STATEMENT
OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AMERICAN
BEACON FUNDSSM
September
1, 2010
(as
Supplemented December 30, 2010)
Balanced
Fund
C CLASS
[ABCCX]
Large
Cap Value Fund
CCLASS
[ALVCX]
Large
Cap Growth Fund
C CLASS
[ABGCX]
Mid-Cap
Value Fund
C CLASS
[AMCCX]
Small
Cap Value Fund
C CLASS
[ASVCX]
International
Equity Fund
C CLASS
[AILCX]
Emerging
Markets Fund
C CLASS
[AEMCX]
High
Yield Bond Fund
C CLASS
[AHBCX]
Retirement
Income and Appreciation Fund
C CLASS
[ABACX]
Intermediate
Bond Fund
C CLASS
[AIBCX]
Short-Term
Bond Fund
C CLASS
[ATBCX]
Treasury
Inflation Protected Securities Fund
C CLASS
[ATSCX]
Global
Real Estate Fund
C CLASS
[ABECX]
INSTITUTIONAL
CLASS [AREIX]
This
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) should be read in conjunction with
the Prospectus dated September 1, 2010 (the “Prospectus”) with respect to C
Class shares for the separate series of American Beacon Funds (each, a “Fund”
and collectively, the “Funds”) and the Institutional Class shares of the Global
Real Estate Fund. Copies of the Prospectus may be obtained without charge by
calling (800) 658-5811. You also may obtain copies of the Prospectus without
charge by visiting the Funds’ website at www.americanbeaconfunds.com. This SAI
is incorporated herein by reference to the Funds’ Prospectus. In other words, it
is legally a part of the Prospectus. This SAI is not a prospectus and is
authorized for distribution to prospective investors only if preceded or
accompanied by a current Prospectus.
The
American Beacon Funds’ Semi-Annual Report to Shareholders for the period ended
April 30, 2010, the American Beacon Funds’ Annual Report to Shareholders of the
Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund for the period ended December 31,
2009 and The CNL Funds’ Annual Report to Shareholders for the period ended
December 31, 2009 regarding the Global Real Estate Fund and the financial
statements and accompanying notes appearing therein are incorporated by
reference in this SAI. To request an Annual Report, free of charge, please call
(800) 658-5811.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
|
2
|
|
4 |
|
6
|
|
6
|
|
6
|
|
8
|
|
9
|
|
21
|
|
21
|
|
21
|
|
30
|
|
34
|
|
37
|
|
37
|
|
66
|
|
71
|
|
72
|
|
72
|
|
79
|
|
79
|
|
80
|
|
A-1 |
|
B-1 |
Each Fund
is a separate investment portfolio of the American Beacon Funds (the “Trust”),
an open-end management investment company organized as a Massachusetts business
trust on January 16, 1987. Each Fund constitutes a separate investment portfolio
with a distinct investment objective and distinct purpose and strategy. All of
the Funds are diversified. Each Fund is comprised of multiple classes of shares
designed to meet the needs of different groups of investors. This SAI relates to
the C Class shares of the Trust and Institutional Classshares of the Global Real
Estate Fund.
In
addition to the investment strategies described in the Prospectus, the Balanced
Fund, the Emerging Markets Fund, the High Yield Bond Fund, the International
Equity Fund, the Large Cap Growth Fund, the Large Cap Value Fund, the Mid-Cap
Value Fund, the Small Cap Value Fund, the Treasury Inflation Protected
Securities Fund, and the Global Real Estate Fund, each may:
Invest up
to 20% of its total assets in debt securities that are investment grade at the
time of purchase, including obligations of the U.S. Government, its agencies and
instrumentalities, corporate debt securities, mortgage-backed securities,
asset-backed securities, master-demand notes, Yankeedollar and Eurodollar bank
certificates of deposit, time deposits, bankers’ acceptances, commercial paper
and other notes, inflation-indexed securities, and other debt securities.
Investment grade securities include securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S.
Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, as well as securities rated in
one of the four highest rating categories by at least two nationally recognized
statistical rating organizations (“NRSROs”) rating that security, such as
Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (“Standard & Poor’s”) or Moody’s
Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”), or rated in one of the four highest rating
categories by one NRSRO if it is the only NRSRO rating that security.
Obligations rated in the fourth highest rating category are limited to 25% of
each of these Funds’ debt allocations. These Funds, at the discretion of the
Manager, or the applicable sub-advisor, may retain a debt security that has been
downgraded below the initial investment criteria. The International Equity Fund
may invest up to
20% of
its total assets in non-U.S. debt securities that are rated at the time of
purchase in one of the three highest rating categories by any NRSRO or, if
unrated, are deemed to be of comparable quality by the applicable sub-advisor
and traded publicly on a world market. The High Yield Bond Fund may invest more
than 20% in investment grade debt securities and more than 25% in obligations
rated in the fourth highest rating category.
Each Fund
may (except where indicated otherwise):
1. Engage
in dollar rolls or purchase or sell securities on a when-issued or forward
commitment basis. The purchase or sale of when-issued securities enables an
investor to hedge against anticipated changes in interest rates and prices by
locking in an attractive price or yield. The price of when-issued securities is
fixed at the time the commitment to purchase or sell is made, but delivery and
payment for the when-issued securities takes place at a later date, normally one
to two months after the date of purchase. During the period between purchase and
settlement, no payment is made by the purchaser to the issuer and no interest
accrues to the purchaser. Such transactions therefore involve a risk of loss if
the value of the security to be purchased declines prior to the settlement date
or if the value of the security to be sold increases prior to the settlement
date. A sale of a when-issued security also involves the risk that the other
party will be unable to settle the transaction. Dollar rolls are a type of
forward commitment transaction. Purchases and sales of securities on a forward
commitment basis involve a commitment to purchase or sell securities with
payment and delivery to take place at some future date, normally one to two
months after the date of the transaction. As with when-issued securities, these
transactions involve certain risks, but they also enable an investor to hedge
against anticipated changes in interest rates and prices. Forward commitment
transactions are executed for existing obligations, whereas in a when-issued
transaction, the obligations have not yet been issued. When purchasing
securities on a when-issued or forward commitment basis, a segregated account of
liquid assets at least equal to the value of purchase commitments for such
securities will be maintained until the settlement date.
2. Invest
in other investment companies (including affiliated investment companies) to the
extent permitted by the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (“1940 Act”),
or exemptive relief granted by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC”).
3. Loan
securities to broker-dealers or other institutional investors. Securities loans
will not be made if, as a result, the aggregate amount of all outstanding
securities loans by a Fund exceeds 33 1/3% of its total assets (including the
market value of collateral received). For purposes of complying with a Fund’s
investment policies and restrictions, collateral received in connection with
securities loans is deemed an asset of the Fund to the extent required by law.
For all Funds that engage in securities lending, the Manager receives
compensation for administrative and oversight functions with respect to
securities lending. The amount of such compensation depends on the income
generated by the loan of the securities. A Fund continues to receive dividends
or interest, as applicable, on the securities loaned and simultaneously earns
either interest on the investment of the cash collateral or fee income if the
loan is otherwise collateralized.
4. Enter
into repurchase agreements. A repurchase agreement is an agreement under which
securities are acquired by a Fund from a securities dealer or bank subject to
resale at an agreed upon price on a later date. The acquiring Fund bears a risk
of loss in the event that the other party to a repurchase agreement defaults on
its obligations and the Fund is delayed or prevented from exercising its rights
to dispose of the collateral securities. However, the Manager or the
sub-advisors, as applicable, attempt to minimize this risk by entering into
repurchase agreements only with financial institutions that are deemed to be of
good financial standing.
5.
Purchase securities in private placement offerings made in reliance on the
“private placement” exemption from registration afforded by Section 4(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”), and resold to qualified institutional
buyers under Rule 144A under the 1933 Act (“Section 4(2)
securities”).
The Funds will not invest more than 15% of their respective net assets in
Section 4(2) securities and illiquid securities unless the Manager or the
sub-advisor, as applicable, determines, by continuous reference to the
appropriate trading markets and pursuant to guidelines approved by the Trust’s
Board of Trustees (“Board”) that any Section 4(2) securities held by such Fund
in excess of this level are at all times liquid.
Each Fund
has the following fundamental investment policy that enables it to invest in
another investment company or series thereof that has substantially similar
investment objectives and policies:
Notwithstanding
any other limitation, the Fund may invest all of its investable assets in an
open-end management investment company with substantially the same investment
objectives, policies and limitations as the Fund. For this purpose, “all of the
Fund’s investable assets” means that the only investment securities that will be
held by the Fund will be the Fund’s interest in the investment
company.
All
Funds
The
following discusses the investment policies of each Fund and the
Board.
In
addition to the investment objectives noted in the Prospectus, the following
restrictions have been adopted by each Fund and may be changed with respect to
any such Fund only by the majority vote of that Fund’s outstanding interests.
“Majority of the outstanding voting securities” under the 1940 Act and as used
herein means, with respect to the Fund, the lesser of (a) 67% of the shares of
the Fund present at the meeting if the holders of more than 50% of the shares
are present and represented at the shareholders’ meeting or (b) more than 50% of
the shares of the Fund.
No Fund
may:
1.
Purchase or sell real estate or real estate limited partnership interests,
provided, however, that a Fund may invest in securities secured by real estate
or interests therein or issued by companies which invest in real estate or
interests therein when consistent with the other policies and limitations
described in the Prospectus. (All Funds other than the Global Real Estate
Fund)
The
Global Real Estate Fund may not purchase or sell real estate or real estate
limited partnership interests, provided, however, that a Fund may invest in
REITs, REOCs and securities secured by real estate or interests therein or
issued by companies which invest in real estate or interests therein when
consistent with the other policies and limitations described in the Prospectus.
The Global Real Estate Fund may hold real estate and sell real estate acquired
through default, liquidation, or other distributions of an interest in real
estate as a result of the Fund’s ownership of such securities.
2. Invest
in physical commodities unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities
or other instruments (but this shall not prevent a Fund from purchasing or
selling foreign currency, options, futures contracts, options on futures
contracts, forward contracts, swaps, caps, floors, collars, securities on a
forward-commitment or delayed-delivery basis, and other similar financial
instruments).
3. Engage
in the business of underwriting securities issued by others, except to the
extent that, in connection with the disposition of securities, a Fund may be
deemed an underwriter under federal securities law.
4. Lend
any security or make any other loan except (i) as otherwise permitted under the
1940 Act, (ii) pursuant to a rule, order or interpretation issued by the SEC or
its staff, (iii) through the
purchase
of a portion of an issue of debt securities in accordance with a Fund’s
investment objective, policies and limitations, or (iv) by engaging in
repurchase agreements with respect to portfolio securities.
5. Issue
any senior security except as otherwise permitted (i) under the 1940 Act or (ii)
pursuant to a rule, order or interpretation issued by the SEC or its
staff.
6. Borrow
money, except as otherwise permitted under the 1940 Act or pursuant to a rule,
order or interpretation issued by the SEC or its staff, including (i) as a
temporary measure, (ii) by entering into reverse repurchase agreements, and
(iii) by lending portfolio securities as collateral. For purposes of this
investment limitation, the purchase or sale of options, futures contracts,
options on futures contracts, forward contracts, swaps, caps, floors, collars
and other similar financial instruments shall not constitute
borrowing.
7. Invest
more than 5% of its total assets (taken at market value) in securities of any
one issuer, other than obligations issued by the U.S. Government, its agencies
and instrumentalities, or purchase more than 10% of the voting securities of any
one issuer, with respect to 75% of a Fund’s total assets.
8. Invest
more than 25% of its total assets in the securities of companies primarily
engaged in any one industry provided that: (i) this limitation does not apply to
obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, its agencies and
instrumentalities; and (ii) municipalities and their agencies and authorities
are not deemed to be industries. For purposes of this restriction, the Funds
will regard tax-exempt securities issued by municipalities and their agencies
not to be industry. (All Funds other than the Global Real Estate
Fund)
The
Global Real Estate Fund may not invest more than 25% of its total assets in the
securities of companies primarily engaged in any one industry provided that: (i)
this limitation does not apply to obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S.
Government, its agencies and instrumentalities; (ii) municipalities and their
agencies and authorities are not deemed to be industries and (iii) this
limitations does not apply to securities issued by real estate and real
estate-related companies (in which the Fund intends to
concentrate).
The above
percentage limits are based upon asset values at the time of the applicable
transaction; accordingly, a subsequent change in asset values will not affect a
transaction that was in compliance with the investment restrictions at the time
such transaction was effected.
The
following non-fundamental investment restrictions apply to each Fund (except
where noted otherwise) and may be changed with respect to each Fund by a vote of
a majority of the Board. No Fund may:
1. Invest
more than 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities, including time deposits
and repurchase agreements that mature in more than seven days; or
2.
Purchase securities on margin or effect short sales, except that (i) a Fund may
obtain such short term credits as may be necessary for the clearance of
purchases or sales of securities, and (ii) the High Yield Bond Fund may effect
short sales.
All
percentage limitations on investments will apply at the time of the making of an
investment and shall not be considered violated unless an excess or deficiency
occurs or exists immediately after and as a result of such investment. Except
for the investment restrictions listed above as fundamental or to the extent
designated as such in the Prospectus with respect to a Fund, the other
investment policies described in this SAI or in the Prospectus are not
fundamental and may be changed by approval of the Trustees.
In times
of unstable or adverse market, economic or political or other conditions, a Fund
can invest in other types of securities for defensive purposes. It can also
purchase these type of securities for liquidity purposes to meet cash needs due
to redemptions of shares, or to hold while waiting to reinvest cash received
from the sale of other portfolio securities.
These
temporary defensive investments can include (i) obligations issued or guaranteed
by the U.S. Government, its agents or instrumentalities; (ii) commercial paper
rated in the highest short term category by a nationally recognized statistical
rating organization (“NRSRO”); (iii) domestic, Yankee and Eurodollar
certificates of deposit or bankers’ acceptances of banks rated in the highest
short term category by a NRSRO; (iv) any of the foregoing securities that mature
in one year or less (generally known as “cash equivalents”); (v) other
short-term corporate debt obligations; (vi) repurchase agreements; and (vii)
shares of registered money market funds.
Portfolio
turnover is a measure of trading activity in a portfolio of securities, usually
calculated over a period of one year. The rate is calculated by dividing the
lesser amount of purchases or sales of securities by the average amount of
securities held over the period. A portfolio turnover rate of 100% would
indicate that a Fund sold and replaced the entire value of its securities
holdings during the period. High portfolio turnover can increase a Fund’s
transaction costs and generate additional capital gains or losses. The portfolio
turnover rate for the Intermediate Bond Fund increased from 85% for the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2007 to 105% for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2008.
The fiscal year ended October 31, 2008 was a period of extreme volatility in the
markets, which, due to the active style of both managers of the Intermediate
Bond Fund, caused the turnover to increase relative to the previous fiscal
period. The High Yield Bond Fund’s turnover rate increased from 92% for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2007 to 157% for the fiscal year ended October 31,
2008. The increase was the direct result of a sub-advisor change. For the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2009, the Short-Term Fund’s portfolio turnover rate
increased from 21% for fiscal year ended October 31, 2008 to 140% for fiscal
year ended October 31, 2009 due to sector re-allocation from treasury bonds to
corporate and agency bonds. The high yield market was extremely volatile in
2009. The High Yield Bond Fund’s turnover rate increased from 157% for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2008 to 212% for the fiscal year ended October 31,
2009.
The Funds
publicly disclose portfolio holdings information as follows:
|
1. |
a
complete list of holdings for each Fund on an annual and semi-annual basis
in the reports to shareholders within sixty days of the end of each fiscal
semi-annual period and in publicly available filings of Form N-CSR with
the SEC within ten days thereafter; |
|
2. |
a
complete list of holdings for each Fund as of the end of its first and
third fiscal quarters in publicly available filings of Form N-Q with the
SEC within sixty days of the end of the fiscal
quarter; |
|
3. |
a
complete list of holdings for each Fund, as of the end of each month on
the Funds’ website (www.americanbeaconfunds.com) approximately twenty days
after the end of the month; and |
|
4. |
ten
largest holdings for each Fund as of the end of each calendar quarter on
the Funds’ website (www.americanbeaconfunds.com) and in sales materials
approximately fifteen days after the end of the calendar
quarter. |
Public
disclosure of a Fund’s holdings on the website and in sales materials may be
delayed when the investment manager informs the Manager that such disclosure
could be harmful to the Fund. In addition, individual holdings may be omitted
from website and sales material disclosure, when such omission is deemed to be
in a Fund’s best interest.
Occasionally,
certain interested parties — including individual investors, institutional
investors, intermediaries that distribute shares of the Funds, third-party
service providers, rating and ranking organizations, and others — may request
portfolio holdings information that has not yet been publicly disclosed by the
Funds. As a policy, the Funds control the disclosure of nonpublic portfolio
holdings information in an attempt to prevent parties from utilizing such
information to engage in trading activity harmful to Fund shareholders. To this
end, the Board has adopted a Policy and Procedures for Disclosure of Portfolio
Holdings Information (the “Holdings Policy”). The purpose of the Holdings Policy
is to define those interested parties who are authorized to receive nonpublic
portfolio holdings information on a selective basis and to set forth conditions
upon which such information may be provided. In general, nonpublic portfolio
holdings may be disclosed on a selective basis only where it is determined that
(i) there is a legitimate business purpose for the information, (ii) recipients
are subject to a duty of confidentiality, including a duty not to trade on the
nonpublic information; and (iii) disclosure is in the best interests of Fund
shareholders.
Third
Party Service Providers. The Funds have ongoing arrangements with third
party service providers that require access to holdings to provide services
necessary to the Funds’ operations (“service providers”). These service
providers routinely receive complete portfolio holdings information prior to the
public disclosure of such information. The service providers have a duty to keep
the Funds’ nonpublic information confidential either through written contractual
arrangements with the Manager or the Funds or by the nature of their role with
respect to the Funds. The Funds have determined that complete disclosure of
nonpublic holdings information to the following categories of service providers
fulfills a legitimate business purpose and is in the best interest of
shareholders: investment managers, custodian banks, pricing services, fund
accounting agents, independent registered public accounting firms, and
securities lending agents. The Funds have ongoing arrangements to provide
nonpublic holdings information to the following service providers: the Manager,
the sub-advisors, State Street, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“BBH”), and
Ernst & Young LLP. State Street serves as the Trust’s custodian, accounting,
and pricing agent. State Street has access to complete Fund holdings on a daily
basis with no lag. BBH serves as the securities lending agent to the Funds that
participate in securities lending activities and has access to the complete list
of holdings of those Funds on a daily basis with no lag. Ernst & Young
serves as the Funds’ independent registered public accounting firm and has
access to the complete list of holdings on an annual basis with no lag. In
addition, Ernst & Young may be provided with holdings information on an ad
hoc basis when the Manager seeks their advice on matters related to those
holdings.
Certain
third parties are provided with non-public information on particular holdings
(not a complete list) on an ad hoc basis. These third parties include:
broker-dealers, borrowers of the Funds’ portfolio securities, legal counsel, and
issuers (or their agents). Broker-dealers utilized by the Funds in the process
of purchasing and selling portfolio securities receive limited holdings
information on a current basis with no lag. For the Funds that participate in
securities lending activities, potential borrowers of the Funds’ securities
receive information pertaining to the Funds’ securities available for loan. Such
information is provided on a current basis with no lag. The Manager may provide
holdings information to legal counsel when seeking advice regarding those
holdings. From time to time, an issuer (or its agent) may contact the Funds
requesting confirmation of ownership of the issuer’s securities. Such holdings
information is provided to the issuer (or its agent) as of the date requested.
The Funds do not have written contractual arrangements with these third parties
regarding the confidentiality of the holdings information. However, the Funds
would not continue to utilize a third party that the Manager determined to have
misused non-public holdings information.
Rating
and Ranking Organizations. The Funds have ongoing arrangements to provide
periodic holdings information to certain organizations that publish ratings
and/or rankings for the Funds. The Funds have
determined
that selective and complete disclosure of holdings information to rating and
ranking organizations fulfills a legitimate business purpose and is in the best
interest of shareholders, as it provides existing and potential shareholders
with an independent basis for evaluating the Funds in comparison to other mutual
funds. The Funds have the following arrangements with rating and ranking
organizations for periodic disclosure of holdings and other related portfolio
information:
Organization |
|
Frequency
of Disclosure |
|
Lag |
Bloomberg |
|
Quarterly |
|
Day
following disclosure on Funds’ website |
Lipper/Reuters |
|
Monthly |
|
5
business days |
Morningstar |
|
Monthly |
|
Day
following disclosure on Funds’
website |
The
rating and ranking organizations receiving fund holdings information prior to
disclosure on the Funds’ website have provided written assurances that they will
keep the information confidential and will not trade based on the information.
For those rating and ranking organizations that have not provided such
assurances, the Funds withhold disclosure of fund holdings information until the
day following disclosure on the Funds’ website.
Selective
Disclosure. Selective disclosure of nonpublic portfolio holdings
information to parties other than rating and ranking organizations or service
providers must meet all of the following
conditions:
|
1. |
Recipients
of portfolio holdings information must agree in writing to keep the
information confidential until it has been posted to the Funds’ website
and not to trade based on the
information; |
|
2. |
Holdings
may only be disclosed as of a month-end
date; |
|
3. |
No
compensation may be paid to the Funds, the Manager or any other party in
connection with the disclosure of information about portfolio securities;
and |
|
4. |
A
member of the Manager’s Compliance Department must approve requests for
disclosure of nonpublic holdings
information. |
In
determining whether to approve a request for portfolio holdings disclosure, the
Compliance Department shall consider the type of requestor and its relationship
to the Funds, the stated reason for the request, any historical pattern of
requests from that same individual or entity, the style and strategy of the Fund
for which holdings have been requested (e.g. passive versus active management),
whether the Fund is managed by one or multiple investment managers, and any
other factors it deems relevant. In its analysis, the Compliance Department
shall attempt to uncover any apparent conflict between the interests of Fund
shareholders on the one hand and those of the Manager or any affiliated person
of the Fund on the other. For example, the Compliance Department will inquire
whether the Manager has entered into any special arrangements with the requestor
to share nonpublic portfolio holdings information in exchange for a substantial
investment in the Funds or other products managed by the Manager. Any potential
conflicts between shareholders and affiliated persons of the Funds that arise as
a result of a request for portfolio holdings information shall be decided by the
Manager in the best interests of shareholders. However, if a conflict exists
between the interests of shareholders and the Manager, the Manager will present
the details of the request to the Board who will either approve or deny the
request. On a quarterly basis, the Manager will prepare a report for the Board
outlining the requests for selective disclosure that were approved during the
period.
The
Compliance Department will determine whether a historical pattern of requests by
the same individual or entity constitutes an “ongoing arrangement” and thus
requires disclosure in the SAI.
The Funds
may lend securities from their portfolios to brokers, dealers and other
financial institutions needing to borrow securities to complete certain
transactions. In connection with such loans, the Funds remain the owner of the
loaned securities and continue to be entitled to payments in amounts equal to
the interest, dividends or other distributions payable on the loaned securities.
The Funds also have the right to terminate a loan at any time. The Funds do not
have the right to vote on securities while they are on loan. However, it is the
Funds’ policy to attempt to terminate loans in time to vote those proxies that
the Funds determine are material to their interests. Loans of portfolio
securities may not exceed 33-1/3% of the value of a Fund’s total assets
(including the value of all assets received as collateral for the loan). The
Funds will receive collateral consisting of cash, U.S. Government securities or
irrevocable letters of credit which will be maintained at all times in an amount
equal to at least 100% of the current market value of the loaned securities. If
the collateral consists of cash, the Funds will reinvest the cash and pay the
borrower a pre-negotiated fee or “rebate” from any return earned on the
investment. Should the borrower of the securities fail financially, a 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 present acceptable credit risk on a fully collateralized basis. In a
loan transaction, the Funds will also bear the risk of any decline in value of
securities acquired with cash collateral. The Funds will minimize this risk by
limiting the investment of cash collateral to U.S. Treasury bills and notes,
U.S. Government agency discount and coupon notes, and U.S. Government money
market funds, including in money market funds advised by the
Manager.
The
Board of Trustees
The Trust
is governed by its Board of Trustees. The Board is responsible for and oversees
the overall management and operations of the Trust and the Funds, which includes
the general oversight and review of the Funds’ investment activities, in
accordance with federal law and the law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as
well as the stated policies of the Funds. The Board oversees the Trust’s
officers and service providers, including American Beacon Advisors, Inc., which
is responsible for the management of the day-to-day operations of the Funds
based on policies and agreements reviewed and approved by the Board. In carrying
out these responsibilities, the Board regularly interacts with and receives
reports from senior personnel of service providers, including American Beacon’s
investment personnel and the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer. The Board also is
assisted by the Trust’s independent auditor (who reports directly to the Trust’s
Audit and Compliance Committee), independent counsel and other experts as
appropriate, all of whom are selected by the Board.
Risk Oversight
Consistent
with its responsibility for oversight of the Trust and its Funds, the Board
oversees the management of risks relating to the administration and operation of
the Trust and the Funds. American Beacon, as part of its responsibilities for
the day-to-day operations of the Funds, is responsible for day-to-day risk
management for the Funds. The Board, in the exercise of its reasonable business
judgment, also separately considers potential risks that may impact the Funds.
The Board performs this risk management oversight directly and, as to certain
matters, through its committees (described above) and through the Independent
Trustees. The following provides an overview of the principal, but not all,
aspects of the Board’s oversight of risk management for the Trust and the
Funds.
In
general, a Fund’s risks include, among others, investment risk, credit risk,
liquidity risk, valuation risk and operational risk. The Board has adopted, and
periodically reviews, policies and procedures designed to address these and
other risks to the Trust and the Funds. In addition, under the general oversight
of the Board, American Beacon, each Fund’s investment advisor, and other service
providers to the Funds have themselves adopted a variety of policies, procedures
and controls designed to address particular risks to the Funds. Different
processes, procedures and controls are employed with respect to
different
types of risks. Further, American Beacon as manager of the Funds oversees and
regularly monitors the investments, operations and compliance of the Funds’
investment advisors.
The Board
also oversees risk management for the Trust and the Funds through review of
regular reports, presentations and other information from officers of the Trust
and other persons. Senior officers of the Trust and senior officers of American
Beacon, and the Funds’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regularly report to the
Board on a range of matters, including those relating to risk management. The
Board and the Investment Committee also regularly receive reports from American
Beacon with respect to the investments, securities trading and securities
lending activities of the Funds. In addition to regular reports from American
Beacon, the Board also receives reports regarding other service providers to the
Trust, either directly or through American Beacon or the Funds’ CCO, on a
periodic or regular basis. At least annually, the Board receives a report from
the Funds’ CCO regarding the effectiveness of the Funds’ compliance program.
Also, on an annual basis, the Board receives reports, presentations and other
information from American Beacon in connection with the Board’s consideration of
the renewal of each of the Trust’s agreements with American Beacon and the
Trust’s distribution plans under Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act.
Senior
officers of the Trust and senior officers of American Beacon also report
regularly to the Audit and Compliance Committee on Fund valuation matters and on
the Trust’s internal controls and accounting and financial reporting policies
and practices. In addition, the Audit Committee receives regular reports from
the Trust’s independent registered public accounting firm on internal control
and financial reporting matters. On at least a quarterly basis, the Independent
Trustees meet with the Funds’ CCO to discuss matters relating to the Funds’
compliance program.
Board Structure and Related
Matters
Board
members who are not “interested persons” of the Funds as defined in Section
2(a)(19) of the 1940 Act (“Independent Trustees”) constitute at least two-thirds
of the Board. Richard A. Massman, an Independent Trustee, serves as Independent
Chair of the Board. The Independent Chair’s responsibilities include: setting an
agenda for each meeting of the Board; presiding at all meetings of the Board and
Interested Trustees; and serving as a liaison with other Trustees, the Trust’s
officers and other management personnel, and counsel to the Funds. The
Independent Chair shall perform such other duties as the Board may from time to
time determine.
The
Trustees discharge their responsibilities collectively as a Board, as well as
through Board committees, each of which operates pursuant to a charter approved
by the Board that delineates the specific responsibilities of that committee.
The Board has established three standing committees: the Audit and Compliance
Committee, the Investment Committee and the Nominating and Governance Committee.
For example, the Investment Committee is responsible for oversight of the annual
process by which the Board considers and approves each Fund’s investment
advisory agreement with American Beacon, but specific matters related to
oversight of the Fund’s independent auditors have been delegated by the Board to
its Audit and Compliance Committee, subject to approval of the Audit and
Compliance Committee’s recommendations by the Board. The members and
responsibilities of each Board committee are summarized below.
The Board
periodically evaluates its structure and composition as well as various aspects
of its operations. The Board believes that its leadership structure, including
its Independent Chair position and its committees, is appropriate for the Trust
in light of, among other factors, the asset size and nature of the Funds, the
number of Funds overseen by the Board, the arrangements for the conduct of the
Funds’ operations, the number of Trustees, and the Board’s responsibilities. On
an annual basis, the Board conducts a self-evaluation that considers, among
other matters, whether the Board and its committees are functioning effectively
and whether, given the size and composition of the Board and each if its
committees, the Trustees are able to oversee effectively the number of Funds in
the complex.
The Trust
is part of the American Beacon Funds Complex, which is comprised of the 18
portfolios within the Trust, 2 portfolios within the American Beacon Select
Funds and 1 portfolio within American Beacon Mileage Funds, and 1 portfolio
within the American Beacon Master Trust. The same persons who constitute the
Board also constitute the respective boards of trustees of American Beacon
Select Funds, the American Beacon Mileage Funds and the American Beacon Master
Trust.
The Board
holds four regularly scheduled in-person meetings each year. The Board may hold
special meetings, as needed, either in person or by telephone, to address
matters arising between regular meetings. The Independent Trustees also hold at
least one in-person meeting each year during a portion of which management is
not present and may hold special meetings, as needed, either in person or by
telephone.
The
Trustees of the Trust are identified in the tables below, which provide
information as to their principal business occupations held during the last five
years and certain other information. Subject to the Trustee Emeritus and
Retirement Policy described below, a Trustee serves until his or her successor
is elected and qualified or until his or her earlier death, resignation or
removal. Unless otherwise indicated, the address of each Trustee listed below is
4151 Amon Carter Boulevard, MD 2450, Fort Worth, Texas 76155.
Name
and Age |
|
Position,
Term of Office
and
Length of Time
Served
with the Trust |
|
Principal
Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years and
Current
Directorships |
INTERESTED
TRUSTEES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term
Lifetime
of Trust until
removal,
resignation or
retirement* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alan
D. Feld** (73) |
|
Trustee
since 1996 |
|
Sole
Shareholder of a professional corporation which is a Partner in the law
firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP (law firm)
(1960-Present); Director, Clear Channel Communications (1984-2008);
Trustee, CenterPoint Properties (1994-2006); Member, Board of Trustees,
Southern Methodist University; Member, Board of Visitors, M.D. Anderson
Hospital; Board of Visitors, Zale/Lipshy Hospital; Trustee, American
Beacon Mileage Funds (1996-Present); Trustee, American Beacon Select Funds
(1999-Present). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NON-INTERESTED
TRUSTEES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term
Lifetime
of Trust until
removal,
resignation or
retirement* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W.
Humphrey Bogart (66) |
|
Trustee
since 2004 |
|
Board
Member, Baylor University Medical Center Foundation
(1992-2004); |
Name
and Age |
|
Position,
Term of Office
and
Length of Time
Served
with the Trust |
|
Principal
Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years and
Current
Directorships |
|
|
|
|
Consultant,
New River Canada Ltd. (mutual fund servicing company) (1998-2003);
President and CEO, Allmerica Trust Company, NA (1996-1997); President and
CEO, Fidelity Investments Southwest Company (1983-1995); Senior Vice
President of Regional Centers, Fidelity Investments (1988-1995); Trustee,
American Beacon Mileage Funds (2004-Present); Trustee, American Beacon
Select Funds (2004-Present). |
|
|
|
|
|
Brenda
A. Cline (49) |
|
Trustee
since 2004 |
|
Executive
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary, Kimbell
Art Foundation (1993-Present); Trustee, Texas Christian University
(1998-Present); Trustee, W.I. Cook Foundation, Inc. (d/b/a Cook Children’s
Health Foundation) (2001-2006); Director, Christian Church Foundation
(1999-2007); Trustee, American Beacon Mileage Funds (2004-Present);
Trustee, American Beacon Select Funds (2004-Present). |
|
|
|
|
|
Richard
A. Massman (67) |
|
Trustee
since 2004
Chairman
since 2008 |
|
Consultant
and General Counsel Emeritus (2009-Present) and Senior Vice President and
General Counsel (1994-2009), Hunt Consolidated, Inc. (holding company
engaged in oil and gas exploration and production, refining, real estate,
farming, ranching and venture capital activities); Chairman (2007-Present)
and Director (2005-Present), The Dallas Opera Foundation; Chairman
(2006-2009) and Director (2005-Present), Temple Emanu-El Foundation;
Trustee, Presbyterian Healthcare Foundation (2006-Present); Trustee,
American Beacon Mileage Funds (2004-Present); Trustee, American Beacon
Select Funds (2004-Present). |
|
|
|
|
|
R.
Gerald Turner (64) |
|
Trustee
since 2001 |
|
President,
Southern Methodist University (1995-Present); Director, ChemFirst
(1986-2002); Director, J.C. Penney Company, Inc. (1996-Present); Director,
California Federal Preferred Capital Corp. (2001-2003); Director, Kronus
Worldwide Inc. (chemical manufacturing) (2003-Present); Director, First
Broadcasting Investment Partners, LLC (2003-2007); Member, Salvation Army
of Dallas Board of Directors; Member, Methodist Hospital Advisory Board;
Co-Chair, Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics; Trustee,
American Beacon Mileage Funds |
Name
and Age |
|
Position,
Term of Office
and
Length of Time
Served
with the Trust |
|
Principal
Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years and
Current
Directorships |
|
|
|
|
(2001-Present);
Trustee, American Beacon Select Funds (2001-Present). |
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas
M. Dunning (67) |
|
Trustee
since 2008 |
|
Consultant,
(2008-Present); Chairman (1998-2008) and Chief Executive Officer
(1998-2007), Lockton Dunning Benefits (consulting firm in employee
benefits); Director, Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC (2007-Present);
Board Member, Baylor Health Care System Foundation (2007-Present); Vice
Chair, State Fair of Texas (1987-Present); Board Member, Southwestern
Medical Foundation (1994-Present); Board Member, John Tower Center for
Political Studies/SMU (2008-Present); Board Member, University of Texas
Development Board (2008-Present); Trustee, American Beacon Mileage Funds
(2008-Present); Trustee, American Beacon Select Funds
(2008-Present). |
|
|
|
|
|
Eugene
J. Duffy (56) |
|
Trustee
since 2008 |
|
Principal
and Executive Vice President, Paradigm Asset Management (1994-Present);
Director, Sunrise Bank of Atlanta (2008-Present); Chairman, Special
Contributions Fund Board of Trustees, National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (2007-Present); Trustee, National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (2000-Present); Board of
Visitors, Emory University (2006-Present); Trustee, Atlanta Botanical
Garden (2006-Present); Board Member, Willie L. Brown Jr. Institute on
Politics and Public Service (2001-Present); Chair, National Association of
Securities Professionals (2000-2002); Deputy Chief Administrative Officer,
City of Atlanta (1985-1990); Trustee, American Beacon Mileage Funds
(2008-Present); Trustee, American Beacon Select Funds
(2008-Present). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
J. Zucconi, CPA (70) |
|
Trustee
since 2008 |
|
Director,
Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. (producer of nonstandard automobile
insurance) (2004-Present); Director, Titanium Metals Corporation (producer
of titanium melted and mill products and sponge) (2002-Present); Director,
Torchmark Corporation (life and health insurance products) (2002-Present);
Director, National Kidney Foundation serving North Texas
(2003-Present); |
Name
and Age |
|
Position,
Term of Office
and
Length of Time
Served
with the Trust |
|
Principal
Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years and
Current
Directorships |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director,
Dallas Chapter of National Association of Corporate Directors
(2004-Present); Partner, KPMG (1976-2001); Trustee, American Beacon
Mileage Funds (2008-Present); Trustee, American Beacon Select Funds
(2008-Present). |
* |
The
Board has adopted a retirement plan that requires Trustees to retire no
later than the last day of the calendar year in which they reach the age
of 72, provided, however, that the board may determine to grant one or
more annual exemptions to this
requirement. |
** |
Mr.
Feld is deemed to be an “interested person” of the Trust, as defined by
the 1940 Act. Mr. Feld’s law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld
LLP has provided legal services within the past two years to the Manager
and one or more of the Trust’s
sub-advisors. |
In
addition to the information set forth in the tables above and other relevant
qualifications, experience, attributes or skills applicable to a particular
Trustee, the following provides further information about the qualifications and
experience of each Trustee.
W.
Humphrey Bogart: Mr. Bogart has extensive experience in the investment
management business including as president and chief executive officer of an
investment advisor and as a consultant, significant organizational management
experience through start-up efforts with a national bank, service as a board
member of a university medical center foundation, and multiple years of service
as a Trustee.
Brenda A.
Cline: Ms. Cline has extensive organizational management, financial and
investment experience as executive vice president, chief financial officer,
secretary and treasurer to a foundation, service as a trustee to a private
university, a children’s hospital and a school, including acting as a member of
their investment and\or audit committees, extensive experience as an audit
senior manager with a large public accounting firm, and multiple years of
service as a Trustee.
Eugene J.
Duffy: Mr. Duffy has extensive experience in the investment management business
and organizational management experience as a member of senior management,
service as a director of a bank, service as a chairman of a charitable fund and
as a trustee to an association, service on the board of a private university and
non-profit organization, service as chair to an financial services industry
association, and multiple years of service as a Trustee.
Thomas M.
Dunning: Mr. Dunning has extensive organizational management experience founding
and serving as chairman and chief executive officer of a private company,
service as a director of a private company, service as chairman of a large state
municipal bond issuer and chairman of a large airport authority, also an issuer
of bonds, service as a board member of a state department of transportation,
service as a director of various foundations, service as chair of civic
organizations, and multiple years of service as a Trustee.
Alan D.
Feld: Mr. Feld has experience as a business attorney, organizational management
experience as chairman of a law firm, experience as a director of several
publicly held companies; service as a trustee of a private university and a
board member of a hospital, and multiple years of service as a
Trustee.
Richard
A. Massman: Mr. Massman has experience as a business attorney, organizational
management experience as a founding member of a law firm, experience as a senior
vice president and general counsel of a large private company, service as the
chairman and director of several foundations, including services on their
Investment Committees and Finance Committees, chairman of a governmental board,
chairman of various professional organizations and multiple years of service as
a Trustee and as Independent Chair.
R. Gerald
Turner: Mr. Turner has extensive organizational management experience as
president of a private university, service as a director and member of the audit
and governance committees of various publicly held companies, service as a
member to several charitable boards, service as a co-chair to an intercollegiate
athletic commission, and multiple years of service as a Trustee.
Paul J.
Zucconi: Mr. Zucconi has extensive financial experience as partner with a large
public accounting firm auditing financial services firms, including investment
companies, organizational management and financial experience as a director to
various publicly held and private companies, including acting as chairman or as
a member of their audit and/or audit and compliance committees, service as a
board member to a local chapter of not-for-profit foundation; service as a board
member to a local chapter of a national association of corporate directors, and
multiple years of service as a Trustee.
Committees of the
Board
The Trust
has an Audit and Compliance Committee (“Audit Committee”), consisting of Messrs.
Zucconi (Chair), Duffy and Dunning. Mr. Massman, as Chairman of the Trust,
serves on the Audit Committee in an ex-officio capacity. None of the members of
the committee are “interested persons” of the Trust, as defined by the 1940 Act.
As set forth in its charter, the primary duties of the Trust’s Audit Committee
are: (a) to oversee the accounting and financial reporting processes of the
Trust and the Fund and their internal controls and, as the Committee deems
appropriate, to inquire into the internal controls of certain third-party
service providers; (b) to oversee the quality and integrity of the Trust’s
financial statements and the independent audit thereof; (c) to approve, prior to
appointment, the engagement of the Trust’s independent auditors and, in
connection therewith, to review and evaluate the qualifications, independence
and performance of the Trust’s independent auditors; (d) to oversee the Trust’s
compliance with all regulatory obligations arising under applicable federal
securities laws, rules and regulations and oversee management’s implementation
and enforcement of the Trust’s compliance policies and procedures (“Compliance
Program”); and (e) to coordinate the Board’s oversight of the Trust’s Chief
Compliance Officer in connection with his or her implementation of the Trust’s
Compliance Program. The Audit and Compliance Committee met three times during
the fiscal year ended August 31, 2010 and four times during the fiscal years
ended October 31, and December 31, 2009.
The Trust
has a Nominating and Governance Committee (“Nominating Committee”) that is
comprised of Messrs. Feld (Chair) and Turner. Mr. Massman, as Chairman of the
Trust, serves on the Nominating Committee in an ex-officio capacity. As set
forth in its charter, the Nominating Committee’s primary duties are: (a) to make
recommendations regarding the nomination of non-interested Trustees to the
Board; (b) to make recommendations regarding the appointment of an Independent
Trustee as Chairman of the Board; (c) to evaluate qualifications of potential
“interested” members of the Board and Trust officers; (d) to review shareholder
recommendations for nominations to fill vacancies on the Board; (e) to make
recommendations to the Board for nomination for membership on all committees of
the Board; (f) to consider and evaluate the structure, composition and operation
of the Board; (g) to review shareholder recommendations for proposals to be
submitted for consideration during a meeting of Fund shareholders; and (h) to
consider and make recommendations relating to the compensation of Independent
Trustees and of those officers as to whom the Board is charged with approving
compensation. Shareholder recommendations for Trustee candidates may be mailed
in writing, including a comprehensive resume and any supporting documentation,
to the Nominating Committee in care of the Fund. The Nominating and Governance
Committee met one time during the fiscal year ended August 31, 2010 and three
times during the fiscal years ended October 31, and December 31,
2009.
The Trust
has an Investment Committee that is comprised of Mr. Bogart (Chair) and Ms
Cline. Mr. Massman, as Chairman of the Trust, serves on the Investment Committee
in an ex-officio capacity. As set forth in its charter, the Investment
Committee’s primary duties are: (a) to review and evaluate the short- and
long-term investment performance of the Manager and each of the designated
sub-advisors to the Fund; (b) to evaluate recommendations by the Manager
regarding the hiring or removal of designated sub-advisors to the Fund; (c) to
review material changes recommended by the Manager to the allocation of Fund
assets to a sub-advisor; (d) to review proposed changes recommended by the
Manager to the investment objective or principal investment strategies of the
Fund; and (e) to review proposed changes recommended by the Manager to the
material provisions of the advisory agreement with a sub-advisor, including, but
not limited to, changes to the provision regarding compensation. The Investment
Committee met two times during the fiscal year ended August 31 2010 and five
times during the fiscal years ended October 31, and December 31,
2009.
Trustee Ownership in the
Funds
The
Trustees who owned shares of any Fund are listed in the following tables with
the dollar range of their ownership in such Fund(s) and the Trust as a whole as
of the calendar year ended December 31, 2009.
|
INTERESTED
Feld |
Balanced |
None |
Emerging
Markets |
None |
Global
Real Estate |
None |
High
Yield Bond |
None |
Intermediate
Bond |
None |
International
Equity |
None |
Large
Cap Growth |
None |
Large
Cap Value |
None |
Mid-Cap
Value |
None |
|
|
Retirement
Income and Appreciation |
None |
Short-Term
Bond |
None |
Small
Cap Value |
None |
Treasury
Inflation Protected Secs. |
None |
Aggregate
Dollar Range of Equity Securities in all Trusts (22 Funds) |
Over
$100,000 |
|
|
|
NON-INTERESTED |
|
Bogart |
Cline |
Massman |
Turner |
Dunning |
Duffy |
Zucconi |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balanced |
None |
$1-$10,000 |
$50,001-$100,000 |
None |
None |
None |
None |
Emerging
Markets |
None |
$1-$10,000 |
$10,001-$50,000 |
None |
None |
None |
None |
Global
Real Estate |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
High
Yield Bond |
None |
None |
$10,001-$50,000 |
None |
None |
None |
None |
Intermediate
Bond |
None |
None |
$10,001-$50,000 |
None |
None |
None |
None |
International
Equity |
None |
$50,001-$100,000 |
$50,001-$100,000 |
None |
None |
None |
None |
Large
Cap Growth |
None |
None |
$10,001-$50,000 |
None |
Over
$100,000 |
None |
None |
Large
Cap Value |
None |
None |
$50,001-$100,000 |
$50,001-$100,000 |
$10,001-$50,000 |
None |
$10,001-$50,000 |
Mid-Cap
Value |
None |
None |
$10,001-$50,000 |
$10,001-$50,000 |
None |
None |
None |
Retirement
Income and Appreciation |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
Short-Term
Bond |
None |
None |
$10,001-$50,000 |
None |
$50,001-$100,000 |
None |
None |
Small
Cap Value |
$10,001-$50,000 |
$1-$10,000 |
$50,001-$100,000 |
$50,001-$100,000 |
1-$10,000 |
None |
None |
Treasury
Inflation Protected Secs. |
None |
None |
$10,001-$50,000 |
None |
None |
None |
None |
Aggregate
Dollar Range of Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities
in all Trusts (22 Funds) |
$10,001-$50,000 |
$50,001-$100,000 |
Over
$100,000 |
Over
$100,000 |
Over
$100,000 |
None |
$10,001-$50,000 |
Trustee
Compensation
As
compensation for their service to the Trust, the American Beacon Mileage Funds,
the American Beacon Select Funds and the Master Trust (collectively, the
“Trusts”), each Trustee is compensated as follows: (1) an annual retainer of
$110,000; (2) meeting attendance fee (for attendance in person or via
teleconference) of (a) $2,500 for attendance by Board members at quarterly Board
meetings, (b) $2,500 for attendance by Committee members at meetings of the
Audit Committee and the Investment Committee, and (c) $1,500 for attendance by
Committee members at meetings of the Nominating Committee; and (3) reimbursement
of reasonable expenses incurred in attending such Board and Committee
meetings.
Mr.
Massman was elected as Chairman April 15, 2008. For his service as Chairman, Mr.
Massman will receive an additional annual payment of $15,000. He also receives
an additional $2,500 per quarter for his services as an ex-officio member of
multiple committees. Total compensation (excluding reimbursements) is reflected
in the following tables for the Funds’ fiscal years ended October 31,
2009,
December
31, 2009 with respect to the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund and
the Global Real Estate Fund.
Total
compensation for fiscal year ended October 31, 2009 is reflected in the table
below:
Name
of
Trustee |
Aggregate
Compensation
From
the Trust |
Pension
or Retirement
Benefits
Accrued as Part
of
the Trust’s Expenses |
Total
Compensation
From
the Trusts
(19
funds) |
INTERESTED
TRUSTEES |
|
|
|
Alan
D. Feld |
$ 117,126 |
$ 0 |
$ 137,000 |
|
|
|
|
NON-INTERESTED
TRUSTEES |
|
|
|
W.
Humphrey Bogart |
$ 121,829 |
$ 0 |
$ 142,500 |
Brenda
A. Cline |
$ 121,829 |
$ 0 |
$ 142,500 |
Eugene
J. Duffy |
$ 121,829 |
$ 0 |
$ 142,500 |
Thomas
M. Dunning |
$ 121,829 |
$ 0 |
$ 142,500 |
Richard
A. Massman |
$ 134,653 |
$ 0 |
$ 157,500 |
R.
Gerald Turner |
$ 114,989 |
$ 0 |
$ 134,500 |
Paul
Zucconi |
$ 119,691 |
$ 0 |
$ 140,000 |
Total
compensation for fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 is reflected in the table
below:
|
Aggregate
Compensation
From the
Trust |
Pension
or Retirement
Benefits
Accrued as
Part
of the Trust’s
Expenses |
Total
Compensation
From
the Trusts
(19
funds) |
INTERESTED
TRUSTEES |
|
|
|
Alan
D. Feld |
$ 114,343 |
$ 0 |
$ 127,000 |
|
|
|
|
NON-INTERESTED
TRUSTEES |
|
|
|
W.
Humphrey Bogart |
$ 119,295 |
$ 0 |
$ 132,500 |
Brenda
A. Cline |
$ 119,295 |
$ 0 |
$ 132,500 |
Eugene
J. Duffy |
$ 119,295 |
$ 0 |
$ 132,500 |
Thomas
M. Dunning |
$ 119,295 |
$ 0 |
$ 132,500 |
Richard
A. Massman |
$ 132,800 |
$ 0 |
$ 147,500 |
R.
Gerald Turner |
$ 112,092 |
$ 0 |
$ 124,500 |
Paul
Zucconi |
$ 119,295 |
$ 0 |
$ 132,500 |
Total
compensation for fiscal year ended August 31, 2010 is reflected in the table
below
|
Aggregate
Compensation
From the
Trust |
Pension
or Retirement
Benefits
Accrued as Part of
the
Trust’s
Expenses |
Total
Compensation
From
the Trusts
(22
funds) |
INTERESTED
TRUSTEES |
|
|
|
Alan
D. Feld |
$ 118,912 |
$ 0 |
$ 129,500 |
|
|
|
|
NON-INTERESTED
TRUSTEES |
|
|
|
W.
Humphrey Bogart |
$ 123,962 |
$ 0 |
$ 135,000 |
Brenda
A. Cline |
$ 123,962 |
$ 0 |
$ 135,000 |
Eugene
J. Duffy |
$ 123,962 |
$ 0 |
$ 135,000 |
Thomas
M. Dunning |
$ 123,962 |
$ 0 |
$ 135,000 |
Richard
A. Massman |
$ 137,736 |
$ 0 |
$ 150,000 |
R.
Gerald Turner |
$ 116,616 |
$ 0 |
$ 127,000 |
Paul
Zucconi |
$ 123,962 |
$ 0 |
$ 135,000 |
The
Boards have adopted an Emeritus Trustee and Retirement Plan (“Plan”). The Plan
provides that a Trustee who has served on the Boards as of June 4, 2008, and who
has reached a mandatory retirement age established by the Board (currently 72)
is eligible to elect Trustee Emeritus status. The Boards, through a majority
vote, may determine to grant one or more annual exemptions to this
mandatory
retirement
requirement. Additionally, a Trustee who has served on the Board of one or more
Trusts for at least 5 years as of June 4, 2008, may elect to retire from the
Boards at an earlier age and immediately assume Trustee Emeritus
status.
A person
may serve as a Trustee Emeritus and receive related benefits for a period up to
a maximum of 10 years. Only those Trustees who retire from the Boards and elect
Trustee Emeritus status may receive benefits under the Plan. A Trustee Emeritus
must commit to provide certain ongoing services and advice to the Board members
and the Trusts; however, a Trustee Emeritus does not have any voting rights at
Board meetings and is not subject to election by shareholders of the
Funds.
Principal
Officers of the Trust
The
officers of the Trust conduct and supervise its daily business. As of the date
of this SAI, the officers of the Trust, their ages, their business address and
their principal occupations during the past five years are as set forth below.
Unless otherwise indicated, the address of each Officer is 4151 Amon Carter
Boulevard, MD 2450, Fort Worth, Texas 76155.
Name
and Age |
|
Position,
Term of Office
and
Length of Time
Served
with each Trust |
|
Principal
Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years and Current
Directorships |
|
|
|
|
|
OFFICERS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Term
One
Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William
F. Quinn (62) |
|
Executive
Vice
President
from 2007 to
2008
and 2009 to
Present
President
from 1987 to
2007and
2008 to 2009
Trustee
from 1987 to
2008 |
|
Executive
Chairman (2009-Present), Chairman (2006-2009), CEO (2006-2007), President
(1986-2006), and Director (2003-Present), American Beacon Advisors, Inc.;
Chairman (1989-2003) and Director (1979-1989, 2003-Present), American
Airlines Federal Credit Union; Director, Hicks Acquisition I, Inc.
(2007-2009); Director, Crescent Real Estate Equities, Inc. (1994-2007);
Director, Pritchard, Hubble & Herr, LLC (investment adviser)
(2001-2006); Director of Investment Committee, Southern Methodist
University Endowment Fund (1996-Present); Member, Southern Methodist
University Cox School of Business Advisory Board (1999-2002); Member , New
York Stock Exchange Pension Managers Advisory Committee (1997-1998,
2000-2002, 2006-Present); Vice Chairman (2004-2007) and Chairman
(2007-Present), Committee for the Investment of Employee Benefits;
Director, United Way of Metropolitan Tarrant County (1988-2000,
2004-Present); Trustee (1995-2008) and President (1995-2007, 2008-2009),
American Beacon Mileage Funds; Trustee (1999-2008) and President
(1999-2007, 2008-Present), American Beacon Select Funds; Director,
American Beacon Global Funds SPC (2002-Present); Director, American Beacon
Global Funds, plc (2007-2009). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gene
L. Needles, Jr.
(55) |
|
President
since 2009
Executive
Vice
President
2009 |
|
President,
CEO and Director (2009-Present), American Beacon Advisors, Inc.; President
(2009-Present), American Beacon Mileage Funds; President (2008-2009),
Touchstone Investments; President (2003-2007), CEO (2004-2007), Managing
Director of Sales (2002-2003), National Sales Manager (1999-2002),
and |
Name
and Age |
|
Position,
Term of Office
and
Length of Time
Served
with each Trust |
|
Principal
Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years and Current
Directorships |
|
|
|
|
Regional
Sales Manager (1993-1999), AIM Distributors. |
|
|
|
|
|
Rosemary
K. Behan
(51) |
|
VP,
Secretary and
Chief
Legal Officer
since
2006 |
|
Vice
President, Legal and Compliance, American Beacon Advisors, Inc.
(2006-Present); Assistant General Counsel, First Command Financial
Planning, Inc. (2004-2006); Attorney, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (1995–2004). |
|
|
|
|
|
Brian
E. Brett (50) |
|
VP
since 2004 |
|
Vice
President, Director of Sales and Marketing, American Beacon Advisors, Inc.
(2004-Present); Regional Vice President, Neuberger Berman, LLC (investment
adviser) (1996-2004). |
|
|
|
|
|
Wyatt
L. Crumpler
(44) |
|
VP
since 2007 |
|
Vice
President, Asset Management (2009-Present) and Vice President, Trust
Investments (2007-2009), American Beacon Advisors, Inc. ; Managing
Director of Corporate Accounting (2004-2007) and Director of IT Strategy
and Finance (2001-2004), American Airlines, Inc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Michael
W. Fields
(56) |
|
VP
since 1989 |
|
Vice
President, Fixed Income Investments, American Beacon Advisors, Inc.
(1988-Present); Director, American Beacon Global Funds SPC (2002-Present);
Director, American Beacon Global Funds plc (2007-2009). |
|
|
|
|
|
Melinda
G. Heika (49) |
|
Treasurer
since 2010 |
|
Vice
President, Finance & Accounting (2010-Present); Controller
(2005-2009); Assistant Controller (1998-2004), American Beacon Advisors,
Inc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Terri
L. McKinney
(46) |
|
VP
since 2010 |
|
Vice
President, Enterprise Services (2009-Present), Managing Director
(2003-2009), and Director of Marketing & Retail Sales (1996-2003),
American Beacon Advisors, Inc.; Vice President, Board of Trustees
(2008-Present), Trustee, (2006-2008), Down Syndrome Guild of
Dallas. |
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey
K. Ringdahl
(35) |
|
VP
since 2010 |
|
Chief
Operating Officer, American Beacon Advisors, Inc. (2010-Present); Vice
President, Product Management, Touchstone Advisors, Inc. (2007-2010);
Senior Director, Business Integration, Fidelity Investments
(2005-2007). |
|
|
|
|
|
Christina
E. Sears
(38) |
|
Chief
Compliance
Officer
since 2004 and
Asst.
Secretary since
1999 |
|
Chief
Compliance Officer (2004-Present) and Senior Compliance Analyst
(1998-2004), American Beacon Advisors,
Inc. |
The
Manager, the Trust and the Sub-advisors have each adopted a Code of Ethics
(“Code”) under Rule 17j-1 of the 1940 Act. Each Code significantly restricts the
personal trading of all employees with access to non-public portfolio
information. For example, each Code generally requires pre-clearance of all
personal securities trades (with limited exceptions) and prohibits employees
from purchasing or selling a security that is being purchased or sold or being
considered for purchase (with limited exceptions) or sale by any Fund. In
addition, the Manager’s and Trust’s Codes require employees to report trades in
shares of the Trusts. Each Code is on public file with, and may be obtained
from, the SEC.
From time
to time, the Funds may own a security whose issuer solicits a proxy vote on
certain matters. The Trusts have adopted a Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures
(the “Policy”) that sets forth guidelines and procedures designed to ensure that
the Manager and sub-advisors vote such proxies in the best interests of Fund
shareholders. The Policy includes procedures to address potential conflicts of
interest between the Funds’ shareholders and the Manager, the Sub-advisors or
their affiliates. Please see Appendix A for a copy of the Policy, as amended.
Each Fund’s proxy voting record for the most recent year ended June 30 is
available as of August 31 of each year upon request and without charge by
calling 1-800-967-9009 or by visiting the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.
The proxy voting record can be found in Form N-PX on the SEC’s
website.
