ThZeal - The Zeal

The Statement of Additional Information Part II (SAI Part II) for the above Funds is replaced in its entirety with the attached SAI Part II.

INVESTMENT STRATEGIES AND POLICIES

As noted in the applicable Prospectuses for each of the Funds, in addition to the investment strategies and the investment risks described in the Prospectuses, each Fund may employ other investment strategies and may be subject to other risks, which are described below. Each Fund may engage in the practices described below to the extent consistent with its investment objectives, strategies, policies and restrictions. Because the following is a combined description of investment strategies of all of the Funds, certain matters described herein may not apply to particular Funds. However, no Fund is required to engage in any particular transaction or purchase any particular type of securities or investment even if to do so might benefit the Fund. Because the following is a combined description of investment strategies of all of the Funds, (i) certain matters described herein may not apply to particular Funds and (ii) certain references to the Adviser may also include a Sub-Adviser, as the context requires.

An investment in a Fund or any other fund may not provide a complete investment program. The suitability of an investment in a Fund should be considered based on the investment objective, strategies and risks described in the Fund’s prospectus and this SAI, considered in light of all of the other investments in your portfolio, as well as your risk tolerance, financial goals and time horizons. You may want to consult with a financial advisor to determine if a Fund is suitable for you. The value of your investment in a Fund will fluctuate in response to movements in the market. Fund performance also will depend on the effectiveness of the Adviser’s research and the management team’s investment decisions. Tax considerations may limit a Fund’s ability to pursue an investment opportunity or influence portfolio management decisions for the Fund. Future legislative and regulatory determinations may adversely affect the overall market for an instrument in which a Fund may invest and the Fund itself. There is no assurance that any Fund investment can be successfully employed. An investment in a Fund involves risk of a total loss.

For a list of investment strategies and policies employed by each Fund, see “INVESTMENT PRACTICES” in Part I of this SAI.

Asset-Backed Securities

Asset-backed securities consist of securities secured by company receivables, home equity loans, truck and auto loans, leases, or credit card receivables. Asset-backed securities also include other securities backed by other types of receivables or other assets, including collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”), asset-backed commercial paper (“ABCP”) and other similarly structured securities. CDOs include collateralized loan obligations (“CLOs”) and collateral bond obligations (“CBOs”). Such assets are generally securitized through the use of trusts or special purpose corporations. Asset-backed securities are backed by a pool of assets representing the obligations often of a number of different parties. Certain of these securities may be illiquid.

Asset-backed securities are generally subject to the risks of the underlying assets. In addition, asset-backed securities, in general, are subject to certain additional risks including depreciation, damage or loss of the collateral backing the security, risks related to the capability of the servicer of the securitized assets, failure of the collateral to generate the anticipated cash flow or in certain cases more rapid prepayment because of events affecting the collateral, such as accelerated prepayment of loans backing these securities or destruction of equipment subject to equipment trust certificates. In addition, the underlying assets (for example, underlying home equity loans) may be refinanced or paid off prior to maturity during periods of increasing or declining interest rates. During periods of declining interest rates, prepayment of loans underlying asset-backed securities can be expected to accelerate. Changes in prepayment rates can result in greater price and yield volatility. If asset-backed securities are pre-paid, a Fund may have to reinvest the proceeds from the securities at a lower rate. Potential market gains on a security subject to prepayment risk may be more limited than potential market gains on a comparable security that is not subject to prepayment risk. Under certain prepayment rate scenarios, a Fund may fail to recover additional amounts paid (i.e., premiums) for securities with higher interest rates, resulting in an unexpected loss.

A CBO is a trust or other special purpose entity (“SPE”) which is typically backed by a diversified pool of fixed income securities (which may include high risk, below investment grade securities). A CLO is a trust or other SPE that is typically collateralized by a pool of loans, which may include, among others, domestic and non-U.S. senior secured loans, senior unsecured loans, and subordinate corporate loans, including loans that may be rated below investment grade or equivalent unrated loans. While many CDOs may receive credit enhancement in the form of a senior-subordinate structure, over-collateralization or bond insurance, such enhancement may not always be present and may fail to protect a Fund against the risk of loss on default of the collateral. Certain CDOs may use derivatives contracts to create “synthetic”

Part II - 1

exposure to assets rather than holding such assets directly, which entails the risks of derivative instruments described elsewhere in this SAI. CDOs may charge management fees and administrative expenses, which are in addition to those of a Fund.

The cash flows for CDOs from the SPE usually are split into two or more portions, called tranches, varying in risk and yield. The riskiest portion is the “equity” tranche, which bears the first loss from defaults from the bonds or loans in the SPE and serves to protect the other, more senior tranches from default (though such protection is not complete). Since it is partially protected from defaults, a senior tranche from a CDO typically has higher ratings and lower yields than its underlying securities, and may be rated investment grade. Despite the protection from the equity tranche, CDO tranches can experience substantial losses due to actual defaults, downgrades of the underlying collateral by rating agencies, forced liquidation of the collateral pool due to a failure of coverage tests, increased sensitivity to defaults due to collateral default and disappearance of protecting tranches, market anticipation of defaults, as well as investor aversion to CDO securities as a class. Interest on certain tranches of a CDO may be paid in kind or deferred and capitalized (paid in the form of obligations of the same type rather than cash), which involves continued exposure to default risk with respect to such payments.

The risks of an investment in a CDO depend largely on the type of the collateral or securities and the class of the CDO in which a Fund invests. CDO tranches often have credit ratings and are typically issued in classes with various priorities. Normally, CDOs are privately offered and sold (that is, they are not registered under the securities laws), and may be subject to additional liquidity risks. However, an active dealer market may exist for CDOs, allowing a CDO to be sold pursuant to Rule 144A. In addition to the risks typically associated with fixed income securities and asset-backed securities generally discussed elsewhere in this SAI, CDOs carry additional risks including, but not limited to: (i) the possibility that distributions from collateral securities will not be adequate to make interest or other payments; (ii) the risk that the collateral may default or decline in value or be downgraded, if rated by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (“NRSRO”); (iii) a Fund may invest in tranches of CDOs that are subordinate to other tranches; (iv) the structure and complexity of the transaction and the legal documents could lead to disputes among investors regarding the characterization of proceeds; (v) the investment return achieved by the Fund could be significantly different than those predicted by financial models; (vi) the lack of a readily available secondary market for CDOs; (vii) risk of forced “fire sale” liquidation due to technical defaults such as coverage test failures; (viii) values may be volatile; (ix) disputes with the issuer may produce unexpected results; and (x) the CDO’s manager may perform poorly.

Certain Funds may purchase ABCP that is issued by conduits sponsored by banks, mortgage companies, investment banking firms, finance companies, hedge funds, private equity firms and special purpose finance entities. ABCP typically refers to a debt security with an original term to maturity of up to 270 days, the payment of which is supported from underlying assets, or one or more liquidity or credit support providers, or both. Assets backing ABCP, which may be included in revolving pools of assets with large numbers of obligors, include credit card, car loan and other consumer receivables and home or commercial mortgages, including subprime mortgages. To protect investors from the risk of non-payment, ABCP programs are generally structured with various protections, such as credit enhancement, liquidity support, and commercial paper stop issuance and wind-down triggers. There can be no guarantee that these protections will be sufficient to prevent losses to investors in ABCP. The repayment of ABCP issued by a conduit depends primarily on the conduit’s ability to issue new ABCP, access to the liquidity or credit support and, to a lesser extent, cash collections received from the conduit’s underlying asset portfolio. There could be losses to a Fund’s investing in ABCP in the event that: (i) the Fund is unable to access the liquidity or credit support for the ABCP; (ii) the conduit is unable to issue new ABCP; (iii) there is credit or market deterioration in the conduit’s underlying portfolio; and (iv) there are mismatches in the timing of the cash flows of the underlying asset interests and the repayment obligations of maturing ABCP.

Some ABCP programs historically have provided for an extension of the maturity date of the ABCP if, on the related maturity date, the conduit is unable to access sufficient liquidity by issuing additional ABCP. This may delay the sale of the underlying collateral and a Fund may incur a loss if the value of the collateral deteriorates during the extension period. Alternatively, if collateral for ABCP deteriorates in value, the collateral may be required to be sold at inopportune times or at prices insufficient to repay the principal and interest on the ABCP. ABCP programs may provide for the issuance of subordinated notes as an additional form of credit enhancement. The subordinated notes are typically of a lower credit quality and have a higher risk of default. A Fund purchasing these subordinated notes will therefore have a higher likelihood of loss than investors in the senior notes.

Part II - 2

Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses set forth in the fee table and Financial Highlights section of each Fund’s Prospectuses do not include any expenses associated with any Fund investments in certain structured or synthetic products that may rely on the exception for the definition of “investment company” provided by Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”).

Auction Rate Securities

Auction rate securities consist of auction rate municipal securities and auction rate preferred securities sold through an auction process issued by closed-end investment companies, municipalities and governmental agencies. For more information on risks associated with municipal securities, see “Municipal Securities” below.

Provided that the auction mechanism is successful, auction rate securities usually permit the holder to sell the securities in an auction at par value at specified intervals. The dividend is reset by “Dutch” auction in which bids are made by broker-dealers and other institutions for a certain amount of securities at a specified minimum yield. The dividend rate set by the auction is the lowest interest or dividend rate that covers all securities offered for sale. While this process is designed to permit auction rate securities to be traded at par value, there is the risk that an auction will fail due to insufficient demand for the securities. Failed auctions may adversely impact the liquidity of auction rate securities investments. There is no guarantee that a liquid market will exist for a Fund’s investments in auction rate securities at a time when the Fund wishes to dispose of such securities.

Dividends on auction rate preferred securities issued by a closed-end fund may be designated as exempt from federal income tax to the extent they are attributable to tax-exempt interest income earned by the closed-end fund on the securities in its portfolio and distributed to holders of the preferred securities. However, such designation may be made only if the closed-end fund treats preferred securities as equity securities for federal income tax purposes and the closed-end fund complies with certain requirements under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

A Fund’s investment in auction rate preferred securities of closed-end funds is subject to limitations on investments in other U.S. registered investment companies, which limitations are prescribed under the 1940 Act. A Fund is generally prohibited from acquiring more than 3% of the voting securities of any other such investment company, and investing more than 5% of a Fund’s total assets in securities of any one such investment company or more than 10% of its total assets in securities of all such investment companies. A Fund will indirectly bear its proportionate share of any management fees paid by such closed-end funds in addition to the advisory fee payable directly by the Fund.

Bank Obligations

Bank obligations include bankers’ acceptances, certificates of deposit, bank notes and time deposits.

Bankers’ acceptances are negotiable drafts or bills of exchange typically drawn by an importer or exporter to pay for specific merchandise, which are “accepted” by a bank, meaning, in effect, that the bank unconditionally agrees to pay the face value of the instrument on maturity.

Certificates of deposit are negotiable certificates issued against funds deposited in a commercial bank or a savings and loan association for a definite period of time and earning a specified return. Certificates of deposit may also include those issued by foreign banks outside the United States (“U.S.”). Such certificates of deposit include Eurodollar and Yankee certificates of deposit. Eurodollar certificates of deposit are U.S. dollar-denominated certificates of deposit issued by branches of foreign and domestic banks located outside the U.S. Yankee certificates of deposit are certificates of deposit issued by a U.S. branch of a foreign bank denominated in U.S. dollars and held in the U.S. Certain Funds may also invest in obligations (including bankers’ acceptances and certificates of deposit) denominated in foreign currencies (see “Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies)”) herein. With regard to certificates of deposit issued by U.S. banks and savings and loan associations, to be eligible for purchase by a Fund, a certificate of deposit must be issued by (i) a domestic or foreign branch of a U.S. commercial bank which is a member of the Federal Reserve System or the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or (ii) a domestic savings and loan association, the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Time deposits are interest-bearing non-negotiable deposits at a bank or a savings and loan association that have a specific maturity date. A time deposit earns a specific rate of interest over a definite period of time. Time deposits cannot be traded on the secondary market.

Part II - 3

The Funds will not invest in obligations for which the Adviser, or any of its affiliated persons, is the ultimate obligor or accepting bank, provided, however, that the Funds maintain demand deposits at their affiliated custodian, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan Chase Bank”).

Subject to a Fund’s limitations on concentration in a particular industry, there is no limitation on the amount of a Fund’s assets which may be invested in obligations of banks which meet the conditions set forth herein.

Commercial Paper

Commercial paper is a short-term obligation, generally with a maturity from 1 to 270 days, issued by a bank or bank holding company, corporation or finance company. Although commercial paper is generally unsecured, the Funds may also purchase secured commercial paper. In the event of a default of an issuer of secured commercial paper, a Fund may hold the securities and other investments that were pledged as collateral even if it does not invest in such securities or investments. In such a case, the Fund would take steps to dispose of such securities or investments in a commercially reasonable manner. Commercial paper includes master demand obligations. See “Variable and Floating Rate Instruments” below.

Certain Funds may also invest in Canadian commercial paper, which is commercial paper issued by a Canadian corporation or a Canadian counterpart of a U.S. corporation, and in Europaper, which is U.S. dollar denominated commercial paper of a foreign issuer. See “Risk Factors of Foreign Investments” below. Certain Funds may purchase commercial paper that is issued by conduits, including ABCP. Additional information about ABCP is included under “Asset-Backed Securities.”

Convertible Securities

Certain Funds may invest in convertible securities. Convertible securities include any debt securities or preferred stock which may be converted into common stock or which carry the right to purchase common stock. Generally, convertible securities entitle the holder to exchange the securities for a specified number of shares of common stock, usually of the same company, at specified prices within a certain period of time.

The terms of any convertible security determine its ranking in a company’s capital structure. In the case of subordinated convertible debentures, the holders’ claims on assets and earnings are subordinated to the claims of other creditors, and are senior to the claims of preferred and common shareholders. In the case of convertible preferred stock, the holders’ claims on assets and earnings are subordinated to the claims of all creditors and are senior to the claims of common shareholders.

Convertible securities have characteristics similar to both debt and equity securities. Due to the conversion feature, the market value of convertible securities tends to move together with the market value of the underlying common stock. As a result, selection of convertible securities, to a great extent, is based on the potential for capital appreciation that may exist in the underlying stock. The value of convertible securities is also affected by prevailing interest rates, the credit quality of the issuer, and any call provisions. In some cases, the issuer may cause a convertible security to convert to common stock. In other situations, it may be advantageous for a Fund to cause the conversion of convertible securities to common stock. If a convertible security converts to common stock, a Fund may hold such common stock in its portfolio even if it does not ordinarily invest in common stock.

Certain Funds invest in contingent securities structured as contingent convertible securities also known as CoCos. Contingent convertible securities are typically issued by non-U.S. banks and are designed to behave like bonds in times of economic health yet absorb losses when a pre-determined trigger event occurs. A contingent convertible security is a hybrid debt security either convertible into equity at a predetermined share price or written down in value (including potentially to zero) based on the specific terms of the individual security if a pre-specified trigger event occurs (the “Trigger Event”). Unlike traditional convertible securities, the conversion of a contingent convertible security from debt to equity is “contingent” and will occur only in the case of a Trigger Event. Trigger Events vary by instrument and are defined by the documents governing the contingent convertible security. Such Trigger Events may include a decline in the issuer’s capital below a specified threshold level, increase in the issuer’s risk weighted assets, the share price of the issuer falling to a particular level for a certain period of time and certain regulatory events.

Contingent convertible securities are subject to the credit, interest rate, high yield security, foreign security and markets risks associated with bonds and equities, and to the risks specific to convertible securities in general. Contingent convertible securities are also subject to additional risks specific to their

Part II - 4

structure including conversion risk. Because Trigger Events are not consistently defined among contingent convertible securities, this risk is greater for contingent convertible securities that are issued by banks with capital ratios close to the level specified in the Trigger Event.

In addition, coupon payments on contingent convertible securities are discretionary and may be cancelled by the issuer at any point, for any reason, and for any length of time. The discretionary cancellation of payments is not an event of default and there are no remedies to require re-instatement of coupon payments or payment of any past missed payments. Coupon payments may also be subject to approval by the issuer’s regulator and may be suspended in the event there are insufficient distributable reserves. Due to uncertainty surrounding coupon payments, contingent convertible securities may be volatile and their price may decline rapidly in the event that coupon payments are suspended.

Contingent convertible securities typically are structurally subordinated to traditional convertible bonds in the issuer’s capital structure. In certain scenarios, investors in contingent convertible securities may suffer a loss of capital ahead of equity holders or when equity holders do not. Contingent convertible securities are also subject to extension risk. Contingent convertible securities are perpetual instruments and may only be callable at pre-determined dates upon approval of the applicable regulatory authority. There is no guarantee that a Fund will receive return of principal on contingent convertible securities.

Convertible contingent securities are a newer form of instrument and the regulatory environment for these instruments continues to evolve. Because the market for contingent convertible securities is evolving, it is uncertain how the larger market for contingent convertible securities would react to a Trigger Event or coupon suspension applicable to a single issuer.

The value of contingent convertible securities is unpredictable and will be influenced by many factors such as: (i) the creditworthiness of the issuer and/or fluctuations in such issuer’s applicable capital ratios; (ii) supply and demand for contingent convertible securities; (iii) general market conditions and available liquidity; and (iv) economic, financial and political events that affect the issuer, its particular market or the financial markets in general.

Custodial Receipts

Certain Funds may acquire securities in the form of custodial receipts that evidence ownership of future interest payments, principal payments or both on certain U.S. Treasury notes or bonds in connection with programs sponsored by banks and brokerage firms. These are not considered U.S. government securities and are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. These notes and bonds are held in custody by a bank on behalf of the owners of the receipts.

Debt Instruments

Below Investment Grade Securities. Securities that were rated investment grade at the time of purchase may subsequently be rated below investment grade (BB+ or lower by Standard & Poor’s Corporation (“S&P”) and Bal or lower by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”)). Certain Funds that do not invest in below investment grade securities as a main investment strategy may nonetheless continue to hold such securities if the Adviser believes it is advantageous for the Fund to do so. The high degree of risk involved in these investments can result in substantial or total losses. These securities are subject to greater risk of loss, greater sensitivity to interest rate and economic changes, valuation difficulties, and a potential lack of a secondary or public market for securities. The market price of these securities also can change suddenly and unexpectedly.

Corporate Debt Securities. Corporate debt securities may include bonds and other debt securities of U.S. and non-U.S. issuers, including obligations of industrial, utility, banking and other corporate issuers. All debt securities are subject to the risk of an issuer’s inability to meet principal and interest payments on the obligation and may also be subject to price volatility due to such factors as market interest rates, market perception of the creditworthiness of the issuer and general market liquidity.

High Yield/High Risk Securities/Junk Bonds. Certain Funds may invest in high yield securities, to varying degrees. High yield, high risk bonds are securities that are generally rated below investment grade by the primary rating agencies (BB+ or lower by S&P and Bal or lower by Moody’s) or unrated but determined by the Adviser to be of comparable quality. Other terms used to describe such securities include “lower rated bonds,” “non-investment grade bonds,” “below investment grade bonds,” and “junk bonds.” These securities are considered to be high-risk investments. In addition, high yield securities generally are less liquid than investment-grade securities and the risks associated with high yield securities

Part II - 5

are heightened during times of weakening economic, political, unusual or adverse market conditions or changing interest rates. Any investment in distressed or defaulted securities subjects a Fund to even greater credit risk than investments in other below-investment-grade securities.

High yield securities are regarded as predominately speculative. There is a greater risk that issuers of lower rated securities will default than issuers of higher rated securities. Issuers of lower rated securities generally are less creditworthy and may be highly indebted, financially distressed, or bankrupt. These issuers are more vulnerable to real or perceived economic changes, political changes or adverse industry developments. In addition, high yield securities are frequently subordinated to the prior payment of senior indebtedness. If an issuer fails to pay principal or interest, a Fund would experience a decrease in income and a decline in the market value of its investments. A Fund may also incur additional expenses in seeking recovery from the issuer.

The income and market value of lower rated securities may fluctuate more than higher rated securities. Non-investment grade securities are more sensitive to short-term corporate, economic and market developments. During periods of economic uncertainty and change, the market price of the investments in lower rated securities may be volatile. The default rate for high yield bonds tends to be cyclical, with defaults rising in periods of economic downturn.

It is often more difficult to value lower rated securities than higher rated securities. If an issuer’s financial condition deteriorates, accurate financial and business information may be limited or unavailable. The lower rated investments may be thinly traded and there may be no established secondary market. Because of the lack of market pricing and current information for investments in lower rated securities, valuation of such investments is much more dependent on the judgment of the Adviser than is the case with higher rated securities. In addition, relatively few institutional purchasers may hold a major portion of an issue of lower-rated securities at times. As a result, a Fund that invests in lower rated securities may be required to sell investments at substantial losses or retain them indefinitely even where an issuer’s financial condition is deteriorating.

Credit quality of non-investment grade securities can change suddenly and unexpectedly, and even recently issued credit ratings may not fully reflect the actual risks posed by a particular high-yield security.

Future legislation may have a possible negative impact on the market for high yield, high risk bonds. As an example, in the late 1980’s, legislation required federally-insured savings and loan associations to divest their investments in high yield, high risk bonds. New legislation, if enacted, could have a material negative effect on a Fund’s investments in lower rated securities.

Inflation-Linked Debt Securities. Inflation-linked securities include fixed and floating rate debt securities of varying maturities issued by the U.S. government, its agencies and instrumentalities, such as Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (“TIPS”), as well as securities issued by other entities such as corporations, municipalities, foreign governments and foreign issuers, including foreign issuers from emerging markets. See also “Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies).” Typically, such securities are structured as fixed income investments whose principal value is periodically adjusted according to the rate of inflation. The U.S. Treasury, among some other issuers, issues inflation-linked securities that accrue inflation into the principal value of the security and other issuers may pay out the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) accruals as part of a semi-annual coupon. Other types of inflation-linked securities exist which use an inflation index other than the CPI.

