independent director; (5) served on the compensation committee during a period in which compensation appears excessive relative to performance and peers; or (6) served on a board that did not implement a shareholder proposal that the Sub-Adviser supported and received more than 50% shareholder support the previous year. In addition, the Sub-Adviser will generally vote in favor of; (7) a full slate of directors, where the directors are elected as a group and not individually, unless more than half of the nominees are not independent; (8) shareholder proposals to declassify the board of directors; (9) shareholder proposals to require a majority voting standard in the election of directors; (10) shareholder proposals to separate the roles of chairman of the board and CEO; (11) a proposal to require a company’s audit committee to be comprised entirely of independent directors; and (12) shareholder proposals to eliminate supermajority voting requirements in company bylaws.

 

On other matters of corporate governance, generally the Sub-Adviser will vote: (1) in favor of proposals to grant shareholders the right to call a special meeting if owners of at least 10% of the outstanding stock agree; (2) against proposals to allow shareholders to act by written consent; (3) on a case-by-case basis for proposals to adopt or amend shareholder rights plans (also known as “poison pills”); (4) in favor of shareholder proposals to eliminate supermajority requirements in company bylaws; and (5) in favor of shareholder proposals calling for “Proxy Access,” that is, a bylaw change allowing shareholders owning at least 3% of the outstanding common stock for at least three years to nominate candidates for election to the board of directors.

 

Generally, the Sub-Adviser will vote every shareholder proposal of an environmental or social nature on a case-by-case basis. The quality of these shareholder proposals varies widely across markets. Similarly, company disclosures of their business practices related to environmental and social risks are not always adequate for investors to make risk assessments. Thus, the Sub-Adviser places great importance on company-specific analyses to determine how to vote. Above all, the Sub-Adviser will vote in a manner that would enhance the long-term value of the investment within the framework of the client’s investment objectives.

 

 

 

 

The Sub-Adviser’s general approach to analyzing these proposals calls for considering the literal meaning of the written proposal, the financial materiality of the proposal’s objective, and the practices followed by industry peers. This analysis utilizes research reports from the Sub-Adviser’s proxy advisors, company filings, as well as reports published by the company and other outside organizations.

 

On matters of capital structure, generally, the Sub-Adviser will vote proxies for U.S. issuers on a case-by-case basis for proposals to authorize the issuance of new shares if not connected to an M&A transaction and the potential dilution is more than 10%, against proposals to create multiple-class voting structures where one class has superior voting rights to the other classes, in favor of proposals to authorize reverse stock splits unless the amount of authorized shares is not also reduced proportionately.

 

Generally, the Sub-Adviser will vote proxies for non-U.S. issuers in favor of proposals to authorize issuance of shares with and without pre-emptive rights unless the size of the authorities would threaten to unreasonably dilute existing shareholders.

 

Votes on executive compensation come in many forms, including advisory votes on U.S. executive compensation plans (“Say On Pay”), advisory and binding votes on the design or implementation of non-U.S. executive remuneration plans, and votes to approve new equity plans or amendments to existing plans. Generally, the Sub-Adviser will support compensation arrangements that are aligned with the client’s long-term investment objectives. With respect to Say On Pay proposals, the Sub-Adviser will generally vote in favor unless the compensation plan has failed to align executive compensation with corporate performance, or the design of the plan is likely to lead to misalignment in the future. The Sub-Adviser supports the principle of an annual shareholder vote on executive pay and will generally vote accordingly on proposals which set the frequency of the Say On Pay vote.

 

In some markets, especially Europe, shareholders are provided a vote on the remuneration policy, which sets out the structural elements of a company’s executive remuneration plan on a forward-looking basis. The Sub-Adviser will generally support these proposals unless the design of the remuneration policy fails to appropriately link executive compensation with corporate performance, total compensation appears excessive relative to the company’s industry peer group, with local market dynamics also taken into account; or there is insufficient disclosure to enable an informed judgment, particularly as it relates to the disclosure of the maximum amounts of compensation that may be awarded.

 

The Sub-Adviser will generally vote in favor of equity plan proposals unless they result in unreasonable dilution to existing shareholders, permit replacement of “underwater” options with new options on more favorable terms for the recipient, or omit the criteria for determining the granting or vesting of awards.

 

On matters relating to corporate transactions, the Sub-Adviser will generally vote in favor of mergers, acquisitions and sales of assets if the Sub-Adviser’s analysis of the proposed business strategy and the transaction price would have a positive impact on the total return for shareholders.

 

If a shareholders meeting is contested, that is, shareholders are presented with a set of director candidates nominated by company management and a set of director candidates nominated by a dissident shareholder, the Sub-Adviser will study the proposed business strategies of both groups and vote in a way that maximizes expected total return for the Fund.

 

In addition, the Sub-Adviser will not vote any proxy if it determines that the consequences or costs of voting outweigh the potential benefit of voting. For example, if a foreign market requires shareholders voting proxies to retain the voted shares until the meeting date (thereby rendering the shares “illiquid” for some period of time), the Sub-Adviser will not vote proxies for such shares. In addition, the Sub-Adviser is not obligated to incur any expense to send a representative to a shareholder meeting or to translate proxy materials into English.

 

 

 

 

The Sub-Adviser will take into account feedback from issuers on the voting recommendations of the Sub-Adviser’s proxy advisory firm if the feedback is provided at least five days before the voting cut-off date. In certain circumstances, primarily those where the Sub-Adviser’s voting policy is absolute and without exception, issuer feedback will not be part of the voting decision. For example, it is the Sub-Adviser’s policy to always support a shareholder proposal to separate the roles of chairman of the board and CEO. Thus, any comments from the issuer opposing this proposal would not be considered.

 

If proxies are not delivered in a timely or otherwise appropriate basis, the Sub-Adviser may not be able to vote a particular proxy.

 

Proxy Voting Procedures

 

The Sub-Adviser has established a Proxy Voting Committee (“Proxy Committee”), to exercise all voting discretion granted to the Sub-Adviser by the Board in accordance with the proxy voting policies. To assist it in carrying out the day-to-day operations related to proxy voting, the Proxy Committee has created the Proxy Voting Management Group (PVMG). The day-to-day operations related to proxy voting are carried out by the Proxy Voting Operations Team (PVOT) and overseen by the PVMG. Besides voting the proxies, this work includes engaging with investee companies on corporate governance matters, managing the proxy advisory firm, soliciting voting recommendations from the Sub-Adviser’s investment professionals, bringing voting recommendations to the Proxy Committee for approval, filing with regulatory agencies any required proxy voting reports, providing proxy voting reports to clients and investment companies as they are requested from time to time, and keeping the Proxy Committee informed of any issues related to corporate governance and proxy voting.

 

The Sub-Adviser has compiled a list of specific voting instructions based on the General Policy (the “Standard Voting Instructions”). The Standard Voting Instructions and any modifications to them are approved by the Proxy Committee. The Standard Voting Instructions sometimes call for an investment professional to review the ballot question and provide a voting recommendation to the Proxy Committee (a “case-by-case vote”). The foregoing notwithstanding, the Proxy Committee always has the authority to determine a final voting decision.

 

The Sub-Adviser has hired a proxy advisory firm to perform various proxy voting related administrative services such as ballot reconciliation, vote processing and recordkeeping functions. The Proxy Committee has supplied the proxy advisory firm with the Standard Voting Instructions. The Proxy Committee retains the right to modify the Standard Voting Instructions at any time or to vote contrary to them at any time in order to cast proxy votes in a manner that the Proxy Committee believes is in accordance with the General Policy. The proxy advisory firm may vote any proxy as directed in the Standard Voting Instructions without further direction from the Proxy Committee. However, if the Standard Voting Instructions require case-by-case handling for a proposal, the PVOT will work with the investment professionals and the proxy advisory firm to develop a voting recommendation for the Proxy Committee and to communicate the Proxy Committee’s final voting decision to the proxy advisory firm. Further, if the Standard Voting Instructions require the PVOT to analyze a ballot question and make the final voting decision, the PVOT will report such votes to the Proxy Committee on a quarterly basis for review.

 

Conflicts of Interest

 

The Sub-Adviser has adopted procedures to address situations where a matter on which a proxy is sought may present a potential conflict between the interests of the Fund (and its shareholders) and those of the Sub-Adviser or Distributor. This may occur where a significant business relationship exists between the Sub-Adviser (or its affiliates) and a company involved with a proxy vote.

 

A company that is a proponent, opponent, or the subject of a proxy vote, and which to the knowledge of the Proxy Committee has this type of significant business relationship, is referred to below as an “Interested Company.”

 

 

 

 

The Sub-Adviser has implemented the following procedures in order to avoid concerns that the conflicting interests of the Sub-Adviser or its affiliates have influenced proxy votes. Any employee of the Sub-Adviser or its affiliates who is contacted by an Interested Company regarding proxies to be voted by the Sub-Adviser must refer the Interested Company to a member of the Proxy Committee, and must inform the Interested Company that the Proxy Committee has exclusive authority to determine how the proxy will be voted. Any Proxy Committee member contacted by an Interested Company must report it to the full Proxy Committee and provide a written summary of the communication. This requirement includes engagement meetings with investee companies and does not include communications with proxy solicitation firms. Under no circumstances will the Proxy Committee or any member of the Proxy Committee make a commitment to an Interested Company regarding the voting of proxies or disclose to an Interested Company how the Proxy Committee has directed such proxies to be voted. If the Standard Voting Instructions already provide specific direction on the proposal in question, the Proxy Committee shall not alter or amend such directions. If the Standard Voting Instructions require the Proxy Committee to provide further direction, the Proxy Committee shall do so in accordance with the proxy voting policies, without regard for the interests of the Sub-Adviser with respect to the Interested Company. If the Proxy Committee provides any direction as to the voting of proxies relating to a proposal affecting an Interested Company, it must disclose annually to the Fund’s Board information regarding: the significant business relationship; any material communication with the Interested Company; the matter(s) voted on; and how, and why, the Sub-Adviser voted as it did. In certain circumstances it may be appropriate for the Sub-Adviser to vote in the same proportion as all other shareholders, so as to not affect the outcome beyond helping to establish a quorum at the shareholders’ meeting. This is referred to as “proportional voting.” If the Fund owns shares of another Federated Hermes mutual fund, generally the Sub-Adviser will proportionally vote the client’s proxies for that fund or seek direction from the Board or the client on how the proposal should be voted. If the Fund owns shares of an unaffiliated mutual fund, the Sub-Adviser may proportionally vote the Fund’s proxies for that fund depending on the size of the position. If the Fund owns shares of an unaffiliated exchange-traded fund, the Sub-Adviser will proportionally vote the Fund’s proxies for that fund.

 

Downstream Affiliates

 

If the Proxy Committee gives further direction, or seeks to vote contrary to the Standard Voting Instructions, for a proxy relating to a portfolio company in which the Fund owns more than 10% of the portfolio company’s outstanding voting securities at the time of the vote (“Downstream Affiliate”), the Proxy Committee must first receive guidance from counsel to the Proxy Committee as to whether any relationship between the Sub-Adviser and the portfolio company, other than such ownership of the portfolio company’s securities, gives rise to an actual conflict of interest. If counsel determines that an actual conflict exists, the Proxy Committee must address any such conflict with the executive committee of the board of directors or trustees of any investment company client prior to taking any action on the proxy at issue.

 

Proxy Sub-Advisers’ Conflicts of Interest

 

Proxy advisory firms may have significant business relationships with the subjects of their research and voting recommendations. For example, a proxy advisory firm board member also sits on the board of a public company for which the proxy advisory firm will write a research report. This and similar situations give rise to an actual or apparent conflict of interest.

 

In order to avoid concerns that the conflicting interests of the engaged proxy advisory firm have influenced proxy voting recommendations, the Sub-Adviser will take the following steps:

 

A due diligence team made up of employees of the Sub-Adviser and/or its affiliates will meet with the proxy advisory firm on an annual basis and determine through a review of their policies and procedures and through inquiry that the proxy advisory firm has established a system of internal controls that provide reasonable assurance that their voting recommendations are not influenced by the business relationships they have with the subjects of their research.

 

 

 

 

Whenever the standard voting guidelines call for voting a proposal in accordance with the proxy advisory firm recommendation and the proxy advisory firm has disclosed that they have a conflict of interest with respect to that issuer, the PVOT will take the following steps: (a) the PVOT will obtain a copy of the research report and recommendations published by another proxy advisory firm for that issuer; (b) the Director of Proxy Voting, or his designee, will review both the engaged proxy advisory firm research report and the research report of the other proxy advisory firm and determine what vote will be cast. The PVOT will report all proxies voted in this manner to the Proxy Committee on a quarterly basis. Alternatively, the PVOT may seek direction from the Committee on how the proposal shall be voted.

 

Proxy Voting Report

 

A report on “Form N-PX” of how the Fund voted any proxies during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available via the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

 

 

 

Gateway Investment Advisers, LLC 

Section II: Proxy Voting, Policy 4

 

PROXY VOTING POLICY

 

4.1          Overview

 

This proxy voting policy and related procedures apply to clients who desire Gateway Investment Advisers, LLC (Gateway) to vote proxies on their behalf, including registered investment companies advised (or sub-advised) by Gateway. Questions regarding this policy should be directed to Gateway’s CCO.

 

4.2          Introduction

 

Gateway recognizes that voting rights are financial assets of its clients and that they must be managed accordingly; with voting decisions being made in the best interests of its clients who wish Gateway to exercise such authority and of shareholders of the registered investment companies for which it acts as adviser or sub-adviser (hereinafter referred collectively as “Clients”). Gateway, in turn, has retained Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) as its proxy agent to recommend how to vote each proxy as well as administer the voting of proxies on behalf of Gateway.

 

4.3          Role of Proxy Voting Agent

 

Gateway has engaged ISS, an independent proxy voting service, to assist in the voting of proxies. ISS is responsible for coordinating with each Client’s custodian to ensure that all proxy ballots relating to a Client’s portfolio are processed in a timely manner. To accommodate this process, Gateway has instructed ISS to follow the ISS United States Proxy Voting Guidelines and to automatically vote in accordance with ISS’ vote recommendations no later than five (5) calendar days prior to the vote submission deadline without Gateway’s prior approval.

 

ISS, with its vast research capabilities, has developed its U.S. and global proxy voting guidelines, which provide vote recommendations for proxy voting, that are designed to serve the best interests of investors. These guidelines outline the rationale for determining how particular issues should be voted. Gateway’s CIO, on an annual basis, will determine whether ISS’ applicable proxy guidelines continue to be in the best interests of Gateway’s Clients. Gateway will instruct ISS to vote in accordance with these guidelines unless at least one of the following conditions apply:

 

A. Gateway’s portfolio management team has decided to override the ISS vote recommendation for a Client(s) based on its own determination that the Client(s) would best be served with a vote contrary to the ISS recommendation based on Gateway’s higher degree of analysis of ISS’ vote recommendation. Such decision(s) will be documented by Gateway (and communicated to ISS if a decision(s) led to a vote override). Gateway’s CIO will determine, on an annual basis, as to which classification level an ISS vote recommendation should be analyzed further by Gateway (which may include highly contested matters regarding mergers and acquisitions, dissolutions, conversions, consolidations, or contested elections of directors); or

 

B. Gateway’s portfolio management team has decided to override ISS’ vote recommendation for a Client(s) based on its own determination that the Client(s) would best be served with a vote contrary to ISS’ recommendation based on Gateway’s consideration of certain additional information. Specifically, in the event Gateway becomes aware that an issuer has filed additional soliciting material with the SEC regarding ISS’ vote recommendation and if such additional information would reasonably be expected to affect Gateway’s voting determination, Gateway will consider this supplemental information if such additional material was submitted to Gateway via ISS no later than five (5) calendar days prior to the vote submission deadline. Only additional information from issuers that apply to the classification levels determined by the CIO would be considered information reasonably expected to affect Gateway’s voting determination. Information received within the five (5) calendar days before the cutoff time frame, but before the vote submission deadline, may be considered, but only on a best-efforts basis. Decision(s) as to whether this additional information affects whether or not Gateway follows ISS’ vote recommendation will be documented by Gateway (and communicated to ISS if the analysis led to a vote override); or

 

1 

 

 

Gateway Investment Advisers, LLC

 Section II: Proxy Voting, Policy 4

 

C. ISS does not give a vote recommendation, in which case Gateway will independently determine how a particular issue should be voted. In these instances, Gateway, through its portfolio management team, will document the reason(s) used in determining a vote and communicate Gateway’s voting instruction to ISS. Gateway will generally seek to vote in accordance with ISS’ guidelines; or

 

D. If voting on any particular security compromises Gateway’s ability to later transact in such security (e.g. shareblocking practices) or if, in Gateway’s judgment, the expected cost associated with the vote exceeds the expected benefits of the vote (e.g. non-U.S. security restrictions), then Gateway will abstain from voting on a particular security; or

 

E. If voting would impose costs on the Client, such as opportunity costs for the Client resulting from restricting the use of securities for lending in order to preserve the right to vote, then Gateway will not make efforts to vote these securities on behalf of the Client.

 

4.4          Conflicts of Interest

 

From time to time, Gateway or an employee or another affiliate of Gateway may have a conflict of interest with respect to a proxy vote. A conflict of interest may exist, for example, if Gateway has a business relationship (or potential business relationship) with either the company soliciting the proxy or a third party that has a material interest in the outcome of a proxy vote or that is actively lobbying for a particular outcome of a proxy vote. Any individual with knowledge of any actual or potential conflict of interest, such as a personal conflict of interest (e.g., familial relationship with company management) or of a business relationship (e.g., Gateway is the investment manager to a soliciting company), shall disclose that conflict to the Legal and Compliance Department. In the event of a reported conflict, the Legal and Compliance Department will determine and record how the proxies in question shall be voted; although it is expected that ISS vote recommendations will be followed unless a determination to vote contrary to ISS is documented.

 

From time to time, ISS experiences conflicts of interest with respect to proxy votes. A conflict of interest can exist, for example, if a subsidiary of ISS has a business consultant relationship with an issuer and ISS is determining a vote recommendation on the same issuer. Gateway has formalized due diligence processes in place to determine, on an annual basis, if ISS’ efforts to mitigate such conflicts are reasonable.

 

2 

 

 

Gateway Investment Advisers, LLC

 Section II: Proxy Voting, Policy 4

 

4.5          Due Diligence of Proxy Adviser

 

Gateway will follow formalized procedures to undertake continuing due diligence of ISS, both in the areas of research and the administrative tasks of proxy voting.

 

4.6          Record Retention Requirements

 

A. In accordance with Rule 204-2(c)(2) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, Gateway will maintain the following records for a period of not less than five years:

 

1. This Gateway proxy voting policy;

2. Records of Clients’ written requests for this policy and/or their voting record;

3. Gateway’s written response to such written or oral requests; and in instances that arise due to circumstances describe in Section 4.3 A, B and C, a memo as to how Gateway arrived at its decision to vote the proxies at issue.

 

B. ISS will make and retain, on Gateway’s behalf (as evidenced by an undertaking from ISS to provide a copy promptly upon request), the following documents:

 

1. A copy of a proxy statement*;

2. A record of each vote cast by Gateway on behalf of a Client; and

3. A copy of any document that was material to making a decision how to vote proxies on behalf of a Client or that memorialized the basis of that decision.

 

*Gateway may also rely on obtaining a copy from the EDGAR system.

 

4.7          How to Obtain Voting Information

 

At any time, a Client may obtain this Proxy Voting Policy along with ISS’ Proxy Voting Guidelines Summary and his or her voting record upon the Client’s written or oral request to Gateway.

 

Effective Date: February 15, 2008, revised December 11, 2008, revised February 18, 2015, revised February 28, 2021, revised June 23, 2022.

 

3 

 

  

 

Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures

 

The following proxy voting policy sets forth our general principles and our process for voting on securities held in client accounts where Leeward Investments, LLC (“Leeward”) has discretion to vote proxies. Our authority to vote proxies on behalf of our clients is established by our advisory contract or comparable documents. In addition to SEC requirements governing advisers, our proxy voting policies reflect the long-standing fiduciary standards and responsibilities for ERISA accounts as well.

 

General Principles

 

In order to set a framework within which proxy questions should be considered and voted, the following general principles should be applied:

 

As a fiduciary under ERISA or otherwise, the discretion to vote proxies for a client’s account should be exercised keeping in mind a fiduciary’s duty to use its best efforts to preserve or enhance the value of the client’s account. Leeward votes proxy ballots with the goal of fostering the interests of the client or the participants in the case of an ERISA account.

 

  Proxy questions are considered within the individual circumstances of the issuer. It is possible that individual circumstances might mean that a given proxy ballot could be voted differently than what is generally done in other cases.

 

It is Leeward’s general policy that, when given authority to vote proxies for a client’s account, we must be authorized to vote all proxies for the account in our discretion. We do not generally accept partial voting authority or instructions from clients on how to vote on specific issues. Certain clients may direct us to vote proxies in accordance with a specific set of guidelines or recommendations appropriate to their circumstances in which case we will not have voting discretion but will facilitate voting in accordance with a client’s direction. Our clients may wish to retain proxy voting authority and vote their own proxies in order to satisfy their individual corporate governance goals.

 

Leeward maintains a set of proxy voting guidelines that describe in greater detail how we will generally vote specific issues for our clients. While it is not an exhaustive list, it is intended to serve as the foundation on which we make most of our proxy voting decisions. These guidelines are available upon request. Leeward will from time to time review our proxy voting policy and guidelines and may adopt changes. Clients may contact their Client Service Officer or the Compliance Office by calling (617) 468-6700 or via e-mail at [email protected] for a copy of our current guidelines or to obtain a record of how proxies were voted for their account.

 

Process

 

Leeward is responsible for fair and accurate proxy voting and for ensuring that proxy ballots are voted in a timely manner. Leeward has hired Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (“ISS”), a third party proxy voting vendor, to facilitate voting of proxy ballots based on guidelines established by Leeward. Our Chief Operating Officer works with ISS and oversees the proxy voting process and ensures that proxy voting is taking place, records are being maintained and that reporting and required filings are being made as necessary.

 

 

 

 

Limitations

 

Leeward may abstain from voting a client proxy if, in its opinion, the value obtained by voting the proxy is outweighed by the unique cost or the operational or trading constraints to a client account or situation. In accordance with fiduciary duties, Leeward weighs the costs and benefits of voting certain proxy proposals and makes an informed decision with respect to whether voting a given proxy proposal is prudent.

 

Some of Leeward’s clients engage in securities lending programs under which shares of an issuer may be on loan while that issuer is conducting a proxy solicitation. Shares that are on loan are not eligible to be voted. Generally, Leeward does not recall shares out on loan and therefore, shares that are on loan over record date are not voted. Additionally, Leeward may purchase a company’s “non-voting” shares. In this case, the shares are not eligible to be voted.

 

Conflicts of Interest

 

Leeward recognizes that the potential for conflicts of interest could arise in situations where we have discretion to vote client proxies and where Leeward has material business relationships or material personal or family relationships. A conflict of interest may exist when client portfolios hold shares of a publicly traded company that is also a Leeward client. To address potential conflicts, we have established a Proxy Voting Committee (“Committee”). The Committee consists of representatives from the Compliance and Operations departments including our Chief Operating Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, and relevant Portfolio Manager (or their designee). The Committee will use reasonable efforts to determine whether a potential conflict exists, including maintaining a list of clients or securities that may pose a potential conflict.

 

Securities identified as potential conflicts will be provided to ISS and flagged on the proxy voting system. Members of the Committee will receive an email weekly from ISS notifying them of a proxy vote taking place on a security from the list. Generally, votes cast for a security that represents a potential conflict of interest will default to Leeward’s standard voting policies. If a portfolio manager wishes to change the vote, the rationale for the change must be provided in writing to the Committee and the Committee will review the request for conflicts. If no conflicts exist, the Committee will authorize instruct ISS to process the vote change. All meeting minutes and Committee decisions will be kept by the designated Committee member.

 

Recordkeeping

 

Leeward shall maintain proxy voting records pursuant to Section 206-2 of the Advisers Act. Such records will include a copy of policies and procedures, proxy statements, a record of each vote that is cast, any document created that was material to the decision on how to vote, as well as a copy of client requests for proxy voting information and responses to such requests. Leeward also relies on ISS to provide certain proxy voting details promptly upon request in order to respond to certain requests for information or records.

 

Last Updated: November 2021

 

2

 

 

 

Proxy Voting Guidelines Summary

 

The proxy voting guidelines contained herein are a sampling of select, key guidelines and are not all inclusive. LMCG will review our proxy voting policies and guidelines from time to time and may adopt changes. Proxy questions are considered within the individual circumstances of the issuer and therefore it is possible that individual circumstances might mean that a given proxy ballot could be voted differently than what is generally done in other cases. Clients may contact their Client Service Officer or the Compliance Office by calling (617) 380-5600 or via e-mail at [email protected] or [email protected] for a copy of our most current guidelines or to obtain a record of how proxies were voted for their account.

 

1.   Board of Directors:

 

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

 

Generally vote For director nominees except under the following circumstances, which may result in a vote Against or Withhold:

 

Independent directors make up less than a majority of directors

 

Company lacks an audit, compensation or nominating committee

 

Nominee attended less than 75% of board and committee meetings

 

Nominee sits on more than 5 public company boards

 

Actions of Nominee or committees on which Nominee serves are inconsistent with principles of good governance such as failing to act on a shareholder proposal receiving majority vote or not acting on takeover offers where majority of shares are tendered

 

Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections

 

Vote Case-By-Case on the election of directors in contested elections, considering the following:

 

Management’s track record;

 

Background to the contested election;

 

  Qualifications of Director nominee(s);

 

Strategic plan of dissident slate and quality of critique against management;

 

Likelihood that the proposed goals and objectives can be achieved; and

 

Stock ownership positions

 

Classified Boards

 

Generally vote For proposals to declassify boards and vote Against or Withhold for directors who adopt classified board structures.

 

Proxy Access

 

Generally vote For management or shareholder approval for proxy access incorporating the following guidelines:

 

Nominating group should hold no less than 3% of company’s outstanding shares for a minimum of 3 years

 

Proposed nominees represent no more than 25% of the board

 

LMCG Update: June 2019

 

1 

 

 

Independent Chair (Separate CEO/Chair)

 

Generally vote For shareholder proposals requiring that the chairman position be filled by an independent director unless there are substantial reasons to recommend against the proposal, such as counterbalancing governance structure.

 

Majority Vote Shareholder Proposals

 

Generally vote For binding resolutions requesting that the board change the company’s bylaws to stipulate that directors need to be elected with an affirmative majority of votes cast.

 

2.   Audit-related Items:

 

Audit Committee related items

 

Generally vote For members of the Audit Committee unless:

 

Non-audit fees paid to auditor are excessive

 

Company receives an adverse opinion on financial statements

 

Evidence of inappropriate indemnification language that limits ability of the company or shareholders to pursue legal recourse against audit firm

 

Vote Case-By-Case on members of the Audit Committee and potentially the full board if:

 

Poor accounting practices result in fraud, misapplication of GAAP, and/or other material weaknesses

 

Auditor Ratification

 

Generally vote For proposals to ratify auditors unless:

 

Auditor lacks independence;

 

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;

 

Poor accounting practices are identified such as fraud, misapplication of GAAP and material weaknesses are identified; or

 

Fees for non-audit services exceed audit and audit-related fees

 

Vote Case-By-Case on shareholder proposals asking companies to prohibit or limit their auditors from engaging in non-audit services.

 

3.   Shareholder Rights and Defenses:

 

Advanced Notice Requirements for Shareholder Proposals/Nominations

 

Vote Case-By-Case on advance notice proposals, giving support to proposals that allow shareholders to submit proposals/nominations reasonably close to the meeting date within the broadest window possible.

 

Poison Pills

 

Generally 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 poison pill if shareholders have approved the adoption of the plan or the board determines that it is in the best interest of shareholders to adopt a pill without delay.

 

LMCG Update: June 2019

 

2 

 

 

Vote Case-By-Case on management proposals on poison pill ratification, focusing on the features of the shareholder rights plan.

  

Supermajority Vote Requirements

 

Generally vote For proposals to reduce supermajority vote requirements and conversely vote against proposals to impose a supermajority vote.

 

Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings

 

Generally vote for proposals that provide shareholders with the ability to call special meetings and against proposals to restrict this ability.

 

4.   Capital and Corporate Structure:

 

Common Stock Authorization

 

Vote Case-By-Case on proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance.

 

Dual Class Structure

 

Generally vote Against proposals to create a new class of common stock with superior voting rights

 

Share Repurchase Programs

 

Vote For management proposals to institute open market repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms.

 

Mergers and Acquisitions

 

Vote Case-By-Case for mergers and acquisitions, review and evaluate the merits and drawbacks of the proposed transaction balancing various and sometimes countervailing factors including:

 

Valuation;

 

Market reaction;

 

Strategic rationale;

 

Negotiations and process;

 

Conflicts of interest; and

 

Governance

 

5.   Compensation:

 

Compensation Committee related items

 

In the absence of an Advisory vote on executive compensation, vote Against or Withhold on members of the Compensation Committee or potentially the full board if:

 

There is significant misalignment between CEO pay and company performance

 

Company maintains problematic pay practices related to non-performance based compensation elements, incentives that motivate excessive risk taking and options backdating

 

Board exhibits significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders

 

Company fails to submit one-time transfer of stock options to shareholder vote

 

Company fails to fulfill terms of burn rate commitment made to shareholders

  

LMCG Update: June 2019

 

3 

 

 

Vote Case-By-Case on members of the Compensation Committee and the MSOP proposal if the Company’s previous say-on-pay proposal received support of less than 70% of votes cast, taking into account:

 

Discloser of engagement efforts with major institutional shareholders regarding issues that led to low level of support

 

Specific actions to address issues that contributed to low level of support

 

Other recent compensation practices

 

Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated

 

Company’s ownership structure

 

Whether support level was less than 50%,

 

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay) Management Proposals

 

Vote Case-By-Case on ballot items related to executive pay and practices

 

Vote Against Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation (MSOP) if:

 

There is significant misalignment between CEO pay and company performance

 

Company maintains problematic pay practices

 

Board exhibits significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders

 

Vote Against or Withhold from members of the Compensation Committee if:

 

There is no MSOP on the ballot

 

Board fails to adequately respond to a previous MSOP proposal that received less than 70% support

 

The company has poor compensation practices

 

Vote For annual advisory votes on compensation.

 

Executive Severance Plans/Golden Parachutes

 

Vote For proposals requiring golden parachutes be submitted for shareholder ratification.

 

Vote Case-By-Case on proposals to ratify golden parachutes. Generally, the severance plan should pay out no more than three times base compensation, have a trigger mechanism beyond management control, and change in control payouts should require both a change in control and termination.

 

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

 

Vote For employee stock purchase plans where the stock purchase price is at least 85% of fair market value, the offering period is 27 months or less, and the number of shares allocated to the plan is 10 percent or less of the company’s outstanding shares.

 

Option Exchange Programs/Re-pricing Options

 

Vote Case-By-Case on management proposals seeking approval to exchange/re-price options. Vote For shareholder proposals to put options repricing to a shareholder vote.

 

LMCG Update: June 2019

 

4 

 

 

6.   Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR) Issues:

  

General approach on CSR issues is to vote Case-By-Case taking into account factors such as impact on shareholder value, significance of company’s business affected by the proposal, impact on company reputation, response by other companies to similar issue and degree to which proprietary or confidential information would be disclosed.

 

Some issues that fall under this topic include proposals on:

 

Company’s political spending, lobbying efforts and charitable contributions

 

Animal welfare practices

 

Energy and environmental issues

 

Equal employment opportunity and discrimination

 

Diversity

 

Product safety and hazardous materials

 

7.   Voting in markets outside of the United States

 

LMCG buys securities, on behalf of its clients’, issued by companies incorporated in foreign countries. We will evaluate, where applicable, issues presented to shareholders of foreign companies within the context of these guidelines. LMCG may look to industry-guidance to vote on items that are on a ballot solely due to the requirements of a particular foreign market.

 

Proxy voting in some foreign countries requires “share blocking”, which prevents selling of the shares for a period of time around the date of the annual meeting. LMCG believes that the risks associated with loss of liquidity outweigh the benefits of voting a proxy ballot. Therefore, in general, LMCG will not vote proxy ballots in countries that require share blocking.

 

8.   Conflicts of Interest:

 

Conflicts of interest could exist when the Firm holds a security issued by a client in client portfolios, and the Firm is required to vote that security. When there is a potential conflict with a client, the Firm will look to these guidelines and the ISS recommendation for voting guidance.

 

LMCG Update: June 2019

 

5 

 

 

 

 

Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures

 

The following proxy voting policy sets forth our general principles and our process for voting on securities held in client accounts where LMCG Investments, LLC (‘LMCG”) has discretion to vote proxies. Our authority to vote proxies on behalf of our clients is established by our advisory contract or comparable documents. In addition to SEC requirements governing advisers, our proxy voting policies reflect the long-standing fiduciary standards and responsibilities for ERISA accounts as well.

 

General Principles

 

In order to set a framework within which proxy questions should be considered and voted, the following general principles should be applied:

 

As a fiduciary under ERISA or otherwise, the discretion to vote proxies for a client’s account should be exercised keeping in mind a fiduciary’s duty to use its best efforts to preserve or enhance the value of the client’s account. LMCG votes proxy ballots with the goal of fostering the interests of the client or the participants in the case of an ERISA account.

 

Proxy questions are considered within the individual circumstances of the issuer. It is possible that individual circumstances might mean that a given proxy ballot could be voted differently than what is generally done in other cases.

 

It is LMCG’s general policy that, when given authority to vote proxies for a client’s account, we must be authorized to vote all proxies for the account in our discretion. We do not generally accept partial voting authority or instructions from clients on how to vote on specific issues. Certain clients may direct us to vote proxies in accordance with a specific set of guidelines or recommendations appropriate to their circumstances in which case we will not have voting discretion but will facilitate voting in accordance with a client’s direction. Our clients may wish to retain proxy voting authority and vote their own proxies in order to satisfy their individual corporate governance goals.

 

LMCG maintains a set of proxy voting guidelines that describe in greater detail how we will generally vote specific issues for our clients. While it is not an exhaustive list, it is intended to serve as the foundation on which we make most of our proxy voting decisions. These guidelines are available upon request. LMCG will from time to time review our proxy voting policy and guidelines and may adopt changes. Clients may contact their Client Service Officer or the Compliance Office by calling (617) 380-5600 or via e-mail at [email protected] for a copy of our current guidelines or to obtain a record of how proxies were voted for their account.

 

Process

 

LMCG is responsible for fair and accurate proxy voting and for ensuring that proxy ballots are voted in a timely manner. LMCG has hired Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (“ISS”), a third party proxy voting vendor, to facilitate voting of proxy ballots based on guidelines established by LMCG. LMCG’s Proxy Voting Administrator works with ISS and oversees the proxy voting process. The Proxy Voting Administrator ensures that proxy voting is taking place, records are being maintained and that reporting and required filings are being made as necessary.

 

For proxy voting on behalf of private client accounts, LMCG may follow an accepted industry practice of voting shares on a rolled-up basis when the same security is held across multiple client accounts. In general this process is utilized when numerous accounts are held at the same custodian bank. For accounts in which proxy ballots are voted in this manner, proxy votes are reported in the aggregate.

  

Last amended: October 2023

 

6 

 

 

Limitations

 

LMCG may abstain from voting a client proxy if, in its opinion, the value obtained by voting the proxy is outweighed by the unique cost or the operational or trading constraints to a client account or situation. In accordance with fiduciary duties, LMCG weighs the costs and benefits of voting certain proxy proposals and makes an informed decision with respect to whether voting a given proxy proposal is prudent.

 

Some of LMCG’s clients engage in securities lending programs under which shares of an issuer may be on loan while that issuer is conducting a proxy solicitation. Shares that are on loan are not eligible to be voted. Generally, LMCG does not recall shares out on loan and therefore, shares that are on loan over record date are not voted. Additionally, LMCG may purchase a company’s “non-voting” shares. In this case, the shares are not eligible to be voted.

 

Proxy voting in some foreign countries requires “share blocking”, which prevents selling of the shares for a period of time around the date of the annual meeting. LMCG feels that the risks associated with loss of liquidity outweigh the benefits of voting a proxy ballot. Therefore, in general, LMCG will not vote proxy ballots in countries that require share blocking.