As noted
in the Policy, proxy voting for the Funds that invest primarily in the
securities of foreign issuers and proxy voting for the portion of the Global
Real Estate Fund that invests in issuers other than North American issuers, has
been delegated to such Funds’ Sub-advisors. The International Equity and
Emerging Markets Funds have each adopted the proxy voting policies and
procedures of their respective sub-advisors for the portion of each Fund’s
assets under management by that sub-advisor. The Board has delegated proxy
voting authority to the Sub-advisor for the Global Real Estate Fund with respect
to the portion of the Fund that invests in securities other than securities of
North American issuers. Each sub-advisor’s proxy voting policy and procedures
are summarized (or included in their entirety) in Appendix B.
Set forth
below are the entities or persons that own 5% or more of the outstanding shares
of a Fund or Class as of August 5, 2010. Ownership of shares is reported for
other classes of shares not included in this SAI and does not include C Class
shares of the Funds and the Institutional Class shares of the Global Real Estate
Fund because such shares are newly offered as of September 1, 2010. Entities or
persons owning more than 25% of the outstanding shares of a Fund may be deemed
to control that Fund. The actions of an entity or person that controls a Fund
could have an effect on other shareholders. For instance, a control person may
have effective voting control over that Fund or large redemptions by a control
person could cause a Fund’s other shareholders to pay a higher pro rata portion
of the Fund’s expenses. The Trustees and officers of the Trusts, as a group, own
more than 1% of the following classes of each Fund’s shares outstanding: Short
Term Bond (Institutional Class) 1.25%, Emerging Markets (Institutional Class)
14.64%, High Yield Bond (Institutional Class) 5.10%, Mid-Cap Value
(Institutional Class) 14.41%, Global Real Estate (Investor Class) 3.67%, and
Large Cap Growth (Institutional Class) 99.96%. All Trustees and officers of the
Trusts, as a group, own less than 1% of all other classes of each Fund’s shares
outstanding.
LIST
OF 5% SHAREHOLDERS
(as of
August 5, 2010)
American Beacon
Funds
(Institutional Class, Y
Class, Investor Class, Advisor Class, AMR Class, A Class and
Retirement
Class)
Balanced
Fund |
Total
Fund |
Institutional
Class |
Y
Class |
Investor
Class |
Advisor
Class |
A
Class |
AMR
Class |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American
Airlines Prefund Retiree Med
2
Ave. De Lafayette
Boston,
MA 02111 |
10% |
|
|
|
|
|
12% |
JP
Morgan Chase Bank TTEE
$uper
$aver Cap Accumulated Plan For EE
Of
PTP AMR Corp Subsidiaries
PO
Box 419784
Kansas
City, MO 64141-6784 |
26% |
|
|
|
|
|
31% |
Long
Term Disability Trust
2
Ave. De Lafayette
Boston,
MA 02111 |
13% |
|
|
|
|
|
15% |
American
Airlines Inc. Post Retirement
Prefund
TR-U
2
Ave. De Lafayette
Boston,
MA 02111 |
12% |
|
|
|
|
|
15% |
American
Airlines Prefund Co Match Union
2
Ave. De Lafayette
Boston,
MA 02111 |
11% |
|
|
|
|
|
13% |
LPL
Financial FBO Customer Accounts
PO
Box 509046
San
Diego, CA 92150-9046 |
|
29%* |
98%* |
|
|
|
|
C.R.
Smith Museum
P.O.
Box 619617
DFW
Airport, TX 75261-9617 |
|
13% |
|
|
|
|
|
Community
Foundation of North Texas
306
W 7th
ST
Fort
Worth, TX 76102-4906 |
|
6% |
|
|
|
|
|
Charles
Schwab & Co. *
9601
E. Panorama Circle
Englewood,
CO 80112 |
|
|
|
29%* |
|
|
|
National
Financial Services Corp.*
200
Liberty Street
New
York, NY 10281 |
|
7%* |
|
23%* |
|
|
|
Wachovia
Bank FBO*
Various
Retirement Plans
1525
West WT Harris Blvd
Charlotte,
NC 28288 |
|
|
|
|
17%* |
|
|
Saxon
and Co.
P.O.
Box 7780-1888
Philadelphia,
PA 19182-0001 |
|
|
|
|
77% |
|
|
Orchard
Trust Company*
8515
E Orchard Road
Greenwood
Vlg, CO 80111-5002 |
|
32%* |
|
|
|
|
|
Standard
Insurance Company
P11D
ATTN Separate Account A
1100
SW 6th
Avenue Portland, OR 97204-1020 |
|
6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TD
Ameritrade Inc for the
Exclusive
Benefit of our Customers*
PO
Box 2226
Omaha,
NE 68103-2226 |
|
|
|
6%* |
|
|
|
Massachusetts
Mutual Insurance Co.
1295
State Street
Springfield,
MA 01111-0001 |
|
|
|
14% |
|
|
|
American
Beacon Advisors
4151
Amon Carter Blvd
FT
Worth, TX 76155-2601 |
|
|
|
|
|
100% |
|
____________
* Denotes
record owner of Fund shares only
Emerging
Markets
Fund |
Total
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
JP
Morgan Chase Bank TTEE
$uper
$aver Cap Accumulated Plan For EE
Of
PTP AMR Corp Subsidiaries
PO
Box 419784
Kansas
City, MO 64141-6784 |
58% |
|
|
|
|
69% |
Long
Term Disability Trust
2
Ave. De Lafayette
Boston,
MA 02111 |
5% |
|
|
|
|
7% |
American
Airlines Inc. Post Retirement
Prefund
TR-U 2
Ave.
De Lafayette
Boston,
MA 02111 |
5% |
|
|
|
|
6% |
American
Airlines Prefund Co Match Union
2
Ave. De Lafayette
Boston,
MA 02111 |
|
|
|
|
|
6% |
Akin,
Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld
Co-Mingled
Qualified Plan Partnership
1333
New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington,
DC 20036-1511 |
|
58% |
|
|
|
|
William
F. and Doreen J. Quinn
1108
Loch Lomond Ct.
Arlington,
TX 76012 |
|
14% |
|
|
|
|
National
Financial Services Corp.*
200
Liberty Street
New
York, NY 10281 |
|
|
|
35%* |
|
|
Saxon
& Co.
FBO
20-01-302-9912426
PO
Box 7780-1888
Philadelphia,
PA 19182-0001 |
|
|
|
10% |
|
|
Wells
Fargo Bank N.A. FBO
Skirball
Permanently RESTR FD CUS
P.O.
Box 1533
Minneapolis,
MN 55480-1533 |
|
13% |
|
|
|
|
Charles
Schwab & Co. Inc.*
101
Montgomery Street
San
Francisco, CA 94104 |
|
|
|
25%* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LPL
Financial FBO Customer Accounts*
PO
Box 509046
San
Diego, CA 92150-9046 |
|
|
91% |
|
|
|
American
Beacon Advisors
4151
Amon Carter Blvd
Fort
Worth, TX 76155-2601 |
|
|
9% |
|
100% |
|
____________
* Denotes
record owner of Fund shares only
Global
Real Estate
Fund |
|
|
|
|
National
Financial Services Corp.*
200
Liberty Street
New
York, NY 10281 |
93% |
99% |
|
|
Charles
Schwab & Co. Inc.*
101
Montgomery Street
San
Francisco, CA 94104 |
|
|
88% |
|
American
Beacon Advisors
4151
Amon Carter Blvd
FT
Worth, TX 76155-2601 |
|
|
|
100% |
____________
* Denotes
record owner of Fund shares only
High
Yield Bond
Fund |
|
|
|
|
A
Class |
|
JP
Morgan Chase Bank TTEE
$uper
$aver Cap Accumulated Plan For EE
Of
PTP AMR Corp Subsidiaries
PO
Box 419784
Kansas
City, MO 64141-6784 |
44% |
|
|
|
|
100% |
Charles
Schwab & Co. Inc.*
101
Montgomery Street
San
Francisco, CA 94104 |
|
|
|
|
10%* |
|
National
Financial Services Corp.*
200
Liberty St.
New
York, NY 10281 |
32%* |
19%* |
|
|
82%* |
|
William
J. Quinn
Stacy
D. Quinn JTWROS
2500
Stone Haven CT
Arlington,
TX 76012-5554 |
|
11% |
|
|
|
|
William
F. and Doreen J. Quinn
1108
Loch Lomond Ct.
Arlington,
TX 76012-2726 |
|
5% |
|
|
|
|
American
Beacon Advisors
4151
Amon Carter BLVD
Fort
Worth, TX 76155-2601 |
|
|
100% |
|
100% |
|
____________
* Denotes
record owner of Fund shares only
Intermediate
Bond
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
JP
Morgan Chase Bank TTEE
$uper
$aver Cap Accumulated Plan For EE
Of
PTP AMR Corp Subsidiaries
PO
Box 419784
Kansas
City, MO 64141-6784 |
91% |
92% |
|
|
|
National
Financial Services Corp.*
200
Liberty Street
New
York, NY 10281 |
|
|
|
54% |
|
Charles
Schwab & Co. Inc.*
101
Montgomery Street
San
Francisco, CA 94104 |
|
|
|
23% |
|
American
Beacon Advisors
4151
Amon Carter BLVD
Fort
Worth, TX 76155-2601 |
|
|
100% |
|
100% |
____________
* Denotes
record owner of Fund shares only
International
Equity
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retirement
Class |
JP
Morgan Chase Bank TTEE
$uper
$aver Cap Accumulated Plan
For
EE
Of
PTP AMR Corp Subsidiaries
PO
Box 419784
Kansas
City, MO 64141-6784 |
21% |
|
|
|
|
66% |
|
|
Long
Term Disability Trust
2
Ave. De Lafayette
Boston,
MA 02111 |
|
|
|
|
|
7% |
|
|
American
Airlines Inc. Post
Retirement
Prefund
TR-U
2
Ave. De Lafayette
Boston,
MA 02111 |
|
|
|
|
|
7% |
|
|
American
Airlines Prefund Co
Match
Union
2
Ave. De Lafayette Boston, MA
02111 |
|
|
|
|
|
6% |
|
|
Charles
Schwab & Co. Inc.*
101
Montgomery Street
San
Francisco, CA 94104 |
17%* |
27%* |
99%* |
24%* |
|
|
|
|
National
Financial Services Corp.*
200
Liberty Street
New
York, NY 10281 |
22%* |
18%* |
|
46%* |
9% |
|
|
|
SEI
Private Trust Co.*
One
Freedom Valley Drive
Oaks,
PA 19456 |
|
|
|
|
21% |
|
|
|
Colorado
County Officials & EE’s
Retirement
ASSOC TTEE
CCOERA
401A & 457 Plan 8515 E
Orchard
RD
Greenwood
VLG. CO 80111 |
|
8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
EMJAY
Corp. C/F
Plans
of RPSA Customers
C/O
Great West
8515
E Orchard RD
Greenwood
VLG, CO 80111 |
|
|
|
|
18% |
|
|
|
TD
Ameritrade Trust Company
FBO
995-0065291
PO
Box 2226
Omaha,
NE |
|
|
|
|
11%* |
|
|
|
TD
Ameritrade Trust Company
00TUS
PO
Box 17748
Denver,
CO 80217-0748 |
|
|
|
|
38% |
|
|
|
International
Equity
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American
Beacon Advisors
4151
Amon Carter BLVD
Fort
Worth, TX 76155-2601 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
100% |
100% |
____________
* Denotes
record owner of Fund shares only
Large
Cap Growth
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
JP
Morgan Chase Bank TTEE
$uper
$aver Cap Accumulated Plan For EE
Of
PTP AMR Corp Subsidiaries
PO
Box 419784
Kansas
City, MO 64141-6784 |
100% |
|
|
|
|
Charles
Schwab & Co. Inc.*
101
Montgomery Street
San
Francisco, CA 94104 |
|
100% |
|
|
|
American
Beacon Advisors
4151
Amon Carter BLVD
Fort
Worth, TX 76155-2601 |
|
|
100% |
100% |
|
____________
* Denotes
record owner of Fund shares only
Large
Cap Value
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JP
Morgan Chase Bank TTEE
$uper
$aver Cap Accumulated Plan
For
EE
Of
PTP AMR Corp Subsidiaries
PO
Box 419784
Kansas
City, MO 64141-6784 |
7% |
|
|
|
|
98% |
|
|
LPL
Financial FBO Customer
Accounts*
PO
Box 509046
San
Diego, CA 92150-9046 |
|
5%* |
56%* |
|
|
|
|
|
National
Financial Services Corp.*
200
Liberty Street
New
York, NY 10281 |
46%* |
53%* |
|
48%* |
|
|
|
|
Charles
Schwab & Co.*
9601
E. Panorama Circle.
Englewood,
CO 80112 |
15%* |
6% |
44% |
24%* |
|
|
|
|
Wachovia
Bank FBO*
Various
Retirement Plans
1525
West WT Harris Blvd.
Charlotte,
NC 28288-0001 |
|
|
|
|
18%* |
|
|
|
Saxon
and Co.*
P.O.
Box 7780-1888
Philadelphia,
PA 19182-0001 |
|
|
|
|
8% |
|
|
|
Massachusetts
Mutual Insurance Co.
1295
State Street
Springfield,
MA 01111-0001 |
|
|
|
|
22% |
|
|
|
Wilmington
Trust CO TTEE FBO
St.
Vincent Mercy Med CTR DEF
Contribution
PO
Box 8880
Wilmington,
DE 19899-8880 |
|
|
|
|
11% |
|
|
|
Stifel
Nicolaus & Co. Inc.
Paul
S. Sledzik
501
North Broadway
Saint
Louis, MO 63102-2131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
25% |
|
Stifel
Nicolaus & Co. Inc.
Elisha
G. Winslow III
501
North Broadway
Saint
Louis, MO 63102-2131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
17% |
|
Stifel
Nicolaus & Co. Inc.
Christina
B. Largay
501
North Broadway
Saint
Louis, MO 63102-2131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
15% |
|
Stifel
Nicolaus & Co. Inc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8% |
|
Large
Cap Value
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joseph
P. Hurley IRA
501
North Broadway
Saint
Louis, MO 63102-2131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8% |
|
Stifel
Nicolaus & Co. Inc.
Sarah
Reardon IRA
501
North Broadway
Saint
Louis, MO 63102-2131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8% |
|
Stifel
Nicolaus & Co. Inc.
Gail
Feest Roth IRA
501
North Broadway
Saint
Louis, MO 63102-2131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7% |
|
Stifel
Nicolaus & Co. Inc.
Sean
E. Conway IRA
501
North Broadway
Saint
Louis, MO 63102-2131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7% |
|
Stifel
Nicolaus & Co. Inc.
Dr.
Leonard J. Cullen R/O IRA
501
North Broadway
Saint
Louis, MO 63102-2131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7% |
|
American
Beacon Advisors
4151
Amon Carter Blvd.
Fort
Worth, TX 76155-2601 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100% |
____________
* Denotes
record owner of Fund shares only
Mid-Cap
Value
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JP
Morgan Chase Bank TTEE
$uper
$aver Cap Accumulated Plan For EE
Of
PTP AMR Corp Subsidiaries
PO
Box 419784
Kansas
City, MO 64141-6784 |
62% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
William
F. and Doreen J. Quinn
1108
Loch Lomond Ct.
Arlington,
TX 76012 |
|
13% |
|
|
|
|
|
Charles
Schwab & Co.*
101
Montgomery St
San
Francisco, CA 94104-4151 |
|
36%* |
|
|
|
|
|
LPL
Financial FBO Customer Accounts*
PO
Box 509046
San
Diego, CA 92150-9046 |
|
37%* |
|
|
68%* |
|
|
ING
Baylor Health 401(k)
1
Heritage Drive
Quincy,
MA 02171-2105 |
34% |
|
|
95% |
|
|
|
American
Beacon Advisors
4151
Amon Carter Blvd.
Fort
Worth, TX 76155 |
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
TD
Ameritrade Inc. For the
Exclusive
Benefit of our Clients*
PO
Box 2226
Omaha,
NE 68103-2226 |
|
|
|
|
17%* |
|
|
MG
Trust Company CUST FBO
Stingray
Geophysical LTD
700
17th Street
Denver,
CO 80202-3531 |
|
|
|
|
7% |
|
|
National
Financial Services Corp.*
100
Crosby PKWY
Covington,
KY 41015-4325 |
|
|
|
|
7%* |
|
|
____________
* Denotes
record owner of Fund shares only
Retirement
Income and Appreciation
Fund |
|
|
|
|
Benefit
Trust Company*
5901
College Blvd Suite 100
Overland
Park, KS 66211-1834 |
48%* |
|
48%* |
|
National
Financial Services Corp.*
200
Liberty Street
New
York, NY 10281 |
50%* |
|
50%* |
|
American
Beacon Advisors
4151
Amon Carter Blvd.
Fort
Worth, TX 76155 |
|
100% |
|
100% |
____________
* Denotes
record owner of Fund shares only
Short-Term
Bond
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
JP
Morgan Chase Bank TTEE
$uper
$aver Cap Accum Plan For EE
Of
PTP AMR Corp Subsid
PO
Box 419784
Kansas
City, MO 64141-6784 |
71% |
83% |
|
|
|
National
Financial Services Corp.*
200
Liberty Street
New
York, NY 10281 |
7%* |
|
|
34%* |
|
Charles
Schwab & Co.*
9601
E. Panorama CIR
Englewood,
CO 80112-3441 |
8%* |
|
|
28%* |
|
LPL
Financial FBO Customer Accounts*
ATTN
Mutual Fund Operations
PO
Box 509046
San
Diego, CA 92150-9046 |
|
|
|
16%* |
|
TD
Ameritrade Inc. for the
Exclusive
Benefit of our Clients*
PO
Box 2226
Omaha,
NE 68103-2226 |
|
|
|
6%* |
|
American
Beacon Advisors
4151
Amon Carter Blvd
Fort
Worth, TX 76155-2601 |
|
|
100% |
|
100% |
____________
* Denotes
record owner of Fund shares only
Small
Cap Value
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JP
Morgan Chase Bank TTEE
$uper
$aver Cap Accum Plan For EE
Of
PTP AMR Corp Subsid
PO
Box 419784
Kansas
City, MO 64141-6784 |
17% |
|
|
|
|
100% |
|
|
Charles
Schwab & Co.*
101
Montgomery Street
San
Francisco, CA 94104 |
11%* |
14%* |
|
13%* |
|
|
|
|
National
Financial Services Corp.*
P.O.
Box 3908
New
York, NY 10163-3908 |
39%* |
44%* |
|
51%* |
10%* |
|
|
|
Vanguard
Fiduciary Trust Company
PO
Box 2600
Valley
Forge, PA 19482-2600 |
|
|
|
6% |
|
|
|
|
Small
Cap Value
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patterson
& Co. FBO*
Various
Ret Plans
1525
West WT Harris Blvd.
Charlotte,
NC 28262-8522 |
|
5%* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hartford
Life Separate Account
P.O.
Box 2999
Hartford,
CT 06104-2999 |
|
|
|
|
10% |
|
|
|
Mellon
Financial C/F Florida
Retirement
Systems PEORP
P.O.
Box 3198
Pittsburgh,
PA 15230-3198 |
|
8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIMS/Prudential
Retirement as
Nominee
for the TTEE/CUST PL 008
The
Infirmary 401K Plan
5
Mobile Infirmary CIR
Mobile,
AL 36607-3513 |
|
|
|
|
15% |
|
|
|
Saxon
& Co. Partnership
FBO
20-01-302-9912426
PO
Box 7780-1888
Philadelphia,
PA 19182-0001 |
|
|
|
|
12% |
|
|
|
Orchard
Trust Company TTEE
Employee
Benefits Clients*
8515
East Orchard RD 2T2
Greenwood
VLG, CO 80111 |
|
|
86%* |
|
11%* |
|
|
|
LPL
Financial FBO Customer Accounts*
PO
Box 509046
San
Diego, CA 92150-9046 |
|
|
12%* |
|
|
|
|
|
UBS
Financial Services Inc. FBO
Lois
Walker
1444
Shawnee Dr.
Morrow,
OH 45152-8230 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
92%* |
|
American
Beacon Advisors
4151
Amon Carter Blvd
Fort
Worth, TX 76155-2601 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8% |
|
MG
Trust Company Trustee
Wadman
Corportation 401(K)
Profit
Sharing
300
17th Street
Denver,
CO 80202-3531 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98% |
____________
* Denotes
record owner of Fund shares only
Treasury
Inflation Protected Securities
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
JP
Morgan Chase Bank TTEE
$uper
$aver Cap Accum Plan For EE
Of
PTP AMR Corp Subsid
PO
Box 419784
Kansas
City, MO 64141-6784 |
49% |
53% |
|
|
|
SEI
Private TR CO
FBO
TIAA CREF
ATTN
Mutual Fund Admin.
1
Freedom Valley DR
Oaks,
PA 79546-9989 |
27% |
29% |
|
|
|
National
Financial Services Corp.*
200
Liberty Street
New
York, NY 10281 |
6%* |
|
|
|
|
Charles
Schwab & Co.*
101
Montgomery Street
San
Francisco, CA 94104 |
|
|
|
19%* |
|
Treasury
Inflation Protected Securities
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
TD
Ameritrade Inc.*
P.O.
Box 2226
Omaha,
NE 68103-2226 |
|
|
|
8%* |
|
American
Beacon Advisors
4151
Amon Carter BLVD
Fort
Worth, TX 76155-2601 |
|
|
|
|
100% |
LPL
Financial FBO Customer Accounts*
PO
Box 509046
San
Diego, CA 92150-9046 |
|
|
100%* |
|
|
____________
* Denotes
record owner of Fund shares only
The
Funds’ Sub-advisors are listed below with information regarding their
controlling persons or entities. According to the 1940 Act, a person or entity
with control with respect to an investment advisor has “the power to exercise a
controlling influence over the management or policies of a company, unless such
power is solely the result of an official position with such company.” Persons
and entities affiliated with each Sub-advisor are considered affiliates for the
portion of Fund assets managed by that Sub-advisor.
Sub-Advisor |
Controlling
Person/Entity |
Basis
of
Control |
Nature
of Controlling
Person/Entity’s
Business |
Barrow,
Hanley,
Mewhinney
& Strauss, LLC |
Old
Mutual Asset Management
(US)
LLC |
Parent
Co. |
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
Brandes
Investment
Partners,
L.P. |
Brandes
Worldwide Holdings,
L.P. |
Majority
Owner |
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
Brandywine
Global
Investment
Management,
LLC |
Legg
Mason, Inc. |
Parent
Co. |
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
Calamos
Advisors LLC |
Calamos
Asset Management,
Inc. |
Parent
Co. |
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
Causeway
Capital
Management
LLC |
Sarah
H. Ketterer and Harry W.
Hartford |
Officers
and Owners |
Financial
Services
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
CB
Richard Ellis Global
Real
Estate Securities, LLC |
CB
Richard Ellis Investors, LLC
and
CB Richard Ellis Group Inc. |
Subsidiary
and Parent Co. |
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
Dreman
Value
Management,
LLC |
Dreman
Family 1988 Trust,
David
N. Dreman, F. James
Hutchinson,
Mark Roach, E.
Clifton
Hoover, Jr. |
Majority
Owners Minority Owners |
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
Franklin
Advisers, Inc. |
Franklin
Resources, Inc. |
Parent
Co. |
Financial
Services |
|
Controlling
Person/Entity |
|
Nature
of Controlling
Person/Entity’s
Business |
Hotchkis
and Wiley Capital
Management,
LLC |
HWCap
Holdings, LLC
Stephens
-H&W |
Majority
Owner
Minority
Owner |
Financial
Services
Financial
Services |
Lazard
Asset Management
LLC |
Lazard
Freres & Co. LLC |
Parent
Co. |
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
Logan
Circle Partners, L.P. |
Fortress
Investment Group LLC |
Parent
Co. |
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts
Financial
Services
Co. |
Sun
Life Financial, Inc. |
Majority
Owner |
Financial
Services
|
|
|
|
|
Morgan
Stanley Investment
Management
Inc. Morgan
Stanley
Investment
Management
Company* |
Morgan
Stanley |
Parent
Co. |
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
NISA
Investment Advisors,
LLC |
Jess
Yawitz
William
Marshall |
Minority
Owner
Minority
Owner |
Financial
Services
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
Opus
Capital Group, LLC |
Jakki
L. Haussler, Len A.
Haussler.
Jonathon M. Detter
and
Kevin P. Whelan |
Officers
and Owners |
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
Pzena
Investment
Management,
LLC |
Richard
Pzena Pzena
Investment
Management, Inc. |
Minority
Owner
Minority
Owner |
Financial
Services
Financial
Services
Financial
Services
Financial
Services
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
Standish
Mellon Asset
Management
Company
LLC |
The
Bank of New York Mellon
Corporation |
Parent
Co. |
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
Templeton
Investment
Counsel,
LLC |
Franklin
Resources, Inc. |
Parent
Co. |
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
The
Boston Company
Asset
Management, LLC |
Bank
of New York Mellon
Corporation |
Parent
Co. |
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
The
Renaissance Group
LLC |
Affiliated
Managers Group, Inc. |
Majority
Owner |
Financial
Services |
|
Controlling
Person/Entity |
|
Nature
of Controlling
Person/Entity’s
Business |
Winslow
Capital
Management,
Inc. |
Nuveen
Investments, Inc. |
Parent
Co. |
Financial
Services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________
* |
Morgan
Stanley Investment Management Inc. (“MSIM Inc.”) may delegate certain of
its investment advisory services to Morgan Stanley Investment Management
Company (“MSIM Company”), an affiliated investment
adviser. |
The
following table reflects the fees paid to the sub-advisors from the Funds (as
applicable) for the fiscal years ended October 31, 2007, 2008 and
2009:
Sub-Advisor |
|
Investment
Advisory
Fees for 2007 |
|
|
Investment
Advisory
Fees for 2008 |
|
|
Investment
Advisory
Fees for 2009 |
|
Barrow,
Hanley, Mewhinney & Strauss, LLC (3) |
|
$ |
5,819,565 |
|
|
$ |
6,205,152 |
|
|
$ |
4,425,789 |
|
Brandes
Investment Partners, L.P. (15) |
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
Brandywine
Global Investment Management, LLC (7) |
|
$ |
10,351,546 |
|
|
$ |
9,862,534 |
|
|
$ |
6,582,229 |
|
Brown
Brothers Harriman & Co. (10) |
|
$ |
28,214 |
|
|
$ |
3,774 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
Calamos
Advisors LLC (2) |
|
$ |
148,482 |
|
|
$ |
138,437 |
|
|
$ |
124,691 |
|
Causeway
Capital Management LLC |
|
$ |
1,653,295 |
|
|
$ |
1,321,416 |
|
|
$ |
660,774 |
|
Franklin
Advisers, Inc. (9) |
|
$ |
247,248 |
|
|
$ |
340,202 |
|
|
$ |
371,137 |
|
Goldman
Sachs Asset Management, L.P. (13) |
|
$ |
205,305 |
|
|
$ |
175,772 |
|
|
$ |
67,531 |
|
Hotchkis
and Wiley Capital Management, LLC |
|
$ |
2,760,303 |
|
|
$ |
2,379,212 |
|
|
$ |
1,860,024 |
|
Lazard
Asset Management LLC |
|
$ |
2,087,209 |
|
|
$ |
1,518,370 |
|
|
$ |
896,048 |
|
Logan
Circle Partners, L.P. (12) |
|
|
N/A |
|
|
$ |
117,267 |
|
|
$ |
295,173 |
|
Massachusetts
Financial Services Co. (14) |
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
Metropolitan
West Capital Management, LLC |
|
$ |
4,119,882 |
|
|
$ |
5,086,401 |
|
|
$ |
3,599,033 |
|
Morgan
Stanley Investment Management Inc. |
|
$ |
779,942 |
|
|
$ |
783,528 |
|
|
$ |
693,974 |
|
Opus
Capital Group, LLC (6) |
|
$ |
2,167,844 |
|
|
$ |
1,665,061 |
|
|
$ |
1,102,308 |
|
Post
Advisory Group, LLC (1, 11) |
|
$ |
981,073 |
|
|
$ |
226,586 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
Pzena
Investment Management, LLC (4) |
|
$ |
473,164 |
|
|
$ |
350,281 |
|
|
$ |
208,851 |
|
Templeton
Investment Counsel, LLC |
|
$ |
2,370,755 |
|
|
$ |
2,049,249 |
|
|
$ |
1,042,758 |
|
The
Boston Company Asset Management, LLC (5) |
|
$ |
5,350,294 |
|
|
$ |
4,341,297 |
|
|
$ |
2,791,524 |
|
The
Renaissance Group LLC (8) |
|
$ |
206,064 |
|
|
$ |
178,874 |
|
|
$ |
124,787 |
|
Winslow
Capital Management, Inc. (13) |
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
$ |
60,614 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________
(1) |
Prior
to October 21, 2003, this firm was named MW Post Advisory Group,
LLC. |
(2) |
As
of July 1, 2003, Calamos Advisors LLC became a sub-advisor to the
Retirement Income and Appreciation
Fund. |
(3) |
Barrow,
Hanley, Mewhinney & Strauss, LLC became a sub-advisor to the Mid-Cap
Value Fund on June 30, 2004 and to the Small Cap Value Fund on September
18, 2003. |
(4) |
As
of June 30, 2004, Pzena Investment Management, LLC became a sub-advisor to
the Mid-Cap Value Fund. |
(5) |
As
of September 27, 2004, The Boston Company Asset Management, LLC became a
sub-advisor to the International Equity and Small Cap Value
Funds. |
(6) |
Opus
Capital Group, LLC became a sub-advisor to the Small Cap Value Fund on
January 31, 2005. Prior to May 19, 2006, this firm was named Opus Capital
Management, Inc. |
(7) |
Prior
to May 1, 2006, this firm was named Brandywine Asset Management,
LLC. |
(8) |
As
of September 28, 2006, The Renaissance Group LLC became a sub-advisor to
the Large Cap Growth Fund. |
(9) |
As
of September 18, 2006, Franklin Advisers, Inc. became sub-advisor to the
High Yield Bond Fund. |
(10) |
As
of November 30, 2007, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. no longer served
as a sub-advisor to the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities
Fund. |
(11) |
As
of May 21, 2008, Post Advisory Group, LLC ceased serving as a sub-advisor
to the High Yield Bond Fund. |
(12) |
As
of May 22, 2008, Logan Circle Partners, L.P., became a sub-advisor to the
High Yield Bond Fund. |
(13) |
As
of March 17, 2009, Winslow Capital Management, Inc. assumed management of
the Large Cap Growth Fund’s assets previously managed by Goldman Sachs
Asset Management L.P. and replaced as a sub-advisor to the Large Cap
Growth Fund. |
(14) |
As
of November 22, 2010, Massachusetts Financial Services Co. became a
sub-advisor to the Large Cap Value
Fund. |
|
(15)
As of December 28, 2010, Brandes Investment Partners, L.P. became
sub-advisor to the Emerging Markets
Fund. |
The
following table reflects the fees paid to the sub-advisors from the Treasury
Inflation Protected Securities Fund and the Global Real Estate Fund (as
applicable) for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2007, 2008 and
2009:
Sub-Advisor |
|
Investment
Advisory
Fees
for 2007 |
|
Investment
Advisory
Fees
for 2008 |
|
Investment
Advisory
Fees
for 2009 |
CB
Richard Ellis Global Real Estate Securities, LLC (1) |
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
NISA
Investment Advisors, LLC (2) |
|
$ |
21,835 |
|
|
$ |
222,293 |
|
|
$ |
98,465 |
|
Standish
Mellon Asset Management, LLC(3) |
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
$ |
3,146 |
|
____________
(1) |
CB
Richard Ellis Global Real Estate Securities, LLC has been a sub-advisor to
the Global Real Estate Fund since inception. The Fund commenced operations
on May 17, 2010. |
(2) |
As
of June 30, 2004, NISA Investment Advisors, LLC became sub-advisor to the
Treasury Inflation Protected Securities
Fund. |
(3) |
Standish
Mellon Asset Management, LLC became a sub-advisor to the Treasury
Inflation Protected Securities Fund on December 11,
2009. |
CB
Richard Ellis Global Real Estate Securities, LLC has been the Sub-Advisor to the
Global Real Estate Fund since the inception of the Fund on March 1, 2010. The
manager has agreed to pay an annualized advisory fee to CB Richard Ellis Global
Real Estate Securities, LLC according to the following
schedule:
0.50% on
the first $100 million in assets
0.45% on
the next $50 million in assets
0.40% on
the next $150 million in assets
0.35% on
the next $200 million in assets
0.30% on
assets over $500 million
Effective
November 22, 2010, Massachusetts Financial Services Co. became sub-advisor to
the Large Cap Value Fund. The Manager has agreed to pay an annualized
advisory fee of to Massachusetts Financial Services Co. according to the
following schedule:
0.35% on
the first $100 million in assets
0.30% on
the next $400 million in assets
0.27.5%
on the next $1 billion in assets
0.20% on
assets over $1.5 billion
Effective
December xx, 2010, Brandes Investment Partners, L.P. became sub-advisor to the
Emerging Markets Fund. The Manager has agreed to pay an annualized
advisory fee of 0.75% to Brandes Investment Partners, L.P. on all assets under
management.
To the
extent that MSIM Inc. delegates certain of its investment advisory services to
MSIM Company, MSIM Inc. compensates MSIM Company from the investment advisory
fee paid to MSIM Inc. by the Manager on behalf of the Emerging Markets Fund.
References to MSIM Inc. throughout the remainder of this SAI refer to both MSIM
Inc. and MSIM Company.
Each
Investment Advisory Agreement will automatically terminate if assigned, and may
be terminated without penalty at any time by the Manager, by a vote of a
majority of the Trustees or by a vote of a majority of the outstanding voting
securities of the applicable Fund on no less than thirty (30) days’ nor more
than sixty (60) days’ written notice to the sub-advisor, or by the sub-advisor
upon sixty (60) days’ written notice to the Trust. The Investment Advisory
Agreements will continue in effect provided that annually such continuance is
specifically approved by a vote of the Trustees, including the affirmative votes
of a majority of the Trustees who are not parties to the Agreement or
“interested persons” (as defined in the 1940 Act) of any such party, cast in
person at a meeting called for the purpose of considering such approval, or by
the vote of shareholders.
The
Manager
The
Manager is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lighthouse Holdings, Inc.
(“Lighthouse”). Lighthouse is indirectly owned by investment funds affiliated
with Pharos Capital Group, LLC (“Pharos”) and TPG Capital, L.P. (“TPG”). The
Manager is paid a management fee as compensation for paying investment advisory
fees and for providing the Trust with advisory and asset allocation services.
Pursuant to management and administrative services agreements, the Manager
provides the Trust with office space, office equipment and personnel necessary
to manage and administer the Trust’s operations. This includes:
|
● |
complying
with reporting requirements; |
|
|
|
|
● |
corresponding
with shareholders; |
|
|
|
|
● |
maintaining
internal bookkeeping, accounting and auditing services and records;
and |
|
|
supervising
the provision of services to the Trusts by third
parties. |
In
addition to its oversight of the Sub-Advisors, the Manager invests the portion
of all Fund assets that the sub-advisors determine to be allocated to high
quality short-term debt obligations, except for the High Yield Bond Fund, and
the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund.
The Funds
are responsible for expenses not otherwise assumed by the Manager, including the
following: audits by independent auditors; transfer agency, custodian, dividend
disbursing agent and shareholder recordkeeping services; taxes, if any, and the
preparation of each Fund’s tax returns; interest; costs of Trustee and
shareholder meetings; printing and mailing Prospectuses and reports to existing
shareholders; fees for filing reports with regulatory bodies and the maintenance
of the Funds’ existence; legal fees; fees to federal and state authorities for
the registration of shares; fees and expenses of non-interested Trustees;
insurance and fidelity bond premiums; fees paid to consultants providing reports
regarding adherence by sub-advisors to the investment style of a Fund; fees paid
for brokerage commission analysis for the purpose of monitoring best execution
practices of the sub-advisors; and any extraordinary expenses of a nonrecurring
nature.
The
management agreement provides for the Manager to receive an annualized
management fee that is calculated and accrued daily, equal to the sum of: 0.20%
of the net assets of the Short-Term Bond Fund and Intermediate Bond Funds, and
0.05% of the net assets of all other Funds. In addition, the Balanced, Emerging
Markets, Retirement Income and Appreciation, High Yield Bond, Intermediate Bond,
International Equity, Large Cap Growth, Large Cap Value, Mid-Cap Value, Small
Cap Value, and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Funds pay the Manager the
amounts due to their respective sub-advisors. The Manager then remits these
amounts to the sub-advisors.
The
following amounts represent management fees paid to the Manager based on total
Fund assets, including funds and classes of shares that are no longer
operational. With the exception of the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities
Fund and the Global Real Estate Fund, the Funds have a fiscal year end of
October 31st. Management fees for the Funds with fiscal years ended October 31
were approximately as follows: 2007, $56,151,000, of which approximately
$40,429,000 was paid by the Manager to the sub-advisors; 2008, $51,766,000, of
which approximately $37,269,000 was paid by the Manager to the sub-advisors; and
2009, $30,414,000, of which approximately $24,827,000 was paid by the Manager to
the other sub-advisors. Management fees in the amount of approximately $0, $0
and $0 were waived/reimbursed by the Manager during the fiscal years ended
October 31, 2007, 2008, and 2009.
The
following amounts represent management fees paid to the Manager based on total
assets of the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund, which has a fiscal
year end of December 31st. Management fees for this Fund for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2007 were approximately $121,667, of which approximately
$66,456 was paid by the Manager to the sub-advisors. Management fees for the
Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2008 were approximately $488,851, of which approximately $307,620 was paid
by the Manager to the sub-advisors. Management fees for the Treasury Inflation
Protected Securities Fund for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 were
approximately $145,994, of which approximately $81,111 was paid by the Manager
to the sub-advisors. The Global Real Estate Fund, which has a fiscal year end of
December 31st, commenced operations on March 1, 2010. Accordingly, no management
fees were paid by the Global Real Estate Fund during the previous three fiscal
years.
In
addition to the management fee, the Manager is paid an administrative services
fee for providing administrative services to the Funds. The following amounts
represent administrative services fees paid to the Manager based on total Fund
assets, including funds and classes of shares that are no longer operational.
Administrative services fees for the Funds with fiscal years ended October 31
were approximately as follows: 2007, $30,468,000; 2008, $31,341,000; and 2009,
$25,218,000. Administrative
services
fees for the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund for the fiscal years
ended December 31, 2007, 2008, and 2009 were approximately $55,210, $374,283,
and $198,308 respectively. The Global Real Estate Fund commenced operations on
March 1, 2010 and has a fiscal year end of December 31. Accordingly, no
administrative fees or other service fees were paid by the Global Real Estate
Fund during the previous three fiscal years.
The
Manager (or another entity approved by the Board) under a distribution plan
adopted pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act, is paid up to 1.00% per annum
of the average daily net assets of the C Class shares of each Fund for
distribution and shareholder servicing related services, including expenses
relating to selling efforts of various broker-dealers, shareholder servicing
fees and the preparation and distribution of C Class advertising material and
sales literature. Certain Sub-Advisors may contribute a portion of their
advisory fees to the Manager to support the Funds’ distribution activities. The
Manager will receive Rule 12b-1 fees from the C Class shares regardless of the
amount of the Manager’s actual expenses related to distribution and shareholder
servicing efforts on behalf of each Class. Thus, the Manager may realize a
profit or a loss based upon its actual distribution and shareholder servicing
related expenditures for the C Class. The Manager anticipates that the Rule
12b-1 plan will benefit shareholders by providing broader access to the Funds
through broker-dealers and other financial intermediaries who require
compensation for their expenses in order to offer shares of the Funds. Because
the C Class shares of the Funds began offering Fund shares on September 1, 2010,
there were no prior distribution fees pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940
Act.
The
Manager also may receive up to 25% of the net monthly income generated from the
Funds securities lending activities as compensation for administrative and
oversight functions with respect to securities lending of all of the Funds.
Currently, the Manager receives 10% of such income. Fees received by the Manager
from securities lending for the fiscal years ended October 31 were approximately
as follows: 2007, $1,091,684; 2008, $2,320,000; and 2009, $1,065,000. The
Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund and the Global Real Estate Fund do
not engage in securities lending, so the Manager received no related
compensation for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2007, 2008, and 2009. The
SEC has granted exemptive relief that permits the Funds to invest cash
collateral received from securities lending transactions in shares of one or
more private or registered investment companies managed by the
Manager.
C Class
shares have adopted a Service Plan (the “Plan”). The Plan authorize the payment
to the Manager (or another entity approved by the Board) up to 0.25% per annum
of the daily average net assets of the C Class shares. The Manager or these
approved entities may spend such amounts on any activities or expenses primarily
intended to result in or relate to the servicing of C Class shares including,
but not limited to, payment of shareholder service fees and transfer agency or
sub-transfer agency expenses. The fees, which are included as part of a Fund’s
“Other Expenses” in the Table of Fees and Expenses in the Prospectus, will be
payable monthly in arrears. The fees for each Class of the Funds will be paid on
the actual expenses incurred in a particular month by the entity for the
services provided pursuant to the respective Class and its Service Plan. The
primary expenses expected to be incurred under the Plan is shareholder
servicing, record keeping fees and servicing fees paid to financial
intermediaries such as plan sponsors and broker-dealers. Because the C Class
shares of the Funds and began offering Fund shares on September 1, 2010 there
were no prior service fees for C Class shares of the Funds.
The
Manager has contractually agreed from time to time to reduce fees and/or
reimburse expenses for the C Class shares of certain Funds in order to maintain
competitive expense ratios for the Funds. In July of 2003, the Board approved a
policy whereby the Manager may seek repayment for such fee reductions and
expense reimbursements. Under the policy, the Manager can be reimbursed by a
Fund for any contractual or voluntary fee reductions or expense reimbursements
if reimbursement to the Manager (a) occurs within three years after the
Manager’s own waiver or reimbursement and (b) does not cause the Fund’s Total
Annual Fund Operating Expenses to exceed the previously agreed upon contractual
expense limit.
The
Distributor
Foreside
Fund Services, LLC (“Foreside” or “Distributor”), located at Three Canal Plaza,
Suite 100, Portland, Maine 04101, is the distributor and principal underwriter
of the Funds’ shares. The Distributor is a registered broker-dealer and is a
member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Under a
Distribution Agreement with the Trust, the Distributor acts as the agent 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 or its
Funds. Pursuant to a Sub-Administration Agreement between Foreside and the
Manager, Foreside receives a fee from the Manager for providing administrative
services in connection with the marketing and distribution of shares of the
Trust, including the registration of Manager employees as registered
representatives of the Distributor to facilitate distribution of Fund shares.
Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement, the Distributor receives, and may
reallow to broker-dealers, all or a portion of the sales charge paid by the
purchasers of C Class shares. For C Class shares, the Distributor receives
commission revenue consisting of the portion of C Class sales charge remaining
after the allowances by the Distributor to the broker dealers. The Distributor
may also retain any portion of the commissions fees that are not paid to the
broker-dealers, which may be used to pay distribution related
expenses.
State
Street, located at 2 Copley Plaza, 3rd Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02116, is
the transfer agent for the Trust and provides transfer agency services to Fund
shareholders through its affiliate Boston Financial Data Services, located at
330 W. 9th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64105. State Street also serves as
custodian for the Funds. In addition, pursuant to Administrative Services
Agreements and instructions given by the Manager, State Street invests certain
excess cash balances for various series of the Trust. The independent registered
public accounting firm for the Funds is Ernst & Young LLP, which is located
at 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 2000, Dallas, Texas 75219. K&L Gates LLP, 1601
K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006, serves as legal counsel to the
Funds.
The
portfolio managers to the Funds (the “Portfolio Managers”) have responsibility
for the day-to-day management of accounts other than the Funds. Information
regarding these other accounts has been provided by each Portfolio Manager’s
firm and is set forth below. The number of accounts and assets is shown as of
June 30, 2010. The number of accounts and assets shown for Brandes
Investment Partners, L.P.. is shown as of September 30, 2010. The
number of accounts and assets shown for Massachusetts Financial Services Co. is
shown as of October 31, 2010.
¶ |
Number
of Other Accounts Managed
and
Assets by Account
Type |
Number
of Accounts and Assets for Which
Advisory
Fee is
Performance-Based |
Name
of
Investment
Advisor
and
Portfolio
Manager |
Registered
Investment
Companies |
Other
Pooled
Investment
Vehicles |
Other
Accounts |
Registered
Investment
Companies |
Other
Pooled
Investment
Vehicles |
Other
Accounts |
American
Beacon Advisors, Inc. |
|
|
|
|
Kirk
L. Brown |
6
$(1.8 bil) |
N/A |
2
$(3.4 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Wyatt
Crumpler |
18
$(13.5 bil) |
N/A |
3
$(10.0 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Michael
W. Fields |
6
$(1.6 bil) |
N/A |
7
$(14.7 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Gyeong
Kim |
4
$(509 mil) |
N/A |
1
$(58 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Adriana
R. Posada |
8
$(10.9 bil) |
N/A |
3
$(5.2 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
William
F. Quinn |
18
$(13.5 bil) |
N/A |
3
$(10.0 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Patrick
A. Sporl |
4
$(509 mil) |
N/A |
1
$(58 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Cynthia
Thatcher |
5
$(836 mil) |
N/A |
1
$(1.4 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrow,
Hanley, Mewhinney & Strauss, LLC |
|
|
|
|
James
P. Barrow |
12
$(22.6 bil) |
2
$(232.3 mil) |
26
$(2.1 bil) |
3
$(22.1 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
¶ |
Number
of Other Accounts Managed
and
Assets by Account
Type |
Number
of Accounts and Assets for Which
Advisory
Fee is
Performance-Based |
Name
of
Investment
Advisor
and
Portfolio
Manager |
Registered
Investment
Companies |
Other
Pooled
Investment
Vehicles |
|
Registered
Investment
Companies |
Other
Pooled
Investment
Vehicles |
|
Mark
Giambrone |
8
$(2.5 bil) |
2
$(232.3 mil) |
38
$(1.7 bil) |
1
$(2.3 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
James
S. McClure |
4
$(452.5 mil) |
1
$(4.8 mil) |
15
$(507.1 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
John
P. Harloe |
4
$(452.5 mil) |
1
$(4.8 mil) |
15
$(507.1 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
John
S. Williams |
6
$(381.4 mil) |
3
$(242.3 mil) |
110
$(7.7 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(599.6 mil) |
David
R. Hardin |
6
$(381.4 mil) |
3
$(242.3 mil) |
110
$(7.7 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(599.6 mil) |
J.
Scott McDonald |
6
$(381.4 mil) |
3
$(242.3 mil) |
110
$(7.7 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(599.6 mil) |
Mark
C. Luchsinger |
6
$(381.4 mil) |
3
$(242.3 mil) |
110
$(7.7 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(599.6 mil) |
Deborah
A. Petruzzelli |
6
$(381.4 mil) |
3
$(242.3 mil) |
110
$(7.7 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(599.6 mil) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brandes
Investment Partners, L.P. |
|
|
|
|
Alphonse
Chan |
None |
4
$(425 mil) |
247
$(836 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Douglas
Edman |
None |
4
$(425 mil) |
247
$(836 mil |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Christopher
Garrett |
None |
4
$(425 mil) |
247
$(836 mil |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Louis
Lau |
None |
4
$(425 mil) |
247
$(836 mil |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Steven
Leonard |
None |
4
$(425 mil) |
247
$(836 mil |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Greg
Rippel |
None |
4
$(425 mil) |
247
$(836 mil |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Gerardo
Zamorano |
None |
4
$(425 mil) |
247
$(836 mil |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brandywine
Global Investment Management, LLC |
|
|
|
|
Henry
Otto |
3
$(837 mil) |
7
$(75.4 mil) |
6
$(485 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
2
$(256 mil) |
Steve
Tonkovich |
3
$(837 mil) |
7
$(75.4 mil) |
6
$(485 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
2
$(256 mil) |
Paul
Lesutis |
2
$(1.4 mil) |
3
$(40.4 mil) |
58
$(1.6 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
2
$(355 mil) |
Earl
Gaskins |
1
$(252 mil) |
3
$(40.4 mil) |
50
$(1.5 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
2
$(355 mil) |
Steve
Smith |
2
$(463 mil) |
24
$(5.3 bil) |
106
$(15.6 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
15
$(3.8 bil) |
Patrick
Kaser |
1
$(252 mil) |
3
$(40.4 mil) |
58
$(1.6 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
$2
$(355 mil) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calamos
Advisors, LLC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
John
P. Calamos, Sr. |
26
$(23.1 bil) |
11
$(980 mil) |
8,308
$(5.9 bil) |
3
$(312 mil) |
1
$(19.4 mil) |
N/A |
Nick
P. Calamos |
26
$(23.1 bil) |
11
$(980 mil) |
8,308
$(5.9 bil) |
3
$(312 mil) |
1
$(19.4 mil) |
N/A |
John
P. Calamos, Jr. |
26
$(23.1 bil) |
11
$(980 mil) |
8,308
$(5.9 bil) |
3
$(312 mil) |
1
$(19.4 mil) |
N/A |
John
Hillenbrand |
26
$(23.1 bil) |
11
$(980 mil) |
8,308
$(5.9 bil) |
3
$(312 mil) |
1
$(19.4 mil) |
N/A |
Steve
Klouda |
26
$(23.1 bil) |
11
$(980 mil) |
8,308
$(5.9 bil) |
3
$(312 mil) |
1
$(19.4 mil) |
N/A |
Jeff
Scudieri |
26
$(23.1 bil) |
11
$(980 mil) |
8,308
$(5.9 bil) |
3
$(312 mil) |
1
$(19.4 mil) |
N/A |
Jon
Vacko |
26
$(23.1 bil) |
11
$(980 mil) |
8,308
$(5.9 bil) |
3
$(312 mil) |
1
$(19.4 mil) |
N/A |
Bryan
Lloyd |
26
$(23.1 bil) |
11
$(980 mil) |
8,308
$(5.9 bil) |
3
$(312 mil) |
1
$(19.4 mil) |
N/A |
Dino
Dussias |
26
$(23.1 bil) |
11
$(980 mil) |
8,308
$(5.9 bil) |
3
$(312 mil) |
1
$(19.4 mil) |
N/A |
Christopher
Hartman |
26
$(23.1 bil) |
11
$(980 mil) |
8,308
$(5.9 bil) |
3
$(312 mil) |
1
$(19.4 mil) |
N/A |
Joe
Wysocki |
26
$(23.1 bil) |
11
$(980 mil) |
8,308
$(5.9 bil) |
3
$(312 mil) |
1
$(19.4 mil) |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Causeway
Capital Management LLC |
|
|
|
|
Sarah
H. Ketterer |
6
$(3.16 bil) |
5
$(0.72 bil) |
52
$(4.785 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(0.45 bil) |
Harry
W. Hartford |
6
$(3.16 bil) |
5
$(0.72 bil) |
58
$(4.764 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(0.45 bil) |
James
A. Doyle |
6
$(3.16 bil) |
5
$(0.72 bil) |
53
$(4.763 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(0.45 bil) |
Jonathan
P. Eng |
6
$(3.16 bil) |
5
$(0.72 bil) |
50
$(4.764 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(0.45 bil) |
Kevin
Durkin |
6
$(3.16 bil) |
5
$(0.72 bil) |
48
$(4.763 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(0.45 bil) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CB
Richard Ellis Global Real Estate Securities, LLC |
|
|
|
|
Jeremy
Anagnos |
1
$(20 mil) |
18
$(1.15 bil) |
12
$(838 mil) |
N/A |
1
$(34 mil) |
5
$(389 mil) |
Steve
Carroll |
1
$(20 mil) |
18
$(1.15 bil) |
12
$(838 mil) |
N/A |
1
$(34 mil) |
5
$(389 mil) |
William
Morrill |
1
$(20 mil) |
18
$(1.15 bil) |
12
$(838 mil) |
N/A |
1
$(34 mil) |
5
$(389 mil) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dreman
Value Management, LLC |
|
|
|
|
David
N. Dreman |
12
$(3.3 bil) |
1
$(89 mil) |
80
$(892 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
E.
Clifton Hoover, Jr. |
11
$(3.2 mil) |
N/A |
61
$(740 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Mark
Roach |
7
$(2.8 bil) |
N/A |
19
$(152 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Franklin
Advisers, Inc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric
Takaha |
2
$(1.5 bil) |
3
$(240.0 mil) |
4
$(285.4 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Chris
Molumphy |
3
$(7.8 bil) |
2
$(684.4 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Glenn
Voyles |
1
$(199.6 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hotchkis
and Wiley Capital Management, LLC |
|
|
|
|
Patty
McKenna |
14
$(5.7 bil) |
2
$(90.7 mil) |
65
$(6.7 bil) |
1
(1.7 bil) |
N/A |
3
$(193 mil) |
Sheldon
Lieberman |
14
$(5.7 bil) |
2
$(90.7 mil) |
65
$(6.7 bil) |
1
(1.7 bil) |
N/A |
3
$(193 mil) |
George
Davis |
14
$(5.7 bil) |
2
$(90.7 mil) |
65
$(6.7 bil) |
1
(1.7 bil) |
N/A |
3
$(193 mil) |
Stan
Majcher |
14
$(5.7 bil) |
2
$(90.7 mil) |
65
$(6.7 bil) |
1
(1.7 bil) |
N/A |
3
$(193 mil) |
David
Green |
14
$(5.7 bil) |
2
$(90.7 mil) |
65
$(6.7 bil) |
1
(1.7 bil) |
N/A |
3
$(193 mil) |
¶ |
Number
of Other Accounts Managed
and
Assets by Account
Type |
Number
of Accounts and Assets for Which
Advisory
Fee is
Performance-Based |
Name
of
Investment
Advisor
and
Portfolio
Manager |
Registered
Investment
Companies |
Other
Pooled
Investment
Vehicles |
|
Registered
Investment
Companies |
Other
Pooled
Investment
Vehicles |
|
Jim
Miles |
14
$(5.7 bil) |
2
$(90.7 mil) |
65
$(6.7 bil) |
1
(1.7 bil) |
N/A |
3
$(193 mil) |
Judd
Peters |
14
$(5.7 bil) |
2
$(90.7 mil) |
65
$(6.7 bil) |
1
(1.7 bil) |
N/A |
3
$(193 mil) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lazard
Asset Management LLC |
|
|
|
|
John
Reinsberg |
5
$(972.6 mil) |
4
$(113.5 mil) |
58
$(4.0 bil) |
N/A |
4
$(113.5 mil) |
N/A |
Michael
A. Bennett |
9
$(3.0 bil) |
1
$(11.3 mil) |
294
$(9.6 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Michael
G. Fry |
8
$(2.6 bil) |
4
$(153.1 mil) |
271
$(9.5 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Michael
Powers |
8
$(2.6 bil) |
1
$(11.3 mil) |
259
$(8.0 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logan Circle Partners,
L.P. |
|
|
|
|
|
Timothy
L. Rabe, CFA |
1
$(27mil) |
N/A |
12
$(829 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts
Financial Services Co.- Large Cap Value Fund |
|
|
|
|
Steven
Gorham |
20
$(37.1 bil) |
6
$(2.3 bil) |
33
$(9.0 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Nevin
Chitkara |
20
$(37.1 bil) |
6
$(2.3 bil) |
33
$(9.0 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morgan
Stanley Investment Management Inc. |
|
|
|
|
Ruchir
Sharma
Paul
Psaila James Cheng
Eric
Carlson William Scott
Piper
Ana
Cristina Piedrahita |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NISA
Investment Advisors, LLC |
|
|
|
|
Jess
Yawitz |
N/A |
N/A |
111
$(54 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
5
$(1.25 bil) |
William
Marshall |
N/A |
N/A |
111
$(54 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
5
$(1.25 bil) |
Ken
Lester |
N/A |
N/A |
105
$(53 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
5
$(1.25 bil) |
Anthony
Pope |
N/A |
N/A |
103
$(53 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
2
$0.7 bil) |
Note:
The number of accounts reflects the number of clients; NISA manages
multiple portfolios for several clients. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opus
Capital Group, LLC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Len
A. Haussler |
1
$(508 mil) |
N/A |
243
$(964 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(34 mil) |
Kevin
P. Whelan |
1
$(508 mil) |
N/A |
243
$(964 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(34 mil) |
Jonathon
M. Detter |
1
$(508 mil) |
N/A |
243
$(964 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(34 mil) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pzena
Investment Management, LLC |
|
|
|
|
Richard
S. Pzena |
8
$(2.8 bil) |
55
$(1.0 bil) |
183
$(4.9 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
10
$(898 mil) |
John
Goetz |
11
$(3.4 bil) |
80
$(3.2 bil) |
193
$(6.4 bil) |
N/A |
1
$(84 mil) |
10
$(898 mil) |
Manoj
Tandon |
N/A |
N/A |
5
$(216 mil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standish
Mellon Asset Management Company LLC |
|
|
|
|
Robert
Bayston |
44
$(1.8 bil) |
7
$(1.3 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Templeton
Investment Counsel, LLC |
|
|
|
|
Gary
Motyl |
4
$(6.4 bil) |
2
$(718.5 mil) |
13
$(3.4 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
Boston Company Asset Management, LLC |
|
|
|
|
D.