Inflation-linked securities issued by the U.S. Treasury, such as TIPS, have maturities of approximately five, ten or thirty years, although it is possible that securities with other maturities will be issued in the future. Typically, TIPS pay interest on a semi-annual basis equal to a fixed percentage of the inflation-adjusted principal amount. For example, if a Fund purchased an inflation-indexed bond with a par value of $1,000 and a 3% real rate of return coupon (payable 1.5% semi-annually), and the rate of inflation over the first six months was 1%, the mid-year par value of the bond would be $1,010 and the first semi-annual interest payment would be $15.15 ($1,010 times 1.5%). If inflation during the second half of the year resulted in the whole year’s inflation of 3%, the end-of-year par value of the bond would be $1,030 and the second semi-annual interest payment would be $15.45 ($1,030 times 1.5%).

If the periodic adjustment rate measuring inflation falls, the principal value of inflation-indexed bonds will be adjusted downward, and consequently the interest payable on these securities (calculated with respect to a smaller principal amount) will be reduced. Repayment of the original bond principal upon maturity (as adjusted for inflation) is guaranteed in the case of TIPS, even during a period of deflation, although the inflation-adjusted principal received could be less than the inflation-adjusted principal that had accrued to the bond at the time of purchase. However, the current market value of the bonds is not

Part II - 6

guaranteed and will fluctuate. Other inflation-related bonds may not provide a similar guarantee. If a guarantee of principal is not provided, the adjusted principal value of the bond repaid at maturity may be less than the original principal.

The value of inflation-linked securities is expected to change in response to changes in real interest rates. Real interest rates in turn are tied to the relationship between nominal interest rates and the rate of inflation. Therefore, if the rate of inflation rises at a faster rate than nominal interest rates, real interest rates might decline, leading to an increase in value of inflation-linked securities.

While inflation-linked securities are expected to be protected from long-term inflationary trends, short-term increases in inflation may lead to a decline in value. If interest rates rise due to reasons other than inflation (for example, due to changes in currency exchange rates), investors in these securities may not be protected to the extent that the increase is not reflected in the bond’s inflation measure.

The periodic adjustment of U.S. inflation-linked securities is tied to the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”), which is not seasonally adjusted and which is calculated monthly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CPI-U is a measurement of changes in the cost of living, made up of components such as housing, food, transportation and energy. Inflation-linked securities issued by a foreign government are generally adjusted to reflect a comparable inflation index calculated by that government. There can be no assurance that the CPI-U or a foreign inflation index will accurately measure the real rate of inflation in the prices of goods and services. Moreover, there can be no assurance that the rate of inflation in a foreign country will be correlated to the rate of inflation in the U.S.

Any increase in the principal amount of an inflation-linked security will be considered taxable ordinary income, even though investors do not receive their principal until maturity.

Variable and Floating Rate Instruments. Certain obligations purchased by the Funds may carry variable or floating rates of interest, may involve a conditional or unconditional demand feature and may include variable amount master demand notes. Variable and floating rate instruments are issued by a wide variety of issuers and may be issued for a wide variety of purposes, including as a method of reconstructing cash flows.

Subject to their investment objective policies and restrictions, certain Funds may acquire variable and floating rate instruments. A variable rate instrument has terms that 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. Certain Funds may purchase extendable commercial notes. Extendable commercial notes are variable rate notes which typically mature within a short period of time (e.g., 1 month) but which may be extended by the issuer for a maximum maturity of thirteen months.

A floating rate instrument has terms that 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. Floating rate instruments are frequently not rated by credit rating agencies; however, unrated variable and floating rate instruments purchased by a Fund will be determined by the Fund’s Adviser to be of comparable quality at the time of purchase to rated instruments eligible for purchase under the Fund’s investment policies. In making such determinations, a Fund’s Adviser will consider the earning power, cash flow and other liquidity ratios of the issuers of such instruments (such issuers include financial, merchandising, bank holding and other companies) and will continuously monitor their financial condition. There may be no active secondary market with respect to a particular variable or floating rate instrument purchased by a Fund. The absence of such an active secondary market could make it difficult for a Fund to dispose of the variable or floating rate instrument involved in the event the issuer of the instrument defaulted on its payment obligations, and the Fund could, for this or other reasons, suffer a loss to the extent of the default. Variable or floating rate instruments may be secured by bank letters of credit or other assets. A Fund may purchase a variable or floating rate instrument to facilitate portfolio liquidity or to permit investment of the Fund’s assets at a favorable rate of return.

As a result of the floating and variable rate nature of these investments, the Funds’ yields may decline, and they may forego the opportunity for capital appreciation during periods when interest rates decline; however, during periods when interest rates increase, the Funds’ yields may increase, and they may have reduced risk of capital depreciation.

Past periods of high inflation, together with the fiscal measures adopted to attempt to deal with it, have seen wide fluctuations in interest rates, particularly “prime rates” charged by banks. While the value of the underlying floating or variable rate securities may change with changes in interest rates generally, the nature of the underlying floating or variable rate should minimize changes in value of the instruments.

Part II - 7

Accordingly, as interest rates decrease or increase, the potential for capital appreciation and the risk of potential capital depreciation is less than would be the case with a portfolio of fixed rate securities. A Fund’s portfolio may contain floating or variable rate securities on which stated minimum or maximum rates, or maximum rates set by state law limit the degree to which interest on such floating or variable rate securities may fluctuate; to the extent it does, increases or decreases in value may be somewhat greater than would be the case without such limits. Because the adjustment of interest rates on the floating or variable rate securities is made in relation to movements of the applicable banks’ “prime rates” or other short-term rate securities adjustment indices, the floating or variable rate securities are not comparable to long-term fixed rate securities. Accordingly, interest rates on the floating or variable rate securities may be higher or lower than current market rates for fixed rate obligations of comparable quality with similar maturities.

Variable Amount Master Notes. Variable amount master notes are notes, which may possess a demand feature, that permit the indebtedness to vary and provide for periodic adjustments in the interest rate according to the terms of the instrument. Variable amount master notes may not be secured by collateral. To the extent that variable amount master notes are secured by collateral, they are subject to the risks described under the section “Loans— Collateral and Subordination Risk.”

Because master notes are direct lending arrangements between a Fund and the issuer of the notes, they are not typically traded. Although there is no secondary market in the notes, a Fund may demand payment of principal and accrued interest. If a Fund is not repaid such principal and accrued interest, the Fund may not be able to dispose of the notes due to the lack of a secondary market.

While master notes are not typically rated by credit rating agencies, issuers of variable amount master notes (which are typically manufacturing, retail, financial, brokerage, investment banking and other business concerns) must satisfy the same criteria as those set forth with respect to commercial paper, if any, in Part I of this SAI under the heading “Diversification.” A Fund’s Adviser will consider the credit risk of the issuers of such notes, including its earning power, cash flow, and other liquidity ratios of such issuers and will continuously monitor their financial status and ability to meet payment on demand. In determining average weighted portfolio maturity, a variable amount master note will be deemed to have a maturity equal to the period of time remaining until the principal amount can be recovered from the issuer.

Limitations on the Use of Variable and Floating Rate Notes. Variable and floating rate instruments for which no readily available market exists will be purchased in an amount which, together with securities with legal or contractual restrictions on resale or for which no readily available market exists (including repurchase agreements providing for settlement more than seven days after notice), exceeds 15% of a Fund’s net assets only if such instruments are subject to a demand feature that will permit the Fund to demand payment of the principal within seven days after demand by the Fund. Please see the “Liquidity Risk Management Program” section for more details. There is no limit on the extent to which a Fund may purchase demand instruments that are not illiquid or deemed to be liquid in accordance with the Adviser’s liquidity determination procedures. If not rated, such instruments must be found by the Adviser to be of comparable quality to instruments in which a Fund may invest. A rating may be relied upon only if it is provided by an NRSRO that is not affiliated with the issuer or guarantor of the instruments.

Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Deferred Payment Securities. Zero-coupon securities are securities that are sold at a discount to par value and on which interest payments are not made during the life of the security. Upon maturity, the holder is entitled to receive the par value of the security. Pay-in-kind securities are securities that have interest payable by delivery of additional securities. Upon maturity, the holder is entitled to receive the aggregate par value of the securities. A Fund accrues income with respect to zero-coupon and pay-in-kind securities prior to the receipt of cash payments. Deferred payment securities are securities that remain zero-coupon securities until a predetermined date, at which time the stated coupon rate becomes effective and interest becomes payable at regular intervals. While interest payments are not made on such securities, holders of such securities are deemed to have received “phantom income.” Because a Fund will distribute “phantom income” to shareholders, to the extent that shareholders elect to receive dividends in cash rather than reinvesting such dividends in additional shares, the applicable Fund will have fewer assets with which to purchase income-producing securities. Zero-coupon, pay-in-kind and deferred payment securities may be subject to greater fluctuation in value and lesser liquidity in the event of adverse market conditions than comparably rated securities paying cash interest at regular interest payment periods.

Negative Interest Rates. In a low or negative interest rate environment, debt instruments may trade at negative yields, which means the purchaser of the instrument may receive at maturity less than the total amount invested. In addition, in a negative interest rate environment, if a bank charges negative interest,

Part II - 8

instead of receiving interest on deposits, a depositor must pay the bank fees to keep money with the bank. To the extent a Fund holds a negatively-yielding debt instrument or has a bank deposit with a negative interest rate, the Fund would generate a negative return on that investment.

If negative interest rates become more prevalent in the market and/or if low or negative interest rates persist for a sustained period of time, some investors may seek to reallocate assets to other income-producing assets, such as investment-grade and higher-yield debt instruments, or equity investments that pay a dividend, absent other market risks that may make such alternative investments unattractive. This increased demand for higher yielding assets may cause the price of such instruments to rise while triggering a corresponding decrease in yield over time, thus reducing the value of such alternative investments. In addition, a move to higher yielding investments may cause investors, including a Fund (to the extent permitted by its investment objective and strategies), to seek fixed-income investments with longer maturities and/or potentially reduced credit quality in order to seek the desired level of yield. These considerations may limit a Fund’s ability to locate fixed-income instruments containing the desired risk/return profile. Changing interest rates, including, but not limited to, rates that fall below zero, could have unpredictable effects on the markets and may expose fixed-income and related markets to heightened volatility and potential illiquidity.

Impact of Market Conditions on the Risks associated with Debt Securities

Investments in certain debt securities will be especially subject to the risk that, during certain periods, the liquidity of particular issuers or industries, or all securities within a particular investment category, may shrink or disappear suddenly and without warning as a result of adverse economic, market or political events, or adverse investor perceptions, whether or not accurate.

Current market conditions pose heightened risks for Funds that invest in debt securities given the current interest rate environment. Any future interest rate increases or other adverse conditions (e.g., inflation/deflation, increased selling of certain fixed-income investments across other pooled investment vehicles or accounts, changes in investor perception, or changes in government intervention in the markets) could cause the value of any Fund that invests in debt securities to decrease. As such, debt securities markets may experience heightened levels of interest rate and liquidity risk, as well as increased volatility. If rising interest rates cause a Fund to lose value, the Fund could also face increased shareholder redemptions, which would further impair the Fund’s ability to achieve its investment objectives.

The capacity for traditional dealers to engage in fixed-income trading for certain fixed income instruments has not kept pace with the growth of the fixed income market, and in some cases has decreased. As a result, because dealers acting as market makers provide stability to a market, the significant reduction in certain dealer inventories could potentially lead to decreased liquidity and increased volatility in the fixed income markets. Such issues may be exacerbated during periods of economic uncertainty or market volatility.

Debt market conditions are highly unpredictable and some parts of the market are subject to dislocations. Similar to COVID-19 or other serious economic disruptions, governmental authorities and regulators may enact significant fiscal and monetary policy changes. These actions could present heightened risks to debt instruments, and such risks could be even further heightened if these actions are unexpectedly or suddenly reversed or are ineffective in achieving their desired outcomes. These actions could expose the debt markets to significant volatility and reduced liquidity for Fund investments.

Demand Features

Certain Funds may acquire securities that are subject to puts and standby commitments (“Demand Features”) to purchase the securities at their principal amount (usually with accrued interest) within a fixed period (usually seven days) following a demand by the Fund. Demand Features may be issued by the issuer of the underlying securities, a dealer in the securities or by another third party and may not be transferred separately from the underlying security. The underlying securities subject to a put may be sold at any time at market rates. To the extent that a Fund invests in such securities, the Fund expects that it will acquire puts only where the puts are available without the payment of any direct or indirect consideration. However, if determined by the Adviser to be advisable or necessary, a premium may be paid for put features. A premium paid will have the effect of reducing the yield otherwise payable on the underlying security. Demand Features provided by foreign banks involve certain risks associated with foreign investments. See “Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies)” for more information on these risks.

Part II - 9

Under a “stand-by commitment,” a dealer would agree to purchase, at a Fund’s option, specified securities at a specified price. A Fund will acquire these commitments solely to facilitate portfolio liquidity and does not intend to exercise its rights thereunder for trading purposes. Stand-by commitments may also be referred to as put options.

The purpose of engaging in transactions involving puts is to maintain flexibility and liquidity to permit a Fund to meet redemption requests and remain as fully invested as possible.

Equity Securities, Warrants and Rights

Common Stock. Common stock represents a share of ownership in a company and usually carries voting rights and may earn dividends. Unlike preferred stock, common stock dividends are not fixed but are declared at the discretion of the issuer’s board of directors. Common stock occupies the most junior position in a company’s capital structure. As with all equity securities, the price of common stock fluctuates based on changes in a company’s financial condition, including those that result from management’s performance or changes to the business of the company, and overall market and economic conditions.

Common Stock Warrants and Rights. Common stock warrants entitle the holder to buy common stock from the issuer of the warrant at a specific price (the “strike price”) for a specific period of time. The market price of warrants may be substantially lower than the current market price of the underlying common stock, yet warrants are subject to similar price fluctuations. As a result, warrants may be more volatile investments than the underlying common stock. If a warrant is exercised, a Fund may hold common stock in its portfolio even if it does not ordinarily invest in common stock.

Rights are similar to warrants but normally have a shorter duration and are typically distributed directly by the issuers to existing shareholders, while warrants are typically attached to new debt or preferred stock issuances.

Warrants and rights generally do not entitle the holder to dividends or voting rights with respect to the underlying common stock and do not represent any rights in the assets of the issuer. Warrants and rights will expire if not exercised on or prior to the expiration date.

Preferred Stock. Preferred stock is a class of stock that generally pays dividends at a specified rate and has preference over common stock in the payment of dividends and during a liquidation. Preferred stock generally does not carry voting rights. Outside of the United States, preferred stock may carry different rights or obligations. In some jurisdictions, preferred stocks may have different voting rights and there may be more robust trading markets and liquidity in preferred stock than the common or ordinary stock of the company. As with all equity securities, the price of preferred stock fluctuates based on changes in a company’s financial condition and on overall market and economic conditions. Because preferred stocks generally pay dividends only after the issuing company makes required payments to holders of its bonds and other debt, the value of preferred stocks is more sensitive than bonds and other debt to actual or perceived changes in the company’s financial condition or prospects. Similar to common stock rights described above, rights may also be issued to holders of preferred stock.

Initial Public Offerings (“IPOs”). Certain Funds may purchase securities in IPOs. These securities are subject to many of the same risks as investing in companies with smaller market capitalizations. Securities issued in IPOs have no trading history, and there may be limited information about the companies. The prices of securities sold in IPOs may be highly volatile. At any particular time or from time to time, a Fund may not be able to invest in securities issued in IPOs, or invest to the extent desired, because, for example, only a small portion (if any) of the securities being offered in an IPO may be made available to the Fund. In addition, under certain market conditions, a relatively small number of companies may issue securities in IPOs. Similarly, as the number of Funds to which IPO securities are allocated increases, the number of securities issued to any one Fund may decrease. The investment performance of a Fund during periods when it is unable to invest significantly or at all in IPOs may be lower than during periods when the Fund is able to do so. In addition, as a Fund increases in size, the impact of IPOs on the Fund’s performance will generally decrease.

Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies)

Some of the Funds may invest in certain obligations or securities of foreign issuers. For purposes of a Fund’s investment policies and unless described otherwise in a Fund’s prospectus, an issuer of a security will be deemed to be located in a particular country if: (i) the principal trading market for the security is in such country, (ii) the issuer is organized under the laws of such country or (iii) the issuer derives at least

Part II - 10

50% of its revenues or profits from such country or has at least 50% of its total assets situated in such country. Possible investments include equity securities and debt securities (e.g., bonds and commercial paper) of foreign entities, obligations of foreign branches of U.S. banks and of foreign banks, including, without limitation, eurodollar certificates of deposit, eurodollar time deposits, eurodollar bankers’ acceptances, Canadian time deposits and yankee certificates of deposit, and investments in Canadian commercial paper, and europaper. Securities of foreign issuers may include sponsored and unsponsored American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”), European Depositary Receipts (“EDRs”), and Global Depositary Receipts (“GDRs”). Sponsored ADRs are listed on the New York Stock Exchange; unsponsored ADRs are not. Therefore, there may be less information available about the issuers of unsponsored ADRs than the issuers of sponsored ADRs. Unsponsored ADRs are restricted securities. EDRs and GDRs are not listed on the New York Stock Exchange. As a result, it may be difficult to obtain information about EDRs and GDRs.

Risk Factors of Foreign Investments. The following is a summary of certain risks associated with foreign investments:

Political and Exchange Risks. Foreign investments may subject a Fund to investment risks that differ in some respects from those related to investments in obligations of U.S. domestic issuers. Such risks include potential future adverse political and economic developments, sanctions or other measures by the United States or other governments, possible imposition of withholding taxes on interest or other income, possible seizure, nationalization or expropriation of foreign deposits, possible establishment of exchange controls or taxation at the source, greater fluctuations in value due to changes in exchange rates, or the adoption of other foreign governmental restrictions which might adversely affect the payment of principal and interest on such obligations. The U.S. and governments of other countries may renegotiate some or all of its global trade relationships and may impose or threaten to impose significant import tariffs. The imposition of tariffs, trade restrictions, currency restrictions or similar actions (or retaliatory measures taken in response to such actions) could lead to price volatility and overall declines in U.S. and global investment markets. In addition, the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (the “HFCAA”) could cause securities of a foreign (non-U.S.) company, including ADRs, to be delisted from U.S. stock exchanges if the company does not allow the U.S. government to oversee the auditing of its financial information. Although the requirements of the HFCAA apply to securities of all foreign (non-U.S.) issuers, the SEC has thus far limited its enforcement efforts to securities of Chinese companies. If securities are delisted, a Fund’s ability to transact in such securities will be impaired, and the liquidity and market price of the securities may decline. A Fund may also need to seek other markets in which to transact in such securities, which could increase a Fund’s costs. Certain foreign exchanges impose requirements on the transaction settlement process with respect to certain securities, such as requirements to pre-deliver securities (for a sale) or pre-fund cash (for a buy) to a broker’s account. Such requirements may limit a Fund’s ability to transact in such securities in a timely manner and will subject a Fund to the risk of loss that could result if the broker is unable or unwilling to meet its obligations with respect to pre-delivered securities or pre-funded cash.

Higher Transaction Costs. Foreign investments may entail higher custodial fees and sales commissions than domestic investments.

Accounting and Regulatory Differences. Foreign issuers of securities or obligations are often subject to accounting treatment and engage in business practices different from those of domestic issuers of similar securities or obligations. In addition, foreign issuers are usually not subject to the same degree of regulation as domestic issuers, and their securities may trade on relatively small markets, causing their securities to experience potentially higher volatility and more limited liquidity than securities of domestic issuers. Foreign branches of U.S. banks and foreign banks are not regulated by U.S. banking authorities and may be subject to less stringent reserve requirements than those applicable to domestic branches of U.S. banks. In addition, foreign banks generally are not bound by accounting, auditing, and financial reporting standards comparable to those applicable to U.S. banks. Dividends and interest paid by foreign issuers may be subject to withholding and other foreign taxes which may decrease the net return on foreign investments as compared to dividends and interest paid to a Fund by domestic companies.

Currency Risk. Foreign securities may be denominated in foreign currencies, although foreign issuers may also issue securities denominated in U.S. dollars. The value of a Fund’s investments denominated in foreign currencies and any funds held in foreign currencies will be affected by changes in currency exchange rates, the relative strength of those currencies and the U.S. dollar, and exchange-control regulations. Changes in the foreign currency exchange rates also may affect the value of dividends and interest earned, gains and losses realized on the sale of securities and net investment income and gains, if any, to be distributed to shareholders by a Fund. The exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and other

Part II - 11

currencies are determined by the forces of supply and demand in foreign exchange markets and the relative merits of investments in different countries, actual or anticipated changes in interest rates and other complex factors, as seen from an international perspective. Currency exchange rates may fluctuate significantly over short periods of time. Currency exchange rates also can be affected by intervention (or lack of intervention) by the United States or foreign governments or central banks or by currency controls or political developments in the United States or elsewhere. Accordingly, the ability of a Fund that invests in foreign securities as part of its principal investment strategy to achieve its investment objective may depend, to a certain extent, on exchange rate movements. In addition, while the volume of transactions effected on foreign stock exchanges has increased in recent years, in most cases it remains appreciably below that of domestic securities exchanges. Accordingly, a Fund’s foreign investments may be less liquid and their prices may be more volatile than comparable investments in securities of U.S. companies. In buying and selling securities on foreign exchanges, purchasers normally pay fixed commissions that are generally higher than the negotiated commissions charged in the U.S. In addition, there is generally less government supervision and regulation of securities exchanges, brokers and issuers located in foreign countries than in the U.S.