 

Conflicts of Interest

 

LMCG recognizes that the potential for conflicts of interest could arise in situations where we have discretion to vote client proxies and where LMCG has material business relationships or material personal or family relationships. A conflict of interest may exist when client portfolios hold shares of a publicly traded company that is also an LMCG client. To address potential conflicts, we have established a Proxy Voting Committee (“Committee”). The Committee consists of representatives from the Compliance and Operations departments including the Chief Compliance Officer, Head of Operations and relevant Portfolio Manager (or their designee). The Committee will use reasonable efforts to determine whether a potential conflict exists, including maintaining a list of clients or securities that may pose a potential conflict.

 

Securities identified as potential conflicts will be provided to ISS and flagged on the proxy voting system. Members of the Committee will receive an email weekly from ISS notifying them of a proxy vote taking place on a security from the list. Generally, votes cast for a security that represents a potential conflict of interest will default to LMCG’s standard voting policies. If a portfolio manager wishes to change the vote, the rationale for the change must be provided in writing to the Committee and the Committee will review the request for conflicts. If no conflicts exist, the Committee will authorize the Proxy Voting Administrator to process the vote change. All meeting minutes and Committee decisions will be kept by the designated Committee member.

 

Recordkeeping

 

LMCG shall maintain proxy voting records pursuant to Section 206-2 of the Advisers Act. Such records will include a copy of policies and procedures, proxy statements, a record of each vote that is cast, any document created that was material to the decision on how to vote, as well as a copy of client requests for proxy voting information and responses to such requests. LMCG’s Compliance Office also relies on ISS to provide certain proxy voting details promptly upon request in order to respond to certain requests for information or records.

 

Last amended: October 2023

 

 

7 

 

LOOMIS, SAYLES & COMPANY
PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
March 24, 2022

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.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

2

 

 

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

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 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.

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

3

 

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

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 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.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

4

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

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.

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

 

5

 

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and 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.

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;

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

6

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

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,

 

(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,

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

7

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

(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.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

8

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

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 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.

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

9

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

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:

 

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.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

10

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

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 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.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

11

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

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.

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

12

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

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.

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.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

13

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures 

 

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.
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.

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

14

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures 

 

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.

 

C. Review proposals to increase the number of authorized blank check preferred shares on a case-by-case basis.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

15

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

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.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

16

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

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?

 

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.

 

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

17

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

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.

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.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

18

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

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.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

19

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

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 (“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.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

20

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

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 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 & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

21

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

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.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

22

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

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 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.

Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. March 2022 All Rights Reserved

 

23

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

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

 

24

 

GRAPHIC

Sustainable Investing& Proxy Voting Policy The information contained herein is the property of Lord Abbett and may not copied, or disclosed in whole or in part, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, reprographic, recording or otherwise) outside of Lord Abbett without prior written permission. November 2022

GRAPHIC

2 Contents Sustainable Investment Policy 3 • Introduction 3 • Governance of Sustainable Investing 4 • Fundamental Analysis 4 • Engagement 7 • Corporate Governance Guidelines 8 Proxy Voting Policies 9 • ESG 10 • Board of Directors 12 • Compensation and Benefits 15 • Shareholder Rights 17 • Corporate Matters 19 • Auditors 20 Proxy Voting Process 21 • Overview 21 • Retention and Oversight of Proxy Service Provider 22 • Conflicts of Interest 22 • Securities Lending 23 • Shareholder Resolutions 23 • Share Blocking 23 Appendix – Targeted Exclusions Policy 24 SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT POLICY PROXY VOTING PROCESS PROXY VOTING POLICIES

GRAPHIC

3 Sustainable Investment Policy Introduction We consider ESG factors as part of the mosaic of information our investment professionals develop for each security. To maximize our potential, it is essential to provide our investors with access to powerful tools and extensive data. We consider ESG factors as key inputs to fundamental research. Our investment professionals assess relevant ESG considerations during their due diligence and monitoring processes. SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT POLICY

GRAPHIC

4 Engaging with issuers is instrumental to our ability to develop a full understanding of each issuer’s business and strategy. We leverage various forms of engagement, including proxy voting, with the intent of understanding, exchanging and potentially influencing perspectives on ESG issues. Lord Abbett is a signatory to the United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (“PRI”). We support the PRI framework in its efforts to understand the investment implications of ESG factors and to support its signatories in incorporating these factors into investment and ownership decisions. Our definition of responsible investing is aligned with the PRI definition, which is a strategy and practice to incorporate environmental, social and governance factors in investment decisions and active ownership. In accordance with PRI guidance, we seek to use responsible investment to enhance returns and better manage risks. The intent of our Sustainable Investing & Proxy Voting Policy is to express our commitment to sustainable investing, and to outline the key pillars of our approach across all investment strategies. Our sustainable investing policy informs our investment process across all asset classes, and we regularly review it to ensure its continued relevance. Governance of Sustainable Investing Three governance committees guide and oversee our approach to sustainable investing: • Executive Committee: One of two committees focused on leading and operating the firm, this committee provides leadership, strategic direction, and risk management for the organization. • Investment Committee: One of two committees focused on leading and operating the firm, this committee is responsible for fostering a culture of trust and respect that empowers the investment teams to operate at peak performance. • Global Corporate Citizenship Committee: This committee is responsible for serving as steward of our mission and ensuring our ongoing progress against our sustainability commitments. Fundamental Analysis We strive to deliver superior long-term, risk-adjusted investment performance across all strategies. We recognize that ESG Risk factors can materially impact the investment performance of our portfolios. Our investment teams therefore focus on the ESG Risk factors that are material to each issuer, industry, and asset class, incorporating the analysis into our investment process to fully assess both the risk and return potential of all investments. We utilize quantitative risk scoring to facilitate comparative analysis across issuers, industries, and sectors. We incorporate ESG risk scores, controversy scores, and other relevant ESG-related metrics offered by third-party research providers to supplement our own analysis. In segments of the market where external ESG research is not available or does not cover the full spectrum of our holdings, we have developed proprietary scoring methodologies that are unique to each asset class. We expect our approach to the integration of ESG factors to continue to evolve, as the availability of data improves, and as research and regulatory standards and expectations regarding ESG issues continue to evolve. SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT POLICY

GRAPHIC

5 Corporate Issuers When analyzing the risk/reward profile of a security, we evaluate the impact of ESG risks on the operations and enterprise value and, as with any other risks, seek to ensure that the expected return for every investment is commensurate with those risks. Our investment professionals rely on information from various sources, including companies’ filings, financial press, third party ESG research providers, and rating agencies. ESG scores - proprietary and provided by third party vendors - supplement our qualitative analysis. ESG risk and controversy scores are available to our investment professionals in our proprietary systems. Additionally, regular engagement with management teams provides important insights into the material ESG risk factors impacting the company as well as a better understanding of the initiatives in place to mitigate these risks. Sovereign Issuers Our ESG integration approach for sovereign issuers is also rooted in three process pillars: quantitative data, qualitative analysis, and engagement. ESG considerations are important factors in our analysis of global macro drivers and country selection, and company and sector fundamentals. When evaluating environmental risks, we assess each country’s vulnerability to climate change and other natural disaster risks, evaluating each country’s performance on various metrics, including natural resource management, emissions, and energy use. When assessing social factors, we consider measures of human development, inequality, employment, health, and education/literacy. In our assessments of governance, we focus our review on government effectiveness, political stability/rule of law, human rights, and the economic environment. Our systematic sovereign risk assessments include quantitative analysis based on ESG data derived from third-party providers. We review historical trends and assess countries on a relative basis against regional and rating peers. These country level data are also available in our proprietary systems and can be easily accessed by our investment professionals. We also incorporate a qualitative analysis of ESG factors to complement the data, leveraging our country visits and interactions with government officials, academic institutions, regulators, and multilateral organizations. Municipal Issuers We developed a proprietary framework for municipal bonds that assigns ESG ratings to all credits held in portfolios we manage. In developing this framework, we created a series of matrices for municipal bond sectors. Each matrix includes a list of ESG subfactors we deem material and a series of metrics that we track and evaluate. These factors and metrics are weighted based on materiality and ultimately enable us to assign an ESG rating to each credit. In addition to providing ESG ratings, we evaluate use of proceeds for each credit. The ESG proprietary ratings are captured in our proprietary platform and are easily accessible by analysts and portfolio managers. As for the other asset classes, our municipal bond ESG integration process is fluid, as research regarding ESG issues continues to evolve. Many of the metrics that we consider to be meaningful today may change in the future. Therefore, we continue to study ESG trends in each sector and review our framework periodically to ensure efficacy. SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT POLICY

GRAPHIC

6 Securitized Products We developed a proprietary framework to incorporate ESG Risk considerations in our analysis of securitized products that focuses on governance and long-term sustainability. It is our long-term objective to invest in securities that will outperform on the basis of our variant perception on ESG factors and in turn lower the cost of capital for the issuers of those securities. The process begins with an assessment of key parties related to the securitization, including servicer, sponsor, manager, and originator. Our approach includes asset-class adjustments to account for inherent risks that are generally difficult to mitigate. We then perform security-level evaluation based on various factors we deem material and assess market structure by examining the economic drivers of each sector, including major stakeholder behavior, regulatory frameworks, and liquidity in end markets. Our process relies on the analysis of deal disclosure documents and filings, ratings agency reports, collateral datafiles, relevant historical asset performance, financial statements and presentations of related parties, pricing and commentary on related securities, web searches, and engagement with company management. Collectively, the insights derived from these steps enable us to assign an ESG score to each issue. Our ESG scoring system is accessible in our proprietary system and available to our investment professionals. SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT POLICY

GRAPHIC

7 Engagement Engaging with issuers allows us to develop a more complete understanding of each company’s business and offers us the potential to positively influence long-term performance. In addition to corporate governance, we focus on topics that we believe represent the greatest sources of risk and opportunity facing our global society: Methods of Engagement We utilize several methods of engagement in our stewardship efforts. The teams involved, frequency of engagements, and method used vary by situation, but typically depend on the issuer, issue, and asset class. Company Meetings: Our investment teams routinely engage directly with issuers on ESG issues as part of our approach to fundamental research. These meetings enable us to develop a more complete understanding of each company’s business and offer us the potential to positively influence long-term performance. We approach engagement as a strategic partnership with the issuers in which we invest. Collective Engagements: When significant ESG risk has been identified, Lord Abbett may work in collaboration with external organizations, such as Climate Action 100+, to join like-minded investors in our engagement efforts. Collective engagement presents an opportunity to address key issues, while enabling us to contribute to and learn from industry peers. Written Communications: In instances when direct engagement is difficult or impractical, we may utilize more formal written communications to convey our polices or solicit information. Examples include letters to company management, governmental or regulatory bodies, and surveys/ questionnaires. Published Works: We value transparency and, therefore, seek to publish policies and other content that signal our positions on key ESG-related topics. These published works augment our direct engagement efforts and allow issuers and other stakeholders to gain an understanding of our values, priorities, and beliefs. Proxy Voting: Proxy Voting is a key lever of engagement that is used to influence company behavior and signal our positions on key ESG issues. We evaluate and vote proxies in a manner that we believe maximizes shareholder value. SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT POLICY CLIMATE Identifying investment opportunities associated with capital directed toward green innovation EQUITY Closing opportunity gaps for underrepresented communities for a more inclusive future WELL-BEING Empowering well-being – physical, mental, and financial – for a more resilient future

GRAPHIC

8 Corporate Governance Guidelines Lord Abbett believes that companies with strong corporate governance practices are better positioned for long-term success. Our fundamental research process includes a thorough review of companies’ corporate governance profiles, with a particular focus on the following key factors: • Board of Directors – An independent and effective board is critical to the long-term success of a company. Particular attention is paid to board composition, including: – Director Independence – Diversity (background, gender, race, etc.) – Board Committees and Leadership • Auditors – Independent auditors are necessary to ensure the accuracy and legitimacy of company finances and disclosures. • Capital Structure – Companies should make capital structure and allocation decisions with the goal of maximizing long-term shareholder value. • Compensation – Executive compensation, including equity-based incentive plans, should be aligned with long-term shareholder objectives. • Shareholder Rights – Shareholders should be afforded certain rights, including the right to vote, to ensure accountability of the board to the company’s shareholders. • Disclosure – Companies should provide robust public disclosure of relevant information to allow for a full and accurate assessment of a security by investors. As an active manager, we incorporate each of these corporate governance factors into our fundamental analysis and decision-making process. SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT POLICY

GRAPHIC

9 Proxy Voting Policies Under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, Lord Abbett acts as a fiduciary that owes each of its clients’ duties of care and loyalty with respect to all services undertaken on the client’s behalf, including proxy voting. This means that Lord Abbett is required to vote proxies in the manner we believe is in the best interests of each client, including the Lord Abbett Funds (the “Funds”) and their shareholders. We take a long-term perspective in investing our clients’ assets and employ the same perspective in voting proxies on their behalf. We view proxy voting as a critical form of engagement that enables us to use our voice together with other levers of engagement. We evaluate all proxy proposals based on their potential effects on our clients’ long-term interests and incorporate vote themes into our ongoing engagement with issuers. Set forth below are the policies and principles we apply in voting proxies on our clients’ behalf. PROXY VOTING POLICIES

GRAPHIC

10 Environmental, Social, and Governance Proposals related to ESG issues are typically initiated by shareholders and urge a company to disclose certain information or change certain business practices. Lord Abbett will vote for proposals related to ESG factors when they seek useful disclosure or positive changes to business practices. We will vote against proposals we believe are unduly burdensome or which impose substantial costs on a company with no countervailing economic benefits to the company’s shareholders. We evaluate proposals involving ESG matters on a case-by-case basis, understanding that ESG risks and opportunities can vary greatly by industry and company. As a result, we may vote similar proposals differently based on the particular facts and circumstances. When voting, we will pay particular attention to highly controversial issues, as well as instances where management has failed repeatedly to take corrective actions with respect to an issue. Climate The transition to a low carbon economy is driving innovation and creating investment opportunities. As investors, it is critical to understand and participate in this significant transformation. We incorporate risks associated with the transition to a low carbon economy into our investment process and we expect companies to publicly disclose material data related to climate-related risk and opportunities. Lord Abbett is a supporter of Climate Action 100+, and expects that companies in carbon intensive industries will: • Implement a governance framework which clearly articulates board oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities; • Disclose a climate transition plan or roadmap for reduced emissions; • Maintain disclosure in-line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”). Lord Abbett generally supports proposals that request a company to disclose greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions or report on plans to reduce GHG emissions. In evaluating climate-related proposals, Lord Abbett will consider current company disclosures, a company’s current GHG emissions, GHG reduction goals, peer disclosures, engagement, and other climate-related commitments, among other factors. Equity Lord Abbett believes that closing opportunity gaps for underrepresented communities is imperative for a more inclusive future and that equity is vital to a company’s long-term, sustainable success. We believe that organizations with inclusive environments that embrace diversity of thought, background, and experience are more successful in attracting and retaining talent and generally more agile, more impactful, and better prepared for the future. Given the importance of equity, Lord Abbett expects and encourages companies to have clear diversity policies, and strategies in place to facilitate equity within their organizations, as well as a broader range of stakeholders, including local and global communities. Further, we expect companies to disclose milestones and targets towards achieving stated equity goals. Lord Abbett also expects the disclosure of workforce diversity metrics consistent with data provided on EEO-1 reports or other comparable data and will generally support proposals requesting additional disclosure of these metrics and initiatives. PROXY VOTING POLICIES

GRAPHIC

11 In evaluating proposals related to equity, Lord Abbett will consider current company disclosures, peer disclosures, engagement, and diversity-related controversies, among other factors. Well-Being Lord Abbett believes that companies that nurture holistic well-being – physical, emotional, and financial – as a mindset, skill, and measurable strategic priority will build more resilient workforces and contribute to a more resilient global economy. Lord Abbett expects companies to implement strategies and governance structures to facilitate well-being and disclose existing initiatives. Further, we expect companies to comply with the principles laid out by the U.N. Global Compact Initiative, specifically the principles focused on labor and human rights. We agree with the principles that businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, the elimination of all forms of forced labor, the effective abolition of child labor, and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment. We believe it is important to consider the human rights impact that companies can have on employees, such as through the supply chain and their communities, as well as consumers, through the products and services they provide. We call on companies to support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights and ensure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses. Lord Abbett encourages companies to articulate the role that they play in fostering well-being within their local and global communities. Lord Abbett generally supports proposals requesting disclosure of well-being initiatives and related metrics. In evaluating proposals related to well-being, Lord Abbett will consider current company disclosures, peer disclosures, engagement, and related controversies, among other factors. Governance Investors have benefited from positive changes in corporate governance that have benefited businesses and their investors. Shareholders have taken a more active role in businesses in which they invest, and companies are communicating more with shareholders. Companies are more conscious of the need for transparent and effective governance policies, and there has been progress in the evolution of these practices. Companies with a principled governance approach are better positioned to manage the risks inherent in business and recognize opportunities that help deliver sustainable growth and returns for shareholders. In formulating our approach, we are focused on best practice standards for governance, including industry approved frameworks and guidance. Given the materiality of certain ESG factors, we also believe that companies should formalize oversight of ESG within their governance structures through board and management level committees. Political Contributions and Lobbying Lord Abbett recognizes that companies may participate in the political process within legal limits to help shape public policy consistent with a company’s strategy. While Lord Abbett understands the rationale for involvement in certain political activities, we encourage transparency in the process; specifically, Lord Abbett encourages the disclosure of oversight mechanisms related to political contributions and lobbying processes, including board oversight. Lord Abbett will vote proposals related to political contributions and lobbying on a case-by-case basis. In evaluating these proposals, Lord Abbett will consider the current level of disclosure, previous litigation or controversies, peer disclosure, engagement, and reputational or legal risks, among other factors. PROXY VOTING POLICIES

GRAPHIC

12 Board of Directors The board of directors of a company oversees all aspects of the company’s business. Companies and, under certain circumstances, their shareholders, may nominate directors for election by shareholders. In evaluating the candidacy of a director nominee to the board of a company, Lord Abbett will consider the following factors, among others: (1) the nominee’s experience, qualifications, attributes, and skills, as disclosed in the company’s proxy statement; (2) the composition of the board and its committees, including overall board diversity; (3) whether the nominee is independent of the company’s management; (4) the nominee’s board meeting attendance; (5) the nominee’s history of representing shareholder interests on the company’s board or other boards; (6) the total number of outside board positions held by the nominee; PROXY VOTING POLICIES

GRAPHIC

13 (7) the nominee’s investment in the company; (8) the company’s long-term performance relative to a relevant market index; and (9) takeover activity. Lord Abbett may withhold votes for some or all a company’s director nominees on a case-by-case basis. In evaluating an audit, nominating, governance, or compensation committee nominee’s candidacy, Lord Abbett will consider additional factors related to the specific committee’s oversight responsibilities. Board Diversity A growing body of research has found that companies that are more diverse and inclusive outperform companies that are less diverse and inclusive. Lord Abbett believes companies that draw from a larger pool of perspectives and attract, inspire, and retain talent from many backgrounds are better positioned for long-term, sustainable success. We believe that a company’s tone on diversity and inclusion must be set at the top, including maintaining a diverse board of directors. Diversity is multidimensional, and we therefore encourage companies to consider a wide range of diverse characteristics within board composition, including age, disabilities, education, ethnicity, gender, military service, race, religion, sexual orientation, and skills, among other factors. Lord Abbett has vocalized support for NASDAQ’s board diversity expectations for listed companies and believes strongly in the ideals expressed in this proposal which calls for increased board diversity and disclosure. Lord Abbett believes that companies with diverse boards are better positioned for long-term success, and therefore expects companies to maintain a minimum of 30% gender diversity. We expect companies below this threshold to articulate a plan to increase board diversity, and we will actively partner with companies through engagement to encourage and monitor progress. In 2022, Lord Abbett will consider voting against the nominating committee or other relevant directors if there is less than 20% women on the board and no plan has been articulated to diversify board membership. Lord Abbett will also consider voting against the nominating committee or other relevant directors at companies in the Russell 3000, S&P 1500, and FTSE 100 indices if there is no apparent racial or ethnic diversity represented on the board. We expect these minimum thresholds to increase as market standards evolve. Lord Abbett values transparency and believes that reliable and consistent information is necessary to make informed investment decisions. To that end, Lord Abbett strongly encourages the reporting of board diversity statistics, including gender, racial and ethnic diversity, in a clear, consistent manner, and will treat a lack of disclosure as an indication that the board lacks diversity. Lord Abbett will consider our engagement history with a company and vote on a case-by-case basis if we have engaged with the company and they have articulated a plan for advancing diversity on the board. Overboarding Lord Abbett believes that director nominees should be able to dedicate sufficient time to each of the companies they represent to fully execute their board oversight responsibilities. We believe it is important that directors not be “overboarded” to avoid excessive time-commitments and provide consistent contributions to all boards on which they serve. Lord Abbett may vote against directors that we deem to be “overboarded” and will consider voting against director nominees if they sit on more than five public company boards, or if they are an active CEO who sits on more than two outside public company boards. Governance Structure Lord Abbett may consider a vote against certain director nominees at companies that have material governance shortcomings, including those implemented at the time of IPO, with no articulated plan to sunset certain provisions. Governance shortcomings may include dual-class voting structures, classified boards, or supermajority vote standards, among others. PROXY VOTING POLICIES

GRAPHIC

14PROXY VOTING POLICIES Environmental and Social Factors Lord Abbett believes that boards should maintain oversight over material ESG risks and opportunities, and clearly articulate board and committee responsibilities related to ESG matters. Lord Abbett may consider a vote against certain director nominees at companies that have material ESG shortcomings, such as unmitigated risks associated with climate, equity or well-being that the company and its board have failed to address. Majority Voting Lord Abbett generally favors a majority voting standard, under which director nominees are elected by an affirmative majority of the votes cast. We will generally support proposals that seek to adopt a majority voting standard. Board Classification Lord Abbett generally believes that directors should be elected annually, and we will typically support proposals that seek to remove a classified board structure. When evaluating board classification proposals, Lord Abbett may consider the following factors, among others: (1) the company’s long-term strategic plan; (2) the extent to which continuity of leadership is necessary to advance that plan; and (3) the need to guard against takeover attempts. Board Independence Lord Abbett believes that independent board oversight is key to a company’s long-term performance and believes that a majority of board members should be independent from the company. While company boards may apply different standards in assessing director independence, including any applicable standards prescribed by stock exchanges and federal securities laws, a director generally is determined to qualify as independent if the director is not employed by the company and does not have any material relationship with the company (either directly or indirectly) based on all relevant facts and circumstances. Material relationships can include employment, business, and familial relationships, among others. Lord Abbett may vote against non-independent board nominees if their election would cause a majority of board members to be non-independent. Independent Board Chair Proponents of proposals to require independent board chair seek to enhance board accountability and mitigate a company’s risk-taking behavior by requiring that the role of the chair of the company’s board of directors be filled by an independent director. Lord Abbett votes on a case-by-case basis on proposals that call for an independent board chair, and will consider a variety of factors, including whether we believe that a company’s governance structure promotes independent oversight through other means, such as a lead director, a board composed of a majority of independent directors, or independent board committees. In evaluating independent chair proposals, we will focus on the presence of a lead director, who is an independent director designated by a board with a non-independent chair to serve as the primary liaison between company management and the independent directors and act as the independent directors’ spokesperson.

GRAPHIC

PROXY VOTING POLICIES 15 Compensation and Benefits Lord Abbett pays particular attention to the nature and amount of compensation paid by a company to its executive officers and other employees. Lord Abbett believes that because a company has exclusive knowledge of material information not available to shareholders regarding its business, financial condition, and prospects, the company itself usually is in the best position to make decisions about compensation and benefits. However, we believe that companies should provide detailed disclosure of their compensation practices to allow investors to properly analyze the effectiveness and appropriateness of the company’s compensation structure. Lord Abbett reviews all issues related to compensation on a case-by-case basis and may oppose management if: (1) we deem a company’s compensation to be excessive or inconsistent with that of its peers; (2) we believe a company’s compensation measures do not foster a long-term focus among its executive officers and other employees; or (3) we believe a company has not met performance expectations, among other reasons. PROXY VOTING POLICIES

GRAPHIC

16 Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation “Say-on-pay” proposals give shareholders a nonbinding vote on executive compensation and serve as a means of conveying to company management shareholder concerns, if any, about executive compensation. Lord Abbett generally prefers that say-on-pay proposals occur on an annual basis. Lord Abbett will evaluate say-on-pay proposals on a case-by-case basis and will consider a variety of factors in evaluating compensation, including whether we believe that compensation has been excessive or not properly aligned with long-term performance and whether we engaged with the company and they provided more detailed information regarding compensation. Equity Compensation Plans Equity compensation plans are intended to reward an executive’s performance through various stock-based incentives and should be designed to align an executive’s compensation with a company’s long-term performance. Lord Abbett will vote on equity compensation plans on a case-by-case basis, and in evaluating such proposals we will consider the following factors, among others: (1) whether or to what extent the plan has any potential to dilute the voting power or economic interests of other shareholders; (2) the rate at which a company grants equity awards; (3) the features of the plan and costs associated with it; (4) whether the plan allows for repricing or replacement of underwater stock options; and (5) quantitative data regarding compensation ranges by industry and company size. We carefully scrutinize any proposed repricing or replacement of underwater stock options, taking into consideration the stock’s volatility, management’s rationale for the repricing or replacement, the new exercise price, and any other factors we deem relevant. Clawback Provisions Lord Abbett believes that clawback provisions generally encourage executive accountability and help mitigate a company’s risk-taking behavior. Lord Abbett will evaluate proposals to require clawback provisions on a case-by-case basis and will consider a variety of factors, including concerns about the amount of compensation paid to the executive, the executive’s or the company’s performance, or accounting irregularities, among other factors we may deem relevant. Tax Gross-ups Lord Abbett generally favors adoption of anti-tax gross-up policies, which limit payments by a company to an executive intended to reimburse some or all the executive’s tax liability with respect to compensation, perquisites, and other benefits. Severance Agreements Severance or so-called “golden parachute” payments are sometimes made to departing executives after termination or upon a company’s change in control. Lord Abbett will consider severance arrangements in the overall evaluation of executive compensation and may scrutinize cases in which benefits are especially lucrative, granted despite the executive’s or the company’s poor performance, or materially amended shortly before a triggering event. Employee Stock Purchase Plans Employee stock purchase plans permit employees to purchase company stock at discounted prices and, under certain circumstances, receive favorable tax treatment when they sell the stock. Lord Abbett will vote on a case-by-case basis on employee stock purchase plans and will consider overall incentive structure and any dilutive effects of such plans, among other factors. PROXY VOTING POLICIES

GRAPHIC

17 Shareholder Rights Proxy access Proxy access proposals advocate permitting shareholders to have their nominees for election to a company’s board of directors included in the company’s proxy statement in opposition to the company’s own nominees. Proxy access initiatives enable shareholders to nominate their own directors without incurring the often substantial cost of preparing and mailing a proxy statement, making it less expensive and easier for shareholders to challenge incumbent directors. Lord Abbett votes on a case-by-case basis and will evaluate proposals that seek to allow proxy access based on the merits of each situation. Similarly, Lord Abbett evaluates proposals that seek to amend the terms of an already existing proxy access by-law (“proxy fix-it” proposals) on a case-by-case basis, but may vote against these proposals if the existing proxy access by-law has reasonable provisions already in place. Shareholder Rights Plans Shareholder rights plans or “poison pills” are a mechanism of defending a company against takeover efforts. Poison pills allow current shareholders to purchase stock at discounted prices or redeem shares at a premium after a takeover, effectively making the company more expensive and less attractive to potential acquirers. Lord Abbett believes that poison pills can serve to entrench management and discourage takeover offers that may be attractive to shareholders; therefore, we generally vote in favor of proposals to eliminate poison pills and proposals to require that companies submit poison pills for shareholder ratification. In evaluating a poison pill proposal, however, Lord Abbett may consider the following factors, among others: (1) the duration of the poison pill; (2) whether we believe the poison pill facilitates a legitimate business strategy that is likely to enhance shareholder value; (3) our level of confidence in management; (4) whether we believe the poison pill will be used to force potential acquirers to negotiate with management and assure a degree of stability that will support good long-range corporate goals; and (5) the need to guard against takeover attempts. PROXY VOTING POLICIES

GRAPHIC

18 Rights to Call Special Shareholder Meetings Lord Abbett typically supports the right to call special shareholder meetings and in evaluating such a proposal, will consider the following factors, among others: (1) the stock ownership threshold required to call a special meeting; (2) the purposes for which shareholders may call a special meeting; (3) whether the company’s annual meetings offer an adequate forum in which shareholders may raise their concerns; and (4) the anticipated economic impact on the company of having to hold additional shareholder meetings. Similarly, Lord Abbett evaluates proposals that seek to amend the terms of an existing special meeting right on a case-by-case basis but may vote against these proposals if the existing provision has a reasonable threshold in place. Rights to Act by Written Consent Lord Abbett votes on a case-by-case basis on proposals requesting rights to act by written consent, though may vote against these proposals if the company already grants shareholders the right to call special shareholder meetings at a reasonable threshold. Supermajority Vote Requirements A proposal that is subject to a supermajority vote must receive the support of more than a simple majority to pass. Supermajority vote requirements can have the effect of entrenching management by making it more difficult to effect change for a company and its corporate governance practices. Lord Abbett typically supports shareholders’ ability to approve or reject proposals based on a simple majority vote and will generally vote for proposals to remove supermajority vote requirements and against proposals to add them. Cumulative Voting Under cumulative or proportional voting, each shareholder is allotted a number of votes equal to the number of shares owned multiplied by the number of directors to be elected. This voting regime strengthens the voting power of minority shareholders because it enables shareholders to cast multiple votes for a single nominee. Lord Abbett believes that a shareholder, or group of shareholders, using this technique to elect a director may seek to have the director represent a narrow special interest rather than the interests of the broader shareholder population. Accordingly, we generally vote against cumulative voting proposals. Confidential Voting Lord Abbett believes that confidential voting allows shareholders to vote without fear of retribution or coercion based on their views. Thus, we generally support proposals that seek to preserve shareholders’ anonymity. Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses Lord Abbett votes on a case-by-case basis on shareholder proposals to require a company to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred by one or more shareholders in a successful proxy contest. Transacting Other Business Lord Abbett believes that proposals to allow shareholders to transact other business at a meeting may deprive other shareholders of sufficient time and information needed to carefully evaluate the relevant business issues and determine how to vote with respect to them. Therefore, Lord Abbett typically votes against such proposals. PROXY VOTING POLICIES

GRAPHIC

19 Corporate Matters Charter Amendments A company’s charter documents, which may consist of articles of incorporation or a declaration of trust and bylaws, govern the company’s organizational matters and affairs. Lord Abbett considers proposals related to charter amendments on a case-by-case basis to the extent they are not explicitly covered by these guidelines. Capital Structure A company may propose amendments to its charter documents to change the number of authorized shares or create new classes of stock. Lord Abbett will generally support proposals to increase a company’s number of authorized shares if the company has articulated a clear and reasonable purpose for the increase (for example, to facilitate a stock split, merger, acquisition, or restructuring). However, we generally oppose share capital increases that would have a substantial dilutive effect. Lord Abbett generally believes that all shares should have equal voting rights at publicly traded companies. Lord Abbett will generally oppose proposals to create a new class of stock with superior voting rights and will typically vote for proposals to eliminate a dual or multi-class voting structure. Reincorporation We generally follow management’s recommendation regarding proposals to change a company’s state of incorporation, although we consider the rationale for the reincorporation and the financial, legal, and corporate governance implications of the reincorporation. We will vote against reincorporation proposals that we believe contravene shareholders’ interests. Mergers, Acquisitions, and Restructurings Lord Abbett views the decision to approve or reject a potential merger, acquisition, or restructuring as being equivalent to an investment decision. In evaluating such a proposal, Lord Abbett may consider the following factors, among others: (1) the anticipated financial and operating benefits; (2) the offer price; (3) the prospects of the resulting company; and (4) any expected changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights. PROXY VOTING POLICIES

GRAPHIC

20 Auditors Auditors are responsible for examining, correcting, and verifying the accuracy of a company’s financial statements. Lord Abbett believes that companies normally are in the best position to select their auditors. However, we will evaluate such proposals on a case-by-case basis and may consider any concerns about impaired independence, accounting irregularities, controversies, or failure of the auditors to act in shareholders’ best economic interests, among other factors we may deem relevant. PROXY VOTING POLICIES

GRAPHIC

21 Proxy Voting Process Overview Lord Abbett encourages good governance and sustainable corporate practices, which contribute to long-term shareholder value creation. We have procedures in place to ensure that we vote proxies in the best interest of our clients. With this in mind, Lord Abbett has implemented the following approach to the proxy voting process: • The Investment Stewardship team provides recommendations on how to vote the security to the relevant investment team, who makes the final decision for their client portfolios, absent a material conflict of interest, as described in the “Conflicts of Interest” section included herein. From time to time, there may be votes that the Investment Stewardship team deems appropriate to address with members of the Executive and Investment Committees, and/or other leadership teams. The votes are presented, and a final decision is agreed upon. Once a voting decision has been made, the Investment Stewardship team is responsible for submitting Lord Abbett’s vote. • When multiple investment teams manage one or more portfolios that hold the same voting security, the investment team that manages the largest number of shares of the security will be considered to have the dominant position. The investment team with the dominant position, in consultation with the Investment Stewardship team, will be responsible for determining a vote recommendation. Lord Abbett will vote all shares on behalf of all clients in accordance with that vote recommendation. • For institutional accounts managed on behalf of multi-employer pension or benefit plans, commonly referred to as “Taft- Hartley plans,” Lord Abbett generally will vote proxies in accordance with the Proxy Voting Guidelines issued by the AFL-CIO, rather than the guidelines described above, unless instructed otherwise by the client. These guidelines provide a general summary of Lord Abbett’s views on specific proxy voting items. We reserve the flexibility to vote in a manner contrary to our general views on particular issues if we believe doing so is in the best interests of our clients, including the Funds, and their shareholders. Many different types of proposals may arise under the broad categories discussed in this document, and we will vote on proposals concerning issues not expressly covered by these guidelines based on the specific factors that we believe are relevant. PROXY VOTING PROCESS

GRAPHIC

22 Retention and Oversight of Proxy Service Provider Lord Abbett has retained an independent third party service provider (the “Proxy Service Provider”) to analyze proxy issues and recommend how to vote on those issues, and to provide assistance in the administration of the proxy process, including maintaining complete proxy voting records.1 While Lord Abbett takes into consideration the information and recommendations of the Proxy Service Provider, Lord Abbett votes all proxies based on its own proxy voting policies, including Lord Abbett’s conclusions regarding the best interests of the Funds, their shareholders, and other advisory clients, rather than basing decisions solely on the Proxy Service Provider’s recommendations. Lord Abbett monitors the Proxy Service Provider’s capacity, competency, and conflicts of interest to ensure that we continue to vote proxies in the best interests of our clients. As part of its ongoing oversight of the Proxy Service Provider, Lord Abbett performs periodic due diligence on the Proxy Service Provider. The topics included in these due diligence reviews include ESG thought leadership, conflicts of interest, methodologies for developing vote recommendations, changes in leadership and control, and resources, among other things. Conflicts of Interest Conflicts of interest may arise in the proxy voting process. Such a conflict may exist, for example, when a client’s account holds shares of a company that also is a client of Lord Abbett. We have adopted safeguards designed to ensure that conflicts of interest are identified and resolved in our clients’ best interests rather than our own. These safeguards include, but are not limited to, the following: • Lord Abbett has implemented special voting measures with respect to companies for which one of the Funds’ independent directors/trustees also serves on the board of directors or is a nominee for election to the board of directors. If a Fund owns stock in such a company, Lord Abbett will notify the Funds’ ESG & Proxy Committee2 (the “Committee”) and seek voting instructions from the Committee only in those situations where Lord Abbett proposes not to follow the Proxy Service Provider’s recommendations. In these instances, if applicable, the independent director/trustee will abstain from any discussions and voting by the Committee regarding the company. • Lord Abbett also has implemented special voting measures with respect to any company (including any subsidiary of a company or retirement plan sponsored by a company) that has a significant business relationship with Lord Abbett. For this purpose, a “significant business relationship” means: (1) a broker dealer firm that is responsible for one percent or more of the Funds’ total dollar amount of shares sold for the last 12 months; (2) a firm that is a sponsor firm with respect to Lord Abbett’s separately managed account business; (3) an institutional account client that has an investment management agreement with Lord Abbett; (4) an institutional investor that, to Lord Abbett’s knowledge, holds at least $5 million in shares of the Funds; and/ or (5) a retirement plan client that, to Lord Abbett’s knowledge, has at least $5 million invested in the Funds. 1 Lord Abbett currently retains Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. as the Proxy Service Provider. 2 The Boards of Directors and Trustees of the Funds have delegated oversight of proxy voting to An ESG & Proxy Committee comprised solely of independent directors or trustees. The ESG & Proxy Committee is responsible for, among other things: (1) monitoring Lord Abbett’s actions in voting securities owned by the related Fund; (2) evaluating Lord Abbett’s policies in voting securities; and (3) meeting with Lord Abbett to review the policies in voting securities, the sources of information used in determining how to vote on particular matters, and the procedures used to determine the votes in any situation where there may be a conflict of interest. PROXY VOTING PROCESS

GRAPHIC

23 If a Fund owns shares of a company with a significant business relationship (“Conflict Shares”) and Lord Abbett seeks to vote contrary to the Proxy Service Provider’s recommendation, then Lord Abbett will notify the Funds’ Committee and seek voting instructions from the Committee members. Lord Abbett generally will vote conflict proposals pursuant to the instruction of a majority of Committee members but will act on the instructions of less than a majority if less than a majority respond and all responding members approve Lord Abbett’s proposed votes on such proposals. In all other cases, Lord Abbett will vote the Funds’ Conflict Shares in accordance with the Proxy Service Provider’s recommendation. Lord Abbett periodically will report to the Funds’ Committee its record of voting the Funds’ Conflict Shares in accordance with Committee member instructions. Absent explicit instructions from an institutional account client to resolve proxy voting conflicts in a different manner, Lord Abbett will vote each such client’s Conflict Shares in the manner it votes the Funds’ Conflict Shares. To serve the best interests of a client that holds a given voting security, Lord Abbett generally will vote proxies without regard to other clients’ investments in different classes or types of securities or instruments of the same issuer that are not entitled to vote. Accordingly, when the voting security in one account is from an issuer whose other, non-voting securities or instruments are held in a second account in a different strategy, Lord Abbett will vote without input from members of the investment team acting on behalf of the second account. Securities Lending The Funds may occasionally participate in a securities lending program. In circumstances where shares are on loan, the voting rights of those shares are transferred to the borrower. Lord Abbett will generally attempt to recall all securities that are on loan prior to the meeting record date, so that the relevant Fund will be entitled to vote those shares. However, Lord Abbett may be unable to recall shares or may choose not to recall shares for several reasons, including if Lord Abbett does not receive timely notice of a meeting, or if Lord Abbett deems the opportunity for a Fund to generate securities lending revenue to outweigh the benefits of voting at a specific meeting. Shareholder Resolutions Lord Abbett may consider sponsoring or co-sponsoring a shareholder resolution to address an issue of concern if engagement and proxy voting are deemed to be ineffective. Share Blocking Certain foreign countries impose share blocking restrictions that would prohibit Lord Abbett from trading a company’s stock during a specified period before the company’s shareholder meeting. Lord Abbett believes that in these situations, the benefit of maintaining liquidity during the share blocking period outweighs the benefit of exercising our right to vote. Therefore, it is Lord Abbett’s general policy to not vote securities in cases where share blocking restrictions apply. PROXY VOTING PROCESS

GRAPHIC

24 Appendix A Targeted Exclusion Policy Controversial Weapons Lord Abbett is committed to supporting and upholding conventions that seek to ban the production of controversial weapons. We, therefore, seek to exclude investment in private or public companies involved in the production, development, sale, or maintenance of controversial weapons. For purposes of this policy, we define controversial weapons as: • ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES – as defined by the 1997 Ottawa (Mine Ban) Treaty. • BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS – as defined by the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. • CLUSTER WEAPONS – as defined by the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions. Lord Abbett has entered into an agreement with an independent, global, third-party ESG research firm to identify companies deemed to be involved in the production, development sale or maintenance of controversial weapons. This information is supplemented with our own proprietary fundamental research. Implementation of our Controversial Weapons Exclusion Policy is managed by our internal Compliance Department. Investments in companies deemed to be involved in controversial weapons are restricted on a pre-trade basis. This Controversial Weapons Exclusion Policy is applicable to all Lord Abbett Funds and portfolios domiciled in Europe. Other Exclusions Lord Abbett is committed to complying with all economic sanctions issued by the United States Department of the Treasury – Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). Investments in individuals, groups or entities deemed Specially Designated Nationals and, thus, subject to OFAC’s sanction lists, are restricted on a pre-trade basis. These restrictions are applied across all investment portfolios and products.