Kirk Henry |
10
$(3.51 bil) |
11
$(3.78 bil) |
42
$(5.48 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(147.8 mil) |
Clifford
A. Smith |
10
$(3.51 bil) |
11
$(3.78 bil) |
42
$(5.48 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(147.8 mil) |
Warren
Skillman |
10
$(3.51 bil) |
11
$(3.78 bil) |
42
$(5.48 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(147.8 mil) |
Carolyn
M. Kedersha |
10
$(3.51 bil) |
11
$(3.78 bil) |
42
$(5.48 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
1
$(147.8 mil) |
Joseph
M. Corrado |
4
$(1.18 bil) |
2
$(130.9 mil) |
24
$(1.27 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Stephanie
K. Brandaleone |
4
$(1.18 bil) |
2
$(130.9 mil) |
24
$(1.27 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Edward
R. Walter |
4
$(1.18 bil) |
2
$(130.9 mil) |
24
$(1.27 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
Renaissance Group LLC |
|
|
|
|
Michael
E. Schroer |
3
$(390 mil) |
N/A |
401
$(3.1 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winslow
Capital Management, Inc. |
|
|
|
|
Clark
J. Winslow |
7
$(5.6 bil) |
8
$(316 mil) |
580
$(3.9 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
4
$(296 mil) |
Justin
H. Kelly |
7
$(5.6 bil) |
8
$(316 mil) |
580
$(3.9 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
4
$(296 mil) |
R.
Bart Wear |
7
$(5.6 bil) |
8
$(316 mil) |
580
$(3.9 bil) |
N/A |
N/A |
4
$(296 mil) |
¶ |
Number
of Other Accounts Managed
and
Assets by Account
Type |
Number
of Accounts and Assets for Which
Advisory
Fee is
Performance-Based |
Name
of
Investment
Advisor
and
Portfolio
Manager |
Registered
Investment
Companies |
Other
Pooled
Investment
Vehicles |
|
Registered
Investment
Companies |
Other
Pooled
Investment
Vehicles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conflicts of
Interest
As noted
in the table above, the Portfolio Managers manage accounts other than the Funds.
This side-by-side management may present potential conflicts between a Portfolio
Manager’s management of a Fund’s investments, on the one hand, and the
investments of the other accounts, on the other hand. Set forth below is a
description by the Manager and each Sub-Advisor of any foreseeable material
conflicts of interest that may arise from the concurrent management of Funds and
other accounts as of the end of each Fund’s most recent fiscal year. The
information regarding potential conflicts of interest of the Sub-Advisors was
provided by each firm.
The
Manager The Manager’s Portfolio Managers are responsible for managing one
or more of the Funds and other accounts, including separate accounts and
unregistered funds. The Manager typically assigns Funds and accounts with
similar investment strategies to the same Portfolio Manager to mitigate the
potentially conflicting investment strategies of accounts. Other than potential
conflicts between investment strategies, the side-by-side management of both the
Funds and other accounts may raise potential conflicts of interest due to the
interest held by the Manager or one of its affiliates in an account and certain
trading practices used by the Portfolio Managers (e.g., cross trades between a
Fund and another account and allocation of aggregated trades). The Manager has
developed policies and procedures reasonably designed to mitigate those
conflicts. In particular, the Manager has adopted policies limiting the ability
of Portfolio Managers to cross securities between a Fund and a separate account
and policies designed to ensure the fair allocation of securities purchased on
an aggregated basis.
Portfolio
Managers of the Manager with responsibility for the Funds are also responsible
for managing, among other accounts, the pension assets for AMR Corporation and
its subsidiaries (“AMR Pension Accounts”). These Portfolio Managers oversee
fixed income assets managed internally by the Manager as well as equity and
fixed income assets managed externally by sub-advisors who invest the assets of
the Funds and AMR Pension Accounts. The same investment process and overall
investment strategies are used for both the Funds and the AMR Pension Accounts.
Potential conflicts of interest may occur when the Manager’s Portfolio Managers
allocate Fund assets to internal fixed income Portfolio Managers rather than
external Portfolio Managers, since the Manager has the potential to earn more
fees under this scenario. This potential conflict of interest is disclosed to
the Board in connection with the process of approving the Manager as an
investment advisor to the Funds.
Barrow,
Hanley, Mewhinney & Strauss, LLC
(“Barrow”) Actual or potential conflicts of interest may arise when a
portfolio manager has management responsibilities to more than one account
(including the Fund(s)). Barrow manages potential conflicts between funds or
with other types of accounts through allocation policies and procedures,
internal review processes and oversight by directors and independent third
parties to ensure that no client, regardless of type or fee structure, is
intentionally favored at the expense of another. Allocation policies are
designed to address potential conflicts in situations where two or more funds or
accounts participate in investment decisions involving the same
securities.
Brandes
Investment Partners, L.P. (“Brandes”) The Portfolio Managers
manage accounts other than the Funds. This side-by-side management may present
potential conflicts between a Portfolio Manager’s management of a Fund’s
investments, on the one hand, and the investments of the other accounts, on the
other hand. In order to address these potential conflicts, Brandes’
investment decision-
making
and trade allocation policies and procedures are designed to ensure that none of
Brandes’ clients are disadvantaged in Brandes’ management of
accounts. Additionally, Brandes’ internal controls are tested on a
routine schedule as part of the firm's Compliance Monitoring
Program
Brandywine
Global Investment Management, LLC (“Brandywine Global”) Brandywine Global
does not foresee any potentially material conflicts of interest as a result of
concurrent management of the Balanced, Large Cap Value and Small Cap Value Funds
and other accounts. Brandywine Global follows the same buy and sell discipline
for all stocks across all portfolios, subject to client specific restrictions.
All portfolios are managed in the same manner by the investment team. Portfolios
may differ slightly due to differences in available cash, contributions and
withdrawals.
Calamos
Advisors LLC (“Calamos”) Calamos does not foresee any potentially
material conflicts of interest as a result of concurrent management of the
Retirement Income and Appreciation Fund and other accounts.
Potential
conflicts that could arise include the allocation of investment opportunities
and securities purchased among these multiple accounts. Similarly, trading in
securities by Calamos personnel for their own accounts potentially could
conflict with the interest of clients. Calamos does not believe that any of
these potential conflicts of interest are material, and Calamos 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 an investment
advisor.
Causeway
Capital Management LLC (“Causeway”) The Causeway portfolio managers who
manage a segment of the International Equity Fund (the “Fund Segment”) also
manage their own personal accounts and other accounts, including corporations,
pension plans, public retirement plans, Taft-Hartley pension plans, endowments
and foundations, mutual funds, charities, private trusts, wrap fee programs, and
other institutions (collectively, “Other Accounts”). In managing the Other
Accounts, the portfolio managers employ investment strategies similar to that
used in managing the Fund Segment, subject to certain variations in investment
restrictions. The portfolio managers purchase and sell securities for the Fund
Segment 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 other accounts with similar investment strategies. The
Other Accounts pay higher management fee rates than the Fund Segment or pay
performance-based fees to Causeway. Causeway is the investment adviser and
sponsor of four mutual funds (“Causeway International Value Fund,” “Causeway
Global Value Fund,” “Causeway Emerging Markets Fund,” and Causeway International
Opportunities Fund” together “Causeway Mutual Funds”). All of the portfolio
managers have personal investments in one or more of the Causeway Mutual Funds.
Ms. Ketterer and Mr. Hartford hold a controlling interest in Causeway’s equity
and Messrs. Doyle, Eng and Durkin have minority interests in Causeway’s
equity.
Actual or
potential conflicts of interest arise from the Fund Segment’s 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 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.
CB
Richard Ellis Global Real Estate Securities, LLC If the Sub-Adviser
believes that there is a conflict in relation to trading securities between the
interests of the Sub-Adviser and a client or between
one
client and another or multiple clients, then the Sub-Adviser must contact the
clients involved to obtain their consent prior to trading. The Sub-Adviser has
adopted trade allocation and other policies and procedures that it believes are
reasonably designed to address these and other conflicts of interest. As a
result, the Sub-Adviser does not believe that any of these potential sources of
conflicts of interest will affect the Sub-Adviser’s professional judgment in
managing the Fund. When necessary, the Sub-Adviser shall address known conflicts
of interests in its trading practices by disclosure to clients and/or in its
Form ADV or other appropriate action. However, there is no guarantee that such
procedures will detect each and every situation where a conflict
arises.
Dreman
Value Management, LLC (“Dreman”) Dreman manages clients’ accounts using a
contrarian value investment strategy. For both its strategies, Dreman utilizes a
model portfolio and rebalances client accounts whenever changes are made to the
model portfolio. In addition, Dreman aggregates its trades and allocates the
trades to all client accounts in an equitable manner. Dreman strongly believes
aggregating its orders protect all clients from being disadvantaged by price or
time execution. The model portfolio approach and the trade aggregation policy of
Dreman eliminates any potential or apparent conflicts of interest that could
arise when a Portfolio Manager has day-to-day portfolio management
responsibilities with respect to more than one fund or account. Dreman does not
receive any performance-based fees from any of its accounts with the exception
of hedge funds that are managed by an affiliated entity. However, the hedge
funds are treated like any other client account and trades done for the hedge
fund are generally aggregated with trades done for Dreman’s regular client
accounts. Dreman’s investment professionals are compensated in the same manner
for all client accounts irrespective of the type of account.
Franklin
Advisers, Inc. (“Franklin”) The management of multiple funds, including
the High Yield Bond Fund and other accounts may give rise to potential conflicts
of interest if the High Yield Bond Fund and other accounts have different
objectives, benchmarks, time horizons, and fees, as the Portfolio Manager must
allocate his or her time and investment ideas across multiple funds and
accounts. Franklin 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 other accounts managed by a Portfolio
Manager are managed using the same investment strategies that are used in
connection with the management of the High Yield Bond Fund. Accordingly,
portfolio holdings, position sizes, and industry and sector exposures tend to be
similar across similar portfolios, which may minimize the potential for
conflicts of interest. The separate management of the trade execution and
valuation functions from the portfolio management process also helps to reduce
potential conflicts of interest. However, securities selected for funds or
accounts other than the High Yield Bond Fund may outperform the securities
selected for the High Yield Bond Fund. Moreover, if a Portfolio Manager
identifies a limited investment opportunity that may be suitable for more than
one fund or other account, the High Yield Bond Fund may not be able to take full
advantage of that opportunity due to an allocation of that opportunity across
all eligible funds and other accounts. Franklin seeks to manage such potential
conflicts by using procedures intended to provide a fair allocation of buy and
sell opportunities among funds and other accounts.
The
structure of a Portfolio Manager’s compensation may give rise to potential
conflicts of interest. A Portfolio Manager’s base pay and bonus tend to increase
with additional and more complex responsibilities that include increased assets
under management. As such, there may be an indirect relationship between a
Portfolio Manager’s marketing or sales efforts and his or her
bonus.
Finally,
the management of personal accounts by a Portfolio Manager may give rise to
potential conflicts of interest. While Franklin has adopted a code of ethics
which it believes contains provisions reasonably necessary to prevent a wide
range of prohibited activities by Portfolio Managers and others with respect to
their personal trading activities, there can be no assurance that the code of
ethics addresses all individual conduct that could result in conflicts of
interest.
Franklin
has adopted certain compliance procedures that are designed to address these,
and other, types of conflicts. However, there is no guarantee that such
procedures will detect each and every situation where a conflict
arises.
Hotchkis
and Wiley Capital Management, LLC (“Hotchkis”) The Balanced (equity
portion), Large Cap Value and Small Cap Value Funds are managed by Hotchkis’
investment team (“Investment Team”). The Investment Team also manages
institutional accounts and other mutual funds in several different investment
strategies. The portfolios within an investment strategy are managed using a
target portfolio; however, each portfolio may have different restrictions, cash
flows, tax and other relevant considerations which may preclude a portfolio from
participating in certain transactions for that investment strategy.
Consequently, the performance of portfolios may vary due to these different
considerations. The Investment Team may place transactions for one investment
strategy that are directly or indirectly contrary to investment decisions made
on behalf of another investment strategy. Hotchkis may be restricted from
purchasing more than a limited percentage of the outstanding shares of a
company. If a company is a viable investment for more than one investment
strategy, Hotchkis has adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to
ensure that all of its clients are treated fairly and equitably.
Different
types of accounts and investment strategies may have different fee structures.
Additionally, certain accounts pay Hotchkis performance-based fees, which may
vary depending on how well the account performs compared to a benchmark. Because
such fee arrangements have the potential to create an incentive for Hotchkis to
favor such accounts in making investment decisions and allocations, Hotchkis has
adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that all of its
clients are treated fairly and equitably, including in respect of allocation
decisions, such as initial public offerings.
Since all
accounts are managed to a target portfolio by the Investment Team, adequate time
and resources are consistently applied to all accounts in the same investment
strategy.
Lazard
Asset Management LLC (“Lazard”) Lazard’s Portfolio Managers manage
multiple accounts for a diverse client base, including private clients,
institutions and investment funds. Lazard manages all portfolios on a team
basis. The team is involved at all levels of the investment process. This team
approach allows for every portfolio manager to benefit from his/her peers, and
for clients to receive the firm’s best thinking, not that of a single portfolio
manager. Lazard manages all like investment mandates against a model portfolio.
Specific client objectives, guidelines or limitations then are applied against
the model, and any necessary adjustments are made.
Although
the potential for conflicts of interest exist because Lazard and the Portfolio
Managers manage other accounts with similar investment objectives and strategies
as the International Equity Fund (“Similar Accounts”), Lazard has procedures in
place that are designed to ensure that all accounts are treated fairly and that
the Fund is not disadvantaged, including procedures regarding trade allocations
and “conflicting trades” (e.g., long and short positions in the same security,
as described below). In addition, the Fund, as a registered investment company,
is subject to different regulations than certain of the Similar Accounts, and,
consequently, may not be permitted to engage in all the investment techniques or
transactions, or to engage in such techniques or transactions to the same
degree, as the Similar Accounts.
Potential
conflicts of interest may arise because of Lazard’s management of the Fund and
Similar Accounts. For example, conflicts of interest may arise with both the
aggregation and allocation of securities transactions and allocation of limited
investment opportunities, as Lazard may be perceived as causing accounts it
manages to participate in an offering to increase Lazard’s overall allocation of
securities in that offering, or to increase Lazard’s ability to participate in
future offerings by the same underwriter or issuer. Allocations of bunched
trades, particularly trade orders that were only partially filled due to limited
availability, and allocation of investment opportunities generally, could raise
a potential conflict of interest, as Lazard may have an incentive to allocate
securities that are expected to increase in value to preferred accounts. Initial
public offerings, in particular, are frequently of very limited
availability.
Additionally,
Portfolio Managers may be perceived to have a conflict of interest because of
the large number of Similar Accounts, in addition to the Fund, that they are
managing on behalf of Lazard. Although Lazard does not track each individual
Portfolio Manager’s time dedicated to each account, Lazard periodically reviews
each Portfolio Manager’s overall responsibilities to ensure that they are able
to allocate the necessary time and resources to effectively manage the Fund. In
addition, Lazard could be viewed as having a conflict of interest to the extent
that Lazard and/or its Portfolio Managers have a materially larger investment in
a Similar Account than their investment in the Fund.
A
potential conflict of interest may be perceived to arise if transactions in one
account closely follow related transactions in a different account, such as when
a purchase increases the value of securities previously purchased by the other
account, or when a sale in one account lowers the sale price received in a sale
by a second account. Lazard manages hedge funds that are subject to
performance/incentive fees. Certain hedge funds managed by Lazard may also be
permitted to sell securities short. When Lazard engages in short sales of
securities of the type in which the Fund invests, Lazard 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 to fall.
As described above, Lazard has procedures in place to address these conflicts.
Portfolio managers and portfolio management teams are generally not permitted to
manage long-only assets alongside long/short assets, although may from time to
time manage both hedge funds and long-only accounts, including open-end and
closed-end registered investment companies.
Logan
Circle Partners, L.P. (“Logan”). Logan does not foresee any material
conflicts as a result of the concurrent management of the Fund and other
accounts. Logan has implemented policies and procedures designed to prevent and
monitor potential conflict of interests. These policies and procedures are not
limited to the Code of Ethics and Trading procedures.
Massachusetts
Financial Services Co. (“MFS”) The Adviser seeks to identify potential
conflicts of interest resulting from a portfolio manager‘s management of both
the Fund and other accounts, and has adopted policies and procedures designed to
address such potential conflicts. The management of multiple funds
and accounts (including proprietary accounts) gives rise to potential 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 accounts of the Adviser or its subsidiaries with similar investment
objectives. A Fund‘s trade allocation policies may give rise to conflicts of
interest 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 of the
Adviser or its subsidiaries. A portfolio manager may execute transactions for
another fund or account that may adversely impact 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
clients are simultaneously engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security,
the securities are allocated among clients in a manner believed by the Adviser
to be fair and equitable to each. It is recognized that in some cases this
system could have a detrimental effect on the price or volume of the security as
far as the Fund is concerned. In most cases, however, the Adviser believes that
the Fund‘s ability to participate in volume transactions will produce better
executions for the Fund. The Adviser 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.
Morgan
Stanley Investment Management Inc. (“MSIM Inc.”) Because the portfolio
managers may manage assets for other investment companies, pooled investment
vehicles, and/or other accounts (including institutional clients, pension plans
and certain high net worth individuals), there may be an incentive to favor one
client over another resulting in conflicts of interest. For instance, the
Sub-Adviser
may
receive fees from certain accounts that are higher than the fee it receives from
the Fund, or it may receive a performance-based fee on certain accounts. In
those instances, the portfolio managers may have an incentive to favor the
higher and/or performance-based fee accounts over the Fund. In addition, a
conflict of interest could exist to the extent the Sub-Adviser has proprietary
investments in certain accounts, where portfolio managers have personal
investments in certain accounts or when certain accounts are investment options
in the Sub-Adviser’s employee benefits and/or deferred compensation plans. The
portfolio manager may have an incentive to favor these accounts over others. If
the Sub-Adviser manages accounts that engage in short sales of securities of the
type in which the Fund invests, the Sub-Adviser could be seen as harming the
performance of the Fund for the benefit of the accounts engaging in short sales
if the short sales cause the market value of the securities to fall. The
Sub-Adviser has adopted trade allocation and other policies and procedures that
it believes are reasonably designed to address these and other conflicts of
interest.
NISA
Investment Advisors, LLC (“NISA”) NISA provides similar services to
accounts other than the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund. The advice
given and timing of services to the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund
may not necessarily relate to, and may differ from, the advice given and/or
timing of NISA’s services to other accounts. Securities purchased for the
Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund are generally limited to
inflation-indexed securities issued by the U.S. Treasury or other U.S.
Government Agency. NISA
believes that the market for such securities, particularly those held in the
Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund, is sufficiently liquid to
accommodate transactions for the Fund and other accounts managed by NISA with
little market impact.
Opus
Capital Group, LLC (“Opus”) Opus does not foresee any potentially
material conflicts of interest as a result of concurrent management of the Small
Cap Value Fund and other accounts.
Pzena
Investment Management, LLC (“Pzena”) In Pzena’s view, conflicts of
interest may arise in managing the Mid-Cap Value Fund’s portfolio investment, on
the one hand, and the portfolios of Pzena’s other clients and/or accounts
(together “Accounts”), on the other. Set forth below is a brief description of
some of the material conflicts that may arise and Pzena’s policy or procedure
for handling them. Although Pzena has designed such procedures to prevent and
address conflicts, there is no guarantee that such procedures will detect every
situation in which a conflict arises.
The
management of multiple Accounts inherently means there may be competing
interests for the portfolio management team’s time and attention. Pzena seeks to
minimize this by utilizing one investment approach (i.e., classic value
investing), and by managing all Accounts on a product specific basis. Thus, all
mid cap value Accounts, whether they be Fund accounts, institutional accounts or
individual accounts are managed using the same investment discipline, strategy
and proprietary investment model as the Fund.
If the
portfolio management team identifies a limited investment opportunity that may
be suitable for more than one Account, the Fund may not be able to take full
advantage of that opportunity. However, Pzena has adopted procedures for
allocating portfolio transactions across Accounts that are designed to ensure
each Account is treated fairly. First, all orders are allocated among portfolios
of the same or similar mandates at the time of trade creation/ initial order
preparation. Factors affecting allocations include availability of cash to
existence of client imposed trading restrictions or prohibitions, and the tax
status of the account. The only changes to the allocations made at the time of
the creation of the order, are if there is a partial fill for an order.
Depending upon the size of the execution, Pzena may choose to allocate the
executed shares through pro-rata breakdown, or on a random basis. As with all
trade allocations, each Account generally receives pro rata allocations of any
hot issue or IPO security that is appropriate for its investment objective.
Permissible reasons for excluding an account from an otherwise acceptable IPO or
hot issue investment include the account having Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (“FINRA”) restricted person status, lack of available cash to make the
purchase, or a client imposed trading prohibition on IPOs or on the business of
the issuer.
With
respect to securities transactions for the Accounts, Pzena determines which
broker to use to execute each order, consistent with its duty to seek best
execution. Pzena will bunch or aggregate like orders where to do so will be
beneficial to the Accounts. However, with respect to certain Accounts, Pzena 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, Pzena
may place separate, non-simultaneous, transactions for the Fund and another
Account which may temporarily affect the market price of the security or the
execution of the transaction to the detriment of one or the other.
Conflicts
of interest may arise when members of the portfolio management team transact
personally in securities investments made or to be made for the Fund or other
Accounts. To address this, Pzena has adopted a written Code of Business Conduct
and Ethics designed to prevent and detect personal trading activities that may
interfere or conflict with client interests (including Fund shareholders’
interests) or its current investment strategy.
Pzena
manages some Accounts under performance based fee arrangements. Pzena recognizes
that this type of incentive compensation creates the risk for potential
conflicts of interest. This structure may create an inherent pressure to
allocate investments having a greater potential for higher returns to accounts
of those clients paying the higher performance fee. To prevent conflicts of
interest associated with managing accounts with different compensation
structures, Pzena generally requires portfolio decisions to be made on a product
specific basis. Pzena also requires pre-allocation of all client orders based on
specific fee-neutral criteria set forth above. Additionally, Pzena requires
average pricing of all aggregated orders. Finally, Pzena has adopted a policy
prohibiting portfolio managers (and all employees) from placing the investment
interests of one client or a group of clients with the same investment
objectives above the investment interests of any other client or group of
clients with the same or similar investment objectives.
Standish
Mellon Asset Management Company LLC (“Standish”). Portfolio managers at
Standish may manage multiple accounts for a diverse client base, including
mutual funds, separate accounts (assets managed on behalf of institutions such
as pension funds, insurance companies and foundations), bank common trust
accounts and wrap fee programs (“Other Accounts”). Potential conflicts of
interest may arise because of Standish’s management of the Treasury Inflation
Protected Securities Fund and Other Accounts. For example, conflicts of interest
may arise with both the aggregation and allocation of securities transactions
and allocation of limited investment opportunities, as Standish may be perceived
as causing accounts it manages to participate in an offering to increase
Standish’s overall allocation of securities in that offering, or to increase
Standish’s ability to participate in future offerings by the same underwriter or
issuer. Allocations of bunched trades, particularly trade orders that were only
partially filled due to limited availability, and allocation of investment
opportunities generally, could raise a potential conflict of interest, as
Standish may have an incentive to allocate securities that are expected to
increase in value to preferred accounts. Initial public offerings, in
particular, are frequently of very limited availability. Additionally, portfolio
managers may be perceived to have a conflict of interest if there are a large
number of Other Accounts, in addition to the Treasury Inflation Protected
Securities Fund, that they are managing on behalf of Standish. Standish
periodically reviews each portfolio manager’s overall responsibilities to ensure
that he or she is able to allocate the necessary time and resources to
effectively manage the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund. In
addition, Standish could be viewed as having a conflict of interest to the
extent that Standish or its affiliates and/or portfolio managers have a
materially larger investment in Other Accounts than their investment in the
Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund.
Other
Accounts may have investment objectives, strategies and risks that differ from
those of the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund. For these or other
reasons, the portfolio manager may purchase different securities for the
Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund and the Other Accounts, and the
performance of securities purchased for the Treasury Inflation Protected
Securities Fund may vary from the performance of securities purchased for Other
Accounts. The portfolio manager may place transactions on behalf of Other
Accounts that are directly or indirectly contrary to investment
decisions
made for
the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund, which could have the potential
to adversely impact the Fund, depending on market conditions.
A
potential conflict of interest may be perceived to arise if transactions in one
account closely follow related transactions in another account, such as when a
purchase increases the value of securities previously purchased by the other
account, or when a sale in one account lowers the sale price received in a sale
by a second account.
Standish’s
goal is to provide high quality investment services to all of its clients, while
meeting its fiduciary obligation to treat all clients fairly. Standish has
adopted and implemented policies and procedures, including brokerage and trade
allocation policies and procedures that it believes address the conflicts
associated with managing multiple accounts for multiple clients. In addition,
Standish monitors a variety of areas, including compliance with Treasury
Inflation Protected Securities Fund guidelines, the allocation of initial public
offerings, and compliance with Standish’s Code of Ethics. Furthermore, senior
investment and business personnel at Standish periodically review the
performance of the portfolio managers for Standish-managed funds.
Templeton
Investment Counsel, LLC (“Templeton”) The management of multiple funds,
including the International Equity Fund and other accounts may give rise to
potential conflicts of interest if the International Equity Fund and other
accounts have different objectives, benchmarks, time horizons, and fees, as the
Portfolio Manager must allocate his or her time and investment ideas across
multiple funds and accounts. Templeton 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 other accounts managed by a
Portfolio Manager are managed using the same investment strategies that are used
in connection with the management of the International Equity Fund. Accordingly,
portfolio holdings, position sizes, and industry and sector exposures tend to be
similar across similar portfolios, which may minimize the potential for
conflicts of interest. The separate management of the trade execution and
valuation functions from the portfolio management process also helps to reduce
potential conflicts of interest. However, securities selected for funds or
accounts other than the International Equity Fund may outperform the securities
selected for the International Equity Fund. Moreover, if a Portfolio Manager
identifies a limited investment opportunity that may be suitable for more than
one fund or other account, the International Equity Fund may not be able to take
full advantage of that opportunity due to an allocation of that opportunity
across all eligible funds and other accounts. Templeton seeks to manage such
potential conflicts by using procedures intended to provide a fair allocation of
buy and sell opportunities among funds and other accounts.
The
structure of a Portfolio Manager’s compensation may give rise to potential
conflicts of interest. A Portfolio Manager’s base pay and bonus tend to increase
with additional and more complex responsibilities that include increased assets
under management. As such, there may be an indirect relationship between a
Portfolio Manager’s marketing or sales efforts and his or her
bonus.
Finally,
the management of personal accounts by a Portfolio Manager may give rise to
potential conflicts of interest. While Templeton has adopted a code of ethics
which it believes contains provisions reasonably necessary to prevent a wide
range of prohibited activities by Portfolio Managers and others with respect to
their personal trading activities, there can be no assurance that the code of
ethics addresses all individual conduct that could result in conflicts of
interest.
Templeton
has adopted certain compliance procedures that are designed to address these,
and other, types of conflicts. However, there is no guarantee that such
procedures will detect each and every situation where a conflict
arises.
The
Boston Company Asset Management, LLC A conflict of interest is generally
defined as a single person or entity having two or more interests that are
inconsistent. The Boston Company Asset
Management,
LLC (“TBCAM”) has implemented various policies and procedures that are intended
to address the conflicts of interest that may exist or be perceived to exist at
TBCAM.
These
conflicts may include, but are not limited to when a portfolio manager is
responsible for the management of more than one account; the potential arises
for the portfolio manager to favor one account over another. Generally, the risk
of such conflicts of interest could increase if a portfolio manager has a
financial incentive to favor one account over another.
This
disclosure statement is not intended to cover all of the conflicts that exist
within TBCAM, but rather to highlight the general categories of conflicts and
the associated mitigating controls. Other conflicts are addressed within the
policies of TBCAM. Further, the Chief Compliance Officer of TBCAM shall maintain
a Conflicts Matrix that further defines the conflicts specific to
TBCAM.
New
Investment Opportunities — Potential Conflict: A portfolio manager could favor
one account over another in allocating new investment opportunities that have
limited supply, such as initial public offerings and private placements. If, for
example, an initial public offering that was expected to appreciate in value
significantly shortly after the offering was allocated to a single account, that
account may be expected to have better investment performance than other
accounts that did not receive an allocation. TBCAM has policies that require a
portfolio manager to allocate such investment opportunities in an equitable
manner and generally to allocate such investments proportionately among all
accounts with similar investment objectives.
Compensation
— Potential Conflict: A portfolio manager may favor an account if the portfolio
manager’s compensation is tied to the performance of that account rather than
all accounts managed by the portfolio manager. If, for example, the portfolio
manager receives a bonus based upon the performance of certain accounts relative
to a benchmark while other accounts are disregarded for this purpose, the
portfolio manager will have a financial incentive to seek to have the accounts
that determine the bonus achieve the best possible performance to the possible
detriment of other accounts. Similarly, if TBCAM receives a performance-based
advisory fee, the portfolio manager may favor that account, regardless of
whether the performance of that account directly determines the portfolio
manager’s compensation. Portfolio managers’ cash compensation is comprised
primarily of a market-based salary and incentive compensation (annual and long
term retention incentive awards). Funding for the TBCAM Annual Incentive Plan
and Long Term Retention Incentive Plan is through a pre-determined fixed
percentage of overall TBCAM profitability. In general, bonus awards are based
initially on TBCAM’s financial performance. However, awards for select senior
portfolio managers are based initially on their individual investment
performance (one, three, and five-year weighted). In addition, awards for
portfolio managers that manage alternative strategies are partially based on a
portion of the fund’s realized performance fee.
Investment
Objectives — Potential Conflict: Where different accounts managed by the same
portfolio manager have materially and potentially conflicting investment
objectives or strategies, a conflict of interest may arise. For example, if a
portfolio manager purchases a security for one account and sells the same
security short for another account, such a trading pattern could potentially
disadvantage either account. To mitigate the conflict in this scenario TBCAM has
in places a restriction in the order management system and requires a written
explanation from the portfolio manager before determining whether to lift the
restriction. However, where a portfolio manager is responsible for accounts with
differing investment objectives and policies, it is possible that the portfolio
manager will conclude that it is in the best interest of one account to sell a
portfolio security while another account continues to hold or increase the
holding in such security.
Trading —
Potential Conflict: A portfolio manager could favor one account over another in
the allocation of shares or price in a block trade. Particularly in cases when a
portfolio manager buys or sells a security for a group of accounts in an
aggregate amount that may influence the market price of the stock, certain
portfolios could receive a more favorable price on earlier executions than
accounts that
participate
subsequent fills. The less liquid the market for the security or the greater the
percentage that the proposed aggregate purchases or sales represent of average
daily trading volume, the greater the potential for accounts that make
subsequent purchases or sales to receive a less favorable price. When a
portfolio manager intends to trade the same security for more than one account,
TBCAM policy generally requires that such orders be “bunched,” which means that
the trades for the individual accounts are aggregated and each portfolio
receives the same average price. Some accounts may not be eligible for bunching
for contractual reasons (such as directed brokerage arrangements). Circumstances
may also arise where the trader believes that bunching the orders may not result
in the best possible price. Where those accounts or circumstances are involved,
TBCAM will place the order in a manner intended to result in as favorable a
price as possible for such client. To ensure that trades are being allocated in
a fair and equitable manner consistent with our policies, performance dispersion
among portfolios in all of TBCAM’s investment strategies is reviewed on a
monthly basis. While it is not practicable to examine each individual trade
allocation, this performance analysis for strategy-specific portfolio groups
provides a reasonable basis to confirm adherence to policy or to highlight
potential outliers.
Personal
Interest — Potential Conflict: A portfolio manager may favor an account if the
portfolio manager has a beneficial interest in the account, in order to benefit
a large client or to compensate a client that had poor returns. For example, if
the portfolio manager held an interest in a mutual fund that was one of the
accounts managed by the portfolio manager, the portfolio manager would have an
economic incentive to favor the account in which the portfolio manager held an
interest. All accounts with the same or similar investment objectives are part
of a trading group. All accounts in a particular trading group are managed and
traded identically taking into account client imposed restrictions or cash
flows. As a result of this management and trading style an account in a trading
group cannot be treated any differently than any other account in that trading
group.
Outside
Affiliations and Directorship — Potential Conflict: Employees may serve as
directors, officers or general partners of certain outside entities after
obtaining the appropriate approvals in compliance with the Code of Conduct and
BNY Mellon’s Corporate Policy on Outside Directorships and Offices. However, in
view of the potential conflicts of interest and the possible liability for
TBCAM, its affiliates and its employees, employees are urged to be cautious when
considering serving as directors, officers, or general partners of outside
entities. In addition to completing the reporting requirements set forth in the
BNY Mellon corporate policies, employees should ensure that their service as an
outside director, officer or general partner does not interfere with the
discharge of their job responsibilities and must recognize that their primary
obligation is to complete their assigned responsibilities at TBCAM in a timely
manner.
Proxy
Voting — Potential Conflict: Whenever TBCAM owns the securities of client or
prospective client in fiduciary accounts there is a potential conflict between
the interests of the firm and the interests of the beneficiaries of our client
accounts. Material conflicts of interest are addressed through the establishment
of our parent company’s Proxy Committee structure. It applies detailed,
pre-determined proxy voting guidelines in an objective and consistent manner
across client accounts, based on internal and external research and
recommendations provided by a third party vendor, and without consideration of
any client relationship factors. Further, we engage a third party as an
independent fiduciary to vote all proxies for BNY Mellon securities and Fund
securities.
Personal
Trading — Potential Conflict: There is an inherent conflict where a portfolio
manager manages personal accounts alongside client accounts. Further, there is a
conflict where other employees in the firm know of portfolio decisions in
advance of trade execution and could potentially use this information to their
advantage and to the disadvantage of TBCAM’s clients. Subject to the personal
Securities Trading Policy, employees of TBCAM may buy and sell securities which
are recommended to its clients; however, no employee is permitted to do so (a)
where such purchase or sale would affect the market price of such securities, or
(b) in anticipation of the effect of such recommendation on the market price.
Consistent with the Securities Trading Policy relating to Investment Employees
(which includes all Access Persons), approval will be denied for sales/purchases
of securities for which investment
transactions
are pending and, at minimum, for two business days after transactions for the
security were completed for client accounts. Portfolio managers are prohibited
from trading in a security for seven days before and after transactions in that
security are completed for client accounts managed by that Portfolio
Manager.
Client
Commission Arrangements — Potential Conflict: Use of client commissions to pay
for services that benefit TBCAM and not client accounts. It is the policy of
TBCAM to enter into client commission arrangements in a manner which will ensure
the availability of the safe harbor provided by Section 28(e) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and which will ensure that the firm meets its fiduciary
obligations for seeking to obtain best execution for its clients. Client
commissions may be used for services that qualify as “research” or brokerage”.
All 3rd Party Commission services are justified in writing by the user
specifically noting how the service will assist in the investment decision
making process and approved by the Brokerage Practices Committee.
Consultant
Business — Potential Conflict: Many of our clients retain consulting firms to
assist them in selecting investment managers. Some of these consulting firms
provide services to both those who hire investment managers (i.e. clients) and
to investment management firms. TBCAM may pay to attend conferences sponsored by
consulting firms and/or purchase services from consulting firms where it
believes those services will be useful to it in operating its investment
management business. TBCAM does not pay referral fees to
consultants.
Gifts —
Potential Conflict: Where investment personnel are offered gifts or
entertainment by business associates that assist them in making or executing
portfolio decisions or recommendations for client accounts a potential conflict
exists. The Code of Conduct sets forth broad requirements for accepting gifts
and entertainment. TBCAM’s Gift Policy supplements the Code of Conduct and
provides further clarification for TBCAM employees. TBCAM has established a Gift
Policy that supplements the BNY Mellon Code of Conduct and which requires
certain reporting and/or prior approval when accepting gifts and entertainment
valued in excess of predetermined ranges. On a quarterly basis TBCAM Compliance
Personnel review the gifts and entertainment accepted by TBCAM Employees to
ensure compliance with the BNY Mellon Code of Conduct and the TBCAM Gift
Policy.
Affiliated
Brokerage — Potential Conflict: TBCAM is affiliated with certain BNY Mellon
affiliated broker dealers. TBCAM does not execute brokerage transactions
directly with BNY Mellon affiliated brokers. An exception to this prohibition is
where a client has provided affirmative written direction to TBCAM to execute
trades through a BNY Mellon affiliated broker as part of a directed brokerage
arrangement that the client has with such affiliated broker. TBCAM also
maintains Affiliated Brokerage and Underwriting Policy and
Procedures.
The
Renaissance Group LLC (“Renaissance”) Actual or potential conflicts may
arise in managing the Fund since Renaissance manages multiple client accounts. A
brief description of some of the potential conflicts of interest and compliance
factors that may arise as a result is included below. Renaissance does not
believe any of the potential conflicts of interest and compliance factors pose
significant risk to the Fund.
Allocation
of Investment Opportunities: If Renaissance identifies a limited investment
opportunity that may be suitable for multiple client accounts, the Fund may not
be able to take full advantage of that opportunity due to liquidity constraints
and other factors. Renaissance has adopted policies and procedures designed to
ensure that allocations of limited investment opportunities are conducted in a
fair and equitable manner between client accounts.
Although
Renaissance uses the same buy list of securities for all accounts within a
strategy, performance of each account may vary due to differing account
restrictions, tax management, cash flows, inception dates of accounts within a
time period, etc. As a result, the portfolio of securities held in any single
client
account
may perform better or worse than the portfolio of securities held in another
similarly managed client account.
Allocation
of Partially filled Transactions in Securities: Renaissance often aggregates for
execution as a single transaction orders for the purchase or sale of a
particular security for multiple client accounts. If Renaissance is unable to
fill and aggregated order completely, but receives a partial fill, Renaissance
will typically allocate the transactions relating to the partially filled order
to clients on a pro-rata basis. Renaissance may make exceptions from this
general policy from time to time bases on factors such as the availability of
cash, country/regional/sector allocation decisions, investment guidelines and
restrictions, and the costs for minimal allocation actions.
Opposite
(e.g. Contradictory) Transactions in Securities: Renaissance provides investment
advisory services for various clients and under various investment mandates and
may give advice, and take action, with respect to any of those clients and under
various investment mandates and may give advice, and take action, with respect
to any of those clients that may differ from the advice given, or the timing or
nature of action taken, with respect to any individual client
account.
In the
course of providing advisory services, Renaissance may simultaneously recommend
the sale of a particular security for one client account while recommending the
purchase of the same or similar security for another account. This may occur for
a variety of reasons. For example, in order to raise cash to handle a
redemption/withdrawal from a client account, Renaissance is forced to sell a
security that is ranked a buy in our model portfolio.
Renaissance
has and potentially will purchase publicly traded securities of clients, brokers
and vendors. This potential conflict is mitigated by the fact that Renaissance
utilizes quantitative models to select potential securities to purchase and only
considers purchasing securities which fall into the top quintile of its model
portfolio. Securities are sold if they fall out of the top two quintiles of the
model portfolio.
Selection
of Brokers/Dealers: In selecting a broker or a dealer, Renaissance may choose a
broker whose commission rate is in excess of that which another broker might
have charged for the same transaction, based upon Renaissance’s judgment of that
brokers execution capabilities and/or as a result of Renaissance’s perceived
value of the broker’s research services. Renaissance receives third party
research through soft dollar arrangements whereby a broker purchases research
from a third party on Renaissance’s behalf. Renaissance also receives
proprietary research from brokers through commission sharing arrangements and
may receive proprietary research through soft dollar arrangements. Renaissance
generally seeks to achieve best execution through the evaluation of trade
execution, clearance, settlement and research services provided by a broker.
There can be no assurance that objective can always be achieved. Renaissance
does not enter into any agreements formal or otherwise regarding order flow as a
result of research received. Clients should consider there is a potential
conflict of interest between their interests in obtaining best execution and an
investment adviser’s receipt of research from brokers selected by the investment
adviser for trade executions. The proprietary research services that Renaissance
obtains from brokers may be used to service all of Renaissance’s clients and not
just those clients paying commissions to brokers providing those research
services, and not all proprietary research may be used by Renaissance for the
benefit of the one or more client accounts which paid commissions to a broker
providing such research.
Personal
Securities Transactions: Renaissance allows its employees to trade in securities
that it recommends to clients on an exception basis. These exception
transactions may occur at or about the same time that Renaissance is purchasing,
holding or selling the same or similar securities or investment products for
client account portfolios. The actions taken by such persons on a personal basis
may be or be deemed to be, inconsistent with the actions taken by Renaissance
for its client accounts. Clients should understand that these activities might
create a conflict of interest between Renaissance, its access persons and its
clients.
Renaissance
employees may also invest in mutual funds and other commingled vehicles that are
managed by Renaissance. This may result in a potential conflict of interest
since Renaissance employees have a knowledge of such fund’s investment holdings,
which is non-public information.
To
address this, Renaissance has adopted a written Code of Ethics designed to
prevent and detect personal trading activities that may interfere or conflict
with client interests (including shareholder’s interests in the Fund managed by
Renaissance).
Winslow
Capital Management, Inc. (“Winslow”) A portfolio manager who makes
investment decisions with respect to multiple funds and/or other accounts may be
presented with one or more of the following potential conflicts:
The
management of multiple funds and/or accounts may result in the portfolio manager
devoting unequal time and attention to the management of each fund and/or
account;
If a
portfolio manager identifies a limited investment opportunity which may be
suitable for more than one fund or account managed by the portfolio manager, a
fund may not be able to take full advantage of that opportunity due to an
allocation of filled purchase or sale orders across all eligible funds and
accounts managed by the portfolio manager; and
An
apparent conflict may arise where an adviser receives higher fees from certain
funds or accounts that it manages than from others, or where an adviser receives
a performance-based fee from certain funds or accounts that it manages and not
from others. In these cases, there may be an incentive for a portfolio manager
to favor the higher and/or performance-based fee funds or accounts over other
funds or accounts managed by the portfolio manager.
To
address potential conflicts of interest, Winslow Capital has adopted various
policies and procedures to provide for equitable treatment of trading activity
and to ensure that investment opportunities are allocated in a fair and
appropriate manner. In addition, Winslow Capital has adopted a Code of Ethics
that recognizes the manager’s obligation to treat all of its clients, including
the Fund, fairly and equitably. These policies, procedures and the Code of
Ethics are designed to restrict the portfolio manager from favoring one client
over another. There is no guarantee that the policies, procedures and the Code
of Ethics will be successful in every instance, however because Winslow Capital
offers only one investment product: Large Cap Growth, and all accounts are
managed essentially identically, Winslow Capital does not believe any material
conflicts of interest exist between the investment strategy of the Fund and the
investment strategy of the other accounts managed by the portfolio managers, nor
in allocation of investment opportunities.
The
Sub-Adviser has independent oversight of the investment process via compliance
and risk monitoring to prevent taking undue risk.
Compensation
The
Portfolio Managers are compensated in various forms by their respective
investment advisor. Following is a description provided by each investment
advisor regarding the structure of and criteria for determining the compensation
of each Portfolio Manager.
The
Manager Compensation of the Manager’s Portfolio Managers is comprised of
base salary and annual cash bonus. Each Portfolio Manager’s base annual salary
is fixed. The Manager determines base salary based upon comparison to industry
salary data. In addition, all Portfolio Managers participate in the Manager’s
annual cash bonus plan. The amount of the total bonus pool is based upon several
factors including (i) profitability of the Manager, (ii) organic growth of
assets under management and (iii) the relative investment performance of the
assets managed by the Manager. The investment performance
goals are
as follows: (a) seventy-five percent (75%) of Actively Managed Variable Rate
Funds exceed the median performance of their respective Lipper universe over a
five year period; (b) twenty-five percent (25%) of Actively Managed Variable
Rate Funds are ranked in the top quartile of their respective Lipper universe
over a five year period; and (c) thirty-three percent (33%) of Actively Managed
Variable Rate Funds achieve an overall Morningstar rating of 4-star or better.
Each Portfolio Manager has a target bonus award expressed as a percentage of
base salary, which is determined by the Portfolio Manager’s level of
responsibility. Additionally, the Portfolio Managers participate in the
Manager’s Equity Option Plan.
Barrow
In addition to base salary, all portfolio managers and analysts share in a bonus
pool that is distributed semi-annually. Analysts and portfolio managers are
rated on their value added to the team-oriented investment process. Overall
compensation applies with respect to all accounts managed and compensation does
not differ with respect to distinct accounts managed by a portfolio manager.
Compensation is not tied to a published or private benchmark. It is important to
understand that contributions to the overall investment process may include not
recommending securities in an analyst’s sector if there are no compelling
opportunities in the industries covered by that analyst.
The
compensation of portfolio managers is not directly tied to fund performance or
growth in assets for any fund or other account managed by a portfolio manager
and portfolio managers are not compensated for bringing in new business. Of
course, growth in assets from the appreciation of existing assets and/or growth
in new assets will increase revenues and profit. The consistent, long-term
growth in assets at any investment firm is to a great extent, dependent upon the
success of the portfolio management team. The compensation of the portfolio
management team at the Adviser will increase over time, if and when assets
continue to grow through competitive performance. Lastly, many of our key
investment personnel have a long-term incentive compensation plan in the form of
an equity interest in Barrow, Hanley, Mewhinney & Strauss, LLC.
Brandes- The firm’s
compensation structure for portfolio managers/analysts is
four-fold:
· |
Competitive
base salaries |
· |
Participation
in an annual bonus plan |
· |
Participation
in profit sharing plan |
· |
Eligibility
for participation in the firm’s equity through partnership or phantom
equity |
Compensation
is fixed. Participation in the annual bonus plan is linked to a number of
qualitative and quantitative evaluation criteria. The criteria include
research productivity, performance of portfolio management professionals, and
the attainment of client service goals. Compensation is not based on
the performance of a fund or other accounts
Brandywine
Global All Portfolio Managers receive a competitive base salary. In
addition, from the firm’s profits, a bonus is paid quarterly and based on the
pre-tax performance of their investment strategies relative to a relevant
Russell-Mellon peer-group universe over one-quarter, one-, three- and five-year
time periods. After this performance-based incentive compensation is allocated,
profits associated with individual product groups are allocated as follows: a
majority is retained within the product group and the remainder is allocated to
a pool shared by all product groups. More subjective measurements of an
individual’s contributions to the success of their product group and to the
overall success of the firm are considered as part of the individual allocation
decision. Finally, all investment professionals are eligible for options on Legg
Mason stock, provided from time-to-time at Legg Mason’s discretion to its
investment management subsidiaries. Brandywine Global believes this system
achieves its goals of retaining top-quality investment professionals, as it
provides extremely competitive compensation with entrepreneurial potential, and
of fostering excellent performance, growth and teamwork.
Calamos
As of October 31, 2009, Team Leaders John P. Calamos, Sr., Nick P. Calamos and
John P. Calamos, Jr. receive all of their compensation from Calamos Advisors.
Each has entered into an employment agreement that provides for compensation in
the form of an annual base salary and a target bonus, both components payable in
cash. Their target bonus is set at a percentage of the respective base salary,
ranging from 300% to 600%, with a maximum annual bonus opportunity of 150% of
the target bonus, on a pre-tax basis. For example, the target bonus for a Team
Leader who earns $500,000 would range from $1,500,000 to $3,000,000 and the Team
Leader’s maximum annual bonus opportunity would range from $2,250,000 to
$5,000,000. Also, due to the ownership and executive management positions with
Calamos Asset Management, Inc., additional multiple corporate objectives are
utilized to determine the target bonus for John P. Calamos, Sr., Nick P. Calamos
and John P. Calamos, Jr. For 2009, the additional corporate objectives were
distribution effectiveness, as measured by redemption rates and sales growth;
investment performance, as measured by risk-adjusted performance of the
investment strategies managed by Calamos Advisors over a blended short and
long-term measurement period (current quarter, 1, 3 and 5 year returns); income
growth, as measured by operating margin and return on invested capital and the
corporate investment portfolio; management evaluation, based upon several
factors including the execution of strategic initiatives; and stockholder return
relative to the Merrill Lynch All U.S. Convertibles Index and industry peer
group.
As of
October 31, 2009, Jeff Scudieri, Jon Vacko, John Hillenbrand, Steve Klouda,
Bryan Lloyd, Dino Dussias, Chris Hartman and Joe Wysocki receive all of their
compensation from Calamos Advisors. They each receive compensation in the form
of an annual base salary, a discretionary bonus (payable in cash) and long-term
incentive awards. Each of these associates has a bonus range opportunity which
is expressed as a percentage of base salary. Each of these associates is also
eligible for discretionary long-term incentive awards, however these awards are
not guaranteed from year to year. Long-term incentive awards consist of
restricted stock units or a combination of restricted stock units and stock
options.
Causeway
Causeway provides subadvisory services to a segment of the International Equity
Fund (the “Fund Segment”). Ms. Ketterer and Mr. Hartford, the Chief Executive
Officer and President of Causeway, respectively, and portfolio managers of the
Fund Segment, receive annual salary and are entitled, as controlling owners of
Causeway, to certain distributions of Causeway’s net profit based on their
ownership interests. They do not receive incentive compensation. Messrs. Doyle,
Eng and Durkin, also portfolio managers of the Fund Segment, receive salary,
incentive compensation and distributions of firm net profit based on their
ownership interests.
Incentive
compensation is paid in the discretion of Causeway’s Operating Committee, led by
Ms. Ketterer and Mr. Hartford, weighing a variety of objective and subjective
factors. No specific formula is used and incentive compensation is not based on
the specific performance of any single client account managed by Causeway. The
following factors are among those considered in determining incentive
compensation for Messrs. Doyle, Eng and Durkin: individual research
contribution, portfolio management contribution, group research contribution and
client service contribution.
CB
Richard Ellis Global Real Estate Securities, LLC. The Sub-Adviser’s
Co-Chief Investment Officers are remunerated with a fixed base salary and a
significant interest in the Sub-Adviser. Such persons, senior management and
senior investment staff of the Sub-Adviser hold a significant interest in the
company and, as such, a significant portion of their compensation is tied to the
profits of the company.
Aside
from the Co-Chief Investment Officers, the investment staff is remunerated with
a base salary, a bonus and, in some cases, a material profits interest in the
Sub-Adviser. The bonus is set as a target at the beginning of the year, usually
at approximately 20% of the base salary. The bonus is tied to the investment
staff member’s ability to achieve his or her pre-specified responsibilities
during the course of the year. The bonus is not tied to the performance of the
Fund. The profits interest in the Sub-Adviser is granted by senior management
and entitles the employee to a share in the profits of the
Sub-Adviser.
The
profits interest typically vests over a three year period. As a result, the
Sub-Adviser believes that its investment team has a very strong bond to the
Sub-Adviser for the long term.
Dreman
Dreman has implemented a highly competitive compensation plan, which seeks to
attract and retain exceptional Portfolio Managers who have demonstrated that
they can consistently outperform the Small Cap Value Fund’s benchmark. The
compensation plan is comprised of both a fixed component and a variable
component. The variable component is determined by assessing the Portfolio
Manager’s performance measured utilizing both quantitative and qualitative
factors.
Dreman’s
Portfolio Managers are each paid a fixed base salary that is determined based on
their job function and responsibilities. The base salary is deemed to be
competitive with the marketplace and specifically with salaries in the financial
services industry by utilizing various salary surveys compiled for the financial
services industry, specifically investment advisory firms. The variable
component of Dreman’s compensation plan which takes the form of a cash bonus
combined with employee retention bonus units payable over time is designed to
reward and retain investment professionals including Portfolio Managers and
research analysts for their contributions to the Small Cap Value Fund’s
performance relative to its benchmark, the Russell 2000® Value
Index.
Portfolio
Managers may receive equity in the form of units or fractional units of
membership interest in the firm or they may receive employee retention bonus
units , which enable them to participate in the growth of the firm. Portfolio
Managers also participate in the firm’s profit sharing plan, a defined
contribution plan that allows the firm to contribute up to twenty-five percent
of an employee’s total compensation, subject to various regulatory limitations,
to each employee’s profit sharing account. Dreman maintains both a qualified and
non-qualified profit sharing plan which benefits employees of the firm including
both portfolio managers and research analysts. Contributions to Dreman’s profit
sharing plan vest over a specified term. Finally, all employees of the firm,
including investment professionals, receive additional fringe benefits in the
form of subsidized medical and dental and group-term and life insurance
coverage.
The basis
for determining the variable component of a Portfolio Manager’s total
compensation is determined through a subjective process that evaluates
performance against several quantitative and qualitative factors including the
following:
Quantitative
factors:
|
(i) |
Relative
ranking of the portfolio’s performance against its peers in the one, three
and five year pre-tax investment performance categories. The portfolio’s
performance is evaluated against peers in its fund category and
performance is ranked from one to four on a declining scale depending on
the quartile in which the Portfolio Manager’s absolute performance falls.
The Portfolio Manager is rewarded on a graduated scale for outperforming
relative to his peers. |
|
(ii) |
Relative
performance of the portfolio against the pre-determined indices for the
product strategy against which the portfolio’s performance is measured.
The Portfolio Manager is rewarded on a graduated scale for outperforming
relative to the portfolio’s benchmark
index. |
|
(iii) |
Performance
of the portfolio measured through attribution analysis models, which
analyze the Portfolio Manager’s contribution from both an asset allocation
or sector allocation perspective and security selection perspective. This
factor evaluates how the Portfolio Manager performs in linking performance
with the client’s investment objective including investment parameters and
risk and return objectives. This factor may include some qualitative
characteristics. |
Qualitative
factors:
|
(i) |
Ability
to work well with other members of the investment professional team and
mentor junior members, |
|
(ii) |
Contributions
to the organizational overall success with new product strategies,
and |
|
(iii) |
Other
factors such as contributing to the team in a leadership role and by being
responsive to requests for
assistance. |
Franklin
The manager seeks to maintain a compensation program that is competitively
positioned to attract, retain and motivate top-quality investment professionals.
Portfolio managers receive a base salary, a cash incentive bonus opportunity, an
equity compensation opportunity, and a benefits package. Portfolio manager
compensation is reviewed annually and the level of compensation is based on
individual performance, the salary range for a portfolio manager’s level of
responsibility and Franklin Templeton guidelines. Portfolio managers are
provided no financial incentive to favor one fund or account over another. Each
portfolio manager’s compensation consists of the following three
elements:
Base
salary: Each portfolio manager is paid a base salary.
Annual
bonus: Annual bonuses are structured to align the interests of the portfolio
manager with those of the Fund’s shareholders. Each portfolio manager is
eligible to receive an annual bonus. Bonuses generally are split between cash
(50% to 65%) and restricted shares of Franklin Resources stock (17.5% to 25%)
and Franklin Templeton mutual fund shares (17.5% to 25%). The deferred
equity-based compensation is intended to build a vested interest of the
portfolio manager in the financial performance of both Franklin Resources and
mutual funds advised by the manager. The bonus plan is intended to provide a
competitive level of annual bonus compensation that is tied to the portfolio
manager achieving consistently strong investment performance, which aligns the
financial incentives of the portfolio manager and Fund shareholders. The Chief
Investment Officer of the manager and/or other officers of the manager, with
responsibility for the Fund, have discretion in the granting of annual bonuses
to portfolio managers in accordance with Franklin Templeton guidelines. The
following factors are generally used in determining bonuses under the
plan:
|
● |
Investment
performance. Primary consideration is given to the historic investment
performance of all accounts managed by the portfolio manager over the 1, 3
and 5 preceding years measured against risk benchmarks developed by the
fixed income management team. The pre-tax performance of each fund managed
is measured relative to a relevant peer group and/or applicable benchmark
as appropriate. |
|
● |
Non-investment
performance. The more qualitative contributions of the portfolio manager
to the manager’s business and the investment management team, including
business knowledge, productivity, customer service, creativity, and
contribution to team goals, are evaluated in determining the amount of any
bonus award. |
|
● |
Responsibilities.
The characteristics and complexity of funds managed by the portfolio
manager are factored in the manager’s
appraisal. |
Additional
long-term equity-based compensation Portfolio managers may also be awarded
restricted shares or units of Franklin Resources stock or restricted shares or
units of one or more Franklin Templeton mutual funds, and options to purchase
common shares of Franklin Resources stock. Awards of such deferred equity-based
compensation typically vest over time, so as to create incentives to retain key
talent.
Portfolio
managers also participate in benefit plans and programs available generally to
all employees of the manager.
Hotchkis
The investment team, including portfolio managers, is compensated in various
forms, which may include a base salary, an annual bonus, and equity ownership.
Compensation is used to reward, attract and retain high quality investment
professionals. The investment team is evaluated and accountable at three levels.
The first level is individual contribution to the research and decision-making
process, including the quality of work achieved. The second level is teamwork,
generally evaluated through contribution within sector teams. The third level
pertains to overall portfolio and form performance.
Salaries
and bonuses for investment professionals are determined by the Chief Executive
Officer of the Advisor using tools which may include annual evaluations,
compensation surveys, feedback from other employees and advice from members of
the firm’s Executive and Compensation Committees. The amount of the bonus is
determined by the total amount of the firm’s bonus pool available for the year,
which is generally a function of revenues. No investment professional receives a
bonus that is a pre-determined percentage of revenues or net income.