Settlement Risk. The settlement periods for foreign securities and instruments are often longer than those for securities or obligations of U.S. issuers or instruments denominated in U.S. dollars. Pursuant to regulatory changes effective in May 2024, many U.S., Canadian, and Mexican securities transitioned to a T+1 (trade date plus one day) settlement cycle, while securities trading in most other markets typically have longer settlement cycles. As a result, there can be potential operational, settlement and other risks for a Fund associated with differences in settlement cycles between markets. Delayed settlement may affect the liquidity of a Fund’s holdings. Certain types of securities and other instruments are not traded “delivery versus payment” in certain markets (e.g., government bonds in Russia) meaning that a Fund may deliver securities or instruments before payment is received from the counterparty. In such markets, a Fund may not receive timely payment for securities or other instruments it has delivered and may be subject to increased risk that the counterparty will fail to make payments when due or default completely. Foreign markets also have different clearance and settlement procedures, and 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. Such delays in settlement could result in temporary periods when a portion of the assets of a Fund remains uninvested and no return is earned on such assets. The inability of a Fund to make intended security purchases or sales due to settlement problems could result either in losses to the Fund due to subsequent declines in value of the portfolio securities, in the Fund deeming those securities to be illiquid, or, if the Fund has entered into a contract to sell the securities, in possible liability to the purchaser.

A Fund’s income and, in some cases, capital gains from foreign stocks and securities, will be subject to applicable taxation in certain of the countries in which it invests and treaties between the U.S. and such countries may not be available in some cases to reduce the otherwise applicable tax rates.

Brady Bonds. Brady bonds are securities created through the exchange of existing commercial bank loans to public and private entities in certain emerging markets for new bonds in connection with debt restructurings. In light of the history of defaults of countries issuing Brady bonds on their commercial bank loans, investments in Brady bonds may be viewed as speculative and subject to the same risks as emerging market securities. Brady bonds may be fully or partially collateralized or uncollateralized, are issued in various currencies (but primarily the U.S. dollar) and are actively traded in over-the-counter (“OTC”) secondary markets. Incomplete collateralization of interest or principal payment obligations results in increased credit risk. Dollar-denominated collateralized Brady bonds, which may be either fixed-rate or floating rate bonds, are generally collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities.

Global Depositary Notes. Foreign securities and emerging markets securities include Global Depositary Notes (“GDNs”). A GDN is a debt instrument created by a bank that evidences ownership of local currency-denominated debt securities. GDNs reflect the terms of particular local currency-denominated bonds. GDNs trade, settle, and pay interest and principal in U.S. dollars but typically are restricted securities that do not trade on an exchange. Any distributions paid to the holders of GDNs are usually subject to a fee charged by the depositary bank. In addition to the risks associated with foreign investments, a Fund’s investments in GDNs is subject to the risks associated with the underlying local currency-denominated bond and derivative instruments including credit risk, default or similar event risk, counterparty risk, interest rate risk, leverage risk, liquidity risk, and management risk. Holders of GDNs

Part II - 12

may have limited rights, and investment restrictions in certain countries may adversely impact the value of GDNs because such restrictions may limit the ability to convert the bonds into GDNs and vice versa. Such restrictions may cause bonds of the underlying issuer to trade at a discount or premium to the market price of the GDN.

Obligations of Supranational Entities. Obligations of supranational entities include securities designated or supported by governmental entities to promote economic reconstruction or development of international banking institutions and related government agencies, such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Each supranational entity’s lending activities are limited to a percentage of its total capital (including “callable capital” contributed by its governmental members at the entity’s call), reserves and net income. There is no assurance that participating governments will be able or willing to honor their commitments to make capital contributions to a supranational entity.

Sukuk. Foreign securities and emerging market securities include sukuk. Sukuk are certificates, similar to bonds, issued by the issuer to obtain an upfront payment in exchange for an income stream. Sukuks are also known as Islamic financial certificates that are designed to comply with Islamic religious law commonly known as Sharia. Such income stream may or may not be linked to a tangible asset. For sukuk that are not linked to a tangible asset, the sukuk represents a contractual payment obligation of the issuer or issuing vehicle to pay income or periodic payments to the investor, and such contractual payment obligation is linked to the issuer or issuing vehicle and not from interest on the investor’s money for the sukuk. For sukuk linked to a tangible asset, a Fund will not have a direct interest in the underlying asset or pool of assets. The issuer also makes a contractual promise to buy back the certificate at a future date at par value. Even when the certificate is linked to the returns generated by certain assets of the issuer, the underlying assets are not pledged as security for the certificates, and a Fund (as the investor) is relying on the creditworthiness of the issuer for all payments required by the sukuk. The issuer may be a special purpose vehicle (“SPV”) with no other assets. Investors do not have direct legal ownership of any underlying assets. In the event of default, the process may take longer to resolve than conventional bonds. Changing interpretations of Islamic law by courts or prominent scholars may affect the free transferability of sukuk in ways that cannot now be foreseen. In such an event, a Fund may be required to hold its sukuk for longer than intended, even if their condition is deteriorating.

Issuers of sukuk may include international financial institutions, foreign governments and agencies of foreign governments. Underlying assets may include, without limitation, real estate (developed and undeveloped), lease contracts and machinery and equipment. Although the sukuk market has grown significantly in recent years, there may be times when the market is illiquid and where it is difficult for a Fund to make an investment in or dispose of sukuk at the Fund’s desired time. Furthermore, the global sukuk market is significantly smaller than conventional bond markets, and restrictions imposed by the Shariah board of the issuing entity may limit the number of investors who are interested in investing in particular sukuk. The unique characteristics of sukuk may lead to uncertainties regarding their tax treatment within a Fund.

A Fund’s ability to pursue and enforce actions with respect to these payment obligations or to otherwise enforce the terms of the sukuk, restructure the sukuk, obtain a judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction, and/or attach assets of the obligor may be limited. Sukuk are also subject to the risks associated with developing and emerging market economies, which include, among others, the risk of sanctions and inconsistent accounting and legal principles.

Emerging Market Securities. Investing in companies domiciled in emerging market countries (i.e., emerging market securities) may be subject to potentially higher risks than investments in companies in developed countries. These risks include the risk that there is, or there may likely be: (i) less social, political, and economic stability; (ii) greater illiquidity and price volatility due to smaller or limited local capital markets for such securities, or low non-existent trading volumes; (iii) less scrutiny and regulation by local authorities of the foreign exchanges and broker-dealers; (iv) the seizure or confiscation by local governments of securities held by foreign investors, and the possible suspension or limiting by local governments of an issuer’s ability to make dividend or interest payments; (v) limiting or entirely restricting repatriation of invested capital, profits, and dividends by local governments; (vi) local taxation of capital gains, including on a retroactive basis; (vii) the attempt by issuers facing restrictions on dollar or euro payments imposed by local governments to make dividend or interest payments to foreign investors in the local currency; (viii) difficulty in enforcing legal claims related to the securities and/or local judges favoring the interests of the issuer over those of foreign investors; (ix) bankruptcy judgments being paid in the local currency; and (x) greater difficulty in determining market valuations of the securities due to limited public information regarding the issuer. Additionally, certain emerging market countries may be subject to less stringent requirements regarding accounting, auditing, financial reporting and record

Part II - 13

keeping and therefore, all material information may not be available or reliable. In addition, a Fund is limited in its ability to exercise its legal rights or enforce a counterparty’s legal obligations in certain jurisdictions outside of the United States, in particular, in emerging market countries. In addition, due to jurisdictional limitations, U.S. regulators may be limited in their ability to enforce regulatory or legal obligations in emerging market countries. Also, U.S. regulators may not have sufficient access to adequately audit and oversee issuers. For example, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”) is responsible for inspecting and auditing the accounting practices and products of U.S.-listed companies, regardless of the issuer’s domicile. However, certain emerging market countries, including China, do not provide sufficient access to the PCAOB to conduct its inspections and audits. As a result, U.S. investors, including the Funds, may be subject to risks associated with less stringent accounting oversight.

Emerging market securities markets are typically marked by a high concentration of market capitalization and trading volume in a small number of issuers representing a limited number of industries, as well as a high concentration of ownership of such securities by a limited number of investors. Although some emerging markets have become more established and issuers in such markets tend to issue securities of higher credit quality, the markets for securities in other emerging countries are in the earliest stages of their development, and these countries issue securities across the credit spectrum. Even the markets for relatively widely traded securities in emerging countries may not be able to absorb, without price disruptions, a significant increase in trading volume or trades of a size customarily undertaken by institutional investors in the securities markets of developed countries. The limited size of many of these securities markets can cause prices to be erratic for various reasons. For example, prices may be unduly influenced by traders who control large positions in these markets. Additionally, market making and arbitrage activities are generally less extensive in such markets, which may contribute to increased volatility and reduced liquidity of such markets. The limited liquidity of emerging country securities may also affect a Fund’s ability to accurately value its portfolio securities or to acquire or dispose of securities at the price and time it wishes to do so or in order to meet redemption requests.

Many emerging market countries suffer from uncertainty and corruption in their legal frameworks. Legislation may be difficult to interpret and laws may be too new to provide any precedential value. Laws regarding foreign investment and private property may be weak or non-existent. Sudden changes in governments may result in policies which are less favorable to investors, such as policies designed to expropriate or nationalize “sovereign” assets. In the past, some emerging market countries have expropriated large amounts of private property, in many cases with little or no compensation, and there can be no assurance that such expropriation will not occur in the future.

Foreign investment in certain emerging market securities is restricted or controlled to varying degrees, which may limit a Fund’s investment in such securities and may increase the expenses of the Fund. Certain countries require governmental approval prior to investments by foreign persons or limit investment by foreign persons to only a specified percentage of an issuer’s outstanding securities or to a specific class of securities, which may have less advantageous terms (including price) than securities of the company available for purchase by nationals.

Many emerging market countries lack the same social, political, and economic stability characteristics of the U.S. Political instability among emerging market countries can be common and may be caused by an uneven distribution of wealth, social unrest, labor strikes, civil wars, and religious oppression. Economic instability in emerging market countries may take the form of: (i) high interest rates; (ii) high levels of inflation, including hyperinflation; (iii) high levels of unemployment or underemployment; (iv) changes in government economic and tax policies, including confiscatory taxation; and (v) imposition of trade barriers.

Currencies of emerging market countries are subject to significantly greater risks than currencies of developed countries. Many emerging market countries have experienced steady declines or even sudden devaluations of their currencies relative to the U.S. dollar. Some emerging market currencies may not be internationally traded or may be subject to strict controls by local governments, resulting in undervalued or overvalued currencies.

Some emerging market countries have experienced balance of payment deficits and shortages in foreign exchange reserves. Governments have responded by restricting currency conversions. Future restrictive exchange controls could prevent or restrict a company’s ability to make dividend or interest payments in the original currency of the obligation (usually U.S. dollars). In addition, even though the currencies of some emerging market countries may be convertible into U.S. dollars, the conversion rates may be artificial to their actual market values.

Part II - 14

In the past, governments within the emerging markets have become overly reliant on the international capital markets and other forms of foreign credit to finance large public spending programs which cause huge budget deficits. Often, interest payments have become too overwhelming for a government to meet, representing a large percentage of total gross domestic product (“GDP”). Some foreign governments were forced to seek a restructuring of their loan and/or bond obligations, have declared a temporary suspension of interest payments or have defaulted. These events have adversely affected the values of securities issued by foreign governments and corporations domiciled in emerging market countries and have negatively affected not only their cost of borrowing, but their ability to borrow in the future as well.

A Fund may invest in companies organized or with their principal place of business, or majority of assets or business, in pre-emerging markets, also known as frontier markets. A Fund’s exposure to the risks associated with investing in emerging market countries are magnified if the Fund invests in frontier market countries. Investments in frontier markets generally are subject to a greater risk of loss than investments in developed markets or traditional emerging markets. Frontier market countries have smaller economies, less developed capital markets, more political and economic instability, weaker legal, financial accounting and regulatory infrastructure, and more governmental limitations on foreign investments than typically found in more developed countries, and frontier markets typically have greater market volatility, lower trading volume, lower capital flow, less investor participation, fewer large global companies and greater risk of a market shutdown than more developed markets. Frontier markets are more prone to economic shocks associated with political and economic risks than are emerging markets generally. Many frontier market countries may be dependent on commodities, foreign trade or foreign aid.

Custodial and/or settlement systems in frontier market countries may not be fully developed. Banks in frontier market countries used to hold a Fund’s securities and other assets in that country may lack the same operating experience as banks in developed markets. In addition, in certain countries there may be legal restrictions or limitations on the ability of a Fund to recover assets held by a foreign bank in the event of the bankruptcy of the bank. Settlement systems in frontier markets may be less organized than in developed markets. As a result, there is greater risk than in developed countries that settlements will take longer and that the cash or securities of a Fund may be in jeopardy because of failures of or defects in the settlement systems.

Sovereign Obligations. Sovereign debt includes investments in securities issued or guaranteed by a foreign sovereign government or its agencies, authorities or political subdivisions. An investment in sovereign debt obligations involves special risks not present in corporate debt obligations. The issuer of the sovereign debt or the governmental authorities that control the repayment of the debt may be unable or unwilling to repay principal or interest when due, and a Fund may have limited recourse in the event of a default. During periods of economic uncertainty, the market prices of sovereign debt may be more volatile than prices of U.S. debt obligations. In the past, certain emerging markets have encountered difficulties in servicing their debt obligations, withheld payments of principal and interest and declared moratoria on the payment of principal and interest on their sovereign debts.

A sovereign debtor’s willingness or ability to repay principal and pay interest in a timely manner may be affected by, among other factors, its cash flow situation, the extent of its foreign currency reserves, the availability of sufficient foreign exchange, the relative size of the debt service burden, the sovereign debtor’s policy toward principal international lenders and local political constraints. Sovereign debtors may also be dependent on expected disbursements from foreign governments, multilateral agencies and other entities to reduce principal and interest arrearages on their debt. The failure of a sovereign debtor to implement economic reforms, achieve specified levels of economic performance or repay principal or interest when due may result in the cancellation of third-party commitments to lend funds to the sovereign debtor, which may further impair such debtor’s ability or willingness to service its debts.

Foreign Currency Transactions. Certain Funds may engage in foreign currency transactions which include the following, some of which also have been described elsewhere in this SAI: options on currencies, currency futures, options on such futures, forward foreign currency transactions, forward rate agreements and currency swaps, caps and floors. Certain Funds may engage in such transactions in both U.S. and non-U.S. markets. To the extent a Fund enters into such transactions in markets other than in the U.S., the Fund may be subject to certain currency, settlement, liquidity, trading and other risks similar to those described in this SAI with respect to the Fund’s investments in foreign securities, including emerging markets securities and derivatives (to the extent applicable). Certain Funds may engage in such transactions to hedge against currency risks as a substitute for securities in which the Fund invests, to increase or decrease exposure to a foreign currency, to shift exposure from one foreign currency to another, for risk management purposes or to increase income or gain to the Fund. To the extent that a Fund uses foreign currency transactions for hedging purposes (as described herein), the Fund may hedge either

Part II - 15

specific transactions or portfolio positions. A Fund may enter into foreign currency transactions as a substitute for cash investments and for other investment purposes not involving hedging, including, without limitation, to exchange payments received in a foreign currency into U.S. dollars or in anticipation of settling a transaction that requires a Fund to deliver a foreign currency.

While a Fund’s use of hedging strategies is intended to reduce the volatility of the net asset value (“NAV”) of Fund Shares, the NAV of the Fund will fluctuate. There can be no assurance that a Fund’s hedging transactions will be effective. Furthermore, a Fund may only engage in hedging activities from time to time and may not necessarily be engaging in hedging activities when movements in currency exchange rates occur.

Certain Funds are authorized to deal in forward foreign exchange between currencies of the different countries in which the Fund will invest and multi-national currency units as a hedge against possible variations in the foreign exchange rate between these currencies. This is accomplished through contractual agreements entered into in the interbank market to purchase or sell one specified currency for another currency at a specified future date (up to one year) and price at the time of the contract.

Transaction Hedging. Generally, when a Fund engages in foreign currency transaction hedging, it enters into transactions with respect to specific receivables or payables of the Fund generally arising in connection with the purchase or sale of its portfolio securities. A Fund may engage in transaction hedging when it desires to “lock in” the U.S. dollar price (or a non-U.S. dollar currency (“reference currency”)) of a security it has agreed to purchase or sell, or the U.S. dollar equivalent of a dividend or interest payment in a foreign currency. By transaction hedging, a Fund attempts to protect itself against a possible loss resulting from an adverse change in the relationship between the U.S. dollar or other reference currency and the applicable foreign currency during the period between the date on which the security is purchased or sold, or on which the dividend or interest payment is declared, and the date on which such payments are made or received.

A Fund may purchase or sell a foreign currency on a spot (or cash) basis at the prevailing spot rate in connection with the settlement of transactions in portfolio securities denominated in that foreign currency. Certain Funds reserve the right to purchase and sell foreign currency futures contracts traded in the U.S. and subject to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”).

For transaction hedging purposes, a Fund may also purchase U.S. exchange-listed call and put options on foreign currency futures contracts and on foreign currencies. A put option on a futures contract gives a Fund the right to assume a short position in the foreign currency futures contract until expiration of the option. A put option on currency gives a Fund the right to sell a currency at an exercise price until the expiration of the option. A call option on a futures contract gives a Fund the right to assume a long position in the futures contract until the expiration of the option. A call option on currency gives a Fund the right to purchase a currency at the exercise price until the expiration of the option.

Position Hedging. When engaging in position hedging, a Fund will enter into foreign currency exchange transactions to protect against a decline in the values of the foreign currencies in which their portfolio securities are denominated or an increase in the value of currency for securities which the Adviser expects to purchase. In connection with the position hedging, the Fund may purchase or sell foreign currency forward contracts or foreign currency on a spot basis. A Fund may purchase U.S. exchange-listed put or call options on foreign currency and foreign currency futures contracts and buy or sell foreign currency futures contracts traded in the U.S. and subject to regulation by the CFTC.

The precise matching of the amounts of foreign currency exchange transactions and the value of the portfolio securities involved will not generally be possible because the future value of such securities in foreign currencies will change as a consequence of market movements in the value of those securities between the dates the currency exchange transactions are entered into and the dates they mature.

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts. Certain Funds may purchase forward foreign currency exchange contracts, sometimes referred to as “currency forwards” (“Forward Contracts”), which involve an obligation to purchase or sell a specific currency at a future date, which may be any fixed number of days from the date of the contract as agreed by the parties in an amount and at a price set at the time of the contract. In the case of a cancelable Forward Contract, the holder has the unilateral right to cancel the contract at maturity by paying a specified fee. The contracts are traded in the interbank market conducted directly between currency traders (usually large commercial banks) and their customers, so no intermediary is required. A Forward Contract generally has no deposit requirement, and no commissions are charged at any stage for trades.

Part II - 16

At the maturity of a Forward Contract, a Fund may either accept or make delivery of the currency specified in the contract or, at or prior to maturity, enter into a closing transaction involving the purchase or sale of an offsetting contract. Closing transactions with respect to forward contracts are usually effected with the currency trader who is a party to the original forward contract. Certain Funds may also engage in non-deliverable forwards which are cash settled and which do not involve delivery of the currency specified in the contract. For more information on Non-Deliverable Forwards, see “Non-Deliverable Forwards” below.

Foreign Currency Futures Contracts. Certain Funds may purchase foreign currency futures contracts. Foreign currency futures contracts traded in the U.S. are designed by and traded on exchanges regulated by the CFTC, such as the New York Mercantile Exchange. A Fund may enter into foreign currency futures contracts for hedging purposes and other risk management purposes as defined in CFTC regulations. Certain Funds may also enter into foreign currency futures transactions to increase exposure to a foreign currency, to shift exposure from one foreign currency to another or to increase income or gain to the Fund.

At the maturity of a futures contract, a Fund may either accept or make delivery of the currency specified in the contract, or at or prior to maturity enter into a closing transaction involving the purchase or sale of an offsetting contract. Closing transactions with respect to futures contracts are effected on a commodities exchange; a clearing corporation associated with the exchange assumes responsibility for closing out such contracts.

Positions in the foreign currency futures contracts may be closed out only on an exchange or board of trade which provides a secondary market in such contracts. There is no assurance that a secondary market on an exchange or board of trade will exist for any particular contract or at any particular time. In such event, it may not be possible to close a futures position; in the event of adverse price movements, a Fund would continue to be required to make daily cash payments of variation margin.

For more information on futures contracts, see “Futures Contracts” under the heading “Options and Futures Transactions” below.

Foreign Currency Options. Certain Funds may purchase and sell U.S. exchange-listed and OTC call and put options on foreign currencies. Such options on foreign currencies operate similarly to options on securities. When a Fund purchases a put option, the Fund has the right but not the obligation to exchange money denominated in one currency into another currency at a pre-agreed exchange rate on a specified date. When a Fund sells or writes a call option, the Fund has the obligation to exchange money denominated in one currency into another currency at a pre-agreed exchange rate if the buyer exercises option. Some of the Funds may also purchase and sell non-deliverable currency options (“Non-Deliverable Options”). Non-Deliverable Options are cash-settled, options on foreign currencies (each a “Option Reference Currency”) that are non-convertible and that may be thinly traded or illiquid. Non-Deliverable Options involve an obligation to pay an amount in a deliverable currency (such as U.S. Dollars, Euros, Japanese Yen, or British Pounds Sterling) equal to the difference between the prevailing market exchange rate for the Option Reference Currency and the agreed upon exchange rate (the “Non-Deliverable Option Rate”), with respect to an agreed notional amount. Options on foreign currencies are affected by all of those factors which influence foreign exchange rates and investments generally.