GRAPHIC

 

Proxy Voting

 

Adopted: October 5, 2004

 

Amended: January 3, 2011

 

  January 22, 2009

 

  November 16, 2006

 

Purpose:

 

The purpose of this policy is to ensure that proxies are voted in accordance with our clients’ best interests or instructions.

 

Background:

 

Rule 275.206(4)-6 of the IAA governs proxy voting by investment advisers. It requires advisers to implement written policies and procedures governing how they will vote proxies. It also requires them to disclose to clients, when requested, how they voted certain proxies and to furnish clients with a copy of the advisers’ policies and procedures on proxy voting.

 

Given the nature of fixed income securities, Merganser is rarely required to vote on proxies. The typical exception occurs with respect to Money Market Mutual Funds that are used as sweep vehicles by custodian banks.

 

Policy:

 

1. Merganser will notify the client giving them the opportunity to vote or instruct us how to vote their proxy. When a client specifically instructs Merganser not to contact them about proxies, Merganser will vote the proxy in a manner which in its best judgment reflects the client’s best economic interest and fosters good corporate governance. In other routine matters, Merganser will vote in accordance with management recommendations.

 

2. If requested, Merganser will offer our clients advice on proxy questions.

 

3. Merganser will facilitate the proxy voting so as to minimize the administrative burden on our clients. Therefore, for all Money Market Mutual Fund proxies, Compliance will vote to approve all auditor, director and legal counsel requests. If Merganser wishes to deviate from this, they shall notify the client of such decision.

 

4. If our contract assigns responsibility for proxy voting to the client or the client otherwise indicates a desire to vote proxies, Merganser will forward all materials to them for voting.

 

 

 

 

Procedure(s):

 

1. Receipt of proxies

 

Upon receipt of proxy material, Merganser will date stamp the ballot and forward all material to the Compliance Department (“Compliance”). Compliance will log the receipt on the Proxy Voting Control sheet.

 

2. Review of proxy material

 

a. For all Money Market Mutual Fund proxies, Compliance will vote to approve all auditor, director and legal counsel requests.

 

b. For all non-Money Market Mutual Fund proxies, Compliance will review the material. Compliance will then forward a copy of the ballot and other material to the Portfolio Manager (“PM”) for review and recommendation(s). Compliance will offer the PM recommendations where appropriate.

 

c. PM will review the proxy material and make recommendation(s) for the client’s consideration. The proxy material will be returned to Compliance with the PM’s recommendations.

 

3. Advising clients of our recommendations

 

a. Unless Merganser has been directed by the client to vote all proxies without consulting them, the Relationship Manager (“RM”) will contact the client with our recommendations on voting the proxy and offer the opportunity to instruct us otherwise.

 

b. RM will contact the client by telephone, letter or e-mail to review the proxy material and determine how the client wants to vote. If requested, the RM, with assistance of the PM, may offer advice to the client. A letter with copies of proxy documents will be sent to the client upon request.

 

4. Voting proxies

 

a. The proxy material will be returned to Compliance for voting. The vote will be made via Internet whenever possible.

 

5. Recordkeeping

 

a. A record of the vote, PM recommendations and any client correspondence will be filed in the client legal folder.

 

b. Compliance will update the Proxy Voting Control sheet.

 

 

 

 

 

MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY

 

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

 

January 1, 2024

 

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 for which we have been delegated with the authority to vote on their behalf, 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 shareholder proposals) are analyzed on a case-by-case basis in light of 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.

 

- 1 -

 

 

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 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 for which MFS has been delegated with the authority to vote on their behalf.

 

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.

 

- 2 -

 

 

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 nominating 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 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.

 

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 Canada and US 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 Australia, Benelux, Ireland, New Zealand, Switzerland, and UK companies MFS generally votes against any non-independent nominee that would cause the audit or compensation/remuneration committee to not be fully independent. For Korea companies MFS generally votes against any non-independent nominee that would cause the audit 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.

 

In general, MFS believes that good governance is enabled by a board with at least a simple majority of directors who are independent and whose key committees consist entirely of independent directors. While there are currently markets where we accept lower levels of independence, we expect to expand these independence guidelines to all markets over time.

 

 

1 MFS’ determination of “independence” may be different than that of the company, the exchange on which the company is listed, or of a third party (e.g., proxy advisory firm).

 

- 3 -

 

 

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 or we identify other concerns that suggest more immediate refreshment is necessary.

 

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.

 

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.

 

As a general guideline, MFS will generally vote against a director’s election if they:

 

Are not a CEO or executive chair of a public company, but serve on more than four (4) public company boards in total at US companies and more than five (5) public boards for companies in other non-US markets.

 

Are a CEO or executive chair of a public company, and serve on more than two (2) public company boards in total at US companies and two (2) outside public company boards for companies in non-US 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 consider exceptions to this guideline 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), or iii) after engagement we believe the director’s ability to dedicate sufficient time and attention is not impaired by the external roles.

 

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 guideline.

 

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 guideline towards this over time.

- 4 -

 

 

Currently, where data is available, 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, New Zealand companies: less than 24%.

 

At Brazilian companies: less than 20%.

 

At Chinese, Hong Kong, Indian, Japanese, Korean, Chilean and Mexican 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:

 

o 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;

 

o A failure by the director or board of the issuer to take action to eliminate shareholder unfriendly provisions in the issuer's charter documents; or

 

o 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;

 

- 5 -

 

 

The board or relevant committee has not adequately responded to an issue that received a significant vote against management 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 nominating committee if we determine (in our sole discretion) that the chair of the board 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.

 

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 director nominee(s) 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.

 

- 6 -

 

 

The right to call a special meeting or act by written consent:

 

MFS believes a threshold of 15-25% is an appropriate balance of shareholder and company interests, with thresholds of 15% for large and widely held companies.

 

MFS will generally support management proposals to establish these rights. MFS will generally support shareholder proposals to adjust existing rights to within the thresholds described above. MFS may also support shareholder proposals to establish the right at a threshold of 10% or above if no existing right exists and no right is presented for vote by management within the threshold range described above.

 

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 the thresholds described above or lower.

 

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 or a lead independent director. 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 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.

 

- 7 -

 

 

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.

 

- 8 -

 

 

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. When analyzing such proposals, we use a variety of materials and information, including our own internal research as well as the research of third-party service providers.

 

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 we believe:

 

The plan is aligned with the company’s current strategic priorities with a focused set of clear, suitably ambitious and measurable performance conditions;

 

o Practices of concern may include an incentive plan without financial performance conditions, without a substantial majority weighting to quantitative metrics or that vests substantially below median performance.

 

Meaningful portions of awards are paid in shares and based on long performance periods (e.g., at least three years);

 

Awards and potential future awards, reflect the nature of the business, value created and the executive’s performance;

 

o Practices of concern may include large windfall gains or award increases without justification.

 

Awards are fair, not detrimental to firm culture and reflect the policies approved by shareholders at previous meetings with appropriate use of discretion (positive and negative); and

 

o Practices of concern may include one-off awards without justification or robust performance conditions, equity awards repriced without shareholder approval, substantial executive or director share pledging, egregious perks or substantial internal pay imbalances.

 

The calculation and justification for awards is sufficiently transparent for investors to appraise alignment with performance and future incentives.

 

- 9 -

 

 

MFS will analyze votes on executive compensation on a case-by-case basis. When analyzing compensation practices, MFS generally uses a two-step process. MFS first seeks to identify any compensation practices that are potentially of concern by using both internal research and the research of third-party service providers. Where such practices are identified, MFS will then analyze the compensation practices in light of relevant facts and circumstances. MFS will vote against an issuer's executive compensation practices if MFS determines that such practices are not geared towards durable long-term value creation and are misaligned with the best, long-term economic interest of our clients. When analyzing whether an issuer’s compensation practices are aligned with the best, long-term economic interest of our clients, MFS uses 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.

 

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 issues that are financially material for the issuer in question.

 

They should predominantly include quantitative or other externally verifiable outcomes rather than qualitative measures.

 

The weighting of incentives should be appropriately balanced with other strategic priorities.

 

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.

 

- 10 -

 

 

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;

 

MFS believes the committee is inadequately incentivizing or rewarding executives, or is overseeing pay practices that we believe are detrimental the long-term success of the company; 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.

 

- 11 -

 

 

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.

 

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, these proposals are typically assessed on a case-by-case basis.

 

For example, MFS may support 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.

 

- 12 -

 

 

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.

 

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);

 

- 13 -

 

 

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 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.

 

 

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). 

 

- 14 -

 

 

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 identifies and evaluates a potentially concerning executive compensation issue in relation to an advisory pay or severance package vote, or (iv) a vote recommendation is requested from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst for proposals relating to a merger, an acquisition, a sale of company assets or other similar transactions (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 (if identified in the proxy materials) 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.

 

- 15 -

 

 

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.

 

- 16 -

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

- 17 -

 

 

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 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.

 

 

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.

 

- 18 -

 

 

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 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].

 

- 19 -

 

 

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.

 

- 20 -

 

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

March 2024

 

I. Introduction and General Principles

 

A. Certain investment adviser subsidiaries of Neuberger Berman Group LLC ("NB") have been delegated the authority and responsibility to vote the proxies of their respective investment advisory clients and exercise such responsibility according to these policies and procedures.

 

B. NB understands that proxy voting is an integral aspect of investment management. Accordingly, proxy voting must be conducted with the same degree of prudence and loyalty accorded any fiduciary or other obligation of an investment manager.

 

C. NB believes that the following policies and procedures are reasonably expected to ensure that proxy matters are conducted in the best interest of clients, in accordance with NB's fiduciary duties, applicable rules under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, fiduciary standards and responsibilities for ERISA clients set out in Department of Labor interpretations, the UK Stewardship Code, the Japan Stewardship Code and other applicable laws and regulations.

 

D. In instances where NB does not have authority to vote client proxies, it is the responsibility of the client to instruct the relevant custody bank or banks to mail proxy material directly to such client.

 

E. In all circumstances, NB will comply with specific client directions to vote proxies, whether or not such client directions specify voting proxies in a manner that is different from NB's proxy votes for other client accounts.

 

F. NB will seek to vote all shares under its authority so long as that action is not in conflict with client instructions. There may be circumstances under which NB may abstain from voting a client proxy, such as when NB believes voting would not be in clients' best interests (e.g., not voting in countries with share blocking or meetings in which voting would entail additional costs). NB understands that it must weigh the costs and benefits of voting proxy proposals relating to foreign securities and make an informed decision with respect to whether voting a given proxy proposal is prudent and solely in the interests of the clients and, in the case of an ERISA client and other accounts and clients subject to similar local laws, a plan's participants and beneficiaries. NB's decision in such circumstances will take into account the effect that the proxy vote, either by itself or together with other votes, is expected to have on the value of the client's investment and whether this expected effect would outweigh the cost of voting.

 

II. Responsibility and Oversight

 

  A. NB has designated a Governance & Proxy Committee (“Proxy Committee”) with the responsibility for:

 

(i) developing, authorizing, implementing and updating NB’s policies and procedures;

 

(ii) administering and overseeing the governance and proxy voting processes; and

 

(iii) engaging and overseeing any third-party vendors as voting delegates to review, monitor and/or vote proxies.

 

NB, at the recommendation of the Proxy Committee, has retained Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC (“Glass Lewis”) as its proxy voting service provider.

 

B. The Proxy Committee will meet as frequently and in such manner as necessary or appropriate to fulfill its responsibilities.

 

 

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

 

C. The members of the Proxy Committee will be appointed from time to time and will include the Chief Investment Officer (Equities), the Director of Global Equity Research, the Head of ESG & Impact Investing, and certain portfolio managers. A senior member of the Legal and Compliance Department will advise the Proxy Committee and may vote as a full member of the Committee if a vote is needed to establish a quorum or in the event that a vote is needed to break a tie. The Director of Investment Stewardship serves in an advisory role to the Proxy Committee but may also vote as a full member of the Committee if a vote is needed to establish a quorum or in the event that a vote is needed to break a tie. The Proxy Committee may also appoint substitute or additional members if needed to establish quorum in the absence of one or more members.

 

D. In the event that one or more members of the Proxy Committee are not independent with respect to a particular matter, the remaining members of the Proxy Committee shall constitute an ad hoc independent subcommittee of the Proxy Committee, which will have full authority to act upon such matter.

 

III. Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

A. The Proxy Committee developed the Governance and Proxy Voting Guidelines (“Voting Guidelines”) based on our Governance and Engagement Principles. These Guidelines are updated as appropriate and generally at least on an annual basis. With input from certain of our investment professionals, the modifications are intended to reflect emerging corporate governance issues and themes. The Proxy Committee recognizes that in certain circumstances it may be in the interests of our clients to deviate from our Voting Guidelines.

 

B. Our views regarding corporate governance and engagement, and the related stewardship actions, are informed by our ESG Investing group, in consultation with professionals in the Legal & Compliance and Global Equity Research groups, among others. These insightful, experienced and dedicated groups enable us to think strategically about engagement and stewardship priorities.

 

C. We believe NB’s Voting Guidelines generally represent the voting positions most likely to support our clients’ best economic interests across a range of sectors and contexts. These guidelines are not intended to constrain our consideration of the specific issues facing a particular company on a particular vote, and so there will be times when we deviate from the Voting Guidelines.

 

D. In the event that a portfolio manager or other investment professional at Neuberger Berman believes that it is in the best interest of a client or clients to vote proxies other than as provided in NB’s Voting Guidelines, the portfolio manager or other investment professional will submit in writing to the Proxy Committee the basis for his or her recommendation. The Proxy Committee will review this recommendation in the context of the specific circumstances of the proxy vote being considered and with the intention of voting in the best interest of our clients.

 

IV. Proxy Voting Procedures

 

A. NB will vote client proxies in accordance with a client’s specific request even if it is in a manner inconsistent with NB’s proxy votes for other client accounts. Such specific requests should be made in writing by the individual client or by an authorized officer, representative or named fiduciary of a client.

 

B. NB has engaged Glass Lewis as its proxy voting service provider to:

 

(i) provide research on proxy matters;

 

(ii) in a timely manner, notify NB of and provide additional solicitation materials made available reasonably in advance of a vote deadline;

 

(iii) vote proxies in accordance with NB’s Voting Guidelines or as otherwise instructed and submit such proxies in a timely manner;

 

(iv) handle other administrative functions of proxy voting;

 

 

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

 

(v) maintain records of proxy statements and additional solicitation materials received in connection with proxy votes and provide copies of such proxy statements promptly upon request; and

 

(vi) maintain records of votes cast.

 

C. Except in instances where clients have retained voting authority, NB will instruct custodians of client accounts to forward all proxy statements and materials received in respect of client accounts to Glass Lewis.

 

D. NB retains final authority and fiduciary responsibility, consistent with applicable law, for proxy voting for clients that have delegated it authority and discretion to vote proxies.

 

V. Conflicts of Interest

 

A. NB shall direct Glass Lewis to vote proxies in accordance with the Voting Guidelines described in Section III or, in instances where a material conflict has been determined to exist, NB will generally instruct that such shares be voted in the same proportion as other shares are voted with respect to a proposal, subject to applicable legal, regulatory and operational requirements.. NB believes that this process is reasonably designed to address material conflicts of interest that may arise in conjunction with proxy voting decisions. Potential conflicts considered by the Proxy Committee when it is determining whether to deviate from NB’s Voting Guidelines include, among others: a material client relationship with the corporate issuer being considered; personal or business relationships between the portfolio managers and an executive officer; director, or director nominee of the issuer; joint business ventures; or a direct transactional relationship between the issuer and senior executives of NB.

 

B. In the event that an NB Investment Professional believes that it is in the best interest of a client or clients to vote proxies in a manner inconsistent with the Voting Guidelines described in Section III, such NB Investment Professional will contact a member of the Legal & Compliance Department advising the Proxy Committee and complete and sign a questionnaire in the form adopted from time to time. Such questionnaires will require specific information, including the reasons the NB Investment Professional believes a proxy vote in this manner is in the best interest of a client or clients and disclosure of specific ownership, business or personal relationship, or other matters that may raise a potential material conflict of interest with respect to the voting of the proxy. The Proxy Committee will meet with the NB Investment Professional to review the completed questionnaire and consider such other matters as it deems appropriate to determine that there is no material conflict of interest with respect to the voting of the proxy in the requested manner. The Proxy Committee shall document its consideration of such other matters. In the event that the Proxy Committee determines that such vote will not present a material conflict, the Proxy Committee will make a determination whether to vote such proxy as recommended by the NB Investment Professional. In the event of a determination to vote the proxy as recommended by the NB Investment Professional, an authorized member of the Proxy Committee will instruct Glass Lewis to vote in such manner with respect to the client or clients. In the event that the Proxy Committee determines that the voting of a proxy as recommended by the NB Investment Professional would not be appropriate, the Proxy Committee will:

 

(i) take no further action, in which case the Committee shall vote such proxy in accordance with the Voting Guidelines;

 

(ii) disclose such conflict to the client or clients and obtain written direction from the client with respect to voting the proxy;

 

(iii) suggest that the client or clients engage another party to determine how to vote the proxy;

 

(iv) instruct that such shares be voted in the same proportion as other shares are voted with respect to a proposal, subject to applicable legal, regulatory and operational requirements; or

 

(v) engage another independent third party to determine how to vote the proxy if voting in the manner described in

 

(iv) is not feasible.

 

A record of the Proxy Committee’s determinations shall be prepared and maintained in accordance with applicable policies.

 

 

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

 

C. In the event that the Voting Guidelines described in Section III do not address how a proxy should be voted the Proxy Committee will make a determination as to how the proxy should be voted. The Proxy Committee will consider such matters as it deems appropriate to determine how such proxy should be voted, including whether there is a material conflict of interest with respect to the voting of the proxy in accordance with its decision. The Proxy Committee shall document its consideration of such matters, and an authorized member of the Proxy Committee will instruct Glass Lewis to vote in such manner with respect to such client or clients.

 

D. Material conflicts cannot be resolved by simply abstaining from voting.

 

VI. Recordkeeping

 

NB will maintain records relating to the implementation of the Voting Guidelines and these procedures, including:

 

(i) a copy of the Voting Guidelines and these procedures, which shall be made available to clients upon request;

 

(ii) proxy statements received regarding client securities (which will be satisfied by relying on EDGAR or Glass Lewis);

 

(iii) a record of each vote cast (which Glass Lewis maintains on NB’s behalf);

 

(iv) a copy of each questionnaire completed by any NB Investment Professional under Section V above; and

 

(v) any other document created by NB 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 an easily accessible place, which may include electronic means, for a period of five years, the first two by the Legal & Compliance Department. Material conflicts cannot be resolved by simply abstaining from voting.

 

VII. Engagement and Monitoring

 

Consistent with the firm’s active management strategies, NB portfolio managers and members of the Global Equity Research team continuously monitor material investment factors at portfolio companies. NB professionals remain informed of trends and best practices related to the effective fiduciary administration of proxy voting. NB will make revisions to its Voting Guidelines and related procedures document when it determines it is appropriate or when we observe the opportunity to materially improve outcomes for our clients. Additionally, we will regularly undertake a review of selected voting and engagement cases to better learn how to improve the monitoring of our portfolio companies and the effectiveness of our stewardship activities.

 

VIII. Securities Lending

 

Some NB products or client accounts where NB has authority and responsibility to vote the proxies may participate in a securities lending program administered by NB. Where a security is currently on loan ahead of a shareholder meeting, NB will generally attempt to terminate the loan in time to vote those shares. Where a security that is potentially subject to being loaned is eligible to be voted in a stockholder meeting a portfolio manager may restrict the security from lending. NB maintains the list of securities restricted from lending and receives daily updates on upcoming proxy events from the custodian.

 

IX. Disclosure

 

Neuberger Berman will publicly disclose all voting records of its co-mingled funds (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities [UCITS] and mutual funds), which can be found at https://www.nb.com/en/global/esg/nb-votes -- Neuberger Berman cannot publicly disclose vote level records for separate accounts without express permission of the client. Neuberger Berman will publicly disclose aggregate reporting on at least an annual basis for all votes cast across co-mingled and separate accounts. Neuberger Berman welcomes the opportunity to discuss the rationale for a given vote with investee companies as part of our ongoing engagement activities. Neuberger Berman may also choose to provide broad explanations for certain voting positions on important or topical issues in advance of the vote. Additionally, our proxy voting guidelines can be found on our website: https://www.nb.com/en/global/esg/nb-votes.

 

 

 

 

Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

 

 

Proxy Committee Membership as from January 2023:

 

Joseph Amato, President and Chief Investment Officer (Equities)

 

Jonathan Bailey, Global Head of ESG & Impact Investing

 

Elias Cohen, Portfolio Manager

 

Timothy Creedon, Director of Global Equity Research

 

Richard Glasebrook, Portfolio Manager

 

Brett Reiner, Portfolio Manager

 

Amit Solomon, Portfolio Manager

 

Corey Issing*, Legal and Compliance

 

Caitlin McSherry*, Head of Investment Stewardship

 

*Corey Issing and Caitlin McSherry serve in advisory roles to the Committee. They are ex officio members of the Committee. They will only vote as full members of the Committee if their votes are needed to establish a quorum or in the event that a vote is needed to break a tie vote.

 

 

3/24 ©2024 Neuberger Berman Group LLC. All rights reserved. 

 

 

 

 

 

Policy Proxy Voting Policy Last Reviewed  
Name: 10/31/2023  
     
Related Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Rules 206(4)-6 and 204-2    
Regulations: ERISA Rule 404a-1    
       
Related      
Policies: BNY Mellon Proxy Voting Conflicts of Interest Policy II-K-052    

 

Newton Investment Group ("Newton") is comprised of Newton Investment Management North America, LLC ("NIMNA" or the “Firm”), Newton Investment Management Ltd. ("NIM"), and Newton Investment Management Japan Limited. ("NIMJ"). The Newton entities are each a subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY Mellon”) and are therefore subject to its policies and procedures which may be mentioned throughout this policy. This policy is specific to NIMNA, however where Newton is referenced within the policy it should be viewed from the global perspective, unless otherwise noted.

 

Policy Statement

 

As a fiduciary and to meet its obligations as an SEC registered investment adviser, Newton owes its clients a duty of care and a duty of loyalty with respect to all services undertaken on the client’s behalf including (where applicable) the exercise of voting rights. Newton provides discretionary and non-discretionary investment advisory services to institutional investors in the form of, for example, separate accounts, model portfolios, and pooled investment vehicles that are offered or maintained by The Bank of New York Mellon and its affiliates, and to other investment advisers through sub-advisory agreements. In addition, we may also provide voting advice to accounts where Newton acts in an advisory capacity.

 

This Proxy Voting Policy (the “Policy”) describes Newton’s approach to exercising voting rights, where discretion over the voting decisions has been delegated to Newton by its clients and where Newton provides guidance on exercising voting rights in securities that Newton has recommended to clients on a non-discretionary basis, e.g. model accounts. Where applicable, Newton will use its best efforts to exercise voting rights as part of its authority to manage, acquire and dispose of account assets. With respect of funds, i.e. registered investment companies, UCITS or AIFs, which Newton manages and/or sub-advises, Newton will exercise voting rights under this Policy pursuant to an authority granted under the applicable client agreements.

 

Newton will exercise voting rights in a prudent and diligent manner and in the best interests of clients.

 

Policy Summary

 

Newton has adopted and implemented this Policy, which it believes is reasonably designed to:

 

Ensure that voting rights are exercised;

Ensure voting decisions are taken in the best interests of clients;

Address potential material conflicts of interest that may arise; and

Meet disclosure requirements and expectations in connection with voting responsibilities and activities undertaken.

 

Voting Guidelines

 

Newton has established overarching voting guidelines which inform our ultimate voting decision, based on guidance established by internationally recognized governance principles including the OECD Corporate Governance Principles, the ICGN Global Governance Principles, the UK Investment Association’s Principles of Remuneration, and the UK Corporate Governance Code, in addition to other local governance codes.

 

 

 

 

 

All voting decisions are based on Newton’s voting guidelines. We have used the services of an independent voting service provider to translate these guidelines into explicit voting actions forming a bespoke voting policy for Newton. This policy will be applied to all our votable holdings, enabling a universal approach to our voting while allowing us to deploy in-depth case-by-case analysis from Newton’s stewardship team for those issuers and/or proposals which merit greater focus due to the materiality of our investment or the importance of the issue at hand (e.g., shareholder resolution, corporate action, related-party transactions). In these instances, communication with or input from the wider investment team may be sought, as well as, if relevant, engagement with the company. The stewardship team retains the ultimate discretion to deviate the vote instruction from Newton’s bespoke policy’s recommendation.

 

Our active approach to voting means that our voting decisions reflect our investment rationale and take into consideration engagement activity and the company’s approach to relevant codes, market practices and regulations. These are applied to the company’s unique situation, while also taking into account any explanations offered for why the company has adopted a certain position or policy.

 

Newton seeks to make proxy voting decisions that are in the best long-term financial interests of its clients and which seek to support investor value creation by supportingproposals that are consistent with our corporate governance views and investment case.

 

In general, voting decisions are taken consistently across all Newton’s clients that are invested in the same underlying company. This is in line with Newton’s investment process that focuses on the long-term success of the investee company. Further, it is Newton’s intention to exercise voting rights in all circumstances where it retains voting authority.

 

Voting Procedures

 

All voting opportunities are communicated to Newton by way of an electronic voting platform.

 

The Responsible Investment team reviews all resolutions for matters of concern. Any such contentious issues identified may be referred to the appropriate global fundamental equity analyst or portfolio manager for comment. Where an issue remains contentious, Newton may also decide to confer or engage with the company or other relevant stakeholders.

 

An electronic voting service is employed to submit voting decisions. Each voting decision is submitted via the electronic voting service by a member of the Responsible Investment team but can only be executed by way of an alternate member of the team approving the vote within the same system.

 

Members of certain BNY Mellon operations teams are responsible for administrative elements surrounding the exercise of voting rights by ensuring the right to exercise clients’ votes is available and that these votes are exercised.

 

Acting Collectively

 

Subject to applicable law and reporting regulations, Newton will work collectively with other investors as well as trade associations, government bodies and non-governmental organizations to develop best practice, raise awareness of a concern or enhance the effectiveness of engagement activities. When considering action and also when acting collectively on a specific issue of concern with a company, we exercise caution in order to avoid situations of being unintentionally in receipt of material non-public information, breaching relevant anti-trust or anti-competitive rules and regulations, or being considered acting in concert with one or more other investors.

 

Voting Service Providers

 

Newton utilizes an independent voting service provider for the purposes of managing upcoming meetings and instructing voting decisions via its electronic platform, and for providing research. Its voting recommendations are not routinely followed; it is only in the event that we recognize a potential material conflict of interest (as described below) that the recommendation of our external voting service provider will be applied.

 

Newton’s external voting provider is subject to the requirements set by Newton’s Vendor Management Oversight Group. As such, regular due diligence meetings are held and minutes maintained with this provider, which includes reviewing its operational performance, service quality, and robustness of research and its internal controls, including management of its potential material conflicts of interest. In addition, and along with its other clients, Newton participates in consultations that seek specific feedback on proxy voting matters. This helps ensure alignment of interest between Newton’s expectations and the voting recommendations provided by the external provider.

 

 

 

 

 

Conflicts of Interest

 

Where Newton acts as a proxy for its clients, a conflict could arise between Newton (including BNY Mellon funds or affiliate funds), the investee company and/or a client when exercising voting rights. Newton has in place procedures for ensuring potential material conflicts of interests are mitigated, while its clients’ voting rights are exercised in their best interests. Newton seeks to avoid potential material conflicts of interest through:

 

1. the establishment of these proxy voting guidelines;

2. the Responsible Investment team;

3. internal oversight groups; and

4. the application of the proxy voting guidelines in an objective and consistent manner across client accounts, based on, as applicable, internal, and external research and recommendations provided by third party proxy advisory services and without consideration of any Newton or BNY Mellon client relationship factors.

 

Where a potential material conflict of interest exists between Newton, BNY Mellon, the underlying company and/or a client, the voting recommendations of an independent third-party proxy service provider will be applied.

 

A potential material conflict of interest could exist in the following situations, among others:

 

1. Where a shareholder meeting is convened by Newton’s parent company, BNY Mellon;

2. Where a shareholder meeting is convened by a company for which the CEO of BNY Mellon serves as a Board member;

3. Where a shareholder meeting is convened by a company that is a current client of BNY Mellon and contributed more than 5% of BNY Mellon’s revenue as of the end of the last fiscal quarter;

4. Where a shareholder meeting involves an issue that is being publicly challenged or promoted (e.g., a proxy contest) by (i) a BNY Mellon Board member or (ii) a company for which a BNY Mellon Board member serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors, CEO, President, CFO or COO (or functional equivalent);

5. Where a shareholder meeting is convened by a pooled vehicle with agenda items relating to services provided by (or fees paid to) a BNY Mellon affiliate (e.g., Investment Management Agreement, Custody Agreement, etc.);

6. Where an employee, officer, or director of BNY Mellon or one of its affiliated companies has a personal interest in the outcome of a particular proxy proposal); and

7. Where the proxy relates to a security where Newton has invested in two or more companies that are subject to the same merger or acquisition. All instances where a potential material conflict of interest has been recognized and Newton engages its proxy voting service provider are reported separately in Newton’s publicly available Responsible Investment Quarterly Reports.

 

Newton employees are required to identify any potential or actual conflicts of interest and take appropriate action to avoid or manage these and report them to Newton’s Conflicts of Interest Committee for review, further information can be found in Newton’s Conflicts of Interest Policy.

 

Disclosures and Reporting

 

Newton publishes publicly on its website its Responsible Investment Policies and Principles, which describes Newton’s approach to Responsible Investment including the exercise of voting rights. The Responsible Investment quarterly reports are also published publicly, which include the details of certain engagements undertaken during the period in addition to a list all voting decisions taken and the voting rationale for decisions not aligned with the recommendations of the underlying company’s management and for decisions on all shareholder-proposed resolutions.

 

Newton’s Proxy Voting Policy and procedures is also summarized in its Form ADV, which is filed with the SEC and furnished to clients. Upon request, Newton will provide clients with a copy of the policies noted above as well as information on how their proxies were voted by Newton.

 

Securities Lending

 

Newton does not engage in securities lending on behalf of its clients; this activity is at the discretion of individual clients. For certain funds that are managed by BNY Mellon, and where Newton is appointed as investment manager or sub-advisor, the fund boards have entered into securities-lending programs.

 

 

 

 

Controls, Record Keeping and Auditing

 

Newton has established a Sustainability Committee that oversees all aspects relating to sustainability at Newton, including Newton’s investments, direct impacts and engagement with communities and engagement with financial markets (advocacy) regarding sustainability issues. All internal procedure documents related to voting matters, including this policy document, are overseen by the Sustainability Committee at least annually.

 

Records are kept of all voting decisions, including evidence of the submission and approval process, which are subject to external audit. In addition, the Corporate Actions team reports monthly on critical risk indicators in relation to voting matters.

 

Roles and Responsibilities

 

Members of certain BNY Mellon Operations teams are responsible for administrative processes and actions that ensures Newton has the ability to and does exercise its individual clients’ voting rights:

 

Responsible Investment Team members are also responsible for ensuring voting rights are exercised and that voting decisions are in line with Newton’s voting guidelines.