Compensation is thus subjective rather than formulaic.
The
majority of the portfolio managers own equity in the Advisor. The Advisor
believes that the employee ownership structure of the firm will be a significant
factor in ensuring a motivated and stable employee base going forward. The
Advisor believes that the combination of competitive compensation levels and
equity ownership provides the Advisor with a demonstrable advantage in the
retention and motivation of employees. Portfolio managers who own equity in the
Advisor receive their pro rata share of the Advisor’s profits. Investment
professionals may also receive contributions under the Advisor’s profit
sharing/401 (k) plan.
Finally,
the Advisor maintains a bank of unallocated equity to be used for those
individuals whose contributions to the firm grow over time. If any owner should
retire or leave the firm, the Advisor has the right to repurchase their
ownership to place back in the equity bank. This should provide for smooth
succession through the gradual rotation of the firm’s ownership from one
generation to the next.
The
Advisor believes that its compensation structure/levels are more attractive than
the industry norm, which is illustrated by the firm’s lower-than-industry-norm
investment personnel turnover.
Lazard
Lazard compensates the Portfolio Managers by a competitive salary and bonus
structure, which is determined both quantitatively and qualitatively. Salary and
bonus are paid in cash. Portfolio Managers are compensated on the performance of
the aggregate group of portfolios managed by them rather than for a specific
fund or account. Various factors are considered in the determination of a
Portfolio Manager’s compensation. All of the portfolios managed by a Portfolio
Manager are comprehensively evaluated to determine his or her positive and
consistent performance contribution over time. Further factors include the
amount of assets in the portfolios as well as qualitative aspects that reinforce
Lazard’s investment philosophy such as leadership, teamwork and
commitment.
Total
compensation is not fixed, but rather is based on the following factors: (i)
maintenance of current knowledge and opinions on companies owned in the
portfolio; (ii) generation and development of new investment ideas, including
the quality of security analysis and identification of appreciation catalysts;
(iii) ability and willingness to develop and share ideas on a team basis; and
(iv) the performance results of the portfolios managed by the investment
team.
Variable
bonus is based on the Portfolio Manager’s quantitative performance as measured
by his or her ability to make investment decisions that contribute to the
pre-tax absolute and relative returns of the accounts managed by them, by
comparison of each account to a predetermined benchmark (as set forth in the
prospectus) over the current fiscal year and the longer-term performance (3-, 5-
or 10-year, if applicable) of such account, as well as performance of the
account relative to peers. In addition, the
Portfolio
Manager’s bonus can be influenced by subjective measurement of the manager’s
ability to help others make investment decisions. The benchmark for the
International Equity Fund is the Morgan Stanley Capital International Europe
Australasia Far East Index.
The
Lazard Asset Management LLC (Lazard) Equity Plan, whereby certain employees of
Lazard retained an equity interest in Lazard, was terminated during the third
quarter of 2008. Lazard Ltd. acquired the equity interests held by Lazard
employees in exchange for cash and stock in Lazard Ltd. With the termination of
the Lazard Equity Plan, Lazard is owned by Lazard Freres & Co.
LLC.
Logan
The portfolio manager and other investment professionals at Logan are
compensated through a combination of base salary, bonus, and equity ownership.
Logan’s Board of Managers fixes salary & bonus at the time of hiring and
generally adjusts these every two years based upon an evaluation of the
employee’s duties and job performance. This evaluation includes a determination
of an individual’s contribution to the firm, of which investment performance is
a key component. There is no formula to evaluate performance and compensation is
not tied to a published or private benchmark. Logan has awarded equity in the
firm to all founding employees, including Timothy L. Rabe. Additional equity
awards are made to employees based upon individual employee performance and
contribution to the firm. After five full years of service at Logan, all equity
awarded vests.
MFS Portfolio manager
total cash compensation is a combination of base salary and performance
bonus:
Base Salary – Base salary
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 based on the pre-tax performance of assets managed by the portfolio manager
over one-, three-, and five-year periods relative to peer group universes and/or
indices (―benchmarks).
MSIM
Inc. Portfolio managers receive a combination of base compensation and
discretionary compensation, comprising a cash bonus and several deferred
compensation programs described below. The methodology used to determine
portfolio manager compensation is applied across all funds/accounts managed by
the Portfolio Managers.
Base Salary Compensation:
Generally, Portfolio Managers receive base salary compensation based on
the level of their position with the Sub-Adviser.
Discretionary Compensation:
In addition to base compensation, portfolio managers may receive
discretionary compensation.
Discretionary
compensation can include:
|
|
Morgan
Stanley’s Long Term Incentive Compensation awards — a mandatory program
that defers a portion of discretionary year-end compensation into
restricted stock units or other awards based on Morgan Stanley common
stock or other investments that are subject to vesting and other
conditions. |
|
|
Investment
Management Alignment Plan (IMAP) awards — a mandatory program that defers
a portion of discretionary year-end compensation and notionally invests it
in designated funds |
advised
by the Sub-Adviser or its affiliates. The award is subject to vesting and other
conditions. Portfolio managers must notionally invest a minimum of 25% to a
maximum of 100% of the IMAP deferral into a combination of the designated funds
they manage that are included in the IMAP fund menu, which may or may not
include the Fund. For 2008 awards, a clawback provision was implemented that
could be triggered if the individual engages in conduct detrimental to the
Investment Adviser or its affiliates. For 2009 awards, this provision was
further strengthened to allow the Firm to clawback compensation if the Firm
realizes losses on certain trading positions, investments or
holdings.
|
|
Voluntary
Deferred Compensation Plans — voluntary programs that permit certain
employees to elect to defer a portion of their discretionary year-end
compensation and notionally invest the deferred amount across a range of
designated investment funds, including funds advised by the Sub-Adviser or
its affiliates. |
Several
factors determine discretionary compensation, which can vary by portfolio
management team and circumstances. In order of relative importance, these
factors include:
|
|
Investment
performance. A Portfolio Manager’s compensation is linked to the pre-tax
investment performance of the funds/accounts managed by the portfolio
manager. Investment performance is calculated for one-, three-, five- and
ten-year periods measured against a fund’s/account’s primary benchmark (as
set forth in the fund’s prospectus), indices and/or peer groups where
applicable. Generally, the greatest weight is placed on the three- and
five-year periods. |
|
|
Revenues
generated by the investment companies, pooled investment vehicles and
other accounts managed by the portfolio
manager. |
|
|
Contribution
to the business objectives of the
Sub-Adviser. |
|
|
The
dollar amount of assets managed by the portfolio
manager. |
|
|
Market
compensation survey research by independent third
parties. |
|
|
Other
qualitative factors, such as contributions to client
objectives. |
|
|
Performance
of Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley Investment Management, and the
overall performance of the investment teams of which the portfolio manager
is a member. |
NISA
The salary and bonus for the Portfolio Managers is determined based on
individual job performance, as well as the overall financial success of NISA.
Similar compensation arrangements also apply to other senior professionals in
other product and business areas of NISA. Many senior personnel, including the
Portfolio Managers, have deferred compensation arrangements through a “Phantom
Stock Ownership Plan.” Phantom Stock awards are granted periodically at the
discretion of the Chairman and the President of NISA.
Opus
Opus compensates the Portfolio Managers with a combination of salary and annual
bonus. Salaries are fixed and based on merit and market rates/conditions; annual
bonuses are based on merit and Opus’s overall profitability. Ownership of Opus
is available to all employees based on their contribution to the firm. The
Portfolio Managers have equity ownership in Opus. Portfolio Managers salaries
are not measured by performance.
Pzena
Portfolio Managers and other investment professionals at Pzena are compensated
through a combination of base salary, performance bonus and equity ownership, if
appropriate due to superior performance. Pzena avoids a compensation model that
is driven by individual security performance, as
this can
lead to short-term thinking which is contrary to the firm’s value investment
philosophy. Ultimately, equity ownership is the primary tool used by Pzena for
attracting and retaining the best people. The equity ownership in Pzena as of
December 31, 2009 of each Portfolio Manager to the Mid-Cap Value Fund was as
follows:
Richard
S. Pzena |
Greater
than 25% but less than 50% |
John
P. Goetz |
Greater
than 10% but less than 25% |
Manoj
Tandon |
Less
than 5% |
Standish
The portfolio managers’ cash compensation is comprised primarily of a
market-based salary and an incentive compensation plan (annual and long term
incentive). Funding for Standish’s annual incentive plan and long term incentive
plan is through a pre-determined fixed percentage of overall company
performance. Therefore, all bonus awards are based initially on Standish’s
performance. The investment professionals are eligible to receive annual cash
bonus awards from the incentive compensation plan. Annual awards are granted in
March, for the prior calendar year. Individual awards for portfolio managers are
discretionary, based on product performance relative to both benchmarks and peer
comparisons and goals established at the beginning of each calendar year. Goals
are to a substantial degree based on investment performance, including
performance for one and three year periods. The benchmark against which the
Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund’s performance is measured is the
Barclays Capital U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Index. Also
considered in determining individual awards are team participation and general
contributions to Standish.
All
portfolio managers are also eligible to participate in the Standish long term
incentive plan. This plan provides for an annual award, payable in deferred cash
that cliff vests after 3 years, with an interest rate equal to the average year
over year earnings growth of Standish (capped at 20% per year). Management has
discretion with respect to actual participation.
Portfolio
managers whose compensation exceeds certain levels may elect to defer portions
of their base salaries and/or incentive compensation pursuant to The Bank of New
York Mellon’s elective deferred compensation plan.
Templeton
The manager seeks to maintain a compensation program that is competitively
positioned to attract, retain and motivate top-quality investment professionals.
Portfolio managers receive a base salary, a cash incentive bonus opportunity, an
equity compensation opportunity, and a benefits package. Portfolio manager
compensation is reviewed annually and the level of compensation is based on
individual performance, the salary range for a portfolio manager’s level of
responsibility and Franklin Templeton guidelines. Portfolio managers are
provided no financial incentive to favor one fund or account over another. Each
portfolio manager’s compensation consists of the following three
elements:
Base
salary: Each portfolio manager is paid a base salary.
Annual
bonus: Annual bonuses are structured to align the interests of the portfolio
manager with those of the Fund’s shareholders. Each portfolio manager is
eligible to receive an annual bonus. Bonuses generally are split between cash
(50% to 65%) and restricted shares of Franklin Resources stock (17.5% to 25%)
and Franklin Templeton mutual fund shares (17.5% to 25%). The deferred
equity-based compensation is intended to build a vested interest of the
portfolio manager in the financial performance of both Franklin Resources and
mutual funds advised by the manager. The bonus plan is intended to provide a
competitive level of annual bonus compensation that is tied to the portfolio
manager achieving consistently strong investment performance, which aligns the
financial incentives of the portfolio manager and Fund shareholders. The Chief
Investment Officer of the manager and/or other officers of the manager, with
responsibility for the Fund, have discretion in the granting of annual bonuses
to portfolio managers in accordance with Franklin Templeton guidelines. The
following factors are generally used in determining bonuses under the
plan:
|
|
Investment performance.
Primary consideration is given to the historic investment
performance over the 1, 3 and 5 preceding years of all accounts managed by
the portfolio manager. The pre-tax performance of each fund managed is
measured relative to a relevant peer group and/or applicable benchmark as
appropriate. |
|
|
Research. Where the
portfolio management team also has research responsibilities, each
portfolio manager is evaluated on the number and performance of
recommendations over time, productivity and quality of recommendations,
and peer evaluation. |
|
|
Non-investment performance.
For senior portfolio managers, there is a qualitative evaluation
based on leadership and the mentoring of
staff. |
TBCAM
With the exception of the most senior portfolio managers in the firm (described
separately below), the portfolio managers’ cash compensation is comprised
primarily of a market-based salary and incentive compensation, including both
annual and long-term retention incentive awards. Portfolio managers are eligible
to receive annual cash bonus awards from the Annual Incentive Plan, and annual
incentive opportunities are pre-established for each individual based upon
competitive industry compensation benchmarks. The Lipper peer groups for the
Small Cap Value Fund, International Equity Fund and Emerging Markets Fund are
the Lipper Small-Cap Value Funds Index, the Lipper International Funds Index and
the Lipper Emerging Markets Funds Index, respectively. Actual individual awards
are determined based on The Boston Company’s financial performance, individual
investment performance, individual contribution and other qualitative
factors.
Select
senior portfolio managers participate in a more formal structured compensation
plan. This plan is designed to compensate our top investment professionals for
superior investment performance and business results. It is a two stage model:
an opportunity range is determined based on level of current business (AUM,
revenue) and an assessment of long term business value (growth, retention,
development). A significant portion of the opportunity awarded is structured and
based upon the one-year, three-year, and five-year (three-year and five-year
weighted more heavily) pre-tax performance of the portfolio manager’s accounts
relative to the performance of the appropriate peer groups. Other factors
considered in determining the award are individual qualitative performance based
on seven discretionary factors (e.g. leadership, teamwork, etc.), and the asset
size and revenue growth or retention of the products managed. In addition,
awards for portfolio managers that manage alternative strategies are partially
based on a portion of the fund’s realized performance fee.
For
research analysts and other investment professionals, incentive pools are
distributed to the respective product teams (in the aggregate) based upon
product performance relative to firm-wide performance measured on the same basis
as described above. Further allocations are made to specific team members by the
product portfolio manager based upon sector contribution and other qualitative
factors.
All
portfolio managers and analysts are also eligible to participate in The Boston
Company Asset Management Long Term Retention Incentive Plan. This plan provides
for an annual award, payable in cash and/or Bank of New York Mellon restricted
stock (three-year cliff vesting period for both). The value of the cash portion
of the award earns interest during the vesting period based upon the growth in
The Boston Company’s net income (capped at 20% and with a minimum payout of the
Bank of New York Mellon 3-year CD rate).
Incentive
compensation awards are generally subject to management discretion and pool
funding availability. Funding for The Boston Company Annual Incentive Plan and
Long Term Retention Incentive Plan is through a pre-determined fixed percentage
of overall Boston Company profitability. Awards are paid in cash on an annual
basis. However, some portfolio managers may receive a portion of their annual
incentive award in deferred vehicles.
Renaissance
The Managing Partners of Renaissance are compensated through two distinct
variable, incentive compensation mechanisms. The first is tied to their
ownership in the firm. All partners receive dividend distributions which are
allocated to the partners pro rata based upon their respective ownership. The
level of dividends is set as a fixed percentage of revenues. The second
compensation mechanism is through the sharing of residual profits of the Firm.
The Managing Partners split between the two of them all residual profits. The
residual profits of the Firm are equal to its revenues less all dividend
distributions, compensation and other operating expenses.
Winslow
In an effort to retain key personnel, Winslow has structured compensation
plans for portfolio managers and other key personnel that it believes are
competitive with other investment management firms. The compensation plan is
determined by the Winslow Capital Operating Committee and is designed to align
manager compensation with investors’ goals by rewarding portfolio managers who
meet the long-term objective of consistent, superior investment results,
measured by the performance of the product. Effective December 26, 2008, upon
the acquisition of Winslow by Nuveen Investments, Inc., the portfolio managers
have long-term employment agreements with multi-year
non-competition/non-solicitation clauses.
The
Operating Committee establishes fixed salaries at competitive levels, verified
through industry surveys, to attract and maintain the best professional and
administrative personnel. Portfolio manager compensation packages are
independent of advisory fees collected on any given client account under
management. In addition, an incentive bonus is paid annually to the employees
based upon each individual’s performance, client results and the profitability
of the firm.
Ownership of
Funds
Certain
Portfolio Managers beneficially owned shares of one or more Funds as of the end
of each Fund’s most recent fiscal year, unless otherwise indicated A Portfolio
Manager’s beneficial ownership of a Fund is defined as the Portfolio Manager
having the opportunity to share in any profit from transactions in the Fund,
either directly or indirectly, as the result of any contract, understanding,
arrangement, relationship or otherwise. Therefore, ownership of Fund shares by
members of the Portfolio Manager’s immediate family or by a trust of which the
Portfolio Manager is a trustee could be considered ownership by the Portfolio
Manager. The reporting of Fund share ownership in this SAI shall not be
construed as an admission that the Portfolio Manager has any direct or indirect
beneficial ownership in the Fund listed. The tables below set forth each
Portfolio Manager’s beneficial ownership of the Fund(s) under that Portfolio
Manager’s management as provided by each investment advisor. Ownership
information for the Global Real Estate Fund is as of April 30, 2010 because the
Global Real Estate Fund did not commence operations until March 1, 2010. In the
following tables, “N/A” indicates that the Portfolio Manager does not have
responsibility for that Fund.
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
Portfolio
Manager |
Balanced
Fund |
Retirement
Income and
Appreciation
Fund |
Intermediate
Bond
Fund |
Short-Term
Bond
Fund |
Global
Real
Estate
Fund |
Wyatt
Crumpler |
None |
None |
$10,001-$50,000 |
None |
None |
Michael
W. Fields |
N/A |
None |
None |
None |
N/A |
Gyeong
Kim |
N/A |
None |
$10,001-$50,000 |
$1-$10,000 |
N/A |
Adriana
R. Posada |
$10,001-$50,000 |
N/A |
$10,001-$50,000 |
N/A |
N/A |
William
F. Quinn |
$100,001-$500,000 |
$100,001-$500,000 |
>$1,000,000 |
$100,001-$500,000 |
None |
Patrick
A. Sporl |
N/A |
None |
None |
None |
N/A |
Cynthia
Thatcher |
N/A |
None |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Name
of
Investment
Advisor
and
Portfolio
Manager |
Emerging
Markets
Fund |
High
Yield
Bond
|
Int’l
Equity
|
Large
Cap
Value
|
Mid-Cap
Value
|
Small
Cap
Value
|
TIPS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kirk
L. Brown |
$100,001-$500,000 |
$10,001-$50,000 |
$100,001-$500,000 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
None |
|
Wyatt
Crumpler |
$10,001-$50,000 |
None |
$100,001-$500,000 |
$100,001-$500,000 |
$10,001-$50,000 |
$10,001-$50,000 |
None |
|
Adriana
R.
Posada |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$100,001-$500,000 |
$10,001-$50,000 |
$50,001-$100,000 |
N/A |
|
William
F.
Quinn |
>$1,000,000 |
>$1,000,000 |
>$1,000,000 |
>$1,000,000 |
$100,001-$500,000 |
$500,001-$1,000,000 |
$50,001-$100,000 |
|
|
Name
of Investment Advisor
and
Portfolio
Manager |
Large
Cap Growth
Fund |
|
Wyatt
Crumpler |
$50,001-$100,000 |
|
William
F. Quinn |
None |
|
Cynthia
Thatcher |
$1-$10,001 |
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
Portfolio
Manager |
Balanced
Fund |
Intermediate
Bond
Fund |
Large
Cap Value
|
Mid-Cap
Value
|
Small
Cap Value
|
Barrow,
Hanley, Mewhinney &
Strauss,
LLC |
|
|
|
|
|
James
P. Barrow |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
Mark
Giambrone |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
James
S. McClure |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
John
P. Harloe |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
John
S. Williams |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
David
H. Hardin |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
J.
Scott McDonald |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
Mark
C. Luchsinger |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
Deborah
A. Petruzzelli |
None |
None |
None |
None |
None |
|
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
Portfolio
Manager |
Emerging
Markets Fund |
|
Brandes
Investment Partners, L.P. (as of December 28, 2010) |
|
|
Alphonse
Chan |
None |
|
Douglas
Edman |
None |
|
Christopher
Garrett |
None |
|
Louis
Lau |
None |
|
Steven
Leonard |
None |
|
Greg
Rippel |
None |
|
Gerardo
Zamorano |
None |
|
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
Portfolio
Manager |
Balanced
Fund |
Large
Cap Value
Fund |
Small
Cap Value
Fund |
|
|
Brandywine
Global Investment Management, LLC |
|
|
|
|
|
Henry
F. Otto |
N/A |
N/A |
Over
$1,000,000 |
|
|
Steven
M. Tonkovich |
N/A |
N/A |
$100,001-$500,000 |
|
|
Paul
R. Lesutis |
None |
None |
N/A |
|
|
Earl
J. Gaskins |
None |
None |
N/A |
|
|
Stephen
S. Smith |
None |
None |
N/A |
|
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
Portfolio
Manager |
Global
Real Estate
Fund |
CB
Richard Ellis Global Real Estate Securities LLC |
|
Jeremy
Anagnos |
None |
Steve
Carroll |
None |
William
Morrill |
None |
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
Portfolio
Manager |
Retirement
Income and
Appreciation
Fund |
Calamos
Advisors LLC |
|
John
P. Calamos, Sr. |
None |
Nick
P. Calamos |
None |
John
P. Calamos Jr. |
None |
John
Hillenbrand |
None |
Steve
Klouda |
None |
Jeff
Scudieri |
None |
Jon
Vacko |
None |
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
|
Int’l
Equity
Fund |
Causeway
Capital Management LLC |
|
Sarah
H. Ketterer |
None |
Harry
W. Hartford |
None |
James
A. Doyle |
None |
Jonathan
Eng |
None |
Kevin
Durkin |
None |
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
|
Small
Cap
Value
Fund |
Dreman
Value Management, LLC |
|
David
N. Dreman |
None |
E.
Clifton Hoover, Jr. |
None |
Mark
Roach |
None |
Name
of Investment
Manager
and
|
High
Yield
Bond
Fund |
Franklin
Advisers, Inc. |
|
Eric
Takaha |
None |
Chris
Molumphy |
None |
Glenn
Voyles |
None |
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
Portfolio
Manager |
Balanced
Fund |
Large
Cap
|
Small
Cap
Value
Fund |
Hotchkis
and Wiley Capital Management, LLC |
|
George
Davis |
None |
None |
N/A |
Patricia
McKenna |
None |
None |
N/A |
Sheldon
Lieberman |
None |
None |
N/A |
Stan
Majcher |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
David
Green |
N/A |
N/A |
None |
Jim
Miles |
N/A |
N/A |
None |
Judd
Peters |
None |
None |
N/A |
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and |
Int’l
Equity |
|
|
Lazard
Asset Management LLC |
|
Michael
A. Bennett |
None |
John
R. Reinsberg |
None |
Michael
Powers |
None |
Michael
G. Fry |
None |
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
|
High
Yield Bond
|
Logan
Circle Partners, L.P. |
|
Timothy
L. Rabe |
None |
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
Portfolio
Manager |
Large
Cap Value
Fund |
|
Massachusetts
Financial Services Co. (as of November 22, 2010) |
Steven
Gorham |
None |
|
Nevin
Chitkara |
None |
|
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
|
Emerging
Markets
|
Morgan
Stanley Investment Management Inc. |
|
Ruchir
Sharma |
None |
Paul
Psaila |
None |
James
Cheng |
None |
Eric
Carlson |
None |
William
Scott Piper |
None |
Ana
Cristina Piedrahita |
None |
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
|
Treasury
Inflation
Protected
Securities
Fund |
NISA
Investment Advisors, LLC |
|
Jess
Yawitz |
None |
William
Marshall |
None |
Anthony
Pope |
None |
Ken
Lester |
None |
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
|
Small
Cap
|
Opus
Capital Group, LLC |
|
Len
A. Haussler |
$50,001-$100,000 |
Kevin
P. Whelan |
None |
Jonathon
M. Detter |
Less
than $10,000 |
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
|
Mid-Cap
Value
|
Pzena
Investment Management, LLC |
|
Richard
S. Pzena |
None |
John
P. Goetz |
None |
Manoj
Tandon |
None |
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
|
Treasury
Inflation
Protected
Securities
|
Standish
Mellon Asset Management Company LLC |
|
Robert
Bayston |
None |
Patrick
Lyn |
None |
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
|
High
Yield Bond
|
Templeton
Investment Counsel, LLC |
|
Gary
Motyl |
$500,001-$1,000,000 |
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
Portfolio
Manager |
Emerging
Markets
|
International
Equity
|
Small
Cap
|
The
Boston Company Asset Management, LLC |
|
|
|
Kirk
Henry |
None |
None |
N/A |
Clifford
A. Smith |
N/A |
None |
N/A |
Warren
Skillman |
None |
N/A |
N/A |
Carolyn
M. Kedarsha |
None |
N/A |
N/A |
Joseph
M. Corrado |
N/A |
N/A |
None |
Stephanie
K. Brandeleone |
N/A |
N/A |
None |
Edward
R. Walter |
N/A |
N/A |
None |
Name
of Investment Advisor
and Portfolio
Manager |
Large
Cap
|
The
Renaissance Group LLC |
|
Michael
Schroer |
None |
Name
of Investment
Advisor
and
|
Large
Cap
Growth
Fund |
Winslow
Capital Management, Inc. |
|
Clark
J. Winslow |
None |
Justin
H. Kelly |
None |
R.
Bart Wear |
None |
In
selecting brokers or dealers to execute particular transactions, the Manager and
the Sub-Advisors are authorized to consider “brokerage and research services”
(as those terms are defined in Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934), provision of statistical quotations (including the quotations necessary
to determine a Fund’s net asset value), and other information provided to the
applicable Fund, to the Manager and/or to the Sub-Advisors (or their
affiliates), provided, however, that the Manager or the Sub-Advisor determines
that it has received best execution. The Trusts do not allow the Manager or
Sub-Advisors to enter arrangements to direct transactions to broker-dealers as
compensation for the promotion or sale of Trust shares by those broker-dealers.
The Manager and the Sub-Advisors are also authorized to cause a Fund to pay a
commission (as defined in SEC interpretations) to a broker or dealer who
provides such brokerage and research services for executing a portfolio
transaction which is in excess of the amount of the commission another broker or
dealer would have charged for effecting that transaction. The Trustees, the
Manager or the Sub-Advisors, as appropriate, must determine in good faith,
however, that such commission was reasonable in relation to the value of the
brokerage and research services provided, viewed in terms of that particular
transaction or in terms of all the accounts over which the Manager or the
Sub-Advisor exercises investment discretion. The fees of the Sub-Advisors are
not reduced by reason of receipt of such brokerage and research services.
However, with disclosure to and pursuant to written guidelines approved by the
Board,
as
applicable, the Manager, or the Sub-Advisors (or a broker-dealer affiliated with
them) may execute portfolio transactions and receive usual and customary
brokerage commissions (within the meaning of Rule 17e-1 under the 1940 Act) for
doing so. Brokerage and research services obtained with Fund commissions might
be used by the Manager and/or the Sub-Advisors, as applicable, to benefit their
other accounts under management.
All
Funds
The
Manager and each Sub-Advisor will place its own orders to execute securities
transactions that are designed to implement the applicable Fund’s investment
objective and policies. In placing such orders, each Sub-Advisor will seek best
execution. The full range and quality of services offered by the executing
broker or dealer will be considered when making these determinations. Pursuant
to written guidelines approved by the Board, a Sub-Advisor of a Fund, or its
affiliated broker-dealer, may execute portfolio transactions and receive usual
and customary brokerage commissions (within the meaning of Rule 17e-1 of the
1940 Act) for doing so. A Fund’s turnover rate, or the frequency of portfolio
transactions, will vary from year to year depending on market conditions and the
Fund’s cash flows. High portfolio activity increases a Fund’s transaction costs,
including brokerage commissions, and may result in a greater number of taxable
transactions.
The
Investment Advisory Agreements provide, in substance, that in executing
portfolio transactions and selecting brokers or dealers, the principal objective
of each Sub-Advisor is to seek the best net price and execution available. It is
expected that securities ordinarily will be purchased in the primary markets,
and that in assessing the best execution available, each Sub-Advisor shall
consider all factors it deems relevant, including 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. Transactions with
respect to the securities of small and emerging growth companies in which the
Funds may invest may involve specialized services on the part of the broker or
dealer and thereby may entail higher commissions or spreads than would be the
case with transactions involving more widely traded securities.
The Funds
may establish brokerage commission recapture arrangements with certain brokers
or dealers. If a Sub-Advisor chooses to execute a transaction through a
participating broker, the broker rebates a portion of the commission back to the
Fund. Any collateral benefit received through participation in the commission
recapture program is directed exclusively to the Funds. Neither the Manager nor
any of the sub-advisors receive any benefits from the commission recapture
program. A Sub-Advisor’s participation in the brokerage commission recapture
program is optional. Each Sub-Advisor retains full discretion in selecting
brokerage firms for securities transactions and is instructed to use the
commission recapture program for a transaction only if it is consistent with the
Sub-Advisor’s obligation to seek the best execution available. For the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2009, the following Funds received the amounts shown as a
result of participation in the commission recapture program:
Fund |
Amount
Received
(in
thousands) |
Balanced |
$ 8 |
International
Equity |
$ 68 |
Large
Cap Growth |
$ 6 |
Large
Cap Value |
$ 218 |
Mid-Cap
Value |
$ 21 |
Small
Cap Value |
$ 278 |
For the
fiscal years ended October 31, 2007, 2008 and 2009, the following brokerage
commissions were paid by the Funds. Fluctuations in brokerage commissions from
year to year were primarily due to increases or decreases in Fund assets.
Shareholders of these Funds bear only their pro-rata portion of such
expenses.
Fund |
|
2007 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
Balanced |
|
$ |
150,180 |
|
|
$ |
278,918 |
|
|
$ |
317,432 |
|
Emerging
Markets |
|
$ |
485,654 |
|
|
$ |
738,315 |
|
|
$ |
291,660 |
|
Retirement
Income and Appreciation |
|
$ |
6,538 |
|
|
$ |
7,730 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
International
Equity |
|
$ |
2,219,221 |
|
|
$ |
2,306,309 |
|
|
$ |
1,301,088 |
|
Large
Cap Growth |
|
$ |
23,684 |
|
|
$ |
29,090 |
|
|
$ |
69,042 |
|
Large
Cap Value |
|
$ |
3,333,302 |
|
|
$ |
5,184,540 |
|
|
$ |
3,660,143 |
|
Mid-Cap
Value |
|
$ |
82,734 |
|
|
$ |
122,218 |
|
|
$ |
104,236 |
|
Small
Cap Value |
|
$ |
2,345,939 |
|
|
$ |
4,561,526 |
|
|
$ |
3,605,373 |
|
For the
fiscal years ended December 31, 2007, 2008 and 2009, the following brokerage
commissions were paid by the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund and
the Global Real Estate Fund, which have a December 31 fiscal year end.
Fluctuations in brokerage commissions from year to year were primarily due to
increases or decreases in Fund assets. Shareholders of these Funds bear only
their pro-rata portion of such expenses.
Fund |
|
2007 |
|
2008 |
|
2009 |
Treasury
Inflation Protected Securities |
$0 |
|
$0 |
|
$0 |
Global
Real Estate (1) |
N/A |
|
N/A |
|
N/A |
__________
(1) |
The
Global Real Estate Fund commenced operations on March 1, 2010.
Accordingly, no brokerage commissions were paid by the Fund during the
previous three fiscal years. |
For the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2009, the Funds directed $1,109,387,066 in
transactions to brokers in part because of research services provided and paid
$1,789,218 in commissions on such transactions. For the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009, the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund directed $0
in transactions to brokers in part because of research services provided and
paid $0 in commissions on such transactions.
During
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2007, the following commissions were paid to
affiliated brokers:
Fund |
|
Broker |
|
Affiliated
With |
|
Commission |
Large
Cap Growth |
Goldman,
Sachs & Co. |
Goldman
Sachs Asset
Management,
L.P. |
$ |
1,020 |
|
Emerging
Markets |
JM
Morgan Stanley Secs. Ltd |
Morgan
Stanley Investment
Management
Inc |
$ |
326 |
|
The
percentages of total commissions of the Large Cap Growth Fund and the Emerging
Markets Fund paid to affiliated brokers in 2007 were 4.13% and 0.07%,
respectively. The transactions represented 0.61% of the Large Cap Growth Fund
and 0.05% of the Emerging Markets Fund’s total dollar value of portfolio
transactions for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2007.
During
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2008, the following commissions were paid to
affiliated brokers:
Fund |
|
Broker |
|
Affiliated
With |
|
Commission |
Large
Cap Growth |
Goldman,
Sachs & Co. |
Goldman
Sachs Asset
Management,
L.P. |
$ |
576 |
|
Emerging
Markets |
JM
Morgan Stanley Secs. Ltd |
Morgan
Stanley Investment
Company |
$ |
1,777 |
|
International
Equity |
Pershing |
The
Boston Company Asset
Management |
$ |
1,171 |
|
Small
Cap Value |
Pershing |
The
Boston Company Asset
Management |
$ |
12,095 |
|
The
percentages of total commissions of the Large Cap Growth Fund, the Emerging
Markets Fund, the International Equity Fund, and the Small Cap Value Fund paid
to affiliated brokers in fiscal year 2008 were 1.98%, 0.24%, 0.05%, and 0.27%,
respectively. The transactions represented 0.19% of the Large Cap Growth Fund,
1.32% of the Emerging Markets Fund, 0.03% of the International Equity Fund, and
0.23% of the Small Cap Value Fund’s total dollar value of portfolio transactions
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2008.
During
the fiscal year ended October 31, 2009, the following commissions were paid to
affiliated brokers:
Portfolio |
Broker |
Affiliated
With |
Commission |
Emerging
Markets |
Morgan
Stanley HK |
Morgan
Stanley Investment
Management
Inc. |
$ 14,316 |
|
International
Equity |
Pershing |
The
Boston Company Asset
Management |
$ 2,420 |
|
Small
Cap Value |
Pershing |
The
Boston Company Asset
Management |
$ 36,667 |
|
Large
Cap Growth |
Goldman,
Sachs & Co. |
Goldman
Sachs Asset Management,
L.P. |
$ 628 |
|
The
percentages of total commissions of the Emerging Markets Fund, the International
Equity Fund, the Small Cap Value Fund, and the Large Cap Growth Fund paid to
affiliated brokers in fiscal year 2009 were 4.91%, 0.19%, 1.02%, and 0.91%,
respectively. The transactions represented 1.46% of the Emerging Markets Fund,
0.32% of the International Equity Fund, 1.80% of the Small Cap Value Fund, and
7.92% of the Large Cap Growth Fund’s total dollar value of portfolio
transactions for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2009.
The
following table lists each Fund that as of the end of its fiscal year held
securities issued by a broker-dealer (or by its parent) through which the Fund
regularly executes transactions.
Regular
Broker-Dealers |
|
Fund |
|
Aggregate
Value
of
Securities |
|
Bank
of America Corp. |
|
Balanced |
|
$ |
16,768,000 |
|
|
|
Retirement
Income and Appreciation |
|
$ |
1,618,000 |
|
|
|
Intermediate
Bond |
|
$ |
1,894,000 |
|
|
|
Large
Cap Value |
|
$ |
145,769,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bank
of New York Mellon |
|
Balanced |
|
$ |
818,000 |
|
|
|
Large
Cap Value |
|
$ |
17,000 |
|
|
|
Retirement
Income and Appreciation |
|
$ |
379,000 |
|
|
|
Intermediate
Bond |
|
$ |
423,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bear
Stearns Cos., Inc. |
|
Balanced |
|
$ |
996,000 |
|
|
|
Intermediate
Bond |
|
$ |
970,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citigroup,
Inc. |
|
Balanced |
|
$ |
6,576,000 |
|
|
|
Retirement
Income and Appreciation |
|
$ |
1,321,000 |
|
|
|
Intermediate
Bond |
|
$ |
2,364,000 |
|
|
|
Large
Cap Value |
|
$ |
17,339,000 |
|
|
|
Short
Term Bond |
|
$ |
1,924,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit
Suisse Group |
|
International
Equity |
|
$ |
7,259,000 |
|
|
|
Short
Term Bond |
|
$ |
2,135,000 |
|
|
|
Balanced |
|
$ |
1,059,000 |
|
|
|
Retirement
Income and Appreciation |
|
$ |
1,879,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regular
Broker-Dealers |
|
Fund |
|
Aggregate
Value
of
Securities |
|
Deutsche
Bank |
|
Balanced |
|
$ |
331,000 |
|
|
|
Intermediate
Bond |
|
$ |
407,000 |
|
|
|
Retirement
Income and Appreciation |
|
$ |
280,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc. |
|
Retirement
Income and Appreciation |
|
$ |
1,270,000 |
|
|
|
Large
Cap Growth |
|
$ |
1,302,000 |
|
|
|
Intermediate
Bond |
|
$ |
1,996,000 |
|
|
|
Short
Term Bond |
|
$ |
2,101,000 |
|
|
|
Balanced |
|
$ |
3,228,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment
Technology Group, Inc. |
|
Small
Cap Value |
|
$ |
10,171,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JP
Morgan Chase & Co. |
|
Balanced |
|
$ |
17,474,000 |
|
|
|
Retirement
Income and Appreciation |
|
$ |
1,725,000 |
|
|
|
Intermediate
Bond |
|
$ |
2,177,000 |
|
|
|
High
Yield Bond |
|
$ |
503,000 |
|
|
|
Large
Cap Value |
|
$ |
204,067,000 |
|
|
|
Short
Term Bond |
|
$ |
2,116,000 |
|
|
|
Large
Cap Growth |
|
$ |
957,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lehman
Brothers Inc. |
|
High
Yield Bond |
|
$ |
142,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc. |
|
Balanced |
|
$ |
1,638,000 |
|
|
|
Retirement
Income and Appreciation |
|
$ |
260,000 |
|
|
|
Intermediate
Bond |
|
$ |
1,647,000 |
|
|
|
Large
Cap Value |
|
$ |
42,421,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter & Co. |
|
Intermediate
Bond |
|
$ |
816,000 |
|
|
|
Large
Cap Value |
|
$ |
28,735,000 |
|
|
|
Balanced |
|
$ |
3,034,000 |
|
|
|
Short
Term Bond |
|
$ |
2,073,000 |
|
|
|
Retirement
Income and Appreciation |
|
$ |
566,000 |
|
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION REGARDING C CLASS SHARES
Additional Information
Regarding the CDSC
As
discussed in the prospectus, the redemption of C Class shares may be subject to
a contingent deferred sales charge (“CDSC”) if you redeem your shares within 12
months of purchase. In determining whether the CDSC is payable, it is assumed
that shares not subject to the CDSC are the first redeemed followed by other
shares held for the longest period of time. The CDSC will not be imposed upon
shares representing reinvested dividends or capital gains distributions, or upon
amounts representing share appreciation. As described in the Prospectus, there
are various circumstances under which the CDSC will be waived. Additional
information about CDSC waivers is provided below.
The CDSC
is waived under the following circumstances:
|
● |
Any
partial or complete redemption following death or disability (as defined
in the Code) of a shareholder (including one who owns the shares with his
or her spouse as a joint tenant with
rights |
|
|
of
survivorship) from an account in which the deceased or disabled is named.
The Manager or the Fund’s transfer agent may require documentation prior
to waiver of the charge, including death certificates, physicians’
certificates, etc. |
|
|
Redemptions
from a systematic withdrawal plan. If the systematic withdrawal plan is
based on a fixed dollar amount or number of shares, systematic withdrawal
redemptions are limited to no more than 10% of your account value or
number of shares per year, as of the date the Manager or the Fund’s
transfer agent receives your request. If the systematic withdrawal plan is
based on a fixed percentage of your account value, each redemption is
limited to an amount that would not exceed 10% of your annual account
value at the time of withdrawal. |
|
|
Redemptions
from retirement plans qualified under Section 401 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986. The CDSC will be waived for benefit payments made by
American Beacon Funds directly to plan participants. Benefit payments will
include, but are not limited to, payments resulting from death,
disability, retirement, separation from service, required minimum
distributions (as described under Section 401(a)(9) of the Code),
in-service distributions, hardships, loans and qualified domestic
relations orders. The CDSC waiver will not apply in the event of
termination of the plan or transfer of the plan to another financial
institution. |
|
|
Redemptions
that are mandatory withdrawals from a traditional IRA account after age
70½. |
|
|
Involuntary
redemptions as a result of your account not meeting the minimum balance
requirements, the termination and liquidation of the Fund, or other
actions by the Fund. |
|
|
Distributions
from accounts for which the broker-dealer of record has entered into a
special agreement with the Distributor (or Manager) allowing this
waiver. |
|
|
To
return excess contributions made to a retirement
plan. |
|
|
To
return contributions made due to a mistake of
fact. |
Example
The
following example illustrates the operation of the CDSC. Assume that you open an
account and purchase 1,000 shares at $10 per share and that six months later the
NAV per share is $12 and,
during
such time, you have acquired 50 additional shares through reinvestment of
distributions. If at such time you should redeem 450 shares (proceeds of
$5,400), 50 shares will not be subject to the charge because of dividend
reinvestment. With respect to the remaining 400 shares, the charge is applied
only to the original cost of $10 per share and not to the increase in NAV of $2
per share. Therefore, $4,000 of the $5,400 redemption proceeds will pay the
charge. At the rate of 1.00%, the CDSC would be $40 for redemptions of C Class
shares. In determining whether an amount is available for redemption without
incurring a deferred sales charge, the purchase payments made for all shares in
your account are aggregated.
Although
each Fund intends to redeem shares in cash, each reserves the right to pay the
redemption price in whole or in part by a distribution of securities or other
assets. However, shareholders always will be entitled to redeem shares for cash
up to the lesser of $250,000 or 1% of the Fund’s net asset value during any
90-day period. Redemption in kind is not as liquid as a cash redemption. In
addition, to the extent a Fund redeems its shares in this manner; the
shareholder assumes the risk of a subsequent change in the market value of those
securities, the cost of liquidating the securities and the possibility of a lack
of a liquid market for those securities.
The tax
information set forth in the Prospectus and the information in this section
relates solely to federal income tax law and assumes that each Fund qualifies as
a regulated investment company (“RIC”) (as discussed below). Such information is
only a summary of certain key Federal income tax considerations affecting the
Funds and their shareholders and is in addition to the information provided in
the Prospectus. No attempt has been made to present a complete explanation of
the Federal tax treatment of each Fund or the tax implications to their
shareholders. The discussions here and in the Prospectus are not intended as
substitutes for careful tax planning. . The information is based on the Internal
Revenue Code and applicable regulations in effect on the date of this Statement
of Additional Information. Future legislative, regulatory or administrative
changes or court decisions may significantly change the tax rules applicable to
the Fund and its shareholders. Any of these changes or court decisions may have
a retroactive effect.
Taxation of the
Funds
Each Fund
intends to elect and qualify each year for treatment as a regulated investment
company (“RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code.
|
|
Derive
at least 90% of its gross income each taxable year from (1) dividends,
interest, payments with respect to securities loans and gains from the
sale or other disposition of securities or (in the case of the
International Equity and Emerging Markets Funds) foreign currencies, or
certain other income, including gains from options, futures or forward
contracts, derived with respect to its business of investing in securities
or those currencies and (2) net income from an interest in a “qualified
publicly traded partnership” (“QPTP”) (“Income
Requirement”); |
|
|
Diversify
its investments so that, at the close of each quarter of its taxable year,
(1) at least 50% of the value of its total assets is represented by cash
and cash items, U.S. Government securities, securities of other RICs, and
other securities, with those other securities limited, in respect of any
one issuer, to an amount that does not exceed 5% of the value of the
Fund’s total assets and that does not represent more than 10% of the
issuer’s outstanding voting securities (equity securities of QPTPs being
considered voting securities for these purposes) and (2) not more than 25%
of the value of its total assets is invested in (a) securities (other than
U.S. Government securities or securities of other RICs) of any one issuer,
(b) securities (other than securities of other RICs) of two or more
issuers the Fund controls that are determined to
be |
engaged
in the same, similar or related trades or businesses, or (c) securities of one
or more QPTPs (“Diversification Requirement”); and
|
|
Distribute
annually to its shareholders at least 90% of the sum of its investment
company taxable income (generally, taxable net investment income plus the
excess (if any) of net short-term capital gain over net long-term capital
loss and, in the case of the International Equity and Emerging Markets
Funds, net gains from certain foreign currency transactions, all
determined without regard to any deduction for dividends paid)
(“Distribution Requirement”). |
Each Fund
will be subject to a nondeductible 4% excise tax (“Excise Tax”) to the extent it
fails to distribute by the end of any calendar year substantially all of its
ordinary (taxable) income for that year and substantially all of its capital
gain net income for the one-year period ending on October 31 of that year, plus
certain other amounts.
See the
part of the next section entitled “Taxation of Certain Investments” for a
discussion of the tax consequences to each Fund of certain investments and
strategies it.
Taxation of Certain
Investments
A Fund
may acquire zero coupon or other securities issued with original issue discount.
Because each Fund annually must distribute substantially all of its investment
company taxable income, including any original issue discount, to satisfy the
Distribution Requirement and avoid imposition of the Excise Tax, a Fund may be
required in a particular year to distribute as a dividend an amount that is
greater than the total amount of cash it actually receives. Those distributions
would be made from the Fund’s cash assets, if any, or the proceeds of sales of
portfolio securities, if necessary. The Fund might realize capital gains or
losses from any such sales, which would increase or decrease the Fund’s
investment company taxable income and/or net capital gain.
If a Fund
acquires stock in a foreign corporation that is a “passive foreign investment
company” (“PFIC”) and holds the stock beyond the end of the year of acquisition,
the Fund will be subject to federal income tax on any “excess distribution” the
Fund receives on the stock or of any gain realized by the Fund from disposition
of the stock (collectively “PFIC income”), plus interest thereon, even if the
Fund distributes that share of the PFIC income as a taxable dividend to its
shareholders. Fund distributions thereof will not be eligible for the 15%
maximum federal income tax rate on individuals’ “qualified dividend income”
mentioned above. A Fund may avoid this tax and interest if it elects to treat
the PFIC as a “qualified electing fund”; however, the requirements for that
election are difficult to satisfy. If such an election were made, the Fund would
be required to include in its income each year a portion of the ordinary income
and net capital gains of the PFIC, even if this income is not distributed to the
Fund. Any such income would be subject to the 90% Distribution Requirement
described above and to the calendar year Excise Tax distribution
requirement.
The Fund
may elect to “mark-to-market” the securities associated with a PFIC. Under such
an election, the Fund would include in income each year an amount equal to the
excess, if any, of the fair market value of the PFIC security as of the close of
the taxable year over the Fund’s adjusted basis in the PFIC stock. The Fund
would be allowed a deduction for the excess, if any, of the adjusted basis of
the PFIC stock over the fair market value of the PFIC stock as of the close of
the taxable year, but only to the extent of any net mark-to-market gains
included by the Fund for prior taxable years. The Fund’s adjusted basis in the
PFIC stock would be adjusted to reflect the amounts included in, or deducted
from, income under this election. Amounts included in income pursuant to this
election, as well as gain realized on the sale or other disposition of the PFIC
security, would be treated as ordinary income. The deductible portion of any
mark-to-market loss, as well as loss realized on the sale or other disposition
of the PFIC stock to the extent that such loss does not exceed the net
mark-to-market gains previously included by the Fund, would be treated as
ordinary loss. The Fund generally would not be subject to the deferred tax
and
interest
charge provisions discussed above with respect to PFIC stock for which a
mark-to-market election has been made.
The Funds
currently do not intend to acquire securities in issuers that are considered
PFICs.
Hedging
strategies, such as entering into forward contracts and selling (writing) and
purchasing options and futures contracts, involve complex rules that will
determine for federal income tax purposes the amount, character and timing of
recognition of gains and losses the Funds that are permitted to invest therein
realize in connection therewith. In general, any Fund’s (1) gains from the
disposition of foreign currencies and (2) gains from options, futures and
forward contracts derived with respect to its business of investing in
securities or foreign currencies will be treated as qualifying income under the
Income Requirement.
Dividends
and interest the International Equity Fund, Emerging Markets Fund and Global
Real Estate Fund receive, and gains they realize, may be subject to income,
withholding or other taxes imposed by foreign countries and U.S. possessions
(collectively, “foreign taxes”) that would reduce the yield and/or total return
on their securities. Tax treaties between certain countries and the United
States may reduce or eliminate foreign taxes, however, and many foreign
countries do not impose taxes on capital gains on investments by foreign
investors.
A Fund
may invest in certain futures contracts (other than “securities futures
contracts,” as defined in section 1234B(c) of the Tax Code) and “nonequity”
options (i.e., certain listed options, such as those on a “broad-based”
securities index), and certain foreign currency options and forward contracts
that will be “section 1256 contracts.” Any section 1256 contracts a Fund holds
at the end of its taxable year generally must be “marked-to-market” (that is,
treated as having been sold at that time for its fair market value) for federal
income tax purposes, with the result that unrealized gains or losses will be
treated as though they were realized. Sixty percent of any net gain or loss
realized on these deemed sales, and 60% of any net realized gain or loss from
any actual sales of section 1256 contracts, will be treated as long-term capital
gain or loss, and the balance will be treated as short-term capital gain or
loss. Section 1256 contracts also may be marked-to-market for purposes of the
Excise Tax. These rules may operate to increase the amount that a Fund must
distribute to satisfy the Distribution Requirement (i.e., with respect to the
portion treated as short-term capital gain), which will be taxable to its
shareholders as ordinary income, and to increase the net capital gain such a
Fund recognizes, without in either case increasing the cash available to it the
Fund.
Section
988 of the Tax Code also may apply to a Fund’s forward currency contracts and
options on foreign currencies. Under that section, each foreign currency gain or
loss generally is computed separately and treated as ordinary income or loss.
These gains or losses will increase or decrease the amount of a Fund’s
investment company taxable income to be distributed to its shareholders as
ordinary income, rather than affecting the amount of its net capital gain. If
section 988 losses exceed other investment company taxable income during a
taxable year, a Fund would not be able to distribute any dividends, and any
distributions made during that year before the losses were realized would be
recharacterized as a return of capital to shareholders, rather than as a
dividend, thereby reducing each shareholder’s basis in his or her Fund
shares.
Offsetting
positions a Fund enters into or holds in any actively traded option, futures or
forward contract may constitute a “straddle” for federal income tax purposes.
Straddles are subject to certain rules that may affect the amount, character and
timing of a Fund’s gains and losses with respect to positions of the straddle by
requiring, among other things, that (1) losses realized on disposition of one
position of a straddle be deferred to the extent of any unrealized gain in an
offsetting position until the latter position is disposed of, (2) a Fund’s
holding period in certain straddle positions not begin until the straddle is
terminated (possibly resulting in gain being treated as short-term rather than
long-term capital gain) and (3) losses recognized with respect to certain
straddle positions, that otherwise would constitute short-term capital losses,
be treated as long-term capital losses. Applicable regulations also provide
certain “wash
sale”
rules, which apply to transactions where a position is sold at a loss and a new
offsetting position is acquired within a prescribed period, and “short sale”
rules applicable to straddles. Different elections are available, which may
mitigate the effects of the straddle rules, particularly with respect to “mixed
straddles” (i.e., a straddle of which at least one, but not all, positions are
section 1256 contracts).
When a
covered call option written (sold) by a Fund expires, it will realize a
short-term capital gain equal to the amount of the premium it received for
writing the option. When a Fund terminates its obligations under such an option
by entering into a closing transaction, it will realize a short-term capital
gain (or loss), depending on whether the cost of the closing transaction is less
(or more) than the premium it received when it wrote the option. When a covered
call option written by a Fund is exercised, it will be treated as having sold
the underlying security, producing long-term or short-term capital gain or loss,
depending on the holding period of the underlying security and whether the sum
of the option price received on the exercise plus the premium received when it
wrote the option is more or less than the underlying security’s
basis.
If a Fund
has an “appreciated financial position” — generally, an interest (including an
interest through an option, futures or forward contract or short sale) with
respect to any stock, debt instrument (other than “straight debt”) or
partnership interest the fair market value of which exceeds its adjusted basis —
and enters into a “constructive sale” of the position, the Fund will be treated
as having made an actual sale thereof, with the result that it will recognize
gain at that time. A constructive sale generally consists of a short sale, an
offsetting notional principal contract or a futures or forward contract a Fund
or a related person enters into with respect to the same or substantially
identical property. In addition, if the appreciated financial position is itself
a short sale or such a contract, acquisition of the underlying property or
substantially identical property will be deemed a constructive sale. The
foregoing will not apply, however, to any Fund transaction during any taxable
year that otherwise would be treated as a constructive sale if the transaction
is closed within 30 days after the end of that year and the Fund holds the
appreciated financial position unhedged for 60 days after that closing (i.e., at
no time during that 60-day period is the Fund’s risk of loss regarding that
position reduced by reason of certain specified transactions with respect to
substantially identical or related property, such as having an option to sell,
being contractually obligated to sell, making a short sale or granting an option
to buy substantially identical stock or securities).
The
Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund invests in inflation-indexed
securities (also known as inflation-protected securities), on which principal is
adjusted based on changes in an inflation index such as the Consumer Price
Index. Net positive adjustments to principal value as a result of an increase in
the index are taxable as ordinary income in the year of the adjustment, rather
than at maturity when the principal is repaid. Net negative adjustments to
principal value as a result of a decrease in the index can be deducted to the
extent of the Fund’s interest income from the security for the current and
previous taxable years, with any excess being carried forward to future taxable
years. The Fund intends to distribute dividends to its shareholders on a
quarterly basis that include both interest income and net income representing
principal adjustments. Net negative principal adjustments near the end of a
taxable year may cause all or a portion of the dividends distributed earlier in
the year to be treated as a return of capital.
Taxation
of the Funds’ Shareholders
Dividends
or other distributions a Fund declares in the last quarter of any calendar year
that are payable to shareholders of record on a date in that quarter will be
deemed to have been paid by the Fund and received by those shareholders on
December 31 of that year if the Fund pays the distributions during the following
January. Accordingly, those distributions will be reported by, and taxed to,
those shareholders for the taxable year in which that December 31
falls.
If Fund
shares are sold at a loss after being held for six months or less, the loss will
be treated as long-term, instead of short-term, capital loss to the extent of
any capital gain distributions received
thereon.
Investors also should be aware that the price of Fund shares at any time may
reflect the amount of a forthcoming dividend or capital gain distribution, so if
they purchase Fund shares shortly before the record date for a distribution,
they will pay full price for the shares and (except for an exempt-interest
dividend) receive some portion of the price back as a taxable distribution even
though it represents in part a return on invested capital.
If more
than 50% of the value of the total assets of the International Equity Fund or
Emerging Markets Fund at the close of its taxable year consists of securities of
foreign corporations, that Fund will be eligible to, and may, file an election
with the IRS that will enable its shareholders, in effect, to receive the
benefit of the foreign tax credit with respect to its share of any foreign and
U.S. possessions income taxes paid by it. If a Fund makes this election, it will
treat those taxes as dividends paid to its shareholders and each shareholder
will be required to (1) include in gross income, and treat as paid by him, his
proportionate share of those taxes, (2) treat his share of those taxes and of
any dividend the Fund pays that represents income from foreign or U.S.
possessions sources as his own income from those sources and (3) either use the
foregoing information in calculating the foreign tax credit against his federal
income tax or, alternatively, deduct the taxes deemed paid by him in computing
his taxable income. If a Fund makes this election, it will report to its
shareholders shortly after each taxable year their respective shares of the
Fund’s income from foreign and U.S. possessions sources and foreign taxes paid.
Pursuant to that election, individuals who have no more than $300 ($600 for
married persons filing jointly) of creditable foreign taxes included on Forms
1099 and all of whose foreign source income is “qualified passive income” may
elect each year to be exempt from the extremely complicated foreign tax credit
limitation and will be able to claim a foreign tax credit without having to file
the detailed Form 1116 that otherwise is required.
The
foregoing is only a summary of some of the important federal tax considerations
affecting the Funds and their shareholders and is not intended as a substitute
for careful tax planning. Accordingly, prospective investors are advised to
consult their own tax advisors for more detailed information regarding the above
and for information regarding federal, state, local and foreign
taxes.
Backup
Withholding
A
Fund will be required in certain cases to withhold and remit to the U.S.
Treasury a portion of distributions paid to you, equal to the backup withholding
rate then in effect multiplied by the amount of the distribution, if you: (1)
have failed to provide your correct taxpayer identification number; (2) are
otherwise subject to backup withholding by the IRS for failure to report the
receipt of interest or dividend income properly; or (3) have failed to certify
to the Fund that you are not subject to backup withholding or that you are a
corporation or other “exempt recipient.” A Fund will also be required to
withhold such percentage of the proceeds of redemptions of shares in the first
of these three situations. Backup withholding is not an additional tax; rather
any amounts so withheld may be credited against your federal income tax
liability or refunded.
Foreign
Shareholders
Taxation
of a shareholder who, under the Tax Code, is a nonresident alien individual,
foreign trust or estate, foreign corporation or foreign partnership (“foreign
shareholder”), depends on whether the income from the Fund is “effectively
connected” with a U.S. trade or business carried on by the foreign
shareholder.
If the
income from a Fund is not effectively connected with your U.S. trade or
business, distributions of ordinary income paid to a foreign shareholder will be
subject to U.S. withholding tax at the rate of 30% (or lower treaty rate) upon
the gross amount of the distribution. A foreign shareholder generally would be
exempt from federal income tax on gain realized on the sale of Fund shares and
Fund distributions of net capital gain (other than gain realized on disposition
of U.S. real property interests), unless you are a nonresident alien individual
present in the United States for a period or periods
aggregating
183 days or more during the taxable year (special rules apply in the case of a
shareholder that is a foreign trust or foreign partnership).