A Fund is authorized to purchase or sell listed foreign currency options and currency swap contracts as a short or long hedge against possible variations in foreign exchange rates, as a substitute for securities in which a Fund may invest, and for risk management purposes. Such transactions may be effected with respect to hedges on non-U.S. dollar denominated securities (including securities denominated in the Euro) owned by a Fund, sold by the Fund but not yet delivered, committed or anticipated to be purchased by the Fund, or in transaction or cross-hedging strategies. As an illustration, a Fund may use such techniques to hedge the stated value in U.S. dollars of an investment in a Japanese yen-dominated security. In such circumstances, a Fund may purchase a foreign currency put option enabling it to sell a specified amount of yen for dollars at a specified price by a future date. To the extent the hedge is successful, a loss in the value of the dollar relative to the yen will tend to be offset by an increase in the value of the put option. To offset, in whole or in part, the cost of acquiring such a put option, a Fund also may sell a call option which, if exercised, requires it to sell a specified amount of yen for dollars at a specified price by a future date (a technique called a “collar”). By selling the call option in this illustration, a Fund gives up the opportunity to profit without limit from increases in the relative value of the yen to the dollar. Certain Funds may also enter into foreign currency futures transactions for non-hedging purposes including to increase or decrease exposure to a foreign currency, to shift exposure from one foreign currency to another or to increase income or gain to the Fund.

Part II - 17

Certain differences exist among these foreign currency instruments. Foreign currency options provide the holder thereof the right to buy or to sell a currency at a fixed price on a future date. Listed options are third-party contracts which are issued by a clearing corporation, traded on an exchange and have standardized strike prices and expiration dates. Performance of the parties’ obligations is guaranteed by an exchange or clearing corporation. OTC options are two-party contracts and have negotiated strike prices and expiration dates. Options on futures contracts are traded on boards of trade or futures exchanges. Currency swap contracts are negotiated two-party agreements entered into in the interbank market whereby the parties exchange two foreign currencies at the inception of the contract and agree to reverse the exchange at a specified future time and at a specified exchange rate.

The value of a foreign currency option is dependent upon the value of the foreign currency and the U.S. dollar and may have no relationship to the investment merits of a foreign security. Because foreign currency transactions occurring in the interbank market involve substantially larger amounts than those that may be involved in the use of foreign currency options, investors may be disadvantaged by having to deal in an odd lot market for the underlying foreign currencies at prices that are less favorable than those for round lots.

There is no systematic reporting of last sale information for foreign currencies and there is no regulatory requirement that quotations available through dealer or other market sources be firm or revised on a timely basis. Available quotation information is generally representative of very large transactions in the interbank market and thus may not reflect relatively smaller transactions (less than $1 million) where rates may be less favorable. The interbank market in foreign currencies is a global, around-the-clock market. To the extent that the U.S. options markets are closed while the markets for the underlying currencies remain open, significant price and rate movements may take place in the underlying markets that cannot be reflected in the options market.

Non-Deliverable Forwards. Some of the Funds may also invest in non-deliverable forwards (“NDFs”). NDFs are cash-settled, short-term forward contracts on foreign currencies (each a “Reference Currency”) that are non-convertible and that may be thinly traded or illiquid. NDFs involve an obligation to pay an amount (the “settlement amount”) equal to the difference between the prevailing market exchange rate for the Reference Currency and the agreed upon exchange rate (the “NDF Rate”), with respect to an agreed notional amount. NDFs have a fixing date and a settlement (delivery) date. The fixing date is the date and time at which the difference between the prevailing market exchange rate and the agreed upon exchange rate is calculated. The settlement (delivery) date is the date by which the payment of the settlement amount is due to the party receiving payment.

Although NDFs are similar to forward foreign currency exchange contracts, NDFs do not require physical delivery of the Reference Currency on the settlement date. Rather, on the settlement date, the only transfer between the counterparties is the monetary settlement amount representing the difference between the NDF Rate and the prevailing market exchange rate. NDFs typically may have terms from one month up to two years and are settled in U.S. dollars.

NDFs are subject to many of the risks associated with derivatives in general and forward currency transactions including risks associated with fluctuations in foreign currency and the risk that the counterparty will fail to fulfill its obligations.

The Funds will typically use NDFs for hedging purposes, but may also, use such instruments to increase income or gain. The use of NDFs for hedging or to increase income or gain may not be successful, resulting in losses to the Fund, and the cost of such strategies may reduce the Funds’ respective returns.

NDFs are regulated as swaps and are subject to rules requiring central clearing and mandatory trading on an exchange or facility that is regulated by the CFTC for certain swaps. NDFs traded in the OTC market are subject to initial and variation margin requirements. Implementation of and on-going compliance with the regulations regarding clearing, mandatory trading and margining of NDFs may increase the cost to a Fund of hedging currency risk and, as a result, may affect returns to investors in the Fund.

Foreign Currency Conversion. Although foreign exchange dealers do not charge a fee for currency conversion, they do realize a profit based on the difference (the “spread”) between prices at which they are buying and selling various currencies. Thus, a dealer may offer to sell a foreign currency to a Fund at one rate while offering a lesser rate of exchange should the Fund desire to resell that currency to the dealer.

Part II - 18

Other Foreign Currency Hedging Strategies. New options and futures contracts and other financial products, and various combinations thereof, continue to be developed, and certain Funds may invest in any such options, contracts and products as may be developed to the extent consistent with the Funds’ respective investment objectives and the regulatory requirements applicable to investment companies, and subject to the supervision of the Trust’s Board of Trustees.

Risk Factors in Foreign Currency Transactions. The following is a summary of certain risks associated with foreign currency transactions:

Imperfect Correlation. Foreign currency transactions present certain risks. In particular, the variable degree of correlation between price movements of the instruments used in hedging strategies and price movements in a security being hedged creates the possibility that losses on the hedging transaction may be greater than gains in the value of a Fund’s securities.

Liquidity. Hedging instruments may not be liquid in all circumstances. As a result, in volatile markets, the Funds may not be able to dispose of or offset a transaction without incurring losses. Although foreign currency transactions used for hedging purposes may reduce the risk of loss due to a decline in the value of the hedged security, at the same time the use of these instruments could tend to limit any potential gain which might result from an increase in the value of such security. Foreign currency transactions also may expose a Fund to margin and settlement payment obligations.

Leverage and Volatility Risk. Derivative instruments, including foreign currency derivatives, may sometimes increase or leverage a Fund’s exposure to a particular market risk. Leverage enhances the price volatility of derivative instruments held by a Fund.

Strategy Risk. Certain Funds may use foreign currency derivatives for hedging as well as non-hedging purposes including to gain or adjust exposure to currencies and securities markets or to increase income or gain to a Fund. There is no guarantee that these strategies will succeed and their use may subject a Fund to greater volatility and loss. Foreign currency transactions involve complex transactions that involve risks in addition to direct investments in securities including leverage risk and the risks associated with derivatives in general, currencies, and investments in foreign and emerging markets.

Judgment of the Adviser. Successful use of foreign currency transactions by a Fund depends upon the ability of the Adviser to predict correctly movements in the direction of interest and currency rates and other factors affecting markets for securities. If the expectations of the Adviser are not met, a Fund would be in a worse position than if a foreign currency transaction had not been pursued. For example, if a Fund has hedged against the possibility of an increase in interest rates which would adversely affect the price of securities in its portfolio and the price of such securities increases instead, the Fund will lose part or all of the benefit of the increased value of its securities because it will have offsetting losses in its hedging positions. In addition, when utilizing instruments that require variation margin payments, if a Fund has insufficient cash to meet daily variation margin requirements, it may have to sell securities to meet such requirements.

Other Risks. A Fund may have to sell securities at a time when it is disadvantageous to do so. It is impossible to forecast with precision the market value of portfolio securities at the expiration or maturity of a forward contract or futures contract. Accordingly, a Fund may have to purchase additional foreign currency on the spot market (and bear the expense of such purchase) if the market value of the security or securities being hedged is less than the amount of foreign currency a Fund is obligated to deliver and if a decision is made to sell the security or securities and make delivery of the foreign currency. Conversely, it may be necessary to sell on the spot market some of the foreign currency received upon the sale of the portfolio security or securities if the market value of such security or securities exceeds the amount of foreign currency a Fund is obligated to deliver.

Transaction and position hedging do not eliminate fluctuations in the underlying prices of the securities which a Fund owns or expects to purchase or sell. Rather, the Adviser may employ these techniques in an effort to maintain an investment portfolio that is relatively neutral to fluctuations in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to major foreign currencies and establish a rate of exchange which one can achieve at some future point in time. Additionally, although these techniques tend to minimize the risk of loss due to a decline in the value of the hedged currency, they also tend to limit any potential gain which might result from the increase in the value of such currency. Moreover, it may not be possible for a Fund to hedge against a devaluation that is so generally anticipated that a Fund is not able to contract to sell the currency at a price above the anticipated devaluation level.

Part II - 19

Inverse Floaters and Interest Rate Caps

Inverse floaters are instruments whose interest rates bear an inverse relationship to the interest rate on another security or the value of an index. The market value of an inverse floater will vary inversely with changes in market interest rates and will be more volatile in response to interest rate changes than that of a fixed rate obligation. Interest rate caps are financial instruments under which payments occur if an interest rate index exceeds a certain predetermined interest rate level, known as the cap rate, which is tied to a specific index. These financial products will be more volatile in price than securities which do not include such a structure.

Investments in inverse floaters and similar instruments expose a Fund to the same risks as investments in debt securities and derivatives, as well as other risks, including those associated with leverage and increased volatility. An investment in these securities typically will involve greater risk than an investment in a fixed rate security. Inverse floaters may be considered to be leveraged, including if their interest rates vary by a magnitude that exceeds the magnitude of a change in a reference rate of interest (typically a short-term interest rate), and the market prices of inverse floaters may as a result be highly sensitive to changes in interest rates and in prepayment rates on the underlying securities, and may decrease significantly when interest rates increase or prepayment rates change. Investments in inverse floaters and similar instruments that have asset-backed, mortgage-backed or mortgage-related securities underlying them will expose a Fund to the risks associated with those asset-backed, mortgage-backed and mortgage-related securities and the values of those investments may be especially sensitive to changes in prepayment rates on the underlying asset-backed, mortgage-backed or mortgage-related securities.

Investment Company Securities and Exchange-Traded Funds

Investment Company Securities. A Fund may acquire the securities of other investment companies (“acquired funds”) to the extent permitted under the 1940 Act and consistent with its investment objective and strategies. As a shareholder of another investment company, a Fund would bear, along with other shareholders, its pro rata portion of the other investment company’s expenses, including advisory fees. These expenses would be in addition to the advisory and other expenses that a Fund bears directly in connection with its own operations. Except as described below, the 1940 Act currently requires that, as determined immediately after a purchase is made, (i) not more than 5% of the value of a fund’s total assets will be invested in the securities of any one acquired fund, (ii) not more than 10% of the value of its total assets will be invested in the aggregate in securities of acquired funds as a group and (iii) not more than 3% of the outstanding voting stock of any one acquired fund will be owned by a fund.

In addition, Section 17 of the 1940 Act prohibits a Fund from investing in another J.P. Morgan Fund except as permitted by Section 12 of the 1940 Act, by rule, or by exemptive order.

The limitations described above do not apply to investments in money market funds subject to certain conditions. All of the J.P. Morgan Funds may invest in affiliated and unaffiliated money market funds without limit under Rule 12d1-1 under the 1940 Act subject to the acquiring fund’s investment policies and restrictions and the conditions of the Rule.

Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the 1940 Act permits a fund to invest in acquired funds in the “same group of investment companies” (“affiliated funds”), government securities and short-term paper. In order to be an eligible investment under Section 12(d)(1)(G), an affiliated acquired fund must have a policy prohibiting it from investing in other registered open-end funds under Section 12(d)(1)(F) or (G) of the 1940 Act and, under certain circumstances, limit itself from investing in other investment companies and private funds.

Rule 12d1-4 allows a fund to acquire shares of an acquired fund in excess of the limitations currently imposed by the 1940 Act. Fund of funds arrangements relying on Rule 12d1-4 will be subject to several conditions, certain of which are specific to a fund’s position in the arrangement (i.e., as an acquiring or acquired fund). Notable conditions include those relating to: (i) control and voting that prohibit an acquiring fund, its investment adviser (or a sub-adviser) and their respective affiliates from beneficially owning more than 25% of the outstanding voting securities of an unaffiliated acquired fund; (ii) certain required findings relating to complexity, fees and undue influence (among other things); (iii) fund of funds investment agreements; and (iv) general limitations on an acquired fund’s investments in other investment companies and private funds to no more than 10% of the acquired fund’s assets, except in certain circumstances. The limitations placed on acquired funds under Rule 12d1-4 may impact the ability of a fund to invest in an acquired fund or may impact the investments made by the acquired fund.

Part II - 20

Exchange-Traded Funds (“ETFs”). ETFs are pooled investment vehicles whose ownership interests are purchased and sold on a securities exchange. ETFs may be structured investment companies, depositary receipts or other pooled investment vehicles. As shareholders of an ETF, the Funds will bear their pro rata portion of any fees and expenses of the ETFs. Although shares of ETFs are traded on an exchange, shares of certain ETFs may not be redeemable by the ETF. In addition, ETFs may trade at a price below their NAV (also known as a discount).

Certain Funds may use ETFs to gain exposure to various asset classes and markets or types of strategies and investments. By way of example, ETFs may be structured as broad based ETFs that invest in a broad group of stocks from different industries and market sectors; select sector; or market ETFs that invest in debt securities from a select sector of the economy, a single industry or related industries; or ETFs that invest in foreign and emerging markets securities. Other types of ETFs continue to be developed and a Fund may invest in them to the extent consistent with such Funds’ investment objectives, policies and restrictions. The ETFs in which the Funds invest are subject to the risks applicable to the types of securities and investments used by the ETFs (e.g., debt securities are subject to risks like credit and interest rate risks; emerging markets securities are subject risks like currency risks and foreign and emerging markets risk; derivatives are subject to leverage and counterparty risk).

ETFs may be actively managed or index-based. Actively managed ETFs are subject to management risk and may not achieve their objective if the ETF’s manager’s expectations regarding particular securities or markets are not met. An index based ETF’s objective is to track the performance of a specified index. Index based ETFs may invest in a securities portfolio that includes substantially all of the securities in substantially the same amount as the securities included in the designated index or a representative sample. Because passively managed ETFs are designed to track an index, securities may be purchased, retained and sold at times when an actively managed ETF would not do so. As a result, shareholders of a Fund that invest in such an ETF can expect greater risk of loss (and a correspondingly greater prospect of gain) from changes in the value of securities that are heavily weighted in the index than would be the case if ETF were not fully invested in such securities. This risk is increased if a few component securities represent a highly concentrated weighting in the designated index.

Unless permitted by the 1940 Act or an order or rule issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) (see “Investment Company Securities” above for more information), the Fund’s investments in unaffiliated ETFs that are structured as investment companies as defined in the 1940 Act are subject to certain percentage limitations of the 1940 Act regarding investments in other investment companies. ETFs that are not structured as investment companies as defined in the 1940 Act are not subject to these percentage limitations.

Loans

Some of the Funds may invest in fixed and floating rate loans (“Loans”). Loans may include senior floating rate loans (“Senior Loans”) and secured and unsecured loans, second lien or more junior loans (“Junior Loans”) and bridge loans or bridge facilities (“Bridge Loans”). Loans are typically arranged through private negotiations between borrowers in the U.S. or in foreign or emerging markets which may be corporate issuers or issuers of sovereign debt obligations (“Obligors”) and one or more financial institutions and other lenders (“Lenders”). Generally, the Funds invest in Loans by purchasing assignments of all or a portion of Loans (“Assignments”) or Loan participations (“Participations”) from third parties although certain Funds may originate Loans.

A Fund has direct rights against the Obligor on the Loan when it purchases an Assignment. Because Assignments are arranged through private negotiations between potential assignees and potential assignors, however, the rights and obligations acquired by a Fund as the purchaser of an Assignment may differ from, and be more limited than, those held by the assigning Lender. With respect to Participations, typically, a Fund will have a contractual relationship only with the Lender and not with the Obligor. The agreement governing Participations may limit the rights of a Fund to vote on certain changes which may be made to the Loan agreement, such as waiving a breach of a covenant. However, the holder of a Participation will generally have the right to vote on certain fundamental issues such as changes in principal amount, payment dates and interest rate. Participations may entail certain risks relating to the creditworthiness of the parties from which the participations are obtained.

A Loan is typically originated, negotiated and structured by a U.S. or foreign commercial bank, insurance company, finance company or other financial institution (the “Agent”) for a group of Loan investors. The Agent typically administers and enforces the Loan on behalf of the other Loan investors in the syndicate. The Agent’s duties may include responsibility for the collection of principal and interest

Part II - 21

payments from the Obligor and the apportionment of these payments to the credit of all Loan investors. The Agent is also typically responsible for monitoring compliance with the covenants contained in the Loan agreement based upon reports prepared by the Obligor. In addition, an institution, typically but not always the Agent, holds any collateral on behalf of the Loan investors. In the event of a default by the Obligor, it is possible, though unlikely, that a Fund could receive a portion of the borrower’s collateral. If a Fund receives collateral other than cash, any proceeds received from liquidation of such collateral will be available for investment as part of the Fund’s portfolio.

In the process of buying, selling and holding Loans, a Fund may receive and/or pay certain fees. These fees are in addition to interest payments received and may include facility fees, commitment fees, commissions and prepayment penalty fees. When a Fund buys or sells a Loan it may pay a fee. In certain circumstances, a Fund may receive a prepayment penalty fee upon prepayment of a Loan.

Additional Information concerning Senior Loans. Senior Loans typically hold the most senior position in the capital structure of the Obligor, are typically secured with specific collateral and have a claim on the assets and/or stock of the Obligor that is senior to that held by subordinated debtholders and shareholders of the Obligor. Senior Loans are usually rated below investment grade, and are subject to similar risks, such as credit risk, as below investment grade securities (also known as junk bonds). However, Senior Loans are typically senior and secured in contrast to other below investment grade securities, which are often subordinated and unsecured. There is no organized exchange or board of trade on which loans are traded, rather, they trade in an unregulated inter-dealer or inter-bank resale market, so the secondary market for senior loans can be limited. Collateral for Senior Loans may include (i) working capital assets, such as accounts receivable and inventory; (ii) tangible fixed assets, such as real property, buildings and equipment; (iii) intangible assets, such as trademarks and patent rights; and/or (iv) security interests in shares of stock of subsidiaries or affiliates.

Additional Information concerning Junior Loans. Junior Loans include secured and unsecured loans including subordinated loans, second lien and more junior loans, and bridge loans. Second lien and more junior loans (“Junior Lien Loans”) are generally second or further in line in terms of repayment priority. In addition, Junior Lien Loans may have a claim on the same collateral pool as the first lien or other more senior liens or may be secured by a separate set of assets. Junior Loans generally give investors priority over general unsecured creditors in the event of an asset sale.

Additional Information concerning Bridge Loans. Bridge Loans are short-term loan arrangements (e.g., 12 to 36 months) typically made by an Obligor in anticipation of intermediate-term or long-term permanent financing. Most Bridge Loans are structured as floating-rate debt with step-up provisions under which the interest rate on the Bridge Loan rises the longer the Loan remains outstanding. In addition, Bridge Loans commonly contain a conversion feature that allows the Bridge Loan investor to convert its Loan interest to senior exchange notes if the Loan has not been prepaid in full on or prior to its maturity date. Bridge Loans typically are structured as Senior Loans but may be structured as Junior Loans.

Additional Information concerning Unfunded Commitments. Unfunded commitments are contractual obligations pursuant to which a Fund agrees to invest in a Loan at a future date. Typically, a Fund receives a commitment fee for entering into the Unfunded Commitment.

Additional Information concerning Synthetic Letters of Credit. Loans include synthetic letters of credit. In a synthetic letter of credit transaction, the Lender typically creates a special purpose entity or a credit-linked deposit account for the purpose of funding a letter of credit to the borrower. When a Fund invests in a synthetic letter of credit, the Fund is typically paid a rate based on the Lender’s borrowing costs and the terms of the synthetic letter of credit. Synthetic letters of credit are typically structured as Assignments with a Fund acquiring direct rights against the Obligor.

Additional Information concerning Loan Originations. In addition to investing in loan assignments and participations, the Income ETF and the International Bond Opportunities ETF may originate Loans in which a Fund would lend money directly to a borrower by investing in limited liability companies or corporations that make loans directly to borrowers. The terms of the Loans are negotiated with borrowers in private transactions. Such Loans would be collateralized, typically with tangible fixed assets such as real property or interests in real property. Such Loans may also include mezzanine loans. Unlike Loans secured by a mortgage on real property, mezzanine loans are collateralized by an equity interest in an SPV that owns the real property.

Part II - 22

Limitations on Investments in Loan Assignments and Participations. If a government entity is a borrower on a Loan, a Fund will consider the government to be the issuer of an Assignment or Participation for purposes of a Fund’s fundamental investment policy that it will not invest 25% or more of its total assets in securities of issuers conducting their principal business activities in the same industry (i.e., foreign government).

Limited Federal Securities Law Protections. Certain Loans may not be considered securities under the federal securities laws. In such circumstances, fewer legal protections may be available with respect to a Fund’s investment in those Loans. In particular, if a Loan is not considered a security under the federal securities laws, certain legal protections normally available to investors under the federal securities laws, such as those against fraud and misrepresentation, may not be available.

Multiple Lender Risk. There may be additional risks associated with Loans, including loan originations, when there are Lenders or other participants in addition to a Fund. For example, a Fund could lose the ability to consent to certain actions taken by the Borrower if certain conditions are not met. In addition, for example, certain governing agreements that provide a Fund with the right to consent to certain actions taken by a Borrower may provide that the Fund will no longer have the right to provide such consent if another Lender makes a subsequent advance to the Borrower.