Fundamental Equity Analysts and Portfolio Managers provide specific company-level investment insight for consideration when arriving at voting decisions.

The Sustainability Committee oversees Newton’s Responsible Investment Policies and Principles, which may include this Policy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROXY VOTING POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES

 

 

Effective Date 12/15/2022

 

 

 

 

 

These policies and procedures (and the guidelines that follow) apply to the voting of proxies by Northern Trust Corporation affiliates (“Northern Trust”) for accounts over which Northern Trust has been granted proxy voting discretion.

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

 

Northern Trust Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures 1
  SECTION 1. PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES 1
  SECTION 2. PROXY COMMITTEE 1
  SECTION 3. PROXY VOTING SERVICE 2
  SECTION 4. APPLICATION OF PROXY GUIDELINES 2
  SECTION 5. MATERIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 3
  SECTION 6. PROXY VOTING RECORDS; CLIENT DISCLOSURES 4
  SECTION 7. ERISA ACCOUNTS 4
  SECTION 8. MUTUAL FUNDS 5
  SECTION 9. OTHER SPECIAL SITUATIONS 5
       
Northern Trust Proxy Voting Guidelines 6
  I. The Board of Directors 6
  A. Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections 6
  B. Director Independence 6
  C. Director Attendance 7
  Northern Trust will vote case by case on individual directors who attend fewer than 75 percent of board and board-committee meetings for two consecutive years 7
  D. Lead Independent Director 7
  E. Overboarding Issues 7
  F. Diversity 7
  G. Stock Ownership Requirements 7
  H. Board Evaluation and Refreshment 8
  I. Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection 8
  II. Proxy Contests 8
  A. Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections 8
  III. Auditors 9
  A. Ratifying Auditors 9
  IV. Proxy Contest Defenses 9
  A. Board Structure: Staggered vs. Annual Elections 9
  B. Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors 9
  C. Cumulative Voting 10
  D. Majority Voting 10
  E. Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings 11
  F. Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent 11
  G. Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board 11
  V. Tender Offer Defenses 11
  A. Poison Pills 11
  B. Fair Price Provisions 11
  C. Greenmail 11
  D. Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Amend the Charter or Bylaws 12
  VI. Miscellaneous Governance Provisions 12
  A. Confidential Voting 12
  B. Bundled Proposals 12
  C. Shareholder Advisory Committees 12
  D. Board of Directors Failure to Respond to Certain Majority Approved Shareholder Proposals 12

 

i

 

 

  E. Board of Directors Failure to Adequately Respond to Rejected Board Compensation Proposals 13
  F. Compensation Committee Failure to Adequately Address Pay for Performance 13
  G. ESG Failures 13
  H. Succession Policies 13
  I. Proxy Access 13
  J. Other Business 13
  VII. Capital Structure 14
  A. Common Stock Authorization 14
  B. Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends 14
  Northern Trust generally allows for management discretion on matters related to stock distributions, such as stock splits and stock dividends 14
  C. Unequal Voting Rights 14
  D. Reverse Stock Splits 14
  E. Blank Check Preferred Authorization 14
  F. Shareholder Proposals Regarding Blank Check Preferred Stock 14
  G. Adjust Par Value of Common Stock 14
  H. Preemptive Rights 15
  I. Debt Restructurings 15
  J. Share Repurchase Programs 15
  VIII. Executive and Director Compensation 15
  A. Equity-Based and Other Incentive Plans 15
  B. OBRA-Related Compensation Proposals 16
  C. Proposals Concerning Executive and Director Pay 16
  D. Golden and Tin Parachutes 16
  E. Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) and Other Broad-Based Employee Stock Plans 16
  F. 401(k) Employee Benefit Plans 17
  IX. State of Incorporation 17
  A. Voting on State Takeover Statutes 17
  B. Voting on Reincorporation Proposals 17
  X. Mergers and Corporate Restructurings 17
  A. Mergers and Acquisitions 17
  B. Corporate Restructuring 17
  C. Spin-offs 17
  D. Asset Sales 18
  F. Appraisal Rights 18
  G. Changing Corporate Name 18
  H. Adjourn Meeting 18
  XI. Mutual Funds 18
  A. Election of Trustees 18
  B. Investment Advisory Agreement 18
  C. Fundamental Investment Restrictions 18
  D. Distribution Agreements 18
  XII. Environmental and Social Issues 19
  A. Environment 19
  B. Diversity and Equal Employment Opportunity 19
  C. Consumer and Product Safety 20
  D. Supply Chain Management 20
  E. Animal Welfare 20
  F. Political and Charitable Contributions 20

 

ii

 

 

Northern Trust

Proxy Voting

Policies and Procedures

 

These policies and procedures (and the guidelines that follow) apply to the voting of proxies by Northern Trust Corporation affiliates (“Northern Trust”) for accounts over which Northern Trust has been granted proxy voting discretion.

 

SECTION 1. PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

 

The fundamental precept followed by Northern Trust in voting proxies is to ensure that the manner in which shares are voted is in the best interest of clients/beneficiaries and the value of the investment. As used in these policies and procedures the term “clients/beneficiaries” means any person or entity having the legal or beneficial ownership interest, as the case may be, in a trust, custody or investment management account over which Northern Trust has discretionary voting authority.

 

Absent special circumstances of the types described in these policies and procedures, Northern Trust will generally exercise its proxy voting discretion in accordance with the guidelines set forth below. In situations where the application of Northern Trust’s guidelines would be inappropriate for particular proxy issues of non-U.S. companies due to local market standards, customs and best practices, Northern Trust will instruct its Proxy Voting Service (defined below in Section 3) to provide a vote recommendation based on the Proxy Voting Service’s relevant global guidelines. Examples of such issues include “poison pill” defenses, which are allowed to be approved by a company’s board of directors without shareholder approval in a number of countries, and definitions of director independence, which vary significantly from country to country.

 

The foregoing domestic and global proxy voting guidelines are collectively referred to in these policies and procedures as the “Proxy Guidelines”.

 

SECTION 2. PROXY COMMITTEE

 

Northern Trust’s Proxy Committee has responsibility for the content, interpretation and application of the Proxy Guidelines. Membership of the Proxy Committee consists of a group of senior Northern Trust investment and compliance officers. Meetings of the Proxy Committee may be called by the Chairperson or, in his or her absence, by any two committee members. Meetings may be conducted in person or telephonically. A majority of committee members present (in person or by proxy) will constitute a quorum for the transacting of business at any meeting. The approval of proxy votes or changes to these policies and procedures or the Proxy Guidelines may be made by majority vote of those present (in person or by proxy) at a meeting called for that purpose. Alternatively, the Committee may approve proxy votes or changes to these policies and procedures or the Proxy Guidelines by a majority vote communicated telephonically (without a meeting) or electronically, provided that any action so approved is properly documented and reflected in minutes of the next meeting of the Committee.

 

 

 

1

 

 

SECTION 3. PROXY VOTING SERVICE

 

Northern Trust has delegated to an independent third party proxy voting service (“Proxy Voting Service”), the responsibility to review proxy proposals and to make voting recommendations to the Proxy Committee in a manner consistent with the Proxy Guidelines. For proxy proposals that under the Proxy Guidelines are to be voted on a case by case basis, Northern Trust provides supplementary instructions to the Proxy Voting Service to guide it in making vote recommendations. Northern Trust has instructed the Proxy Voting Service not to exercise any discretion in making vote recommendations and to seek guidance whenever it encounters situations that are either not covered by the Proxy Guidelines or where application of the Proxy Guidelines is unclear. In the event that the Proxy Voting Service does not or will not provide recommendations with respect to proxy proposals for securities over which Northern Trust or its affiliates have voting discretion, the relevant proxy analyst at Northern Trust responsible for the issuer or its business sector shall be responsible for reviewing the proxy proposal and making a voting recommendation to the Proxy Committee consistent with the Proxy Guidelines.

 

The Proxy Committee will review the Proxy Voting Service on an annual basis. In connection with that review, it will assess: (1) the Proxy Voting Service’s capacity and competency in analyzing proxy issues; (2) the adequacy of the Proxy Voting Service’s staffing and personnel; (3) whether the Proxy Voting Service has robust policies and procedures that enable it to make proxy voting recommendations based on current and accurate information; and (4) the Proxy Voting Service’s ability to identify and address any real or potential conflicts of interests that exist or may have existed between the firm and its employees and the voting recommendations it made to Northern Trust. The Proxy Committee will also regularly monitor the Proxy Voting Service by requesting information from the Proxy Service to determine whether any real or potential conflicts of interest exist as a result of changes to the firm’s business or internal policies. The Proxy Voting Service will also be required to proactively communicate any (i) business changes or (ii) changes and updates to the firm’s policies and procedures that could impact the adequacy and quality of the proxy voting services or the firm’s ability to effectively manage conflicts.

 

SECTION 4. APPLICATION OF PROXY GUIDELINES

 

It is intended that the Proxy Guidelines will be applied with a measure of flexibility. Accordingly, except as otherwise provided in these policies and procedures, the Proxy Committee may vote proxies contrary to the recommendations of the Proxy Voting Service, or, in the circumstances described in Section 3 above, a Northern Trust proxy analyst, if it determines such action to be in the best interests of Northern Trust clients/beneficiaries. In the exercise of such discretion the Proxy Committee may take into account a wide array of factors relating to the matter under consideration, the nature of the proposal, and the company involved. As a result, a proxy may be voted in one manner in the case of one company and in a different manner in the case of another where, for example, the past history of the company, the character and integrity of its management, the role of outside directors, and the company’s record of producing performance for investors justifies a high degree of confidence in the company and the effect of the proposal on the value of the investment. Similarly, poor past performance, uncertainties about management and future directions, and other factors may lead to a conclusion that particular proposals present unacceptable investment risks and should not be supported. In addition, the proposals should be evaluated in context. For example, a particular proposal may be acceptable standing alone, but objectionable when part of an existing or proposed package, such as where the effect may be to entrench management. Special circumstances may also justify casting different votes for different clients/beneficiaries with respect to the same proxy vote.

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

The Proxy Committee will document the rationale for any proxy voted contrary to the recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service or, in the circumstances described in Section 3 above, a Northern Trust proxy analyst.

 

SECTION 5. MATERIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

 

Northern Trust has sought to address proxy related conflicts of interest in various ways, including the establishment, composition and authority of the Proxy Committee, and the delegation of primary responsibility for proxy review and vote recommendation functions to the Proxy Voting Service. For these reasons, the potential for conflicts of interest in the voting of proxies generally arises only where the Proxy Committee is considering the possibility of voting in a manner contrary to a vote recommendation received from the Proxy Voting Service or where the Proxy Voting Service has not provided a vote recommendation. In these situations, the Proxy Committee will need to determine whether a material conflict of interest exists. For example, a material conflict of interest could arise when a proxy relates to the following non-exclusive types of issues:

 

Securities issued by Northern Trust Corporation or its affiliates.

 

Matters in which Northern Trust has a direct financial interest (such as shareholder approval of a change in mutual fund advisory fees where Northern Trust is the fund advisor).

 

Instances where Northern Trust, its board members, executive officers, and/or others maintain relationships with the issuers of securities, proponents of shareholder proposals, participants in proxy contests, corporate directors or candidates for directorships.

 

Instances where an attempt has been made to directly or indirectly influence the voting recommendation that is made.

 

Where the Proxy Committee determines that it is subject to a material conflict of interest, it may resolve the conflict in any of the following ways, which may vary, consistent with its duty of loyalty and care, depending on the facts and circumstances of each situation and the requirements of applicable law:

 

Following the vote recommendation of an independent fiduciary appointed for that purpose;

 

Voting pursuant to client direction;

 

Abstaining; or

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

Voting pursuant to a “mirror voting” arrangement (under which shares are voted in the same manner and proportion as some or all of the other shares not voted by the Proxy Committee).

 

SECTION 6. PROXY VOTING RECORDS; CLIENT DISCLOSURES

 

Northern Trust will maintain the following records relating to proxy votes cast under these policies and procedures:

 

A. A copy of these policies and procedures.

 

B. A copy of each proxy statement Northern Trust receives regarding client securities.

 

C. A record of each vote cast by Northern Trust on behalf of a client.

 

D. A copy of any document created by the Proxy Committee that was material to making a decision how to vote proxies on behalf of a client or that memorialized the basis for that decision.

 

E. A copy of each written client request for information on how Northern Trust voted proxies on behalf of the client, and a copy of any written response by Northern Trust to any (written or oral) client request for information on how Northern Trust voted proxies on behalf of the requesting client.

 

The foregoing records will be retained for such period of time as is required to comply with applicable laws and regulations. Northern Trust may rely on one or more third parties to make and retain the records referred to in items B. and C. above.

 

The Proxy Committee will cause copies of the foregoing records, as they relate to particular clients, to be provided to those clients upon request. It is generally the policy of Northern Trust not to disclose its proxy voting records to third parties, except as may be required by applicable laws and regulations.

 

SECTION 7. ERISA ACCOUNTS

 

Plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), are to be administered consistent with the terms of the governing plan documents and applicable provisions of ERISA. In cases where sole proxy voting discretion rests with Northern Trust, the foregoing policies and procedures will be followed, subject to the fiduciary responsibility standards of ERISA. These standards generally require fiduciaries to act prudently and to discharge their duties solely in the interests of participants and beneficiaries. The Department of Labor has indicated that the voting decisions of ERISA fiduciaries must generally focus on the course that would most likely increase the value of the stock being voted.

 

The documents governing ERISA individual account plans may set forth various procedures for voting “employer securities” held by the plan. Where authority over the investment of plan assets is granted to plan participants, many individual account plans provide that proxies for employer securities will be voted in accordance with directions received from plan participants as to shares allocated to their plan accounts. In some cases, the governing plan documents may further provide that unallocated shares and/or allocated shares for which no participant directions are received will be voted in accordance with a proportional voting method in which such shares are voted proportionately in the same manner as are allocated shares for which directions from participants have been received. Consistent with Labor Department positions, it is the policy of Northern Trust to follow the provisions of a plan’s governing documents in the voting of employer securities unless it determines that to do so would breach its fiduciary duties under ERISA.

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

SECTION 8. MUTUAL FUNDS

 

Proxies of registered management investment companies will be voted subject to any applicable investment restrictions of the fund and, to the extent applicable, in accordance with any resolutions or other instructions approved by authorized persons of the fund.

 

SECTION 9. OTHER SPECIAL SITUATIONS

 

Proxies of funds or accounts that specify the use of proxy guidelines other than the Proxy Guidelines will be voted in accordance with these other guidelines. Northern Trust may choose not to vote proxies in certain situations or for certain accounts either where it deems the cost of doing so to be prohibitive or where the exercise of voting rights could restrict the ability of an account’s portfolio manager to freely trade the security in question. For example, 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”). Due to these restrictions, Northern Trust 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, 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, Northern Trust will not vote those proxies in the absence of an unusual, significant vote. Various accounts over which Northern Trust has proxy voting discretion participate in securities lending programs administered by Northern Trust or a third party. Because title to loaned securities passes to the borrower, Northern Trust will be unable to vote any security that is out on loan to a borrower on a proxy record date. If Northern Trust has investment discretion, however, it reserves the right of the portfolio manager to instruct the lending agent to terminate a loan in situations where Northern Trust believes the benefits of voting the security outweigh the costs of terminating the loan, consistent with the terms and conditions of Northern Trust’s procedures for recall of securities out on loan. In such instances, Northern Trust shall recall the shares on loan on a best efforts basis.

 

 

 

5

 

 

Northern Trust

Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

I. The Board of Directors

 

A. Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

 

Northern Trust generally votes for director nominees in uncontested elections absent countervailing factors such as a lack of director independence (see below), chronic, unjustified absenteeism, concerns regarding the inattentiveness of the nominee, including the number of public company boards on which the nominee sits, and if the nominee sits on an audit, compensation or risk committee, concerns regarding the actions taken by such committees.

 

B. Director Independence

 

For any situations not already covered by a rule or regulation, Northern Trust will generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting that the board of a company be comprised of a majority of independent directors and will generally vote against shareholder proposals requesting that the board of a company be comprised of a supermajority of independent directors. Northern Trust generally votes for shareholder proposals that request that the board audit, compensation and/or nominating committees include independent directors exclusively and withholds votes for the election of non-independent directors serving on an audit, compensation or nominating committee or board.

 

Northern Trust generally leaves the choice of chairman to the board’s discretion as Northern Trust’s support for proposals that principal committees consist exclusively of independent directors and that the board be comprised of a majority of independent directors provides sufficient checks and balances. However, Northern Trust will vote case by case on whether to support shareholder resolutions seeking the separation of chairman and CEO in circumstances where shareholder interests may be better served by having an independent chair. Such circumstances may include, during periods of organizational re-structuring, during periods of sustained under performance relative to peers, during a period of leadership transition, or where concerns arise as to the sufficiency of independence the board has from management.

 

Northern Trust generally supports the listing standards or local market practice on non-executive director independence. Northern Trust may apply a stricter standard for director independence at companies that exhibit poor governance practices. A non-executive director in these instances would not be considered independent if he or she:

 

Has been an employee of the company within the last five years;

 

Has, or has had within the last three years, a material business relationship with the company;

 

Is a company founder;

 

Represents a significant shareholder; or

 

Has close family ties with any of the company’s advisers, directors, or senior employees.

 

 

 

 

6

 

 

C. Director Attendance

 

Northern Trust will vote case by case on individual directors who attend fewer than 75 percent of board and board-committee meetings for two consecutive years.

 

D. Lead Independent Director

 

Northern Trust generally votes for shareholder proposals in support of the appointment of a lead independent director.

 

Northern Trust expects the role of the lead independent director to be set out within the board’s governance charter, with clearly defined powers that should include at minimum the ability to:

 

serve as a liaison between the company’s independent directors and the CEO;

 

lead the annual evaluation of the CEO’s performance and the annual evaluation of the independent board of directors;

 

be available for consultation and direct communication with major stockholders, if they so request;

 

approve meeting agendas for the board and the nature of information sent to the board;

 

call a special meeting of the board or a special executive session of the independent directors; and

 

add items to the agenda of any regular or special meeting of the board deemed necessary or advisable.

 

E. Overboarding Issues

 

Northern Trust generally votes against a director nominee if it is a CEO who sits on more than two public boards or a non-CEO who sits on more than four public boards.

 

F. Diversity

 

Companies benefit from a wide diversity of perspectives and backgrounds on their boards. The board should reflect the diversity of the workforce and society, ensuring that a variety of viewpoints are represented in corporate decision-making. Northern Trust believes that an effective board should be comprised of directors with a mix of skills and experience to ensure the Board has the necessary tools to perform its oversight function effectively; this includes diversity of background, experience, age, race, gender, ethnicity, and culture. Northern Trust may vote against one or more directors where we have concerns relating to the composition and diversity of the board.

 

G. Stock Ownership Requirements

 

Northern Trust generally votes 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.

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

H. Board Evaluation and Refreshment

 

The board needs to ensure that it is positioned to change and evolve with the needs of the company. Boards should, on at least an annual basis, formally evaluate the CEO, the board as a whole, and individual directors. Evaluation of the board as a whole should consider the balance of skills, experience, independence, and knowledge of the company on the board relative to the company’s long-term strategic plan. Evaluation of the board should also consider the board’s diversity, including gender, how the board works together as a unit, and other factors relevant to its effectiveness. Individual evaluation should aim to show whether each director continues to contribute effectively and to demonstrate commitment to the role.

 

We expect the board to disclose in its annual report or proxy statement how performance evaluation of the board, its committees and its individual directors has been conducted. Northern Trust may vote against the independent chair, lead independent director or presiding director in circumstances where the board appears to lack mechanisms to promote accountability and oversight, coupled with sustained poor performance relative to peers.

 

Northern Trust does not consider mandatory retirement age caps or term limits to be appropriate in circumstances where shareholder interests may be better served by a longer-serving non- executive director remaining on the board. For example during periods of organizational re- structuring or CEO/Chairman transition where constructive challenge from a longer serving non- executive director may be beneficial in the context of overall board composition and experience.

 

Northern Trust will generally vote against shareholder proposals to impose age and term limits unless the company is found to have poor board refreshment and director succession practices. Northern Trust will scrutinize boards that have a preponderance of non-executive directors with excessive long-tenures to ensure that new perspectives are being added to the board and that the board remains sufficiently independent from management.

 

I. Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection

 

Proposals concerning director and officer indemnification and liability protection are evaluated on a case by case basis. Northern Trust generally votes for proposals providing indemnification protection to officers and directors, and for proposals limiting the liability of officers and directors for monetary damages, provided such proposals do not appear to conflict with applicable law and cover only future actions.

 

II. Proxy Contests

 

A. Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections

 

Votes in a contested election of directors are evaluated on a case by case basis, considering the following factors:

 

Long-term financial performance of the target company relative to its industry;

 

 

 

 

8

 

 

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;

 

Stock ownership positions; and

 

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) performance.

 

B. Reimburse Proxy Solicitation Expenses

 

Decisions to provide full reimbursement for dissidents waging a proxy contest are made on a case by case basis. Northern Trust will generally support such proposals in cases where (i) Northern Trust votes in favor the dissidents, and (ii) the proposal is voted on the same proxy as the dissident slate and, as such, is specifically related to the contested proxy at issue.

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals allowing shareholders to elect replacements and fill vacancies.

 

III. Auditors

 

A. Ratifying Auditors

 

Northern Trust generally votes 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 which is neither accurate nor indicative of the company's financial position.

 

Northern Trust generally vote against auditor ratification and incumbent members of the Audit Committee if non-audit fees are excessive in relation to audit-related fees without adequate explanation.

 

Northern Trust generally votes against shareholder proposals that seek to restrict management’s ability to utilize selected auditors, subject to the qualifications set forth above.

 

IV. Proxy Contest Defenses

 

A. Board Structure: Staggered vs. Annual Elections

 

Northern Trust generally votes against proposals to classify the board and for proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors annually.

 

B. Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.

 

 

 

 

9

 

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals allowing shareholders to elect replacements and fill vacancies.

 

C. Cumulative Voting

 

Northern Trust generally votes against proposals to eliminate cumulative voting, unless such proposals are intended to effectuate a majority voting policy.

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals to institute cumulative voting, unless the company has previously adopted a majority voting policy, or a majority voting shareholder proposal, consistent with Northern Trust’s majority voting guidelines, is on the ballot at the same time as the cumulative voting proposal, in which case Northern Trust generally votes against such cumulative voting proposals.

 

D. Majority Voting

 

In analyzing shareholder proposals calling for directors in uncontested elections to be elected by an affirmative majority of votes cast, Northern Trust focuses on whether or not the company has adopted a written majority voting (or majority withhold) policy that provides for a meaningful alternative to affirmative majority voting.

 

In cases where companies have not adopted a written majority voting (or majority withhold) policy, Northern Trust generally votes for shareholder majority voting proposals.

 

In cases where companies have adopted a written majority voting (or majority withhold) policy, Northern Trust generally votes against shareholder majority voting proposals, provided that the policy is set forth in the company's annual proxy statement and either:

 

Requires nominees who receive majority withhold votes to tender their resignation to the board;

 

Sets forth a clear and reasonable timetable for decision-making regarding the nominee's status; and

 

Does not contain any specific infirmities that would render it an ineffective alternative to an affirmative majority voting standard or otherwise provides a meaningful alternative to affirmative majority voting.

 

In determining the adequacy of a company's majority voting (or majority withhold) policy, Northern Trust may also consider, without limitation, any factors set forth in the policy that are to be taken into account by the board in considering a nominee's resignation and the range of actions open to the board in responding to the resignation (e.g., acceptance of the resignation, maintaining the director but curing the underlying causes of the withheld votes, etc.).

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

E. Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to call special meetings, but may vote against such proposals and in favor of shareholder proposals to allow shareholders to call special meetings, taking into consideration the minimum ownership requirement called for in the resolution, existing shareholder rights mechanisms (e.g., proxy access, right to act by written consent, dual-class stock provisions and voting rights, quorum requirements on certain provisions, ability to amend bylaw and charter agreements, etc.), and the company’s overall record of responsiveness to shareholder concerns.

 

F. Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

 

Northern Trust generally votes against shareholder proposals allowing shareholders to take action by written consent. Northern Trust will review on a case by case basis management proposals allowing shareholders to take action by written consent.

 

G. Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board

 

Northern Trust generally votes against proposals limiting management’s ability to alter the size of the board.

 

V. Tender Offer Defenses

 

A. Poison Pills

 

Northern Trust generally votes for shareholder proposals that ask a company to submit its poison pill for shareholder ratification.

 

Northern Trust will review on a case by case basis management proposals to ratify a poison pill.

 

B. Fair Price Provisions

 

Northern Trust will review votes on a case by case on fair price proposals, taking into consideration whether the shareholder vote requirement embedded in the provision is no more than a majority of disinterested shares.

 

Northern Trust generally votes for shareholder proposals to lower the shareholder vote requirement in existing fair price provisions.

 

C. Greenmail

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company's ability to make greenmail payments.

 

Northern Trust votes anti-greenmail proposals on a case by case basis when they are bundled with other charter or bylaw amendments.

 

 

 

 

11

 

 

D. Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Amend the Charter or Bylaws

 

Northern Trust generally votes against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve charter and bylaw amendments.

 

Northern Trust generally votes for shareholder proposals to lower supermajority shareholder vote requirements for charter and bylaw amendments.

 

E. Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Approve Mergers

 

Northern Trust generally votes against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve mergers and other significant business combinations, while taking into account ownership structure, quorum requirements, and vote requirements.

 

Northern Trust generally votes for shareholder proposals to lower supermajority shareholder vote requirements for mergers and other significant business combinations, while taking into account ownership structure, quorum requirements, and vote requirements.

 

VI. Miscellaneous Governance Provisions

 

A. Confidential Voting

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals requiring confidential voting and independent vote tabulators.

 

B. Bundled Proposals

 

Northern Trust votes on a case by case basis bundled or "conditioned" proxy proposals. In the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, we 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, we vote against the proposals. If the combined effect is positive, we support such proposals.

 

C. Shareholder Advisory Committees

 

Northern Trust votes on a case by case basis, proposals to establish a shareholder advisory committee.

 

D. Board of Directors Failure to Respond to Certain Majority Approved Shareholder Proposals

 

Northern Trust votes on a case by case basis on whether to withhold votes from certain directors in the event the board of directors has failed to adequately respond to a majority approved shareholder proposal. Northern Trust will generally not withhold votes from directors in cases where Northern Trust previously voted against the majority approved shareholder proposal. In cases where Northern Trust previously voted in favor of the majority approved shareholder proposal, it will first determine whether it is appropriate under the circumstances to withhold votes from any directors, and if it determines that such action is appropriate it will then determine the director or directors from which votes should be withheld. Factors that will be taken into consideration include the documented response of the board, if any, concerning its action or inaction relating to the relevant shareholder proposal, whether particular board members served on a committee that was responsible for determining a response to the shareholder proposal, the importance of retaining particular directors or groups of directors to protect shareholder value, and such other factors as Northern Trust may deem appropriate.

 

 

 

 

12

 

 

E. Board of Directors Failure to Adequately Respond to Rejected Board Compensation Proposals

 

Northern Trust votes on a case by case basis on whether to withhold votes from certain directors in the event the board of directors has not adequately responded to situations in which board proposals for approval of executive compensation have failed to receive majority shareholder approval.

 

F. Compensation Committee Failure to Adequately Address Pay for Performance

 

Northern Trust votes on a case by case basis on whether to withhold votes from the certain directors of the compensation committee during a period in which executive compensation appears excessive relative to performance and peers.

 

G. ESG Failures

 

Northern Trust votes on a case by case basis on whether to withhold from certain directors due to material failures of governance, stewardship, risk oversight or fiduciary responsibilities at the company, including failure to adequately guard against or manage ESG risks.

 

H. Succession Policies

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals seeking disclosure on a CEO succession planning policy, considering the scope of the request and the company’s existing disclosure on its current CEO succession planning process.

 

I. Proxy Access

 

Northern Trust votes on a case by case basis on proxy access proposals. Northern Trust will consider a number of factors, including the company’s performance, the performance of the company’s board, the ownership thresholds and holding duration contained in the resolution and the proportion of directors that shareholders may nominate each year.

 

J. Other Business

 

Northern Trust opposes Other Business proposals where shareholders do not have the opportunity to review and understand the details of the proposal.

 

 

 

 

13

 

 

VII. Capital Structure

 

A. Common Stock Authorization

 

Northern Trust votes on a case by case basis, proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issue.

 

B. Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends

 

Northern Trust generally allows for management discretion on matters related to stock distributions, such as stock splits and stock dividends.

 

C. Unequal Voting Rights

 

Northern Trust believes that voting rights should align with the shareholders’ economic interests in the company. As such, Northern Trust will generally vote against multi class exchange offers and multi class recapitalizations. If a company has a pre-existing multi class voting structure with superior voting rights, Northern Trust expects the company to develop and implement a sunset provision. If no sunset provision is disclosed, Northern Trust may vote against the relevant committee member.

 

D. Reverse Stock Splits

 

Northern Trust generally votes for management proposals to implement a reverse stock split, provided that the reverse split does not result in an increase of authorized but unissued shares of more than 100% after giving effect to the shares needed for the reverse split.

 

E. Blank Check Preferred Authorization

 

Absent special circumstances (e.g., actions taken in the context of a hostile takeover attempt) indicating an abusive purpose, Northern Trust generally votes against proposals that would authorize the creation of new classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend and distribution, and other rights, stock unless the voting, conversion, dividend and distribution, and other rights are specified and the voting rights are limited to one vote per share.

 

F. Shareholder Proposals Regarding Blank Check Preferred Stock

 

Northern Trust generally votes for shareholder proposals requiring blank check preferred stock placements to be submitted for shareholder ratification unless the shares are to be issued for the purpose of raising capital or making acquisitions.

 

G. Adjust Par Value of Common Stock

 

Northern Trust generally votes for management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock, while taking into account accompanying corporate governance concerns.

 

 

 

 

14

 

 

H. Preemptive Rights

 

Northern Trust reviews on a case by case basis, proposals to create or abolish preemptive rights. In evaluating proposals on preemptive rights, we look at the size of a company and the characteristics of its shareholder base. We generally oppose preemptive rights for publicly-held companies with a broad stockholder base.

 

I. Debt Restructurings

 

Northern Trust reviews 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. We 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 -- Is the threat of bankruptcy, which would result in severe losses in shareholder value, the main factor driving the debt restructuring?

 

Generally, we approve proposals that facilitate debt restructurings unless there are clear signs of self-dealing or other abuses.

 

J. Share Repurchase Programs

 

Northern Trust generally votes for management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms.

 

VIII. Executive and Director Compensation

 

A. Equity-Based and Other Incentive Plans

 

Northern Trust believes that equity-based awards should align the economic interests of management, directors and employees with those of shareholders and votes case by case taking into account all relevant material facts and circumstances, including the total estimated cost of the company’s equity plan relative to its peers. Northern Trust will generally oppose new plans, or amendments to an existing plan, where:

 

The company’s three year average burn rate exceeds 2% and exceeds an amount that is one standard deviation in excess of its GICS industry mean (segmented by Russell 3000 and non-Russell 3000 companies). A company that exceeds both the foregoing three year average burn rates amounts can avoid a negative vote if it commits in a public filing to maintain a burn rate over the next three fiscal years that is no higher than one standard deviation in excess of its industry mean as calculated at the time of the proposal.

 

The absolute change in ownership interest would be significantly reduced, and dilution would have a negative impact to future earnings;

 

The company has repriced underwater stock options during the past three years; or

 

 

 

15

 

 

The exercise price is less than 100% of fair market value at the time of grant.

 

B. OBRA-Related Compensation Proposals

 

Northern Trust generally votes for the approval and amendment of plans for the purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.

 

C. Proposals Concerning Executive and Director Pay

 

Northern Trust generally votes for shareholder proposals that request a company to adopt an annual advisory vote on executive compensation.

 

Northern Trust votes on a case by case basis on shareholder advisory votes concerning the compensation of named executive officers, taking into account pay structure in relation to firm performance, problematic governance practices, and the company’s overall transparency and level of responsiveness to shareholder concerns. Northern Trust may, where appropriate, utilize a proprietary compensation scorecard model, in addition to company disclosures and outside research to arrive at a final decision. The scorecard considers factors including, but not limited to, profitability measures, overall pay of the top executive, company size, and historic performance.

 

Northern Trust will generally vote for an annual frequency of advisory votes on executive compensation unless the company provides a compelling rationale or unique circumstances.

 

Northern Trust generally votes on a case by case basis all other shareholder proposals that seek additional disclosure of executive and director pay information.

 

Northern Trust votes on a case by case basis all other shareholder proposals that seek to limit executive and director pay.

 

D. Golden and Tin Parachutes

 

Northern Trust generally votes for shareholder proposals to have golden and tin parachutes submitted for shareholder ratification.

 

Northern Trust votes on a case by case basis on shareholder advisory votes concerning the severance packages of named executive officers, taking into account the features of the package and the accompanying restructuring proposal.

 

E. Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) and Other Broad-Based Employee Stock Plans

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals to approve an ESOP or other broad-based employee stock purchase or ownership plan, or to increase authorized shares for such existing plans, except in cases when the number of shares allocated to such plans is “excessive” (i.e., generally greater than ten percent (10%) of outstanding shares).

 

 

 

16

 

 

F. 401(k) Employee Benefit Plans

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.

 

IX. State of Incorporation

 

A. Voting on State Takeover Statutes

 

Northern Trust votes 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, anti-greenmail provisions, and disgorgement provisions).

 

B. Voting on Reincorporation Proposals

 

Proposals to change a company's state of incorporation are examined on a case by case basis.

 

X. Mergers and Corporate Restructurings

 

A. Mergers and Acquisitions

 

Votes on mergers and acquisitions are considered on a case by case basis, taking into account at least the following:

 

Anticipated financial and operating benefits;

 

Offer price (cost vs. premium);

 

Prospects of the combined companies;

 

How the deal was negotiated; and

 

ESG governance and their impact.

 

Northern Trust generally votes on a case by case basis in cases where, in connection with a merger or acquisition seeking shareholder approval, a separate shareholder vote is required to approve any agreements or understandings regarding compensation disclosed pursuant to Item 402(t) of Regulation S-K (golden parachute arrangements).

 

B. Corporate Restructuring

 

Votes on corporate restructuring proposals, including minority squeezeouts, leveraged buyouts, spin-offs, liquidations, and asset sales are considered on a case by case basis.

 

C. Spin-offs

 

Votes on spin-offs are considered on a case by case basis depending on the tax and regulatory advantages, planned use of sale proceeds, market focus, and managerial incentives.

 

 

  

17

 

 

D. Asset Sales

 

Votes on asset sales are 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.

 

E. Liquidations

 

Votes on liquidations are 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.

 

F. Appraisal Rights

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals to restore, or provide shareholders with, rights of appraisal.

 

G. Changing Corporate Name

 

Northern Trust generally votes for changing the corporate name.

 

H. Adjourn Meeting

 

Northern Trust generally supports adjournment proposals that accompany mergers proposals also being supported. Otherwise, Northern Trust will vote against such proposals.

 

XI. Mutual Funds

 

A. Election of Trustees

 

Votes on trustee nominees are evaluated on a case by case basis.

 

B. Investment Advisory Agreement

 

Votes on investment advisory agreements are evaluated on a case by case basis.

 

C. Fundamental Investment Restrictions

 

Votes on amendments to a fund’s fundamental investment restrictions are evaluated on a case by case basis.

 

D. Distribution Agreements

 

Votes on distribution agreements are evaluated on a case by case basis.

 

 

 

18

 

 

XII. Environmental and Social Issues

 

A. Environment

 

Northern Trust upholds environmental stewardship and recognizes that we all are stakeholders in the future of our global environment. Environmental factors increasingly represent significant operational risks and costs to business. At Northern Trust, our primary objective as an asset manager is to create long-term value for our clients. As a major global investor, Northern Trust has interest in how shareholder value is affected by a company’s management and impact on the natural and social environment, and recognizes that a well-developed environmental and social management system can enhance shareholder value in the long-term. We generally encourage 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.

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals requesting increased disclosure regarding the environmental impact of a company’s operations and products and initiatives to curtail these risks, unless sufficient information has been disclosed to shareholders or is otherwise publicly available.