Foreign Shareholders of the
Global Real Estate Fund
The
Global Real Estate Fund may invest in equity securities of corporations that
invest in U.S. real property, including U.S. REITs. The sale of a U.S. real
property interest (“USRPI”) by the Global Real Estate Fund or by a U.S. REIT or
U.S. real property holding corporation in which the Global Real Estate Fund
invests may trigger special tax consequences to the Global Real Estate Fund’s
foreign shareholders. The Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980
(“FIRPTA”) makes non-U.S. persons subject to U.S. tax on disposition of a USRPI
as if he or she were a U.S. person. Such gain is sometimes referred to as FIRPTA
gain. The Tax Code provides a look-through rule for distributions of FIRPTA gain
by a RIC, received from a U.S. REIT or another RIC classified as a U.S. real
property holding corporation, or realized by the RIC on the sale of a USRPI
(other than a domestically controlled U.S. REIT or RIC that is classified as a
qualified investment entity) as follows:
|
|
The
RIC is classified as a qualified investment entity. A RIC is classified as
a “qualified investment entity” with respect to a distribution to a non-US
person which is attributable directly or indirectly to a distribution from
a U.S. REIT if, in general, more than 50% of the RIC’s assets consists of
interests in U.S. REITs and U.S. real property holding corporations;
and |
|
|
You
are a foreign shareholder that owns more than 5% of a class of Fund shares
at any time during the one-year period ending on the date of the
distribution. |
|
|
If
these conditions are met, such Fund distributions to you are treated as
gain from the disposition of a USRPI, causing the distributions to be
subject to U.S. withholding tax at a rate of 35%, and requiring that you
file a nonresident U.S. income tax
return. |
|
|
In
addition, even if you do not own more than 5% of a class of Fund shares,
but the Fund is a qualified investment entity, such Fund distributions to
you will be taxable as ordinary dividends (rather than as a capital gain
or short-term capital gain dividend) subject to withholding at 30% or
lower treaty rate. |
These
rules apply to dividends with respect to the Global Real Estate Fund’s taxable
years beginning before January 1, 2010 (sunset date), except that after such
sunset date, Fund distributions from a U.S. REIT (whether or not domestically
controlled) attributable to FIRPTA gain will continue to be subject to the
withholding rules described above provided the Global Real Estate Fund would
otherwise be classified as a qualified investment entity. There can be no
assurance that the Global Real Estate Fund will not be determined to be a
“qualified investment entity.” In addition, Congress may enact legislation
extending the sunset date.
If a
foreign shareholder disposes of Fund shares prior to a distribution from the
disposition of FIRPTA gain and the foreign shareholder later acquires an
identical stock interest, the foreign shareholder may still be required to pay
U.S. tax on such Fund distribution. Under certain circumstances, the sale of
Fund shares could also be considered a sale of a U.S. real property interest and
any resulting gain from such sale may be subject to U.S. tax as income
“effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business.”
If the
income from the Global Real Estate Fund is effectively connected with a foreign
shareholder’s U.S. trade or business, then ordinary income distributions,
capital gain distributions, and any gain realized upon the sale of shares of the
Global Real Estate Fund will be subject to federal income tax at the rates
applicable to U.S. citizens or U.S. corporations.
The tax
consequences to a foreign shareholder entitled to claim the benefits of an
applicable tax treaty may be different from those described herein.
An
individual who, at the time of death, is a foreign shareholder may be subject to
U.S. federal estate tax with respect to Fund shares at the graduated rates
applicable to U.S. citizens and residents, unless a treaty exception
applies.
Special
U.S. tax certification requirements apply to foreign shareholders both to avoid
U.S. backup withholding on distributions that are otherwise exempt from
withholding and to obtain the benefits of any treaty between the United States
and the shareholder’s country of residence. In general, a foreign shareholder
must provide a Form W-8BEN (or other applicable Form W-8) to establish that you
are not a U.S. person, to claim that you are the beneficial owner of the income
and, if applicable, to claim a reduced rate of, or exemption from, withholding
as a resident of a country with which the United States has an income tax
treaty. A Form W-8BEN provided without a U.S. taxpayer identification number
will remain in effect for a period beginning on the date signed and ending on
the last day of the third succeeding calendar year unless an earlier change of
circumstances makes the information on the form incorrect.
The tax
rules of other countries with respect to an investment in the Fund can differ
from the federal income taxation rules described above. These foreign rules are
not discussed herein. Foreign shareholders are urged to consult their own tax
advisors as to the consequences of foreign tax rules with respect to an
investment in the Fund.
Investment in Taxable
Mortgage Pools (Excess Inclusion Income)
The
Global Real Estate Fund may invest in U.S. REITs that hold residual interests in
real estate mortgage investment conduits (“REMICs”) or which are, or have
certain wholly-owned subsidiaries that are, “taxable mortgage pools.” Under a
Notice issued in October 2006 by the IRS, the Tax Code and Treasury regulations
to be issued, a portion of the Fund’s income from a U.S. REIT that is
attributable to the REIT’s residual interest in a REMIC or equity interests in a
taxable mortgage pool (referred to in the Tax Code as an excess inclusion) will
be subject to federal income tax in all events. The excess inclusion income of a
regulated investment company, such as the Fund, will be allocated to
shareholders of the RIC in proportion to the dividends received by such
shareholders, with the same consequences as if the shareholders held the related
REMIC residual interest or, if applicable, taxable mortgage pool directly. In
general, excess inclusion income allocated to shareholders (i) cannot be offset
by net operating losses (subject to a limited exception for certain thrift
institutions), (ii) will constitute unrelated business taxable income to
entities (including a qualified pension plan, an individual retirement account,
a 401(k) plan, a Keogh plan or other tax-exempt entity) subject to tax on
unrelated business income, thereby potentially requiring such an entity that is
allocated excess inclusion income, and otherwise might not be required to file a
tax return, to file a tax return and pay tax on such income, and (iii) in the
case of a foreign stockholder, will not qualify for any reduction in U.S.
federal withholding tax. In addition, if at any time during any taxable year a
“disqualified organization” (as defined in the Tax Code) is a record holder of a
share in a RIC, then the RIC will be subject to a tax equal to that portion of
its excess inclusion income for the taxable year that is allocable to the
disqualified organization, multiplied by the highest federal income tax rate
imposed on corporations. The Notice imposes certain reporting requirements upon
regulated investment companies that have excess inclusion income.
The IRS
has not provided further guidance on how to report and implement these rules.
These rules are potentially applicable to the Global Real Estate Fund in the
event more than fifty percent of the fair market value of its assets consist of
shares in U.S. REITs. Shareholders should talk to their tax advisors about
whether an investment in the Global Real Estate Fund is a suitable investment
given the potential tax consequences of the Fund’s receipt and distribution of
excess inclusion income.
The Trust
is an entity of the type commonly known as a “Massachusetts business trust.”
Under Massachusetts law, shareholders of such a trust may, under certain
circumstances, be held personally liable for its obligations. However, the
Trust’s Declaration of Trust contains an express disclaimer of shareholder
liability for acts or obligations of the Trust and provides for indemnification
and reimbursement of expenses out of Trust property for any shareholder held
personally liable for the obligations of the Trust. The Declaration of Trust
also provides that the Trust may maintain appropriate insurance (for example,
fidelity bonding) for the protection of the Trust, its shareholders, Trustees,
officers, employees and agents to cover possible tort and other liabilities.
Thus, the risk of a shareholder incurring financial loss due to shareholder
liability is limited to circumstances in which both inadequate insurance existed
and the Trust itself was unable to meet its obligations. The Trust has not
engaged in any other business.
The Trust
was originally created to manage money for large institutional investors,
including pension and 401(k) plans for American Airlines, Inc. The AMR Class is
offered to tax-exempt retirement and benefit plans of the Manager, AMR
Corporation and its affiliates. The following individuals (and members of that
individual’s “immediate family”), are eligible for purchasing shares of the
Institutional Class with an initial investment of less than $2 million: (i)
employees of the Manager, (ii) officers and directors of AMR Corporation, (iii)
members of the Trust’s Board of Trustees, (iv) employees of TPG/Pharos, (v)
members of the Manager’s parent’s Board of Directors. The term “immediate
family” refers to one’s spouse, children, grandchildren, grandparents, parents,
parents in law, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters in law, a sibling’s
spouse, a spouse’s sibling, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews; relatives by
virtue of remarriage (step-children, step-parents, etc.) are included. Any
shareholders that the Manager transfers to the Institutional Class upon
termination of the class of shares in which the shareholders were originally
invested is also eligible for purchasing shares of the Institutional Class with
an initial investment of less than $2 million.
The
Investor Class was created to give individuals and other smaller investors an
opportunity to invest in the American Beacon Funds. As a result, shareholders of
the Investor Class benefit from the economies of scale generated by being part
of a larger pool of assets. The Advisor Class was created for individuals and
other smaller investors investing in the Funds through third party
intermediaries. The expense structure of the Advisor Class allows for payments
to these intermediaries for providing shareholder services. The Retirement Class
was created for institutional investors, pension and profit sharing plans. The Y
Class was created to manage money for large institutional investors, including
pension and 401(k) plans. The A class and C Class were created for investors
investing in the funds through their broker-dealers or other financial
intermediaries.
The
Balanced, Emerging Markets, Retirement Income and Appreciation, High Yield Bond,
Intermediate Bond, International Equity, Large Cap Growth, Large Cap Value,
Mid-Cap Value, Short-Term Bond, Small Cap Value, and Treasury Inflation
Protected Securities Funds utilize a multi-manager approach designed to reduce
volatility by diversifying assets over multiple investment management firms.
Each sub-advisor is carefully chosen by the Manager through a rigorous screening
process. The Short-Term Bond Fund and Global Real Estate Fund are managed by a
single manager.
On
February 26, 2010, the Global Real Estate Fund acquired all the assets of the
CNL Global Real Estate Fund, the sole series of The CNL Funds (the “CNL Fund”),
through a reorganization.
The
audited financial statements of the following Funds, including the reports of
the independent registered public accounting firm, Ernst & Young LLP, are
incorporated by reference to the American Beacon Funds’ Annual Report to
Shareholders for the period ended October 31, 2009. Also the
unaudited
financial
statements of the following funds are incorporated by reference to the American
Beacon Funds’ Semi-Annual Report to Shareholders for the period ended April 30,
2010.
Balanced
Fund |
High
Yield Bond Fund |
Large
Cap Value Fund |
Emerging
Markets Fund |
Intermediate
Bond Fund |
Mid-Cap
Value Fund |
Retirement
Income and Appreciation Fund |
International
Equity Fund |
Short-Term
Bond Fund |
High
Yield Bond Fund |
Large
Cap Growth Fund |
Small
Cap Value Fund |
The
audited financial statements of the Treasury Inflation Protected Securities
Fund, including the reports of the independent registered public accounting
firm, Ernst & Young LLP, are incorporated by reference to the American
Beacon Funds’ Annual Report to Shareholders of the Treasury Inflation Protected
Securities Fund for the period ended December 31, 2009.
The
Global Real Estate Fund adopted the financial statements of the CNL Global Real
Estate Fund, its predecessor fund. The audited financial statements of the
Global Real Estate Fund’s predecessor fund, including the report of the
independent registered certified public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, are incorporated by reference to The CNL Funds’ Annual Report to
Shareholders for the period ended December 31, 2009.
This
section provides descriptions of certain strategies used by the Funds, including
strategies to invest in particular securities and corresponding risks of those
strategies. The composition of a Fund’s portfolios and the strategies that a
Fund uses in selecting portfolio securities may vary over time. A Fund is not
required to use all of the investment strategies described below in seeking
their investment objectives. It may use some of the investment strategies only
at some times or it may not use them at all. In the following table, Funds with
an “X” in a particular strategy are more likely to use that strategy than Funds
without an “X” in that strategy.
Asset-Backed
Securities — Asset-backed securities are securities issued by trusts and
special purpose entities that are backed by pools of assets, such as automobile
and credit-card receivables and home equity loans, which pass through the
payments on the underlying obligations to the security holders (less servicing
fees paid to the originator or fees for any credit enhancement). Typically,
loans or accounts receivable paper are transferred from the originator to a
specially created trust, which repackages the trust’s interests as securities
with a minimum denomination and a specific term. The securities are then
privately placed or publicly offered. Examples include certificates for
automobile receivables and so-called plastic bonds, backed by credit card
receivables. The Funds are permitted to invest in asset-backed securities,
subject to the Funds’ rating and quality requirements.
The value
of an asset-backed security is affected by, among other things, changes in the
market’s perception of the asset backing the security, the creditworthiness of
the servicing agent for the loan pool, the originator of the loans and the
financial institution providing any credit enhancement. Payments of principal
and interest passed through to holders of asset-backed securities are frequently
supported by some form of credit enhancement, such as a letter of credit, surety
bond, limited guarantee by another entity or by having a priority to certain of
the borrower’s other assets. The degree of credit enhancement varies, and
generally applies to only a portion of the asset-backed security’s par value.
Value is also affected if any credit enhancement has been
exhausted.
Bank Deposit Notes ––
Bank deposit notes are obligations of a bank, rather than bank holding company
corporate debt. The only structural difference between bank deposit notes and
certificates of deposit is that interest on bank deposit notes is calculated on
a 30/360 basis, as are corporate
notes/bonds.
Similar to certificates of deposit, deposit notes represent bank level
investments and, therefore, are senior to all holding company corporate
debt.
Bankers’ Acceptances
–– Bankers’ acceptances are short-term credit instruments designed to enable
businesses to obtain funds to finance commercial transactions. Generally, an
acceptance is a time draft drawn on a bank by an exporter or an importer to
obtain a stated amount of funds to pay for specific merchandise. The draft is
then “accepted” by a bank that, in effect, unconditionally guarantees to pay the
face value of the instrument on its maturity date. The acceptance may then be
held by the accepting bank as an earning asset or it may be sold in the
secondary market at the going rate of discount for a specific maturity. Although
maturities for acceptances can be as long as 270 days, most acceptances have
maturities of six months or less.
Borrowing Risks ––
The Funds may borrow for temporary purposes. Borrowing may exaggerate changes in
a Fund’s NAV and in its total return. Interest expense and other fees associated
with borrowing may reduce a Fund’s return.
Callable Securities
–– A Fund may invest in fixed-income securities with call features. A call
feature allows the issuer of the security to redeem or call the security prior
to its stated maturity date. In periods of falling interest rates, issuers may
be more likely to call in securities that are paying higher coupon rates than
prevailing interest rates. In the event of a call, the Fund would lose the
income that would have been earned to maturity on that security, and the
proceeds received by the Fund may be invested in securities paying lower coupon
rates. Thus, a Fund’s income could be reduced as a result of a call. In
addition, the market value of a callable security may decrease if it is
perceived by the market as likely to be called, which could have a negative
impact on a Fund’s total return.
Cash Equivalents ––
Cash equivalents include certificates of deposit, bearer deposit notes, bankers’
acceptances, government obligations, commercial paper, short-term corporate debt
securities and repurchase agreements.
Certificates of
Deposit –– Certificates of deposit are issued against funds deposited in
an eligible bank (including its domestic and foreign branches, subsidiaries and
agencies), are for a definite period of time, earn a specified rate of return
and are normally negotiable.
Commercial Paper ––
Commercial paper refers to promissory notes representing an unsecured debt of a
corporation or finance company with a fixed maturity of no more than 270 days. A
variable amount master demand note (which is a type of commercial paper)
represents a direct borrowing arrangement involving periodically fluctuating
rates of interest under a letter agreement between a commercial paper issuer and
an institutional lender pursuant to which the lender may determine to invest
varying amounts.
Convertible
Securities –– Convertible securities include corporate bonds, notes,
preferred stock or other securities that may be converted into or exchanged for
a prescribed amount of common stock of the same or a different issuer within a
particular period of time at a specified price or formula. A convertible
security entitles the holder to receive interest paid or accrued on debt or
dividends paid on preferred stock until the convertible security matures or is
redeemed, converted or exchanged. While no securities investment is without some
risk, investments in convertible securities generally entail less risk than the
issuer’s common stock, although the extent to which such risk is reduced depends
in large measure upon the degree to which the convertible security sells above
its value as a fixed income security. The market value of convertible securities
tends to decline as interest rates increase and, conversely, to increase as
interest rates decline. While convertible securities generally offer lower
interest or dividend yields than non-convertible debt securities of similar
quality, they do enable the investor to benefit from increases in the market
price of the underlying common stock. Holders of convertible securities have a
claim on the assets of the issuer prior to the common stockholders, but may be
subordinated to holders of similar non
convertible
securities of the same issuer. Because of the conversion feature, the Manager
considers some convertible securities to be equity equivalents.
Cover –– Transactions
using forward contracts, futures contracts, options on futures contracts and
written options (“Financial Instruments”) expose a Fund to an obligation to
another party. A Fund will not enter into any such transactions unless it owns
either (1) an offsetting (“covered”) position in securities, currencies, or
other forward contracts, options or futures contracts, or (2) cash, receivables
and liquid assets, with a value, marked-to-market daily, sufficient to cover its
potential obligations to the extent not covered as provided in (1)
above.
Each Fund
will comply with SEC guidelines regarding cover for these instruments and will,
if the guidelines so require, set aside cash, receivables, or liquid assets in a
segregated account with its custodian in the prescribed amount.
Assets
used as cover or held in a segregated account cannot be sold while the position
in the corresponding Financial Instrument is open, unless they are replaced with
other appropriate assets. As a result, the commitment of a large portion of a
Fund’s assets to cover or to segregated accounts could impede portfolio
management or the Fund’s ability to meet redemption requests or other current
obligations.
Debentures ––
Debentures are unsecured debt securities. The holder of a debenture is protected
only by the general creditworthiness of the issuer.
Depositary Receipts ––
American Depositary Receipts (ADRs), European Depositary Receipts (EDRs), Global
Depositary Receipts (GDRs) –– ADRs are depositary receipts for foreign
issuers in registered form traded in U.S. securities markets. EDRs are in bearer
form and traded in European securities markets. GDRs are in bearer form and
traded in both the U.S. and European securities markets. Depositary receipts may
not be denominated in the same currency as the securities into which they may be
converted. Investing in depositary receipts entails substantially the same risks
as direct investment in foreign securities. There is generally less publicly
available information about foreign companies and there may be less governmental
regulation and supervision of foreign stock exchanges, brokers and listed
companies. In addition, such companies may use different accounting and
financial standards (and certain currencies may become unavailable for transfer
from a foreign currency), resulting in a Fund’s possible inability to convert
immediately into U.S. currency proceeds realized upon the sale of portfolio
securities of the affected foreign companies. In addition, a Fund may invest in
unsponsored depositary receipts, the issuers of which are not obligated to
disclose material information about the underlying securities to investors in
the United States. Ownership of unsponsored depositary receipts may not entitle
a Fund to the same benefits and rights as ownership of a sponsored depositary
receipt or the underlying security. Please see “Foreign Securities” below for a
description of the risks associated with investments in foreign
securities.
Derivatives ––
Generally, a derivative is a financial arrangement, the value of which is based
on, or “derived” from, a traditional security, asset or market index. Some
“derivatives” such as mortgage-related and other asset-backed securities are in
many respects like any other investment, although they may be more volatile or
less liquid than more traditional debt securities. There are, in fact, many
different types of derivatives and many different ways to use them. There are a
range of risks associated with those uses. Certain derivative securities are
described more accurately as index/structured securities. Index/structured
securities are derivative securities whose value or performance is linked to
other equity securities (such as depositary receipts), currencies, interest
rates, indices or other financial indicators (reference indices).
Dollar Rolls –– A
dollar roll is a contract to sell mortgage-backed securities as collateral
against a commitment to repurchase similar, but not identical, mortgage-backed
securities on a specified future date. The other party to the contract is
entitled to all principal, interest, and prepayment cash flows while
it
holds the
collateral. Each Fund maintains with its custodian a segregated account
containing high-grade liquid securities in an amount at least equal to the
forward purchase obligation.
Emerging Market Risks
–– The Emerging Markets Fund invests in the securities of issuers domiciled in
various countries with emerging capital markets. Investments in the securities
of issuers domiciled in countries with emerging capital markets involve
significantly higher risks not involved in investments in securities of issuers
in more developed capital markets, such as (i) low or non-existent trading
volume, resulting in a lack of liquidity and increased volatility in prices for
such securities, as compared to securities of comparable issuers in more
developed capital markets, (ii) uncertain national policies and social,
political and economic instability, increasing the potential for expropriation
of assets, confiscatory taxation, high rates of inflation or unfavorable
diplomatic developments, (iii) possible fluctuations in exchange rates,
differing legal systems and the existence or possible imposition of exchange
controls, custodial restrictions or other non-U.S. or U.S. governmental laws or
restrictions applicable to such investments, (iv) national policies that may
limit the Fund’s investment opportunities such as restrictions on investment in
issuers or industries deemed sensitive to national interests, (v) the lack or
relatively early development of legal structures governing private and foreign
investments and private property, and (vi) less diverse or immature economic
structures. In addition to withholding taxes on investment income, some
countries with emerging markets may impose differential capital gain taxes on
foreign investors.
Such
capital markets are emerging in a dynamic political and economic environment
brought about by events over recent years that have reshaped political
boundaries and traditional ideologies. In such a dynamic environment, there can
be no assurance that these capital markets will continue to present viable
investment opportunities for the Fund. In the past, governments of such nations
have expropriated substantial amounts of private property, and most claims of
the property owners have never been fully settled. There is no assurance that
such expropriations will not reoccur. In such event, it is possible that the
Fund could lose the entire value of its investments in the affected
markets.
The
economies of emerging market countries may be based predominately on only a few
industries or may be dependent on revenues from participating commodities or on
international aid or developmental assistance, may be highly vulnerable to
changes in local or global trade conditions, and may suffer from extreme and
volatile debt burdens or inflation rates.
Also,
there may be less publicly available information about issuers in emerging
markets than would be available about issuers in more developed capital markets,
and such issuers may not be subject to accounting, auditing and financial
reporting standards and requirements comparable to those to which U.S. companies
are subject. In certain countries with emerging capital markets, reporting
standards vary widely. As a result, traditional investment measurements used in
the U.S., such as price/earnings ratios, may not be applicable. Emerging market
securities may be substantially less liquid and more volatile than those of
mature markets, and companies may be held by a limited number of persons. This
may adversely affect the timing and pricing of the Fund’s acquisition or
disposal of securities.
Practices
in relation to settlement of securities transactions in emerging markets involve
higher risks than those in developed markets, in part because the Fund will need
to use brokers and counterparties that are less well capitalized, and custody
and registration of assets in some countries may be unreliable.
Eurodollar and Yankeedollar
Obligations –– Eurodollar obligations are U.S. dollar obligations issued
outside the United States by domestic or foreign entities, while Yankeedollar
obligations are U.S. dollar obligations issued inside the United States by
foreign entities. There is generally less publicly available information about
foreign issuers and there may be less governmental regulation and supervision of
foreign stock exchanges, brokers and listed companies. Foreign issuers may use
different accounting and financial standards, and the addition of foreign
governmental restrictions may affect adversely the payment of principal and
interest on foreign investments. In addition, not all foreign
branches of United States banks are supervised or examined by regulatory
authorities as are United States banks, and such branches may not be subject to
reserve requirements.
Exchange-Traded Funds
–– A Fund may purchase shares of exchange-traded funds (ETFs). ETFs trade like a
common stock and usually represent a fixed portfolio of securities designed to
track the performance and dividend yield of a particular domestic or foreign
market index. Typically, a Fund would purchase ETF shares for the same reason it
would purchase (and as an alternative to purchasing) futures contracts: to
obtain exposure to all or a portion of the stock or bond market. ETF shares
enjoy several advantages over futures. Depending on the market, the holding
period, and other factors, ETF shares can be less costly and more tax-efficient
than futures. In addition, ETF shares can be purchased for smaller sums, offer
exposure to market sectors and styles for which there is no suitable or liquid
futures contract, and do not involve leverage. As a shareholder of an ETF, a
Fund would be subject to its ratable share of ETFs expenses, including its
advisory and administration expenses.
An
investment in an ETF generally presents the same primary risks as an investment
in a conventional fund (i.e., one that is not exchange traded) that has the same
investment objective, strategies, and policies. The price of an ETF can
fluctuate within a wide range, and a Fund could lose money investing in an ETF
if the prices of the securities owned by the ETF go down. In addition, ETFs are
subject to the following risks that do not apply to conventional funds: (1) the
market price of the ETF’s shares may trade at a discount to their net asset
value; (2) an active trading market for an ETF’s shares may not develop or be
maintained; or (3) trading of an ETF’s shares may be halted if the listing
exchange’s officials deem such action appropriate, the shares are de-listed from
the exchange, or the activation of market-wide “circuit breakers” (which are
tied to large decreases in stock prices) halts stock trading generally. Most
ETFs are investment companies. Therefore, a Fund’s purchases of ETF shares
generally are subject to the limitations on, and the risks of, a fund’s
investments in other investment companies, which are described
below.
Foreign Debt
Securities –– The High Yield Bond Fund may invest in foreign fixed and
floating rate income securities (including emerging market securities) all or a
portion of which may be non-U.S. dollar denominated and which include: (a) debt
obligations issued or guaranteed by foreign national, provincial, state,
municipal or other governments with taxing authority or by their agencies or
instrumentalities, including Brady Bonds; (b) debt obligations of supranational
entities; (c) debt obligations of the U.S. Government issued in non-dollar
securities; (d) debt obligations and other fixed income securities of foreign
corporate issuers (both dollar and non-dollar denominated); and (e) U.S.
corporate issuers (both Eurodollar and non-dollar denominated). There is no
minimum rating criteria for the Fund’s investments in such securities. Investing
in the securities of foreign issuers involves special considerations that are
not typically associated with investing in the securities of U.S. issuers. In
addition, emerging markets are markets that have risks that are different and
higher than those in more developed markets. See “Eurodollar and Yankeedollar
Obligations” for a further discussion of these risks.
Foreign Securities ––
A Fund may invest in U.S. dollar-denominated securities of foreign issuers and
foreign branches of U.S. banks, including negotiable certificates of deposit
(“CDs”), bankers’ acceptances, and commercial paper. Foreign issuers are issuers
organized and doing business principally outside the United States and include
banks, non-U.S. governments, and quasi-governmental organizations. While
investments in foreign securities are intended to reduce risk by providing
further diversification, such investments involve sovereign and other risks, in
addition to the credit and market risks normally associated with domestic
securities. These additional risks include the possibility of adverse political
and economic developments (including political or social instability,
nationalization, expropriation, or confiscatory taxation); the potentially
adverse effects of unavailability of public information regarding issuers, less
governmental supervision and regulation of financial markets, reduced liquidity
of certain financial markets, and the lack of uniform accounting, auditing, and
financial reporting standards or the application of standards that are different
or less stringent than those applied in the United States; different laws and
customs governing securities tracking; and possibly limited access to the courts
to enforce each Fund’s rights as an investor.
A Fund
also may invest in equity, debt, or other income-producing securities that are
denominated in or indexed to foreign currencies, including (1) common and
preferred stocks, (2) CDs, commercial paper, fixed time deposits, and bankers’
acceptances issued by foreign banks, (3) obligations of other corporations, and
(4) obligations of foreign governments and their subdivisions, agencies, and
instrumentalities, international agencies, and supranational entities. Investing
in foreign currency denominated securities involves the special risks associated
with investing in non-U.S. issuers, as described in the preceding paragraph, and
the additional risks of (1) adverse changes in foreign exchange rates and (2)
adverse changes in investment or exchange control regulations (which could
prevent cash from being brought back to the United States). Additionally,
dividends and interest payable on foreign securities (and gains realized on
disposition thereof) may be subject to foreign taxes, including taxes withheld
from those payments. Commissions on foreign securities exchanges are often at
fixed rates and are generally higher than negotiated commissions on U.S.
exchanges, although each Fund endeavors to achieve the most favorable net
results on portfolio transactions.
Foreign
securities often trade with less frequency and in less volume than domestic
securities and therefore may exhibit greater price volatility. Additional costs
associated with an investment in foreign securities may include higher custodial
fees than apply to domestic custody arrangements and transaction costs of
foreign currency conversions.
Foreign
markets also have different clearance and settlement procedures. 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. Delays in settlement could result in temporary periods when a
portion of the assets of a Fund is uninvested and no return is earned thereon.
The inability of a Fund to make intended security purchases due to settlement
problems could cause the Fund to miss attractive investment opportunities.
Inability to dispose of portfolio securities due to settlement problems could
result in losses to a Fund due to subsequent declines in value of the securities
or, if the Fund has entered into a contract to sell the securities, could result
in possible liability to the purchaser.
Interest
rates prevailing in other countries may affect the prices of foreign securities
and exchange rates for foreign currencies. Local factors, including the strength
of the local economy, the demand for borrowing, the government’s fiscal and
monetary policies, and the international balance of payments, often affect
interest rates in other countries. Individual foreign economies may differ
favorably or unfavorably from the U.S. economy in such respects as growth of
gross national product, rate of inflation, capital reinvestment, resource
self-sufficiency, and balance of payments position.
Forward Foreign Currency
Exchange Contracts –– The International Equity Fund, Emerging Markets
Fund and Global Real Estate Fund (the “International Funds”) may enter into
forward foreign currency exchange contracts (“forward currency contracts”). A
forward currency contract involves an obligation to purchase or sell a specified
currency at a future date, which may be any fixed number of days from the date
of the contract agreed upon by the parties at a price set at the time of the
contract. These contracts are traded in the interbank market conducted directly
between currency traders (usually large commercial banks) and their
customers.
Forward
currency contracts may serve as long hedges –– for example, an International
Fund may purchase a forward currency contract to lock in the U.S. dollar price
of a security denominated in a foreign currency that it intends to acquire.
Forward currency contract transactions also may serve as short hedges –– for
example, an International Fund may sell a forward currency contract to lock in
the U.S. dollar equivalent of the proceeds from the anticipated sale of a
security or from a dividend or interest payment on a security denominated in a
foreign currency.
The
International Funds may enter into forward currency contracts to sell a foreign
currency for a fixed U.S. dollar amount approximating the value of some or all
of their respective portfolio securities
denominated in such foreign currency. In addition, the International Funds
may use forward currency contracts when a sub-advisor wishes to “lock in” the
U.S. dollar price of a security when the Fund is purchasing or selling a
security denominated in a foreign currency or anticipates receiving a dividend
or interest payment denominated in a foreign currency.
The
International Funds may enter into forward currency contracts for the purchase
or sale of a specified currency at a specified future date either with respect
to specific transactions or with respect to portfolio positions in order to
minimize the risk to a Fund from adverse changes in the relationship between the
U.S. dollar and foreign currencies.
The
International Funds may seek to hedge against changes in the value of a
particular currency by using forward currency contracts on another foreign
currency or a basket of currencies, the value of which the applicable
sub-advisor believes will have a positive correlation to the values of the
currency being hedged. Use of a different foreign currency magnifies the risk
that movements in the price of the forward contract will not correlate or will
correlate unfavorably with the foreign currency being hedged.
In
addition, an International Fund may use forward currency contracts to shift
exposure to foreign currency fluctuations from one country to another. For
example, if a Fund owned securities denominated in a foreign currency that a
sub-advisor believed would decline relative to another currency, it might enter
into a forward currency contract to sell an appropriate amount of the first
foreign currency, with payment to be made in the second currency. Transactions
that use two foreign currencies are sometimes referred to as “cross hedging.”
Use of a different foreign currency magnifies a Fund’s exposure to foreign
currency exchange rate fluctuations.
The cost
to a Fund of engaging in forward currency contracts varies with factors such as
the currency involved, the length of the contract period and the market
conditions then prevailing. Because forward currency contracts usually are
entered into on a principal basis, no fees or commissions are involved. When a
Fund enters into a forward currency contract, it relies on the counterparty to
make or take delivery of the underlying currency at the maturity of the
contract. Failure by the counterparty to do so would result in the loss of any
expected benefit of the transaction.
Sellers
or purchasers of forward currency contracts can enter into offsetting closing
transactions, similar to closing transactions on futures, by purchasing or
selling, respectively, an instrument identical to the instrument sold or bought,
respectively. Secondary markets generally do not exist for forward currency
contracts, however, with the result that closing transactions generally can be
made for forward currency contracts only by negotiating directly with the
counterparty. Thus, there can be no assurance that a Fund will in fact be able
to close out a forward currency contract at a favorable price prior to maturity.
In addition, in the event of insolvency of the counterparty, a Fund might be
unable to close out a forward currency contract at any time prior to maturity.
In either event, the Fund would continue to be subject to market risk with
respect to the position, and would continue to be required to maintain a
position in the securities or currencies that are the subject of the hedge or to
maintain cash or securities.
The
precise matching of forward currency contract amounts and the value of the
securities involved generally will not be possible because the value of such
securities, measured in the foreign currency, will change after the forward
currency contract has been established. Thus, a Fund might need to purchase or
sell foreign currencies in the spot (cash) market to the extent such foreign
currencies are not covered by forward contracts. The projection of short-term
currency market movements is extremely difficult, and the successful execution
of a short-term hedging strategy is highly uncertain.
Full Faith and Credit
Obligations of the U.S. Government –– Securities issued or guaranteed by
the U.S. Treasury, backed by the full taxing power of the U.S. Government or the
right of the issuer to borrow from the U.S. Treasury.
Futures Contracts ––
Futures contracts obligate a purchaser to take delivery of a specific amount of
an obligation underlying the futures contract at a specified time in the future
for a specified price. Likewise, the seller incurs an obligation to deliver the
specified amount of the underlying obligation against receipt of the specified
price. Futures are traded on both U.S. and foreign commodities exchanges.
Futures contracts will be traded for the same purposes as entering into forward
contracts.
The
purchase of futures can serve as a long hedge, and the sale of futures can serve
as a short hedge.
No price
is paid upon entering into a futures contract. Instead, at the inception of a
futures contract a Fund is required to deposit “initial deposit” consisting of
cash or U.S. Government Securities in an amount generally equal to 10% or less
of the contract value. Margin must also be deposited when writing a call or put
option on a futures contract, in accordance with applicable exchange rules.
Unlike margin in securities transactions, initial margin on futures contracts
does not represent a borrowing, but rather is in the nature of a performance
bond or good-faith deposit that is returned to the Fund at the termination of
the transaction if all contractual obligations have been satisfied. Under
certain circumstances, such as periods of high volatility, a Fund may be
required by a futures exchange to increase the level of its initial margin
payment, and initial margin requirements might be increased generally in the
future by regulatory action.
Subsequent
“variation margin” payments are made to and from the futures broker daily as the
value of the futures position varies, a process known as “marking-to-market.”
Variation margin does not involve borrowing, but rather represents a daily
settlement of a Fund’s obligations to or from a futures broker. When the Fund
purchases or sells a futures contract, it is subject to daily variation margin
calls that could be substantial in the event of adverse price movements. If a
Fund has insufficient cash to meet daily variation margin requirements, it might
need to sell securities at a time when such sales are
disadvantageous.
Purchasers
and sellers of futures contracts can enter into offsetting closing transactions,
by selling or purchasing, respectively, an instrument identical to the
instrument purchased or sold. Positions in futures contracts may be closed only
on a futures exchange or board of trade that provides a secondary market. The
Funds intend to enter into futures contracts only on exchanges or boards of
trade where there appears to be a liquid secondary market. However, there can be
no assurance that such a market will exist for a particular contract at a
particular time. In such event, it may not be possible to close a futures
contract.
Although
futures contracts by their terms call for the actual delivery or acquisition of
securities or currency, in most cases the contractual obligation is fulfilled
before the date of the contract without having to make or take delivery of the
securities or currency. The offsetting of a contractual obligation is
accomplished by buying (or selling, as appropriate) on a commodities exchange an
identical futures contract calling for delivery in the same month. Such a
transaction, which is effected through a member of an exchange, cancels the
obligation to make or take delivery of the securities or currency. Since all
transactions in the futures market are made, offset or fulfilled through a
clearinghouse associated with the exchange on which the contracts are traded, a
Fund will incur brokerage fees when it purchases or sells futures
contracts.
Under
certain circumstances, futures exchanges may establish daily limits on the
amount that the price of a futures contract can vary from the previous day’s
settlement price; once that limit is reached, no trades may be made that day at
a price beyond the limit. Daily price limits do not limit potential losses
because prices could move to the daily limit for several consecutive days with
little or no trading, thereby preventing liquidation of unfavorable
positions.
If a Fund
were unable to liquidate a futures contract due to the absence of a liquid
secondary market or the imposition of price limits, it could incur substantial
losses. The Fund would continue to be
subject to market risk with respect to the position. In addition, the Fund
would continue to be required to make daily variation margin payments and might
be required to maintain the position being hedged by the futures contract or
option thereon or to maintain cash or securities in a segregated account.
To the
extent that a Fund enters into futures contracts, in each case other than for
bona fide hedging purposes (as defined by the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission (“CFTC”)), the aggregate initial margin will not exceed 5% of the
liquidation value of a Fund’s portfolio, after taking into account unrealized
profits and unrealized losses on any contracts that the Fund has entered into.
This policy does not limit to 5% the percentage of a Fund’s assets that are at
risk in futures contracts.
The
ordinary spreads between prices in the cash and futures market, due to
differences in the nature of those markets, are subject to distortions. First,
all participants in the futures market are subject to initial deposit and
variation margin requirements. Rather than meeting additional variation margin
deposit requirements, investors may close futures contracts through offsetting
transactions that could distort the normal relationship between the cash and
futures markets. Second, the liquidity of the futures market depends on
participants entering into offsetting transactions rather than making or taking
delivery. To the extent participants decide to make or take delivery, liquidity
in the futures market could be reduced, thus producing distortion. Third, from
the point of view of speculators, the margin deposit requirements in the futures
market are less onerous than margin requirements in the securities market.
Therefore, increased participation by speculators in the futures market may
cause temporary price distortions. Due to the possibility of distortion, a
correct forecast of securities price or currency exchange rate trends by a
sub-advisor may still not result in a successful transaction.
In
addition, futures contracts entail risks. Although a sub-advisor may believe
that use of such contracts will benefit a particular Fund, if that investment
advisor’s investment judgment about the general direction of, for example, an
index is incorrect, a Fund’s overall performance would be worse than if it had
not entered into any such contract. In addition, there are differences between
the securities and futures markets that could result in an imperfect correlation
between the markets, causing a given transaction not to achieve its
objectives.
General Obligation
Bonds –– General obligation bonds are secured by the pledge of the
issuer’s full faith, credit, and usually, taxing power. The taxing power may be
an unlimited ad valorem tax or a limited tax, usually on real estate and
personal property. Most states do not tax real estate, but leave that power to
local units of government.
Illiquid Securities
–– Historically, illiquid securities have included securities subject to
contractual or legal restrictions on resale because they have not been
registered under the 1933 Act, securities that are otherwise not readily
marketable, and repurchase agreements having a remaining maturity of longer than
seven calendar days. Securities that have not been registered under the 1933 Act
are referred to as private placements or restricted securities and are purchased
directly from the issuer or in the secondary market. These securities may be
sold only in a privately negotiated transaction or pursuant to an exemption from
registration. A large institutional market exists for certain securities that
are not registered under the 1933 Act, including repurchase agreements,
commercial paper, foreign securities, municipal securities and corporate bonds
and notes. Institutional investors depend on an efficient institutional market
in which the unregistered security can be readily resold or on an issuer’s
ability to honor a demand for repayment. However, the fact that there are
contractual or legal restrictions on resale of such investments to the general
public or to certain institutions may not be indicative of their
liquidity.
In
recognition of the increased size and liquidity of the institutional market for
unregistered securities and the importance of institutional investors in the
formation of capital, the SEC has adopted Rule 144A under the 1933 Act. Rule
144A is designed to facilitate efficient trading among institutional investors
by permitting the sale of certain unregistered securities to qualified
institutional buyers. To the extent privately placed securities held by a Fund
qualify under Rule 144A and an institutional market develops for those
securities, that Fund likely will be able to dispose of the securities without
registering
them under the 1933 Act. To the extent that institutional buyers become,
for a time, uninterested in purchasing these securities, investing in Rule 144A
securities could increase the level of a Fund’s illiquidity. The Manager or the
sub-advisor, as applicable, acting under guidelines established by the Board,
may determine that certain securities qualified for trading under Rule 144A are
liquid. Regulation S under the 1933 Act permits the sale abroad of securities
that are not registered for sale in the United States.
Mutual
funds do not typically hold a significant amount of these restricted or other
illiquid securities because of the potential for delays on resale and
uncertainty in valuation. Limitations on resale may have an adverse effect on
the marketability of portfolio securities, and a Fund might be unable to dispose
of restricted or other illiquid securities promptly or at reasonable prices and
might thereby experience difficulty satisfying redemptions within seven calendar
days. In addition, a Fund may get only limited information about an issuer, so
it may be less able to predict a loss. A Fund also might have to register such
restricted securities in order to dispose of them resulting in additional
expense and delay. Adverse market conditions could impede such a public offering
of securities.
Index Futures Contracts and
Options on Index Futures Contracts –– The Balanced Fund, Emerging Markets
Fund, International Equity Fund, Large Cap Growth Fund, Large Cap Value Fund,
Mid-Cap Value Fund, Small Cap Value Fund and Global Real Estate Fund (the
“Funds”) may invest in index futures contracts, options on index futures
contracts and options on securities indices.
Index Futures Contracts ––
U.S. futures contracts trade on exchanges that have been designated
“contracts markets” by the CFTC and must be executed through a futures
commission merchant, or brokerage firm, which is a member of the relevant
contract market. Futures contracts trade on a number of exchange
markets.
At the
same time a futures contract on an index is purchased or sold, a Fund must
allocate cash or securities as a deposit payment (“initial deposit”). It is
expected that the initial deposit would be approximately 1-1/2% to 5% of a
contract’s face value. Daily thereafter, the futures contract is valued and the
payment of “variation margin” may be required.
Options on Index Futures Contracts
–– The purchase of a call option on an index futures contract is similar
in some respects to the purchase of a call option on such an index.
The
writing of a call option on a futures contract with respect to an index
constitutes a partial hedge against declining prices of the underlying
securities that are deliverable upon exercise of the futures contract. If the
futures price at expiration of the option is below the exercise price, the Fund
will retain the full amount of the option premium, which provides a partial
hedge against any decline that may have occurred in the Fund’s holdings. The
writing of a put option on an index futures contract constitutes a partial hedge
against increasing prices of the underlying securities that are deliverable upon
exercise of the futures contract. If the futures price at expiration of the
option is higher than the exercise price, the Fund will retain the full amount
of the option premium, which provides a partial hedge against any increase in
the price of securities that the Fund intends to purchase. If a put or call
option the Fund has written is exercised, the Fund will incur a loss that will
be reduced by the amount of the premium it receives. Depending on the degree of
correlation between changes in the value of its portfolio securities and changes
in the value of its futures positions, the Fund’s losses or gains from existing
options on futures may to some extent be reduced or increased by changes in the
value of portfolio securities.
The
purchase of a put option on a futures contract with respect to an index is
similar in some respects to the purchase of protective put options on the Index.
For example, the Fund may purchase a put option on an index futures contract to
hedge against the risk of lowering securities values.
The
amount of risk a Fund assumes when it purchases an option on a futures contract
with respect to an index is the premium paid for the option plus related
transaction costs. In addition to the correlation risks discussed above, the
purchase of such an option also entails the risk that changes in the value of
the underlying futures contract will not be fully reflected in the value of the
option purchased.
Stock
index futures may be used on a continual basis to equitize cash so that the
Funds may maintain maximum equity exposure. Each Fund will not enter into any
futures contracts or options on futures contracts if immediately thereafter the
amount of margin deposits on all the futures contracts of the Fund and premiums
paid on outstanding options on futures contracts owned by the Fund would exceed
5% of the market value of the total assets of the Fund.
Futures Contracts on Stock Indices
–– The Funds may enter into contracts providing for the making and
acceptance of a cash settlement based upon changes in the value of an index of
securities (“Index Futures Contracts”). This investment technique is used only
to hedge against anticipated future change in general market prices which
otherwise might either adversely affect the value of securities held by the
Funds or adversely affect the prices of securities which are intended to be
purchased at a later date for the Funds.
In
general, each transaction in Index Futures Contracts involves the establishment
of a position that will move in a direction opposite to that of the investment
being hedged. If these hedging transactions are successful, the futures
positions taken for the Funds will rise in value by an amount that approximately
offsets the decline in value of the portion of the Funds’ investments that are
being hedged. Should general market prices move in an unexpected manner, the
full anticipated benefits of Index Futures Contracts may not be achieved or a
loss may be realized.
Transactions
in Index Futures Contracts involve certain risks. These risks could include a
lack of correlation between the Futures Contract and the equity market, a
potential lack of liquidity in the secondary market and incorrect assessments of
market trends, which may result in worse overall performance than if a Futures
Contract had not been entered into.
Brokerage
costs will be incurred and “margin” will be required to be posted and maintained
as a good-faith deposit against performance of obligations under Futures
Contracts written into by the Funds. Each Fund may not purchase or sell a
Futures Contract (or options thereon) if immediately thereafter its margin
deposits on its outstanding Futures Contracts (and its premium paid on
outstanding options thereon) would exceed 5% of the market value of each Fund’s
total assets.
Options on Securities Indices ––
The Funds may write (sell) covered call and put options to a limited
extent on an index (“covered options”) in an attempt to increase income. Such
options give the holder the right to receive a cash settlement during the term
of the option based upon the difference between the exercise price and the value
of the index. The Funds may forgo the benefits of appreciation on the index or
may pay more than the market price for the index pursuant to call and put
options written by the Funds.
By
writing a covered call option, the Funds forgo, in exchange for the premium less
the commission (“net premium”), the opportunity to profit during the option
period from an increase in the market value of an index above the exercise
price. By writing a put option, the Funds, in exchange for the net premium
received, accept the risk of a decline in the market value of the index below
the exercise price.
Each Fund
may terminate its obligation as the writer of a call or put option by purchasing
an option with the same exercise price and expiration date as the option
previously written.
When each
Fund writes an option, an amount equal to the net premium received by the Fund
is included in the liability section of the Fund’s Statement of Assets and
Liabilities as a deferred credit. The amount of the deferred credit will be
subsequently marked to market to reflect the current market value of the option
written. The current market value of a traded option is the last sale price or,
in the absence of a sale, the mean between the closing bid and asked price. If
an option expires unexercised on its stipulated expiration date or if the Fund
enters into a closing purchase transaction, the Fund will realize a gain (or
loss if the cost of a closing purchase transaction exceeds the premium received
when the option was sold), and the deferred credit related to such option will
be eliminated.
The Funds
have adopted certain other non-fundamental policies concerning index option
transactions that are discussed above.
The hours
of trading for options on an index may not conform to the hours during which the
underlying securities are traded. To the extent that the option markets close
before the markets for the underlying securities, significant price and rate
movements can take place in the underlying securities markets that cannot be
reflected in the option markets. It is impossible to predict the volume of
trading that may exist in such options, and there can be no assurance that
viable exchange markets will develop or continue.
Because
options on securities indices require settlement in cash or the sub-advisor may
be forced to liquidate portfolio securities to meet settlement
obligations.
Options on Stock Indices –– A
Fund may purchase and write put and call options on stock indices listed on
stock exchanges. A stock index fluctuates with changes in the market values of
the stocks included in the index. Options on stock indices generally are similar
to options on stock except that the delivery requirements are different. Instead
of giving the right to take or make delivery of stock at a specified price, an
option on a stock index gives the holder the right to receive a cash “exercise
settlement amount” equal to (a) the amount, if any, by which the fixed exercise
price of the option exceeds (in the case of a call) or is less than (in the case
of a put) the closing value of the underlying index on the date of exercise,
multiplied by (b) a fixed “index multiplier.” The writer of the option is
obligated, in return for the premium received, to make delivery of this amount.
The writer may offset its position in stock index options prior to expiration by
entering into a closing transaction on an exchange or the option may expire
unexercised.
Because
the value of an index option depends upon movements in the level of the index
rather than the price of a particular stock, whether a Fund will realize a gain
or loss from the purchase or writing of options on an index depends upon
movements in the level of stock prices in the stock market generally or, in the
case of certain indices, in an industry or market segment, rather than movements
in the price of a particular stock.
Inflation-Indexed
Securities –– Inflation-indexed securities, also known as
inflation-protected securities, are fixed income instruments structured such
that their interest and principal payments are adjusted to keep up with
inflation.
In
periods of deflation when the inflation rate is declining, the principal value
of an inflation-indexed security will be adjusted downward. This will result in
a decrease in the interest payments. The U.S. Treasury guarantees to repay at
least the original principal value at maturity for inflation-indexed securities
issued directly by the U.S. Government. However, inflation-indexed securities of
other issuers may or may not have the same principal guarantee and may repay an
amount less than the original principal value at maturity.
Changes
in market expectations for real interest rates may result in volatility in the
Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund’s share price. There can be no
assurance that the designated inflation index for an inflation-indexed security
will accurately reflect the real inflation rate.
Initial Public
Offerings –– The Funds can invest in initial public offerings (“IPOs”).
By definition, securities issued in IPOs have not traded publicly until the time
of their offerings. Special risks associated with IPOs may include, among
others, the fact that there may only be a limited number of shares available for
trading. The market for those securities may be unseasoned. The issuer may have
a limited operating history. These factors may contribute to price volatility.
The limited number of shares available for trading in some IPOs may also make it
more difficult for a Fund to buy or sell significant amounts of shares without
an unfavorable impact on prevailing prices. In addition, some companies
initially offering their shares publicly are involved in relatively new
industries or lines of business, which may not be widely understood by
investors. Some of the companies involved in new industries may be regarded as
developmental state companies, without revenues or operating income, or the
near-term prospects of them. Many IPOs are by small- or micro-cap companies that
are undercapitalized.
Interfund Lending ––
Pursuant to an order issued by the SEC, the Funds may participate in a credit
facility whereby each Fund, under certain conditions, is permitted to lend money
directly to and borrow directly from other Funds for temporary purposes. The
credit facility can provide a borrowing Fund with significant savings at times
when the cash position of the Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash
requirements. This situation could arise when shareholder redemptions exceed
anticipated volumes and certain Funds have insufficient cash on hand to satisfy
such redemptions. When the Funds liquidate portfolio securities to meet
redemption requests, they often do not receive payment in settlement for up to
three days (or longer for certain foreign transactions). However, redemption
requests normally are satisfied immediately. The credit facility provides a
source of immediate, short-term liquidity pending settlement of the sale of
portfolio securities.
The
credit facility will reduce the Funds’ potential borrowing costs and enhance the
ability of the lending Funds to earn higher rates of interest on their
short-term lending. Although the credit facility will reduce the Funds’ need to
borrow from banks, the Funds remain free to establish lines of credit or other
borrowing arrangements with banks.
Junk Bonds –– Junk
bonds are low-quality, high-risk corporate bonds that generally offer a high
level of current income. These bonds are considered speculative by a NRSRO. For
example, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s rates them below Baa and BBB,
respectively. Please see “Ratings of Long-Term Obligations” below for an
explanation of the ratings applied to junk bonds. Junk bonds are often issued as
a result of corporate restructurings, such as leveraged buyouts, mergers,
acquisitions, or other similar events. They may also be issued by smaller, less
creditworthy companies or by highly leveraged firms, which are generally less
able to make scheduled payments of interest and principal than more financially
stable firms. Because of their low credit quality, junk bonds must pay higher
interest to compensate investors for the substantial credit risk they assume. In
order to minimize credit risk, the Fund intends to diversify its holdings among
many bond issuers.
Lower-rated
securities are subject to certain risks that may not be present with investments
in higher-grade securities. Investors should consider carefully their ability to
assume the risks associated with lower-rated securities before investing in the
Fund. The lower rating of certain high yielding corporate income securities
reflects a greater possibility that the financial condition of the issuer or
adverse changes in general economic conditions may impair the ability of the
issuer to pay income and principal. Changes by rating agencies in their ratings
of a fixed income security also may affect the value of these investments.
However, allocating investments in the fund among securities of different
issuers should reduce the risks of owning any such securities separately. The
prices of these high yielding securities tend to be less sensitive to interest
rate changes than higher-rated investments, but more sensitive to adverse
economic changes or individual corporate developments. During economic downturns
or periods of rising interest rates, highly leveraged issuers may experience
financial stress that adversely affects their ability to service principal and
interest payment obligations, to meet projected business goals or to obtain
additional financing, and the markets for their securities may be more volatile.
If an issuer defaults, the Fund may incur additional expenses to seek recovery.
Additionally, accruals of interest income for
Funds that invest in junk bonds may have to be adjusted in the event of
default. In the event of an issuers default, a Fund may write off prior income
accruals for that issuer, resulting in a reduction in the Fund’s current
dividend payment. Frequently, the higher yields of high-yielding securities may
not reflect the value of the income stream that holders of such securities may
expect, but rather the risk that such securities may lose a substantial portion
of their value as a result of their issuer’s financial restructuring or default.
Additionally, an economic downturn or an increase in interest rates could have a
negative effect on the high yield securities market and on the market value of
the high yield securities held by the Fund, as well as on the ability of the
issuers of such securities to repay principal and interest on their
borrowings.
Loan Participation
Interests –– Loan participation interests represent interests in bank
loans made to corporations. The contractual arrangement with the bank transfers
the cash stream of the underlying bank loan to the participating investor.
Because the issuing bank does not guarantee the participations, they are subject
to the credit risks generally associated with the underlying corporate borrower.
In addition, because it may be necessary under the terms of the loan
participation for the investor to assert through the issuing bank such rights as
may exist against the underlying corporate borrower, in the event the underlying
corporate borrower fails to pay principal and interest when due, the investor
may be subject to delays, expenses and risks that are greater than those that
would have been involved if the investor had purchased a direct obligation (such
as commercial paper) of such borrower. Moreover, under the terms of the loan
participation, the investor may be regarded as a creditor of the issuing bank
(rather than of the underlying corporate borrower), so that the issuer may also
be subject to the risk that the issuing bank may become insolvent. Further, in
the event of the bankruptcy or insolvency of the corporate borrower, the loan
participation may be subject to certain defenses that can be asserted by such
borrower as a result of improper conduct by the issuing bank. The secondary
market, if any, for these loan participations is extremely limited and any such
participations purchased by the investor are regarded as illiquid.
Loan Transactions ––
Loan transactions involve the lending of securities to a broker-dealer or
institutional investor for its use in connection with short sales, arbitrages or
other security transactions. The purpose of a qualified loan transaction is to
afford a lender the opportunity to continue to earn income on the securities
loaned and at the same time earn fee income or income on the collateral held by
it.
Securities
loans will be made in accordance with the following conditions: (1) the Fund
must receive at least 100% collateral in the form of cash or cash equivalents,
securities of the U.S. Government and its agencies and instrumentalities, and
approved bank letters of credit; (2) the borrower must increase the collateral
whenever the market value of the loaned securities (determined on a daily basis)
rises above the level of collateral; (3) the Fund must be able to terminate the
loan after notice, at any time; (4) the Fund must receive reasonable interest on
the loan or a flat fee from the borrower, as well as amounts equivalent to any
dividends, interest or other distributions on the securities loaned, and any
increase in market value of the loaned securities; (5) the Fund may pay only
reasonable custodian fees in connection with the loan; and (6) voting rights on
the securities loaned may pass to the borrower, provided, however, that if a
material event affecting the investment occurs, the Board must be able to
terminate the loan and vote proxies or enter into an alternative arrangement
with the borrower to enable the Board as appropriate, to vote
proxies.
While
there may be delays in recovery of loaned securities or even a loss of rights in
collateral supplied should the borrower fail financially, loans will be made
only to firms deemed by the Board to be of good financial standing and will not
be made unless the consideration to be earned from such loans would justify the
risk. If the borrower of the securities fails financially, there is a risk of
delay in recovery of the securities loaned or loss of rights in the collateral.
Such loan transactions are referred to in this Statement of Additional
Information as “qualified” loan transactions.
The cash
collateral so acquired through qualified loan transactions may be invested only
in those categories of high quality liquid securities previously authorized by
the Board.
Mortgage-Backed
Securities –– Mortgage-backed securities consist of both collateralized
mortgage obligations and mortgage pass-through certificates.
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations
(“CMOs”) –– CMOs and interests in real estate mortgage investment
conduits (“REMICs”) are debt securities collateralized by mortgages or mortgage
pass-through securities. CMOs divide the cash flow generated from the underlying
mortgages or mortgage pass-through securities into different groups referred to
as “tranches,” which are then retired sequentially over time in order of
priority. The principal governmental issuers of such securities are the Federal
National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”), a government sponsored corporation owned
entirely by private stockholders, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(“FHLMC”), a corporate instrumentality of the United States created pursuant to
an act of Congress that is owned entirely by the Federal Home Loan Banks. The
issuers of CMOs are structured as trusts or corporations established for the
purpose of issuing such CMOs and often have no assets other than those
underlying the securities and any credit support provided. A REMIC is a mortgage
securities vehicle that holds residential or commercial mortgages and issues
securities representing interests in those mortgages. A REMIC may be formed as a
corporation, partnership, or segregated pool of assets. A REMIC itself is
generally exempt from federal income tax, but the income from its mortgages is
taxable to its investors. For investment purposes, interests in REMIC securities
are virtually indistinguishable from CMOs.
Mortgage Pass-Through Securities ––
Mortgage pass-through securities are securities representing interests in
“pools” of mortgages in which payments of both interest and principal on the
securities are generally made monthly, in effect “passing through” monthly
payments made by the individual borrowers on the residential mortgage loans that
underlie the securities (net of fees paid to the issuer or guarantor of the
securities). They are issued by governmental, government-related and private
organizations which are backed by pools of mortgage loans.