Risk Factors of Loans. Loans are subject to the risks associated with debt obligations in general including interest rate risk, credit risk and market risk. When a Loan is acquired from a Lender, the risk includes the credit risk associated with the Obligor of the underlying Loan. A Fund may incur additional credit risk when the Fund acquires a participation in a Loan from another lender because the Fund must assume the risk of insolvency or bankruptcy of the other lender from which the Loan was acquired. To the extent that Loans involve Obligors in foreign or emerging markets, such Loans are subject to the risks associated with foreign investments or investments in emerging markets in general. The following outlines some of the additional risks associated with Loans.

High Yield Securities Risk. The Loans that a Fund invests in may not be rated by an NRSRO, will not be registered with the SEC or any state securities commission and will not be listed on any national securities exchange. To the extent that such high yield Loans are rated, they typically will be rated below investment grade and are subject to an increased risk of default in the payment of principal and interest as well as the other risks described under “High Yield/High Risk Securities/Junk Bonds.” Loans are vulnerable to market sentiment such that economic conditions or other events may reduce the demand for Loans and cause their value to decline rapidly and unpredictably.

Liquidity Risk. Loans that are deemed to be liquid at the time of purchase may become illiquid or less liquid. No active trading market may exist for certain Loans and certain Loans may be subject to restrictions on resale or have a limited secondary market. Decreases in the number of financial institutions, including banks and broker-dealers, willing to make markets (match up sellers and buyers) in a Fund’s investments or decreases in their capacity or willingness to trade such investments may increase a Fund’s exposure to liquidity risk. The debt market has experienced considerable growth, and financial institutions making markets in instruments purchased and sold by a Fund (e.g., bond dealers) have been subject to increased regulation. The impact of that growth and regulation on the ability and willingness of financial institutions to engage in trading or making a market in such instruments remains unsettled. Certain types of investments, such as lower-rated securities or those that are purchased and sold in over-the-counter markets, may be especially subject to liquidity risk. Securities or other assets in which a Fund invests may be traded in the over-the-counter market rather than on an exchange and therefore may be more difficult to purchase or sell at a fair price, which may have a negative impact on a Fund’s performance. Certain Loans may be subject to irregular trading activity, wide bid/ask spreads and extended trade settlement periods. The inability to dispose of certain Loans in a timely fashion or at a favorable price could result in losses to a Fund. Also, to the extent that a Fund needs to satisfy redemption requests or cover unanticipated cash shortfalls, the Fund may seek to engage in borrowing under a credit facility or enter into lending agreements under which the Fund would borrow money for temporary purposes directly from another J.P. Morgan Fund (please see “Interfund Lending”). The SEC has proposed amendments to its rule regarding investments in illiquid investments by registered investment companies such as the Funds. If the proposed amendments are adopted, a Fund’s operations and investment strategies may be adversely impacted.

Collateral and Subordination Risk. With respect to Loans that are secured, a Fund is subject to the risk that collateral securing the Loan will decline in value or have no value or that the Fund’s lien is or will become junior in payment to other liens. A decline in value of the collateral, whether as a result of market value declines, bankruptcy proceedings or otherwise, could cause the Loan to be under collateralized or unsecured. In such event, a Fund may have the ability to require that the Obligor

Part II - 23

pledge additional collateral. A Fund, however, is subject to the risk that the Obligor may not pledge such additional collateral or a sufficient amount of collateral. In some cases (for example, in the case of non-recourse Loans), there may be no formal requirement for the Obligor to pledge additional collateral. In addition, collateral may consist of assets that may not be readily liquidated, and there is no assurance that the liquidation of such assets would satisfy an Obligor’s obligation on a Loan. If a Fund were unable to obtain sufficient proceeds upon a liquidation of such assets, this could negatively affect Fund performance.

If an Obligor becomes involved in bankruptcy proceedings, a court may restrict the ability of a Fund to demand immediate repayment of the Loan by the Obligor or otherwise liquidate the collateral. A court may also invalidate the Loan or a Fund’s security interest in collateral or subordinate a Fund’s rights under a Senior Loan or Junior Loan to the interest of the Obligor’s other creditors, including unsecured creditors, or cause interest or principal previously paid to be refunded to the Obligor. If a court required interest or principal to be refunded, it could negatively affect Fund performance. Such action by a court could be based, for example, on a “fraudulent conveyance” claim to the effect that the Obligor did not receive fair consideration for granting the security interest in the Loan collateral to a Fund. For Senior Loans made in connection with a highly leveraged transaction, consideration for granting a security interest may be deemed inadequate if the proceeds of the Loan were not received or retained by the Obligor, but were instead paid to other persons (such as shareholders of the Obligor) in an amount which left the Obligor insolvent or without sufficient working capital. There are also other events, such as the failure to perfect a security interest due to faulty documentation or faulty official filings, which could lead to the invalidation of a Fund’s security interest in Loan collateral. If a Fund’s security interest in Loan collateral is invalidated or a Senior Loan were subordinated to other debt of an Obligor in bankruptcy or other proceedings, the Fund would have substantially lower recovery, and perhaps no recovery on the full amount of the principal and interest due on the Loan, or the Fund could have to refund interest. Lenders and investors in Loans can be sued by other creditors and shareholders of the Obligors. Losses can be greater than the original Loan amount and occur years after the principal and interest on the Loan have been repaid.

Agent Risk. Selling Lenders, Agents and other entities who may be positioned between a Fund and the Obligor will likely conduct their principal business activities in the banking, finance and financial services industries. Investments in Loans may be more impacted by a single economic, political or regulatory occurrence affecting such industries than other types of investments. Entities engaged in such industries may be more susceptible to, among other things, fluctuations in interest rates, changes in monetary policies, government regulations concerning such industries and concerning capital raising activities generally and fluctuations in the financial markets generally. An Agent, Lender or other entity positioned between a Fund and the Obligor may become insolvent or enter Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) receivership or bankruptcy. A Fund might incur certain costs and delays in realizing payment on a Loan or suffer a loss of principal and/or interest if assets or interests held by the Agent, Lender or other party positioned between the Fund and the Obligor are determined to be subject to the claims of the Agent’s, Lender’s or such other party’s creditors.

Regulatory Changes. To the extent that legislation or state or federal regulators that regulate certain financial institutions impose additional requirements or restrictions with respect to the ability of such institutions to make Loans, particularly in connection with highly leveraged transactions, the availability of Loans for investment may be adversely affected. Furthermore, such legislation or regulation could depress the market value of Loans held by a Fund.

Inventory Risk. Affiliates of the Adviser may participate in the primary and secondary market for Loans. Because of limitations imposed by applicable law, the presence of the Adviser’s affiliates in the Loan market may restrict a Fund’s ability to acquire some Loans, affect the timing of such acquisition or affect the price at which the Loan is acquired.

Information Risk. There is typically less publicly available information concerning Loans than other types of fixed income investments. As a result, a Fund generally will be dependent on reports and other information provided by the Obligor, either directly or through an Agent, to evaluate the Obligor’s creditworthiness or to determine the Obligor’s compliance with the covenants and other terms of the Loan Agreement. Such reliance may make investments in Loans more susceptible to fraud than other types of investments. In addition, because the Adviser may wish to invest in the publicly traded securities of an Obligor, it may not have access to material non-public information regarding the Obligor to which other Loan investors have access.

Part II - 24

Junior Loan Risk. Junior Loans are subject to the same general risks inherent to any Loan investment. Due to their lower place in the Obligor’s capital structure and possible unsecured status, Junior Loans involve a higher degree of overall risk than Senior Loans of the same Obligor. Junior Loans that are Bridge Loans generally carry the expectation that the Obligor will be able to obtain permanent financing in the near future. Any delay in obtaining permanent financing subjects the Bridge Loan investor to increased risk. An Obligor’s use of Bridge Loans also involves the risk that the Obligor may be unable to locate permanent financing to replace the Bridge Loan, which may impair the Obligor’s perceived creditworthiness.

Mezzanine Loan Risk. In addition to the risk factors described above, mezzanine loans are subject to additional risks. Unlike conventional mortgage loans, mezzanine loans are not secured by a mortgage on the underlying real property but rather by a pledge of equity interests (such as a partnership or limited liability company membership) in the property owner or another company in the ownership structures that has control over the property. Such companies are typically structured as special purpose entities. Generally, mezzanine loans may be more highly leveraged than other types of Loans and subordinate in the capital structure of the Obligor. While foreclosure of a mezzanine loan generally takes substantially less time than foreclosure of a traditional mortgage, the holders of a mezzanine loan have different remedies available versus the holder of a first lien mortgage loan. In addition, a sale of the underlying real property would not be unencumbered, and thus would be subject to encumbrances by more senior mortgages and liens of other creditors. Upon foreclosure of a mezzanine loan, the holder of the mezzanine loan acquires an equity interest in the Obligor. However, because of the subordinate nature of a mezzanine loan, the real property continues to be subject to the lien of the mortgage and other liens encumbering the real estate. In the event the holder of a mezzanine loan forecloses on its equity collateral, the holder may need to cure the Obligor’s existing mortgage defaults or, to the extent permissible under the governing agreements, sell the property to pay off other creditors. To the extent that the amount of mortgages and senior indebtedness and liens exceed the value of the real estate, the collateral underlying the mezzanine loan may have little or no value.

Foreclosure Risk. There may be additional costs associated with enforcing a Fund’s remedies under a Loan including additional legal costs and payment of real property transfer taxes upon foreclosure in certain jurisdictions or legal costs and expenses associated with operating real property. As a result of these additional costs, a Fund may determine that pursuing foreclosure on the Loan collateral is not worth the associated costs. In addition, if a Fund incurs costs and the collateral loses value or is not recovered by the Fund in foreclosure, the Fund could lose more than its original investment in the Loan. Foreclosure risk is heightened for Junior Loans, including certain mezzanine loans.

Covenant-Lite Obligations. A Fund may invest in or be exposed to floating rate loans and other similar debt obligations that are sometimes referred to as “covenant-lite” loans or obligations (“covenant-lite obligations”), which are loans or other similar debt obligations that lack financial maintenance covenants or possess fewer or contingent financial maintenance covenants and other financial protections for lenders and investors. A Fund may obtain exposure to covenant-lite obligations through investment in securitization vehicles and other structured products. In current market conditions, many new, restructured or reissued loans and similar debt obligations do not feature traditional financial maintenance covenants, which are intended to protect lenders and investors by imposing certain restrictions and other limitations on a borrower’s operations or assets and by providing certain information and consent rights to lenders. Covenant-lite obligations allow borrowers to exercise more flexibility with respect to certain activities that may otherwise be limited or prohibited under similar loan obligations that are not covenant-lite. In an investment with a traditional financial maintenance covenant, the borrower is required to meet certain regular, specific financial tests over the term of the investment; in a covenant-lite obligation, the borrower would only be required to satisfy certain financial tests at the time it proposes to take a specific action or engage in a specific transaction (e.g., issuing additional debt, paying a dividend, or making an acquisition) or at a time when another financial criteria has been met (e.g., reduced availability under a revolving credit facility, or asset value falling below a certain percentage of outstanding debt obligations). In addition, in a loan with traditional covenants, the borrower is required to provide certain periodic financial reporting that typically includes a detailed calculation of certain financial metrics; in a covenant-lite obligation, certain detailed financial information is only required to be provided when a financial metric is required to be calculated, which may result in more limited access to financial information, difficulty evaluating the borrower’s financial performance over time and delays in exercising rights and remedies in the event of a significant financial decline. In addition, in the event

Part II - 25

of default, covenant-lite obligations may exhibit diminished recovery values as the lender may not have the opportunity to negotiate with the borrower or take other measures intended to mitigate losses prior to default. Accordingly, a Fund may have fewer rights with respect to covenant-lite obligations, including fewer protections against the possibility of default and fewer remedies, and may experience losses or delays in enforcing its rights on covenant-lite obligations. As a result, investments in or exposure to covenant-lite obligations are generally subject to more risk than investments that contain traditional financial maintenance covenants and financial reporting requirements.

Miscellaneous Investment Strategies and Risks

Borrowings. A Fund may borrow for temporary purposes and/or for investment purposes. Such a practice will result in leveraging of a Fund’s assets and may cause a Fund to liquidate portfolio positions when it would not be advantageous to do so. This borrowing may be secured or unsecured. If a Fund utilizes borrowings, for investment purposes or otherwise, it may pledge up to 33 1∕3% of its total assets to secure such borrowings. A Fund must maintain continuous asset coverage (that is, total assets including borrowings, less liabilities exclusive of borrowings) of at least 300% of the amount borrowed, with an exception for borrowings not in excess of 5% of the Fund’s total assets made for temporary administrative or emergency purposes. Any borrowings for temporary administrative purposes in excess of 5% of a Fund’s total assets must maintain continuous asset coverage. If the 300% asset coverage should decline as a result of market fluctuations or other reasons, a Fund may be required to sell some of its portfolio holdings within three days to reduce the debt and restore the 300% asset coverage, even though it may be disadvantageous from an investment standpoint to sell securities at that time. Borrowing will tend to exaggerate the effect on NAV of any increase or decrease in the market value of a Fund’s portfolio. Money borrowed will be subject to interest costs which may or may not be recovered by appreciation of any securities that may have been purchased during the time of the borrowing. A Fund also may be required to maintain minimum average balances in connection with such borrowing or to pay a commitment or other fee to maintain a line of credit, either of which would increase the cost of borrowing over the stated interest rate.

The Trust, on behalf of certain Funds (“Borrowers”) entered into a joint syndicated senior unsecured revolving credit facility totaling $1.5 billion, which terminates on August 5, 2024 unless otherwise extended or renewed (“Credit Facility”), with various lenders and The Bank of New York Mellon, as administrative agent for the lenders. This Credit Facility provides a source of funds to the Borrowers for temporary and emergency purposes, including the meeting of redemption requests that otherwise might require the untimely disposition of securities. Under the terms of the Credit Facility, a borrowing Fund must meet certain requirements, including a minimum adjusted net asset value amount and certain adjusted net asset coverage rations prior to and during the time in which any borrowings are outstanding. If a Fund does not comply with these requirements, the lenders may terminate the Credit Facility and declare any outstanding borrowings to be due and payable immediately. Interest associated with any borrowing under the Credit Facility is charged to the borrowing Fund at a variable rate. In addition, each participating Fund is charged an annual commitment fee, which is incurred on the unused portion of the Credit Facility and is allocated to all participating Funds pro rata based on their respective net assets.

In addition, each Fund may enter into Interfund Lending Arrangements. Please see “Interfund Lending.”

Interfund Lending. To satisfy redemption requests or to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls, a Fund may enter into lending agreements (“Interfund Lending Agreements”) under which the Fund would lend money and borrow money for temporary purposes directly to and from another J.P. Morgan Fund through a credit facility (“Interfund Loan”), subject to meeting the conditions of an SEC exemptive order granted to the Funds or other relief provided by the SEC or its staff permitting such interfund lending. No Fund may borrow more than the lesser of the amount permitted by Section 18 of the 1940 Act or the amount permitted by its investment limitations. All Interfund Loans will consist only of uninvested cash reserves that a Fund otherwise would invest in short-term repurchase agreements or other short-term instruments.

If a Fund has outstanding borrowings, any Interfund Loans to the Fund will (a) be at an interest rate equal to or lower than any outstanding bank loan, (b) be secured at least on an equal priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value as any outstanding bank loan that requires collateral, (c) have a maturity no longer than any outstanding bank loan (and in any event not over seven days) and (d) provide that, if an event of default occurs under any agreement evidencing an outstanding bank loan to the Fund, the event of default will automatically (without need for action or notice by the

Part II - 26

lending Fund) constitute an immediate event of default under an Interfund Lending Agreement entitling the lending Fund to call the Interfund Loan (and exercise all rights with respect to any collateral), and such call will be made if the lending bank exercises its right to call its loan under its agreement with the borrowing Fund.

A Fund may make an unsecured borrowing through the credit facility if its outstanding borrowings from all sources immediately after the interfund borrowing total 10% or less of its total assets; provided, that if the Fund has a secured loan outstanding from any other lender, including but not limited to another J.P. Morgan Fund, the Fund’s interfund borrowing will be secured on at least an equal priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to loan value as any outstanding loan that requires collateral. If a Fund’s total outstanding borrowings immediately after an interfund borrowing would be greater than 10% of its total assets, the Fund may borrow through the credit facility on a secured basis only. A Fund may not borrow through the credit facility nor from any other source if its total outstanding borrowings immediately after the interfund borrowing would exceed the limits imposed by Section 18 of the 1940 Act.

No Fund may lend to another Fund through the interfund lending credit facility if the loan would cause its aggregate outstanding loans through the credit facility to exceed 15% of the lending Fund’s net assets at the time of the loan. A Fund’s Interfund Loans to any one Fund shall not exceed 5% of the lending Fund’s net assets. The duration of Interfund Loans is limited to the time required to receive payment for securities sold, but in no event may the duration exceed seven days. Loans effected within seven days of each other will be treated as separate loan transactions for purposes of this condition. Each Interfund Loan may be called on one business day’s notice by a lending Fund and may be repaid on any day by a borrowing Fund.

The limitations detailed above and the other conditions of the SEC exemptive order permitting interfund lending are designed to minimize the risks associated with interfund lending for both the lending fund and the borrowing fund. However, no borrowing or lending activity is without risk. When a Fund borrows money from another Fund, there is a risk that the loan could be called on one day’s notice or not renewed, in which case the Fund may have to borrow from a bank at higher rates if an Interfund Loan were not available from another Fund. A delay in repayment to a lending Fund could result in a lost opportunity or additional lending costs.

LIBOR Discontinuance or Unavailability Risk. The London Interbank Offering Rate (“LIBOR”) is intended to represent the rate at which contributing banks may obtain short-term borrowings from each other in the London interbank market. On March 5, 2021, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) publicly announced that (i) immediately after December 31, 2021, publication of the 1-week and 2-month U.S. Dollar LIBOR settings will permanently cease; (ii) immediately after June 30, 2023, publication of the overnight and 12-month U.S. Dollar LIBOR settings will permanently cease; and (iii) immediately after June 30, 2023, the 1-month, 3-month and 6-month U.S. Dollar LIBOR settings will cease to be provided or, subject to the FCA’s consideration of the case, be provided on a synthetic basis and no longer be representative of the underlying market and economic reality they are intended to measure and that representativeness will not be restored. There is no assurance that the dates announced by the FCA will not change or that the administrator of LIBOR and/or regulators will not take further action that could impact the availability, composition or characteristics of LIBOR or the currencies and/or tenors for which LIBOR is published, and we recommend that you consult your advisors to stay informed of any such developments. In addition, certain regulated entities ceased entering into most new LIBOR contracts in connection with regulatory guidance or prohibitions. Public and private sector industry initiatives are currently underway to implement new or alternative reference rates to be used in place of LIBOR. There is no assurance that any such alternative reference rate will be similar to or produce the same value or economic equivalence as LIBOR or that it will have the same volume or liquidity as did LIBOR prior to its discontinuance, unavailability or replacement, all of which may affect the value, volatility, liquidity or return on certain of a Fund’s loans, notes, derivatives and other instruments or investments comprising some or all of a Fund’s investments and result in costs incurred in connection with changing reference rates used for positions, closing out positions and entering into new trades. Certain of a Fund’s investments may transition from LIBOR prior to the dates announced by the FCA. The transition from LIBOR to alternative reference rates may result in operational issues for a Fund or its investments. No assurances can be given as to the impact of the LIBOR transition (and the timing of any such impact) on a Fund and its investments. These risks may also apply with respect to changes in connection with other interbank offering rates (e.g., Euribor) and a wide range of other index levels, rates and values that are treated as “benchmarks” and are the subject of recent regulatory reform.

Part II - 27

Commodity-Linked Derivatives. Commodity-linked derivatives are derivative instruments the value of which is linked to the value of a commodity, commodity index or commodity futures contract. A Fund’s investment in commodity-linked derivative instruments may subject the Fund to greater volatility than investments in traditional securities, particularly if the instruments involve leverage. The value of commodity-linked derivative instruments may be affected by changes in overall market movements, commodity index volatility, changes in interest rates, or factors affecting a particular industry or commodity, such as drought, floods, weather, livestock disease, embargoes, tariffs and international economic, political and regulatory developments. Use of leveraged commodity-linked derivatives creates the possibility for greater loss (including the likelihood of greater volatility of a Fund’s NAV), and there can be no assurance that a Fund’s use of leverage will be successful. Tax considerations may limit a Fund’s ability to pursue investments in commodity-linked derivatives.

Commodity-Related Pooled Investment Vehicles. Commodity-related pooled investment vehicles include ownership interests in grantor trusts and other pooled investment vehicles that hold tangible assets such as gold, silver or other commodities or invest in commodity futures. Grantor trusts are typically traded on an exchange.

Investors do not have the rights normally associated with ownership of other types of shares when they invest in pooled investment vehicles holding commodities or commodity futures, including those structured as limited partnerships or grantor trusts holding commodities. For example, the owners of these commodity-related grantor trusts or limited partnerships do not have the right to elect directors, receive dividends or take other actions normally associated with the ownership of shares of a corporation. Holders of a certain percentage of shares in a grantor trust may have the right to terminate the trust or exercise other rights which would not be available to small investors. If investors other than a Fund exercise their right to terminate, a Fund that wishes to invest in the underlying commodity through the pooled investment vehicle will have to find another investment and may not be able to find another vehicle that offers the same investment features. In the event that one or more participants holding a substantial interest in these pooled investment vehicles withdraw from participation, the liquidity of the pooled investment vehicle will likely decrease which could adversely affect the market price of the pooled investment vehicle and result in a Fund incurring a loss on its investments.

These pooled investment vehicles are not registered investment companies, and many are not commodity pools, and therefore, do not have the protections available to those types of investments under federal securities or commodities laws. For example, unlike registered investment companies, these vehicles are not subject to federal securities laws that limit transactions with affiliates, require redemption of shares, or limit sales load. Although shares of these vehicles may be traded on an exchange, there may be no active market for such shares and such shares may be highly illiquid.