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals requesting the issuance of corporate sustainability reports, as well as disclosure, where relevant, concerning the emission of greenhouse gasses and the use of fracturing in connection with the extraction of natural gasses.

 

Northern Trust votes case by case for proposals requesting the adoption of GHG reduction goals from products and operations.

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals requesting the issuance of reports by a company detailing its energy efficiency plans.

 

B. Diversity and Equal Employment Opportunity

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals advocating the elimination of workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals requesting that a company take reasonable steps to ensure that women and minority candidates are in the pool from which board nominees are chosen or that request that women and minority candidates are routinely sought as part of every board search the company undertakes.

 

Northern Trust votes case by case on proposals requesting the issuance of a diversity report, including summary description of policies and programs to oriented toward increasing diversity or requests to disclose a comprehensive breakdown of workforce by race and gender.

 

 

 

19

 

 

C. Consumer and Product Safety

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals that request a report or assessment of the safety of a company’s operations and a company’s products and services and efforts to promote their safe use.

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals requesting increased disclosure of a company’s policies and procedures for managing and mitigating risks related to cyber security and data privacy.

 

D. Supply Chain Management

 

Northern Trust votes case by case for proposals requesting increased disclosure on a company’s supply chain policies and processes and its management of related risks.

 

E. Animal Welfare

 

Northern Trust generally votes for proposals requesting increased disclosure or reporting regarding animal treatment issues that may impact a company’s operations and products, especially in relation to food production, unless sufficient information on that topic has already been disclosed to shareholders or is otherwise publicly available.

 

F. Political and Charitable Contributions

 

Northern Trust will generally vote for proposals to publish a company’s political or lobbying contributions, taking into consideration recent, significant controversies, fines or litigation regarding the company’s political contributions or trade association spending.

 

Northern Trust generally votes against shareholder proposals to eliminate, direct, or otherwise restrict charitable contributions.

 

In other social and environmental issues, Northern Trust generally supports the position of a company’s board of directors when voting on shareholder initiated social and environmental proposals. Although Northern Trust acknowledges that the economic and social considerations underlying such proposals are often closely intertwined, we believe that in most cases the management group and elected directors are best positioned to make corporate decisions on these proposals.

 

 

 

 

20

 

Nuveen Proxy Voting Policy

 

Policy Purpose and Statement

 

Proxy voting is the primary means by which shareholders may influence a publicly traded company's governance and operations and thus create the potential for value and positive long-term investment performance. When an SEC registered investment adviser has proxy voting authority, the adviser has a fiduciary duty to vote proxies in the best interests of its clients and must not subrogate its clients’ interests to its own. In their capacity as fiduciaries and investment advisers, Nuveen Asset Management, LLC (“NAM”), Teachers Advisors, LLC (“TAL”) and TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC (“TCIM”), (each an “Adviser” and, collectively, the “Advisers”), vote proxies for the Portfolio Companies held by their respective clients, including investment companies and other pooled investment vehicles, institutional and retail separate accounts, and other clients as applicable. The Advisers have adopted this Policy, the Nuveen Proxy Voting Guidelines, and the Nuveen Proxy Voting Conflicts of Interest Policy for voting the proxies of the Portfolio Companies they manage. The Advisers leverage the expertise and services of an internal group referred to as Nuveen’s Stewardship Group to administer the Advisers’ proxy voting. The Stewardship Group adheres to the Advisers’ Proxy Voting Guidelines which are reasonably designed to ensure that the Advisers vote client securities in the best interests of the Advisers’ clients.

 

Applicability

 

This Policy applies to employees of Nuveen acting on behalf of Nuveen Asset Management, LLC, (“NAM”),Teachers Advisors, LLC, (“TAL”) and TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC (“TCIM”), each an “Adviser” and, collectively, referred to as the “Advisers”)

 

Policy Statement

 

Proxy voting is a key component of a Portfolio Company’s corporate governance program and is the primary method for exercising shareholder rights and influencing the Portfolio Company’s behavior. Nuveen makes informed voting decisions in compliance with Rule 206(4)-6 (the “Rule”) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), and applicable laws and regulations, (e.g., the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, “ERISA”).

 

 

 

 

Enforcement

 

As provided in the TIAA Code of Business Conduct, all employees are expected to comply with applicable laws and regulations, as well as the relevant policies, procedures and compliance manuals that apply to Nuveen’s business activities. Violation of this Policy may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.

 

Terms and Definitions

 

Advisory Personnel includes the Adviser’s portfolio managers and research analysts.

 

Proxy Voting Guidelines (the ‘’Guidelines’’) are a set of pre-determined principles setting forth the manner in which the Advisers intend to vote on specific voting categories, and serve to assist clients, Portfolio Companies, and other interested parties in understanding how the Advisers intend to vote on proxy-related matters. The Guidelines are not exhaustive and do not necessarily dictate how the Advisers will ultimately vote with respect to any proposal or resolution. While the Guidelines are developed, maintained, and implemented by the Stewardship Group, and reviewed by the Nuveen Proxy Voting Committee, the portfolio managers of the Advisers maintain the ultimate decision-making authority with respect to how proxies will be voted.

 

Portfolio Company includes any publicly traded company held in an account that is managed by an Adviser.

 

Policy Requirements

 

Investment advisers, in accordance with the Rule, are required to (i) adopt and implement written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interest of clients, and address resolution of material conflicts that may arise, (ii) describe their proxy voting procedures to their clients and provide copies on request, and (iii) disclose to clients how they may obtain information on how the Advisers voted their proxies.

 

The Nuveen Proxy Voting Committee (the “Committee”), the Advisers, the Stewardship Group and Nuveen Compliance are subject to the respective requirements outlined below under Roles and Responsibilities.

 

Although it is the general policy to vote all applicable proxies received in a timely fashion with respect to securities selected by an Adviser for current clients, the Adviser may refrain from voting in certain circumstances where such voting would be disadvantageous, materially burdensome or impractical, or otherwise inconsistent with the overall best interest of clients.

 

Roles and Responsibilities

 

Nuveen Proxy Voting Committee

 

The purpose of the Committee is to establish a governance framework to oversee the proxy voting activities of the Advisers in accordance with the Policy. The Committee’s voting members will be comprised from Research, the Advisers, and Nuveen’s Stewardship Group. Non-voting members will be comprised from Nuveen Legal, Nuveen Compliance, Nuveen Advisory Product, and Nuveen Investment Risk. The Committee may invite others on a standing, routine and/or or ad hoc basis to attend Committee meetings. The CCOs of CREF/TC Funds and the Nuveen Funds shall be standing, non-voting invitees. The Committee has delegated responsibility for the implementation and ongoing administration of the Policy to the Stewardship Group, subject to the Committee’s ultimate oversight and responsibility as outlined in the Committee’s Proxy Voting Charter.

 

 

 

 

Advisers

 

1. Advisory Personnel maintain the ultimate decision-making authority with respect to how proxies will be voted, unless otherwise instructed by a client, and may determine to vote contrary to the Guidelines and/or a vote recommendation of the Stewardship Group if such Advisory Personnel determines it is in the best interest of the Adviser’s clients to do so. The rationale for all such contrary vote determinations will be documented and maintained.

 

2. When voting proxies for different groups of client accounts, Advisory Personnel may vote proxies held by the respective client accounts differently depending on the facts and circumstances specific to such client accounts. The rationale for all such vote determinations will be documented and maintained.

 

3. Advisory Personnel must comply with the Nuveen Proxy Voting Conflicts of Interest Policy with respect to potential material conflicts of interest.

 

Nuveen Stewardship Group

 

1. Performs day-to-day administration of the Advisers’ proxy voting processes.

 

2. Seeks to vote proxies in adherence to the Guidelines, which have been constructed in a manner intended to align with the best interests of clients. In applying the Guidelines, the Stewardship Group, on behalf of the Advisers, takes into account several factors, including, but not limited to:

 

Input from Advisory Personnel

 

Third party research

 

Specific Portfolio Company context, including environmental, social and governance practices, and financial performance.

 

  3. Assists in the development of securities lending recall protocols in cooperation with the Securities Lending Committee.

 

  4. Performs Form N-PX filings in accordance with regulatory requirements.

 

  5. Delivers copies of the Advisers’ Policy to clients and prospective clients upon request in a timely manner, as appropriate.

 

  6. Assists with the disclosure of proxy votes as applicable on corporate websites and elsewhere as required by applicable regulations.

 

  7. Prepares reports of proxies voted on behalf of the Advisers’ investment company clients to their Boards or committees thereof, as applicable.

 

  8. Performs an annual vote reconciliation for review by the Committee.

 

  9. Arranges the annual service provider due diligence, including a review of the service provider’s potential conflicts of interests, and presents the results to the Committee.

 

  10. Facilitates quarterly Committee meetings, including agenda and meeting minute preparation.

 

  11. Complies with the Nuveen Proxy Voting Conflicts of Interest Policy with respect to potential material conflicts of interest.

 

  12. Creates and retains certain records in accordance with Nuveen’s Record Management program.

 

  13. Oversees the proxy voting service provider with respect to its responsibilities, including making and retaining certain records as required under applicable regulation.

 

Nuveen Compliance

 

1. Seeks to ensure proper disclosure of Advisers’ Policy to clients as required by regulation or otherwise.

 

2. Seeks to ensure proper disclosure to clients of how they may obtain information on how the Advisers voted their proxies.

 

3

 

 

3. Assists the Stewardship Group with arranging the annual service provider due diligence and presenting the results to the Committee.

 

4. Monitors for compliance with this Policy and retains records relating to its monitoring activities pursuant to Nuveen’s Records Management program.

 

Nuveen Legal

 

1. Provide legal guidance as requested.

 

Governance

 

Review and Approval

 

This Policy will be reviewed at least annually and will be updated sooner if substantive changes are necessary. The Policy Owner, the Committee and the NEFI Compliance Committee are responsible for the review and approval of this Policy.

 

Implementation

 

Nuveen has established the Committee to provide centralized management and oversight of the proxy voting process administered by the Stewardship Group for the Advisers in accordance with its Proxy Voting Committee Charter and this Policy.

 

Exceptions

 

Any request for a proposed exception or variation to this Policy will be submitted to the Committee for approval and reported to the appropriate governance committee(s), where appropriate.

 

Related Documents

 

Nuveen Proxy Voting Committee Charter

 

Nuveen Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

Nuveen Proxy Voting Conflicts of Interest Policy and Procedures

 

Nuveen Policy Statement on Responsible Investing

 

Policy Adoption Date February 3, 2020
   
Effective Date of Current December 18, 2023
Policy/Last Date Reviewed  
Governance NEFI Compliance Committee
   
Policy Owner Nuveen Proxy Voting Committee
   
Policy Leader Nuveen Compliance
   

 

G-3250864P-E1123W

 

4

 

 

 

 

 

Proxy Voting Policy Summary

 

Version Date: 02/01/2024

 

Policy. River Road Asset Management, LLC’s (“River Road”) exercises discretionary voting authority over proxies issued on securities held in client accounts unless the client has explicitly reserved voting authority or has directed River Road to vote pursuant to the client’s voting policy. River Road, as a matter of policy and as a fiduciary to our clients, votes proxies for client securities consistent with the best economic interests of the clients. River Road maintains written policies and procedures as to the handling, research, voting and reporting of proxy voting. River Road has established the Proxy Voting Policy Committee for reviewing voting guidelines and special issues. River Road’s compliance department oversees the operational and procedural aspects of the proxy voting process. Additionally, to help discharge its duties, River Road uses Glass Lewis & Co. (“Glass Lewis”) as its voting agent. Glass Lewis performs the following services:

 

provides analysis of proxy proposals,

 

tracks and receives proxies for which River Road clients are entitled to vote,

 

votes the proxies as directed by River Road; and

 

compiles and provides client voting records.

 

Voting Process. River Road will generally instruct Glass Lewis to vote proxies pursuant to guidelines adopted by the Proxy Voting Policy Committee at the beginning of each year. If River Road policy recommendation (i.e., the Glass Lewis recommendation in most instances) and the management recommendation for all votes on a ballot are the same, the compliance department will typically vote accordingly. There are limited instances where River Road has (and may in the future) vote differently from the policy and management recommendation.

 

When the Glass Lewis recommended vote contradicts the recommendation of management, the primary analyst assigned to the stock consults with the relevant portfolio manager(s) and reviews the proposal. The analyst and portfolio manager(s) then recommend voting the issue in the way River Road believes is most beneficial to shareholder value. If this vote decision is different than policy recommendation, the rationale is documented and a member of River Road’s ESG investment group and the compliance department reviews and approves the rationale before submitting the final vote.

 

Conflicts of Interest. River Road has eliminated most conflicts of interest by using an independent third party (Glass Lewis) that votes pursuant to the guidelines adopted by the Proxy Voting Policy Committee or in accordance with River Road’s direction based on the above process. Additionally, River Road’s voting process of voting with policy recommendation and requiring compliance department signoff if voting differently addresses any potential conflict of River Road voting shares for a public company that is also a River Road client or an affiliate of a River Road client. In cases where River Road believes there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest, River Road requires additional steps that may include the following:

 

i. documenting the potential conflict of interest;

 

ii. obtaining the prior approval of the Chief Investment Officer and the Chief Compliance Officer;

 

iii. obtaining Proxy Voting Policy Committee review or approval;

 

iv. deferring to the voting recommendation of a third party;

 

v. voting pursuant to client direction (following disclosure of the conflict);

 

vi. abstaining from voting;

 

vii. voting reflectively (in the same proportion and manner as other shareholders); or,

 

viii. taking such other action as necessary to protect the interests of clients.

 

1

 

 

 

  PAGE POLICY/SECTION NUMBER
1 of 3 1.12
IMPLEMENTATION DATE REVISION DATE
POLICY July 1, 2022  
Client Complaints    

 

1.12 Proxy

 

Seix Investment Advisors has a Proxy Committee (“Committee”) that is responsible for establishing policies and procedures reasonably designed to enable Seix Investment Advisors to ethically and effectively discharge its fiduciary obligation to vote all applicable proxies on behalf of all discretionary client accounts and funds, and ensure compliance with all of the requirements. Annually (or more often as needed), the Committee will review, reaffirm and/or amend guidelines, strategies and proxy policies for all domestic and international client accounts, funds and product lines.

 

Seix Investment Advisors utilizes Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) to serve as Seix Investment Advisors’s agent in the provision of certain administrative, clerical, functional recordkeeping, and support services related to Seix Investment Advisors’s proxy voting processes/procedures, which include, but are not limited to:

 

1. The collection of proxy material from our clients’ custodians.

 

2. The facilitation of proxy voting, reconciliation, and disclosure, in accordance with Seix Investment Advisors’s proxy policies and the Committee’s direction.

 

3. Recordkeeping and voting record retention.

 

Seix Investment Advisors has engaged ISS to assist with physical proxy voting matters, while Seix Investment Advisors retains the obligation to vote its clients’ proxies, to review all issues, and to actively review all information prior to determining each vote placed on behalf of its clients. Seix Investment Advisors will continue to utilize all available resources to make well-informed and qualified proxy vote decisions.

 

As reflected in Seix Investment Advisors’s proxy guidelines, the Committee will vote proxies in a manner deemed to be in the best economic interest of its clients, as a whole, as shareholders and beneficiaries of those actions.

 

The Committee will consider client-specific preferences and/or develop and apply criteria unique to its client base and product lines, where appropriate. As needed, Seix Investment Advisors will communicate this information to ISS so those clients’ proxies will be voted accordingly. The Committee has reviewed ISS capabilities as agent for the administrative services above and is confident in its abilities to provide these services effectively. The Committee will monitor such capability on an ongoing basis.

 

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

 

 

 

  PAGE POLICY/SECTION NUMBER
2 of 3 1.12
IMPLEMENTATION DATE REVISION DATE
POLICY July 1, 2022  
Client Complaints    

 

1.12.1 An Independent, Objective Approach to Proxy Issues

 

In the absence of express contractual provisions to the contrary, the Committee will vote proxies for all of Seix Investment Advisors’s discretionary investment management clients.

 

Seix Investment Advisors maintains its own proxy guidelines for U.S. domestic and global proxy voting issues, as well as guidelines applicable to “Taft Hartley plans and relationships. ERISA accounts will be voted in accordance with Seix Investment Advisors’s U.S. Domestic Proxy Guidelines, as such guidelines include ERISA-specific guidelines and requirements.

 

Under Seix Investment Advisors’s Global/International Proxy Guidelines, the Committee generally votes in a manner similar to that recommended by ISS for an account’s international holdings including, to the extent permitted by law, ERISA accounts. In this regard, the Committee has reviewed and will monitor Glass Lewis’ capabilities and conflict policies with respect to international securities proxy vote recommendations.

 

1.12.2 Exceptions to Policy

 

Seix Investment Advisors’s proxy policies, as outlined herein generally will not be applied where Seix Investment Advisors has further delegated discretionary investment management and the authority to vote shares to a properly appointed subadvisor, such as may be the case in some managed separate accounts, wrap programs and funds.

 

In those situations, proxy votes cast by the subadvisor may be governed by the subadvisor’s proxy voting policies and procedures.

 

1.12.3 Conflicts of Interest

 

Due to Seix Investment Advisors’s diverse client base, numerous product lines and affiliations, the Committee may determine a potential conflict exists in connection with a proxy vote based on the SEC guidelines. The Committee has identified the following conflicts that it deems material for proxy purposes, and may identify other conflicts as material in the course of its review:

 

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

 

 

 

  PAGE POLICY/SECTION NUMBER
3 of 3 1.12
IMPLEMENTATION DATE REVISION DATE
POLICY July 1, 2022  
Client Complaints    

 

1. Common stock of other public corporate issuers with which Virtus Fund Advisers, LLC or its wholly owned subsidiaries (“Subsidiaries”) have a significant, ongoing, non-investment management relationship.

 

2. An issuer with a director, officer or employee who presently serves as an independent director on the board of VFA or Subsidiaries.

 

3. An issuer having substantial and numerous banking, investment, or other financial relationships with VFA or Subsidiaries.

 

4. A director or senior officer of VFA or Subsidiaries serving on the board of a publicly held company.

 

5. A direct common stock ownership position of five percent (5%) or greater, held by the VFA or Subsidiaries.

 

For these situations, the Committee has determined that the most fair and reasonable procedure in order to properly address all conflict concerns is to retain an independent fiduciary to vote the ballot items coded within Seix Investment Advisors’s proxy guidelines as case by case.

 

Additional conflicts of interests will be evaluated by the Committee on an individual basis. Although Seix Investment Advisors does its best to alleviate or diffuse known conflicts, there is no guarantee that all situations have been or will be mitigated through proxy policy incorporation.

 

1.12.4 Securities Lending Program

 

Seix Investment Advisors manages assets for several clients (including proprietary mutual funds) which engage in “securities lending” programs. In a typical securities lending program, clients or funds lend securities from their accounts/portfolios to approved broker-dealers against cash collateral. On behalf of clients and the proprietary mutual funds, Seix Investment Advisors seeks to balance the economic benefits of continuing to participate in an open securities lending transaction against the inability to vote proxies. On behalf of clients and the proprietary mutual funds, Seix Investment Advisors will call loaned securities back to vote proxies, or to otherwise obtain rights to vote or consent with respect toa material event affecting securities on loan when the advisor believes it is necessary to vote.

 

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

 

 

GRAPHIC

1Effective March 25, 2024, for voting decisions as of March 26, 2024 Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Policy State Street Global Advisors is the investment management arm of State Street Corporation, a leading provider of financial services to institutional investors. As an asset manager, State Street Global Advisors votes its clients’ proxies where the client has delegated proxy voting authority to it, and State Street Global Advisors votes these proxies and engages with companies in the manner that we believe will most likely protect and promote the long-term economic value of client investments, as described in this document.1 1 This Policy is applicable to SSGA Funds Management, Inc., State Street Global Advisors Trust Company, and other advisory affiliates of State Street Corporation.

GRAPHIC

2 Table of Contents 04 Introduction 04 Our Asset Stewardship Program 05 The State Street Global Advisors Proxy Voting Program 05 Securities Not Voted Pursuant to the Policy 05 Regional Nuances 06 Our Proxy Voting and Engagement Principles 06 Effective Board Oversight 06 Disclosure 07 Shareholder Protection 07 Shareholder Proposals 07 Engagement 07 Section I. Effective Board Oversight 07 Board Independence 08 Board Composition 10 Board Accountability 14 Section II. Disclosure 14 Board Composition Disclosures 14 Reporting 16 Section III. Shareholder Protection 16 Capital 18 Shareholder Rights 19 Governance Documents & Miscellaneous Items 20 Section IV. Shareholder Proposals 21 Section V. Engagement 21 Equity Engagements 22 Fixed Income Engagements 22 The Use of R-Factor in Engagements 22 Engaging with Other Investors Soliciting State Street Global Advisors’ Votes in Connection with Vote-No Campaigns or Shareholder Proposals 23 Section VI. Other Matters 23 Securities On Loan 23 Reporting

GRAPHIC

3 24 Appendix A: Assessment Criteria for Common Disclosure Topics 24 Climate Disclosure Criteria 25 Say-on-Climate Criteria 26 Climate Transition Plan Disclosure Criteria for Companies that Have Adopted a Climate Transition Plan 27 Methane Disclosure Criteria 28 Nature-Related Disclosure: Biodiversity, Deforestation, Water Management, Wastewater Management, Plastics and Packaging, Waste Management, Product Lifecycle 28 Human Capital Management Disclosure Criteria 28 Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Disclosure Criteria 29 Pay Equity Disclosure Criteria (United States and United Kingdom Only) 29 Civil Rights Disclosure Criteria (United States Only) 29 Human Rights Disclosure Criteria 29 Political Contributions Disclosure Criteria (United States Only) 30 Lobbying Disclosure Criteria (United States Only) 30 Trade Association Alignment Disclosure Criteria

GRAPHIC

4 Introduction Our Asset Stewardship Program At State Street Global Advisors, we take our fiduciary duties as an asset manager very seriously. Our primary fiduciary obligation to our clients is to maximize the long-term value of their investments. State Street Global Advisors focuses on risks and opportunities that may impact long-term value creation for our clients. We rely on the elected representatives of the companies in which we invest — the board of directors — to oversee these firms’ strategies. We expect effective independent board oversight of the material risks and opportunities to its business and operations. We believe that appropriate consideration of these risks and opportunities is an essential component of a firm’s long-term business strategy, and expect boards to actively oversee the management of this strategy. State Street Global Advisors’ Asset Stewardship Team is responsible for developing and implementing this Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Policy (the “Policy”), the implementation of third-party proxy voting guidelines where applicable, case-by-case voting items, issuer engagement activities, and research and analysis of corporate governance issues and proxy voting items. The Asset Stewardship Team’s activities are overseen by our internal governance body, State Street Global Advisors’ ESG Committee (the “ESG Committee”). The ESG Committee is responsible for reviewing State Street Global Advisors’ stewardship strategy, engagement priorities, the Policy, and for monitoring the delivery of voting objectives. In order to facilitate our proxy voting process, we retain Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”), a firm with expertise in proxy voting and corporate governance. We utilize ISS to: (1) act as our proxy voting agent (providing State Street Global Advisors with vote execution and administration services), (2) assist in applying the Policy, and (3) provide research and analysis relating to general corporate governance issues and specific proxy items. All voting decisions and engagement activities for which State Street Global Advisors has been given voting discretion are undertaken in accordance with this Policy, ensuring that the interests of our clients remain the sole consideration when discharging our stewardship responsibilities. Exceptions to this policy is the use of an independent third party to vote on State Street Corporation (“State Street”) stock and the stock of other State Street affiliated entities, to mitigate a conflict of interest of voting on our parent company or affiliated entities, and other situations where we believe we may be conflicted from voting (for example, stock of a public company for which a State Street director also serves as a director, or due to an outside business interest). In such cases, delegated third parties exercise vote decisions based upon their independent voting policy. We aim to vote at all shareholder meetings where our clients have given us the authority to vote their shares and where it is feasible to do so. However, when we deem appropriate, we could refrain from voting at meetings in cases where: • Power of attorney documentation is required. • Voting will have a material impact on our ability to trade the security. • Voting is not permissible due to sanctions affecting a company or individual. • Issuer-specific special documentation is required or various market or issuer certifications are required. • Unless a client directs otherwise, in so-called “share blocking” markets (markets where proxy voters have their securities blocked from trading during the period of the annual meeting).

GRAPHIC

5 Additionally, we are unable to vote proxies when certain custodians, used by our clients, do not offer proxy voting in a jurisdiction or when they charge a meeting-specific fee in excess of the typical custody service agreement. Voting authority attached to certain securities held by State Street Global Advisors pooled funds may be delegated to an independent third party as required by regulatory or other requirements. Under such arrangements, voting will be conducted by the independent third party pursuant to its proxy voting policy and not pursuant to this Policy. The State Street Global Advisors Proxy Voting Program Securities Not Voted Pursuant to the Policy Regional Nuances In addition to the option of delegating proxy voting authority to State Street Global Advisors pursuant to this Policy, clients may alternatively choose to participate in the State Street Global Advisors Proxy Voting Program (the “Proxy Voting Program”) which empowers clients to direct the proxy voting of shares held by the eligible fund or segregated account2 they own. Clients that participate in the Proxy Voting Program have the option of selecting a third-party proxy voting guideline from among policies included in the Proxy Voting Program to apply to the vote of the client’s pro rata share of the securities held by the eligible fund or segregated account they own. This Policy does not apply to shares voted under the Proxy Voting Program. Where State Street Global Advisors’ clients have asked it to vote their shares on the client’s behalf, including where a pooled fund fiduciary has delegated the responsibility to vote the fund’s securities to State Street Global Advisors, State Street Global Advisors votes those securities in a unified manner, consistent with the principles described in this Policy. Exceptions to this unified voting policy are: (1) where State Street Global Advisors has made its Proxy Voting Program available to its separately managed account clients and investors within a fund managed by State Street Global Advisors, in which case a pro rata portion of shares held by the fund or segregated account attributable to clients who choose to participate in the Proxy Voting Program will be voted consistent with the third-party proxy voting guidelines selected by the clients, (2) where a pooled investment vehicle managed by State Street Global Advisors utilizes a third party proxy voting guideline as set forth in that fund’s organizational and/or offering documents, and (3) where voting authority with respect to certain securities held by State Street Global Advisors pooled funds may be delegated to an independent third party as required by regulatory or other requirements. With respect to such funds and separately managed accounts utilizing third-party proxy voting guidelines, the terms of the applicable third-party proxy voting guidelines shall apply in place of the Policy described herein and the proxy votes implemented with respect to such a fund or account may differ from and be contrary to the votes implemented for other portfolios managed by State Street Global Advisors pursuant to this Policy. When voting and engaging with companies, we may consider market-specific nuances that may be relevant to that company. We expect companies to observe the relevant laws and regulations of their respective markets, as well as country specific best practice guidelines and corporate governance codes and to publicly disclose their level of compliance with the applicable provisions and requirements. Except where specified, this Policy applies globally. 2 “Eligible funds and segregated accounts” include all fund and client accounts managed by State Street Global Advisors that employ an equity index strategy and which have granted, or are able to grant, proxy voting authority to State Street Global Advisors.

GRAPHIC

6 Our Proxy Voting and Engagement Principles Effective Board Oversight Disclosure We have organized our proxy voting and engagement program around three broad principles: We believe that well-governed companies can protect and pursue shareholder interests better and withstand the challenges of an uncertain economic environment. As such, we seek to vote director elections in a way that we believe will maximize long-term value. Principally, a board acts on behalf of shareholders by protecting their interests and preserving their rights. In order to carry out their primary responsibilities, directors undertake activities that include setting strategy and providing guidance on strategic matters, selecting the CEO and other senior executives, overseeing executive management, creating a succession plan for the board and management, and providing effective oversight of material risks and opportunities relevant to their business. Further, good corporate governance necessitates the existence of effective internal controls and risk management systems, which should be governed by the board. We view board quality as a measure of director independence, director succession planning, board diversity, evaluations and refreshment, and company governance practices. We believe independent directors are crucial to good corporate governance; they help management establish sound corporate governance policies and practices. We believe a sufficiently independent board is key to effectively monitoring management, maintaining appropriate governance practices, and performing oversight functions necessary to protect shareholder interests. We also believe the right mix of skills, independence, diversity, and qualifications among directors provides boards with the knowledge and direct experience to manage risks and operating structures that are often complex and industry-specific. We vote for the (re-)election of directors on a case-by-case basis after considering various factors set forth in this Policy, including, but not limited to, board quality, general market practice, and availability of information on director skills and expertise. When voting in director elections, we do so on behalf of and in the best interest of the funds and client accounts we manage and do not seek to change or influence control of the company. It is important for shareholders to receive timely and accurate reporting of a company’s financial performance and strategy so that they are able to assess both the value and risk of their investment. In addition to information related to strategy and performance, companies should also provide disclosure relating to their approach to corporate governance and shareholder rights. Such information allows investors to determine whether their economic interests have been protected by the board and provides insights into the quality of the board’s oversight of management. Ultimately, the board of directors is accountable for the oversight and disclosure of the material risks and opportunities faced by the company.

GRAPHIC

7 Shareholder Protection Shareholder Proposals Engagement State Street Global Advisors believes it is in the best interest of shareholders for companies to have appropriate shareholder rights and accountability mechanisms in place. As a starting place for voting rights, it is necessary for ownership rights to reflect one vote for one share to ensure that economic interests and proxy voting power are aligned. This share structure best supports the shareholders’ right to exercise their proxy vote on matters that are important to the protection of their investment such as share issuances and other dilutive events, authorization of strategic transactions, approval of a shareholder rights plan, and changes to the corporate bylaws or charter, among others. In terms of accountability mechanisms, we believe there should be annual elections of the full board of directors. The ability to elect, remove and nominate directors on at least an annual basis provides the appropriate checks and balances to ensure that the board of directors are undertaking their responsibilities in the best interests of their shareholders. When voting our clients’ proxies, we may be presented with shareholder proposals at portfolio companies that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with the principles set forth above. For proposals related to commonly requested disclosure topics, we have also developed the criteria found in Appendix A to assess the effectiveness of disclosure on such topics in connection with these types of proposals. State Street Global Advisors’ engagement activities provides a meaningful shareholder tool that we believe protects and enhances the long-term economic value of the holdings in our clients’ accounts. We conduct issuer-specific engagements with companies to discuss the principles set forth in this Policy, including sustainability-related risks and opportunities. In addition, we encourage issuers to increase the amount of direct communication board members have with shareholders. We believe direct communication with executive board members and independent non-executive directors is critical to helping companies understand shareholder concerns. Section I. Effective Board Oversight Board Independence We believe independent directors are crucial to good corporate governance; they help management establish sound corporate governance policies and practices. We believe a sufficiently independent board is key to effectively monitoring management, maintaining appropriate governance practices, and performing oversight functions necessary to protect shareholder interests. We have developed a set of criteria for determining board independence, which varies by region and/or local jurisdiction. These criteria generally follow relevant listing standards, local regulatory requirements and/or local market practice standards. Such criteria, may include, for example: • Participation in related-party transactions and other material business relations with the company • Employment history with company • Founder and member of founding family

GRAPHIC

8 • Government representative • Excessive tenure and a preponderance of long-tenured directors • Relations with significant shareholders • Close family ties with any of the company’s advisers, directors or senior employees • Cross-directorships • Receipt of non-board related compensation from the issuer, its auditors or advisors • Company classification of a director as non-independent In some cases, State Street Global Advisors’ criteria may be more rigorous than applicable local or listing requirements. Separation of Chair/CEO Our primary focus is to ensure there is strong independent leadership of the board, in accordance with the principles discussed above. We generally support the board choosing the governance structure that is most appropriate for that company. We may take voting action against the chair or members of the nominating committee at companies in the following indexes that have combined the roles of chair and CEO and have not appointed a lead independent director: • S&P 500 • STOXX Europe 600 Board Committees We believe that board committees are crucial to robust corporate governance and should be composed of a sufficient number of independent directors. We use the same criteria for determining committee independence as we do for determining director independence, which varies by region and/or local jurisdiction. Although we recognize that board structures may vary by jurisdiction, where a board has established an audit committee and/or compensation/remuneration committee, we generally expect the committee to be primarily, and in some cases, fully independent. Board Composition State Street Global Advisors believes that a well-constituted board of directors, with a balance of skills, expertise, and independence, provides the foundation for a well-governed company. Refreshment and Tenure We may withhold votes from directors if overall average board tenure is excessive. In assessing excessive tenure, we consider factors such as the preponderance of long tenured directors, board refreshment practices, and classified board structures. Generally, we may vote against age and term limits unless the company is found to have poor board refreshment and director succession practices, and has a preponderance of non-executive directors with excessively long tenures serving on the board.

GRAPHIC

9 Director Time Commitments We consider if a company publicly discloses its director time commitment policy (e.g., within corporate governance guidelines, proxy statement, company website). This policy or associated disclosure must include: • Description of the annual review process undertaken by the nominating committee to evaluate director time commitments • Numerical limit(s) on public company board seat(s) the company’s directors can serve on For companies in the S&P 500, we may vote against the nominating committee chair at companies that do not publicly disclose a policy compliant with the above criteria, or do not commit to doing so within a reasonable timeframe. For other companies in certain markets3 that do not publicly disclose a policy compliant with the above criteria, we will consider the number of outside board directorships that the company’s non-executive and executive directors may undertake. Thus, State Street Global Advisors may take voting action against a director who exceeds the number of board mandates listed below:4 • Named Executive Officers (NEOs) of a public company who sit on more than two public company boards • Non-executive board chairs or lead independent directors who sit on more than three public company boards • Non-executive directors who sit on more than four public company boards If a director is imminently leaving a board and this departure is disclosed in a written, time-bound and publicly-available manner, we may consider waiving our withhold vote when evaluating the director for excessive time commitments. Board Diversity We believe effective board oversight of a company’s long-term business strategy necessitates a diversity of perspectives, especially in terms of gender, race and ethnicity. a. Board Gender Diversity We expect boards of all listed companies to have at least one female board member. If a company does not meet the applicable expectation for three consecutive years, State Street Global Advisors may vote against all incumbent members of the nominating committee or those persons deemed responsible for the nomination process. 3. Such markets include the United States (ex-S&P 500), Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland. 4. Service on a mutual fund board, the board of a UK investment trust or a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) board is not considered when evaluating directors for excessive commitments. However, we do expect these roles to be considered by nominating committees when evaluating director time commitments.