Payment
of principal and interest on some mortgage pass-through securities (but not the
market value of the securities themselves) may be guaranteed by the full faith
and credit of the U.S. government, as in the case of securities guaranteed by
the Government National Mortgage Association (“GNMA”), or guaranteed by agencies
or instrumentalities of the U.S. government, as in the case of securities
guaranteed by the Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) or the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”), which are supported only by the
discretionary authority of the U.S. government to purchase the agency’s
obligations.
On
September 7, 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed under the
conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) to provide
stability in the financial markets, mortgage availability and taxpayer
protection by preserving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s assets and property and
putting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a sound and solvent condition. Under the
conservatorship, the U.S. Treasury will receive senior preferred equity shares
and warrants to ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac maintain a positive net
worth.
Mortgage
pass-through securities created by nongovernmental issuers (such as commercial
banks, savings and loan institutions, private mortgage insurance companies,
mortgage bankers and other secondary market issuers) may be supported by various
forms of insurance or guarantees, including individual loan, title, pool and
hazard insurance and letters of credit, which may be issued by governmental
entities, private insurers or the mortgage poolers.
(1) GNMA
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates (“Ginnie Maes”) –– GNMA is a wholly owned
U.S. Government corporation within the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Ginnie Maes represent an undivided interest in a pool of mortgages
that are insured by the Federal Housing Administration or the Farmers Home
Administration or guaranteed by the Veterans Administration. Ginnie Maes entitle
the holder to receive all payments (including prepayments) of principal and
interest
owed by
the individual mortgagors, net of fees paid to GNMA and to the issuer which
assembles the mortgage pool and passes through the monthly mortgage payments to
the certificate holders (typically, a mortgage banking firm), regardless of
whether the individual mortgagor actually makes the payment. Because payments
are made to certificate holders regardless of whether payments are actually
received on the underlying mortgages, Ginnie Maes are of the “modified
pass-through” mortgage certificate type. The GNMA is authorized to guarantee the
timely payment of principal and interest on the Ginnie Maes. The GNMA guarantee
is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, and the GNMA has
unlimited authority to borrow funds from the U.S. Treasury to make payments
under the guarantee. The market for Ginnie Maes is highly liquid because of the
size of the market and the active participation in the secondary market of
security dealers and a variety of investors.
(2) FHLMC
Mortgage Participation Certificates (“Freddie Macs”) –– Freddie Macs represent
interests in groups of specified first lien residential conventional mortgages
underwritten and owned by the FHLMC. Freddie Macs entitle the holder to timely
payment of interest, which is guaranteed by the FHLMC. The FHLMC guarantees
either ultimate collection or timely payment of all principal payments on the
underlying mortgage loans. In cases where the FHLMC has not guaranteed timely
payment of principal, the FHLMC may remit the amount due because of its
guarantee of ultimate payment of principal at any time after default on an
underlying mortgage, but in no event later than one year after it becomes
payable. Freddie Macs are not guaranteed by the United States or by any of the
Federal Home Loan Banks and do not constitute a debt or obligation of the United
States or of any Federal Home Loan Bank. The secondary market for Freddie Macs
is highly liquid because of the size of the market and the active participation
in the secondary market of the FHLMC, security dealers and a variety of
investors.
(3)FNMA
Guaranteed Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates (“Fannie Maes”) –– Fannie Maes
represent an undivided interest in a pool of conventional mortgage loans secured
by first mortgages or deeds of trust, on one family or two to four family,
residential properties. The FNMA is obligated to distribute scheduled monthly
installments of principal and interest on the mortgages in the pool, whether or
not received, plus full principal of any foreclosed or otherwise liquidated
mortgages. The obligation of the FNMA under its guarantee is solely its
obligation and is not backed by, nor entitled to, the full faith and credit of
the United States.
(4)
Mortgage-Related Securities Issued by Private Organizations –– Pools created by
non-governmental issuers generally offer a higher rate of interest than
government and government-related pools because there are no direct or indirect
government guarantees of payments in such pools. However, timely payment of
interest and principal of these pools is often partially supported by various
enhancements such as over-collateralization and senior/subordination structures
and by various forms of insurance or guarantees, including individual loan,
title, pool and hazard insurance. The insurance and guarantees are issued by
government entities, private insurers or the mortgage poolers. Although the
market for such securities is becoming increasingly liquid, securities issued by
certain private organizations may not be readily marketable.
Municipal Lease Obligations
(“MLOs”)- MLOs are issued by state and local governments and authorities
to acquire land and a wide variety of equipment and facilities. These
obligations typically are not fully backed by the municipality’s credit and thus
interest may become taxable if the lease is assigned. If funds are not
appropriated for the following year’s lease payments, a lease may terminate with
the possibility of default on the lease obligation.
Options –– The
Retirement Income and Appreciation Fund and the Global Real Estate Fund may
purchase and sell put options and call options on securities and foreign
currencies in standardized contracts traded on recognized securities exchanges,
boards of trade, or similar entities, or quoted on the NASDAQ National Market
System. The Fund will only write (sell) covered call and put options. For a
further description, see “Cover.”
An option
is a contract that gives the purchaser (holder) of the option, in return for a
premium, the right to buy from (call) or sell to (put) the seller (writer) of
the option the security or currency underlying the option at a specified
exercise price at any time during the term of the option (normally not exceeding
nine months). The writer of an option has the obligation upon exercise of the
option to deliver the underlying security or currency upon payment of the
exercise price or to pay the exercise price upon delivery of the underlying
security or currency.
By
writing a covered call option, the Fund forgoes, in exchange for the premium
less the commission (“net premium”), the opportunity to profit during the option
period from an increase in the market value of the underlying security or
currency above the exercise price. By writing a put option, the Fund, in
exchange for the net premium received, accepts the risk of a decline in the
market value of the underlying security or currency below the exercise
price.
The Fund
may terminate its obligation as the writer of a call or put option by purchasing
an option with the same exercise price and expiration date as the option
previously written.
When the
Fund writes an option, an amount equal to the net premium received by the Fund
is included in the liability section of the Fund’s Statement of Assets and
Liabilities as a deferred credit. The amount of the deferred credit will be
subsequently marked to market to reflect the current market value of the option
written. The current market value of a traded option is the last sale price or,
in the absence of a sale, the mean between the closing bid and asked price. If
an option expires on its stipulated expiration date or if the Fund enters into a
closing purchase transaction, the Fund will realize a gain (or loss if the cost
of a closing purchase transaction exceeds the premium received when the option
was sold), and the deferred credit related to such option will be
eliminated.
The hours
of trading for options may not conform to the hours during which the underlying
securities are traded. To the extent that the option markets close before the
markets for the underlying securities, significant price and rate movements can
take place in the underlying securities markets that cannot be reflected in the
option markets. It is impossible to predict the volume of trading that may exist
in such options, and there can be no assurance that viable exchange markets will
develop or continue.
Other Investment Company
Securities –– A Fund at times may invest in shares of other investment
companies, including open-end funds, closed-end funds, business development
companies, unit investment trusts, and other investment companies of the Trust.
Investments in the securities of other investment companies may involve
duplication of advisory fees and certain other expenses. By investing in another
investment company, a Fund becomes a shareholder of that investment company. As
a result, Fund shareholders indirectly will bear the Fund’s proportionate share
of the fees and expenses paid by shareholders of the other investment company,
in addition to the fees and expenses Fund shareholders directly bear in
connection with the Fund’s own operations. These other fees and expenses are
reflected as Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses and are itemized in the Fees and
Expenses Table for each Fund in its prospectus. Investment in other investment
companies may involve the payment of substantial premiums above the value of
such issuer’s portfolio securities.
Publicly
Traded Partnerships; Master Limited Partnerships. A Fund may invest in publicly
traded partnerships such as master limited partnerships (“MLPs”). MLPs issue
units that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“SEC”) and are freely tradable on a securities exchange or in the
over-the-counter market. An MLP may have one or more general partners, who
conduct the business, and one or more limited partners, who contribute capital.
The general partner or are jointly and severally responsible for the liabilities
of the MLP. A Fund invests as a limited partner, and normally would not be
liable for the debts of an MLP beyond the amounts the Fund has contributed but
it would not be shielded to the same extent that a shareholder of a corporation
would be. In certain instances, creditors of an MLP would have the right to seek
a return of capital that had been distributed to a limited partner. The right of
an MLP’s creditors would continue even after a Fund had sold its investment in
the partnership. MLPs
typically
invest in real estate, oil and gas equipment leasing assets, but they also
finance entertainment, research and development, and other
projects.
Preferred Stock –– A
preferred stock blends the characteristics of a bond and common stock. It can
offer the higher yield of a bond and has priority over common stock in equity
ownership, but does not have the seniority of a bond and its participation in
the issuer’s growth may be limited. Preferred stock has preference over common
stock in the receipt of dividends and in any residual assets after payment to
creditors should the issuer be dissolved. Although the dividend is set at a
fixed annual rate, in some circumstances it can be changed or omitted by the
issuer.
Private Activity
Bonds –– PABs are issued to finance, among other things, privately
operated housing facilities, pollution control facilities, convention or trade
show facilities, mass transit, airport, port or parking facilities and certain
facilities for water supply, gas, electricity, sewage or solid waste disposal.
PABs are also issued to privately held or publicly owned corporations in the
financing of commercial or industrial facilities. The principal and interest on
these obligations may be payable from the general revenues of the users of such
facilities. See “Tax Information –– Taxation of the Funds’
Shareholders.”
Ratings of Long-Term
Obligations –– The Funds utilize ratings provided by the following NRSROs
in order to determine eligibility of long-term obligations.
Credit
ratings typically evaluate the safety of principal and interest payments, not
the market value risk of high yield bonds. The NRSROs may fail to update a
credit rating on a timely basis to reflect changes in economic or financial
conditions that may affect the market value of the security. For these reasons,
credit ratings may not be an accurate indicator of the market value of a high
yield bond. The High Yield Bond Fund’s sub-advisor will monitor the Fund’s
holdings on a continuous basis to assess those factors not reflected in the
credit rating. Therefore, the achievement of the High Yield Bond Fund’s
investment objective will be more dependent on the sub-advisor’s research
abilities than if the High Yield Bond Fund invested primarily in higher-rated
securities.
The four
highest Moody’s ratings for long-term obligations (or issuers thereof) are Aaa,
Aa, A and Baa. Obligations rated Aaa are judged to be of the highest quality,
with minimal credit risk. Obligations rated Aa are judged to be of high quality
and are subject to very low credit risk. Obligations rated A are considered
upper-medium grade and are subject to low credit risk. Obligations rated Baa are
subject to moderate credit risk. They are considered medium-grade and as such
may possess certain speculative characteristics.
Moody’s
ratings of Ba, B, Caa, Ca and C are considered below investment grade.
Obligations rated Ba are judged to have speculative elements and are subject to
substantial credit risk. Obligations rated B are considered speculative and are
subject to high credit risk. Obligations rated Caa are judged to be of poor
standing and are subject to very high credit risk. Obligations rated Ca are
highly speculative and are likely in, or very near, default, with some prospect
of recovery of principal and interest. Obligations rated C are the lowest rated
class of bonds and are typically in default, with little prospect for recovery
of principal or interest. Moody’s also 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.
The four
highest Standard & Poor’s ratings for long-term obligations are AAA, AA, A
and BBB. An obligation rated AAA has the highest rating assigned by Standard
& Poor’s. The obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitment on the
obligation is extremely strong. An obligation rated AA differs from the
highest-rated obligations only to a small degree. The obligor’s capacity to meet
its financial commitment on the obligation is very strong. 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 commitment on the obligation is
still
strong.
An obligation rated BBB exhibits adequate protection parameters. However,
adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to lead to
a weakened capacity of the obligor to meet its financial commitment on the
obligation.
Standard
& Poor’s ratings of BB, B, CCC, CC, C and D are considered below investment
grade and are regarded as having significant speculative characteristics. While
such obligations will likely have some quality and protective characteristics,
these may be outweighed by large uncertainties or major exposures to adverse
conditions. 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 which could lead to the
obligor’s inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitment on the
obligation. An obligation rated B is more vulnerable to nonpayment than
obligations rated BB, but the obligor currently has the capacity to meet its
financial commitment on the obligation. Adverse business, financial, or economic
conditions will likely impair the obligor’s capacity or willingness to meet its
financial commitment on the obligation. 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 commitment 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 commitment
on the obligation. An obligation rated CC is currently highly vulnerable to
nonpayment. A C rating is assigned to obligations that are currently highly
vulnerable to nonpayment, obligations that have payment arrearages allowed by
the terms of the documents, or obligations of an issuer that is the subject of a
bankruptcy petition or similar action which have not experienced a payment
default. Among others, the C rating may be assigned to subordinated debt,
preferred stock or other obligations on which cash payments have been suspended
in accordance with the instrument’s terms. An obligation rated D is in payment
default. The D rating category is used when payments on an obligation are not
made on the date due even if the applicable grace period has not expired, unless
Standard & Poor’s believes that such payments will be made during such grace
period. The D rating also will be used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition
or the taking of a similar action if payments on an obligation are
jeopardized.
The four
highest ratings for long-term obligations by Fitch Ratings are AAA, AA, A and
BBB. Obligations rated AAA are deemed to be of the highest credit quality. AAA
ratings denote the lowest expectation of credit risk. They are assigned only in
case of exceptionally strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This
capacity is highly unlikely to be adversely affected by foreseeable events.
Obligations rated AA are deemed to be of 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. Obligations rated A are deemed to be of high
credit quality. An A rating denotes expectations of low credit risk. The
capacity for payment of financial commitments is considered strong. This
capacity may, nevertheless, be more vulnerable to changes in circumstances or in
economic conditions than is the case for higher ratings. Obligations rated BBB
are deemed to be of good credit quality. BBB ratings indicate that there are
currently expectations of low credit risk. The capacity for payment of financial
commitments is considered adequate but adverse changes in circumstances and
economic conditions are more likely to impair this capacity. This is the lowest
investment grade category.
Fitch’s
ratings of BB, B, CCC, CC, C, RD and D are considered below investment grade or
speculative grade. Obligations rated BB are deemed to be speculative. BB ratings
indicate that there is a possibility of credit risk developing, particularly as
the result of adverse economic change over time; however, business or financial
alternatives may be available to allow financial commitments to be met.
Securities rated in this category are not investment grade. Obligations rated B
are deemed to be highly speculative. For issuers and performing obligations, B
ratings indicate that significant credit risk is present, but a limited margin
of safety remains. Financial commitments are currently being met; however,
capacity for continued payment is contingent upon a sustained, favorable
business and economic environment. For individual obligations, may indicate
distressed or defaulted obligations with potential for extremely high
recoveries. Such obligations would possess a Recovery Rating of RR1
(outstanding). Obligations rated CCC indicate, for issuers and performing
obligations, default is a real possibility.
Capacity
for meeting financial commitments is solely reliant upon sustained, favorable
business or economic conditions. For individual obligations, may indicate
distressed or defaulted obligations with potential for average to superior
levels of recovery. Differences in credit quality may be denoted by plus/minus
distinctions. Such obligations typically would possess a Recovery Rating of RR2
(superior), or RR3 (good) or RR4 (average). Obligations rated CC indicate, for
issuers and performing obligations, default of some kind appears probable. For
individual obligations, may indicate distressed or defaulted obligations with a
Recovery Rating of RR4 (average) or RR5 (below average). Obligations rated C
indicate, for issuers and performing obligations, default is imminent. For
individual obligations, may indicate distressed or defaulted obligations with
potential for below-average to poor recoveries. Such obligations would possess a
Recovery Rating of RR6 (poor). Obligations rated RD indicate an entity that has
failed to make due payments (within the applicable grace period) on some but not
all material financial obligations, but continues to honor other classes of
obligations. Obligations rated D indicate an entity or sovereign that has
defaulted on all of its financial obligations. Default generally is defined as
one of the following: (a) failure of an obligor to make timely payment of
principal and/or interest under the contractual terms of any financial
obligation; (b) the bankruptcy filings, administration, receivership,
liquidation or other winding-up or cessation of business of an obligor; or (c)
the distressed or other coercive exchange of an obligation, where creditors were
offered securities with diminished structural or economic terms compared with
the existing obligation. Default ratings are not assigned prospectively; within
this context, non-payment on an instrument that contains a deferral feature or
grace period will not be considered a default until after the expiration of the
deferral or grace period.
The four
highest ratings for long-term obligations by Dominion Bond Rating Service
Limited (“DBRS”) are AAA, AA, A and BBB. Long-term debt rated AAA is of the
highest credit quality, with exceptionally strong protection for the timely
repayment of principal and interest. Earnings are considered stable, the
structure of the industry in which the entity operates is strong, and the
outlook for future profitability is favorable. There are few qualifying factors
present that would detract from the performance of the entity. The strength of
liquidity and coverage ratios is unquestioned and the entity has established a
credible track record of superior performance. Given the extremely high standard
that DBRS has set for this category, few entities are able to achieve a AAA
rating. Long-term debt rated AA is of superior credit quality, and protection of
interest and principal is considered high. In many cases they differ from
long-term debt rated AAA only to a small degree. Given the extremely restrictive
definition DBRS has for the AAA category, entities rated AA are also considered
to be strong credits, typically exemplifying above-average strength in key areas
of consideration and unlikely to be significantly affected by reasonably
foreseeable events. Long-term debt rated “A” is of satisfactory credit quality.
Protection of interest and principal is still substantial, but the degree of
strength is less than that of AA rated entities. While “A” is a respectable
rating, entities in this category are considered to be more susceptible to
adverse economic conditions and have greater cyclical tendencies than
higher-rated securities. Long-term debt rated BBB is of adequate credit quality.
Protection of interest and principal is considered acceptable, but the entity is
fairly susceptible to adverse changes in financial and economic conditions, or
there may be other adverse conditions present which reduce the strength of the
entity and its rated securities.
DBRS’
ratings of BB, B, CCC, CC, C and D are considered speculative and non-investment
grade. Long-term debt rated BB is defined to be speculative and non-investment
grade, where the degree of protection afforded interest and principal is
uncertain, particularly during periods of economic recession. Entities in the BB
range typically have limited access to capital markets and additional liquidity
support. In many cases, deficiencies in critical mass, diversification, and
competitive strength are additional negative considerations. Long-term debt
rated B is considered highly speculative and there is a reasonably high level of
uncertainty as to the ability of the entity to pay interest and principal on a
continuing basis in the future, especially in periods of economic recession or
industry adversity. Long-term debt rated CCC, CC or C is very highly speculative
and is in danger of default of interest and principal. The degree of adverse
elements present is more severe than long-term debt rated B. Long-term debt
rated below B often have features which, if not remedied, may lead to default.
In practice, there is little difference between these three categories, with CC
and C normally used for lower ranking debt of companies for which the senior
debt is rated in the CCC to B range. A security rated D implies the issuer has
either not met a scheduled
payment
of interest or principal or that the issuer has made it clear that it will miss
such a payment in the near future. In some cases, DBRS may not assign a D rating
under a bankruptcy announcement scenario, as allowances for grace periods may
exist in the underlying legal documentation. Once assigned, the D rating will
continue as long as the missed payment continues to be in arrears, and until
such time as the rating is discontinued or reinstated by DBRS.
Standard
& Poor’s and Fitch Ratings apply indicators (such as “+” and “-”) and DBRS
adds “high” or “low” to indicate relative standing within the major rating
categories (except AAA). A rating without one of these indicators falls within
the middle of the category.
Ratings of Municipal
Obligations –– Moody’s ratings for short-term investment-grade municipal
obligations are designated Municipal Investment Grade (MIG or VMIG in the case
of variable rate demand obligations) and are divided into three levels ––
MIG/VMIG 1, MIG/VMIG 2 and MIG/VMIG 3. Factors used in determination of ratings
include liquidity of the borrower and short-term cyclical elements. The MIG/VMIG
1 rating 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. The MIG/VMIG 2 rating denotes
strong credit quality. Margins of protection are ample, although not as large as
in the preceding group. The MIG/VMIG 3 rating denotes acceptable credit quality.
Liquidity and cash-flow protection may be narrow, and market access for
refinancing is likely to be less well-established. An SG rating denotes
speculative-grade credit quality. Debt instruments in this category may lack
sufficient margins of protection.
Standard
& Poor’s uses SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3 to rate short-term municipal obligations.
A rating of SP-1 denotes a 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. A rating of SP-2 denotes a satisfactory capacity to pay
principal and interest, with some vulnerability to adverse financial and
economic changes over the term of the notes. A rating of SP-3 denotes a
speculative capacity to pay principal and interest.
Ratings of Short-Term
Obligations –– The Funds utilize ratings provided by the following NRSROs
in order to determine eligibility of short-term obligations.
Moody’s
short-term ratings, designated as P-1, P-2 or P-3, are opinions of the ability
of issuers to honor short-term financial obligations that generally have an
original maturity not exceeding thirteen months. The rating P-1 is the highest
short-term rating assigned by Moody’s and it denotes an issuer (or supporting
institution) that has a superior ability to repay short-term debt obligations.
The rating P-2 denotes an issuer (or supporting institution) that has a strong
ability to repay short-term debt obligations. The rating P-3 denotes an issuer
(or supporting institution) that has an acceptable ability for repayment of
senior short-term policyholder claims and obligations.
Standard
& Poor’s short-term ratings are generally assigned to obligations with an
original maturity of no more than 365 days-including commercial paper. A
short-term obligation rated A-1 is rated in the highest category by Standard
& Poor’s. The obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitment on the
obligation is strong. Within this category, certain obligations are designated
with a plus sign (+). This indicates that the obligor’s capacity to meet its
financial commitment on these obligations is extremely strong. A short-term
obligation rated A-2 is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of
changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligations in higher
rating categories. However, the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial
commitment on the obligation is satisfactory. A short-term obligation rated A-3
exhibits adequate protection parameters. However, adverse economic conditions or
changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity of the
obligor to meet its financial commitment on the obligation. A short-term
obligation rated B is regarded as having significant speculative
characteristics. Ratings of B-1, B-2, and B-3 may be assigned to indicate finer
distinctions within the B category. The obligor currently has the capacity to
meet its financial commitment on the obligation; however, it faces major ongoing
uncertainties which could lead to the obligor’s inadequate capacity to meet its
financial commitment on the obligation. 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 commitment on the obligation. A
short-term obligation rated D is in payment default. The D rating category is
used when payments on an obligation are not made on the date due even if the
applicable grace period has not expired, unless Standard & Poor’s believes
that such payments will be made during such grace period. The D rating also will
be used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of a similar
action if payments on an obligation are jeopardized.
Fitch
Ratings’ short-term ratings have a time horizon of less than 13 months for most
obligations, or up to three years for US public finance, in line with industry
standards, to reflect unique risk characteristics of bond, tax, and revenue
anticipation notes that are commonly issued with terms up to three years.
Short-term ratings thus place greater emphasis on the liquidity necessary to
meet financial commitments in a timely manner. A rating of F1 denotes an
obligation of the highest credit quality. It indicates the strongest capacity
for timely payment of financial commitments and may have an added “+” to denote
any exceptionally strong credit feature. A rating of F2 denotes good credit
quality. It indicates a satisfactory capacity for timely payment of financial
commitments, but the margin of safety is not as great as in the case of the
higher ratings. A rating of F3 denotes fair credit quality. The capacity for
timely payment of financial commitments is adequate; however, near term adverse
changes could result in a reduction to non investment grade. A rating of B
denotes an obligation that is speculative. Minimal capacity for timely payment
of financial commitments, plus vulnerability to near term adverse changes in
financial and economic conditions. A rating of C denotes a high default risk.
Default is a real possibility. Capacity for meeting financial commitments is
solely reliant upon a sustained, favorable business and economic environment. A
rating of D indicates an entity or sovereign that has defaulted on all of its
financial obligations.
The DBRS
short-term debt rating scale is meant to give an indication of the risk that a
borrower will not fulfill its near-term debt obligations in a timely manner.
Short-term debt rated R-1 (high) is of the highest credit quality, and indicates
an entity possessing unquestioned ability to repay current liabilities as they
fall due. Entities rated in this category normally maintain strong liquidity
positions, conservative debt levels, and profitability that is both stable and
above average. Companies achieving an R-1 (high) rating are normally leaders in
structurally sound industry segments with proven track records, sustainable
positive future results, and no substantial qualifying negative factors. Given
the extremely tough definition DBRS has established for an R-1 (high), few
entities are strong enough to achieve this rating. Short-term debt rated R-1
(middle) is of superior credit quality and, in most cases, ratings in this
category differ from R-1 (high) credits by only a small degree. Given the
extremely tough definition DBRS has established for the R-1 (high) category,
entities rated R-1 (middle) are also considered strong credits, and typically
exemplify above average strength in key areas of consideration for the timely
repayment of short-term liabilities. Short-term debt rated R-1 (low) is of
satisfactory credit quality. The overall strength and outlook for key liquidity,
debt, and profitability ratios is not normally as favorable as with higher
rating categories, but these considerations are still respectable. Any
qualifying negative factors that exist are considered manageable, and the entity
is normally of sufficient size to have some influence in its industry.
Short-term debt rated R-2 (high) is considered to be at the upper end of
adequate credit quality. The ability to repay obligations as they mature remains
acceptable, although the overall strength and outlook for key liquidity, debt
and profitability ratios is not as strong as credits rated in the R-1 (low)
category. Relative to the latter category, other shortcomings often include
areas such as stability, financial flexibility, and the relative size and market
position of the entity within its industry. Short-term debt rated R-2 (middle)
is considered to be of adequate credit quality. Relative to the R-2 (high)
category, entities rated R-2 (middle) typically have some combination of higher
volatility, weaker debt or liquidity positions, lower future cash flow
capabilities, or are negatively impacted by a weaker industry. Ratings in this
category would be more vulnerable to adverse changes in financial and economic
conditions. Short-term debt rated R-2 (low) is considered to be at the lower end
of adequate credit quality, typically having some combination of challenges that
are not acceptable for an R-2 (middle) credit. However, R-2 (low) ratings still
display a level of credit strength that allows for a higher rating than the R-3
category, with this distinction often reflecting the issuer’s liquidity profile.
Short-term debt rated R-3 is considered to be at the lowest end of adequate
credit quality, one step up from being speculative. While not yet defined as
speculative, the R-3
category
signifies that although repayment is still expected, the certainty of repayment
could be impacted by a variety of possible adverse developments, many of which
would be outside of the issuer’s control. Entities in this area often have
limited access to capital markets and may also have limitations in securing
alternative sources of liquidity, particularly during periods of weak economic
conditions. Short-term debt rated R-4 is speculative. R-4 credits tend to have
weak liquidity and debt ratios, and the future trend of these ratios is also
unclear. Due to its speculative nature, companies with R-4 ratings would
normally have very limited access to alternative sources of liquidity. Earnings
and cash flow would typically be very unstable, and the level of overall
profitability of the entity is also likely to be low. The industry environment
may be weak, and strong negative qualifying factors are also likely to be
present. Short-term debt rated R-5 is highly speculative. There is a reasonably
high level of uncertainty as to the ability of the entity to repay the
obligations on a continuing basis in the future, especially in periods of
economic recession or industry adversity. In some cases, short term debt rated
R-5 may have challenges that if not corrected, could lead to default. A security
rated D implies the issuer has either not met a scheduled payment or the issuer
has made it clear that it will be missing such a payment in the near future. In
some cases, DBRS may not assign a D rating under a bankruptcy announcement
scenario, as allowances for grace periods may exist in the underlying legal
documentation. Once assigned, the D rating will continue as long as the missed
payment continues to be in arrears, and until such time as the rating is
discontinued or reinstated by DBRS.
Real Estate
Securities –– The Global Real Estate Fund invests primarily in securities
issued by real estate and real estate-related companies (as defined in the
prospectus), including real estate investment trusts (“REITs”) and real estate
operating companies (“REOCs”) and, therefore, adverse economic, business or
political developments affecting the real estate sector could have a major
effect on the value of the Fund’s investments. REITs pool investors’ funds for
investment primarily in income-producing real estate or real estate loans or
interests. A U.S.-qualified REIT is not taxed on income distributed to
shareholders if it complies with several requirements relating to its
organization, ownership, assets, and income and a requirement that it distribute
to its shareholders at least 90% of its taxable income (other than net capital
gains) for each taxable year. REITs can generally be classified as Equity REITs,
Mortgage REITs and Hybrid REITs. Equity REITs, which invest the majority of
their assets directly in real property, derive their income primarily from
rents. Equity REITs can also realize capital gains by selling properties that
have appreciated in value. Mortgage REITs, which invest the majority of their
assets in real estate mortgages, derive their income primarily from interest
payments. Hybrid REITs combine the characteristics of both Equity REITs and
Mortgage REITs. The Fund will not invest in real estate directly, but only in
securities issued by real estate and real estate-related companies, except that
the Fund may hold real estate and sell real estate acquired through default,
liquidation, or other distributions of an interest in real estate as a result of
the Fund’s ownership of securities issued by real estate or real estate-related
companies.
The
Global Real Estate Fund may be subject to risks similar to those associated with
the direct ownership of real estate (in addition to securities markets risks)
because of its policy of concentration in the securities of companies in the
real estate industry. These risks include declines in the value of real estate,
risks related to general and local economic conditions, dependency on management
skill, heavy cash flow dependency, possible lack of availability of mortgage
funds, overbuilding, extended vacancies of properties, increased competition,
increases in property taxes and operating expenses, changes in zoning laws,
losses due to costs resulting from the clean-up of environmental problems,
liability to third parties for damages resulting from environmental problems,
casualty or condemnation losses, limitations on rents, changes in neighborhood
values, the appeal of properties to tenants and changes in interest rates.
Investments in certain REITs (such as REIT funds of REITs) may subject Fund
shareholders to duplicate management and administrative fees. In addition to
these risks, Equity REITs may be affected by changes in the value of the
underlying property owned by the trusts, while Mortgage REITs may be affected by
the borrower quality and the type of credit extended to such borrowers. Further,
Equity and Mortgage REITs are dependent upon management skills and generally may
not be diversified. Equity and Mortgage REITs are also subject to heavy cash
flow dependency, defaults by borrowers (including the REIT itself) and
self-liquidation. The above factors may also adversely affect a borrower’s or a
lessee’s
ability
to meet its obligations to the REIT. In the event of a default by a borrower or
lessee, the REIT may experience delays in enforcing its rights as a mortgagee or
lessor and may incur substantial costs associated with protecting
investments.
In
addition, U.S.-qualified Equity and Mortgage REITs could possibly fail to
qualify for the beneficial tax treatment available to REITs under the Internal
Revenue Code, or to maintain their exemptions from registration under the 1940
Act.
In
addition, foreign REITs could possibly fail to qualify for any beneficial tax
treatments available to foreign REITs in their local jurisdiction.
Market Events ––
Turbulence in the financial sector has resulted, and may continue to result, in
an unusually high degree of volatility in the financial markets. Both domestic
and foreign equity markets have been experiencing increased volatility and
turmoil, with issuers that have exposure to the real estate, mortgage and credit
markets particularly affected, and it is uncertain whether or for how long these
conditions could continue. The U.S. Government has taken a number of
unprecedented actions designed to support certain financial institutions and
segments of the financial markets that have experienced extreme volatility, and
in some cases a lack of liquidity.
Reduced
liquidity in credit and fixed-income markets may adversely affect many issuers
worldwide. This reduced liquidity may result in less money being available to
purchase raw materials, goods and services from emerging markets, which may, in
turn, bring down the prices of these economic staples. It may also result in
emerging market issuers having more difficulty obtaining financing, which may,
in turn, cause a decline in their stock prices. These events and possible
continued market turbulence may have an adverse effect on a Fund.
Repurchase Agreements
–– A repurchase agreement, which provides a means to earn income on funds for
periods as short as overnight, is an arrangement under which the purchaser
(e.g., a Fund) purchases securities and the seller agrees, at the time of sale,
to repurchase the securities at a specified time and price. The repurchase price
will be higher than the purchase price, the difference being income to the
purchaser, or the purchase and repurchase prices may be the same, with interest
at a stated rate due to the purchaser together with the repurchase price on
repurchase. In either case, the income to the purchaser is unrelated to the
interest rate on the securities subject to the repurchase agreement. Repurchase
agreements are generally for a short period of time, usually less than a
week.
Each Fund
may enter into repurchase agreements with any bank that is a member of the
Federal Reserve System or registered broker-dealer who, in the opinion of the
Manager and the sub-advisor as applicable, presents a minimum risk of bankruptcy
during the term of the agreement based upon guidelines that periodically are
reviewed by the Board. Each Fund may enter into repurchase agreements as a
short-term investment of its idle cash in order to earn income. The securities
will be held by a custodian (or agent) approved by the Board, during the term of
the agreement. However, if the market value of the securities subject to the
repurchase agreement becomes less than the repurchase price (including
interest), the Fund will direct the seller of the securities to deliver
additional securities so that the market value of all securities subject to the
repurchase agreement will equal or exceed the repurchase price.
In the
event of the commencement of bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings with respect
to the seller of the securities before the repurchase of the securities under a
repurchase agreement, a Portfolio may encounter a delay and incur costs before
being able to sell the security being held as collateral. Delays may involve
loss of interest or decline in price of the securities. Apart from the risk of
bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, there is also the risk that the seller may
fail to repurchase the securities, in which case a Portfolio may incur a loss if
the proceeds to the Portfolio from the sale of the securities to a third party
are less than the repurchase price.
Reverse Repurchase
Agreements –– The Funds may borrow funds for temporary purposes by
entering into reverse repurchase agreements. Pursuant to such agreements, a Fund
would sell portfolio securities to financial institutions such as banks and
broker/dealers and agree to repurchase them at a mutually agreed-upon date and
price. The Funds intend to enter into reverse repurchase agreements only to
avoid selling securities to meet redemptions during market conditions deemed
unfavorable by the investment advisor possessing investment authority. At the
time a Fund enters into a reverse repurchase agreement, it will place in a
segregated custodial account assets such as liquid high quality debt securities
having a value not less than 100% of the repurchase price (including accrued
interest), and will subsequently monitor the account to ensure that such
required value is maintained. Reverse repurchase agreements involve the risk
that the market value of the securities sold by a Fund may decline below the
price at which such Fund is obligated to repurchase the securities. Reverse
repurchase agreements are considered to be borrowings by an investment company
under the 1940 Act.
Resource Recovery
Obligations –– Resource recovery obligations are a type of municipal
revenue obligation issued to build facilities such as solid waste incinerators
or waste-to-energy plants. Usually, a private corporation will be involved and
the revenue cash flow will be supported by fees or units paid by municipalities
for use of the facilities. The viability of a resource recovery project,
environmental protection regulations and project operator tax incentives may
affect the value and credit quality of these obligations.
Revenue Obligations
–– Revenue obligations are backed by the revenue cash flow of a project or
facility. The interest on such obligations is payable only from the revenues
derived from a particular project, facility, specific excise tax or other
revenue source. Revenue obligations are not a debt or liability of the local or
state government and do not obligate that government to levy or pledge any form
of taxation or to make any appropriation for payment.
Rights and Warrants
–– Rights are short-term warrants issued in conjunction with new stock or bond
issues. Warrants are options to purchase an issuer’s securities at a stated
price during a stated term. If the market price of the underlying common stock
does not exceed the warrant’s exercise price during the life of the warrant, the
warrant will expire worthless. Warrants usually have no voting rights, pay no
dividends and have no rights with respect to the assets of the corporation
issuing them. The percentage increase or decrease in the value of a warrant may
be greater than the percentage increase or decrease in the value of the
underlying common stock. There is no specific limit on the percentage of assets
a Fund may invest in rights and warrants, although the ability of some of the
Funds to so invest is limited by their investment objectives or
policies.
Section 4(2)
Securities –– Section 4(2) securities are restricted as to disposition
under the federal securities laws, and generally are sold to institutional
investors, such as one of the Funds, that agree they are purchasing the
securities for investment and not with an intention to distribute to the public.
Any resale by the purchaser must be pursuant to an exempt transaction and may be
accomplished in accordance with Rule 144A. Section 4(2) securities normally are
resold to other institutional investors through or with the assistance of the
issuer or dealers that make a market in the Section 4(2) securities, thus
providing liquidity.
The Board
and the applicable sub-advisor will carefully monitor the Funds’ investments in
Section 4(2) securities offered and sold under Rule 144A, focusing on such
important factors, among others, as valuation, liquidity, and availability of
information. Investments in Section 4(2) securities could have the effect of
reducing a Fund’s liquidity to the extent that qualified institutional buyers no
longer wish to purchase these restricted securities.
Separately Traded Registered
Interest and Principal Securities and Zero Coupon Obligations ––
Separately traded registered interest and principal securities or “STRIPS” and
zero coupon obligations are securities that do not make regular interest
payments. Instead they are sold at a discount from their face value. Each Fund
investing in STRIPs will take into account as income a portion of the difference
between these obligations’ purchase prices and their face values. Because they
do not pay coupon
income,
the prices of STRIPS and zero coupon obligations can be very volatile when
interest rates change. STRIPS are zero coupon bonds issued by the U.S.
Treasury.
Short Sales –– In
connection with the use of certain instruments based upon or consisting of one
or more baskets of securities, the Manager or a sub-advisor may sell a security
a Fund does not own, or in an amount greater than the Fund owns (i.e., make
short sales). Generally, to complete a short sale transaction, a Fund will
borrow the security to make delivery to the buyer. The Fund is then obligated to
replace the security borrowed. If the price at the time of replacement is more
than the price at which the security was sold by the Fund, the Fund will incur a
loss. Conversely, the Fund will realize a gain if the price of the security
decreases between selling short and replacement. Although the Fund’s gain is
limited to the price at which it sold the security short, its potential loss is
theoretically unlimited. Until the security is replaced, the Fund is required to
pay to the lender any interest that accrues during the period of the loan. To
borrow the security, the Fund may be required to pay a premium, which would
increase the cost of the security sold. The proceeds of the short sale will be
retained by the broker to the extent necessary to meet margin requirements until
the short position is closed out. Until the Fund replaces the borrowed security,
it will (a) maintain in a segregated account with its custodian cash or liquid
securities at such a level that the amount deposited in the account plus the
amount deposited with the broker as collateral will equal the current market
value of the security sold short or (b) otherwise cover its short
position.
Swap Agreements ––
The Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund may invest in interest rate
swap agreements to increase or decrease its exposure to interest rate changes.
Considered a derivative, a swap agreement is a two-party contract entered into
primarily by institutional investors for periods ranging from a few weeks to
more than one year whereby the two parties agree to exchange payments based on
changes in the value of a specified index, rate or other instrument. In an
interest rate swap, one party agrees to exchange with another party its
commitment to pay or receive interest. For example, a party may exchange
floating rate interest payments for fixed rate interest payments with respect to
a designated principal amount.
Typically,
the payment dates for both parties are the same, so the agreement will usually
call for the two payments to be netted against each other, and the net amount
only is paid to the party entitled to the higher amount. Therefore, the Fund’s
rights/obligations with regard to such swap agreements will be limited to the
net amount to be received/paid under the terms of the agreement.
The
Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Fund may also enter caps, floors and
collars, which are particular variations on swap agreements. The purchaser of an
interest rate cap agrees to pay a premium to the seller in return for the seller
paying interest on a specified principal amount to the purchaser based on the
extent to which a specified interest rate exceeds a predetermined level.
Conversely, the seller of an interest rate floor agrees to pay interest on a
specified principal amount to the purchaser based on the extent to which a
specified interest rate falls below a predetermined level. A collar combines a
cap and selling a floor, establishing a predetermined range of interest rates
within which each party agrees to make payments.
The use
of swap agreements requires special skills, knowledge and investment techniques
that differ from those required for normal portfolio management. If a
sub-advisor to the Fund incorrectly forecasts interest rate changes, interest
rate swaps based upon those expectations may result in losses for the Fund. The
counterparty to a swap agreement may default on its obligations to the Fund. To
mitigate this risk, the Fund will only enter swap agreements with counterparties
considered by the Manager or applicable sub-advisor to be at minimum risk of
default. In addition, swaps may be considered illiquid investments; see
“Illiquid Securities” for a description of liquidity risk. The swaps market is
relatively new and unregulated. The introduction of new regulation or other
developments may affect the Fund’s ability to receive payments or complete its
obligations under existing swap agreements.
Synthetic Convertible
Securities –– The sub-advisor to the Retirement Income and Appreciation
Fund may create a “synthetic” convertible security by combining fixed income
securities with the right to
acquire
equity securities. More flexibility is possible in the assembly of a synthetic
convertible security than in the purchase of a convertible security. Although
synthetic convertible securities may be selected where the two components are
issued by a single issuer, thus making the synthetic convertible security
similar to a true convertible security, the character of a synthetic convertible
security allows the combination of components representing more than one issuer,
when the investment advisor believes that such a combination would better
promote the Fund’s investment objective. A synthetic convertible security also
is a more flexible investment in that its two components may be purchased
separately. For example, the Fund may purchase a warrant for inclusion in a
synthetic convertible security but temporarily hold short-term investments while
postponing the purchase of a corresponding bond pending development of more
favorable market conditions.
The Fund
faces the risk of a decline in the price of the security or the level of the
index involved in the convertible component, causing a decline in the value of
the call option or warrant purchased to create the synthetic convertible
security. Should the price of the stock fall below the exercise price and remain
there throughout the exercise period, the entire amount paid for the call option
or warrant would be lost. Because a synthetic convertible security includes the
fixed-income component as well, the Fund also faces the risk that interest rates
will rise, causing a decline in the value of the fixed-income
instrument.
The Fund
may also purchase synthetic convertible securities manufactured by other
parties, including convertible structured notes. Convertible structured notes
are fixed income debentures linked to equity, and are typically issued by
investment banks. Convertible structured notes have the attributes of a
convertible security, however, the investment bank that issued the convertible
note assumes the credit risk associated with the investment, rather than the
issuer of the underlying common stock into which the note is
convertible.
Tax, Revenue or Bond
Anticipation Notes –– Tax, revenue or bond anticipation notes are issued
by municipalities in expectation of future tax or other revenues that are
payable from those taxes or revenues. Bond anticipation notes usually provide
interim financing in advance of an issue of bonds or notes, the proceeds of
which are used to repay the anticipation notes. Tax-exempt commercial paper is
issued by municipalities to help finance short-term capital or operating needs
in anticipation of future tax or other revenue.
Terrorism Risks ––
Some of the U.S. securities markets were closed for a four-day period as a
result of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on
September 11, 2001. These terrorist attacks, the war with Iraq and its
aftermath, continuing occupation of Iraq by coalition forces and related events
have led to increased short-term market volatility and may have long-term
effects on U.S. and world economies and markets. Those events could also have an
acute effect on individual issuers, related groups of issuers, or issuers
concentrated in a single geographic area. A similar disruption of the financial
markets or other terrorist attacks could adversely impact interest rates,
auctions, secondary trading, ratings, credit risk, inflation and other factors
relating to portfolio securities and adversely affect Fund service providers and
the Funds’ operations.
Time-Zone Arbitrage
–– Investing in foreign securities may involve a greater risk for excessive
trading due to “time- zone arbitrage.” If an event occurring after the close of
a foreign market, but before the time a Fund computes its current net asset
value, causes a change in the price of the foreign securities and such price is
not reflected in the Fund’s current net asset value, investors may attempt to
take advantage of anticipated price movements in securities held by the Fund
based on such pricing discrepancies.
U.S. Government
Securities –– U.S. Government Securities are securities issued or
guaranteed by the U.S. Government or its agencies or instrumentalities. Some
obligations issued by U.S. Government agencies and instrumentalities are
supported by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury; others by the right
of the issuer to borrow from the U.S. Treasury; others by discretionary
authority of the U.S.
Government
to purchase certain obligations of the agency or instrumentality; and others
only by the credit of the agency or instrumentality. U.S. Government Securities
bear fixed, floating or variable rates of interest. While the U.S. Government
currently provides financial support to certain U.S. Government-sponsored
agencies or instrumentalities, no assurance can be given that it will always do
so, since it is not so obligated by law. U.S. Government securities include U.S.
Treasury bills, notes and bonds, Federal Home Loan Bank obligations, Federal
Intermediate Credit Bank obligations, U.S. Government agency obligations and
repurchase agreements secured thereby.
U.S. Treasury
Obligations –– U.S. Treasury obligations include bills (initial
maturities of one year or less), notes (initial maturities between two and ten
years), and bonds (initial maturities over ten years) issued by the U.S.
Treasury, Separately Traded Registered Interest and Principal component parts of
such obligations known as STRIPS and inflation-indexed securities. Although U.S.
Treasury securities carry little principal risk if held to maturity, the prices
of these securities (like all debt securities) change between issuance and
maturity in response to fluctuating market interest rates.
Variable or Floating Rate
Obligations –– A variable rate obligation is one whose terms provide for
the adjustment of its interest rate on set dates and which, upon such
adjustment, can reasonably be expected to have a market value that approximates
its par value. A floating rate obligation is one whose terms provide for the
adjustment of its interest rate whenever a specified interest rate changes and
which, at any time, can reasonably be expected to have a market value that
approximates its par value. Variable or floating rate obligations may be secured
by bank letters of credit.
Pursuant
to Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act, variable or floating rate obligations with
stated maturities of more than 397 days may be deemed to have shorter maturities
as follows:
(1) An
obligation that is issued or guaranteed by the United States Government or any
agency thereof which has a variable rate of interest readjusted no less
frequently than every 762 days will be deemed by a Fund to have a maturity equal
to the period remaining until the next readjustment of the interest
rate.
(2) A
variable rate obligation, the principal amount of which is scheduled on the face
of the instrument to be paid in 397 days or less, will be deemed by a Fund to
have a maturity equal to the period remaining until the next readjustment of the
interest rate.
(3) A
variable rate obligation that is subject to a demand feature will be deemed by a
Fund to have a maturity equal to the longer of the period remaining until the
next readjustment of the interest rate or the period remaining until the
principal amount can be recovered through demand.
(4) A
floating rate obligation that is subject to a demand feature will be deemed by a
Fund to have a maturity equal to the period remaining until the principal amount
can be recovered through demand.
As used
above, an obligation is “subject to a demand feature” when a Fund is entitled to
receive the principal amount of the obligation either at any time on no more
than 30 days’ notice or at specified intervals not exceeding one year and upon
no more than 30 days’ notice.
Variable Rate Auction and
Residual Interest Obligations –– Variable rate auction and residual
interest obligations are created when an issuer or dealer separates the
principal portion of a long-term, fixed-rate municipal bond into two long-term,
variable-rate instruments. The interest rate on one portion reflects short-term
interest rates, while the interest rate on the other portion is typically higher
than the rate available on the original fixed-rate bond.
When-Issued and Forward
Commitment Transactions –– These transactions involve a commitment by a
Fund to purchase or sell securities at a future date. These transactions enable
a Fund to “lock-in” what the Manager or the sub-advisor, as applicable, believes
to be an attractive price or yield on a
particular
security for a period of time, regardless of future changes in interest rates.
For instance, in periods of rising interest rates and falling prices, a Fund
might sell securities it owns on a forward commitment basis to limit its
exposure to falling prices. In periods of falling interest rates and rising
prices, a Fund might purchase a security on a when-issued or forward commitment
basis and sell a similar security to settle such purchase, thereby obtaining the
benefit of currently higher yields. If the other party fails to complete the
trade, the Fund may lose the opportunity to obtain a favorable price. For
purchases on a when-issued basis, the price of the security is fixed at the date
of purchase, but delivery of and payment for the securities is not set until
after the securities are issued (generally one to two months later). The value
of when-issued securities is subject to market fluctuation during the interim
period and no income accrues to a Fund until settlement takes place. Such
transactions therefore involve a risk of loss if the value of the security to be
purchased declines prior to the settlement date or if the value of the security
to be sold increases prior to the settlement date. A sale of a when-issued
security also involves the risk that the other party will be unable to settle
the transaction. Forward commitment transactions involve a commitment to
purchase or sell securities with payment and delivery to take place at some
future date, normally one to two months after the date of the transaction. The
payment obligation and interest rate are fixed at the time the buyer enters into
the forward commitment. Forward commitment transactions are typically used as a
hedge against anticipated changes in interest rates and prices. Forward
commitment transactions are executed for existing obligations, whereas in a
when-issued transaction, the obligations have not yet been issued.
Each Fund
maintains with the Custodian a segregated account containing high-grade liquid
securities in an amount at least equal to the when-issued or forward commitment
transaction. When entering into a when-issued or forward commitment transaction,
a Fund will rely on the other party to consummate the transaction; if the other
party fails to do so, the Fund may be disadvantaged.
APPENDIX
A
AMERICAN
BEACON MASTER TRUST
AMERICAN
BEACON FUNDS
AMERICAN
BEACON MILEAGE FUNDS
AMERICAN
BEACON SELECT FUNDS
PROXY VOTING POLICY AND
PROCEDURES
Last Amended March 1,
2010
Preface
Proxy
voting is an important component of investment management and must be performed
in a dutiful and purposeful fashion in order to secure the best long-term
interests of interest holders of the American Beacon Master Trust and
shareholders of the American Beacon Funds, the American Beacon Mileage Funds,
and the American Beacon Select Funds (collectively, the “Funds”). Therefore,
these Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures (the “Policy”) have been adopted by the
Funds.
The Funds
are managed by American Beacon Advisors, Inc. (the “Manager”). The Funds’ Boards
of Trustees has delegated proxy voting authority to the Manager with respect to
the Funds that invest primarily in the securities of domestic U.S. issuers and
the portion of the Global Real Estate Fund that invests in the securities of
North American issuers (collectively, the “Domestic Funds”). The Manager has
retained a proxy voting consultant (the “Consultant”) to provide assistance
regarding the objective review and voting of proxies on any assets held by the
Domestic Funds, consistent with the Policy. The Policy sets forth the policies
and procedures the Manager employs when voting proxies for the Domestic Funds,
including the role of their investment subadvisors (the “Subadvisors”). Proxy
voting for the Funds that invest primarily in the securities of foreign issuers
and the portion of the Global Real Estate Fund that invests in the securities of
non-North American issuers (the “International Funds”) has been delegated by the
International Funds’ Boards of Trustees to the subadvisors for those funds
(“International Subadvisors”). For the securities held in their respective
portion of each International Fund, the International Subadvisors make voting
decisions pursuant to their own proxy voting policies and procedures, which have
been adopted by the International Funds and approved by their Boards of
Trustees. The Policy includes the procedures that the Manager performs to
monitor proxy voting by the International Subadvisors.
For all
of the Funds, the Manager seeks to ensure that proxies are voted in the best
interests of Fund interest holders and shareholders (collectively,
“shareholders”). For certain proxy proposals, the interests of the Manager
and/or its affiliates may differ from Fund shareholders’ interests. To avoid the
appearance of impropriety and to fulfill its fiduciary responsibility to
shareholders in these circumstances, the Policy includes procedures established
by the Manager for voting proxy proposals that potentially present a conflict of
interests.
Domestic
Funds –– Procedures
1. Voting
–– The Consultant has been instructed by the Manager to vote proxies in
accordance with the Policy, unless it is notified to vote otherwise by the
Manager in writing. The Manager may decide to instruct the Consultant to vote in
a manner different than specified by the Policy if it determines that such a
variance from the Policy would be in the best interests of Fund shareholders. In
making such a determination, the Manager will conduct its analysis of the proxy
proposal, which may include, among other things, discussing the issue with
Subadvisors holding the security to determine their recommended voting
position.
Except as
otherwise noted, items to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and proposals not
contemplated by the Policy will be assessed by the Manager. In these situations,
the Manager will use its
judgment
in directing the Consultant to vote in the best interest of the Funds’
shareholders and will propose changes to the Policy when
appropriate.
2. Conflicts
of Interest –– The Manager maintains a list by Fund of all affiliated
persons, including the Manager and its affiliates, the Subadvisors and their
affiliates as well as the Funds’ distributor and its affiliates. Any proxy
proposal involving an entity on this list could be considered to represent a
conflict of interest between a) the Manager, a Subadvisor, the distributor or
any of their affiliates and b) Fund shareholders. The Manager will monitor the
Fund’s holdings against the list of affiliated persons and will conduct an
analysis based upon the following procedures to resolve these known potential
conflicts as well as any unforeseen conflicts.
a. Proxies
for Affiliated Funds –– Each Fund has the ability to invest in the shares
of any of the Money Market Funds. For example, the High Yield Bond Fund may
purchase shares of the Money Market Fund. If the Money Market Fund issues a
proxy for which the High Yield Bond Fund is entitled to vote, the Manager’s
interests regarding the Money Market Fund might appear to conflict with the
interests of the shareholders of the High Yield Bond Fund. In these cases, the
Manager will instruct the Consultant to vote in accordance with the Board of
Trustees’ recommendations in the proxy statement.
b. Business
/ Personal Connections of the Manager –– The Manager is minority owned by
AMR Corporation, which is a publicly-traded corporation and the parent company
of American Airlines, Inc. To avoid the appearance of any conflict of interests,
the Funds are expressly prohibited from investing in the securities of AMR
Corporation or any other airline company.
The
Manager could have an advisory client that issues a proxy or promotes a proxy
proposal for which a Fund is entitled to vote. By taking a particular voting
position on the proxy, it could be perceived by Fund shareholders that the
Manager is favoring the advisory client over Fund shareholders in order to avoid
harming its relationship with the advisory client. If the Manager is asked to
render a decision regarding a proxy proposal issued or promoted by one of its
advisory clients, the Manager will refer that proposal to the applicable Fund’s
Board of Trustees, who will decide the Fund’s voting position after consultation
with the Manager.
In the
event that a principal officer of the Manager has a personal relationship or
connection with an issuer or proponent of a proxy proposal being considered by
the Manager, the voting matter will be discussed with the applicable Fund’s
Board of Trustees, who will decide the Fund’s voting position after consultation
with the Manager.
If an
unforeseen conflict pertaining to a particular proxy proposal becomes apparent,
the Manager will refer that proposal to the applicable Fund’s Board of Trustees,
who will decide the Fund’s voting position after consultation with the
Manager.
c. Business
/ Personal Connections of the Subadvisers –– Each Subadvisor (and its
affiliates) is considered an affiliate of the portion of the Fund it manages.
When the Manager receives input regarding a voting recommendation from a
Subadvisor, the Manager will request the Subadvisor’s disclosure of any business
or personal relationships or connections that the Subadvisor itself or its
principals may have with the proxy issuer or any proponent of the proxy
proposal. If the Subadvisor’s disclosure reveals any potential conflicts of
interest, the Manager will not rely on the Subadvisor’s recommendation regarding
the proxy proposal.
3. Securities
on Loan –– The Consultant will notify the Manager before the record date
about the occurrence of a future shareholder meeting. The Manager will determine
whether or not to recall shares of the applicable security that are on loan with
the intent of voting such shares in accordance with the Policy, based on factors
including the nature of the meeting (i.e., annual or special), the percentage of
the proxy issuer’s outstanding securities on loan, any other information
regarding the proxy proposals of
which the
Manager may be aware, and the loss of securities lending income to a Fund as a
result of recalling the shares on loan.
Domestic Funds ––
Policies
1. Routine
Proposals –– Routine proxy proposals are most commonly defined as those
that do not change the structure, bylaws, or operations of the corporation to
the detriment of the shareholders. The proposals are consistent with industry
standards as well as the corporate laws in the state of incorporation.
Traditionally, these include:
A. Location of
annual meeting
B. Employee
stock purchase plan
C. Appointment
of auditors
E. Director
indemnification and liability protection
The
Funds’ policy is to support
management on these routine proposals.
2. Social,
Political and Environmental Proposals –– Issues which can be
characterized as non-financial or non-business issues involving social,
political and environmental issues will result in voting to support
management. Financial interests of the shareholders are the only consideration
for proxy voting decisions.
3. Shareholder
Equality Proposals –– Issues that do not discriminate against certain
shareholders will be supported.
Non-discriminatory proposals include:
A. Anti-greenmail
–– Provisions that require that the price paid to the greenmailer must be
extended to all shareholders of record will be supported.
B. Fair
price provisions –– Provisions that guarantee an equal price to all
shareholders will be supported.
4. Non-routine
proposals –– Issues in this category are more likely to affect the
structure and operation of the corporation and, therefore have a greater impact
on the value of the shareholders’ investment. All situations will be viewed
individually and independently with the focus on the financial interest of the
shareholders.
Various
factors will contribute in the decision-making process assessing the financial
interest of the shareholders. Consideration should be given first and foremost
to the board of directors. The board of directors oversees the management of the
company, makes decisions on the most important issues and is a representative of
the shareholders. To the degree that the board is independent (defined as at
least 75% of members are independent, having no personal or business
relationship with management, as defined by the relevant exchange), capable and
dedicated to the shareholders, support should be for the board’s
recommendations.
Management’s
record, strategy and tenure will contribute in the decision-making process. The
tendency will be to side with management if, in the past, it has shown the
intent and ability to maximize
shareholder
wealth over the long term. Management will not be judged on a quarter-by-quarter
basis, but judged on decisions that are consistent with the long-term interests
of the shareholders of the company.