These vehicles are subject to the risks associated with direct investments in commodities. The market price of shares of these vehicles will be as unpredictable as the price of the underlying commodity. Many factors can cause a decline in the prices of commodities including a change in economic conditions, such as a recession. This risk is magnified when the commodity is used in manufacturing. In addition, the prices of commodities may be adversely impacted by a change in the attitude of speculators and investors toward the applicable commodity, or a significant increase in commodity price hedging activity. In addition, the value of the shares will be adversely affected if the assets owned by the trust are lost, damaged or of inferior quality.

The commodities represented by shares of a grantor trust will decrease over the life of the trust due to sales of the underlying commodities necessary to pay trust fees and expenses, including expenses associated with indemnification of certain service providers to the pooled investment vehicle. Without increases in the price of the underlying commodity sufficient to compensate for that decrease, the price of the investment will decline and a Fund will incur a loss on its investment.

Commodity-related grantor trusts are passive investment vehicles. This means that the value of the investment in a grantor trust may be adversely affected by trust losses that, if the trust had been actively managed, it might have been possible to avoid. A Fund’s intention to qualify as a regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Code may limit its ability to make investments in grantor trusts or limited partnerships that invest in commodities or commodity futures.

Cyber Security Risk. As the use of technology has become more prevalent in the course of business, the Funds have become more susceptible to operational and financial risks associated with cyber security, including: theft, loss, misuse, improper release, corruption and destruction of, or unauthorized access to, confidential or highly restricted data relating to a Fund and its shareholders; and compromises or failures to systems, networks, devices and applications relating to the operations of a Fund and its service

Part II - 28

providers. Cyber security risks may result in financial losses to a Fund and its shareholders; the inability of a Fund to transact business with its shareholders; delays or mistakes in the calculation of a Fund’s NAV or other materials provided to shareholders; the inability to process transactions with shareholders or other parties; violations of privacy and other laws; regulatory fines, penalties and reputational damage; and compliance and remediation costs, legal fees and other expenses. A Fund’s service providers (including, but not limited to, the Adviser, any sub-advisers, administrator, transfer agent, and custodian or their agents), financial intermediaries, companies in which a Fund invests and parties with which a Fund engages in portfolio or other transactions also may be adversely impacted by cyber security risks in their own businesses, which could result in losses to a Fund or its shareholders. While measures have been developed which are designed to reduce the risks associated with cyber security, there is no guarantee that those measures will be effective, particularly since the Funds do not directly control the cyber security defenses or plans of their service providers, financial intermediaries and companies in which they invest or with which they do business.

Volcker Rule Risk. Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) and certain rules promulgated thereunder (known as the Volcker Rule) places restrictions on the activities of banking entities, including the Adviser and its affiliates, and may impact the long-term viability of a Fund. Under the Volcker Rule, if the Adviser or its affiliates own 5% or more of the ownership interests of a Fund outside of the permitted seeding time period, a Fund could be subject to restrictions on trading that would adversely impact a Fund’s ability to execute its investment strategy. Generally, the permitted seeding period is three years from the implementation of a Fund’s investment strategy, with permissible extensions under certain circumstances. As a result, the Adviser and/or its affiliates may be required to reduce their ownership interests in a Fund at a time that is sooner than would otherwise be desirable. This may require the sale of Fund securities, which may result in losses, increased transaction costs and adverse tax consequences. In addition, the ongoing viability of a Fund may be adversely impacted by the anticipated or actual redemption of Fund Shares owned by the Adviser and its affiliates and could result in a Fund’s liquidation.

Exchange-Traded Notes (“ETNs”) are senior, unsecured notes linked to an index. Like ETFs, they may be bought and sold like shares of stock on an exchange (e.g., the New York Stock Exchange) during normal trading hours. However, ETNs have a different underlying structure and may be held until their maturity. While ETF shares represent an interest in a portfolio of securities, ETNs are structured products that are an obligation of the issuing bank, whereby the bank agrees to pay a return based on the target index less any fees. Essentially, these notes allow individual investors to have access to derivatives linked to commodities and assets such as oil, currencies and foreign stock indexes. ETNs combine certain aspects of bonds and ETFs. At maturity, the issuer of a ETN pays to the investor a cash amount equal to principal amount, subject to the day’s index factor. ETN returns are based upon the performance of a market index minus applicable fees. ETNs do not make periodic coupon payments and provide no principal protection. The value of an ETN may be influenced by time to maturity, level of supply and demand for the ETN, volatility and lack of liquidity in underlying commodities markets, changes in the applicable interest rates, changes in the issuer’s credit rating and economic, legal, political or geographic events that affect the referenced commodity. The timing and character of income and gains derived from ETNs is under consideration by the U.S. Treasury and Internal Revenue Service and may also be affected by future legislation.

Impact of Large Redemptions and Purchases of Fund Shares. Shareholders of a Fund (which may include the Adviser or affiliates of the Adviser or accounts for which the Adviser or its affiliates serve as investment adviser or trustee or, for certain Funds, affiliated and/or non-affiliated registered investment companies that invest in a Fund) may make relatively large redemptions or purchases of Fund Shares. In addition, certain circumstances that may cause a Fund to experience large redemptions include, but are not limited to: the occurrence of significant events affecting investor demand for securities or asset classes in which the Fund invests; changes in the eligibility criteria for the Fund or share class of the Fund or other J.P. Morgan Funds; personnel changes relating to the management of the Fund; index rebalancings; announced liquidations of the Fund; announced reorganizations of the Fund; or other announcements relating to the Fund, including changes in investment objectives, strategies, policies or risks. In addition, under applicable regulations, the Adviser or an affiliate of the Adviser may be required to reduce its seed investment or other ownership interest in a Fund at a time that is sooner than the Adviser or its affiliate otherwise would. Any large redemption and purchase transactions may cause a Fund to have to sell securities, or invest additional cash, as the case may be. While it is impossible to predict the overall impact of these transactions over time, there could be adverse effects on a Fund’s performance to the extent that the Fund is required to sell securities or invest cash at times when it would not otherwise do so, which may result in a loss to the Fund. These transactions may result in higher portfolio turnover, accelerate the

Part II - 29

realization of taxable income if sales of securities resulted in capital gains or other income (which particularly would impact shareholders who do not hold their Fund Shares in an IRA, 401(k) plan or other tax-advantaged investment plan), and/or increase transaction costs, which may impact a Fund’s expense ratio. Additionally, a significant reduction in Fund assets would result in Fund expenses being spread over a small asset base, potentially causing an increase in a Fund’s expense ratio. To the extent that such transactions result in short-term capital gains, such gains will generally be taxed at the ordinary income tax rate for shareholders who hold Fund Shares in a taxable account. In addition to the above information, the SAI includes disclosure of accounts holding more than 5% of a Fund’s voting securities.

Capital Gains. A Fund may sell securities and subsequently repurchase the same securities in an effort to manage capital gains distributions. This may occur if a Fund’s unrealized and/or realized capital gains represent a significant portion of its net assets. If this occurs, this will change the timing, amount and/or character of capital gains to be distributed and therefore the amount and timing of tax paid by Fund shareholders will change. In addition, shareholders may experience corresponding tax implications upon redemption as reinvested distributions will generally increase the cost basis of their Fund Share position, potentially changing the amount of realized gain or loss. Accordingly, a redeeming shareholder’s total tax liability from distributions and redemptions for a year may be impacted by the character of the distributions and whether or not shares are redeemed in the same year. In addition, a Fund’s repurchased securities when subsequently sold may cause the Fund to realize short-term capital gains or losses rather than long-term capital gains or losses. Repurchases of substantially identical securities within 30 days before or after the securities are sold at a loss will result in the application of the wash sale rules. A Fund would incur additional transaction costs from the selling and repurchasing of securities, and the value of the securities sold may change. An increase or decrease in the value of securities sold prior to being repurchased may impact Fund performance. Additionally, unless otherwise disclosed in a Fund’s prospectus, the Funds are not managed to maximize after-tax returns or tax efficiency for taxable shareholder accounts. As a result, large redemptions could accelerate the realization of capital gains for a shareholder of those Funds. Investors should consider whether a Fund is an appropriate investment in light of their current financial position and retirement needs.

Government Intervention in Financial Markets. Events in the financial sector resulted in reduced liquidity in credit and fixed income markets and a higher degree of volatility in the financial markets, both domestically and internationally. While entire markets were, and may continue to be, impacted, issuers that have exposure to the real estate, mortgage and credit markets were, and may continue to be, particularly affected. Future market turbulence may have an adverse effect on a Funds’ investments.

Instability in the financial markets has previously led, and could lead, governments and regulators around the world to take a number of actions designed to support certain financial institutions and segments of the financial markets that have experienced extreme volatility, a lack of liquidity or other adverse conditions. Governments, their regulatory agencies, or self-regulatory organizations may take actions that affect the regulation of the instruments in which the Funds invest, or the issuers of such instruments, in ways that are unforeseeable. Legislation or regulation may also change the way in which the Funds themselves are regulated. Such legislation or regulation could limit or preclude a Fund’s ability to achieve its investment objective.

Governments or their agencies may also acquire distressed assets from financial institutions and acquire ownership interests in those institutions. The implications of government ownership and disposition of these assets are unclear, and such a program may have positive or negative effects on the liquidity, valuation and performance of a Fund’s portfolio holdings. Furthermore, volatile financial markets can expose the Funds to greater market and liquidity risk and potential difficulty in valuing portfolio instruments held by the Funds.

Master Limited Partnerships. Certain companies are organized as master limited partnerships (“MLPs”) in which ownership interests are publicly traded. MLPs often own several properties or businesses (or directly own interests) that are related to real estate development and oil and gas industries, but they also may finance motion pictures, research and development and other projects or provide financial services. Generally, an MLP is operated under the supervision of one or more managing general partners. Limited partners (like a Fund that invests in an MLP) are not involved in the day-to-day management of the partnership. They are allocated income and capital gains associated with the partnership project in accordance with the terms established in the partnership agreement.

The risks of investing in an MLP are generally those inherent in investing in a partnership as opposed to a corporation. For example, state law governing partnerships is often less restrictive than state law governing corporations. Accordingly, there may be fewer protections afforded investors in an MLP than

Part II - 30

investors in a corporation. Additional risks involved with investing in an MLP are risks associated with the specific industry or industries in which the partnership invests, such as the risks of investing in real estate, or oil and gas industries.

New Financial Products. New options and futures contracts and other financial products, and various combinations thereof, including over-the-counter products, continue to be developed. These various products may be used to adjust the risk and return characteristics of certain Funds’ investments. These various products may increase or decrease exposure to security prices, interest rates, commodity prices, or other factors that affect security values, regardless of the issuer’s credit risk. If market conditions do not perform as expected, the performance of a Fund would be less favorable than it would have been if these products were not used. In addition, losses may occur if counterparties involved in transactions do not perform as promised. These products may expose a Fund to potentially greater return as well as potentially greater risk of loss than more traditional fixed income investments.

Private Placements, Restricted Securities and Other Unregistered Securities. Subject to its investment policies, a Fund may acquire investments such as obligations issued in reliance on the so-called “private placement” exemption from registration afforded by Section 4(a)(2) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”), which cannot be offered for public sale in the U.S. without first being registered under the 1933 Act. These securities may be subject to liquidity risks and certain private placements may be determined to be Illiquid Investments under the Liquidity Risk Management Program applicable to the Funds.

A Fund is subject to a risk that should the Fund decide to sell such securities when a ready buyer is not available at a price the Fund deems representative of their value, the value of the Fund’s net assets could be adversely affected. In addition, information about the issuers whose securities are not publicly traded may not be subject to the disclosure and other investor protection requirements that may be applicable if their securities were publicly traded. As a result, prices of such securities may be difficult to value and highly volatile, which could impact the value of a Fund’s net assets. Where a security must be registered under the 1933 Act before it may be sold, a Fund may be obligated to pay all or part of the registration expenses, and a considerable period may elapse between the time of the decision to sell and the time the Fund may be permitted to sell a security under an effective registration statement. If, during such a period, adverse market conditions were to develop, a Fund might obtain a less favorable price than prevailed when it decided to sell.

The Funds may invest in commercial paper issued in reliance on the exemption from registration afforded by Section 4(a)(2) of the 1933 Act and other restricted securities (i.e., other securities subject to restrictions on resale). Section 4(a)(2) commercial paper (“4(a)(2) paper”) is restricted as to disposition under federal securities law and is generally sold to institutional investors, such as the Funds, that agree that they are purchasing the paper for investment purposes and not with a view to public distribution. Any resale by the purchaser must be in an exempt transaction. 4(a)(2) paper is normally resold to other institutional investors through or with the assistance of the issuer or investment dealers who make a market in 4(a)(2) paper, thus providing liquidity.

Certain investments in private placements may consist of direct investments and may include investments in smaller, less seasoned issuers, which may involve greater risks. These issuers may have limited product lines, markets or financial resources, or they may be dependent on a limited management group. In making investments in such securities, a Fund may obtain access to material non-public information, which may restrict the Fund’s ability to conduct portfolio transactions in such securities.

Securities Issued in Connection with Reorganizations and Corporate Restructuring. Debt securities may be downgraded and issuers of debt securities including investment grade securities may default in the payment of principal or interest or be subject to bankruptcy proceedings. In connection with reorganizing or restructuring of an issuer, an issuer may issue common stock or other securities to holders of its debt securities. A Fund may hold such common stock and other securities even though it does not ordinarily invest in such securities and such common stock or other securities may be denominated in currencies that a Fund may not ordinarily hold.

Stapled Securities. From time to time, the Funds may invest in stapled securities to gain exposure to companies. A stapled security is a security that is comprised of two or more parts that cannot be separated from one another. The resulting security is influenced by both parts, and must be treated as one unit at all times, such as when buying or selling a security. The value of stapled securities and the income derived from them may fall as well as rise. Stapled securities are not obligations of, deposits in, or guaranteed by, a Fund. The listing of stapled securities on a domestic or foreign exchange does not guarantee a liquid market for stapled securities.

Part II - 31

Temporary Defensive Positions. To respond to unusual market conditions, the actively managed Funds may invest their assets in cash or cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are highly liquid, high quality instruments with maturities of three months or less on the date they are purchased (“Cash Equivalents”) for temporary defensive purposes. These investments may result in a lower yield than lower-quality or longer term investments and may prevent the Funds from meeting their investment objectives. The percentage of a Fund’s total assets that a Fund may invest in cash or cash equivalents is described in the applicable Fund’s Prospectuses. They include securities issued by the U.S. government, its agencies, Government-Sponsored Enterprises (“GSEs”) and instrumentalities, repurchase agreements with maturities of 7 days or less, certificates of deposit, bankers’ acceptances, commercial paper, money market mutual funds, and bank deposit accounts. In order to invest in repurchase agreements with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for temporary defensive purposes, certain Funds may engage in periodic “test” trading in order to assess operational abilities at times when the Fund would otherwise not enter into such a position. These exercises may vary in size and frequency.

Inflation/Deflation Risk. The Funds may be subject to inflation and deflation risk. Inflation risk is the risk that the present value of assets or income from a Fund’s investments will be less in the future as inflation decreases the value of money. As inflation increases, the present value of a Fund’s assets can decline. Deflation risk is the risk that prices throughout the economy decline over time. Deflation may have an adverse effect on the creditworthiness of issuers and may make issuer default more likely, which may result in a decline in the value of a Fund’s assets.

Infectious Disease Risk. The worldwide outbreak of COVID-19 negatively affected economies, markets and individual companies throughout the world. The effects of this, or any future, pandemic to public health, and business and market conditions, including, among other things, reduced consumer demand and economic output, supply chain disruptions and increased government spending, may have a significant negative impact on the performance of a Fund’s investments, increase a Fund’s volatility, negatively impact a Fund’s arbitrage and pricing mechanisms and exacerbate other pre-existing political, social and economic risks to the Funds.

The impacts of epidemics and pandemics that may arise in the future could adversely affect the economies of many nations, particular regions, or the entire global economy, individual companies and investment products, and the market in general. The full extent of such impacts cannot necessarily be foreseen. The impacts may be short term or may last for an extended period of time, and may exacerbate other pre-existing political, social and economic risks. The value of a Fund and the securities in which a Fund invests may be adversely affected by impacts caused by epidemics and pandemics that may arise in the future. The impact of an epidemic or pandemic may also negatively affect the liquidity of certain portfolio holdings of a Fund and may make it more difficult to value such holdings. Because epidemics and pandemics impact broad segments of businesses and populations at the same time or in close succession, often in unpredictable and significant ways, they create the risk that a Fund’s operations may be interrupted, which may have a significant negative impact on investment performance. Governments, their regulatory agencies, or self-regulatory organizations may take actions that affect the instruments in which a Fund invests, or the issuers of such instruments, in ways that could also have a significant negative impact on a Fund’s investment performance. The ultimate impact of any epidemic or pandemic and the extent to which the associated conditions and governmental responses impact a Fund will also depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain, difficult to accurately predict and subject to frequent changes.

Regulatory and Legal Risk. U.S. and non-U.S. governmental agencies and other regulators regularly implement additional regulations and legislators pass new laws that affect the investments held by a Fund, the strategies used by a Fund or the level of regulation or taxation applying to a Fund (such as regulations related to investments in derivatives and other transactions). These regulations and laws may adversely impact the investment strategies, performance, costs and operations of a Fund or taxation of shareholders. Additionally, as a result of regulatory requirements, a Fund may be prohibited from investing, or continuing to invest, in certain companies that are considered attractive investments, while at the same time other funds and investors not subject to the same regulations, including other clients of the Adviser, are not subject to the same limitations. In September 2023, the SEC adopted amendments to Rule 35d-1 regarding names of registered investment companies such as the Funds. The amendments could cause some Funds to change their name or investment policies and make other adjustments to their portfolio investments. Implementation of any such change, which would need to be made prior to December 2025, could adversely impact a Fund’s investment strategies or investments. The impact of the rule amendments is still uncertain and under assessment.

Part II - 32

Mortgage-Related Securities

Mortgages (Directly Held). Mortgages are debt instruments secured by real property. Unlike mortgage-backed securities, which generally represent an interest in a pool of mortgages, direct investments in mortgages involve prepayment and credit risks of an individual issuer and real property. Consequently, these investments require different investment and credit analysis by a Fund’s Adviser.

Directly placed mortgages may include residential mortgages, multifamily mortgages, mortgages on cooperative apartment buildings, commercial mortgages, and sale-leasebacks. These investments are backed by assets such as office buildings, shopping centers, retail stores, warehouses, apartment buildings and single-family dwellings. In the event that a Fund forecloses on any non-performing mortgage, and acquires a direct interest in the real property, such Fund will be subject to the risks generally associated with the ownership of real property. There may be fluctuations in the market value of the foreclosed property and its occupancy rates, rent schedules and operating expenses. There may also be adverse changes in local, regional or general economic conditions, deterioration of the real estate market and the financial circumstances of tenants and sellers, reduced demand for commercial and office space as well as increased maintenance or tenant improvement costs to convert properties for other uses, the inability to release space on attractive terms, unfavorable changes in zoning, building, environmental and other laws, increased real property taxes, rising interest rates, reduced availability and increased cost of mortgage borrowings, the need for unanticipated renovations, unexpected increases in the cost of energy, environmental factors, acts of God and other factors which are beyond the control of a Fund or the Adviser. Hazardous or toxic substances may be present on, at or under the mortgaged property and adversely affect the value of the property. In addition, the owners of property containing such substances may be held responsible, under various laws, for containing, monitoring, removing or cleaning up such substances. The presence of such substances may also provide a basis for other claims by third parties. Costs of clean up or of liabilities to third parties may exceed the value of the property. In addition, these risks may be uninsurable. In light of these and similar risks, it may be impossible to dispose profitably of properties in foreclosure.

Mortgage-Backed Securities. A Fund may invest in mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”), which are securities that represent pools of mortgage loans assembled and/or securitized for sale to investors. MBS include mortgage pass-through securities and collateralized mortgage obligations (“CMOs”). MBS may be arranged by various governmental agencies, such as the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”); government sponsored enterprises (“GSEs”), such as the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”); and private issuers, such as commercial banks, savings and loan institutions, mortgage bankers, and private mortgage insurance companies.

A mortgage pass-through security is a pro rata interest in a pool of mortgages where the cash flow generated from the mortgage collateral is passed through to the security holder after paying servicing and guarantee fees.

CMOs are debt securities that are fully collateralized by a portfolio of mortgages or MBS, or re-securitized or reorganized MBS. Unlike mortgage pass-through securities, CMOs may be organized in a variety of different ways to create customized cash flows in different tranches and may offer certain protections against prepayment risk, such as creating more definite maturities. CMOs may pay fixed or variable rates of interest, and certain CMOs have priority over others with respect to the receipt of prepayments. CMOs may be structured as Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (“REMICs”) which are federally tax-exempt entities that may be organized as trusts, partnerships, corporations or other types of associations.

CMOs are also subject to cash flow uncertainty and price volatility. Stripped mortgage securities (a type of potentially high-risk CMO) are created by separating the interest and principal payments generated by a pool of MBS or a CMO to create additional classes of securities. CMOs are subject to principal prepayments on the underlying mortgages and, thus, may be retired earlier than scheduled.