GRAPHIC

10 In addition, we expect the boards of companies in the following indices to be composed of at least 30-percent female directors. • Russell 3000 • TSX • FTSE 350 • STOXX 600 • ASX 300 If a company does not meet the applicable expectation, State Street Global Advisors may vote against the chair of the board’s nominating committee or the board leader in the absence of a nominating committee. We may waive the 30-percent voting guideline if a company engages with State Street Global Advisors and provides a specific, timebound plan for reaching the 30-percent threshold. b. Board Racial & Ethnic Diversity (US & UK Only) We may withhold support from the chair of the nominating committee when a company in the S&P 500 or FTSE 100 does not have at least one director from an underrepresented racial/ethnic community on its board. We may waive this voting guideline if a company engages with State Street Global Advisors and provides a specific, timebound plan for reaching this threshold. Board Member Expertise We believe board members should have adequate skills to provide effective oversight of corporate strategy, operations, and risks, including sustainability-related issues. Boards should also have a regular evaluation process in place to assess the effectiveness of the board and the skills of board members to address issues, such as emerging risks, changes to corporate strategy, and diversification of operations and geographic footprint. We believe nominating committees are best positioned to evaluate the skillset and expertise of both existing and prospective board members. However, we may take such considerations into account in certain circumstances, such as contested elections. Board Accountability Oversight of Strategy and Risk We believe that risk management is a key function of the board, which is responsible for setting the overall risk appetite of a company and for providing oversight on the risk management process established by senior executives at a company. We allow boards to have discretion regarding the ways in which they provide oversight in this area. However, we expect companies to disclose how the board provides oversight on its risk management system and risk identification. Boards should also review existing and emerging risks that evolve in tandem with the changing political and economic landscape or as companies diversify or expand their operations into new areas. As responsible stewards, we believe in the importance of effective risk management and oversight of issues that are material to a company. To effectively manage and assess the risk of our clients’ portfolios, we expect our portfolio companies to manage risks

GRAPHIC

11 and opportunities that are material and industry-specific and that have a demonstrated link to long-term value creation, and to provide high-quality disclosure of this process to shareholders. Consistent with this perspective, we may seek to engage with our portfolio companies to better understand how their boards are overseeing risks and opportunities the company has deemed to be material to its business or operations. If we believe that a company has failed to implement and communicate effective oversight of these risks, we may consider voting against the responsible directors. We may withhold votes from directors who we determine have been remiss in their duties. We may vote against directors due to failure to demonstrate effective oversight in the following three areas for relevant companies: • Governance • Climate risk management at companies in carbon-intensive industries5 or companies receiving shareholder proposals that exhibit significant misalignment with our TCFD disclosure assessment criteria • Human capital management at our largest global holdings When evaluating a board’s oversight of risks and opportunities, we assess the following factors, based on disclosures by, and engagements with, portfolio companies: • Oversees Long-term Strategy ─ Articulates the material risks and opportunities and how those risks and opportunities fit into the firm’s long-term business strategy ─ Regularly assesses the effectiveness of the company’s long-term strategy, and management’s execution of this strategy • Demonstrates an Effective Oversight Process ─ Describes which committee(s) have oversight over specific risks and opportunities, as well as which topics are overseen and/or discussed at the full-board level ─ Includes risks and opportunities in board and/or committee agendas, and articulates how often specific topics are discussed at the committee and/or full-board level ─ Utilizes KPIs or metrics to assess the effectiveness of risk management processes ─ Engages with key stakeholders including employees and investors 5 State Street Global Advisors defines carbon-intensive industries as the following Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) subindustries: Electric Utilities, Integrated Oil &Gas, Multi-Utilities, Steel, Construction Materials, Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders, Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing, Oil & Gas Exploration & Production, Diversified Metals & Mining, Airlines, Commodity Chemicals, Industrial Gases, Aluminum, Oil & Gas Storage & Transportation, Multi-Sector Holdings, Diversified Chemicals, Fertilizers & Agricultural Chemicals, Air Freight & Logistics, Agricultural Products, Environmental & Facilities Services, Coal & Consumable Fuels, Paper Packaging, Railroads, Marine, Automotive Retail, Oil & Gas Drilling, Food Retail, Paper Products, Hotels, Resorts & Cruise Lines, Internet & Direct Marketing Retail, Hypermarkets & Supercenters, Precious Metals & Minerals.

GRAPHIC

12 • Ensures Effective Leadership ─ Holds management accountable for progress on relevant metrics and targets ─ Integrates necessary skills and perspectives into the board nominating and executive hiring processes, and provides training to directors and executives on topics material to the company’s business or operations ─ Conducts a periodic effectiveness review • Ensures Disclosures of Material Information ─ Ensures publication of relevant disclosures, including those regarding material topics ─ For example, we expect companies to disclose against the four pillars of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework. Proxy Contests We believe nominating committees that are comprised of independent directors are best placed to assess which individuals can properly fulfill the duties of the board, and act as effective fiduciaries. As long-term shareholders, we vote proxies in director elections, including related to nominating committee members, who play a critical role in determining board composition. While our default position is to support the committees’ judgement, we consider the following factors when evaluating dissident nominees: • Strategy presented by dissident nominees versus that of current management, as overseen by the incumbent board • Effectiveness, quality, and experience of the management slate • Material governance failures and the level of responsiveness to shareholder concerns and market signals by the incumbent board • Quality of disclosure and engagement practices to support changes to shareholder rights, capital allocation and/or governance structure • Company performance and, if applicable, the merit of a recovery plan Board Oversight of Geopolitical Risk As stewards of our clients’ assets, we are aware of the financial risks associated with geopolitical risk, including risks arising from unexpected conflict between or among nations. We expect our portfolio companies that may be impacted by geopolitical risk to: • Manage and mitigate risks related to operating in impacted markets, which may include financial, sanctions-related, regulatory, and/or reputational risks, among others; • Strengthen board oversight of these efforts; and • Describe these efforts in public disclosures.

GRAPHIC

13 Compensation and Remuneration We consider it the board’s responsibility to identify the appropriate level of executive compensation. Despite the differences among the possible types of plans and the awards, there is a simple underlying philosophy that guides our analysis of executive compensation: we believe that there should be a direct relationship between executive compensation and company performance over the long term. Shareholders should have the opportunity to assess whether pay structures and levels are aligned with business performance. When assessing remuneration reports, we consider factors such as adequate disclosure of various remuneration elements, absolute and relative pay levels, peer selection and benchmarking, the mix of long-term and short-term incentives, alignment of pay structures with shareholder interests, as well as with corporate strategy and performance. We may oppose remuneration reports where pay seems misaligned with shareholders’ interests. We may also consider executive compensation practices when re-electing members of the compensation committee. For example, criteria we may consider include the following: • Overall quantum relative to company performance • Vesting periods and length of performance targets • Mix of performance, time and options-based stock units • Use of special grants and one-time awards • Retesting and repricing features • Disclosure and transparency Board Responsiveness to Advisory Votes a. Executive Pay We may vote against the re-election of members of the compensation committee if we have serious concerns about remuneration practices and if the company has not been responsive to shareholder feedback to review its approach. In addition, if the level of dissent against a management proposal on executive pay is consistently high, and we have determined that a vote against a pay-related proposal is warranted in the third consecutive year, we may vote against the Chair of the compensation committee. b. Shareholder Proposals with Significant Shareholder Support We may withhold votes from directors of companies that have not been responsive to a shareholder proposal that received a majority shareholder support at the last annual or special meeting. Attendance We may withhold votes from directors if they attend less than 75 percent of board meetings without providing appropriate explanation for their failure to meet the attendance threshold.

GRAPHIC

14 Section II. Disclosure Board Composition Disclosures Reporting It is important for shareholders to receive timely and accurate reporting of a company’s financial performance and strategy so that they are able to assess both the value and risk of their investment. In addition to information related to strategy and performance, companies should provide disclosure relating to their approach to corporate governance and shareholder rights. Such information allows investors to determine whether their economic interests have been protected by the board and provides insights into the quality of the board’s oversight of management. Ultimately, the board of directors is accountable for the oversight and disclosure of the material risks and opportunities faced by the company. We view board quality as a measure of director independence, director succession planning, board diversity, evaluations and refreshment, and company governance practices. We also believe the right mix of skills, independence, diversity, and qualifications among directors provides boards with the knowledge and direct experience to manage risks and operating structures that are often complex and industry-specific. Board Demographics (US and UK) If a company in the Russell 1000 or FTSE 350 does not disclose the gender, racial and ethnic composition of its board, we may vote against the Chair of the nominating committee. Acceptable disclosures include: • Aggregate-level (e.g., “5% of our Directors are Black”, “Seven of our Directors are people of color”, “30% chose not to self-identify”); or • Individual-level (e.g., “Jane Doe is African-American, John Smith is Caucasian,” etc.) Financial Statements We believe the disclosure and availability of reliable financial statements in a timely manner is imperative for investment analysis. We expect external auditors to provide assurance of a company’s financial condition. Hence, we may vote against the approval of financial statements if (i) they have not been disclosed or audited; (ii) the auditor opinion is qualified/adverse, or the auditor has issued a disclaimer of opinion; or (iii) the auditor opinion is not disclosed. Climate-Related Disclosures We believe that managing climate-related risks and opportunities is a key element in maximizing long-term risk-adjusted returns for our clients. As a result, we have a longstanding commitment to enhancing investor-useful disclosure around this topic. We find that the recommendations of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) provide an effective framework for disclosure of climate-related risks and opportunities. We believe all companies should provide public disclosures in accordance with the following four pillars of the Taskforce for Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework: • Governance The TCFD recommends companies describe the board’s oversight of, and management’s role in, assessing and managing climate-related risks and opportunities. • Strategy The TCFD recommends companies describe identified climate-related risks and opportunities and the impact of these risks and opportunities on their businesses, strategy, and financial planning.

GRAPHIC

15 • Risk Management The TCFD recommends companies describe processes for identifying, assessing, and managing climate-related risks and describe how these processes are integrated into overall risk management. • Metrics and Targets The TCFD recommends companies disclose metrics and targets used to assess and manage climate-related risks and opportunities. ─ State Street Global Advisors is not prescriptive on target setting. We expect companies that have adopted net zero ambitions to disclose interim climate targets.6 If a company chooses not to disclose any climate targets, we expect the company to provide an explanation on how the company measures and monitors progress on managing climate-related risks and opportunities in line with the recommendations of TCFD. ─ TCFD recommends the disclosure of Scope 1, Scope 2, and, if appropriate, Scope 3 emissions. We expect companies to identify and disclose the most relevant categories of Scope 3 emissions as defined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard. However, we recognize that Scope 3 emissions estimates have a high degree of uncertainty; therefore, if the company determines that categories of Scope 3 are impracticable to estimate, we instead encourage companies to explain these limitations. We do not expect companies to set Scope 3 targets. We do encourage companies to explain any efforts to address Scope 3 emissions in line with TCFD, such as engagement with suppliers, customers, or other stakeholders across the value chain, where relevant. We may take voting action against directors serving at companies in the following indexes that fail to provide sufficient disclosure regarding: (i) board oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities; (ii) total direct and indirect GHG emissions (“Scope 1” and “Scope 2” emissions); (iii) climate-related targets, in accordance with the TCFD framework: • S&P 500 • S&P/TSX Composite • FTSE 350 • STOXX 600 • ASX 200 • TOPIX 100 • Hang Seng • Straits Times Index We may waive the guideline if a company engages with State Street Global Advisors and provides a specific, timebound plan for providing the expected disclosures. 6. “Net zero ambitions” are defined by State Street Global Advisors as a public statement/commitment to align the company’s emissions to third party frameworks or pathways for net zero.

GRAPHIC

16 Say-on-Climate Proposals While we are generally supportive of effective climate-related disclosure, we currently do not endorse an annual advisory climate vote. We have reservations with the potential unintended consequences of such a vote, including insulating directors from accountability, distracting from existing disclosure frameworks, and straining investors’ limited proxy voting resources. Where management chooses to include a Say-on-Climate vote, we assess the company’s disclosure in accordance with the criteria listed in Appendix A. Workforce Disclosures (US Only) We may vote against the chair of the compensation committee at companies in the S&P 500 that do not disclose their EEO-1 reports. Acceptable disclosures include: • The original EEO-1 report response; or • The exact content of the report translated into custom graphics Section III. Shareholder Protection Capital Share Capital Structure The ability to raise capital is critical for companies to carry out strategy, to grow, and to achieve returns above their cost of capital. The approval of capital raising activities is fundamental to a shareholder’s ability to monitor the amounts of proceeds and to ensure capital is deployed efficiently. Altering the capital structure of a company is a critical decision for boards. When making such a decision, we believe the company should disclose a comprehensive business rationale that is consistent with corporate strategy and not overly dilutive to its shareholders. Our approach to share capital structure matters may vary by local market and jurisdiction, due to regional nuances. Such proposals may include: • Increase in Authorized Common Shares • Increase in Authorized Preferred Shares • Unequal Voting Rights • Share Repurchase Programs Dividend Payouts We generally support dividend payouts that constitute 30 percent or more of net income. We may vote against a dividend payout if the dividend payout ratio has been consistently below 30 percent without adequate explanation. We may also vote against if the payout is excessive given the company’s financial position. Particular attention will be warranted when the payment may damage the company’s long-term financial health. Reorganization, Mergers and Acquisitions The reorganization of the structure of a company or mergers often involve proposals relating to reincorporation, restructurings, liquidations, and other major changes to the corporation.

GRAPHIC

17 Proposals that are in the best interests of the shareholders, demonstrated by enhancing share value or improving the effectiveness of the company’s operations, will generally be supported. We evaluate mergers and structural reorganizations on a case-by-case basis. We will generally support transactions that maximize shareholder value. Some of the considerations include the following: • Offer premium • Strategic rationale • Board oversight of the process for the recommended transaction, including, director and/ or management conflicts of interest • Offers made at a premium and where there are no other higher bidders • Offers in which the secondary market price is substantially lower than the net asset value We may vote against a transaction considering the following: • Offers with potentially damaging consequences for minority shareholders because of illiquid stock • Offers where we believe there is a reasonable prospect for an enhanced bid or other bidders • The current market price of the security exceeds the bid price at the time of voting Related-Party Transactions Some companies have a controlled ownership structure and complex cross-shareholdings between subsidiaries and parent companies (“related companies”). Such structures may result in the prevalence of related-party transactions between the company and its various stakeholders, such as directors and management, subsidiaries and shareholders. In markets where shareholders are required to approve such transactions, we expect companies to disclose details of the transaction, such as the nature, the value and the purpose of such a transaction. We also encourage independent directors to ratify such transactions. Further, we encourage companies to describe the level of independent board oversight and the approval process, including details of any independent valuations provided by financial advisors on related-party transactions. Cross-Shareholdings (Japan Only) “Cross-shareholdings” are a long-standing feature of the balance sheets of many Japanese companies, but, in our view, can be detrimental for corporate governance practices and ultimately shareholder returns. Therefore, State Street Global Advisors may vote against the board leader at the TOPIX 500 companies where the “cross-shareholdings” (strategic listed shares) held by a company exceed 30 percent of the company’s net assets (as in the securities report disclosed for the previous fiscal year).

GRAPHIC

18 We may waive the guideline if a company engages with State Street Global Advisors and provides a specific, timebound, and publicly available plan for reducing its exposure to “cross-shareholdings”: • To less than 30% by 2025; or • By 50% of current level by 2025 Shareholder Rights Proxy Access (North America Only) In general, we believe that proxy access is a fundamental right and an accountability mechanism for all long-term shareholders. We consider proposals relating to proxy access on a case-by-case basis. We generally support shareholder proposals that set parameters to empower long-term shareholders while providing management the flexibility to design a process that is appropriate for the company’s circumstances. Vote Standards a. Annual Elections We generally support the establishment of annual elections of the board of directors. Consideration is given to the overall level of board independence and the independence of the key committees, as well as the existence of a shareholder rights plan. b. Majority Voting We generally support a majority vote standard based on votes cast for the election of directors. We generally vote to support amendments to bylaws that would require simple majority of voting shares (i.e. shares cast) to pass or to repeal certain provisions. Shareholder Meetings a. Special Meetings and Written Consent In general, we support the ability for shareholders to call special meetings, as well as act by written consent. We believe an appropriate threshold for both calling a special meeting and acting by written consent can be 25% of outstanding shares or less. b. Notice Period to Convene a General Meeting We expect companies to give as much notice as is practicable when calling a general meeting. Generally, we are not supportive of authorizations seeking to reduce the notice period to less than 14 days. c. Virtual/Hybrid Shareholder Meetings We generally support proposals that grant boards the right to hold shareholder meetings in a virtual or hybrid format as long as companies uphold the following best practices: • Afford virtual attendee shareholders the same rights as would normally be granted to in-person attendee shareholders • Commit to time-bound renewal (five years or less) of meeting format authorization by shareholders • Provide a written record of all questions posed during the meeting, and

GRAPHIC

19 • Comply with local market laws and regulations relating to virtual and hybrid shareholder meeting practices • If a company breaches any of the criteria above, we may vote against the chair of the nominating committee. • In evaluating these proposals we also consider the operating environment of the company, including local regulatory developments and specific market circumstances impacting virtual meeting practices. Governance Documents & Miscellaneous Items Article Amendments a. Unilateral Amendments We may withhold votes from directors of companies that have unilaterally adopted/amended company bylaws that negatively impact shareholder rights (such as fee-shifting, forum selection, and exclusion service bylaws) without putting such amendments to a shareholder vote. b. Super-Majority We generally vote against amendments to bylaws requiring super-majority shareholder votes to pass or repeal certain provisions. We generally vote for the reduction or elimination of super-majority vote requirements, unless management of the issuer was concurrently seeking to or had previously made such a reduction or elimination. c. Board Size We generally support proposals seeking to fix the board size or designate a range for the board size and vote against proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board outside of a specified range without shareholder approval. Anti-Takeover Issues Occasionally, companies add anti-takeover provisions that reduce the chances of a potential acquirer to make an offer, or to reduce the likelihood of a successful offer. We generally do not support proposals that reduce shareholders’ rights, entrench management, or reduce the likelihood of shareholders’ right to vote on reasonable offers. Our approach to anti-takeover issues may vary by local market and jurisdiction, due to regional nuances. However, we will generally support mandates requiring shareholder approval of a shareholder rights plans (“poison pill”) and repeals of various anti-takeover related provisions. When appropriate, we may vote for an amendment to a shareholder rights plan where the terms of the new plans are more favorable to shareholders’ ability to accept unsolicited offers (i.e., if one of the following conditions are met: (i) minimum trigger, flip-in or flip-over of 20 percent, (ii) maximum term of three years, (iii) no “dead hand,” “slow hand,” “no hand” nor similar feature that limits the ability of a future board to redeem the pill, and (iv) inclusion of a shareholder redemption feature (qualifying offer clause), permitting ten percent of the shares to call a special meeting or seek a written consent to vote on rescinding the pill if the board refuses to redeem the pill 90 days after a qualifying offer is announced).

GRAPHIC

20 Accounting and Audit-Related Issues Companies should have robust internal audit and internal control systems designed for effective management of any potential and emerging risks to company operations and strategy. The responsibility of setting out an internal audit function lies with the audit committee, which should have independent non-executive directors designated as members. We believe the disclosure and availability of reliable financial statements in a timely manner is imperative for investment analysis. As a result, board oversight of the internal controls and the independence of the audit process are essential if investors are to rely upon financial statements. It is important for the audit committee to appoint external auditors who are independent from management as we expect auditors to provide assurance of a company’s financial condition. State Street Global Advisors believes that a company’s external auditor is an essential feature of an effective and transparent system of external independent assurance. Shareholders should be given the opportunity to vote on their appointment or to re-appoint at the annual meeting. When appointing external auditors and approving audit fees, we will take into consideration the level of detail in company disclosures. We generally do not support resolutions if adequate breakdown is not provided and/or if non-audit fees are more than 50 percent of audit fees. In addition, we may vote against members of the audit committee if we have concerns with audit-related issues or if the level of non-audit fees to audit fees is significant. In certain circumstances, we may consider auditor tenure when evaluating the audit process. In circumstances where “other” fees include fees related to initial public offerings, bankruptcy emergence, and spin-offs, and the company makes public disclosure of the amount and nature of those fees which are determined to be 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. We generally support the discharge of auditors in the absence of pending litigation, governmental investigation, charges or fraud or other indication of significant concern, as well as requirements that auditors attend the annual meeting of shareholders. Indemnification and Liability Generally, we support proposals to limit directors’7 liability and/ or expand indemnification and liability protection if he or she has not acted in bad faith, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of his or her office. Section IV. Shareholder Proposals We believe that company boards do right by investors and are responsible for overseeing strategy and company management. Towards that end, we generally vote against a shareholder proposal if it appears to impose changes to business strategy or operations, such as increasing or decreasing investment in certain products or businesses or phasing out a product or business line or if it is not a topic that the company has deemed to be material in their public disclosure documents. 7. In Japan, this includes statutory auditors.

GRAPHIC

21 When assessing shareholder proposals, we fundamentally consider whether the adoption of the resolution would promote long-term shareholder value in the context of our core governance principles: 1. Effective board oversight 2. Quality disclosure 3. Shareholder protection We will consider supporting a shareholder proposal if: • the request is focused on enhanced disclosure of the company’s governance and/or risk oversight • the adoption of the request would protect our clients’ interests as minority shareholders; or • for common proposal topics for which we have developed assessment criteria, the extent to which the request satisfies the criteria found in Appendix A Section V. Engagement Equity Engagements As a fiduciary, State Street Global Advisors takes a comprehensive approach to engaging with our portfolio companies. Our stewardship prioritization process allows us to proactively identify companies for engagement and voting in order to mitigate risks in our portfolio. Through engagement, we aim to build long-term relationships with the issuers in which we invest on behalf of our clients and to address a broad range of topics relating to the promotion of long-term shareholder value creation. In general, there are three types of engagements that State Street Global Advisors may hold on behalf of equity holders: 1. Engagements with Portfolio Companies in Connection with a Ballot Item or Other Topic In our Policy — Engagements held with portfolio companies to discuss a ballot item, event or other established topic found in our Policy. Such engagements generally, but not necessarily, occur during “proxy season.” They may be held at the request of State Street Global Advisors or the portfolio company. 2. Off-Season Engagement at the Request of a Portfolio Company — From time-to-time, portfolio companies may seek to engage with State Street Global Advisors in the ‘off-season’ to discuss a particular topic. 3. Off-Season Proactive Engagement Campaigns — Each year, State Street Global Advisors will identify thematic engagement campaigns on important topics for which we are seeking more information to potentially inform our future voting positions.

GRAPHIC

22 Fixed Income Engagements The Use of R-Factor in Engagements Engaging with Other Investors Soliciting State Street Global Advisors’ Votes in Connection with Vote-No Campaigns or Shareholder Proposals From time-to-time, certain corporate action election events, reclassifications or other changes to the investment terms of debt holdings may occur or an issuer may seek to engage with State Street Global Advisors to discuss matters pertaining to the debt instruments that State Street Global Advisors holds on behalf of its clients. In such instances, State Street Global Advisors may engage with the issuer to obtain further information about the matter for purposes of its investment decision making. Such engagements are the responsibility of the Fixed Income portfolio management team, but may be supported by State Street Global Advisors’ Asset Stewardship Team. All election decisions are the responsibility of the relevant portfolio management team. In addition, State Street Global Advisors may also identify themes for engagement campaigns with issuers on topics that it believes may affect value of its clients’ debt investments. State Street Global Advisors may proactively engage with portfolio companies on these topics to help inform our views on the subject. Where such themes align with those relating to equities, such engagements may be carried out jointly on behalf of both equity and fixed income holdings where there is mutual benefit for both asset classes. Such engagements are led by the State Street Global Advisors Asset Stewardship Team, but could be attended by the relevant portfolio management teams. R-Factor™ is a scoring system created by State Street Global Advisors that leverages multiple data sources and aligns them to widely accepted, transparent Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) Materiality Framework for over 12,000 publicly listed companies. R-Factor™ scores are among the many inputs the Asset Stewardship Team may review when performing analysis on portfolio companies before engagements. State Street Global Advisors uses R-Factor as a consideration when prioritizing engagements. State Street Global Advisors may also engage with a company regarding its R-Factor score at the request of the company. We believe it is good practice for us to speak to other investors that are running proxy contests, putting forth vote-no campaigns, or proposing shareholder proposals at investee companies. However, we generally limit such discussions with investors to one engagement with the proponent unless we believe that it is necessary for us to have a follow-up discussion, and will seek to also engage with the company. We welcome the opportunity to review materials sent in advance of the proposed discussion. To the extent possible, we review all materials made publicly available by the investor or the company on a contested ballot item before making our own independent voting decision. Our primary purpose of engaging with investors is: • To gain a better understanding of their position or concerns at investee companies. • In proxy contest situations: ─ To assess possible director candidates where investors are seeking board representation in proxy contest situations ─ To understand the investor’s proposed strategy for the company and investment time horizon to assess their alignment with State Street Global Advisors’ views and interests as a long-term shareholder All requests for engagement should be sent to [email protected].

GRAPHIC

23 Section VI. Other Matters Securities On Loan Reporting As a responsible investor and fiduciary, we recognize the importance of balancing the benefits of voting shares and the incremental lending revenue for the pooled funds that participate in State Street Global Advisors’ securities lending program (the “Funds”). Our objective is to recall securities on loan and restrict future lending until after the record date for the respective vote in instances where we believe that a particular vote could have a material impact on the Funds’ long-term financial performance and the benefit of voting shares will outweigh the forgone lending income. Accordingly, we have set systematic recall and lending restriction criteria for shareholder meetings involving situations with the highest potential financial implications (such as proxy contests and strategic transactions including mergers and acquisitions, going dark transactions, change of corporate form, or bankruptcy and liquidation). Generally, these criteria for recall and restriction for lending only apply to certain large cap indices in developed markets. State Street Global Advisors monitors the forgone lending revenue associated with each recall to determine if the impact on the Funds’ long-term financial performance and the benefit of voting shares will outweigh the forgone lending income. Although our objective is to systematically recall securities based on the aforementioned criteria, we must receive notice of the vote in sufficient time to recall the shares on or before the record date. When we do not receive timely notice, we may be unable to recall the shares on or before the record date. We provide transparency for our stewardship activities through our regular client reports and relevant information reported online. We publish an annual stewardship report that provides details of our stewardship approach, engagement and voting policies, and activities during the year. The annual stewardship report is complemented by quarterly stewardship activity reports as well as the publication of thought leadership on governance and sustainability on our website. Our voting record information is available on Vote View, an interactive platform that provides relevant company details, proposal types, resolution descriptions, and records of our votes cast.

GRAPHIC

24 Appendix A Assessment Criteria for Common Disclosure Topics Climate Disclosure Criteria As outlined above, the pillars of our Asset Stewardship Program rest on effective board oversight, quality disclosure and shareholder protection. We are frequently asked to evaluate shareholder proposals on various topics, including requests for enhanced disclosure. We have developed the below criteria, which we believe represents quality disclosure on commonly requested disclosure topics. We expect all companies to provide public disclosures in accordance with the following four pillars of the Taskforce for Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework: • Governance The TCFD recommends companies describe the board’s oversight of, and management’s role in, assessing and managing climate-related risks and opportunities. • Strategy The TCFD recommends companies describe identified climate-related risks and opportunities and the impact of these risks and opportunities on their businesses, strategy, and financial planning. • Risk Management The TCFD recommends companies describe processes for identifying, assessing, and managing climate-related risks and describe how these processes are integrated into overall risk management. • Metrics and Targets The TCFD recommends companies disclose metrics and targets used to assess and manage climate-related risks and opportunities. ─ State Street Global Advisors is not prescriptive on target setting. We expect companies that have adopted net zero ambitions to disclose interim climate targets. If a company chooses not to disclose any climate targets, we expect the company to provide an explanation on how the company measures and monitors progress on managing climate-related risks and opportunities in line with the recommendations of TCFD. ─ TCFD recommends the disclosure of Scope 1, Scope 2, and, if appropriate, Scope 3 emissions. We expect companies to identify and disclose the most relevant categories of Scope 3 emissions as defined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard. However, we recognize that Scope 3 emissions estimates have a high degree of uncertainty; therefore, if the company determines that categories of Scope 3 are impracticable to estimate, we instead encourage companies to explain these limitations. We do not expect companies to set Scope 3 targets. We do encourage companies to explain any efforts to address Scope 3 emissions in line with TCFD, such as engagement with suppliers, customers, or other stakeholders across the value chain, where relevant. 8. “Net zero ambitions” are defined by State Street Global Advisors as a public statement/commitment to align the company’s emissions to third party frameworks or pathways for net zero.

GRAPHIC

25 Additionally, we expect companies in carbon-intensive industries9 to disclose: • Public disclosure in accordance with all four pillars of Taskforce for Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework: (1) Governance, (2) Strategy, (3) Risk Management, (4) Metrics and Targets • Interim climate targets to accompany long-term climate ambitions • Discussion of scenario-planning on relevant risk assessment and strategic planning processes10 • Incorporation of relevant climate considerations in financial planning and/or capital allocation decisions, and • Scope 1, 2, and relevant categories of Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions11 Say-on-Climate Criteria While we are generally supportive of the goals of “Say-on-Climate” proposals because we support effective climate-related disclosure, we currently do not endorse an annual advisory climate vote. We have reservations with the potential unintended consequences of such a vote, including insulating directors from accountability, distracting from existing disclosure frameworks, and straining investors’ limited proxy voting resources. Where management chooses to include a Say-on-Climate vote, we assess the company’s disclosure on a case-by-case basis consistent with our Assessment Criteria for Climate Transition Plan Disclosure outlined below. We would consider supporting a “Say-on-Climate” shareholder proposal if the company has not provided investors with meaningful climate-related disclosure in line with our expectations, nor signaled the intention to enhance disclosure in the future. 9. State Street Global Advisors defines carbon-intensive industries as the following Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) subindustries: Electric Utilities, Integrated Oil &Gas, Multi-Utilities, Steel, Construction Materials, Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders, Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing, Oil & Gas Exploration & Production, Diversified Metals & Mining, Airlines, Commodity Chemicals, Industrial Gases, Aluminum, Oil & Gas Storage & Transportation, Multi-Sector Holdings, Diversified Chemicals, Fertilizers & Agricultural Chemicals, Air Freight & Logistics, Agricultural Products, Environmental & Facilities Services, Coal & Consumable Fuels, Paper Packaging, Railroads, Marine, Automotive Retail, Oil & Gas Drilling, Food Retail, Paper Products, Hotels, Resorts & Cruise Lines, Internet & Direct Marketing Retail, Hypermarkets & Supercenters, Precious Metals & Minerals. 10. As recommended by TCFD, we believe quality disclosure on scenario analysis includes the following: (i) the company has evaluated and disclosed the resilience of their strategy and business model to climate-related risks and opportunities using climate-related scenario analysis (ii) the company has described the implications of the scenario-planning exercise on the business including relevant risk assessment and strategic planning processes. We are not prescriptive on scenario selection. The company may choose to evaluate a range of scenarios aligned with relevant jurisdictional commitments, sectoral decarbonization approaches, or publicly available scenarios aligned with limiting global temperature rise as recommended by TCFD. 11. TCFD recommends the disclosure of Scope 1, Scope 2, and, if appropriate, Scope 3 emissions. We expect companies to identify and disclose the most relevant categories of Scope 3 emissions as defined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard. However, we recognize that Scope 3 emissions estimates have a high degree of uncertainty and therefore if the company determines that categories of Scope of 3 are impracticable to estimate, we instead encourage companies to explain these limitations. 12. “Net zero ambitions” are defined by State Street Global Advisors as a public statement/commitment to align the company’s emissions to third party frameworks or pathways for net zero.

GRAPHIC

26 Climate Transition Plan Disclosure Criteria for Companies that Have Adopted a Climate Transition Plan We do not require companies to adopt net zero ambitions12 or join relevant industry initiatives. For companies that have adopted a net zero ambition and/or climate transition plan, the disclosure criteria set out below serve to provide transparency on the criteria we assess.13 Given that climate-related risks present differently across industries, our assessment of the below criteria may vary to account for best practices in specific industries. • Ambition ─ Disclosure of long-term climate ambitions • Targets ─ Disclosure of short- and/or medium-term interim climate targets ─ Disclosure of alignment of climate targets with relevant jurisdictional commitments, specific temperature pathways, and/or sectoral decarbonization approaches • TCFD Disclosure ─ As recommended by TCFD: ○ Description of approach to identifying and assessing climate-related risks and opportunities ○ Disclosure of resilience of the company’s strategy, taking into consideration a range of climate-related scenarios ○ Disclosure of Scope 1, Scope 2, and relevant categories of Scope 3 emissions and any assurance • Decarbonization Strategy ○ Disclosure of plans and actions to support stated climate targets and ambitions ○ Disclosure of emissions management efforts within the company’s operations and, as applicable, across the value chain ○ Disclosure of carbon offsets utilization, if any ○ Disclosure of the role of climate solutions (e.g., carbon capture and storage) ○ Disclosure of potential social risks and opportunities14 related to climate transition plan, if any 13. State Street Global Advisors does not require companies to adopt a climate transition plan. 14. Social risks and opportunities refer to the potential impacts on stakeholders, such as a company’s workforce, customers, communities, or supply chains related to the company’s climate transition plan, which may give rise to risks or opportunities related to human capital management, human rights, and economic development, among others.

GRAPHIC

27 • Capital Allocation ○ Disclosure of integration of relevant climate considerations in financial planning ○ Disclosure of total actual and planned capital deployed toward climate transition plan ○ Disclosure of approach to assessing and prioritizing investments toward climate transition plan (e.g., marginal abatement cost curves, internal carbon pricing, if any) • Climate Policy Engagement ○ Disclosure of position on climate-related topics relevant to the company’s decarbonization strategy ○ Disclosure of assessment of stated positions on relevant climate-related topics versus those of associations and other relevant policy-influencing entities, such as trade associations, industry bodies, or coalitions, to which the company belongs, and any efforts taken as a result of this review to address potential misalignment. • Climate Governance ○ Disclosure of the board’s role in overseeing climate transition plan ○ Disclosure of management’s role in overseeing climate transition plan • Physical Risk ○ Disclosure of assessment of climate-related physical risks ○ Disclosure of approach to managing identified climate-related physical risks • Stakeholder Engagement ○ Disclosure of engagement with relevant internal stakeholders related to climate transition plan (e.g., workforce training, cross-functional collaboration) ○ Disclosure of engagement with relevant external stakeholders related to climate transition plan (e.g., industry collaboration, customer engagement) Methane Disclosure Criteria For companies that own or operate oil and gas assets we believe quality disclosure includes the following: • Describe methane emissions detection and monitoring efforts • Explain efforts to enhance measurement, reporting, and verification • Describe the company’s strategy to manage methane emissions • Disclose any methane-related metrics and targets utilized

GRAPHIC

28 Nature-Related Disclosure: Biodiversity, Deforestation, Water Management, Wastewater Management, Plastics and Packaging, Waste Management, Product Lifecycle Human Capital Management Disclosure Criteria Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Disclosure Criteria For companies that have determined Biodiversity, Deforestation, Water Management, Wastewater Management, Plastics and Packaging, Waste Management, or Product Lifecycle to present a long-term risk and/or opportunity to their business and/or operations we believe quality disclosure should include the following, which aligns with the pillars of the TCFD framework: • Governance • Strategy • Risk management • Metrics and targets (when relevant) In assessing these criteria, we may review the company’s disclosure against industry and market practice (e.g., peer disclosure, relevant frameworks, relevant industry guidance). We believe quality public disclosure includes the following: • Board oversight Methods outlining how the board oversees human capital-related risks and opportunities • Strategy Approaches to human capital management and how these advance the long-term business strategy • Compensation Strategies throughout the organization that aim to attract and retain employees, and incentivize contribution to an effective human capital strategy • Voice Channels to ensure the concerns and ideas from workers are solicited and acted upon, and how the workforce is engaged and empowered in the organization, and • Diversity, equity, and inclusion Efforts to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion We believe quality public disclosure includes the following: • Board Oversight Describe how the board executes its oversight role in risks and opportunities related to diversity and inclusion • Strategy Articulate the role that diversity (of race, ethnicity, and gender, at minimum) plays in the company’s broader human capital management practices and long-term strategy • Goals Describe what diversity, equity, and inclusion-related goals exist, how these goals contribute to the company’s overall strategy, and how they are managed and progressing

GRAPHIC

29 • Metrics Provide measures of the diversity of the company’s global employee base and board, including: ○ Workforce Employee diversity by race, ethnicity, and gender (at minimum). We expect to see this information to be broken down by industry-relevant employment categories or levels of seniority, for all full-time employees. In the US, companies are expected to at least use the disclosure framework set forth by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s EEO-1 Survey. Non-US companies are encouraged to disclose this information in alignment with SASB guidance and nationally appropriate frameworks; and, ○ Board Diversity characteristics, including racial, ethnic, and gender makeup (at minimum) of the board of directors; and ○ Board Diversity Articulate goals and strategy related to diverse representation at the board (including race, ethnicity, and gender, at minimum), including how the board reflects the diversity of the company’s workforce, community, customers, and other key stakeholders. Pay Equity Disclosure Criteria (United States and United Kingdom Only) Civil Rights Disclosure Criteria (United States Only) Human Rights Disclosure Criteria We believe quality disclosure for companies in the United States and the United Kingdom includes the following: • Adjusted pay gaps related to race and gender within the company (disclosure of the unadjusted pay gap is also encouraged, but not expected outside of the United Kingdom market at this time); • Strategy to achieve and maintain pay equity; and • Role of the board in overseeing pay strategies as well as diversity, equity and inclusion efforts We believe quality disclosure for companies in the United States includes the following: • Risks related to civil rights, including risks associated with products, practices, and services; • Plans to manage and mitigate these risks; and • Processes at the board for overseeing such risks (e.g., committee responsible, frequency of discussions, etc.). We expect portfolio companies to regularly identify whether there are risks related to human rights15 in their operations and manage any material risks that emerge, providing relevant disclosures to investors. 15. As defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

GRAPHIC

30 We believe all companies should disclose whether they have established processes for identifying risks related to human rights. For companies where material human rights risks are identified, we believe quality disclosure includes the following: • Human rights-related risks the company considers most material • Plans to manage and mitigate these risks • Board oversight of these risks, and • Assessment of the effectiveness of the human rights risk management program Political Contributions Disclosure Criteria (United States Only) Lobbying Disclosure Criteria (United States Only) Trade Association Alignment Disclosure Criteria We believe quality disclosure companies in the United States includes the following information: • All contributions, no matter the dollar value, made by the company, its subsidiaries, and/ or affiliated Political Action Committees (PACs) to individual candidates, PACs, and other political organizations at the state and federal levels in the United States; and • The role of the board in oversight of political contributions. We believe quality disclosure for companies in the United States includes the following: • Membership in United States trade associations (to which payments are above $50,000 per year) and • The role of the board in overseeing lobbying activities. We believe quality disclosure for companies includes the following: • The board’s role in overseeing the company’s participation in the political process, including membership in trade associations or other policy-influencing entities; and • Whether the company regularly performs a gap analysis of its stated positions on relevant issues versus those of the trade associations or other policy-influencing organizations of which it is a member, and • Whether the company disclosed a list of its trade association memberships Note: We believe that management is best suited to take positions on the matters related to their company, and therefore we do not recommend any specific position. Our support of these types of shareholder proposals, if any, solely reflects our support for enhanced disclosure on assessing alignment between stated company positions and the positions of associations and other relevant policy-influencing entities to which the company belongs in line with market expectations and effective risk management.