The
following are specific issues that directly impact the financial interest of the
shareholders.
a. Uncontested
elections –– The Funds will support
management’s slate during uncontested elections if the board is independent. The
company is the best judge of who is able and available to serve, and who will
work well together.
b. Contested
elections –– will be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. Both slates of candidates will be evaluated based on a thorough analysis
of each contesting side.
c. Independent
compensation committee –– an independent committee will best represent
shareholder interests and guards against conflicts of interest in executive pay
decisions. An independent or majority independent committee will have no
financial interest in the outcome. The Funds will support
proposals for independent compensation committees.
d. Independent
nominating committee –– The Funds believe that independent directors
selected by a committee of independent directors will be more likely to question
the CEO’s business judgment. Therefore, the Funds will support
proposals for independent nominating committees.
e. Classified
boards –– A typical classified board is divided into 3 groups with one
group standing for election every third year. The Funds believe that
shareholders benefit from the structure as classified boards provide stability
of leadership and continuity of management and policy that is crucial when
evaluating company issues. Therefore, the Funds’ policy is to support
classified boards, unless an independent board proposes to declassify itself, in
which case the Funds will support
management.
f. Cumulative
voting –– Under cumulative voting, shareholders are entitled to a number
of votes equal to the number of board seats open for election, times the number
of shares held. The votes can be cast for one nominee or apportion them, equally
or not, amongst the nominees. The Funds believe that each director should act
for the benefit of all shareholders and therefore should not be elected by a
special group of shareholders. As a result, the Funds do not
support cumulative voting. Directors have the fiduciary responsibility to
protect and enhance the interests of all shareholders. The potential disruption
caused by a minority director with a special agenda is potentially damaging to a
majority of shareholders. Directors should act in the benefit of the majority,
not the minority.
g. Independent
boards –– The Funds believe independent boards will permit clear and
independent decision-making, benefiting shareholders’ long-term interests. Board
members who are independent are more likely to protect shareholders’ interests
than company executives or other insiders. An “independent director” is defined
as an individual who has had no personal or business relationship with
management, as defined by the relevant exchange. While the Funds’ policy is to
generally support
independent boards, there is no objection to including up to 25% of insiders or
affiliated outsiders on the board. Inside directors have intimate knowledge of
the company that will be beneficial during discussions of the company’s
long-term prospects. If the board is less than 75% independent, the Funds will
withhold
their vote for non-CEO board members that are not independent.
h. Separate
chairman, CEO positions –– Proponents contend that an individual with
both positions is accountable to no one. The CEO is a management employee,
responsible for day-to-day operations, implementing corporate strategy, and
accountable to the board. The chairman is responsible for the overall direction
of the company, protecting the shareholders’ interests, evaluating the
performance of the CEO, and is accountable to the shareholders.
Opponents
contend it would dilute the power of the CEO to provide effective leadership,
create a potential rivalry between the two positions leading to compromise
rather than decisive action, insulate the CEO from being held accountable by the
board if the chairman is overprotective, and finally, may cause confusion by
having two public spokesmen. Despite the widespread use of this structure in
Britain, it is relatively revolutionary in the U.S. If the board is independent,
the Funds will support
the company’s recommendation regarding separate chairman, CEO positions. Other
situations will be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
i. Minimum
director stock / fund ownership –– proponents contend that a director’s
interests will be more aligned with shareholders if the director has a personal
stake in the company. Additionally, many companies are providing part of their
compensation in the form of stock for directors.
Opponents
contend that minimum stock/fund ownership requirements will restrict the search
to qualified, wealthy board candidates. This could eliminate other candidates
who may not be able to pay the price of the required stock.
The Funds
will not
support proposals for minimum director stock ownership.
j. Majority
vote to elect directors –– Shareholder concern about director elections
is an outgrowth of their concern about director accountability in the aftermath
of corporate scandals. Opponents argue that because of the “holdover” provision
applicable to most directors, a resignation policy could be more effective in
actually effecting the removal of an unpopular director. Proponents maintain
that a resignation policy approach still leaves such a director technically
“elected” and puts the onus on other board members to take action against one of
their colleagues.
The Funds
will support
proposals for a majority vote requirement to elect directors.
k. Increase/decrease
size of board –– The board and management are in the best position to
determine the structure for the board. If the board is independent, the Funds
will support
proposals to increase or decrease the size of the board if the board will be
comprised of at least 5 but no more than 20 members. Outside of this range, the
Funds will vote against a change in
the size of a board of directors.
l. Limit
number of boards served –– The board and management are in the best
position to determine the structure for the board. The Funds will not
support proposals to limit the number of boards a director may serve
on.
m. Term
limits –– Opponents of term limits sustain that the board and management
are in the best position to determine a workable, efficient structure for the
board. Furthermore, shareholders may approve or disapprove of certain directors
with their vote at annual meetings. The board should be free to identify the
individuals who will best serve the shareholders. Supporters of term limits say
that limiting the number of years that a director can serve on the board
provides a built-in mechanism to force turnover. A structure that specifically
limits the period of time a director can serve provides opportunities for
recruiting directors with new ideas and perspectives.
The Funds
will not
support proposals to institute term limits.
B. Executive
/ Director compensation
a. Incentive/Stock
option plans (establish, amend, add) –– proponents contend that
incentive/stock option plans are designed to attract, hold and motivate
management. Shareholders generally favor these plans, as top managers should
have a stake in their company that ties compensation to performance. By aligning
management’s interests with shareholders toward a goal of increasing shareholder
value, better returns usually result.
Opponents
contend that incentive/stock option plans may dilute the shareholders’ claim on
profits and assets and may lead to a shift in the balance of voting control.
Additionally, easily attainable incentive goals may not provide the necessary
incentive for management.
If the
board is independent and if the company has performed well over the previous 3-
or 5- year period, the Funds will generally support
these plans. However, the Funds will not
support plans that permit:
|
● |
Dilution
in excess of the company’s peer group, unless overall executive
compensation levels (including the value of the options) are at or below
the peer group; or |
|
|
|
|
● |
Repricing/replacing
underwater options |
b. Discounted
stock options –– options that may be exercised at prices below the
stock’s fair market value on the award date. Sometimes called non-qualified
options, these options are granted “in-the-money” or immediately exercisable for
a profit. The Funds do not
support discounted stock options, as they do not give management much
incentive to increase share value, while the purpose of granting stock options
is to align executives’ interests with those of the shareholders.
c. Exchange
of underwater options –– options with an exercise price higher than the
market price are considered “underwater” and, needless to say, unattractive. The
Funds do not
support the exchange of underwater options that result in a financial
gain to the participants since other shareholders have no such protection from
falling stock prices and since executives would bear no risk if management is
willing to bail them out when the stock price falls. The Funds will support
the exchange of underwater options that do not result in a financial gain to the
participants.
d. Cap or
limit executive and director pay –– The Funds will not support
capping or limiting executive or director pay. Pay flexibility is necessary to
motivate and retain top quality executives and align shareholder and management
interests.
e. Link pay
to performance –– Proponents contend that by linking pay to performance
management’s interests will be aligned with shareholders. Management with
compensation packages containing little volatility or risk may have a goal other
than maximizing shareholder wealth. As a result, the Funds will support
proposals to link pay to performance. However, the Funds will not
support proposals requiring that an excessive portion (75% or more) of
equity compensation be performance based.
f. Golden
parachute provisions –– provide severance payments to top executives who
are terminated or demoted after a change in control (takeover). They provide
some financial security to executives relieving potential anxiety as they
negotiate and impartially evaluate future takeover bids. This provision will
allow executives to not oppose a merger that might be in the best interests of
the shareholders but may cost them their job. Parachutes may also benefit
shareholders as they aid in the attraction and retention of
managers.
However,
opponents contend the existence of these provisions can discourage takeover
attempts, as significant sums may have to be paid to company executives.
Executives are already well paid to manage the company and should not have an
extra reward. Additionally, shareholder approval is generally not necessary for
enactment of this provision.
Properly
conceived, golden parachutes can free management to act in the best interests of
shareholders. Often, however, it is clearly an attempt to raise the cost to a
third party of acquiring the company. Other criteria for analyzing the actual
approval of parachute plans might include necessity, breadth of participation,
payout size, sensitivity of triggers and leveraged buyout restrictions. If the
board
is
independent and the company has performed well over the previous 3- or 5-year
period, the Funds will support
golden parachute provisions.
g. Executive
incentive bonus plans –– Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code
prohibits companies from deducting more than $1 million in compensation paid to
each of the top five executives, unless the compensation is paid under a
performance-based, shareholder approved plan. To maintain compliance, these
performance-based plans require shareholder approval every five
years.
Cash
bonus plans can be an important part of an executive’s overall pay package,
along with stock-based plans tied to long-term total shareholder returns. Over
the long term, stock prices are an excellent indicator of management
performance. However, other factors, such as economic conditions and investor
reaction to the stock market in general, and certain industries in particular,
can greatly impact the company’s stock price. As a result, a cash bonus plan can
effectively reward individual performance and the achievement of business unit
objectives that are independent of short-term market share price fluctuations.
Moreover, preservation of the full deductibility of all compensation paid
reduces the company’s corporate tax obligation.
Generally,
the Funds will support
these performance-based plans. However, if the compensation committee is not
100% independent, the proposal will be decided on a case-by-case
basis.
h. Supplemental
executive retirement plans (SERPs) –– Supplemental executive retirement
plans (SERPs) provide supplemental retirement benefits for executives in excess
of IRS compensation limitations. SERPs are unfunded plans and payable out of the
company’s general assets. The ability of a company to offer a SERP could affect
the company’s ability to compete for qualified senior executives, and could
place the company at a competitive disadvantage to its peers.
Opponents
contend that such benefits are unnecessary given the high levels of executive
compensation at most companies.
Generally,
the Funds will support
SERPs. However, if the compensation committee is not 100% independent, the
proposal will be decided on a case-by-case basis.
i. Shareholder
Proposal Regarding Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation
–– Proponents are urging boards to adopt a policy to allow shareholders an
opportunity to vote on an advisory management resolution at each annual meeting
to ratify compensation of the named executive officers (NEOs) as set forth in
the proxy statement’s summary compensation table. The vote would be non-binding
and would not affect any compensation paid or awarded to any NEO.
If the
board is independent, the Funds will support
management. All other proposals will be decided on a case-by-case
basis.
C. RIC
Contracts and Policies
a. Investment
Advisory Contracts –– All proposals regarding new investment advisory
contracts or amendments to existing contracts will be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis. Due to the complex and varied nature of these proposals, the principal
emphasis will be on the financial ramifications of the proposal for the Funds’
shareholders.
b. Distribution
Plans –– All proposals pertaining to a RIC’s distribution plan will be
reviewed on a case-by-case
basis, weighing any proposed additional fees to be paid by shareholders against
the potential benefits. The analysis will foremost consider the effects of the
proposal on the shareholders.
c. Fundamental
Objectives / Policies –– All proposals regarding the fundamental
investment objectives or policies of a RIC will be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis. Due to the complex and varied nature of these proposals, the principal
emphasis will be on the financial ramifications of the proposal for the
shareholders.
D. Confidential
voting –– The Funds believe that confidential voting restricts
communication between shareholders and management. Additionally, the system of
free and open proxy voting protects shareholder interests and ensures that the
fiduciary obligations of investment funds are met. These representatives are
then fully accountable to their constituents. Confidential voting is also
expensive, as voting must be tabulated by a third party before presentation. The
Funds will not
support confidential voting. Management cannot address shareholder
concerns if they cannot identify the dissenting voters. Undue pressure will not
be condoned but our concern is that communication might be diminished during a
time when shareholders are considering significant issues. Implementing
confidential voting is not an acceptable tradeoff for the potential loss of open
dialogue.
E. Supermajority-voting
provisions –– Proponents contend that a broad agreement should be reached
on issues that may have a significant impact on the company. Supermajority vote
requirements usually require a level of voting approval in excess of a simple
majority of the outstanding shares. Usually this range is from 66% to 80%, but
in some cases even higher.
Opponents
contend that supermajority-voting provisions detract from a simple majority’s
power to enforce its will. In many cases, the supermajority requirement will
make it impossible to repeal or enact proposals due to the number of votes
needed. Matters of corporate policy, a sale of assets or a sale of the entire
company should ordinarily only require a majority of shareholders.
The Funds
will support supermajority provisions up to 67%. All situations regarding
supermajority-voting provisions larger than 67% will be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis.
F. Right to
call a special meeting –– Proponents seek to change company’s bylaws and
other appropriate governing documents to allow shareholders of between 10% and
25% of outstanding common stock to call a special meeting. Proponents believe
special meetings will allow shareholders to vote on urgent matters that may
arise between regularly scheduled meetings.
Opponents
contend that typically company regulations allow for majority shareholders to
call special meetings which is a reasonable threshold in order to avoid the
expense of unnecessary meetings.
The Funds
will support
these proposals if proposed by management and the board is independent. However,
if proposed by shareholders, the Funds will support
proposals for the right to call a special meeting by shareholders of 30% or
greater of outstanding common stock.
G. Anti-takeover
proposals –– Poison pills, preemptive rights, fair pricing and dual class
voting provisions force potential bidders to deal directly with the board of
directors. The board’s role is to protect shareholders against unfair and
unequal treatment and guard against partial tender offers and other abusive
tactics. Fair and equitable offers will not be prevented and will equally
benefit all shareholders.
a. Poison
pills (Shareholder rights plans) –– protect shareholders from coercive
and unfair offers. Therefore, all shareholders should receive a better/fairer
offer. If the board is independent, the Funds will support
poison pills. If the board is not independent, each situation involving poison
pills will be decided on a case-by-case
basis.
b. Preemptive
rights –– enable shareholders to retain the same percentage of ownership
during additional stock offerings. This eliminates the effect of dilution on the
shareholder. The Funds will support
preemptive rights.
c. Fair
pricing provisions –– require that if offers are not approved by the
board, the bidder must pay the same “fair” price for all shares purchased. The
fair price is usually defined as the highest price paid by the bidder for shares
acquired before the start of the tender offer. This provision attempts to
prevent “two-tiered” offers in which the bidder offers a premium for sufficient
shares to gain control then offers a much lower price to the remaining holders.
The Funds will support
fair pricing provisions.
d. Dual
class voting provisions –– create unequal voting rights among different
shareholders. These provisions allow companies to raise capital and expand while
letting management maintain control without fear of being acquired. However,
these provisions enable management to become entrenched, as it is an
anti-takeover mechanism. With management controlling the voting power, no one
will pay a premium for shares of a company when there is no way for them to
obtain voting control of the company. The Funds will not
support dual class voting provisions.
H. Stock
related proposals
a. Increase
authorized common/preferred stock –– A request for additional shares of
stock was, in the past, considered a routine voting item. Companies usually
state it is for a specific use, such as a stock split, acquisition or for
“general corporate purposes.” However, an abundance of authorized but unissued
shares can become an anti-takeover measure, such as implementing a poison pill
or placing a large block of stock with a friendly holder to maintain
control.
If the
board is independent, the Funds will support
increases in common/preferred stock. The authorization will give companies the
ability and flexibility to finance corporate growth. If the board is not
independent, the Funds will not support increases in common/preferred
stock.
b. Targeted
share placements –– the issuance of a specific block of company
securities to a friendly shareholder. These placements are often used to defend
against an unfriendly takeover or to obtain favorable financing and may be
executed using common stock, preferred stock or convertible securities. Targeted
share placements are often less expensive to execute than issuing stock, they do
not require the high interest rates of traditional debt and a placement can be
structured for the benefit of the limited number of parties. Additionally, share
placements can be executed fairly quickly and shareholder approval is not
required.
Opponents
contend targeted placements give selected shareholders an unfair access to
valuable securities while diluting current shareholder’s proportional ownership
and voting interests. Additionally, critics contend that not only do targeted
share placements serve to entrench management, but also the holder of the share
placement may have a senior claim or return from company assets.
All
situations regarding targeted share placements will be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis. Since such stock could be used to dilute the ownership rights of current
shareholders, shareholders should have the opportunity to analyze the proposal
to determine whether it is in their best economic interests.
I. Mergers,
Acquisitions, Restructurings –– These transactions involve fundamental
changes in the structure and allocation of a company’s assets. Financial
considerations are foremost in these transactions but ERISA fiduciaries are not
obligated to take an offer if they feel the long-term interests of the Funds, as
a shareholder will be best served by the company continuing as is.
All
situations regarding mergers, acquisitions, or restructuring will be reviewed on
a case-by-case
basis. Due to the complexity and company-specific nature of these proposals, the
principal emphasis will be on the financial ramifications of the
proposal.
5. Other
Business –– The Funds will support
management with respect to “Other Business.”
6. Adjourn
Meeting –– The Funds will support
management with respect to proposals to adjourn the shareholder
meeting.
All other
issues will be decided on a case-by-case
basis. As with other non-routine proposals, decisions will be based primarily on
management and board responsiveness to enhancing shareholder
wealth.
Issues
requiring analysis on a case-by-case basis will be voted according to the
Consultant’s recommendation when the Funds own less than 1% of the company’s
outstanding shares and
less than $3 million of the company’s market capitalization.
International Funds ––
Procedures
1. Voting
–– The International Funds’ Boards of Trustees have delegated proxy voting to
the International Subadvisors. Each International Fund has adopted the proxy
voting policies and procedures of its respective subadvisor(s). The Manager
maintains copies of the International Subadvisors’ policies and will
periodically check the voting record for adherence to the policies. If any
discrepancies are noted, the Manager will follow up with the International
Subadvisor.
2. Conflicts
of Interest –– Each International Subadvisor receives from the Manager
the list of affiliated persons for each International Fund. Any proxy proposal
involving an entity on this list could be considered to represent a conflict of
interest between a) the Manager, an International Subadvisor, the distributor or
any of their affiliates and b) Fund shareholders. If an International Subadvisor
receives a proxy involving one of these entities, it will notify the Manager and
forward all proxy materials for consideration by the applicable Fund’s Board of
Trustees. The Board of Trustees will decide the Fund’s voting position in
consultation with the Manager and the International Subadvisor.
If an
unforeseen conflict pertaining to a particular proxy proposal becomes apparent,
the International Subadvisor will notify the Manager and forward all proxy
materials for consideration by the applicable Fund’s Board of Trustees. The
Board of Trustees will decide the Fund’s voting position in consultation with
the Manager and the International Subadvisor.
All Funds –– Other
Procedures
1. Recordkeeping
–– Records of all votes will be maintained by a) the Consultant for the Domestic
Funds and b) the International Subadvisers for the International Funds.
Documentation of all votes for the Domestic Funds will be maintained by the
Manager and the Consultant. Such documentation will include the recommendations
of the Subadvisers along with pertinent supporting comments and letters, the
Policy, the proxy voting policies and procedures of the International
Subadvisers, any and all company reports provided by proxy advisory consulting
services, additional information gathered by the Manager, minutes from any
meeting at which the Boards of Trustees considered a voting matter, the
conclusion and final vote.
2. Disclosure
–– The Manager, in conjunction with the Consultant, will compile the Funds’
proxy voting record for each year ended June 30 and file the required
information with the SEC via Form N-PX by August 31. The Manager will include a
summary of the Policy and/or the proxy voting policies and procedures of the
International Subadvisors, as applicable, in each Fund’s Statement of Additional
Information (“SAI”). In each Fund’s annual and semi-annual reports to
shareholders, the Manager will disclose that a description of the Policy and/or
the proxy voting policies and procedures of the International Subadvisors, as
applicable, is a) available upon request, without charge, by toll-free telephone
request, b) on the Funds’ website (if applicable), and c) on the SEC’s website
in the SAI. The SAI and shareholder reports will also disclose that the Funds’
proxy voting record is available by toll-free telephone request (or on the
Funds’ website) and on the SEC’s website by way of the Form N-PX.
Within
three
business days of receiving a request, the Manager will send a copy of the policy
description or voting record by first-class mail.
3. Board
Oversight –– On at least an annual basis, the Manager will present a
summary of the voting records of the Funds to the Boards of Trustees for their
review. The Boards of Trustees will annually consider for approval the Policy
and the proxy voting policies and procedures of the International Subadvisers.
In addition, the Manager and International Subadvisors will notify the Board of
any material changes to the proxy voting policies and
procedures.
APPENDIX
B
PROXY
VOTING POLICIES –– INTERNATIONAL EQUITY, EMERGING MARKETS AND GLOBAL REAL ESTATE
FUND SUB-ADVISORS
Causeway
Capital Management LLC
Summary of Proxy Voting
Policies and Procedures
Causeway
votes proxies solely in the best interests of the client in accordance with its
Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures. Causeway votes consistent with the
following principles: (i) increasing shareholder value; (ii) maintaining or
increasing shareholder influence over the board of directors and management;
(iii) establishing and enhancing a strong and independent board 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 recognizes that a company’s management is charged with day-to-day
operations and, therefore, generally votes on routine business matters in favor
of management’s positions. Under its guidelines, Causeway generally votes for
distributions of income, appointment of auditors, director compensation (unless
excessive), management’s slate of director nominees (except nominees with poor
attendance or who have not acted in the best interests of shareholders),
financial results/director and auditor reports, share repurchase plans, and
changing corporate names and other similar matters. Causeway generally votes
with management on social issues because it believes management is responsible
for handling them. Causeway generally opposes cumulative voting and votes
against anti-takeover mechanisms and attempts to classify boards of directors.
Causeway votes other matters –– including equity-based compensation plans –– on
a case-by-case basis.
Causeway’s
interests may conflict with the client on certain proxy votes where Causeway
might have a significant business or personal relationship with the company or
its officers. Causeway’s Chief Operating Officer in consultation with the
General Counsel decides if a vote involves a material conflict of interest. If
so, Causeway will either (i) obtain instructions or consent from the client on
voting, (ii) vote in accordance with a “for” or “against” or “with management”
guideline if one applies, or (iii) if no such guideline applies, will follow the
recommendation of a third party proxy voting consultant unaffiliated with
Causeway, such as Institutional Shareholder Services.
Non-U.S.
proxies may involve a number of problems that restrict or prevent Causeway’s
ability to vote. As a result, a client’s non-U.S. proxies will be voted on a
best efforts basis only. In addition, Causeway will not vote proxies (U.S. or
non-U.S.) if it does not receive adequate information from the client’s
custodian in sufficient time to cast the vote.
Lazard
Asset Management LLC
Summary of Proxy Voting
Policies
Lazard
Asset Management LLC and Lazard Asset Management (Canada), Inc. (together,
“Lazard” provide investment management services for client accounts, including
proxy voting services. As a fiduciary, Lazard is obligated to vote proxies in
the best interests of its clients. Lazard has developed a structure that is
designed to ensure that proxy voting is conducted in an appropriate manner,
consistent with clients’ best interests, and within the framework of this Proxy
Voting Policy (the “Policy”). Lazard has adopted this Policy in order to satisfy
its fiduciary obligation and the requirements of Rule 206(4)-6 under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended.
Lazard
manages assets for a variety of clients, including individuals, Taft-Hartley
plans, governmental plans, foundations and endowments, corporations, and
investment companies and other collective investment vehicles. To the extent
that proxy voting authority is delegated to Lazard, Lazard’s general policy is
to vote proxies on a given issue the same for all of its clients. This Policy is
based on the view that Lazard, in its role as investment adviser, must vote
proxies based on what it believes will maximize shareholder value as a long-term
investor, and the votes that it casts on behalf of all its clients are intended
to accomplish that objective. This Policy recognizes that there may be times
when meeting agendas or proposals may create the appearance of a material
conflict of interest for Lazard. When such a conflict may appear, Lazard will
seek to alleviate the potential conflict by voting consistent with pre-approved
guidelines or, in situations where the pre-approved guideline is to vote
case-by-case, with the recommendation of an independent source. More information
on how Lazard handles conflicts is provided in Section F of this
Policy.
B.
Responsibility to Vote
Proxies
Generally,
Lazard is willing to accept delegation from its clients to vote proxies. Lazard
does not delegate that authority to any other person or entity, but retains
complete authority for voting all proxies on behalf of its clients. Not all
clients delegate proxy-voting authority to Lazard, however, and Lazard will not
vote proxies, or provide advice to clients on how to vote proxies, in the
absence of a specific delegation of authority or an obligation under applicable
law. For example, securities that are held in an investment advisory account for
which Lazard exercises no investment discretion, are not voted by Lazard, nor
are shares that a client has authorized their custodian bank to use in a stock
loan program which passes voting rights to the party with possession of the
shares.
As
discussed more fully in Section G of this Policy, there may be times when Lazard
determines that it would be in the best interests of its clients to abstain from
voting proxies.
C.
General
Administration
1.
Overview
Lazard’s
proxy voting process is administered by its Proxy Operations Department
(“ProxyOps”), which reports to Lazard’s Chief Operations Officer. Oversight of
the process is provided by Lazard’s Legal and Compliance Department and by a
Proxy Committee currently consisting of Managing Directors, portfolio managers
and other investment personnel of Lazard. The Proxy Committee meets at least
semi-annually to review this Policy and consider changes to it, as well as
specific proxy voting guidelines (the “Approved Guidelines”), which are
discussed below. Meetings may be convened more frequently (for example, to
discuss a specific proxy agenda or proposal) as requested by the Manager of
ProxyOps, any member of the Proxy Committee, or Lazard’s General Counsel or
Chief Compliance Officer. A representative of Lazard’s Legal and Compliance
Department must be present at all Proxy Committee meetings.
2. Role
of Third Parties
To assist
it in its proxy-voting responsibilities, Lazard currently subscribes to several
research and other proxy-related services offered by Institutional Shareholder
Services, Inc. (“ISS”), one of the world’s largest providers of proxy-voting
services. ISS provides Lazard with its independent analysis and recommendation
regarding virtually every proxy proposal that Lazard votes on behalf of its
clients, with respect to both U.S. and non-U.S. securities. ISS provides other
proxy-related administrative services to Lazard. ISS receives on Lazard’s behalf
all proxy information sent by custodians that hold securities of Lazard’s
clients. ISS posts all relevant information regarding the proxy on its
password-protected website for Lazard to review, including meeting dates, all
agendas and ISS’ analysis. ProxyOps reviews this information on a daily basis
and regularly communicates with representatives of ISS to ensure that
all
agendas
are considered and proxies are voted on a timely basis. ISS also provides Lazard
with vote execution, recordkeeping and reporting support services.
3. Voting
Process
Lazard’s
Proxy Committee has approved specific proxy voting guidelines regarding various
common proxy proposals (the “Approved Guidelines”). As discussed more fully
below in Section D of this Policy, depending on the proposal, an Approved
Guideline may provide that Lazard should vote for or against the proposal, or
that the proposal should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Where the
Approved Guideline for a particular type of proxy proposal is to vote on a
case-by case basis, Lazard believes that input from a portfolio manager or
research analysts with knowledge of the issuer and its securities (collectively,
“Portfolio Management”) is essential. Portfolio Management is, in Lazard’s view,
best able to evaluate the impact that the outcome on a particular proposal will
have on the value of the issuer’s shares. Consequently, the Manager of ProxyOps
seeks Portfolio Management’s recommendation on how to vote all such proposals.
Similarly, with respect to certain Lazard strategies, as discussed more fully in
Sections F and G below, the Manager of ProxyOps will consult with Portfolio
Management to determine when it would be appropriate to abstain from
voting.
In
seeking Portfolio Management’s recommendation, the Manager of ProxyOps provides
ISS’ recommendation and analysis. Portfolio Management provides the Manager of
ProxyOps with its recommendation and the reasons behind it. ProxyOps will
generally vote as recommended by Portfolio Management, subject to certain
strategy- specific situations or situations where there may appear to be a
material conflict of interest, in which case an alternative approach may be
followed. (See Sections F and G below.) Depending on the facts surrounding a
particular case-by-case proposal, or Portfolio Management’s recommendation on a
case-by-case proposal, the Manager of ProxyOps may consult with Lazard’s Chief
Compliance Officer or General Counsel, and may seek the final approval of the
Proxy Committee regarding Portfolio Management’s recommendation. If necessary,
and in cases where there is a possibility of a split vote among Portfolio
Management teams as described in Section G.1. below, a meeting of the Proxy
Committee will be convened to discuss the proposal and reach a final decision on
Lazard’s vote.
Subject
to certain strategy-specific situations, ProxyOps generally votes all routine
proposals (described below) according to the Approved Guidelines. For
non-routine proposals where the Approved Guideline is to vote for or against,
ProxyOps will provide Portfolio Management with both the Approved Guideline, as
well as ISS’ recommendation and analysis. Unless Portfolio Management disagrees
with the Approved Guideline for the specific proposal, ProxyOps will generally
vote the proposal according to the Approved Guideline. If Portfolio Management
disagrees, however, it will provide its reason for doing so. All the relevant
information will be provided to the Proxy Committee members for a final
determination of such non-routine items. It is expected that the final vote will
be cast according to the Approved Guideline, absent a compelling reason for not
doing so, and subject to situations where there may be the appearance of a
material conflict of interest or certain strategy-specific situations, in which
case an alternative approach may be followed. (See Sections F and G,
below.)
Shareholders
receive proxies involving many different proposals. Many proposals are routine
in nature, such as a non-controversial election of Directors or a change in a
company’s name. Others are more complicated, such as items regarding corporate
governance and shareholder rights, changes to capital structure, stock option
plans and other executive compensation issues, mergers and other significant
transactions and social or political issues. Following are the Approved
Guidelines for a significant proportion of the proxy proposals on which Lazard
regularly votes. Of course, other proposals may be presented from time to time.
Those proposals will be discussed with the Proxy Committee to determine how they
should be voted and, if it is anticipated that they may re-occur, to adopt an
Approved
Guideline.
Certain strategy-specific considerations may result in Lazard voting proxies
other than according to Approved Guidelines, not voting shares at all, issuing
standing instructions to ISS on how to vote certain proxy matters or other
differences from how Lazard votes or handles its proxy voting. These
considerations are discussed in more detail in Section G, below.
1.
Routine Items
Lazard
generally votes routine items as recommended by the issuer’s management and
board of directors, and against any shareholder proposals regarding those
routine matters, based on the view that management is in a better position to
evaluate the need for them. Lazard considers routine items to be those that do
not change the structure, charter, bylaws, or operations of an issuer in any way
that is material to shareholder value. Routine items generally
include:
|
● |
routine
election or re-election of directors; |
|
|
|
|
● |
appointment
or election of auditors, in the absence of any controversy or conflict
regarding the auditors; |
|
|
|
|
● |
issues relating to
the timing or conduct of annual meetings; and |
|
|
|
|
● |
name
changes. |
|
|
|
2.
Corporate Governance and Shareholder Rights Matters
Many
proposals address issues related to corporate governance and shareholder rights.
These items often relate to a board of directors and its committees,
anti-takeover measures, and the conduct of the company’s shareholder
meetings.
a. Board
of Directors and Its Committees
Lazard
votes in favor of provisions that it believes will increase the effectiveness of
an issuer’s board of directors. Lazard believes that in most instances, a board
and the issuer’s management are in the best position to make the determination
how to best increase a board’s effectiveness. Lazard does not believe that
establishing burdensome requirements regarding a board will achieve this
objective. Lazard has Approved Guidelines to vote:
|
● |
For
the establishment of an independent nominating committee, audit committee
or compensation committee of a board of
directors; |
|
|
|
|
● |
For
a requirement that a substantial majority (e.g. 2/3) of a US or UK
company’s directors be independent; |
|
|
|
|
● |
On
a case-by-case basis regarding the election of directors where the board
does not have independent “key committees” or sufficient
independence; |
|
|
|
|
● |
For
proposals that a board’s committees be comprised solely of independent
directors or consist of a majority of independent
directors; |
|
|
|
|
● |
For proposals to
limit directors’ liability; broaden indemnification of directors; and
approve indemnification agreements for officers and directors, unless
doing so would affect shareholder interests in a specific pending or
threatened litigation; or for indemnification due to negligence in these
cases voting is on a case-by-case basis; |
|
|
|
|
● |
For
proposals seeking to de-classify a board and Against proposals seeking to
classify a board; |
|
● |
On
a case-by-case basis on all proposals relating to cumulative
voting; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Against
shareholder proposals, absent a demonstrable need, proposing the
establishment of additional committees; and on a case-by-case basis
regarding the establishment of shareholder advisory
committees. |
|
|
|
|
● |
Against
shareholder proposals seeking union or special-interest representation on
the board; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Against
shareholder proposals seeking to establish term limits or age limits for
directors; |
|
|
|
|
● |
On
a case-by-case basis on shareholder proposals seeking to require that the
issuer’s chairman and chief executive officer be different
individuals; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Against
shareholder proposals seeking to establish director stock-ownership
requirements; and |
|
|
|
|
● |
Against
shareholder proposals seeking to change the size of a board, requiring
women or minorities to serve on a board, or requiring two candidates for
each board seat. |
b.
Anti-takeover Measures
Certain
proposals are intended to deter outside parties from taking control of a
company. Such proposals could entrench management and adversely affect
shareholder rights and the value of the company’s shares. Consequently, Lazard
has adopted Approved Guidelines to vote:
|
● |
Against
proposals to adopt supermajority vote requirements, or increase vote
requirements, for mergers or for the removal of
directors; |
|
|
|
|
● |
On
a case-by-case basis regarding shareholder rights plans (also known as
“poison pill plans”) and For proposals seeking to require all poison pill
plans be submitted to shareholder vote; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Against
proposals seeking to adopt fair price provisions and For proposals seeking
to rescind them; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Against
“blank check” preferred stock; and |
|
|
|
|
● |
On
a case-by-case basis regarding other provisions seeking to amend a
company’s by-laws or charter regarding anti-takeover
provisions. |
c.
Conduct of Shareholder Meetings
Lazard
generally opposes any effort by management to restrict or limit shareholder
participation in shareholder meetings, and is in favor of efforts to enhance
shareholder participation. Lazard has therefore adopted Approved Guidelines to
vote:
|
● |
Against
proposals to adjourn meetings; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Against
proposals seeking to eliminate or restrict shareholders’ right to call a
special meeting; |
|
|
|
|
● |
For
proposals providing for confidential voting; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Against
efforts to eliminate or restrict right of shareholders to act by written
consent; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Against
proposals to adopt supermajority vote requirements, or increase vote
requirements, and |
|
● |
On a case-by-case
basis on changes to quorum
requirements. |
3.
Changes to Capital Structure
Lazard
receives many proxies that include proposals relating to a company’s capital
structure. These proposals vary greatly, as each one is unique to the
circumstances of the company involved, as well as the general economic and
market conditions existing at the time of the proposal. A board and management
may have many legitimate business reasons in seeking to effect changes to the
issuer’s capital structure, including raising additional capital for appropriate
business reasons, cash flow and market conditions. Lazard generally believes
that these decisions are best left to management, absent apparent reasons why
they should not be. Consequently, Lazard has adopted Approved Guidelines to
vote:
|
● |
For
management proposals to increase or decrease authorized common or
preferred stock (unless it is believed that doing so is intended to serve
as an anti-takeover measure); |
|
|
|
|
● |
For
stock splits and reverse stock splits; |
|
|
|
|
● |
On
a case-by-case basis on matters affecting shareholder rights, such as
amending votes-per-share; |
|
|
|
|
● |
On
a case-by-case basis on management proposals to issue a new class of
common or preferred shares; |
|
|
|
|
● |
For
management proposals to adopt or amend dividend reinvestment
plans; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Against
changes in capital structure designed to be used in poison pill plans;
and |
|
|
|
|
● |
On
a case-by-case basis on proposals seeking to approve or amend stock
ownership limitations or transfer
restrictions. |
4. Stock
Option Plans and Other Executive Compensation Issues
Lazard
supports efforts by companies to adopt compensation and incentive programs to
attract and retain the highest caliber management possible, and to align the
interests of a board, management and employees with those of shareholders.
Lazard favors programs intended to reward management and employees for positive,
long-term performance. However, Lazard will evaluate whether it believes, under
the circumstances, that the level of compensation is appropriate or excessive.
Lazard has Approved Guidelines to vote:
|
● |
On
a case-by-case basis regarding all stock option plans; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Against
restricted stock plans that do not involve any performance
criteria; |
|
|
|
|
● |
For
employee stock purchase plans; |
|
|
|
|
● |
On
a case-by-case basis for stock appreciation rights
plans; |
|
|
|
|
● |
For
deferred compensation plans; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Against
proposals to approve executive loans to exercise
options; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Against
proposals to re-price underwater
options; |
|
● |
On a case-by-case
basis regarding shareholder proposals to eliminate or restrict severance
agreements, and For proposals to submit severance agreements to
shareholders for approval; and Against proposals to limit executive
compensation or to require executive compensation to be submitted for
shareholder approval, unless, with respect to the latter submitting
compensation plans for shareholder approval is required by local law or
practice. |
5.
Mergers and Other Significant Transactions
Shareholders
are asked to consider a number of different types of significant transactions,
including mergers, acquisitions, sales of all or substantially all of a
company’s assets, reorganizations involving business combinations and
liquidations. Each of these transactions is unique. Therefore, Lazard’s Approved
Guideline is to vote on each of these transactions on a case-by-case
basis.
6. Social
and Political Issues
Proposals
involving social and political issues take many forms and cover a wide array of
issues. Some examples are: adoption of principles to limit or eliminate certain
business activities, or limit or eliminate business activities in certain
countries; adoption of certain conservation efforts; reporting of charitable
contributions or political contributions or activities; or the adoption of
certain principles regarding employment practices or discrimination policies.
These items are often presented by shareholders and are often opposed by the
company’s management and its board of directors. Lazard generally supports the
notion that corporations should be expected to act as good citizens, but, as
noted above, is obligated to vote on social and political proposals in a way
that it believes will most increase shareholder value. As a result, Lazard has
adopted Approved Guidelines to vote on a case-by-case basis for most social and
political issue proposals. Lazard will generally vote for the approval of
anti-discrimination policies.
E.
Voting Non-U.S.
Securities
Lazard
invests in non-U.S. securities on behalf of many clients. Laws and regulations
regarding shareholder rights and voting procedures differ dramatically across
the world. In certain countries, the requirements or restrictions imposed before
proxies may be voted may outweigh any benefit that could be realized by voting
the proxies involved. For example, certain countries restrict a shareholder’s
ability to sell shares for a certain period of time if the shareholder votes
proxies at a meeting (a practice known as “share blocking”). In other instances,
the costs of voting a proxy (i.e., by being required to send a representative to
the meeting) may simply outweigh any benefit to the client if the proxy is
voted. Generally, the Manager of ProxyOps will consult with Portfolio Management
to determine whether they believe it is in the interest of the clients to vote
the proxies. In these instances, the Proxy Committee will have the authority to
decide that it is in the best interest of its clients not to vote the
proxies.
There may
be other instances where Portfolio Management may wish to refrain from voting
proxies (See Section G.1. below). Due to the nature of the strategy, a decision
to refrain from voting proxies for securities held by the Korea Corporate
Governance strategy managed by Lazard (“KCG”), certain Japanese securities or
emerging market securities will generally be determined by Portfolio Management.
(See Section G.1. below.)
1.
Overview
Lazard is
required to vote proxies in the best interests of its clients. It is essential,
therefore, that material conflicts of interest or the appearance of a material
conflict be avoided.
Potential
conflicts of interest are inherent in Lazard’s organizational structure and in
the nature of its business. Following are examples of situations that could
present a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of
interest:
|
● |
Lazard
Frères & Co. LLC (“LF&Co.”), Lazard’s parent and a registered
broker-dealer, or an investment banking affiliate has a relationship with
a company the shares of which are held in accounts of Lazard clients, and
has provided services to the company with respect to an upcoming
significant proxy proposal (i.e., a merger or other significant
transaction); |
|
|
|
|
● |
Lazard
serves as an investment adviser for a company the management of which
supports a particular proposal, and shares of the company are held in
accounts of Lazard clients; |
|
|
|
|
● |
Lazard
serves as an investment adviser for the pension plan of an organization
that sponsors a proposal; or |
|
|
|
|
● |
A
Lazard employee who would otherwise be involved in the decision-making
process regarding a particular proposal has a material relationship with
the issuer or owns shares of the
issuer. |
2.
General Policy and Consequences of Violations
All
proxies must be voted in the best interest of each Lazard client, without any
consideration of the interests of any other Lazard client (unrelated to the
economic effect of the proposal being voted on share price), Lazard, LF&Co.
or any of their Managing Directors, officers, employees or affiliates. ProxyOps
is responsible for all proxy voting in accordance with this Policy after
consulting with the appropriate member or members of Portfolio Management, the
Proxy Committee and/or the Legal and Compliance Department. No other officers or
employees of Lazard, LF&Co. or their affiliates may influence or attempt to
influence the vote on any proposal. Doing so will be a violation of this Policy.
Any communication between an officer or employee of LF&Co. and an officer or
employee of Lazard trying to influence how a proposal should be voted is
prohibited, and is a violation of this Policy. Violations of this Policy could
result in disciplinary action, including letter of censure, fine or suspension,
or termination of employment. Any such conduct may also violate state and
Federal securities and other laws, as well as Lazard’s client agreements, which
could result in severe civil and criminal penalties being imposed, including the
violator being prohibited from ever working for any organization engaged in a
securities business. Every officer and employee of Lazard who participates in
any way in the decision-making process regarding proxy voting is responsible for
considering whether they have a conflicting interest or the appearance of a
conflicting interest on any proposal. A conflict could arise, for example, if an
officer or employee has a family member who is an officer of the issuer or owns
securities of the issuer. If an officer or employee believes such a conflict
exists or may appear to exist, he or she should notify the Chief Compliance
Officer immediately and, unless determined otherwise, should not continue to
participate in the decision-making process.
3.
Monitoring for Conflicts and Voting When a Material Conflict Exists
Lazard
monitors for potential conflicts of interest when it is possible that a conflict
could be viewed as influencing the outcome of the voting decision. Consequently,
the steps that Lazard takes to monitor conflicts, and voting proposals when the
appearance of a material conflict exists, differ depending on whether the
Approved Guideline for the specific item is to vote for or against, or is to
vote on a case-by-case basis.
a. Where
Approved Guideline Is For or Against
Most
proposals on which Lazard votes have an Approved Guideline to vote for or
against. Generally, unless Portfolio Management disagrees with the Approved
Guideline for a specific proposal, ProxyOps votes according to the Approved
Guideline. It is therefore necessary to consider whether an
apparent
conflict of interest exists where Portfolio Management disagrees with the
Approved Guideline. When that happens, the Manager of ProxyOps will use its best
efforts to determine whether a conflict of interest or potential conflict of
interest exists by inquiring whether the company itself, or the sponsor of the
proposal is a Lazard client. If either is a Lazard client, the Manager of Proxy
Ops will notify Lazard’s Chief Compliance Officer, who will determine whether an
actual or potential conflict exists.
If it
appears that a conflict of interest exists, the Manager of ProxyOps will notify
the Proxy Committee, who will review the facts surrounding the conflict and
determine whether the conflict is material. Whether a conflict is “material”
will depend on the facts and circumstances involved. For purposes of this
Policy, the appearance of a material conflict is one that the Proxy Committee
determines could be expected by a reasonable person in similar circumstances to
influence or potentially influence the voting decision on the particular
proposal involved.
If the
Proxy Committee determines that there is no material conflict, the proxy will be
voted as outlined in this Policy. If the Proxy Committee determines that a
material conflict appears to exist, then the proposal will be voted according to
the Approved Guideline.
b. Where
Approved Guideline Is Case-by-Case
In
situations where the Approved Guideline is to vote case-by-case and a material
conflict of interest appears to exist, Lazard’s policy is to vote the proxy item
according to the recommendation of an independent source, currently ISS. The
Manager of ProxyOps will use his best efforts to determine whether a conflict of
interest or a potential conflict of interest may exist by inquiring whether the
sponsor of the proposal is a Lazard client. If the sponsor is a Lazard client,
the Manager of Proxy Ops will notify Lazard’s Chief Compliance Officer, who will
determine whether some other conflict or potential conflict exists.
If it
appears that a conflict of interest exists, the Manager of ProxyOps will notify
the Proxy Committee, who will review the facts surrounding the conflict and
determine whether the conflict is material. There is a presumption that certain
circumstances will give rise to a material conflict of interest or the
appearance of such material conflict, such as LF&Co. having provided
services to a company with respect to an upcoming significant proxy proposal
(i.e., a merger or other significant transaction). If the Proxy Committee
determines that there is no material conflict, the proxy will be voted as
outlined in this Policy. If the Proxy Committee determines that a material
conflict appears to exist, then the proposal will generally be voted according
to the recommendation of ISS, however, before doing so, ProxyOps will obtain a
written representation from ISS that it is not in a position of conflict with
respect to the proxy, which could exist if ISS receives compensation from the
proxy issuer on corporate governance issues in addition to the advice it
provides Lazard on proxies. If ISS is in a conflicting position or if the
recommendations of the two services offered by ISS, the Proxy Advisor Service
and the Proxy Voter Service, are not the same, Lazard will obtain a
recommendation from a third independent source that provides proxy voting
advisory services, and will defer to the majority recommendation. If a
recommendation for a third independent source is not available and ISS is not in
a conflicting position, Lazard will follow the recommendation of ISS’ Proxy
Advisor Service. In addition, in the event of a conflict that arises in
connection with a proposal for a Lazard mutual fund, Lazard will either follow
the procedures described above or vote shares for or against the proposal in
proportion to shares voted by other shareholders.
1. Issues
Relating to Management of Specific Lazard Strategies
Due to
the nature of certain strategies managed by Lazard, specifically its emerging
markets and KCG strategies, there may be times when Lazard believes that it may
not be in the best interests of its clients to vote in accordance with the
Approved Guidelines, or to vote proxies at all. In certain
markets,
the fact
that Lazard is voting proxies may become public information, and, given the
nature of those markets, may impact the price of the securities involved. With
respect to the KCG strategy, Lazard may simply require more time to fully
understand and address a situation prior to determining what would be in the
best interests of shareholders. In these cases ProxyOps will look to Portfolio
Management to provide guidance on proxy voting rather than vote in accordance
with the Approved Guidelines.
Additionally,
particularly with respect to certain Japanese securities, Lazard may not receive
notice of a shareholder meeting in time to vote proxies for, or may simply be
prevented from voting proxies in connection with, a particular meeting. Due to
the compressed time frame for notification of shareholder meetings and Lazard’s
obligation to vote proxies on behalf of its clients, Lazard may issue standing
instructions to ISS on how to vote on certain matters.
Different
strategies managed by Lazard may hold the same securities. However, due to the
differences between the strategies and their related investment objectives
(e.g., the KCG strategy and an emerging-markets strategy), one Portfolio
Management team may desire to vote differently than the other, or one team may
desire to abstain from voting proxies while the other may desire to vote
proxies. In this event, Lazard would generally defer to the recommendation of
the KCG team to determine what action would be in the best interests of its
clients. However, under unusual circumstances, the votes may be split between
the two teams. In such event, a meeting of the Proxy Committee will be held to
determine whether it would be appropriate to split the votes.
2. Stock
Lending
As noted
in Section B above, Lazard does not vote proxies for securities that a client
has authorized their custodian bank to use in a stock loan program, which passes
voting rights to the party with possession of the shares. Under certain
circumstances, Lazard may determine to recall loaned stocks in order to vote the
proxies associated with those securities. For example, if Lazard determines that
the entity in possession of the stock has borrowed the stock solely to be able
to obtain control over the issuer of the stock by voting proxies, Lazard may
determine to recall the stock and vote the proxies itself. However, it is
expected that this will be done only in exceptional circumstances. In such
event, Portfolio Management will make this determination and ProxyOps will vote
the proxies in accordance with the Approved Guidelines.
The Proxy
Committee will review this Policy at least semi-annually to consider whether any
changes should be made to it or to any of the Approved Guidelines. Questions or
concerns regarding the Policy should be raised with Lazard’s General Counsel or
Chief Compliance Officer.
The Bank of New York Mellon
Corporation (parent company of The Boston Company Asset Management,
LLC)
Summary of Proxy Voting
Policy and Procedures
Adviser,
through its participation on BNY Mellon’s Proxy Policy Committee (“PPC”), has
adopted a Proxy Voting Policy, related procedures, and voting guidelines which
are applied to those client accounts over which it has been delegated the
authority to vote proxies. In voting proxies, Adviser seeks to act solely in the
best financial and economic interest of the applicable client. Adviser will
carefully review proposals that would limit shareholder control or could affect
the value of a client’s investment. Adviser generally will oppose proposals
designed to insulate an issuer’s management unnecessarily from the wishes of a
majority of shareholders. Adviser will generally support proposals designed to
provide management with short-term insulation from outside influences so as to
enable them to bargain effectively with potential suitors and otherwise achieve
long-term goals. On questions of social responsibility where economic
performance does not appear to be an issue, Adviser will attempt to ensure that
management reasonably
responds
to the social issues. Responsiveness will be measured by management’s efforts to
address the proposal including, where appropriate, assessment of the
implications of the proposal to the ongoing operations of the company. The PPC
will pay particular attention to repeat issues where management has failed in
its commitment in the intervening period to take actions on issues.
Adviser
recognizes its duty to vote proxies in the best interests of its clients.
Adviser seeks to avoid material conflicts of interest through its participation
in the PPC, which applies detailed, pre-determined proxy voting guidelines (the
“Voting Guidelines”) in an objective and consistent manner across client
accounts, based on internal and external research and recommendations provided
by a third party vendor, and without consideration of any client relationship
factors. Further, Adviser and its affiliates engage a third party as an
independent fiduciary to vote all proxies for BNY Mellon securities and
affiliated mutual fund securities.
All proxy
voting proposals are reviewed, categorized, analyzed and voted in accordance
with the Voting Guidelines. These guidelines are reviewed periodically and
updated as necessary to reflect new issues and any changes in our policies on
specific issues. Items that can be categorized under the Voting Guidelines will
be voted in accordance with any applicable guidelines or referred to the PPC, if
the applicable guidelines so require. Proposals for which a guideline has not
yet been established, for example, new proposals arising from emerging economic
or regulatory issues, are referred to the PPC for discussion and vote.
Additionally, the PPC may elect to review any proposal where it has identified a
particular issue for special scrutiny in light of new information. With regard
to voting proxies of foreign companies, Adviser weighs the cost of voting, and
potential inability to sell the securities (which may occur during the voting
process) against the benefit of voting the proxies to determine whether or not
to vote.
In
evaluating proposals regarding incentive plans and restricted stock plans, the
PPC typically employs a shareholder value transfer model. This model seeks to
assess the amount of shareholder equity flowing out of the company to executives
as options are exercised. After determining the cost of the plan, the PPC
evaluates whether the cost is reasonable based on a number of factors, including
industry classification and historical performance information. The PPC
generally votes against proposals that permit the repricing or replacement of
stock options without shareholder approval or that are silent on repricing and
the company has a history of repricing stock options in a manner that the PPC
believes is detrimental to shareholders.
Adviser
will furnish a copy of its Proxy Voting Policy, any related procedures, and its
Voting Guidelines to each advisory client upon request. Upon request, Adviser
will also disclose to an advisory client the proxy voting history for its
account after the shareholder meeting has concluded.
Morgan
Stanley Investment Management Inc.
Proxy Voting Policy And
Procedures
Morgan
Stanley Investment Management’s (“MSIM”) policy and procedures for voting
proxies (“Policy”) with respect to securities held in the accounts of clients
applies to those MSIM entities that provide discretionary investment management
services and for which an MSIM entity has authority to vote proxies. This Policy
is reviewed and updated as necessary to address new and evolving proxy voting
issues and standards.
The MSIM
entities covered by this Policy currently include the following: Morgan Stanley
Investment Advisors Inc., Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP, Morgan Stanley Investment
Management Inc., Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited, Morgan Stanley
Investment Management Company, Morgan Stanley Asset & Investment Trust
Management Co., Limited, Morgan Stanley Investment Management
Private
Limited,
Van Kampen Asset Management, and Van Kampen Advisors Inc. (each an “MSIM
Affiliate” and collectively referred to as the “MSIM Affiliates” or as “we”
below).
Each MSIM
Affiliate will use its best efforts to vote proxies as part of its authority to
manage, acquire and dispose of account assets. With respect to the MSIM
registered management investment companies (Van Kampen, Institutional and
Advisor Funds-collectively referred to herein as the “MSIM Funds”), each MSIM
Affiliate will vote proxies under this Policy pursuant to authority granted
under its applicable investment advisory agreement or, in the absence of such
authority, as authorized by the Board of Directors/Trustees of the MSIM Funds.
An MSIM Affiliate will not vote proxies if the “named fiduciary” for an ERISA
account has reserved the authority for itself, or in the case of an account not
governed by ERISA, the investment management or investment advisory agreement
does not authorize the MSIM Affiliate to vote proxies. MSIM Affiliates will vote
proxies in a prudent and diligent manner and in the best interests of clients,
including beneficiaries of and participants in a client’s benefit plan(s) for
which the MSIM Affiliates manage assets, consistent with the objective of
maximizing long-term investment returns (“Client Proxy Standard”). In certain
situations, a client or its fiduciary may provide an MSIM Affiliate with a proxy
voting policy. In these situations, the MSIM Affiliate will comply with the
client’s policy.
Proxy Research
Services –– RiskMetrics Group ISS Governance Services (“ISS”) and Glass
Lewis (together with other proxy research providers as we may retain from time
to time, the “Research Providers”) are independent advisers that specialize in
providing a variety of fiduciary-level proxy-related services to institutional
investment managers, plan sponsors, custodians, consultants, and other
institutional investors. The services provided include in-depth research, global
issuer analysis, and voting recommendations. While we may review and utilize the
recommendations of the Research Providers in making proxy voting decisions, we
are in no way obligated to follow such recommendations. In addition to research,
ISS provides vote execution, reporting, and recordkeeping services.
Voting Proxies for Certain
Non-U.S. Companies –– Voting proxies of companies located in some
jurisdictions, particularly emerging markets, may involve several problems that
can restrict or prevent the ability to vote such proxies or entail significant
costs. 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; (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) the imposition of restrictions
on the sale of the securities for a period of time in proximity to the
shareholder meeting; and (vi) requirements to provide local agents with power of
attorney to facilitate our voting instructions. As a result, we vote clients’
non-U.S. proxies on a best efforts basis only, after weighing the costs and
benefits of voting such proxies, consistent with the Client Proxy Standard. ISS
has been retained to provide assistance in connection with voting non-U.S.
proxies.
II. GENERAL
PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES
To
promote consistency in voting proxies on behalf of its clients, we follow this
Policy (subject to any exception set forth herein). The Policy addresses a broad
range of issues, and provides general voting parameters on proposals that arise
most frequently. However, details of specific proposals vary, and those details
affect particular voting decisions, as do factors specific to a given company.
Pursuant to the procedures set forth herein, we may vote in a manner that is not
in accordance with the following general guidelines, provided the vote is
approved by the Proxy Review Committee (see Section III for description) and is
consistent with the Client Proxy Standard. Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP will follow
the procedures as described in Appendix A.
We
endeavor to integrate governance and proxy voting policy with investment goals,
using the vote to encourage portfolio companies to enhance long-term shareholder
value and to provide a high standard of transparency such that equity markets
can value corporate assets appropriately.
We seek
to follow the Client Proxy Standard for each client. At times, this may result
in split votes, for example when different clients have varying economic
interests in the outcome of a particular voting matter (such as a case in which
varied ownership interests in two companies involved in a merger result in
different stakes in the outcome). We also may split votes at times based on
differing views of portfolio managers.
We may
abstain on matters for which disclosure is inadequate.