MBS are subject to scheduled and unscheduled principal payments as homeowners pay down or prepay their mortgages. As these payments are received, they must be reinvested when interest rates may be higher or lower than on the original mortgage security. Therefore, these securities may not be an effective means of locking in long-term interest rates. In addition, when interest rates fall, the pace of mortgage prepayments increase, sometimes rapidly. These refinanced mortgages are paid off at face value (par), causing a loss for any investor who may have purchased the MBS at a price above par. In such an environment, this risk limits the potential price appreciation of these securities and can negatively affect a Fund’s NAV. When rates rise, the prices of mortgage-backed securities can be expected to decline, although

Part II - 33

historically these securities have experienced smaller price declines than comparable quality bonds. In addition, when rates rise and prepayments slow, the effective duration of MBS extends, resulting in increased volatility. A decline or flattening of housing values may cause delinquencies in the mortgages (especially sub-prime or non-prime mortgages) underlying MBS and thereby adversely affect the ability of the MBS issuer to make principal payments to MBS holders. The value of MBS backed by subprime loans has declined in the past, and may decline in the future, including significantly during market downturns.

MBS issued by the U.S. government and its agencies and instrumentalities may be backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government or may be guaranteed as to principal and interest payments. There are a number of important differences among the agencies, GSEs and instrumentalities of the U.S. government that issue MBS and among the securities that they issue.

Ginnie Mae Securities. MBS issued by Ginnie Mae include Ginnie Mae Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates and CMOs which are guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest by Ginnie Mae. Ginnie Mae’s guarantee is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Ginnie Mae is a wholly-owned U.S. government corporation within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Ginnie Mae certificates also are supported by the authority of Ginnie Mae to borrow funds from the U.S. Treasury to make payments under its guarantee.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Securities. MBS issued by Fannie Mae include Fannie Mae Guaranteed Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates which are solely the obligations of Fannie Mae and are not backed by or entitled to the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise, which is chartered by Congress but owned by private shareholders. Fannie Mae Certificates are guaranteed as to timely payment of the principal and interest by Fannie Mae. MBS issued by Freddie Mac include Freddie Mac Mortgage Participation Certificates and CMOs. Like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac is a government-sponsored enterprise, which is chartered by Congress but owned by private shareholders. Freddie Mac Certificates are not guaranteed by the U.S. government and do not constitute a debt or obligation of the U.S. government. Freddie Mac Certificates entitle the holder to timely payment of interest, which is guaranteed by Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac guarantees either ultimate collection or timely payment of all principal payments on the underlying mortgage loans. When Freddie Mac does not guarantee timely payment of principal, Freddie Mac may remit the amount due on account 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.

For more information on recent events impacting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities, see “Recent Events Regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Securities” under the heading “Risk Factors of Mortgage-Related Securities” below.

CMOs and guaranteed REMIC pass-through certificates (“REMIC Certificates”) issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae and private issuers are types of multiple class pass-through securities. Investors may purchase beneficial interests in REMICs, which are known as “regular” interests or “residual” interests. The Funds do not currently intend to purchase residual interests in REMICs. The REMIC Certificates represent beneficial ownership interests in a REMIC Trust, generally consisting of mortgage loans or Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae guaranteed mortgage pass-through certificates (the “Mortgage Assets”). The obligations of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae under their respective guaranty of the REMIC Certificates are obligations solely of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae, respectively.

Fannie Mae REMIC Certificates. Fannie Mae REMIC Certificates are issued and guaranteed as to timely distribution of principal and interest by Fannie Mae. In addition, Fannie Mae will be obligated to distribute the principal balance of each class of REMIC Certificates in full, whether or not sufficient funds are otherwise available.

Freddie Mac REMIC Certificates. Freddie Mac guarantees the timely payment of interest, and also guarantees the payment of principal as payments are required to be made on the underlying mortgage participation certificates (“PCs”). PCs represent undivided interests in specified residential mortgages or participation therein purchased by Freddie Mac and placed in a PC pool. With respect to principal payments on PCs, Freddie Mac generally guarantees ultimate collection of all principal of the related mortgage loans without offset or deduction. Freddie Mac also guarantees timely payment of principal on certain PCs referred to as “Gold PCs.”

Part II - 34

Ginnie Mae REMIC Certificates. Ginnie Mae guarantees the full and timely payment of interest and principal on each class of securities (in accordance with the terms of those classes as specified in the related offering circular supplement). The Ginnie Mae guarantee is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S.

REMIC Certificates issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae are treated as U.S. Government securities for purposes of investment policies.

CMOs and REMIC Certificates provide for the redistribution of cash flow to multiple classes. Each class of CMOs or REMIC Certificates, often referred to as a “tranche,” is issued at a specific adjustable or fixed interest rate and must be fully retired no later than its final distribution date. This reallocation of interest and principal results in the redistribution of prepayment risk across different classes. This allows for the creation of bonds with more or less risk than the underlying collateral exhibits. Principal prepayments on the mortgage loans or the Mortgage Assets underlying the CMOs or REMIC Certificates may cause some or all of the classes of CMOs or REMIC Certificates to be retired substantially earlier than their final distribution dates. Generally, interest is paid or accrues on all classes of CMOs or REMIC Certificates on a monthly basis.

The principal of and interest on the Mortgage Assets may be allocated among the several classes of CMOs or REMIC Certificates in various ways. In certain structures (known as “sequential pay” CMOs or REMIC Certificates), payments of principal, including any principal prepayments, on the Mortgage Assets generally are applied to the classes of CMOs or REMIC Certificates in the order of their respective final distribution dates. Thus, no payment of principal will be made on any class of sequential pay CMOs or REMIC Certificates until all other classes having an earlier final distribution date have been paid in full.

Additional structures of CMOs and REMIC Certificates include, among others, principal only structures, interest only structures, inverse floaters and “parallel pay” CMOs and REMIC Certificates. Certain of these structures may be more volatile than other types of CMO and REMIC structures. Parallel pay CMOs or REMIC Certificates are those which are structured to apply principal payments and prepayments of the Mortgage Assets to two or more classes concurrently on a proportionate or disproportionate basis. These simultaneous payments are taken into account in calculating the final distribution date of each class.

A wide variety of REMIC Certificates may be issued in the parallel pay or sequential pay structures. These securities include accrual certificates (also known as “Z-Bonds”), which only accrue interest at a specified rate until all other certificates having an earlier final distribution date have been retired and are converted thereafter to an interest-paying security, and planned amortization class (“PAC”) certificates, which are parallel pay REMIC Certificates which generally require that specified amounts of principal be applied on each payment date to one or more classes of REMIC Certificates (the “PAC Certificates”), even though all other principal payments and prepayments of the Mortgage Assets are then required to be applied to one or more other classes of the certificates. The scheduled principal payments for the PAC Certificates generally have the highest priority on each payment date after interest due has been paid to all classes entitled to receive interest currently. Shortfalls, if any, are added to the amount of principal payable on the next payment date. The PAC Certificate payment schedule is taken into account in calculating the final distribution date of each class of PAC. In order to create PAC tranches, one or more tranches generally must be created that absorb most of the volatility in the underlying Mortgage Assets. These tranches tend to have market prices and yields that are much more volatile than the PAC classes. The Z-Bonds in which the Funds may invest may bear the same non-credit-related risks as do other types of Z-Bonds. Z-Bonds in which the Fund may invest will not include residual interest.

Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses set forth in the fee table and Financial Highlights section of each Fund’s Prospectuses do not include any expenses associated with investments in certain structured or synthetic products that may rely on the exception for the definition of “investment company” provided by section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act.

GSE Credit Risk Transfer Securities and GSE Credit-Linked Notes. GSE Credit risk transfer securities are notes issued directly by a GSE, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and GSE credit-linked notes are notes issued by a SPV sponsored by a GSE. Investors in these notes provide credit protection for the applicable GSE’s mortgage-related securities guarantee obligations. In this regard, a noteholder receives compensation for providing credit protection to the GSE and, when a specified level of losses on the relevant mortgage loans occurs, the principal balance and certain payments owed to the noteholder may be reduced. In addition, noteholders may receive a return of principal prior to the stated maturity date reflecting prepayment on the underlying mortgage loans and in any other circumstances that may be set forth in the applicable loan agreement. The notes may be issued in different tranches representing the

Part II - 35

issuance of different levels of credit risk protection to the GSE on the underlying mortgage loans and the notes are not secured by the reference mortgage loans. There are important differences between the structure of GSE credit risk transfer securities and GSE credit-linked notes.

GSE Credit Risk Transfer Securities Structure. In this structure, the GSE receives the note sale proceeds. The GSE pays noteholders monthly interest payments and a return of principal on the stated maturity date based on the initial investment amount, as reduced by any covered losses on the reference mortgage loans.

GSE Credit-Linked Notes Structure. In this structure, the SPV receives the note sale proceeds and the SPV’s obligations to the noteholder are collateralized by the note sale proceeds. The SPV invests the proceeds in cash or other short-term assets. The SPV also enters into a credit protection agreement with the GSE pursuant to which the GSE pays the SPV monthly premium payments and the SPV compensates the GSE for covered losses on the reference mortgage loans. The SPV pays noteholders monthly interest payments based on the premium payments paid by the GSE and the performance on the invested note sale proceeds. The noteholders also receive a return of principal on a stated maturity date based on the initial investment amount, as reduced by any covered losses on the reference mortgage loans paid by the SPV or the GSE.

Mortgage TBAs. A Fund may invest in mortgage pass-through securities eligible to be sold in the “to-be-announced” or TBA market (“Mortgage TBAs”). Mortgage TBAs provide for the forward or delayed delivery of the underlying instrument with settlement up to 180 days. The term TBA comes from the fact that the actual mortgage-backed security that will be delivered to fulfill a TBA trade is not designated at the time the trade is made, but rather is generally announced 48 hours before the settlement date. Mortgage TBAs are subject to the risks described in the “When-Issued Securities, Delayed Delivery Securities and Forward Commitments” section. Additionally, amendments to applicable rules include certain mandatory margin requirements for the TBA market, which may require the Funds to pay collateral in connection with their TBA transactions. The required margin could increase the cost of the Funds and add additional complexity for Funds engaging in these transactions.

Mortgage Dollar Rolls. In a mortgage dollar roll transaction, one party sells mortgage-backed securities, principally Mortgage TBAs, for delivery in the current month and simultaneously contracts with the same counterparty to repurchase similar (same type, coupon and maturity) but not identical securities on a specified future date. Economically offsetting TBA positions with the same agency, coupon, and maturity date, are generally permitted to be netted if the short position settles on the same date or before the long position. During the period between the sale and repurchase in a mortgage dollar roll transaction, a Fund will not be entitled to receive interest and principal payments on securities sold. Losses may arise due to changes in the value of the securities or if the counterparty does not perform under the terms of the agreement. If the counterparty files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, a Fund’s right to repurchase or sell securities may be limited. Mortgage dollar rolls may be subject to leverage risks. In addition, mortgage dollar rolls may increase interest rate risk and result in an increased portfolio turnover rate which increases costs and may increase taxable gains. The benefits of mortgage dollar rolls may depend upon a Fund’s Adviser’s ability to predict mortgage prepayments and interest rates. There is no assurance that mortgage dollar rolls can be successfully employed. For purposes of diversification and investment limitations, mortgage dollar rolls are considered to be mortgage-backed securities.

Stripped Mortgage-Backed Securities. Stripped Mortgage-Backed Securities (“SMBS”) are derivative multi-class mortgage securities issued outside the REMIC or CMO structure. SMBS may be issued by agencies or instrumentalities of the U.S. Government, or by private originators of, or investors in, mortgage loans, including savings and loan associations, mortgage banks, commercial banks, investment banks and special purpose entities. SMBS are usually structured with two classes that receive different proportions of the interest and principal distributions from a pool of mortgage assets. A common type of SMBS will have one class receiving all of the interest from the mortgage assets (“IOs”), while the other class will receive all of the principal (“POs”). Mortgage IOs receive monthly interest payments based upon a notional amount that declines over time as a result of the normal monthly amortization and unscheduled prepayments of principal on the associated mortgage POs.

In addition to the risks applicable to Mortgage-Related Securities in general, SMBS are subject to the following additional risks:

Prepayment/Interest Rate Sensitivity. SMBS are extremely sensitive to changes in prepayments and interest rates. Even though these securities have been guaranteed by an agency or instrumentality of the U.S. government, under certain interest rate or prepayment rate scenarios, the Funds may lose money on investments in SMBS.

Part II - 36

Interest Only SMBS. Changes in prepayment rates can cause the return on investment in IOs to be highly volatile. Under extremely high prepayment conditions, IOs can incur significant losses.

Principal Only SMBS. POs are bought at a discount to the ultimate principal repayment value. The rate of return on a PO will vary with prepayments, rising as prepayments increase and falling as prepayments decrease. Generally, the market value of these securities is unusually volatile in response to changes in interest rates.

Yield Characteristics. Although SMBS may yield more than other mortgage-backed securities, their cash flow patterns are more volatile and there is a greater risk that any premium paid will not be fully recouped. A Fund’s Adviser will seek to manage these risks (and potential benefits) by investing in a variety of such securities and by using certain analytical and hedging techniques.

Privately Issued Mortgage-Related Securities. Non-government issuers, including commercial banks, savings and loan institutions, private mortgage insurance companies, mortgage bankers and other secondary market issuers, also create pass-through pools of conventional residential mortgage loans. Such issuers may be the originators and/or servicers of the underlying mortgage loans as well as the guarantors of the mortgage-related securities. Mortgage 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 or agency guarantees of payments in the former pools. However, timely payment of interest and principal of these pools may be supported by various forms of insurance of guarantees, including individual loan, title, pool and hazard insurance and letters of credit, which may be issued by governmental entities or private insurers. Such insurance and guarantees and the creditworthiness of the issuers thereof may be considered in determining whether a mortgage-related security meets a Fund’s investment quality standards. There can be no assurance that insurers or guarantors can meet their obligations under the insurance policies or guarantee arrangements.

Privately issued mortgage-related securities may not be subject to the same underwriting requirements for the underlying mortgages that are applicable to those mortgage-related securities that have a government or government-sponsored entity guarantee. As a result, the mortgage loans underlying privately issued mortgage-related securities may have less favorable collateral, credit risk or other underwriting characteristics than government or government-sponsored mortgage-related securities and have wider variances in a number of terms including interest rate, term, size, purpose and borrower characteristics. Mortgage pools underlying privately issued mortgage-related securities may include second mortgages, high loan-to-value ratio mortgages where a government or government-sponsored entity guarantee is not available. The coupon rates and maturities of the underlying mortgage loans in a privately-issued mortgage-related securities pool may vary to a greater extent than those included in a government guaranteed pool, and the pool may include subprime mortgage loans. Subprime loans are loans made to borrowers with low credit ratings or other factors that increase the risk of default. For these reasons, the loans underlying these securities historically have had higher default rates than those loans that meet government underwriting requirements.

The risk of non-payment is greater for mortgage-related securities that are backed by loans that were originated under weak underwriting standards, including loans made to borrowers with limited means to make repayment. A level of risk exists for all loans, although, historically, the poorest performing loans have been those classified as subprime. Other types of privately issued mortgage-related securities, such as those classified as pay-option adjustable rate or Alt-A, at times, have also performed poorly. Even loans classified as prime may experience higher levels of delinquencies and defaults. A decline in real property values across the U.S. may exacerbate the level of losses that investors in privately issued mortgage-related securities have experienced. Market factors that may adversely affect mortgage loan repayment include adverse economic conditions, unemployment, a decline in the value of real property, or an increase in interest rates.

Privately issued mortgage-related securities are not traded on an exchange and there may be a limited market for these securities, especially when there is a perceived weakness in the mortgage and real estate market sectors. Without an active trading market, mortgage-related securities held in a Fund’s portfolio may be particularly difficult to value because of the complexities involved in assessing the value of the underlying mortgage loans.

The Funds may purchase privately issued mortgage-related securities that are originated, packaged and serviced by third party entities. Such third parties may have obligations to investors of mortgage-related securities under trust or other documents. For example, loan servicers may be liable to the holder of the mortgage-related securities for negligence or willful misconduct in carrying out their servicing duties. Similarly, loan originators/servicers may make certain representations and warranties regarding the quality

Part II - 37

of the mortgages and properties underlying a mortgage-related security, which if untrue, may trigger an obligation of the originator/service or its affiliates, as applicable, to repurchase the mortgages from the issuing trust. Although trust and other documents may include protective provisions, investors in certain mortgage-related securities have had limited success in enforcing terms or such agreements against such third parties. In addition, such third parties may have had interests that are in conflict with those holders of the mortgage-related.

For example, to the extent third party entities are involved in litigation relating to the securities, actions may be taken by such third parties that are adverse to the interest of the holders of the mortgage-related securities, including the Funds, such as withholding proceeds due to holders of the mortgage-related securities, to cover legal or related costs. Any such action could result in losses to the Funds.

In addition, certain mortgage-related securities, which may include loans that originally qualified under standards established by government-sponsored entities (for example, certain REMICs that include Fannie Mae mortgages), are not considered as government securities for purposes of a Fund’s investment strategies or policies and may be subject to the same risks as privately-issued mortgage-related securities. There is no government or government-sponsored guarantee for such privately issued investments.

Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loans. Certain Funds may invest in adjustable rate mortgage loans (“ARMs”). ARMs eligible for inclusion in a mortgage pool will generally provide for a fixed initial mortgage interest rate for a specified period of time. Thereafter, the interest rates (the “Mortgage Interest Rates”) may be subject to periodic adjustment based on changes in the applicable index rate (the “Index Rate”). The adjusted rate would be equal to the Index Rate plus a gross margin, which is a fixed percentage spread over the Index Rate established for each ARM at the time of its origination.

Adjustable interest rates can cause payment increases that some borrowers may find difficult to make. However, certain ARMs may provide that the Mortgage Interest Rate may not be adjusted to a rate above an applicable lifetime maximum rate or below an applicable lifetime minimum rate for such ARM. Certain ARMs may also be subject to limitations on the maximum amount by which the Mortgage Interest Rate may adjust for any single adjustment period (the “Maximum Adjustment”). Other ARMs (“Negatively Amortizing ARMs”) may provide instead or as well for limitations on changes in the monthly payment on such ARMs. Limitations on monthly payments can result in monthly payments which are greater or less than the amount necessary to amortize a Negatively Amortizing ARM by its maturity at the Mortgage Interest Rate in effect in any particular month. In the event that a monthly payment is not sufficient to pay the interest accruing on a Negatively Amortizing ARM, any such excess interest is added to the principal balance of the loan, causing negative amortization and will be repaid through future monthly payments. It may take borrowers under Negatively Amortizing ARMs longer periods of time to achieve equity and may increase the likelihood of default by such borrowers. In the event that a monthly payment exceeds the sum of the interest accrued at the applicable Mortgage Interest Rate and the principal payment which would have been necessary to amortize the outstanding principal balance over the remaining term of the loan, the excess (or “accelerated amortization”) further reduces the principal balance of the ARM. Negatively Amortizing ARMs do not provide for the extension of their original maturity to accommodate changes in their Mortgage Interest Rate. As a result, unless there is a periodic recalculation of the payment amount (which there generally is), the final payment may be substantially larger than the other payments. These limitations on periodic increases in interest rates and on changes in monthly payments protect borrowers from unlimited interest rate and payment increases.

Certain ARMs may provide for periodic adjustments of scheduled payments in order to amortize fully the mortgage loan by its stated maturity. Other ARMs may permit their stated maturity to be extended or shortened in accordance with the portion of each payment that is applied to interest as affected by the periodic interest rate adjustments.

There are two main categories of indices which provide the basis for rate adjustments on ARMs: those based on U.S. Treasury securities and those derived from a calculated measure such as a cost of funds index or a moving average of mortgage rates. Commonly utilized indices include the one-year, three-year and five-year constant maturity Treasury bill rates, the three-month Treasury bill rate, the 180-day Treasury bill rate, rates on longer-term Treasury securities, the 11th District Federal Home Loan Bank Cost of Funds, the National Median Cost of Funds, the one-month, three-month, six-month or one-year LIBOR, the prime rate of a specific bank, or commercial paper rates. Some indices, such as the one-year constant maturity Treasury rate, closely mirror changes in market interest rate levels. Others, such as the 11th District Federal Home Loan Bank Cost of Funds index, tend to lag behind changes in market rate

Part II - 38

levels and tend to be somewhat less volatile. The degree of volatility in the market value of a Fund’s portfolio and therefore in the NAV of the Fund’s shares will be a function of the length of the interest rate reset periods and the degree of volatility in the applicable indices.

In general, changes in both prepayment rates and interest rates will change the yield on Mortgage-Backed Securities. The rate of principal prepayments with respect to ARMs has fluctuated in recent years. As is the case with fixed mortgage loans, ARMs may be subject to a greater rate of principal prepayments in a declining interest rate environment. For example, if prevailing interest rates fall significantly, ARMs could be subject to higher prepayment rates than if prevailing interest rates remain constant because the availability of fixed rate mortgage loans at competitive interest rates may encourage mortgagors to refinance their ARMs to “lock-in” a lower fixed interest rate. Conversely, if prevailing interest rates rise significantly, ARMs may prepay at lower rates than if prevailing rates remain at or below those in effect at the time such ARMs were originated. As with fixed rate mortgages, there can be no certainty as to the rate of prepayments on the ARMs in either stable or changing interest rate environments. In addition, there can be no certainty as to whether increases in the principal balances of the ARMs due to the addition of deferred interest may result in a default rate higher than that on ARMs that do not provide for negative amortization.

Other factors affecting prepayment of ARMs include changes in mortgagors’ housing needs, job transfers, unemployment, mortgagors’ net equity in the mortgage properties and servicing decisions.

Risk Factors of Mortgage-Related Securities. The following is a summary of certain risks associated with Mortgage-Related Securities:

Guarantor Risk. There can be no assurance that the U.S. government would provide financial support to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac if necessary in the future. Although certain mortgage-related securities are guaranteed by a third party or otherwise similarly secured, the market value of the security, which may fluctuate, is not so secured.