GRAPHIC

31 About State Street Global Advisors For four decades, State Street Global Advisors has served the world’s governments, institutions and financial advisors. With a rigorous, risk-aware approach built on research, analysis and market-tested experience, we build from a breadth of index and active strategies to create cost-effective solutions. As pioneers in index, ETF, and ESG investing, we are always inventing new ways to invest. As a result, we have become the world’s fourth-largest asset manager* with US $4.13 trillion† under our care. * Pensions & Investments Research Center, as of December 31, 2022. † This figure is presented as of December 31, 2023 and includes approximately $64.44 billion USD of assets with respect to SPDR products for which State Street Global Advisors Funds Distributors, LLC (SSGA FD) acts solely as the marketing agent. SSGA FD and State Street Global Advisors are affiliated.

GRAPHIC

32 ssga.com ID2025966 0224 Exp. Date: 02/28/2025

 

    1

 

 

 

March 2024

 

Summary of Material

Changes to State Street

Global Advisors’ 2024

Proxy Voting and

Engagement Policy1

 

 

1 This Summary of Material Changes to the State Street Global Advisors’ 2024 Proxy Voting and Engagement Policy is applicable to SSGA Funds Management, Inc., State Street Global Advisors Trust Company, and other advisory affiliates of State Street Corporation.

 

 

 

 

    2

 

 

State Street Global Advisors amended its Global Proxy Voting and Engagement Policy (the “Policy”) in March 2024 as part of its annual update to voting guidelines. We have centralized our stewardship policies to make it easier for our clients and investee companies to readily find the information they seek within a single policy document. The voting guideline changes for 2024, which become effective March 25, 2024, for voting decisions as of March 26, 2024, are summarized below:

 

Director Time Commitments

Markets: US

 

We value the experience and knowledge that directors who have served on multiple public company boards bring to our portfolio companies. At the same time, the commitment associated with being a director on a public company board has increased, as the topics directors are expected to oversee have expanded in scope and complexity.

 

Investors would benefit from increased transparency over how nominating committees assess their directors’ time commitments and what factors are considered in these decisions.

 

Beginning in 2024, we consider if a company publicly discloses its director time commitment policy (e.g., within corporate governance guidelines, proxy statement, company website). This policy or associated disclosure must include:

 

Description of the annual review process undertaken by the nominating committee to evaluate director time commitments

 

Numerical limit(s) on public company board seat(s) the company’s directors can serve on

 

For companies in the S&P 500, we may vote against the nominating committee chair at companies that do not publicly disclose a policy compliant with the above criteria, or do not commit to doing so within a reasonable timeframe.

 

For other companies in certain markets2 that do not publicly disclose a policy compliant with the above criteria, we will consider the number of outside board directorships that the company’s non-executive and executive directors may undertake. Thus, State Street Global Advisors may take voting action against a director who exceeds the number of board mandates listed below3:

 

Named Executive Officers (NEOs) of a public company who sit on more than two public company boards

 

Non-executive board chairs or lead independent directors who sit on more than three public company boards

 

Non-executive directors who sit on more than four public company boards

 

If a director is imminently leaving a board and this departure is disclosed in a written, time-bound and publicly-available manner, we may consider waiving our withhold vote when evaluating the director for excessive time commitments.

 

 

2  Such markets include the United States (ex-S&P 500), Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland. 

3  Service on a mutual fund board, the board of a UK investment trust or a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) board is not considered when evaluating directors for excessive commitments. However, we do expect these roles to be considered by nominating committees when evaluating director time commitments.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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. For meetings with complex ballot items in certain international markets, research may be consulted from local domestic proxy research providers. 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.

 

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. The guidelines include regional voting guidelines as well as the guidelines for investment strategies with objectives other than purely financial returns, such as Impact and Net Zero. A detailed set of proxy voting guidelines is available on the T. Rowe Price website, www.troweprice.com/esg.

 

 

 

 

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 temporary 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 the loaned securities. In this event, we have the discretion to pull back the loaned securities for the Price Funds in order to cast a vote at an upcoming shareholder meeting. A monthly monitoring process is in place to review securities on loan for the Price Funds 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 Global Code of 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. Shares of the Price Funds that are held by other Price Funds will generally be voted in the same proportion as shares for which voting instructions from other shareholders are timely received. If voting instructions from other shareholders are not received, or if a T. Rowe Price Fund is only held by other T. Rowe Price Funds or other accounts for which T. Rowe Price has proxy voting authority, the fund will vote in accordance with its Board’s instruction.

 

For shares of the Price Funds that are series of T. Rowe Price Equity Series, Inc., T. Rowe Price Fixed Income Series, Inc., and T. Rowe Price International Series, Inc. (collectively, the “Variable Insurance Portfolios”) held by insurance company separate accounts for which the insurance company has not received timely voting instructions, as well as shares the insurance company owns, those shares shall be voted in the same proportion as shares for which voting instructions from contract holders are timely received.

 

 

 

 

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 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.

 

 

 

WASATCH GLOBAL INVESTORS

 

PROXY VOTING POLICY

 

 

  

Regulatory Background - Proxy Voting Provisions of the Investment Advisers Act

 

Rule 206(4)-6 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 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 client 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.

 

In accordance with our obligations under the Rule, Wasatch Global Investors (“Wasatch”) has adopted and implemented the following Proxy Voting Policy to ensure that client proxies are voted in the best interest of clients at all times.

 

I.            POLICY OVERVIEW

 

At Wasatch, our goal is to maximize the economic value of the investments we make for our separate account clients and our mutual fund shareholders. In pursuit of this goal, we buy and hold securities we believe will appreciate in value. When the investment potential of a security becomes diminished, we sell it and attempt to reinvest the proceeds in more attractive opportunities. In short, the primary means by which we serve our shareholders and clients and protect their interests is the purchase and sale of securities. A secondary means by which we fulfill our fiduciary responsibility is the exercising of our proxy voting rights. Corporate governance, including but not limited to, compensation plans, corporate actions and the composition of a board of directors, can have a significant influence upon the behavior of a management team and the value of a corporation. The proxy voting process is the primary means by which investors are able to influence such activities. As such, Wasatch considers how we vote proxies to be an important activity.

 

One fundamental tenet of Wasatch’s investment philosophy is to invest in companies with high quality management teams. We spend a significant amount of time evaluating the performance, behavior, and actions of company executives in order to gain an understanding of how they think about protecting and increasing shareholder value. As a result of being invested with high quality management teams, Wasatch generally supports the recommendations of the boards of directors when voting proxies. However, we ultimately vote for or against recommendations based on the fundamental premise that at all times we are attempting to maximize the value of our investments for the benefit of our clients. Wasatch also has a long history of investing in companies with small market capitalizations, which often have a significant amount of common stock owned by existing and former members of management. While this high degree of inside ownership could cause some concerns regarding a lack of independence for the board of directors, certain board committees or other areas of corporate governance, we generally believe high inside ownership to be a positive characteristic as it helps to ensure that the interests of management and shareholders are closely aligned.

 

1 of 9

 

 

 

Wasatch has developed the following proxy voting guidelines to assist us in making decisions about how to vote proposals concerning certain issues. We have attempted to address those issues that we believe are most relevant to creating shareholder value or that occur most frequently in the types of securities in which we invest. However, these guidelines are not exhaustive and do not purport to cover all of the potential issues, for the variety of issues on which shareholders may be asked to vote is unlimited. The disclosure of these guidelines is intended to provide clients and shareholders with a better understanding of how Wasatch attempts to maximize shareholder value via the proxy voting process.

 

II.           GENERAL GUIDELINES

 

Board of Directors

 

Wasatch considers the board of directors to be an important component of strong corporate governance. The board is responsible for overseeing the management team of a company and helping to ensure that it acts in the best interest of shareholders. The primary means by which Wasatch can influence the board of directors is to vote for the election of directors who have relevant and valuable experience that will enhance the management of the company. Further, Wasatch prefers that a board of directors have a majority of independent directors because we believe that a board with such a composition is generally a strong advocate for shareholders.

 

However, while we endorse proposals that support the creation of boards with a majority of independent directors as well as proposals which call for the audit, compensation and nominating committees to be comprised solely of independent directors, the failure of the company to nominate only independent directors or to have only independent directors serve on key committees may not cause us to vote against the election of a director who lacks independence. Wasatch appreciates the importance of these standards but we do not believe it is always in the best interest of shareholders to blindly vote against all directors who may not be considered independent. For example, a large shareholder who serves as a director is not considered independent but may be a very important advocate for investors since his interests are closely aligned with those of shareholders.

 

Generally, Wasatch will vote for those nominees recommended by the board of directors. However, in each election we will review a wide variety of criteria including but not limited to:

 

   Long-term performance of the company.

   Composition of the board and key committees.

   Stock ownership by directors.

   Decisions regarding executive pay and director compensation.

   Corporate governance provisions and takeover activity.

   Attendance at board meetings.

   Interlocking directorships and related party transactions.

 

2 of 9

 

 

 

 

In addition to evaluating nominees for the board of directors based on the aforementioned criteria, Wasatch generally will support proposals:

 

To declassify a board of directors.

That allow cumulative voting and confidential voting.

 

Wasatch generally will not support:

 

Nominees who are independent and receive compensation for services other than serving as a director.

Nominees who attend less than 75% of board meetings without valid reasons for absences.

Nominees who are party to an interlocking directorship.

Efforts to adopt classified board structures.

 

Wasatch supports diversity of board membership with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity. If a company’s board lacks at least one gender-diverse and one racially- or ethnically-diverse director, , then the vote for the nominee for the chair of the nominating committee will be referred to Wasatch to vote on a case-by-case basis.

 

Executive Compensation

 

Wasatch supports compensation plans which are designed to align the interests of management and shareholders as well as relate executive compensation to the performance of the company. To evaluate compensation plans, we use quantitative criteria that measure the total cost to shareholders if a plan is passed. Factors considered include:

 

The estimated dollar cost for every award type under the proposed plan and all continuing plans.

The maximum shareholder wealth that would be transferred from the company to executives.

Long-term corporate performance (on an absolute basis and relative to a standard industry peer group and an appropriate market index) pegged to market capitalization.

Cash compensation pegged to market capitalization.

Other features of proposed compensation plans such as administration, payment terms, plan duration, and whether the administering committee is permitted to reprice underwater stock options without shareholder approval.

 

After the cost of the plan is estimated, it is compared to a company-specific dilution cap. The allowable cap is industry specific, market cap based, and pegged to the average amount paid by companies performing in the top quartile of their peer groupings. If the total plan cost exceeds the allowable cap, Wasatch will generally vote against the proposed plan. In addition, Wasatch generally will not support stock option plans that permit:

 

The repricing of stock options without shareholder approval.

The options to be priced at less than 100% of the fair market value of the underlying security on the date of the grant.

 

Capital Structure

 

Wasatch may be asked to vote on proposals pertaining to changes in the capital structure of a company. Such proposals include, but are not limited to, common stock authorizations, capital issuance requests, share repurchase programs, stock splits, and debt restructurings. We will vote for board-recommended capital structure changes so long as the proposals are well aligned with shareholder interests. Wasatch generally will support proposals:

 

3 of 9

 

 

 

 

   Requesting the authorization of additional common stock.

   To institute share repurchase plans.

   To implement stock splits. Proposals to implement reverse stock splits will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

 

Wasatch will review, on a case-by-case basis, all other proposals to change the capital structure of a company, including the authorization of common stock with special voting rights, the authorization of stock relating to certain transactions, the issuance of preferred stock (including “blank check” preferred stock) and the restructuring of debt securities. These proposals typically address a set of company-specific circumstances and proposals recommended by the board of directors may or may not be in the best interest of shareholders.

 

Mergers, Acquisitions and Other Transactions

 

Companies may undertake a variety of strategic transactions aimed at enhancing shareholder value including mergers, acquisitions, recapitalizations, spin-offs, asset sales, and liquidations. In evaluating proposed transactions, we will consider the benefits and costs to shareholders over both the short and long term. Specific items we will consider include the financial impact of the transaction on future operating results, the increase or decrease in shareholder value, and any changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights. When shareholders are asked to vote on mergers, acquisitions and other similar proposals, they are considered to be material to the company and could require the analysis of a wide variety of factors in order to determine if the transaction is in the best interest of shareholders. As a result, Wasatch will review and vote each proposal on a case-by-case basis.

 

Anti-Takeover Provisions

 

In an attempt to prevent a company from being acquired without the approval of the board of directors, shareholders may be asked to vote on a variety of proposals such as shareholder rights plans (commonly referred to as “poison pills”), supermajority voting, blank check preferred stock, fair price provisions, and the creation of a separate class of stock with disparate voting rights. Wasatch recognizes that such proposals may enhance shareholder value in certain situations. However, Wasatch will review proposals pertaining to anti-takeover provisions on a case-by-case basis and vote against those proposals merely intended to entrench management and prevent the company from being acquired at a fair price.

 

Auditors

 

An audit of a company’s financial statements is an important part of the investment process, for while an audit cannot fully protect investors against fraud, it does verify that the financial statements accurately represent the position and performance of the company. Wasatch generally votes for proposals to ratify auditors unless the auditors do not appear to be independent. Auditor independence may be compromised if the auditor has a financial interest and/or association with the company or receives substantial compensation for non-audit related services. Wasatch also generally votes for proposals to authorize the board of directors to determine the remuneration of the auditors unless there is evidence of excessive compensation relative to the size and nature of the company.

 

4 of 9

 

 

 

 

Environmental, Social and Governance Issues

 

Wasatch believes corporations which act responsibly towards all stakeholders will generally perform better over the long-term. Wasatch will consider Environmental, Social and Governance issues in proxy proposals, but will determine on a case-by-case basis whether the proposals are economically advantageous to shareholders and whether or not to support the issues.

 

Foreign Issuers

 

With respect to some non-U.S. issuers, the exercise of voting rights can cause an account to incur a cost or cause the underlying shares to be blocked from trading. Although we recognize the importance of the right to vote, Wasatch believes that clients may be better served by avoiding unnecessary costs and preserving the right to trade shares promptly should conditions warrant. Accordingly, there may be times when no vote is cast because Wasatch’s analysis of a particular proxy leads us to believe that the cost of voting the proxy exceeds the expected benefit to clients (e.g., when casting a vote on a foreign security requires that Wasatch engage a translator or travel to a foreign country to vote in person, or results in shares being blocked from trading). This position complies with the Department of Labor’s Interpretive Bulletin 94-2.

 

Certain foreign countries require additional documentation in order to permit voting of shares. For example, Wasatch clients are at times required to provide a power of attorney to the local sub-custodian to facilitate Wasatch voting the shares held in the client accounts. While Wasatch will attempt to assist clients in preparing and submitting this documentation, at times Wasatch is unable to vote shares held by some clients in certain foreign countries.

 

III.          EXCLUSIONS AND EXCEPTIONS

 

Wasatch has developed the general guidelines to assist us in making decisions about how to vote proposals concerning anticipatable issues. However, we recognize that the general guidelines are not exhaustive and cannot anticipate all of the potential issues, or the facts and circumstances surrounding a particular vote. Although we have general guidelines, in the situations covered below Wasatch may supplement or deviate from them.

 

Case-by-case Issues

 

Several of the issues mentioned above in the general guidelines recognize that the proper vote to maximize shareholder value will be dependent upon the facts in the actual situation. These facts cannot be anticipated and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis with the aim of maximizing shareholder value. In addition, any issues that are not addressed by the foregoing guidelines will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

 

Exceptions

 

From time to time Wasatch will review an issue that is addressed by the foregoing guidelines and determine that in the specific case it is appropriate to vote against the recommendation provided in the guidelines with the aim of maximizing shareholder value. At these times it is permissible for Wasatch to vote against the general guidelines, but it is required that the rationale behind the deviation from the guidelines is sufficiently documented.

 

5 of 9

 

 

 

 

Conflicts of Interest

 

Wasatch will at all times make its best effort to vote proxies in the best interest of clients and avoid material conflicts of interest. A material conflict of interest refers to a situation in which Wasatch or affiliated persons of Wasatch have a financial interest in a matter presented by a proxy which could potentially compromise Wasatch’s independence of judgment and action with respect to the voting of the proxy. We will attempt to identify any material conflicts that may exist by, among other things, reviewing the identity of each issuer soliciting proxy votes to determine if the issuer or an affiliate of the issuer (i) is a client of Wasatch, (ii) has a relationship with Wasatch, (iii) there is a reasonable expectation that the issuer or an affiliate would become a client of Wasatch or develop a material relationship with Wasatch, or (iv) Wasatch holds a significant amount1 of the issuer’s shares outstanding. In addition, any Wasatch employee with knowledge of a personal conflict of interest (e.g., a familial relationship with company management) relating to an issuer soliciting proxy votes must disclose that conflict to the Proxy Manager and Compliance and remove himself or herself from the proxy voting process for that issuer. Any questions regarding whether a particular issue may present a material conflict of interest with respect to Wasatch’s voting of client proxies should be directed to Compliance.

 

In the event that Wasatch has a material conflict of interest in any proposal that is the subject of a proxy to be voted for a client account, Wasatch will instruct ISS to vote that proposal in accordance with ISS’ published recommendation. In such cases, any vote recommended by ISS is binding and may not be overridden by Wasatch. Proposals on the same proxy ballot for which Wasatch does not have a material conflict of interest will be voted in accordance with Wasatch’s Proxy Voting Policy.

 

Private Funds

 

In addition to its other clients, Wasatch provides investment management services to private investment funds. Every vote made in the private funds will be considered a case-by-case vote. All voting decisions made for the private funds will be made independent of the voting decisions made for other Wasatch clients. In order to ensure this independence, Wasatch will document that different individuals have made these voting decisions independent of one another.

 

Securities on Loan

 

Wasatch is not involved in lending shares for its clients’ or affiliated mutual funds, either directly or indirectly, and is not a party to any clients’ securities lending agreements. Wasatch is not involved in decisions to lend securities or recall loaned securities for accounts who have lending agreements with other service providers. Wasatch generally does not recall, exercise voting power, or report on loaned securities for accounts with such lending agreements, unless required by law.

 

IV.            PROCEDURES

 

ISS’s Role

 

Wasatch has retained an independent service provider, Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”), to assist in reconciling and processing proxy ballots and providing record-keeping and vote disclosure services, as well as research on proxy issues. ISS tracks which securities are held by Wasatch and receives notice of the proxy votes that these companies send to shareholders. ISS then reviews the Wasatch Proxy Voting Policy and prepares recommendations on how the votes should be cast based on the policy (the “ISS Recommendations”). ISS then provides these recommendations to Wasatch. On matters not adequately covered by the Wasatch Proxy Voting Policy, ISS merely notes these as case-by-case indicating they require additional review by Wasatch. After the ISS Recommendations are provided to Wasatch, the matters are voted by ISS in accordance with the recommendations unless ISS receives instructions from Wasatch to vote otherwise.

  

 

 1 Wasatch's relative level of ownership of certain issuer’s soliciting proxy votes, as a percent of the company’s shares outstanding, may give the appearance of control. Wasatch clients hold the issuer's stock solely for investment purposes, with no intent to control the business or affairs of the issuer. In such instances, Wasatch may instruct ISS to vote that meeting in accordance with ISS’ published recommendation.

 

6 of 9

 

 

 

 

Proxy Manager’s Role

 

Wasatch has designated a member of our Operations team as Proxy Manager to assist in coordinating and voting securities. The Proxy Manager sends a proxy meeting calendar to research analysts detailing upcoming shareholder meetings, including an indication whether items are set to be voted per the ISS Recommendations or whether they need additional review and determination by Research. The Proxy Manager then is responsible for ensuring all votes are cast, documenting the basis for voting decisions on any contrary votes or case-by-case votes, and monitoring Wasatch’s proxy voting procedures.

 

Research Team’s Role

 

The members of Wasatch’s Research team are responsible for reviewing the proxies of the companies they follow and the ISS Recommendation for the proxies. The Research team needs to provide the Proxy Manager with vote recommendations in case-by-case votes and any time they wish to vote contrary to the ISS Recommendation.

 

Proxy Committee

 

Wasatch has established a Proxy Committee to oversee the implementation and monitoring of this Policy. The Proxy Committee provides a written report on a regular basis to the Wasatch’s Corporate Governance and Audit Committee as well as the Wasatch Funds Trust’s Board of Directors. No less than annually, the Proxy Committee shall:

 

Review a sample of the record of voting delegation, including ERISA accounts, maintained by the Proxy Manager to determine if Wasatch is exercising its authority to vote proxies on portfolio securities held in the selected accounts;

 

Request and review voting data to determine if accurate and timely communication of proxy votes is reasonably accomplished during the period reviewed;

 

Meet with the Proxy Manager to review the voting of proxies, communication of proxy votes, and the general functioning of this policy; and

 

Prepare a written report to the Audit Committee with respect to the results of this review.

 

Report of Proxy Voting Record

 

Wasatch must file an annual report on Form N-PX containing its proxy voting record for each shareholder vote with respect to how Wasatch voted (or determined not to vote) on say-on-pay votes over which it exercised voting power. Say-on-pay votes include the approval of executive compensation and on the frequency of such executive compensation approval votes, as well as votes to approve “golden parachute” compensation in connection with a merger or acquisition.

 

Form N-PX will be filed not later than August 31 of each year for the prior 12-month period ended June 30.

 

7 of 9

 

 

 

 

V.            Recordkeeping, Training and Maintenance

 

Recordkeeping

 

Under rule 204-2, Wasatch must retain the following:

 

 a) proxy voting policies;

 

 b)  proxy statements received regarding client securities – Wasatch has delegated the responsibility for maintaining these records to ISS;

 

 c)    records of votes they cast on behalf of clients – Wasatch has delegated the responsibility for maintaining these records to ISS;

 

 d)  any documents prepared by Wasatch that were material to making a decision how to vote, or that memorialized the basis for the decision – this will generally be the proxy policy and documentation regarding any votes cast contrary to the policy;

 

 e)    Record of the voting resolution of any conflict of interest;

 

  f)  Records of any client requests for information on how a client’s proxies were voted and records of Wasatch’s responses to client requests;

 

 g)  Training attendance records; and

 

 h)  All written reports arising from annual reviews of the policy.

 

Wasatch has retained ISS to assist in providing record-keeping. Wasatch may also use the Securities and Exchange Commission’s EDGAR database for the items referred to in item b above. Records not maintained by ISS shall be maintained by Wasatch for a period of not less than five years from the end of the Wasatch’s fiscal year during which the last entry was made on the record.

 

Training

 

At least annually, appropriate personnel will be trained regarding the Proxy Voting Policy. Such training program will review applicable laws, regulations, procedures and recent trends in proxy voting and their relation to Wasatch’s business. Training may be conducted in person or online, and completion records will be retained for a five-year period.

 

Annual Certification

 

Each Wasatch employee who is involved in the proxy voting process is required to certify annually that he or she has read, understands and has complied with, to the best of his or her knowledge, Wasatch’s Proxy Voting Policy.

 

ERISA

 

Wasatch acknowledges our responsibility to vote proxies for ERISA clients in a manner that ensures the exclusive benefit for the underlying participants and beneficiaries. Wasatch casts such proxy votes for the sole purpose of extending benefits to participants and beneficiaries while using the care, skill and diligence that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use under the circumstances then prevailing.

 

Undue Influence

 

Any attempts by any of Wasatch’s personnel to influence the voting of client proxies in a manner that is inconsistent with Wasatch’s Policy should be reported to Wasatch’s Compliance Officer. If the Compliance Officer is the person attempting to influence the voting, the report should be made to Wasatch’s President.

 

8 of 9

 

 

 

 

VI.            Disclosure to Clients

 

Interested Clients are encouraged to request information on how Wasatch has voted their proxies. In order to request this information, separate account clients should contact their Client Relations representative. Wasatch Funds’ proxy voting record is available on the Funds’ website at www.wasatchfunds.com and the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov no later than August 31 for the prior 12 months ending June 30.

 

Adopted as of September 30, 2004

 Amended as of June 8, 2010; March 10, 2015; November 14, 2017; February 25, 2022, February 28, 2024 Last Reviewed: May 11, 2023.

 

9 of 9

 

 

 

 

WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT COMPANY

 

Wellington Management 

Global Proxy Policy and Procedures

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Wellington Management has adopted and implemented policies and procedures it believes are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interests of clients for which it exercises proxy voting discretion.

 

The purpose of this document is to outline Wellington Management’s approach to executing proxy voting. Wellington Management’s Proxy Voting Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), which are contained in a separate document, set forth broad guidelines and positions on common issues that Wellington Management uses for voting proxies. The Guidelines set out our general expectations on how we vote rather than rigid rules that we apply without consideration of the particular facts and circumstances.

 

STATEMENT OF POLICY

 

Wellington Management:

 

1)    Votes client proxies for clients that have affirmatively delegated proxy voting authority, in writing, unless we have arranged in advance with a particular client to limit the circumstances in which the client would exercise voting authority or we determine that it is in the best interest of one or more clients to refrain from voting a given proxy;

 

2) Seeks to vote proxies in the best financial interests of the clients for which we are voting;

 

3)    Identifies and resolves all material proxy-related conflicts of interest between the firm and our clients in the best interests of the client.

 

RESPONSIBILITY AND OVERSIGHT

 

The Proxy Voting Team 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. The Proxy Voting Team also acts as a resource for portfolio managers and investment research analysts on proxy matters as needed. Day-to-day administration of the proxy voting process is the responsibility of the Proxy Voting Team. The Investment Stewardship Committee, a senior, cross-functional group of experienced professionals, is responsible for oversight of the implementation of the Global Proxy Policy and Procedures, review and approval of the Guidelines, and identification and resolution of conflicts of interest. The Investment Stewardship Committee reviews the Guidelines as well as 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 and to manage the administrative aspects of proxy voting. We view third-party research as an input to our process. Wellington Management complements the research provided by its primary voting agent with research from other firms.

 

1 

 

  

Global Proxy Policy and Procedures

 

Our primary voting agent processes proxies for client accounts and maintains records of proxies voted. For certain routine issues, as detailed below, votes may be instructed according to standing instructions given to our primary voting agent, which are based on the Guidelines.

 

We manually review instances where our primary voting agent discloses a material conflict of interest of its own, potentially impacting its research outputs. We perform oversight of our primary voting agent, which involves regular service calls and an annual due diligence exercise, as well as regular touchpoints in the normal course of business.

 

Receipt of proxy

 

If a client requests that Wellington Management vote proxies on its behalf, the client must instruct its custodian bank to deliver all relevant voting materials to Wellington Management or its designated voting agent in a timely manner.

 

Reconciliation

 

Proxies for public equity securities received by electronic means are matched to the securities eligible to be voted, and a reminder is sent to custodians/trustees who have not forwarded the proxies due. This reconciliation is performed at the ballot level. Although proxies received for private equity securities, as well as those received in nonelectronic format for any securities, are voted as received, Wellington Management is not able to reconcile these ballots and does not notify custodians of nonreceipt; Wellington Management is only able to reconcile ballots where clients have consented to providing holdings information to its provider for this purpose.

 

Proxy voting process

 

Our approach to voting is investment-led and serves as an influential component of our engagement and escalation strategy. The Investment Stewardship Committee, a cross-functional group of experienced professionals, oversees Wellington Management’s activities with regard to proxy voting practices.

 

Routine issues that can be addressed by the proxy voting guidance below are voted by means of standing instructions communicated to our primary voting agent. Some votes warrant analysis of specific facts and circumstances and therefore are reviewed individually. We examine such vote sources, including internal research notes, third-party voting research, and company engagement. While manual votes are often resolved by investment research teams, each portfolio manager is empowered to make a final decision for their relevant client portfolio(s), absent a material conflict of interest. Proactive portfolio manager input is sought under certain circumstances, which may include consideration of position size and proposal subject matter and nature. Where portfolio manager input is proactively sought, deliberation across the firm may occur. This collaboration does not prioritize consensus across the firm above all other interests but rather seeks to inform portfolio managers’ decisions by allowing them to consider multiple perspectives. Portfolio managers may occasionally arrive at different voting conclusions for their clients, resulting in different decisions for the same vote. Voting procedures and the deliberation that occurs before a vote decision are aligned with our role as active owners and fiduciaries for our clients.

 

Material conflict of interest identification and resolution processes

 

Further detail on our management of conflicts of interest can be found in our Stewardship Conflicts of Interest Policy, available on our website.

 

2 

 

 

Global Proxy Policy and Procedures

 

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

 

Clients may elect to participate in securities lending. Such lending may impact their ability to have their shares voted. Under certain circumstances, and where practical considerations allow, Wellington Management may determine that the anticipated value of voting could 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. We do not borrow shares for the sole purpose of exercising voting rights.

 

Share blocking and reregistration

 

Certain countries impose trading restrictions or requirements regarding reregistration 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; the proxy materials are not delivered in a timely fashion; or, in Wellington Management’s judgment, the costs of voting exceed the expected benefits to clients (included but not limited to instances such as when powers of attorney or consularization or the disclosure of client confidential information 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 voting decisions through its website, including the rationale for votes against management.

 

Wellington Management provides clients with a copy of its Global Proxy Policy and Procedures, as well as the Voting Guidelines and the Stewardship Conflicts of Interest Policy upon written request. In addition, Wellington Management will provide specific client information relating to proxy voting to a client upon written request.

 

Effective Date: 15 September 2023

 

3 

 

 

WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT COMPANY

 

Wellington Management

2024 Global Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

WELLINGTON’S PHILOSOPHY

 

Wellington Management is a long-term steward of our clients’ assets and aims to vote proxies for which we have voting authority in the best financial interest of clients.

 

These guidelines are based on Wellington Management’s fiduciary obligation to act in the best financial interest of its clients as shareholders and while written to apply globally, we consider jurisdictional differences to make informed decisions. Enumerated below are issues specific to the Japanese market given we have formulated more detailed expectations of this region.

 

It should be noted that the following are guidelines, not rigid rules, and Wellington Management reserves the right in all cases to deviate from the general direction set out below where doing so is in the best interest of its clients.

 

OUR APPROACH TO STEWARDSHIP

 

The goal of our stewardship activities is to support decisions that we believe will maximize investment returns for our clients over the long term.

 

The mechanisms we use to implement our stewardship activities vary by asset class. Engagement applies to all our investments across equity and credit, in both private and public markets. Proxy voting applies mostly to public equities.

 

Stewardship extends to any area that may affect the long-term sustainable financial return of an investment. Stewardship can be accomplished through research and constructive dialogue with company management and boards, by monitoring company behavior through informed active ownership, and by emphasizing management accountability for important issues via our proxy votes, which have long been part of Wellington’s investment ethos. Please refer to our Engagement Policy for more information on how engagement is conducted at Wellington.

 

OUR APPROACH TO VOTING

 

We vote proxies in what we consider to be the best financial interests of our clients. Our approach to voting is investment-led and serves as an influential component of our engagement and escalation strategy. The Investment Stewardship Committee, a cross-functional group of experienced professionals, oversees Wellington Management’s stewardship activities with regard to proxy voting and engagement practices.

 

Generally, routine issues that can be addressed by the proxy voting guidance below are voted by means of standing instructions communicated to our primary voting agent. Some votes warrant analysis of specific facts and circumstances and therefore are reviewed individually. We examine such proposals on their merits and take voting action in a manner that best serves the financial interests of our clients. When forming our voting decisions, we may leverage sources including internal research notes, third-party voting research, and company engagement. While manual votes are often resolved by investment research teams, each portfolio manager is empowered to make a final decision for their relevant client portfolio(s), absent a material conflict of interest. Proactive portfolio manager input is sought under certain circumstances, which may include consideration of position size and proposal subject matter and nature. Where portfolio manager input is proactively sought, deliberation across the firm may occur. This collaboration does not prioritize consensus across the firm above all other interests but rather seeks to inform portfolio managers’ decisions by allowing them to consider multiple perspectives. Consistent with our community-of- boutiques model, portfolio managers may occasionally arrive at different voting conclusions for their clients, resulting in different decisions for the same vote. Robust voting procedures and the deliberation that occurs before a vote decision are aligned with our role as active owners and fiduciaries for our clients.

 

1 

 

 

2024 Global Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

We generally support shareholder proposals if we determine that their adoption would promote long-term shareholder value. In making this determination, we consider numerous factors, including but not limited to the anticipated benefits of the proposal to the company; whether the proposal addresses the general interests of the company’s shareholders and not just those of the shareholder proponents; whether the company is currently addressing the issue motivating the proposal or has engaged with the shareholder proponents; whether the company can implement the proposal effectively; and whether the proposal’s adoption would impose material costs on the company or result in unintended consequences.

 

In addition, because proxy voting provides only limited means (i.e., voting ‘‘for’’ or ‘‘against’’) to express our views on a particular issue, we may support shareholder proposals in cases where we do not support every recommended action or where the proposal is accompanied by a supporting statement that we do not support so long as we are directionally aligned with the issue motivating the proposal. In these cases, we aim to engage directly with the company to clarify the nuanced view our vote represents.

 

Please refer to our Global Proxy Policy and Procedures for further background on the process and governance of our voting approach.

 

Detailed below are the principles that we consider when deciding how to vote.

 

VOTING GUIDELINES

 

BOARD COMPOSITION AND ROLE OF DIRECTORS

 

Effective boards should act in shareholders’ best economic interests and possess the relevant skills to implement the company’s strategy.

 

We consider shareholders’ ability to elect directors annually an important right and, accordingly, generally support proposals to enable annual director elections and declassify boards.

 

We may withhold votes from directors for being unresponsive to shareholders or for failing to make progress on issues material to maximizing investment returns. We may also withhold votes from directors who fail to implement shareholder proposals that if adopted would promote long-term shareholder value and have received majority support or have implemented poison pills without shareholder approval.

 

Time commitments

 

We expect directors to have the time and energy to fully commit to their board-related responsibilities and not be overstretched with an excessive number of external directorships. We may vote against directors when serving on five or more public company boards, and public company executives when serving on three or more public company boards, including their own.

 

We consider the roles of board chair and chair of the audit committee as equivalent to an additional board seat when evaluating the overboarding matrix for nonexecutives. We may take into consideration that certain directorships, such as Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) and investment companies, are usually less demanding.

 

Directors should also attend at least 75% of scheduled board meetings. If they fail to do so, we may vote against their reelection.

 

Succession planning and board refreshment

 

We do not have specific voting policies relating to director age or tenure. We prefer to take a holistic view, evaluating whether the company is balancing the perspectives of new directors with the institutional knowledge of longer-serving board members. Succession planning is a key topic during many of our board engagements.