A. Routine Matters. We
generally support routine management proposals. The following are examples of
routine management proposals:
|
● |
Approval
of financial statements and auditor reports if delivered with an
unqualified auditor’s opinion. |
|
|
|
|
● |
General
updating/corrective amendments to the charter, articles of association or
bylaws, unless we believe that such amendments would diminish shareholder
rights. |
|
|
|
|
● |
Most
proposals related to the conduct of the annual meeting, with the following
exceptions. We generally oppose proposals that relate to “the transaction
of such other business which may come before the meeting,” and open-ended
requests for adjournment. However, where management specifically states
the reason for requesting an adjournment and the requested adjournment
would facilitate passage of a proposal that would otherwise be supported
under this Policy (i.e. an uncontested corporate transaction), the
adjournment request will be
supported. |
We
generally support shareholder proposals advocating confidential voting
procedures and independent tabulation of voting results.
|
1. |
Election of directors: Votes on board
nominees can involve balancing a variety of considerations. In balancing
various factors in uncontested elections, we may take into consideration
whether the company has a majority voting policy in place that we believe
makes the director vote more meaningful. In the absence of a proxy
contest, we generally support the board’s nominees for director except as
follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
a. |
We
consider withholding support from or voting against interested directors
if the company’s board does not meet market standards for director
independence, or if otherwise we believe board independence is
insufficient. We refer to prevalent market standards as promulgated by a
stock exchange or other authority within a given market (e.g., New York
Stock Exchange or Nasdaq rules for most U.S. companies, and The Combined
Code on Corporate Governance in the United Kingdom). Thus, for an NYSE
company with no controlling shareholder, we would expect that at a minimum
a majority of directors should be independent as defined by NYSE. Where we
view market standards as inadequate, we may withhold votes based on
stronger independence standards. Market standards notwithstanding, we
generally do not view long board tenure alone as a basis to classify a
director as non-independent, although lack of board turnover and fresh
perspective can be a negative factor in voting on
directors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i. |
At
a company with a shareholder or group that controls the company by virtue
of a majority economic interest in the company, we have a reduced
expectation for board independence, although we believe the presence of
independent directors can be helpful, particularly in staffing the audit
committee, and at times we may withhold support from or vote against a
nominee on the view the board or its committees are not sufficiently
independent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ii. |
We
consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee if he or she
is affiliated with a major shareholder that has representation on a board
disproportionate to its economic interest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
b. |
Depending
on market standards, we consider withholding support from or voting
against a nominee who is interested and who is standing for election as a
member of the company’s compensation, nominating or audit
committee. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
c. |
We
consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee if we
believe a direct conflict exists between the interests of the nominee and
the public shareholders, including failure to meet fiduciary standards of
care and/or loyalty. We may oppose directors where we conclude that
actions of directors are unlawful, unethical or negligent. We consider
opposing individual board members or an entire slate if we believe the
board is entrenched and/or dealing inadequately with performance problems,
and/or acting with insufficient independence between the board and
management. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
d. |
We
consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee standing for
election if the board has not taken action to implement generally accepted
governance practices for which there is a “bright line” test. For example,
in the context of the U.S. market, failure to eliminate a dead hand or
slow hand poison pill would be seen as a basis for opposing one or more
incumbent nominees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
e. |
In
markets that encourage designated audit committee financial experts, we
consider voting against members of an audit committee if no members are
designated as such. We also may not support the audit committee members if
the company has faced financial reporting issues and/or does not put the
auditor up for ratification by shareholders. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
f. |
We
believe investors should have the ability to vote on individual nominees,
and may abstain or vote against a slate of nominees where we are not given
the opportunity to vote on individual nominees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
g. |
We
consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee who has
failed to attend at least 75% of the nominee’s board and board committee
meetings within a given year without a reasonable excuse. We also consider
opposing nominees if the company does not meet market standards for
disclosure on attendance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
h. |
We
consider withholding support from or voting against a nominee who appears
overcommitted, particularly through service on an excessive number of
boards. Market expectations are incorporated into this analysis; for U.S.
boards, we generally oppose election of a nominee who serves on more than
six public company boards (excluding investment
companies). |
|
|
|
|
2. |
Discharge of
directors’ duties: In markets where an annual discharge of
directors’ responsibility is a routine agenda item, we generally support
such discharge. However, we may vote against discharge or abstain from
voting where there are serious findings of fraud or other unethical
behavior for which the individual bears responsibility. The annual
discharge of responsibility represents shareholder approval of actions
taken by the board during the year and may make future shareholder action
against the board difficult to pursue. |
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
Board
independence: We generally support U.S. shareholder proposals
requiring that a certain percentage (up to 662/3%) of the company’s board
members be independent directors, and promoting all-independent audit,
compensation and nominating/governance
committees. |
|
4. |
Board diversity: We consider on a
case-by-case basis shareholder proposals urging diversity of board
membership with respect to social, religious or ethnic
group. |
|
|
|
5. |
Majority voting: We generally support
proposals requesting or requiring majority voting policies in election of
directors, so long as there is a carve-out for plurality voting in the
case of contested elections. |
|
|
|
6. |
Proxy access: We consider on a case-by-case
basis shareholder proposals to provide procedures for inclusion of
shareholder nominees in company proxy statements. |
|
|
|
7. |
Proposals to elect all directors annually:
We generally support proposals to elect all directors annually at public
companies (to “declassify” the Board of Directors) where such action is
supported by the board, and otherwise consider the issue on a case-by-case
basis based in part on overall takeover defenses at a
company. |
|
|
|
8. |
Cumulative voting: We generally support
proposals to eliminate cumulative voting in the U.S. market context.
(Cumulative voting provides that shareholders may concentrate their votes
for one or a handful of candidates, a system that can enable a minority
bloc to place representation on a board.) U.S. proposals to establish
cumulative voting in the election of directors generally will not be
supported. |
|
|
|
9. |
Separation of Chairman and CEO positions:
We vote on shareholder proposals to separate the Chairman and CEO
positions and/or to appoint a non-executive Chairman based in part on
prevailing practice in particular markets, since the context for such a
practice varies. In many non-U.S. markets, we view separation of the roles
as a market standard practice, and support division of the roles in that
context. |
|
|
|
10. |
Director retirement age and term limits:
Proposals recommending set director retirement ages or director term
limits are voted on a case-by-case basis. |
|
|
|
11. |
Proposals to limit directors’ liability and/or
broaden indemnification of officers and directors. Generally, we
will support such proposals provided that an individual is eligible only
if he or she has not acted in bad faith, gross negligence or reckless
disregard of their duties. |
C. Statutory auditor boards.
The statutory auditor board, which is separate from the main board of
directors, plays a role in corporate governance in several markets. These boards
are elected by shareholders to provide assurance on compliance with legal and
accounting standards and the company’s articles of association. We generally
vote for statutory auditor nominees if they meet independence standards. In
markets that require disclosure on attendance by internal statutory auditors,
however, we consider voting against nominees for these positions who failed to
attend at least 75% of meetings in the previous year. We also consider opposing
nominees if the company does not meet market standards for disclosure on
attendance.
D. Corporate transactions and proxy
fights. We examine proposals relating to mergers, acquisitions and other
special corporate transactions (i.e., takeovers, spin-offs, sales of assets,
reorganizations, restructurings and recapitalizations) on a case-by-case basis
in the interests of each fund or other account. Proposals for mergers or other
significant transactions that are friendly and approved by the Research
Providers usually are supported if there is no portfolio manager objection. We
also analyze proxy contests on a case-by-case basis.
E. Changes in capital
structure.
1.
We generally support the following:
|
● |
Management
and shareholder proposals aimed at eliminating unequal voting rights,
assuming fair economic treatment of classes of shares we
hold. |
|
|
|
|
● |
Management
proposals to increase the authorization of existing classes of common
stock (or securities convertible into common stock) if: (i) a clear
business purpose is stated that we can support and the number of shares
requested is reasonable in relation to the purpose for which authorization
is requested; and/or (ii) the authorization does not exceed 100% of shares
currently authorized and at least 30% of the total new authorization will
be outstanding. (We consider proposals that do not meet these criteria on
a case-by-case basis.) |
|
|
|
|
● |
Management
proposals to create a new class of preferred stock or for issuances of
preferred stock up to 50% of issued capital, unless we have concerns about
use of the authority for anti-takeover purposes. |
|
|
|
|
● |
Management
proposals to authorize share repurchase plans, except in some cases in
which we believe there are insufficient protections against use of an
authorization for anti-takeover purposes. |
|
|
|
|
● |
Management
proposals to reduce the number of authorized shares of common or preferred
stock, or to eliminate classes of preferred stock. |
|
|
|
|
● |
Management
proposals to effect stock splits. |
|
|
|
|
● |
Management
proposals to effect reverse stock splits if management proportionately
reduces the authorized share amount set forth in the corporate charter.
Reverse stock splits that do not adjust proportionately to the authorized
share amount generally will be approved if the resulting increase in
authorized shares coincides with the proxy guidelines set forth above for
common stock increases. |
|
|
|
|
● |
Management
dividend payout proposals, except where we perceive company payouts to
shareholders as inadequate. |
2.
We generally oppose the following (notwithstanding management
support):
|
● |
Proposals
to add classes of stock that would substantially dilute the voting
interests of existing shareholders. |
|
|
|
|
● |
Proposals
to increase the authorized or issued number of shares of existing classes
of stock that are unreasonably dilutive, particularly if there are no
preemptive rights for existing shareholders. However, depending on market
practices, we consider voting for proposals giving general authorization
for issuance of shares not subject to pre-emptive rights if the authority
is limited. |
|
|
|
|
● |
Proposals
that authorize share issuance at a discount to market rates, except where
authority for such issuance is de minimis, or if there is a special
situation that we believe justifies such authorization (as may be the
case, for example, at a company under severe stress and risk of
bankruptcy). |
|
|
|
|
● |
Proposals
relating to changes in capitalization by 100% or
more. |
We
consider on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals to increase dividend
payout ratios, in light of market practice and perceived market weaknesses, as
well as individual company payout history and current circumstances. For
example, currently we perceive low payouts to shareholders as a concern
at
some
Japanese companies, but may deem a low payout ratio as appropriate for a growth
company making good use of its cash, notwithstanding the broader market
concern.
F. Takeover Defenses and
Shareholder Rights.
|
1. |
Shareholder rights plans: We generally
support proposals to require shareholder approval or ratification of
shareholder rights plans (poison pills). In voting on rights plans or
similar takeover defenses, we consider on a case-by-case basis whether the
company has demonstrated a need for the defense in the context of
promoting long-term share value; whether provisions of the defense are in
line with generally accepted governance principles in the market (and
specifically the presence of an adequate qualified offer provision that
would exempt offers meeting certain conditions from the pill); and the
specific context if the proposal is made in the midst of a takeover bid or
contest for control. |
|
|
|
|
2. |
Supermajority voting requirements: We
generally oppose requirements for supermajority votes to amend the charter
or bylaws, unless the provisions protect minority shareholders where there
is a large shareholder. In line with this view, in the absence of a large
shareholder we support reasonable shareholder proposals to limit such
supermajority voting requirements. |
|
|
|
|
3. |
Shareholder rights to call meetings: We
consider proposals to enhance shareholder rights to call meetings on a
case-by-case basis. |
|
|
|
|
4. |
Reincorporation: We consider management and
shareholder proposals to reincorporate to a different jurisdiction on a
case-by-case basis. We oppose such proposals if we believe the main
purpose is to take advantage of laws or judicial precedents that reduce
shareholder rights. |
|
|
|
|
5. |
Anti-greenmail provisions: Proposals
relating to the adoption of anti-greenmail provisions will be supported,
provided that the proposal: (i) defines greenmail; (ii) prohibits buyback
offers to large block holders (holders of at least 1% of the outstanding
shares and in certain cases, a greater amount, as determined by the Proxy
Review Committee) not made to all shareholders or not approved by
disinterested shareholders; and (iii) contains no anti-takeover measures
or other provisions restricting the rights of
shareholders. |
|
|
|
|
6. |
Bundled proposals: We may consider opposing
or abstaining on proposals if disparate issues are “bundled” and presented
for a single vote. |
G. Auditors. We
generally support management proposals for selection or ratification of
independent auditors. However, we may consider opposing such proposals with
reference to incumbent audit firms if the company has suffered from serious
accounting irregularities and we believe rotation of the audit firm is
appropriate, or if fees paid to the auditor for non-audit-related services are
excessive. Generally, to determine if non-audit fees are excessive, a 50% test
will be applied (i.e., non-audit-related fees should be less than 50% of the
total fees paid to the auditor). We generally vote against proposals to
indemnify auditors.
H. Executive and Director
Remuneration.
|
1. |
We
generally support the following: |
|
|
|
|
|
● |
Proposals
for employee equity compensation plans and other employee ownership plans,
provided that our research does not indicate that approval of the plan
would be against shareholder interest. Such approval may be against
shareholder interest if it authorizes excessive dilution and shareholder
cost, particularly in the context of high usage (“run rate”) of equity
compensation in the recent past; or if there are objectionable plan design
and provisions. |
|
|
● |
Proposals
relating to fees to outside directors, provided the amounts are not
excessive relative to other companies in the country or industry, and
provided that the structure is appropriate within the market context.
While stock-based compensation to outside directors is positive if
moderate and appropriately structured, we are wary of significant stock
option awards or other performance-based awards for outside directors, as
well as provisions that could result in significant forfeiture of value on
a director’s decision to resign from a board (such forfeiture can undercut
director independence). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
● |
Proposals
for employee stock purchase plans that permit discounts up to 15%, but
only for grants that are part of a broad-based employee plan, including
all non-executive employees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
● |
Proposals
for the establishment of employee retirement and severance plans, provided
that our research does not indicate that approval of the plan would be
against shareholder interest. |
|
|
|
|
2. |
We
generally oppose retirement plans and bonuses for non-executive directors
and independent statutory auditors. |
|
|
|
|
3. |
Shareholder
proposals requiring shareholder approval of all severance agreements will
not be supported, but proposals that require shareholder approval for
agreements in excess of three times the annual compensation (salary and
bonus) generally will be supported. We generally oppose shareholder
proposals that would establish arbitrary caps on pay. We consider on a
case-by-case basis shareholder proposals that seek to limit Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plans (SERPs), but support such proposals where we
consider SERPs to be excessive. |
|
|
|
|
4. |
Shareholder
proposals advocating stronger and/or particular pay-for-performance models
will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with consideration of the
merits of the individual proposal within the context of the particular
company and its labor markets, and the company’s current and past
practices. While we generally support emphasis on long-term components of
senior executive pay and strong linkage of pay to performance, we consider
whether a proposal may be overly prescriptive, and the impact of the
proposal, if implemented as written, on recruitment and
retention. |
|
|
|
|
5. |
We
consider shareholder proposals for U.K.-style advisory votes on pay on a
case-by-case basis. |
|
|
|
|
6. |
We
generally support proposals advocating reasonable senior executive and
director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements for shares
gained in executive equity compensation programs. |
|
|
|
|
7. |
We
generally support shareholder proposals for reasonable “claw-back”
provisions that provide for company recovery of senior executive bonuses
to the extent they were based on achieving financial benchmarks that were
not actually met in light of subsequent restatements. |
|
|
|
|
8. |
Management
proposals effectively to re-price stock options are considered on a
case-by-case basis. Considerations include the company’s reasons and
justifications for a re-pricing, the company’s competitive position,
whether senior executives and outside directors are excluded, potential
cost to shareholders, whether the re-pricing or share exchange is on a
value-for-value basis, and whether vesting requirements are
extended. |
I. Social, Political and
Environmental Issues. We consider proposals relating to social, political
and environmental issues on a case-by-case basis to determine likely financial
impacts on shareholder value, balancing concerns on reputational and other risks
that may be raised in a proposal against costs of implementation. We may abstain
from voting on proposals that do not have a readily determinable financial
impact on shareholder value. While we support proposals that we believe will
enhance useful disclosure, we generally vote against proposals requesting
reports that we believe are duplicative, related
to
matters not material to the business, or that would impose unnecessary or
excessive costs. We believe that certain social and environmental shareholder
proposals may intrude excessively on management prerogatives, which can lead us
to oppose them.
J. Fund of Funds.
Certain Funds advised by an MSIM Affiliate invest only in other MSIM Funds. If
an underlying fund has a shareholder meeting, in order to avoid any potential
conflict of interest, such proposals will be voted in the same proportion as the
votes of the other shareholders of the underlying fund, unless otherwise
determined by the Proxy Review Committee.
III. ADMINISTRATION
OF POLICY
The MSIM
Proxy Review Committee (the “Committee”) has overall responsibility for the
Policy. The Committee, which is appointed by MSIM’s Chief Investment Officer of
Global Equities (“CIO”) or senior officer, consists of senior investment
professionals who represent the different investment disciplines and geographic
locations of the firm, and is chaired by the director of the Corporate
Governance Team (“CGT”). Because proxy voting is an investment responsibility
and impacts shareholder value, and because of their knowledge of companies and
markets, portfolio managers and other members of investment staff play a key
role in proxy voting, although the Committee has final authority over proxy
votes.
The CGT
Director is responsible for identifying issues that require Committee
deliberation or ratification. The CGT, working with advice of investment teams
and the Committee, is responsible for voting on routine items and on matters
that can be addressed in line with these Policy guidelines. The CGT has
responsibility for voting case-by-case where guidelines and precedent provide
adequate guidance.
The
Committee will periodically review and have the authority to amend, as
necessary, the Policy and establish and direct voting positions consistent with
the Client Proxy Standard.
CGT and
members of the Committee may take into account Research Providers’
recommendations and research as well as any other relevant information they may
request or receive, including portfolio manager and/or analyst comments and
research, as applicable. Generally, proxies related to securities held in
accounts that are managed pursuant to quantitative, index or index-like
strategies (“Index Strategies”) will be voted in the same manner as those held
in actively managed accounts, unless economic interests of the accounts differ.
Because accounts managed using Index Strategies are passively managed accounts,
research from portfolio managers and/or analysts related to securities held in
these accounts may not be available. If the affected securities are held only in
accounts that are managed pursuant to Index Strategies, and the proxy relates to
a matter that is not described in this Policy, the CGT will consider all
available information from the Research Providers, and to the extent that the
holdings are significant, from the portfolio managers and/or
analysts.
The
Committee meets at least annually to review and consider changes to the Policy.
The Committee will appoint a subcommittee (the “Subcommittee”) to meet as needed
between Committee meetings to address any outstanding issues relating to the
Policy or its implementation.
The
Subcommittee will meet on an ad hoc basis to (among other functions): (1)
monitor and ratify “split voting” (i.e., allowing certain shares of the same
issuer that are the subject of the same proxy solicitation and held by one or
more MSIM portfolios to be voted differently than other shares) and/or “override
voting” (i.e., voting all MSIM portfolio shares in a manner contrary to the
Policy); (2) review and approve upcoming votes, as appropriate, for matters as
requested by CGT.
The
Committee reserves the right to review voting decisions at any time and to make
voting decisions as necessary to ensure the independence and integrity of the
votes. The Committee or the Subcommittee are provided with reports on at least a
monthly basis detailing specific key votes cast by CGT.
|
B.Material Conflicts of
Interest |
In
addition to the procedures discussed above, if the CGT Director determines that
an issue raises a material conflict of interest, the CGT Director will request a
special committee to review, and recommend a course of action with respect to,
the conflict(s) in question (“Special Committee”).
A
potential material conflict of interest could exist in the following situations,
among others:
|
1. |
The
issuer soliciting the vote is a client of MSIM or an affiliate of MSIM and
the vote is on a matter that materially affects the
issuer. |
|
|
|
|
2. |
The
proxy relates to Morgan Stanley common stock or any other security issued
by Morgan Stanley or its affiliates except if echo voting is used, as with
MSIM Funds, as described herein. |
|
|
|
|
3. |
Morgan
Stanley has a material pecuniary interest in the matter submitted for a
vote (e.g., acting as a financial advisor to a party to a merger or
acquisition for which Morgan Stanley will be paid a success fee if
completed). |
If the
CGT Director determines that an issue raises a potential material conflict of
interest, depending on the facts and circumstances, the issue will be addressed
as follows:
|
1. |
If
the matter relates to a topic that is discussed in this Policy, the
proposal will be voted as per the Policy. |
|
|
|
|
2. |
If
the matter is not discussed in this Policy or the Policy indicates that
the issue is to be decided case-by-case, the proposal will be voted in a
manner consistent with the Research Providers, provided that all the
Research Providers have the same recommendation, no portfolio manager
objects to that vote, and the vote is consistent with MSIM’s Client Proxy
Standard. |
|
|
|
|
3. |
If
the Research Providers’ recommendations differ, the CGT Director will
refer the matter to the Subcommittee or a Special Committee to vote on the
proposal, as appropriate. |
The
Special Committee shall be comprised of the CGT Director, the Chief Compliance
Officer or his/her designee, a senior portfolio manager (if practicable, one who
is a member of the Proxy Review Committee) designated by the Proxy Review
Committee, and MSIM’s relevant Chief Investment Officer or his/her designee, and
any other persons deemed necessary by the CGT Director. The CGT Director may
request non-voting participation by MSIM’s General Counsel or his/her designee.
In addition to the research provided by Research Providers, the Special
Committee may request analysis from MSIM Affiliate investment professionals and
outside sources to the extent it deems appropriate.
C. Proxy Voting
Reporting
The CGT
will document in writing all Committee, Subcommittee and Special Committee
decisions and actions, which documentation will be maintained by the CGT for a
period of at least six years. To the extent these decisions relate to a security
held by an MSIM Fund, the CGT will report the decisions to each applicable Board
of Trustees/Directors of those Funds at each Board’s next regularly scheduled
Board meeting. The report will contain information concerning decisions made
during the most recently ended calendar quarter immediately preceding the Board
meeting.
MSIM will
promptly provide a copy of this Policy to any client requesting it. MSIM will
also, upon client request, promptly provide a report indicating how each proxy
was voted with respect to securities held in that client’s account.
MSIM’s
Legal Department is responsible for filing an annual Form N-PX on behalf of each
MSIM Fund for which such filing is required, indicating how all proxies were
voted with respect to such Fund’s holdings.
Templeton
Investment Counsel, LLC
Proxy Voting Policies &
Procedures
RESPONSIBILITY OF INVESTMENT
MANAGER TO VOTE PROXIES
Templeton
Investment Counsel, LLC (hereinafter “Investment Manager”) has delegated
its administrative duties with respect to voting proxies for equity
securities to the Proxy Group within Franklin Templeton Companies, LLC
(the “Proxy Group”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc.
Franklin Templeton Companies, LLC provides a variety of general corporate
services to its affiliates, including but not limited to legal and
compliance activities. Proxy duties consist of analyzing proxy statements
of issuers whose stock is owned by any client (including both investment
companies and any separate accounts managed by Investment Manager) that
has either delegated proxy voting administrative responsibility to
Investment Manager or has asked for information and/or recommendations on
the issues to be voted. The Proxy Group will process proxy votes on behalf
of, and Investment Manager votes proxies solely in the interests of,
separate account clients, Investment Manager-managed mutual fund
shareholders, or, where employee benefit plan assets are involved, in the
interests of the plan participants and beneficiaries (collectively,
“Advisory Clients”) that have properly delegated such responsibility or
will inform Advisory Clients that have not delegated the voting
responsibility but that have requested voting advice about Investment
Manager’s views on such proxy votes. The Proxy Group also provides these
services to other advisory affiliates of Investment
Manager. |
HOW INVESTMENT MANAGER VOTES
PROXIES
Fiduciary
Considerations
All
proxies received by the Proxy Group will be voted based upon Investment
Manager’s instructions and/or policies. To assist it in analyzing proxies,
Investment Manager subscribes to RiskMetrics Group (“RiskMetrics”), an
unaffiliated third party corporate governance research service that provides
in-depth analyses of shareholder meeting agendas and vote recommendations. In
addition, the Investment Manager subscribes to RiskMetrics Group’s Proxy Voting
Service and Vote Disclosure Service. These services include receipt of proxy
ballots, working with custodian banks, account maintenance, executing votes,
maintaining vote records, providing comprehensive reporting and vote disclosure
services. Also, Investment Manager subscribes to Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC
(“Glass Lewis”), an unaffiliated third party analytical research firm, to
receive analyses and vote recommendations on the shareholder meetings of
publicly held U.S. companies. Although RiskMetrics’ and/or Glass Lewis’s
analyses are thoroughly reviewed and considered in making a final voting
decision, Investment Manager does not consider recommendations from RiskMetrics,
Glass Lewis, or any other third party to be determinative of Investment
Manager’s ultimate decision. As a matter of policy, the officers, directors and
employees of Investment Manager and the Proxy Group will not be influenced by
outside sources whose interests conflict with the interests of Advisory
Clients.
Conflicts of
Interest
All
conflicts of interest will be resolved in the interests of the Advisory Clients.
Investment Manager is an affiliate of a large, diverse financial services firm
with many affiliates and makes its best efforts to avoid conflicts of interest.
However, conflicts of interest can arise in situations where:
|
1. |
The
issuer is a client1
of Investment Manager or its affiliates; |
|
|
|
|
2. |
The
issuer is a vendor whose products or services are material or significant
to the business of Investment Manager or its
affiliates; |
|
|
|
|
3. |
The
issuer is an entity participating to a material extent in the distribution
of investment products advised, administered or sponsored by Investment
Manager or its affiliates (e.g., a broker, dealer or bank);2 |
|
|
|
|
4. |
The
issuer is a significant executing broker dealer; 3 |
|
|
|
|
5. |
An
Access Person4 of
Investment Manager or its affiliates also serves as a director or officer
of the issuer; |
|
|
|
|
6. |
A
director or trustee of Franklin Resources, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries
or of a Franklin Templeton investment product, or an immediate family
member5 of such
director or trustee, also serves as an officer or director of the issuer;
or |
|
|
|
|
7. |
The
issuer is Franklin Resources, Inc. or any of its proprietary investment
products. |
_________________
1 |
For
purposes of this section, a “client” does not include underlying investors
in a commingled trust, Canadian pooled fund, or other pooled investment
vehicle managed by the Investment Manager or its affiliates. Sponsors of
funds sub-advised by Investment Manager or its affiliates will be
considered a “client.” |
|
|
2 |
The
top 40 distributors (based on aggregate 12b-1 distribution fees) will be
considered to present a potential conflict of interest. In addition, any
insurance company that has entered into a participation agreement with a
Franklin Templeton entity to distribute the Franklin Templeton Variable
Insurance Products Trust or other variable products will be considered to
present a potential conflict of interest. |
|
|
3 |
The
top 40 executing broker-dealers (based on gross brokerage commissions and
client commissions). |
|
|
4 |
“Access
Person” shall have the meaning provided under the current Code of Ethics
of Franklin Resources, Inc. |
|
|
5 |
The
term “immediate family member” means a person’s spouse; child residing in
the person’s household (including step and adoptive children); and any
dependent of the person, as defined in Section 152 of the Internal Revenue
Code (26 U.S.C. 152). |
Nonetheless,
even though a potential conflict of interest exists, the Investment Manager may
vote in opposition to the recommendations of an issuer’s
management.
Material
conflicts of interest are identified by the Proxy Group based upon analyses of
client, distributor, broker dealer and vendor lists, information periodically
gathered from directors and officers, and information derived from other
sources, including public filings. The Proxy Group gathers and analyzes this
information on a best efforts basis, as much of this information is provided
directly by individuals and groups other than the Proxy Group, and the Proxy
Group relies on the accuracy of the information it receives from such
parties.
In
situations where a material conflict of interest is identified between the
Investment Manager or one of its affiliates and an issuer, the Proxy Group may
defer to the voting recommendation of RiskMetrics, Glass Lewis, or those of
another independent third party provider of proxy services or send the proxy
directly to the relevant Advisory Clients with the Investment Manager’s
recommendation regarding the
vote for
approval. If the conflict is not resolved by the Advisory Client, the Proxy
Group may refer the matter, along with the recommended course of action by the
Investment Manager, if any, to a Proxy Review Committee comprised of
representatives from the Portfolio Management (which may include portfolio
managers and/or research analysts employed by Investment Manager), Fund
Administration, Legal and Compliance Departments within Franklin Templeton for
evaluation and voting instructions. The Proxy Review Committee may defer to the
voting recommendation of RiskMetrics, Glass Lewis, or those of another
independent third party provider of proxy services or send the proxy directly to
the relevant Advisory Clients.
Where the
Proxy Group or the Proxy Review Committee refer a matter to an Advisory Client,
it may rely upon the instructions of a representative of the Advisory Client,
such as the board of directors or trustees, a committee of the board, or an
appointed delegate in the case of a U. S. registered mutual fund, the conducting
officer in the case of an open-ended collective investment scheme formed as a
Société d’investissement à capital variable (SICAV), the Independent Review
Committee for Canadian investment funds, or a plan administrator in the case of
an employee benefit plan. The Proxy Group or the Proxy Review Committee may
determine to vote all shares held by Advisory Clients in accordance with the
instructions of one or more of the Advisory Clients.
The Proxy
Review Committee may independently review proxies that are identified as
presenting material conflicts of interest; determine the appropriate action to
be taken in such situations (including whether to defer to an independent third
party or refer a matter to an Advisory Client); report the results of such votes
to Investment Manager’s clients as may be requested; and recommend changes to
the Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures as appropriate.
The Proxy
Review Committee will also decide whether to vote proxies for securities deemed
to present conflicts of interest that are sold following a record date, but
before a shareholder meeting date. The Proxy Review Committee may consider
various factors in deciding whether to vote such proxies, including Investment
Manager’s long-term view of the issuer’s securities for investment, or it may
defer the decision to vote to the applicable Advisory Client.
Where a
material conflict of interest has been identified, but the items on which the
Investment Manager’s vote recommendations differ from Glass Lewis, RiskMetrics,
or another independent third party provider of proxy services relate
specifically to (1) shareholder proposals regarding social or environmental
issues or political contributions, (2) “Other Business” without describing the
matters that might be considered, or (3) items the Investment Manager wishes to
vote in opposition to the recommendations of an issuer’s management, the Proxy
Group may defer to the vote recommendations of the Investment Manager rather
than sending the proxy directly to the relevant Advisory Clients for
approval.
To avoid
certain potential conflicts of interest, the Investment Manager will employ echo
voting, if possible, in the following instances: (1) when a Franklin Templeton
investment company invests in an underlying fund in reliance on any one of
Sections 12(d)(1)(E), (F), or (G) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as
amended, or pursuant to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)
exemptive order; (2) when a Franklin Templeton investment company invests
uninvested cash in affiliated money market funds pursuant to an SEC exemptive
order (“cash sweep arrangement”); or (3) when required pursuant to an account’s
governing documents or applicable law. Echo voting means that the Investment
Manager will vote the shares in the same proportion as the vote of all of the
other holders of the fund’s shares.
Weight Given Management
Recommendations
One of
the primary factors Investment Manager considers when determining the
desirability of investing in a particular company is the quality and depth of
that company’s management. Accordingly, the recommendation of management on any
issue is a factor that Investment Manager considers in determining how proxies
should be voted. However, Investment Manager does not consider
recommendations
from management to be determinative of Investment Manager’s ultimate decision.
As a matter of practice, the votes with respect to most issues are cast in
accordance with the position of the company’s management. Each issue, however,
is considered on its own merits, and Investment Manager will not support the
position of a company’s management in any situation where it determines that the
ratification of management’s position would adversely affect the investment
merits of owning that company’s shares.
THE PROXY
GROUP
The Proxy
Group is part of the Franklin Templeton Companies, LLC Legal Department and is
overseen by legal counsel. Full-time staff members are devoted to proxy voting
administration and providing support and assistance where needed. On a daily
basis, the Proxy Group will review each proxy upon receipt as well as any
agendas, materials and recommendations that they receive from RiskMetrics, Glass
Lewis, or other sources. The Proxy Group maintains a log of all shareholder
meetings that are scheduled for companies whose securities are held by
Investment Manager’s managed funds and accounts. For each shareholder meeting, a
member of the Proxy Group will consult with the research analyst that follows
the security and provide the analyst with the meeting notice, agenda,
RiskMetrics and/or Glass Lewis analyses, recommendations and any other available
information. Except in situations identified as presenting material conflicts of
interest, Investment Manager’s research analyst and relevant portfolio
manager(s) are responsible for making the final voting decision based on their
review of the agenda, RiskMetrics and/or Glass Lewis analyses, their knowledge
of the company and any other information readily available. In situations where
the Investment Manager has not responded with vote recommendations to the Proxy
Group by the deadline date, the Proxy Group may defer to the vote
recommendations of an independent third party provider of proxy services. Except
in cases where the Proxy Group is deferring to the voting recommendation of an
independent third party service provider, the Proxy Group must obtain voting
instructions from Investment Manager’s research analyst, relevant portfolio
manager(s), legal counsel and/or the Advisory Client or Proxy Review Committee
prior to submitting the vote. In the event that an account holds a security that
the Investment Manager did not purchase on its behalf, and the Investment
Manager does not normally consider the security as a potential investment for
other accounts, the Proxy Group may defer to the voting recommendations of an
independent third party service provider or take no action on the
meeting.
GENERAL PROXY VOTING
GUIDELINES
Investment
Manager has adopted general guidelines for voting proxies as summarized below.
In keeping with its fiduciary obligations to its Advisory Clients, Investment
Manager reviews all proposals, even those that may be considered to be routine
matters. Although these guidelines are to be followed as a general policy, in
all cases each proxy and proposal will be considered based on the relevant facts
and circumstances. Investment Manager may deviate from the general policies and
procedures when it determines that the particular facts and circumstances
warrant such deviation to protect the interests of the Advisory Clients. These
guidelines cannot provide an exhaustive list of all the issues that may arise
nor can Investment Manager anticipate all future situations. Corporate
governance issues are diverse and continually evolving and Investment Manager
devotes significant time and resources to monitor these changes.
INVESTMENT
MANAGER’S PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES
Investment
Manager’s proxy voting positions have been developed based on years of
experience with proxy voting and corporate governance issues. These principles
have been reviewed by various members of Investment Manager’s organization,
including portfolio management, legal counsel, and Investment Manager’s
officers. The Board of Directors of Franklin Templeton’s U.S.-registered mutual
funds will approve the proxy voting policies and procedures
annually.
The
following guidelines reflect what Investment Manager believes to be good
corporate governance and behavior:
Board of
Directors: The
election of directors and an independent board are key to good corporate
governance. Directors are expected to be competent individuals and they should
be accountable and responsive to shareholders. Investment Manager supports an
independent board of directors, and prefers that key committees such as audit,
nominating, and compensation committees be comprised of independent directors.
Investment Manager will generally vote against management efforts to classify a
board and will generally support proposals to declassify the board of directors.
Investment Manager will consider withholding votes from directors who have
attended less than 75% of meetings without a valid reason. While generally in
favor of separating Chairman and CEO positions, Investment Manager will review
this issue on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration other factors
including the company’s corporate governance guidelines and performance.
Investment Manager evaluates proposals to restore or provide for cumulative
voting on a case-by-case basis and considers such factors as corporate
governance provisions as well as relative performance. The Investment Manager
generally will support non-binding shareholder proposals to require a majority
vote standard for the election of directors; however, if these proposals are
binding, the Investment Manager will give careful review on a case-by-case basis
of the potential ramifications of such implementation.
Ratification
of Auditors:
Investment Manager will closely scrutinize the role and performance of
auditors. On a case-by-case basis, Investment Manager will examine proposals
relating to non-audit relationships and non-audit fees. Investment Manager will
also consider, on a case-by-case basis, proposals to rotate auditors, and will
vote against the ratification of auditors when there is clear and compelling
evidence of accounting irregularities or negligence attributable to the
auditors.
Management
& Director Compensation: A company’s equity-based
compensation plan should be in alignment with the shareholders’ long-term
interests. Investment Manager believes that executive compensation should be
directly linked to the performance of the company. Investment Manager evaluates
plans on a case-by-case basis by considering several factors to determine
whether the plan is fair and reasonable. Investment Manager reviews the
RiskMetrics quantitative model utilized to assess such plans and/or the Glass
Lewis evaluation of the plan. Investment Manager will generally oppose plans
that have the potential to be excessively dilutive, and will almost always
oppose plans that are structured to allow the repricing of underwater options,
or plans that have an automatic share replenishment “evergreen” feature.
Investment Manager will generally support employee stock option plans in which
the purchase price is at least 85% of fair market value, and when potential
dilution is 10% or less.
Severance
compensation arrangements will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, although
Investment Manager will generally oppose “golden parachutes” that are considered
excessive. Investment Manager will normally support proposals that require that
a percentage of directors’ compensation be in the form of common stock, as it
aligns their interests with those of the shareholders.
Anti-Takeover
Mechanisms and Related Issues: Investment Manager generally
opposes anti-takeover measures since they tend to reduce shareholder rights.
However, as with all proxy issues, Investment Manager conducts an independent
review of each anti-takeover proposal. On occasion, Investment Manager may vote
with management when the research analyst has concluded that the proposal is not
onerous and would not harm Advisory Clients’ interests as stockholders.
Investment Manager generally supports proposals that require shareholder rights
plans (“poison pills”) to be subject to a shareholder vote. Investment Manager
will closely evaluate shareholder rights’ plans on a case-by-case basis to
determine whether or not they warrant support. Investment Manager will generally
vote against any proposal to issue stock that has unequal or subordinate voting
rights. In addition, Investment Manager generally opposes any supermajority
voting requirements as well as the payment of “greenmail.” Investment Manager
usually supports “fair price” provisions and confidential
voting.
Changes
to Capital Structure:
Investment Manager realizes that a company’s financing decisions have a
significant impact on its shareholders, particularly when they involve the
issuance of additional shares of common or preferred stock or the assumption of
additional debt. Investment Manager will carefully review, on a case-by-case
basis, proposals by companies to increase authorized shares and the purpose for
the increase. Investment Manager will generally not vote in favor of dual-class
capital structures to increase the number of authorized shares where that class
of stock would have superior voting rights. Investment Manager will generally
vote in favor of the issuance of preferred stock in cases where the company
specifies the voting, dividend, conversion and other rights of such stock and
the terms of the preferred stock issuance are deemed reasonable. Investment
Manager will review proposals seeking preemptive rights on a case-by-case
basis.
Mergers
and Corporate Restructuring: Mergers and acquisitions
will be subject to careful review by the research analyst to determine whether
they would be beneficial to shareholders. Investment Manager will analyze
various economic and strategic factors in making the final decision on a merger
or acquisition. Corporate restructuring proposals are also subject to a thorough
examination on a case-by-case basis.
Social
and Corporate Policy Issues: As a fiduciary, Investment
Manager is primarily concerned about the financial interests of its Advisory
Clients. Investment Manager will generally give management discretion with
regard to social, environmental and ethical issues although Investment Manager
may vote in favor of those issues that are believed to have significant economic
benefits or implications.
Global
Corporate Governance:
Investment Manager manages investments in countries worldwide. Many of
the tenets discussed above are applied to Investment Manager’s proxy voting
decisions for international investments. However, Investment Manager must be
flexible in these worldwide markets and must be mindful of the varied market
practices of each region. As experienced money managers, Investment Manager’s
analysts are skilled in understanding the complexities of the regions in which
they specialize and are trained to analyze proxy issues germane to their
regions.
PROXY
PROCEDURES
The Proxy
Group is fully cognizant of its responsibility to process proxies and maintain
proxy records pursuant to SEC and Canadian Securities Administrators (“CSA”)
rules and regulations. In addition, Investment Manager understands its fiduciary
duty to vote proxies and that proxy voting decisions may affect the value of
shareholdings. Therefore, Investment Manager will generally attempt to process
every proxy it receives for all domestic and foreign securities. However, there
may be situations in which Investment Manager may be unable to vote a proxy, or
may chose not to vote a proxy, such as where: (i) proxy ballot was not received
from the custodian, (ii) a meeting notice was received too late; (iii) there are
fees imposed upon the exercise of a vote and it is determined that such fees
outweigh the benefit of voting; (iv) there are legal encumbrances to voting,
including blocking restrictions in certain markets that preclude the ability to
dispose of a security if Investment Manager votes a proxy or where Investment
Manager is prohibited from voting by applicable law or other regulatory or
market requirements, including but not limited to, effective Powers of Attorney;
(v) the Investment Manager held shares on the record date but has sold them
prior to the meeting date; (vi) proxy voting service is not offered by the
custodian in the market; (vii) the Investment Manager believes it is not in the
best interest of the Advisory Client to vote the proxy for any other reason not
enumerated herein; or (viii) a security is subject to a securities lending or
similar program that has transferred legal title to the security to another
person. Investment Manager or its affiliates may, on behalf of one or more of
the registered investment companies advised by Investment Manager or its
affiliates, determine to use its best efforts to recall any security on loan
where Investment Manager or its affiliates (a) learn of a vote on a material
event that may affect a security on loan and (b) determine that it is in the
best interests of such registered investment companies to recall the security
for voting purposes. Investment Managers will not generally make such efforts on
behalf of other Advisory Clients, or notify such Advisory Clients or their
custodians that Investment Manager or its affiliates has learned of such a
vote.
Investment
Manager may vote against an agenda item where no further information is
provided, particularly in non-U.S. markets. For example, if “Other Business” is
listed on the agenda with no further information included in the proxy
materials, Investment Manager may vote against the item to send a message to the
company that if it had provided additional information, Investment Manager may
have voted in favor of that item. Investment Manager may also enter a “withhold”
vote on the election of certain directors from time to time based on individual
situations, particularly where Investment Manager is not in favor of electing a
director and there is no provision for voting against such
director.
The
following describes the standard procedures that are to be followed with respect
to carrying out Investment Manager’s proxy policy:
|
1. |
The
Proxy Group will identify all Advisory Clients, maintain a list of those
clients, and indicate those Advisory Clients who have delegated proxy
voting authority to the Investment Manager. The Proxy Group will
periodically review and update this list. |
|
|
|
|
2. |
All
relevant information in the proxy materials received (e.g., the record
date of the meeting) will be recorded immediately by the Proxy Group in a
database to maintain control over such materials. |
|
|
|
|
3. |
The
Proxy Group will review and compile information on each proxy upon receipt
of any agendas, materials, reports, recommendations from RiskMetrics
and/or Glass Lewis, or other information. The Proxy Group will then
forward this information to the appropriate research analyst and/or legal
counsel for review and voting instructions. |
|
|
|
|
4. |
In
determining how to vote, Investment Manager’s analysts and relevant
portfolio manager(s) will consider the General Proxy Voting Guidelines set
forth above, their in-depth knowledge of the company, any readily
available information and research about the company and its agenda items,
and the recommendations put forth by RiskMetrics, Glass Lewis, or other
independent third party providers of proxy services. |
|
|
|
|
5. |
The
Proxy Group is responsible for maintaining the documentation that supports
Investment Manager’s voting position. Such documentation may include, but
is not limited to, any information provided by RiskMetrics, Glass Lewis,
or other proxy service providers, and, especially as to non-routine,
materially significant or controversial matters, memoranda describing the
position it has taken. Additionally, the Proxy Group may include
documentation obtained from the research analyst, portfolio manager, legal
counsel and/or the Proxy Review Committee. |
|
|
|
|
6. |
After
the proxy is completed but before it is returned to the issuer and/or its
agent, the Proxy Group may review those situations including special or
unique documentation to determine that the appropriate documentation has
been created, including conflict of interest screening. |
|
|
|
|
7. |
The
Proxy Group will attempt to submit Investment Manager’s vote on all
proxies to RiskMetrics 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, the Proxy Group will use its best efforts to send the proxy
vote to RiskMetrics in sufficient time for the vote to be
processed. |
|
|
|
|
8. |
The
Proxy Group will file Powers of Attorney in all jurisdictions that require
such documentation on a best efforts basis. |
|
|
|
|
9. |
The
Proxy Group prepares reports for each Advisory Client that has requested a
record of votes cast. The report specifies the proxy issues that have been
voted for the Advisory Client during the requested period and the position
taken with respect to each issue. The Proxy Group sends one copy to the
Advisory Client, retains a copy in the Proxy Group’s files and forwards a
copy to either the appropriate portfolio manager or the client service
representative. While many Advisory
Clients |
|
|
prefer
quarterly or annual reports, the Proxy Group will provide reports for any
timeframe requested by an Advisory Client. |
|
|
|
|
10. |
If
the Franklin Templeton Services, LLC Fund Treasury Department learns of a
vote on a material event that will affect a security on loan from a
proprietary registered investment company, the Fund Treasury Department
will notify Investment Manager and obtain instructions regarding whether
Investment Manager desires the Fund Treasury Department to contact the
custodian bank in an effort to retrieve the securities. If so requested by
Investment Manager, the Fund Treasury Department shall use its best
efforts to recall any security on loan and will use other practicable and
legally enforceable means to ensure that Investment Manager is able to
fulfill its fiduciary duty to vote proxies for proprietary registered
investment companies with respect to such loaned securities. The Fund
Treasury Department will advise the Proxy Group of all recalled
securities. |
|
|
|
|
11. |
The
Proxy Group, in conjunction with Legal Staff responsible for coordinating
Fund disclosure, on a timely basis, will file all required Form N-PXs,
with respect to proprietary registered investment company clients,
disclose that its proxy voting record is available on the web site, and
will make available the information disclosed in its Form N-PX as soon as
is reasonably practicable after filing Form N-PX with the
SEC. |
|
|
|
|
12. |
The
Proxy Group, in conjunction with Legal Staff responsible for coordinating
Fund disclosure, will ensure that all required disclosure about proxy
voting of the proprietary registered investment company clients is made in
such clients’ disclosure documents. |
|
|
|
|
13. |
The
Proxy Group will review the guidelines of RiskMetrics and Glass Lewis,
with special emphasis on the factors they use with respect to proxy voting
recommendations. |
|
|
|
|
14. |
The
Proxy Group will familiarize itself with the procedures of RiskMetrics
that govern the transmission of proxy voting information from the Proxy
Group to RiskMetrics and periodically review how well this process is
functioning. |
|
|
|
|
15. |
The
Proxy Group will investigate, or cause others to investigate, any and all
instances where these Procedures have been violated or there is evidence
that they are not being followed. Based upon the findings of these
investigations, the Proxy Group, if practicable, will recommend amendments
to these Procedures to minimize the likelihood of the reoccurrence of
non-compliance. |
|
|
|
|
16. |
At
least annually, the Proxy Group will verify that: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
• |
Each
proxy or a sample of proxies received has been voted in a manner
consistent with these Procedures and the Proxy Voting
Guidelines; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
• |
Each
proxy or sample of proxies received by Franklin Templeton Investments has
been voted in accordance with the instructions of the Investment
Manager; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
• |
Adequate
disclosure has been made to clients and fund shareholders about the
procedures and how proxies were voted; and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
• |
Timely
filings were made with applicable regulators related to proxy
voting. |
The Proxy
Group is responsible for maintaining appropriate proxy voting records. Such
records will include, but are not limited to, a copy of all materials returned
to the issuer and/or its agent, the documentation described above, listings of
proxies voted by issuer and by client, and any other relevant information. The
Proxy Group may use an outside service such as RiskMetrics to support this
function. All records will be retained for at least five years, the first two of
which will be on-site. Advisory Clients may request copies of their proxy voting
records by calling the Proxy Group collect at 1-954-527-7678, or
by
sending a
written request to: Franklin Templeton Companies, LLC, 500 East Broward
Boulevard, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394, Attention: Proxy Group.
Advisory Clients may review Investment Manager’s proxy voting policies and
procedures on-line at www.franklintempleton.com and may request additional
copies by calling the number above. For U.S. proprietary registered investment
companies, an annual proxy voting record for the period ending June 30 of each
year will be posted to www.franklintempleton.com no later than August 31 of each
year. For proprietary Canadian mutual fund products, an annual proxy voting
record for the period ending June 30 of each year will be posted to
www.franklintempleton.ca no later than August 31 of each year. The Proxy Group
will periodically review web site posting and update the posting when necessary.
In addition, the Proxy Group is responsible for ensuring that the proxy voting
policies, procedures and records of the Investment Manager are available as
required by law and is responsible for overseeing the filing of such policies,
procedures and mutual fund voting records with the SEC, the CSA and other
applicable regulators.
CB
Richard Ellis Global Real Estate Securities, LLC
Proxy Voting Policies And
Procedures
Rule
206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act requires every investment adviser to adopt and
implement written policies and procedures, reasonably designed to ensure that
the adviser votes proxies in the best interest of its clients. The Rule further
requires the adviser to provide a concise summary of the adviser’s proxy voting
process and offer to provide copies of the complete proxy voting policy and
procedures to clients upon request. Lastly, the Rule requires that the adviser
disclose to clients how they may obtain information on how the adviser voted
their proxies.
CB
Richard Ellis Global Real Estate Securities, LLC (the “Company”) anticipates
that a majority of clients will be responsible for all actions in relation to
proxy voting. However, if the Company is instructed by the client to vote
proxies on the client’s behalf, then the Company will follow the guidelines of
the Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures. Any questions about this document should
be directed to the CCO.
Policy
Assuming
that the Company is requested to vote proxies on behalf of a particular client,
it is the policy of the Company to vote client proxies in the interest of
maximizing shareholder value. To that end, the Company will vote in a way that
it believes, consistent with its fiduciary duty, will cause the value of the
issue to increase the most or decline the least. Consideration will be given to
both the short and long term implications of the proposal to be voted on when
considering the optimal vote.
Any
general or specific proxy voting guidelines provided by an advisory client or
its designated agent in writing will supersede this policy. Clients may wish to
have their proxies voted by an independent third party or other named fiduciary
or agent, at the client’s cost.
With
respect to class actions, it is CBRE GRES’ policy not to take any action without
first consulting the client. We will then only take action as the client
directs.
Procedures
for Identification and Voting of Proxies
These
proxy voting procedures are designed to enable the Company to resolve material
conflicts of interest with clients before voting their proxies in the interest
of shareholder value.
|
1. |
The Company shall
maintain a list of all clients for which it votes proxies. The list will
be maintained either in hard copy or electronically and updated by the
Co-Chief Investment Officers or Portfolio Managers or Portfolio
Administrators who will obtain proxy voting information from client
agreements. |
|
2. |
The
Company shall work with the client to ensure that CBRE GRES is the
designated party to receive proxy voting materials from companies or
intermediaries. To that end, new account forms of
broker-dealers/custodians will state that CBRE GRES should receive this
documentation. The designation may also be made by telephoning contacts
and/or client service representatives at
broker-dealers/custodians. |
|
|
|
|
3. |
The
Co-Chief Chief Investment Officers shall receive all proxy voting
materials and will be responsible for ensuring that proxies are voted and
submitted in a timely manner. |
|
|
|
|
4. |
The
Co-Chief Investment Officers will review the list of clients and compare
the record date of the proxies with a security holdings list for the
security or company soliciting the proxy vote. |
|
|
|
|
|
For
any client who has provided specific voting instructions, the Co-Chief
Investment Officers shall vote that client’s proxy in accordance with the
client’s written instructions. |
|
|
|
|
|
Proxies
of clients who have selected a third party to vote proxies, and whose
proxies were received by the Company, shall be forwarded to the designee
for voting and submission. |
|
|
|
|
|
Proxies
received after the termination date of a client relationship will not be
voted. Such proxies should be delivered to the last known address of the
client or to the intermediary who distributed the proxy with a written or
oral statement indicating that the advisory relationship has been
terminated and that future proxies for the named client should not be
delivered to the Company. |
|
|
|
|
5. |
The
Co-Chief Investment Officers will reasonably try to assess any material
conflicts between the Company’s interests and those of its clients with
respect to proxy voting by considering the situations identified in the
Conflicts of Interest
section of this document. |
|
|
|
|
6. |
So
long as there are no material conflicts of interest identified, the
Company will vote proxies according to the policy set forth above. The
Company may also elect to abstain from voting if it deems such abstinence
in its clients’ best interests. The rationale for “abstain” votes will be
documented and the documentation will be maintained in the permanent
file. |
|
|
|
|
7. |
The
Company is not required to vote every client proxy and such should not
necessarily be construed as a violation of CBRE GRES’s fiduciary
obligations. The Company shall at no time ignore or neglect its proxy
voting responsibilities. However, there may be times when refraining from
voting is in the client’s best interest, such as when an adviser’s
analysis of a particular client proxy reveals that the cost of voting the
proxy may exceed the expected benefit to the client (i.e., casting a vote
on a foreign security may require that the adviser engage a translator or
travel to a foreign country to vote in person). Such position also
complies with Interpretive Bulletin 94-2 of the
DOL. |
|
|
|
|
8. |
The
CCO shall be responsible for conducting the proxy voting cost-benefit
analysis in those certain situations in which the Company believes it may
be in its clients’ best interest for the Company not to vote a particular
proxy. The CCO shall maintain documentation of any cost/benefit analysis
with respect to client proxies that were not voted by the
Company. |
|
|
|
|
9. |
If
the Co-Chief Investment Officers detect a conflict of interest, the
Company will, at its expense, engage the services of an outside proxy
voting service or consultant who will provide an independent
recommendation on the direction in which the Company should vote on the
proposal. The proxy voting service’s or consultant’s determination will be
binding on CBRE GRES. |
|
|
|
|
10. |
The
Chief Co-Chief Investment Officers shall collect and submit the proxy
votes in a timely
manner. |
|
11. |
The
CCO will report any attempts by the Company’s personnel to influence the
voting of client proxies in a manner that is inconsistent with the
Company’s Policy. |
|
|
|
|
12. |
All
proxy votes will be recorded and the following information will be
maintained: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
● |
The
name of the issuer of the portfolio security; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
● |
The
exchange ticker symbol of the portfolio security; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
● |
The
Council on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures (“CUSIP”) number
for the portfolio security; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
● |
The
shareholder meeting date; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
● |
The
number of shares the Company is voting on firm-wide; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
● |
A
brief identification of the matter voted on; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
● |
Whether
the matter was proposed by the issuer or by a security
holder; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
● |
Whether
or not the Company cast its vote on the matter; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
● |
How
the Company cast its vote (e.g., for or against proposal, or abstain; for
or withhold regarding election of directors); |
|
|
|
|
|
|
● |
Whether
the Company cast its vote with or against management;
and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
● |
Whether
any client requested an alternative vote of its proxy. |
|
|
|
|
|
In
the event that the Company votes the same proxy in two directions, it
shall maintain documentation to support its voting (this may occur if a
client requires the Company to vote a certain way on an issue, while the
Company deems it beneficial to vote in the opposite direction for its
other clients) in the permanent
file. |
Conflicts
of Interest
Although
the Company has not currently identified any material conflicts of interest that
would affect its proxy voting decisions, it is aware of the following potential
conflicts that could exist in the future:
|
● |
Conflict:
CBRE GRES retains a client, or is in the process of retaining a
client that is an officer or director of an issuer that is held in the
Company’s client portfolios. |
|
|
|
|
● |
Conflict:
CBRE GRES’s supervised persons maintain a personal and/or business
relationship (not an advisory relationship) with issuers or individuals
that serve as officers or directors of issuers. For example, the spouse of
a Company supervised person may be a high-level executive of an issuer
that is held in the Company’s client portfolios. The spouse could attempt
to influence the Company to vote in favor of
management. |
Resolution:
Upon the detection of a material conflict of interest, the procedure
described under Item 7 of the Procedures for Identification
and Voting of Proxies
section above will be followed.
The
Company realizes that due to the difficulty of predicting and identifying all
material conflicts, it must rely on its supervised persons to notify the
Co-Chief Investment Officers of any material conflict that may impair the
Company’s ability to vote proxies in an objective manner. Upon such
notification, the CCO will seek legal counsel who will recommend an appropriate
course of action.
In
addition, any attempts by others within the Company to influence the voting of
client proxies in a manner that is inconsistent with the proxy voting policy
shall be reported to the CCO. The CCO should then report the attempt to legal
counsel.
The CCO
should, as necessary, report to legal counsel all conflicts of interest that
arise in connection with the performance of the Company’s proxy-voting
obligations (if any), and any conflicts of interest that have come to his or her
attention (if any). The CCO will use the form included as Attachment A to this
document. This information can lead to future amendments to this proxy voting
policy and procedure.
Recordkeeping
The
Company must maintain the documentation described in the following section for a
period of not less than five (5) years, the first two (2) years at its principal
place of business. The CCO will be responsible for the following procedures and
for ensuring that the required documentation is retained.
Client request to review proxy
votes:
|
● |
Any
request, whether written (including e-mail) or oral, received by any
supervised persons of the Company, must be promptly reported to the CCO.
All written requests must be retained in the permanent
file. |
|
|
|
|
● |
The
CCO will record the identity of the client, the date of the request, and
the disposition (e.g., provided a written or oral response to client’s
request, referred to third party, not a proxy voting client, other
dispositions, etc.) in a suitable place. |
|
|
|
|
● |
In
order to facilitate the management of proxy voting record keeping process,
and to facilitate dissemination of such proxy voting records to clients,
the CCO will distribute to any client requesting proxy voting information
the complete proxy voting record of the Company for the period requested.
Reports containing proxy information of only those issuers held by a
certain client will not be created or distributed. 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Any
report disseminated to a client(s) will contain the following
legend: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
“This report contains the full
proxy voting record of CBRE GRES. If securities of a particular issuer were
held in your account on the date of the shareholder meeting indicated, your proxy
was voted in the direction indicated (absent your expressed written direction
otherwise).” |
|
● |
Furnish
the information requested, free of charge, to the client within a
reasonable time period (within 10 business days). Maintain a copy of the
written record provided in response to client’s written (including e-mail)
or oral request. A copy of the written response should be attached and
maintained with the client’s written request, if applicable and maintained
in the permanent file. |
|
|
|
|
● |
clients
are permitted to request the proxy voting record for the 5 year period
prior to their
request. |
___________________
4 |
For
clients who have provided the Company with specific direction on proxy
voting, the CCO will review the proxy voting record and permanent file in
order to identify those proposals voted differently than how the Company
voted clients not providing
direction. |
Proxy statements received regarding
client securities:
|
● |
Upon
receipt of a proxy, copy or print a sample of the proxy statement or card
and maintain the copy in a central file along with a sample of the proxy
solicitation instructions. |
|
|
Note: The Company is
permitted to rely on proxy statements filed on the SEC’s EDGAR system
instead of keeping its own copies. |
|
● |
The Company’s proxy
voting records may include the following: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
● |
Documents prepared
or created by the Company that were material to making a decision on how
to vote, or that memorialized the basis for the
decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
● |
Documentation or
notes or any communications received from third parties, other industry
analysts, third party service providers, company’s management discussions,
etc. that were material in the basis for the
decision. |
Disclosure
|
● |
The
Company will ensure that Part II of Form ADV is updated as necessary to
reflect: (i) all material changes to the Proxy Voting Policy and
Procedures; and (ii) regulatory
requirements. |
Proxy
Solicitation
As a
matter of practice, it is the Company’s policy to not reveal or disclose to any
client how the Company may have voted (or intends to vote) on a particular proxy
until after such proxies have been counted at a shareholder’s meeting. The
Company will never disclose such information to unrelated third
parties.
The CCO
is to be promptly informed of the receipt of any solicitation from any person to
vote proxies on behalf of clients. At no time may any supervised persons accept
any remuneration in the solicitation of proxies. The CCO shall handle all
responses to such solicitations.
B-33