 

As of January 2024  2

 

 

2024 Global Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

We expect companies to refresh their board membership every five years and may vote against the chair of the nominating committee for failure to implement. We believe a degree of director turnover allows companies to strengthen board diversity and add new skill sets to the board to enhance their oversight and adapt to evolving strategies.

  

Boards should offer transparency around their process to evaluate director performance and independence, conducting a rigorous regular evaluation of the board --- key committees as well as individual directors --- which is responsive to shareholder input. We believe externally facilitated board evaluations may contribute to companies retaining an appropriate mix of skills, experience, and diversity on their boards over time.

 

In certain markets companies are governed by multi-tiered boards, with each tier having different responsibilities. We hold supervisory board members to similar standards, subject to prevailing local governance best practices.

 

Board independence

 

In our view, boards perform best when composed of an appropriate combination of executive and nonexecutive (in particular, independent nonexecutive) directors to challenge and counsel management.

 

To determine appropriate minimum levels of board independence, we look to prevailing market best practices: two- thirds in the US, for example, and a majority in the UK and France. In addition to the overall independence at the board level, we also consider the independence of audit, compensation, and nominating committees. Where independence falls short of our expectations, we may withhold approval for non-independent directors or those responsible for the board composition. We typically vote in support of shareholder proposals calling for improved independence.

 

We believe that having an independent chair is the preferred structure for board leadership. Having an independent chair avoids the inherent conflict of self-oversight and helps ensure robust debate and diversity of thought in the boardroom. We will generally support proposals to separate the chair and CEO or establish a lead director but may support the involvement of an outgoing CEO as executive chair for a limited period to ensure a smooth transition to new management.

 

Board diversity

 

We believe boards that reflect a wide range of perspectives are best positioned to create shareholder value. Appointing boards that thoughtfully debate company strategy and direction is not possible unless boards elect highly qualified and diverse directors. By setting a leadership example, boardrooms with a wide range of experiences, expertise, and perspectives encourage an organizational culture that promotes diverse thinkers, enabling better strategic decisions and the navigation of increasingly complex issues facing companies today.

 

We think it is not in shareholders’ best interests for the full board to be comprised of directors who all share the same background, experience, and personal characteristics (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, and age). We expect our portfolio companies to be thoughtful and intentional in considering the widest possible pool of skilled candidates who bring diverse perspectives into the boardroom. We encourage companies to disclose the composition and qualifications of their board and to communicate their ambitions and strategies for creating and fostering a diverse board.

 

We reserve the right to vote against the reelection of the Nominating/Governance Committee Chair when the board is not meeting local market standards from a diversity perspective. We expect a minimum of 20% gender diversity at major indices such as the S&P 500 and encourage boards to strive for 30% gender diversity. From 2025, we may vote against the reelection of the Nominating/Governance Committee Chair at major indices not meeting this 30% goal.

 

Outside of the above major indices and absent a market-defined standard, we may vote against the reelection of the Nominating/Governance Committee Chair where no gender-diverse directors are represented on a board.

 

We reserve the right to vote against the reelection of the Nominating/Governance Committee Chair at US large-cap and FTSE 100 companies that failed to appoint at least one director from a minority ethnic group and fail to provide a clear and compelling reason for being unable to do so. We will continue to engage on diversity of the board in other markets and may vote against the reelection of directors where we fail to see improvements.

 

As of January 2024  3

 

 

2024 Global Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

Majority vote on election of directors

 

Because we believe the election of directors by a majority of votes cast is the appropriate standard, we will generally support proposals that seek to adopt such a standard. Our support will typically extend to situations where the relevant company has an existing resignation policy for directors that receive a majority of ‘‘withhold’’ votes. We believe majority voting should be defined in the company’s charter and not simply in its corporate governance policy.

 

Generally, we oppose proposals that fail to provide for the exceptional use of a plurality standard in the case of contested elections. Further, we will not support proposals that seek to adopt a standard of majority of votes outstanding (total votes eligible as opposed to votes cast). We likely will support shareholder and management proposals to remove existing supermajority vote requirements.

 

Contested director elections

 

We approach contested director elections on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances of each situation to determine what we believe to be in the best financial interest of our clients. In each case, we welcome the opportunity to engage with both the company and the proponent to ensure that we understand both perspectives and are making an informed decision on our clients’ behalf.

 

COMPENSATION

 

Executive compensation plans establish the incentive structure that plays a role in strategy-setting, decision making, and risk management. While design and structure vary widely, 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.

 

Due to each company’s unique circumstances and wide range of plan structures, Wellington determines support for a compensation plan on a case-by-case basis. We support plans that we believe lead to long-term value creation for our clients and the right to vote on compensation plans annually.

 

In evaluating compensation plans, we consider the following attributes in the context of the company’s business, size, industry, and geographic location:

 

Alignment — We believe in pay-for-performance and encourage plan structures that align executive compensation with shareholder experience. We compare total compensation to performance metrics on an absolute and relative basis over various time frames, and we look for a strong positive correlation. To ensure shareholder alignment, executives should maintain meaningful equity ownership in the company while they are employed, and for a period thereafter.

 

Transparency — We expect compensation committees to articulate the decision-making process and rationale behind the plan structure, and to provide adequate disclosure so shareholders can evaluate actual compensation relative to the committee’s intentions. Disclosure should include how metrics, targets, and time frames are chosen, and detail desired outcomes. We also seek to understand how the compensation committee determines the target level of compensation and constructs the peer group for benchmarking purposes.

 

Structure — The plan should be clear and comprehensible. We look for a mix of cash versus equity, fixed versus variable, and short- versus long-term pay that incentivizes appropriate risk-taking and aligns with industry practice. Performance targets should be achievable but rigorous, and equity awards should be subject to performance and/or vesting periods of at least three years, to discourage executives from managing the business with a near-term focus.

 

As of January 2024  4

 

 

2024 Global Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

Unless otherwise specified by local market regulators, performance-based compensation should be based on metrics that are objective, rigorous, and tied to shareholder value creation. Qualitative goals, including material environmental and social considerations material to financial performance, may be acceptable if a compensation committee has demonstrated a fair and consistent approach to evaluating qualitative performance and applying discretion over time.

 

Accountability — Compensation committees should be able to use discretion, positive and negative, to ensure compensation aligns with performance and provide a cogent explanation to shareholders. We generally oppose one- time awards aimed at retention or achieving a predetermined goal. Barring an extenuating circumstance, we view retesting provisions unfavorably.

 

Approving equity incentive plans

 

A well-designed equity incentive plan facilitates the alignment of interests of long-term shareholders, management, employees, and directors. We evaluate equity-based compensation plans on a case-by-case basis, considering projected plan costs, plan features, and grant practices. We will reconsider our support for a plan if we believe these factors, on balance, are not in the best financial interest of shareholders. Specific items of concern may include excessive cost or dilution, unfavorable change-in-control features, insufficient performance conditions, holding/vesting periods, or stock ownership requirements, repricing stock options/stock appreciation rights (SARs) without prior shareholder approval, or automatic share replenishment (an ‘‘evergreen’’ feature).

 

Employee stock purchase plans

 

We generally support employee stock purchase plans, as they may align employees’ interests with those of shareholders. That said, we typically vote against plans that do not offer shares to a broad group of employees (e.g., if only executives can participate) or plans that offer shares at a significant discount.

 

Nonexecutive director compensation

 

We expect companies to disclose nonexecutive director compensation and we prefer the use of an annual retainer or fee, delivered as cash, equity, or a combination. We do not believe nonexecutive directors should receive performance- based compensation, as this creates a potential conflict of interest. Nonexecutive directors oversee executive compensation plans; their objectivity is compromised if they design a plan that they also participate in.

 

Severance arrangements

 

We are mindful of the board’s need for flexibility in recruitment and retention but will oppose excessively generous arrangements unless agreements encourage management to negotiate in shareholders’ best financial interest. We generally support proposals calling for shareholder ratification of severance arrangements.

 

Retirement bonuses (Japan)

 

Misaligned compensation that is based on tenure and seniority may compromise director independence. We generally vote against directors and statutory auditors if retirement bonuses are given to outgoing directors.

 

Clawback policies

 

We believe companies should be able to recoup incentive compensation from members of management who received awards based on fraudulent activities, accounting misstatements, or breaches in standards of conduct that lead to corporate reputational damage. We generally support shareholder proposals requesting that a company establish a robust clawback provision if existing policies do not cover these circumstances. We also support proposals seeking greater transparency about the application of clawback policies.

 

As of January 2024  5

 

 

2024 Global Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

Audit quality and oversight

 

Scrutiny of auditors, particularly audit quality and oversight, has been increasing. When we assess financial statement reporting and audit quality, we will generally support management’s choice of auditors, unless the auditors have demonstrated failure to act in shareholders’ best economic interests. We also pay close attention to the nonaudit services provided by auditors and consider the potential for the revenue from those services to create conflicts of interest that could compromise the integrity of financial statement audits.

 

SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS

 

Shareholder rights plans

 

Also known as poison pills, these plans can enable boards of directors to negotiate higher takeover prices on behalf of shareholders. Such plans also may be misused, however, as a means of entrenching management. Consequently, we may support plans that include a shareholder approval requirement, a sunset provision, or a permitted bid feature (e.g., bids that are made for all shares and demonstrate evidence of financing must be submitted to a shareholder vote).

 

Because boards generally have the authority to adopt shareholder rights plans without shareholder approval, we are equally vigilant in our assessment of requests for authorization of blank-check preferred shares.

 

Multiple voting rights

 

We generally support one share, one vote structures. The growing practice of going public with a dual-class share structure can raise governance and performance concerns. In our view, dual-class shares can create misalignment between shareholders’ economic stake and their voting power and can grant control to a small number of insiders who may make decisions that are not in the interests of all shareholders.

 

We generally prefer that companies dispense with dual-class share structures but we recognize that newly listed companies may benefit from a premium by building in some protection for founders for a limited time after their IPO. The Council of Institutional Investors, a nonprofit association of pension funds, endowments, and foundations, recommends that newly public companies that adopt structures with unequal voting rights do away with the structure within seven years of going public. We believe such sunset clauses are a reasonable compromise between founders seeking to defend against takeover attempts in pivotal early years, and shareholders demanding a mechanism for holding management accountable, especially in the event of leadership changes.

 

Similarly, we generally do not support the introduction of loyalty shares, which grant increased voting rights to investors who hold shares over multiple years.

 

Proxy access

 

We believe shareholders should have the right to nominate director candidates on the management’s proxy card. We will generally support shareholder proposals seeking proxy access unless the existing policy is already in line with market norms.

 

Special meeting rights

 

We believe the right to call a special meeting is an important shareholder right, and we will generally support such proposals to establish this right at companies that lack this facility. We will generally support a proposal lowering thresholds where the current level exceeds 15% and the proposal calls for a 10%+ threshold, taking into consideration the makeup of the existing shareholder base and the company’s general responsiveness to shareholders. If shareholders are granted the right to call special meetings, we generally do not support written consent.

 

As of January 2024  6

 

 

2024 Global Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

Virtual meetings

 

Many companies established virtual-only shareholder meetings over the course of the recent COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual attendance allows investors to participate in more meetings and reduces the need for travel. We generally prefer shareholder meetings to take place in a hybrid format (virtual and in-person) where possible, allowing all shareholders, whether they attend in person or virtually, to ask questions. We expect companies hosting virtual-only shareholder meetings to provide a clear rationale underpinning their decision to do so, provide a live video stream of proceedings, and offer transparency on how questions may be submitted and are selected for discussion.

 

We may oppose amendments to articles of association permitting virtual-only meetings where we perceive shareholder rights to be at risk. We may also support relevant shareholder proposals requesting companies to facilitate the ability to attend in person.

 

CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND CAPITAL ALLOCATION

 

Mergers and acquisitions

 

We approach votes to approve mergers and acquisitions on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances of each proposal to determine what we believe to be in the best financial interests of our clients.

 

Increases in authorized common stock

 

We generally support requests for increases up to 100% of the shares with preemption rights. Exceptions will be made when the company has clearly articulated a reasonable need for a greater increase. Conversely, at companies trading in less-liquid markets, we may impose a lower threshold. When companies seek to issue shares without preemptive rights, we consider potential dilution and generally support requests when dilution is below 20%. For issuance with preemptive rights, we review on a case-by-case basis, considering the size of issuance relative to peers.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS

 

We assess portfolio companies’ performance on environmental issues we deem to be material to long-term financial performance and communicate our expectations for best practice.

 

Climate change

 

As an asset manager entrusted with investing on our clients’ behalf, we aim to assess, monitor, and manage the potential effects of climate change on our investment processes and financial returns of client portfolios. Proxy voting is a key tool we use for managing climate-related investment risks             as part of our stewardship escalation process.

 

We expect companies facing material climate risks to have credible transition plans communicated using the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). Appropriate reporting on climate readiness will help stakeholders understand those companies’ willingness and ability to adapt to or mitigate material climate-related risks. In addition to the voting policies specifically mentioned, we may also vote against directors at companies facing material climate risks where climate plans and disclosures meaningfully lag our expectations for those companies.

 

Emissions disclosure

 

We generally encourage all companies to disclose Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. While we recognize the challenges associated with collecting Scope 3 emissions data, this disclosure is necessary for us to fully understand the transition risks applicable to an issuer. Disclosure of both overall categories of Scope 3 emissions           upstream and downstream          with context and granularity from companies about the most significant Scope 3 sources enhances our ability to evaluate investment risks and opportunities. We generally encourage companies to adopt emerging global standards for measurement and disclosure of emissions such as those being developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and believe companies will benefit from acting now and consequently evolving their approach in line with emerging global standards.

 

As of January 2024  7

 

 

2024 Global Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

We view disclosure of Scope 1 and 2 emissions as a minimum expectation where measurement practices are well- defined and attainable. We will generally vote against the reelection of the chair of MSCI World companies and large- cap companies in emerging markets that do not disclose Scope 1 and 2 emissions, have not made a commitment to do so in the next year, and where emissions intensity is material to financial performance.

 

Net-zero targets

 

As an outcome of enterprise risk management and strategic planning to reduce the potential negative financial impacts of climate change on shareholder value, we encourage companies to set a credible, science-based decarbonization glidepath, with an interim and long-term target, that comprises all categories of material emissions and is consistent with the ambition to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 or sooner. For certain high-emitting companies, we reserve the right to vote against the company chair where quantitative emission reduction targets have not been defined. We consider it to be best practice for companies to pursue validation from the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

 

We generally support shareholder proposals asking companies facing material climate risks for improved disclosure on climate risk management and we generally support those that request alignment of business strategies with the Paris Agreement or similar language.

 

Biodiversity

 

Many companies are dependent on natural capital and biodiversity as key inputs either through direct resource extraction or their supply chain. Business activities may also impact the capacity of nature to provide social and economic functions. We recognize that biodiversity impact and loss can be challenging to quantify and measure, but we believe companies should assess environmental inputs and outputs. We encourage companies to report on financially material impacts and dependencies on natural capital relevant to their business.

 

Other environmental shareholder proposals

 

For other environmental proposals covering themes including biodiversity, natural capital, deforestation, water usage, (plastic) packaging, as well as palm oil, we take a case-by-case approach and will generally support proposals calling for companies to provide disclosure where this is additive to the company’s existing efforts, the proposed information pertains to a material financial impact, and in our view is of economic benefit to investors.

 

SOCIAL TOPICS

 

Corporate culture, human capital, and diversity, equity, and inclusion

 

Through engagement we emphasize to management the importance of how they invest in and cultivate their human capital to perpetuate a strong culture. We assess culture holistically from an alignment of management incentives, responsiveness to employee feedback, evidence of an equitable and sound talent management strategy and commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices that promote shareholder value. We value transparency and use of key performance indicators.

 

A well-articulated culture statement and talent attraction, retention, and development strategy suggest that a company appreciates culture and talent as competitive advantages that can drive long-term value creation. It also sends a strong message when management compensation is linked, when appropriate, to employee satisfaction. If the company conducts regular employee engagement surveys, we look for leadership to disclose the results                            both positive and negative      so we can monitor patterns and assess whether they are implementing changes based on the feedback they receive. We consider workplace locations and how a company balances attracting talent with the costs of operating in desirable cities.

 

We maintain that a deliberate human capital management strategy should foster a collaborative, productive workplace in which all talent can thrive. One ongoing engagement issue that pertains to human capital management is DEI. We see DEI practices as a material input to long-term financial 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 significantly aided when there is consistent, robust disclosure in place. A sound long-term plan holds more weight than a company’s current demographics, so we look for a demonstrable DEI strategy that seeks to improve shareholder value over time and align management incentives accordingly. To that end, we expect companies in the US to publicly disclose their EEO-1 reporting and all companies to disclose their DEI strategy.

 

As of January 2024  8

 

 

2024 Global Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

Gender and racial pay equity are important parts of our assessment of a company’s diversity efforts. Pay inequity can impact shareholder value by exposing a company to challenges with recruiting and retaining talent, job dissatisfaction, workforce turnover, and costly lawsuits. Consequently, we may support proposals asking for improved transparency on a company’s gender and/or racial pay gap if existing disclosures are lagging best practice and if the company has not articulated its efforts to promote equal opportunities to advance to senior roles.

 

We believe diversity among directors, leaders, and employees contributes positively to shareholder value by imbuing a company with myriad perspectives that help it better navigate complex challenges. A strong culture of diversity and inclusion begins in the boardroom. See the Board Diversity section above for more on our approach.

 

Stakeholders and risk management

 

In recent years, discourse on opioids, firearms, and sexual harassment has brought the potential for social externalities — the negative effects that companies can have on society through their products, cultures, or policies — into sharp focus. These nuanced, often misunderstood issues can affect the value of corporate securities.

 

We encourage companies facing these risks to disclose related risk-management strategies. When a company faces litigation or negative press, we inquire about lessons learned and request evidence of substantive changes that aim to prevent recurrence and mitigate downside risk. In these cases, we may also support proposals requesting enhanced disclosure on actions taken by management.

 

Human rights

 

Following the 2015 passage of the UK’s Modern Slavery Act, a handful of countries have passed laws requiring companies to report on how they are addressing risks related to human rights abuses in their global supply chains. While human rights have been a part of our research and engagement in this context, we seek to assess companies’ exposures to these risks, determine the sectors for which this risk is most material (highest possibility of supply chain exposure), enhance our own engagement questions, and potentially work with external data providers to gain insights on specific companies or industries. To help us assess company practices and drive more substantive engagement with companies on this issue, we will generally support proposals requesting enhanced disclosure on companies’ approach to mitigating the risk of human rights violations in their business.

 

Cybersecurity

 

Robust cybersecurity practices are imperative for maintaining customer trust, preserving brand strength, and mitigating regulatory risk. Companies that fail to strengthen their cybersecurity platforms may end up bearing large costs. Through engagement, we aim to compare companies’ approaches to cyber threats, regardless of region or sector, to distinguish businesses that lag from those that are better prepared.

 

Political contributions and lobbying

 

We generally support shareholder proposals asking for enhanced disclosure and board oversight of a company’s political and lobbying activities where existing disclosure and board oversight are inadequate. This is because sufficient disclosure and board oversight are necessary to evaluate whether, and ensure that, these activities align with the company’s stated strategy and promote shareholder value.

 

As of January 2024  9

 

 

2024 Global Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

JAPAN-SPECIFIC TOPICS

 

Capital allocation

 

We hold board chairs accountable for persistently low returns on equity (ROE) in Japan, using a five-year average ROE of below 5% as a guide. Our assessment of a company’s capital stewardship complements our assessment of board effectiveness without dictating specific capital allocation decisions. We may make exceptions where ROE is improving, where a long-cycle business warrants a different standard, or where new management is in place, and we feel they should not be punished for the past CEO/chair’s record.

 

Cross-shareholdings

 

Cross-shareholdings reduce management accountability by creating a cushion of crossover investor support. We may vote against the highest-ranking director up for reelection for companies where management has allocated a significant portion (20% or more) of net assets to cross-shareholdings. When considering this issue, we will take into account a company’s trajectory in reducing cross-shareholdings over time, as well as legitimate business reasons given to retain specific shareholdings.

 

Board diversity

 

We look for boards on the Japanese Prime Market to have a minimum 10% gender diversity, not inclusive of statutory auditors. For companies on the Non-Prime Market, we will also look for boards to have a minimum 10% gender diversity, inclusive of statutory auditors as applicable. We may vote against the chair of the board (or CEO in the absence of a board chair) where the board fails to meet this level. We expect to be able to support directors where a credible plan has been adopted to increase gender diversity ahead of the next meeting.

 

Board independence

 

We reserve the right to vote against the chair of the board or the most senior executive up for election at Japanese companies if the board of directors fails to meet the following independence expectations:

 

For companies on the Prime Market without a controlling shareholder, we expect the board to be comprised of at least one-third independent directors.

 

For companies on the Prime Market with a controlling shareholder, we expect the board to be majority independent.

 

For companies on the Non-Prime Market with a controlling shareholder, we expect the board to be comprised of at least one-third independent directors.

 

For companies on the Non-Prime Market without a controlling shareholder and a two-tiered board, we expect combined one-third independence of the board of directors and the board of statutory auditors, and at least two independent outside directors.
   
  - For companies on the Non-Prime Market without a controlling shareholder and a one-tiered board (with either one or three committees), we expect one-third independence.

 

We continue to require a majority of the board of statutory auditors to be independent, regardless of the market segments. We further encourage Japanese companies to establish nomination/compensation committees, and to clearly describe the role of the board chair in terms of setting the board agenda and driving accountability.

 

As of January 2024  10

 

 

2024 Global Proxy Voting Guidelines

 

Important Information

 

Wellington Management Company LLP (WMC) is an independently owned investment adviser registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). WMC is also registered with the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as a commodity trading advisor (CTA) and serves as a CTA to certain clients including commodity pools operated by registered commodity pool operators. WMC provides commodity trading advice to all other clients in reliance on exemptions from CTA registration. WMC, along with its affiliates (collectively, Wellington Management), provides investment management and investment advisory services to institutions around the world. Wellington Management Group LLP (WMG), a Massachusetts limited liability partnership, serves as the ultimate parent holding company of the Wellington Management global organization. All of the partners are full-time professional members of Wellington Management. Located in Boston, Massachusetts, Wellington Management also has offices in Chicago, Illinois; New York, New York; Radnor, Pennsylvania; San Francisco, California; DIFC, Dubai; Frankfurt; Hong Kong; London; Luxembourg; Madrid; Milan; Shanghai; Singapore; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto; and Zurich.

 

This material is prepared for, and authorized for internal use by, designated institutional and professional investors and their consultants or for such other use as may be authorized by Wellington Management. This material and/or its contents are current at the time of writing and may not be reproduced or distributed in whole or in part, for any purpose, without the express written consent of Wellington Management. This material is not intended to constitute investment advice or an offer to sell, or the solicitation of an offer to purchase shares or other securities. Investors should always obtain and read an up-to-date investment services description or prospectus before deciding whether to appoint an investment manager or to invest in a fund. Any views expressed herein are those of the author(s), are based on available information, and are subject to change without notice. Individual portfolio management teams may hold different views and may make different investment decisions for different clients.

 

©2024 Wellington Management Company LLP. All rights reserved.

 

As of January 2024  11

 

 

October 25, 2023

 

William Blair Investment Management, LLC

 

Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Procedures

 

 

 

 

 

 

Under rule 206(4)-6, it is a fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act, practice or course of business within the meaning of section 206(4) of the Act for an investment adviser to exercise voting authority with respect to client securities, unless:

 

the adviser has adopted and implemented written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that the adviser votes proxies in the best interest of its clients

 

the adviser describes its proxy voting procedures to its clients and provides copies on request, and

 

the adviser discloses to clients how they may obtain information on how the adviser voted their proxies.

 

This statement sets forth the proxy voting policy and procedures of William Blair Investment Management, LLC (“WBIM”). It is provided to all covered clients as described below even if WBIM currently does not have authority to vote proxies for their account.

 

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) has stated that the fiduciary act of managing plan assets by an investment adviser generally includes the authority to vote proxies for shares held by a plan unless the plan documents reserve this authority to some other entity. ERISA section 3(38) defines an investment manager as any fiduciary who is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. WBIM is a registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) requires registered investment advisers to implement a proxy voting policy and procedures with respect to the voting of proxies for its advisory clients. Registered investment advisers are required to identify potential conflicts involved in the voting of proxies and meet specific recordkeeping and disclosure requirements. On June 30, 2014, the staff of the SEC Divisions of Investment Management and Corporation Finance issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 20, which provides guidance on investment advisers’ responsibilities in voting client proxies and retaining proxy advisory firms.  On August 21, 2019, the staff of the SEC Division of Investment Management issued Release Nos. IA-5325 and IC-33605, Commission Guidance Regarding Proxy Voting Responsibilities of Investment Advisers. This policy is intended to comply with the applicable rules and guidance of the DOL and the SEC.

 

General Policy

 

WBIM shall vote the proxies of its clients solely in the best interest of their participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them and shall not place WBIM’s own interests ahead of the interests of its clients. WBIM 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. WBIM is not responsible for voting proxies it does not receive in a timely manner. However, WBIM will make reasonable efforts to obtain missing proxies. For clients participating in a securities lending program via their custodian, WBIM will not be eligible to vote proxies for the portion of shares on loan.

 

 

1 WBIM has engaged Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) to assist in the administration and voting of proxies. The complete Voting Guidelines (proxy voting policies) across all markets are available on ISS’s website at: https://www.issgovernance.com/file/policy/active/specialty/Sustainability-US-Voting-Guidelines.pdf and https://www.issgovernance.com/file/policy/active/specialty/Sustainability-International-Voting-Guidelines.pdf

 

2 | Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Procedures 
 

 

 

 

 

WBIM has adopted the Voting Guidelines of an independent proxy advisory firm (the “Proxy Administrator”)1. All proxies are reviewed by the Proxy Administrator, subject to the requirement that all votes shall be cast solely in the best interest of the clients in their capacity as shareholders of a company. The Proxy Administrator votes the proxies according to the Voting Guidelines, which are designed to address matters typically arising in proxy votes. In instances where WBIM has implemented a client provided proxy voting policy, WBIM will vote in accordance with the client’s policy at all times even if the client’s policy is inconsistent with WBIM’s vote. In addition, if a client expressly directs in writing how an issue should be voted, William Blair will cast the vote with respect to such issue in the manner directed by the client. In the case when nominee voting is not allowed it may be impractical for WBIM to participate in those particular votes.

 

WBIM does not intend the Voting Guidelines to be exhaustive; hundreds of issues appear on proxy ballots and it is neither practical nor productive to fashion a guideline for each. Rather, the Voting Guidelines are intended to cover the most significant and frequent proxy issues that arise. For issues not covered or to be voted on a “Case-by-Case” basis by the Voting Guidelines, the Proxy Administrator will consult the Proxy Committee. In addition, portfolio managers and analysts covering specific companies are responsible for monitoring significant corporate developments, including proxy proposals submitted to shareholders and notifying the Proxy Committee of circumstances where the interests of WBIM’s clients may warrant a vote contrary to the Voting Guidelines. In such instances, the portfolio manager or analyst will submit a written rationale to the Proxy Committee. In each case, the Proxy Committee will review the issues and will vote each proxy based on information from the company, our internal analysts and third party research sources, in the best interests of the clients in their capacity as shareholders of a company. The Proxy Committee consists of certain representatives from the Investment Management Department, including management, portfolio manager(s), analyst(s), operations, as well as a representative from the Compliance Department. The Proxy Committee reviews the Proxy Voting Policy and procedures annually and shall revise its guidelines as events warrant.

 

Conflicts of Interest Policy

 

WBIM is sensitive to conflicts of interest that may arise in the proxy decision-making process and has identified the following potential conflicts of interest:

 

An affiliate of WBIM has received investment banking compensation from the company in the preceding 12 months or anticipates receiving investment banking compensation in the next three months

 

A principal or employee of WBIM or an affiliate currently serves on the company’s Board of Directors

 

WBIM, its principals, employees and affiliates, in the aggregate, own 1% or more of the company’s outstanding shares

 

The Company is a client of WBIM

 

3 | Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Procedures 
 

 

 

 

 

 

In the event that any of the above potential conflicts of interest arise, or the Proxy Committee otherwise determines that a potential conflict of interest exists, the Proxy Committee will vote all proxies for that company in the following manner:

 

If our Voting Guidelines indicate a vote “For” or “Against” a specific issue WBIM will continue to vote according to the Voting Guidelines

 

If our Voting Guidelines have no recommendation or indicate a vote on a “Case-by-Case” basis, WBIM will vote consistent with the voting recommendation provided by the Proxy Administrator

 

Oversight of Proxy Administrator

 

WBIM believes that contracting with the Proxy Administrator to provide services including:

 

Providing research and analysis regarding the matters subject to a vote

 

Promulgating general voting guidelines

 

Making voting recommendations on specific matters subject to vote

 

can reduce burdens for WBIM and potentially reduce costs for WBIM clients as compared to conducting them in-house.

 

The Proxy Administrator assists WBIM with voting execution, including through an electronic vote management system that allows the Proxy Administrator to:

 

populate WBIM’s votes shown on the Proxy Administrator’s electronic voting platform with the Proxy Administrator’s recommendations based on WBIM’s voting instructions to the firm (“pre-population”), and

 

automatically submit WBIM’s votes to be counted (“automated voting”).

 

4 | Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Procedures 
 

 

 

 

 

 

WBIM shall provide reasonable oversight of the Proxy Administrator. In providing oversight, WBIM will seek to ascertain whether the Proxy Administrator has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues. Specific oversight responsibilities will include the following:

 

On at least an annual basis, the Proxy Committee will assess:

 

o Whether the Proxy Administrator has the competency and capacity to adequately analyze the matters for which WBIM is responsible for voting, including the adequacy and quality of the Proxy Administrator’s staffing, personnel and technology

 

o Assess whether the Proxy Administrator has adequate policies and procedures to:

 

Enable it to make proxy voting recommendations based on current and accurate information, including whether it has an effective process for seeking timely input from issuers and its clients with respect to, for example, its proxy voting policies, methodologies, and peer group constructions, including for “say-on-pay” votes

 

If peer group constructions are a component of the evaluation does the Proxy Administrator incorporate appropriate input in formulating its methodologies for construction of peer groups, including taking into account unique characteristics of the issuer including, to the extent available,

 

The issuer’s size

 

Its governance structure

 

Its industry and any particular practices unique to that industry

 

Its history

 

Its financial performance

 

Identify and address conflicts of interest relating to its voting recommendations, including:

 

Conflicts relating to the provision of proxy voting recommendations and proxy voting services generally

 

Conflicts relating to activities other than proxy voting recommendations and proxy voting services generally

 

Conflicts presented by certain affiliations, including whether a third party with significant influence over the Proxy Administrator has taken a position on a particular voting issue or voting issues more generally

 

Are the Proxy Administrator’s methodologies used in formulating recommendations adequately disclosed such that WBIM can understand the factors underlying the recommendation

 

Identify the nature of any third-party information sources the Proxy Administrator uses as a basis for its recommendations and when and how it engages with issuers and third parties

 

Provide adequate disclosure of the Proxy Administrator’s actual and potential conflicts of interest with respect to the services it provides to WBIM, including whether the Proxy Administrator has provided consulting services to an issuer, and, if so, any compensation paid or whether a proponent of a shareholder proposal or an affiliate of the proponent is or has been a client of the Proxy Administrator

 

5 | Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Procedures 
 

 

 

 

 

 

WBIM personnel responsible for the administration of proxy voting shall periodically review a sample of votes recommended by the Proxy Administrator for consistency with the Voting Guidelines and report any inconsistencies to the Proxy Committee. The sample should include proxy votes that relate to proposals that may require more issuer-specific analysis (e.g. mergers and acquisitions, dissolutions, conversions or consolidations), to assist in evaluating whether WBIM’s voting determinations are consistent with its voting policies and procedures and in its clients’ best interest.

 

WBIM personnel shall periodically review a sample of votes before the votes are cast for consistency with these procedures and client best interest which may include:

 

o A sample of “pre-populated” votes

 

o A sample of “automated votes”

 

o Consideration of additional information that becomes available regarding a particular proposal after or around the same time that WBIM’s votes have been pre-populated but before the submission deadline for proxies to be voted at the shareholder meeting, which may include an issuer or shareholder proponent’s additional definitive proxy materials or other information conveyed to WBIM that could reasonably be expected to affect WBIM’s voting determination

 

o Matters where WBIM’s policies do not address how it should vote a particular matter, or whether the matter is highly contested or controversial

 

WBIM personnel responsible for proxy voting shall periodically assess the extent to which potential factual errors, potential incompleteness, or potential methodological weaknesses in the Proxy Administrator’s analysis (that the investment adviser becomes aware of and deems credible and relevant to its voting determinations) materially affected the Proxy Administrator’s research or recommendations that the investment adviser utilized.

 

WBIM personnel responsible for proxy voting shall periodically inquire whether the Proxy Administrator has learned that any recommendation was based on a factual errors, potential incompleteness, or potential methodological weaknesses in the Proxy Administrator’s analysis, and, if so, WBIM shall investigate the factual errors, potential incompleteness, or potential methodological weaknesses and evaluate whether the Proxy Administrator is taking steps to mitigate making such errors in the future and report any such errors, as well as their resolution to the Proxy committee

 

WBIM personnel responsible for proxy voting shall consider the effectiveness of the Proxy Administrator’s policies and procedures for obtaining current and accurate information relevant to matters included in its research and on which it makes voting recommendations. As part of this assessment, WBIM should consider the following:

 

o The Proxy Administrator’s engagement with issuers, including the firm’s process for ensuring that it has complete and accurate information about the issuer and each particular matter, and the firm’s process, if any, for investment advisers to access the issuer’s views about the firm’s voting recommendations in a timely and efficient manner

 

o The Proxy Administrator’s efforts to correct any identified material deficiencies in the proxy advisory firm’s analysis

 

o The Proxy Administrator’s disclosure regarding the sources of information and methodologies used in formulating voting recommendations or executing voting instructions

 

o The Proxy Administrator’s consideration of factors unique to a specific issuer or proposal when evaluating a matter subject to a shareholder vote

 

WBIM personnel responsible for proxy voting shall require the Proxy Administrator to update on business changes that may impact the Proxy Administrator’s capacity and competency to provide proxy voting advice or conflict of interest policies and procedures

 

6 | Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Procedures 
 

 

 

 

 

 

International Markets and Share Blocking Policy

 

In some cases, proxy votes cast by WBIM for clients may be rejected in certain markets. Some non-US markets have additional requirements for custodians in order to process votes in those markets. Two specific cases include Power of Attorney documentation and Split Voting. Power of Attorney documentation authorizes 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. Split Voting occurs when a custodian utilizes an omnibus account to aggregate multiple customer accounts for voting into a single voting record. If one portion of the holdings would like to vote in one manner (“FOR”) and another portion would like to vote in another manner (“AGAINST”), the custodian needs to ensure they are authorized to split the vote for an agenda item in certain markets.

 

In international markets where share blocking applies, WBIM typically will not, but reserve the right to, vote proxies due to liquidity constraints. Share blocking is the “freezing” of shares for trading purposes at the custodian/sub-custodian bank level in order to vote proxies. Share blocking typically takes place between 1 and 20 days before an upcoming shareholder meeting, depending on the market. While shares are frozen, they may not be traded. Therefore, the potential exists for a pending trade to fail if trade settlement falls on a date during the blocking period. WBIM shall not subordinate the interests of participants and beneficiaries to unrelated objectives.

 

Recordkeeping and Disclosure

 

Pursuant to this policy, WBIM will retain: 1) the Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Procedures; 2) all proxy statements received regarding client securities 3) records of all votes cast on behalf of clients; 4) records of client requests for proxy voting information, and 5) any documents prepared by WBIM that are material to making a decision how to vote, or that memorialize the basis for the decision.

 

Upon a client’s request to the Proxy Administrator, WBIM will make available to its clients a report on proxy votes cast on their behalf. These proxy-voting reports will demonstrate WBIM’s compliance with its responsibilities and will facilitate clients’ monitoring of how their securities were voted.

 

The Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Procedures will be provided with each advisory contract and will also be described and provided with WBIM’s Form ADV, Part 2A. With respect to the William Blair Funds, the policies and procedures used to determine how to vote proxies relating to securities held in their portfolios will be reflected in the Statement of Additional Information.

 

7 | Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Procedures