Interest Rate Sensitivity. If a Fund purchases a mortgage-related security at a premium, that portion may be lost if there is a decline in the market value of the security whether resulting from changes in interest rates or prepayments in the underlying mortgage collateral. As with other interest-bearing securities, the prices of such securities are inversely affected by changes in interest rates. Although the value of a mortgage-related security may decline when interest rates rise, the converse is not necessarily true since in periods of declining interest rates the mortgages underlying the securities are prone to prepayment. For this and other reasons, a mortgage-related security’s stated maturity may be shortened by unscheduled prepayments on the underlying mortgages and, therefore, it is not possible to predict accurately the security’s return to a Fund. In addition, regular payments received in respect of mortgage-related securities include both interest and principal. No assurance can be given as to the return a Fund will receive when these amounts are reinvested.

Liquidity. The liquidity of certain mortgage-backed securities varies by type of security; at certain times a Fund may encounter difficulty in disposing of such investments. In the past, in stressed markets, certain types of mortgage-backed securities suffered periods of illiquidity when disfavored by the market. It is possible that a Fund may be unable to sell a mortgage-backed security at a desirable time or at the value the Fund has placed on the investment.

Market Value. The market value of a Fund’s adjustable rate Mortgage-Backed Securities may be adversely affected if interest rates increase faster than the rates of interest payable on such securities or by the adjustable rate mortgage loans underlying such securities. Furthermore, adjustable rate Mortgage-Backed Securities or the mortgage loans underlying such securities may contain provisions limiting the amount by which rates may be adjusted upward and downward and may limit the amount by which monthly payments may be increased or decreased to accommodate upward and downward adjustments in interest rates. When the market value of the properties underlying the Mortgage-Backed Securities suffer broad declines on a regional or national level, the values of the corresponding Mortgage-Backed Securities or Mortgage-Backed Securities as a whole, may be adversely affected as well.

Prepayments. Adjustable rate Mortgage-Backed Securities have less potential for capital appreciation than fixed rate Mortgage-Backed Securities because their coupon rates will decline in response to market interest rate declines. The market value of fixed rate Mortgage-Backed Securities may be adversely affected as a result of increases in interest rates and, because of the risk of unscheduled principal prepayments, may benefit less than other fixed rate securities of similar maturity from declining interest rates. Finally, to the extent Mortgage-Backed Securities are purchased at a premium, mortgage foreclosures and unscheduled principal prepayments may result in some loss of a Fund’s principal

Part II - 39

investment to the extent of the premium paid. On the other hand, if such securities are purchased at a discount, both a scheduled payment of principal and an unscheduled prepayment of principal will increase current and total returns and will accelerate the recognition of income.

Yield Characteristics. The yield characteristics of Mortgage-Backed Securities differ from those of traditional fixed income securities. The major differences typically include more frequent interest and principal payments, usually monthly, and the possibility that prepayments of principal may be made at any time. Prepayment rates are influenced by changes in current interest rates and a variety of economic, geographic, social and other factors and cannot be predicted with certainty. As with fixed rate mortgage loans, adjustable rate mortgage loans may be subject to a greater prepayment rate in a declining interest rate environment. The yields to maturity of the Mortgage-Backed Securities in which the Funds invest will be affected by the actual rate of payment (including prepayments) of principal of the underlying mortgage loans. The mortgage loans underlying such securities generally may be prepaid at any time without penalty. In a fluctuating interest rate environment, a predominant factor affecting the prepayment rate on a pool of mortgage loans is the difference between the interest rates on the mortgage loans and prevailing mortgage loan interest rates taking into account the cost of any refinancing. In general, if mortgage loan interest rates fall sufficiently below the interest rates on fixed rate mortgage loans underlying mortgage pass-through securities, the rate of prepayment would be expected to increase. Conversely, if mortgage loan interest rates rise above the interest rates on the fixed rate mortgage loans underlying the mortgage pass-through securities, the rate of prepayment may be expected to decrease.

Recent Events Regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Securities. On September 6, 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. As the conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles, powers and privileges of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and of any stockholder, officer or director of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with respect to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the assets of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In connection with the conservatorship, the U.S. Treasury entered into a Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) with each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pursuant to which the U.S. Treasury agreed to purchase 1,000,000 shares of senior preferred stock with an initial liquidation preference of $1 billion and obtained warrants and options to for the purchase of common stock of each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Under the SPAs as currently amended, the U.S. Treasury has pledged to provide financial support to a GSE in any quarter in which the GSE has a net worth deficit as defined in the respective SPA. The SPAs contain various covenants that severely limit each enterprise’s operations.

The conditions attached to entering into the SPAs place significant restrictions on the activities of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae must obtain the consent of the U.S. Treasury to, among other things, (i) make any payment to purchase or redeem its capital stock or pay any dividend other than in respect of the senior preferred stock, (ii) issue capital stock of any kind, (iii) terminate the conservatorship of the FHFA except in connection with a receivership, or (iv) increase its debt beyond certain specified levels. Under a letter agreement entered into in January 2021, each enterprise is permitted to retain earnings and raise private capital to enable them to meet the minimum capital requirements under the FHFA’s Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework (“ERCF”). The letter agreement also permits each enterprise to develop a plan to exit conservatorship, but may not do so until litigation involving the conservatorships is resolved and each enterprise has the minimum capital required by FHFA’s rules. In addition, significant restrictions are placed on the maximum size of each of Freddie Mac’s and Fannie Mae’s respective portfolios of mortgages and MBS, and the purchase agreements entered into by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae provide that the maximum size of their portfolios of these assets must decrease by a specified percentage each year. The future status and role of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae could be impacted by (among other things) the actions taken and restrictions placed on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae by the FHFA in its role as conservator, the restrictions placed on Freddie Mac’s and Fannie Mae’s operations and activities as a result of the senior preferred stock investment made by the U.S. Treasury, market responses to developments at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and future legislative and regulatory action that alters the operations, ownership, structure and/or mission of these institutions, each of which may, in turn, impact the value of, and cash flows on, any MBS guaranteed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, including any such MBS held by a Fund.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are continuing to operate as going concerns while in conservatorship and each remains liable for all of its obligations, including its guaranty obligations, associated with its mortgage-backed securities. The SPAs are intended to enhance each of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s ability to meet its obligations. The FHFA has indicated that the conservatorship of each enterprise will end when the director of FHFA determines that FHFA’s plan to restore the enterprise to a safe and solvent condition has been completed. Under amendments to the ERCF, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have

Part II - 40

published capital disclosures which provide additional information about their capital position and capital requirements on a quarterly basis since the first quarter of 2023 and delivered their first capital plans to FHFA in May 2023. The FHFA finalized amendments to certain provisions of the ERCF in November 2023 that modify various capital requirements for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Should Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be taken out of conservatorship, it is unclear whether the U.S. Treasury would continue to enforce its rights or perform its obligations under the SPAs. It is also unclear how the capital structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be constructed post-conservatorship, and what effects, if any, the privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have on their creditworthiness and guarantees of certain mortgage-backed securities. The ERCF requires Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, upon exit from conservatorship, to maintain higher levels of capital than prior to conservatorship to satisfy their risk-based capital requirements, leverage ratio requirements and prescribed buffer amounts. Accordingly, should the FHFA take Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out of conservatorship, there could be an adverse impact on the value of their securities, which could cause a Fund’s investments to lose value.

Risks Related to GSE Credit Risk Transfer Securities and GSE Credit-Linked Notes. GSE Credit risk transfer securities are general obligations issued by a GSE and are unguaranteed and unsecured. GSE Credit-linked notes are similar, except that the notes are issued by an SPV, rather than by a GSE, and the obligations of the SPV are collateralized by the note proceeds as invested by the SPV, which are invested in cash or short-term securities. Although both GSE credit risk transfer securities and GSE credit-linked notes are unguaranteed, obligations of an SPV are also not backstopped by the Department of Treasury or an obligation of a GSE.

The risks associated with these investments are different than the risks associated with an investment in mortgage-backed securities issued by GSEs or a private issuer. For example, in the event of a default on the obligations to noteholders, noteholders such as the Funds have no recourse to the underlying mortgage loans. In addition, some or all of the mortgage default risk associated with the underlying mortgage loans is transferred to noteholders. As a result, there can be no assurance that losses will not occur on an investment in GSE credit risk transfer securities or GSE credit-linked notes and Funds investing in these instruments may be exposed to the risk of loss on their investment. In addition, these investments are subject to prepayment risk.

In the case of GSE credit-linked notes, if a GSE fails to make a premium or other required payment to the SPV, the SPV may be unable to pay a noteholder the entire amount of interest or principal payable to the noteholder. In the event of a default on the obligations to noteholders, the SPV’s principal and interest payment obligations to noteholders will be subordinated to the SPV’s credit protection payment obligations to the GSE. Payment of such amounts to noteholders depends on the cash available in the trust from the loan proceeds and the GSE’s premium payments.

Any income earned by the SPV on investments of loan proceeds is expected to be less than the interest payments amounts to be paid to noteholders of the GSE credit-linked notes and interest payments to noteholders will be reduced if the GSE fails to make premium payments to the SPV. An SPV’s investment of loan proceeds may also be concentrated in the securities of a few number of issuers. A noteholder bears any investment losses on the allocable portion of the loan proceeds.

An SPV that issues GSE credit-linked notes may fall within the definition of a “commodity pool” under the Commodity Exchange Act. Certain GSEs are not registered as commodity pool operators in reliance on CFTC no-action relief, subject to certain conditions similar to those under CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3), which respect to the operation of the SPV. If the GSE or SPV fails to comply with such conditions, noteholders that are investment vehicles, such as the Funds, may need to register as a CPO, which could cause such a Fund to incur increased costs.

Municipal Securities

Municipal Securities are issued to obtain funds for a wide variety of reasons. For example, municipal securities may be issued to obtain funding for the construction of a wide range of public facilities such as:

bridges;

highways;

roads;

schools;

waterworks and sewer systems; and

Part II - 41

other utilities.

Other public purposes for which Municipal Securities may be issued include:

refunding outstanding obligations;

obtaining funds for general operating expenses; and

obtaining funds to lend to other public institutions and facilities.

In addition, certain debt obligations known as “Private Activity Bonds” may be issued by or on behalf of municipalities and public authorities to obtain funds to provide:

water, sewage and solid waste facilities;

qualified residential rental projects;

certain local electric, gas and other heating or cooling facilities;

qualified hazardous waste facilities;

high-speed intercity rail facilities;

governmentally-owned airports, docks and wharves and mass transportation facilities;

qualified mortgages;

student loan and redevelopment bonds; and

bonds used for certain organizations exempt from Federal income taxation.

Certain debt obligations known as “Industrial Development Bonds” under prior Federal tax law may have been issued by or on behalf of public authorities to obtain funds to provide:

privately operated housing facilities;

sports facilities;

industrial parks;

convention or trade show facilities;

airport, mass transit, port or parking facilities;

air or water pollution control facilities;

sewage or solid waste disposal facilities; and

facilities for water supply.

Other private activity bonds and industrial development bonds issued to fund the construction, improvement, equipment or repair of privately-operated industrial, distribution, research, or commercial facilities may also be Municipal Securities, however the size of such issues is limited under current and prior Federal tax law. The aggregate amount of most private activity bonds and industrial development bonds is limited (except in the case of certain types of facilities) under Federal tax law by an annual “volume cap.” The volume cap limits the annual aggregate principal amount of such obligations issued by or on behalf of all governmental instrumentalities in the state.

The two principal classifications of Municipal Securities consist of “general obligation” and “limited” (or revenue) issues. General obligation bonds are obligations involving the credit of an issuer possessing taxing power and are payable from the issuer’s general unrestricted revenues and not from any particular fund or source. The characteristics and method of enforcement of general obligation bonds vary according to the law applicable to the particular issuer, and payment may be dependent upon appropriation by the issuer’s legislative body. Limited obligation bonds are payable only from the revenues derived from a particular facility or class of facilities or, in some cases, from the proceeds of a special excise or other specific revenue source. Private activity bonds and industrial development bonds generally are revenue bonds and thus not payable from the unrestricted revenues of the issuer. The credit and quality of such bonds is generally related to the credit of the bank selected to provide the letter of credit underlying the bond. Payment of principal of and interest on industrial development revenue bonds is the responsibility of the corporate user (and any guarantor).

Part II - 42

The Funds may also acquire “moral obligation” issues, which are normally issued by special purpose authorities, and in other tax-exempt investments including pollution control bonds and tax-exempt commercial paper. Each Fund that may purchase municipal bonds may purchase:

Short-term tax-exempt General Obligations Notes;

Tax Anticipation Notes;

Bond Anticipation Notes;

Revenue Anticipation Notes;

Project Notes; and

Other forms of short-term tax-exempt loans.

Such notes are issued with a short-term maturity in anticipation of the receipt of tax funds, the proceeds of bond placements, or other revenues. Project Notes are issued by a state or local housing agency and are sold by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. While the issuing agency has the primary obligation with respect to its Project Notes, they are also secured by the full faith and credit of the U.S. through agreements with the issuing authority which provide that, if required, the Federal government will lend the issuer an amount equal to the principal of and interest on the Project Notes.

There are, of course, variations in the quality of Municipal Securities, both within a particular classification and between classifications. Also, the yields on Municipal Securities depend upon a variety of factors, including:

general money market conditions;

coupon rate;

the financial condition of the issuer;

general conditions of the municipal bond market;

the size of a particular offering;

the maturity of the obligations; and

the rating of the issue.

The ratings of Moody’s and S&P represent their opinions as to the quality of Municipal Securities. However, ratings are general and are not absolute standards of quality. Municipal Securities with the same maturity, interest rate and rating may have different yields while Municipal Securities of the same maturity and interest rate with different ratings may have the same yield. Subsequent to its purchase by a Fund, an issue of Municipal Securities may cease to be rated or its rating may be reduced below the minimum rating required for purchase by the Fund. The Adviser will consider such an event in determining whether a Fund should continue to hold the obligations.

Municipal Securities may include obligations of municipal housing authorities and single-family mortgage revenue bonds. Weaknesses in Federal housing subsidy programs and their administration may result in a decrease of subsidies available for payment of principal and interest on housing authority bonds. Economic developments, including fluctuations in interest rates and increasing construction and operating costs, may also adversely impact revenues of housing authorities. In the case of some housing authorities, inability to obtain additional financing could also reduce revenues available to pay existing obligations.

Single-family mortgage revenue bonds are subject to extraordinary mandatory redemption at par in whole or in part from the proceeds derived from prepayments of underlying mortgage loans and also from the unused proceeds of the issue within a stated period which may be within a year from the date of issue.

Municipal leases are obligations issued by state and local governments or authorities to finance the acquisition of equipment and facilities. They may take the form of a lease, an installment purchase contract, a conditional sales contract, or a participation interest in any of the above.

Premium Securities. During a period of declining interest rates, many Municipal Securities in which the Funds invest likely will bear coupon rates higher than current market rates, regardless of whether the securities were initially purchased at a premium.

Part II - 43

Risk Factors in Municipal Securities. The following is a summary of certain risks associated with Municipal Securities:

Tax Risk. The Code imposes certain continuing requirements on issuers of tax-exempt bonds regarding the use, expenditure and investment of bond proceeds and the payment of rebates to the U.S. Failure by the issuer to comply subsequent to the issuance of tax-exempt bonds with certain of these requirements could cause interest on the bonds to become includable in gross income retroactive to the date of issuance.

Housing Authority Tax Risk. The exclusion from gross income for Federal income tax purposes for certain housing authority bonds depends on qualification under relevant provisions of the Code and on other provisions of Federal law. These provisions of Federal law contain requirements relating to the cost and location of the residences financed with the proceeds of the single-family mortgage bonds and the income levels of tenants of the rental projects financed with the proceeds of the multi-family housing bonds. Typically, the issuers of the bonds, and other parties, including the originators and servicers of the single-family mortgages and the owners of the rental projects financed with the multi-family housing bonds, covenant to meet these requirements. However, there is no assurance that the requirements will be met. If such requirements are not met:

●

the interest on the bonds may become taxable, possibly retroactively from the date of issuance;

●

the value of the bonds may be reduced;

●

you and other Shareholders may be subject to unanticipated tax liabilities;

●

a Fund may be required to sell the bonds at the reduced value;

●

it may be an event of default under the applicable mortgage;

●

the holder may be permitted to accelerate payment of the bond; and

●

the issuer may be required to redeem the bond.

In addition, if the mortgage securing the bonds is insured by the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”), the consent of the FHA may be required before insurance proceeds would become payable.

Information Risk. Information about the financial condition of issuers of Municipal Securities may be less available than that of corporations having a class of securities registered under the SEC.

State and Federal Laws. An issuer’s obligations under its Municipal Securities are subject to the provisions of bankruptcy, insolvency, and other laws affecting the rights and remedies of creditors. These laws may extend the time for payment of principal or interest, or restrict a Fund’s ability to collect payments due on Municipal Securities. In addition, recent amendments to some statutes governing security interests (e.g., Revised Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”)) change the way in which security interests and liens securing Municipal Securities are perfected. These amendments may have an adverse impact on existing Municipal Securities (particularly issues of Municipal Securities that do not have a corporate trustee who is responsible for filing UCC financing statements to continue the security interest or lien).

Litigation and Current Developments. Litigation or other conditions may materially and adversely affect the power or ability of an issuer to meet its obligations for the payment of interest on and principal of its Municipal Securities. Such litigation or conditions may from time to time have the effect of introducing uncertainties in the market for tax-exempt obligations, or may materially affect the credit risk with respect to particular bonds or notes. Adverse economic, business, legal or political developments might affect all or a substantial portion of a Fund’s Municipal Securities in the same manner. Given the recent bankruptcy-type proceedings by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, risks associated with municipal obligations are heightened.

New Legislation. From time to time, proposals have been introduced before Congress for the purpose of restricting or eliminating the federal income tax exemption for interest on tax exempt bonds, and similar proposals may be introduced in the future. The Supreme Court has held that Congress has the constitutional authority to enact such legislation. It is not possible to determine what effect the adoption of such proposals could have on (i) the availability of Municipal Securities for investment by the Funds, and (ii) the value of the investment portfolios of the Funds.

Part II - 44

Limitations on the Use of Municipal Securities. Certain Funds may invest in Municipal Securities if the Adviser determines that such Municipal Securities offer attractive yields. The Funds may invest in Municipal Securities either by purchasing them directly or by purchasing certificates of accrual or similar instruments evidencing direct ownership of interest payments or principal payments, or both, on Municipal Securities, provided that, in the opinion of counsel to the initial seller of each such certificate or instrument, any discount accruing on such certificate or instrument that is purchased at a yield not greater than the coupon rate of interest on the related Municipal Securities will to the same extent as interest on such Municipal Securities be exempt from federal income tax and state income tax (where applicable) and not be treated as a preference item for individuals for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax. The Funds may also invest in Municipal Securities by purchasing from banks participation interests in all or part of specific holdings of Municipal Securities. Such participation interests may be backed in whole or in part by an irrevocable letter of credit or guarantee of the selling bank. The selling bank may receive a fee from a Fund in connection with the arrangement. Each Fund will limit its investment in municipal leases to no more than 5% of its total assets.

Options and Futures Transactions

A Fund may purchase and sell (a) exchange traded and OTC put and call options on securities, on indexes of securities and other types of instruments, and on futures contracts on securities and indexes of securities and other instruments such as interest rate futures and global interest rate futures and (b) futures contracts on securities and other types of instruments and on indexes of securities and other types of instruments. Each of these instruments is a derivative instrument as its value derives from the underlying asset or index.

Subject to its investment objective and policies, a Fund may use futures contracts and options for hedging and risk management purposes and to seek to enhance portfolio performance.

Options and futures contracts may be used to manage a Fund’s exposure to changing interest rates and/or security prices. Some options and futures strategies, including selling futures contracts and buying puts, tend to hedge a Fund’s investments against price fluctuations. Other strategies, including buying futures contracts and buying calls, tend to increase market exposure. Options and futures contracts may be combined with each other or with forward contracts in order to adjust the risk and return characteristics of a Fund’s overall strategy in a manner deemed appropriate by the Fund’s Adviser and consistent with the Fund’s objective and policies. Because combined options positions involve multiple trades, they result in higher transaction costs and may be more difficult to open and close out.

The use of options and futures is a highly specialized activity which involves investment strategies and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions, and there can be no guarantee that their use will increase a Fund’s return. While the use of these instruments by a Fund may reduce certain risks associated with owning its portfolio securities, these techniques themselves entail certain other risks. If a Fund’s Adviser applies a strategy at an inappropriate time or judges market conditions or trends incorrectly, options and futures strategies may lower a Fund’s return. Certain strategies limit a Fund’s possibilities to realize gains, as well as its exposure to losses. A Fund could also experience losses if the prices of its options and futures positions were poorly correlated with its other investments, or if it could not close out its positions because of an illiquid secondary market. In addition, a Fund will incur transaction costs, including trading commissions and option premiums, in connection with its futures and options transactions, and these transactions could significantly increase the Fund’s turnover rate.

Certain Funds are operated by a person that has claimed an exclusion from the definition of the term “commodity pool operator” under the Commodity Exchange Act and, therefore, is not subject to registration or regulation as a commodity pool operator under the Commodity Exchange Act. Certain other Funds may rely on no-action relief issued by the CFTC. For Funds that cannot rely on an exclusion from the definition of commodity pool operator, or no action relief from the CFTC, the Adviser is subject to regulation as a commodity pool operator.

Purchasing Put and Call Options. By purchasing a put option, a Fund obtains the right (but not the obligation) to sell the instrument underlying the option at a fixed strike price. In return for this right, a Fund pays the current market price for the option (known as the option premium). Options have various types of underlying instruments, including specific securities, indexes of securities, indexes of securities prices, and futures contracts. A Fund may terminate its position in a put option it has purchased by allowing it to expire or by exercising the option. A Fund may also close out a put option position by entering into an offsetting transaction, if a liquid market exists. If the option is allowed to expire, a Fund will lose the entire premium it paid. If a Fund exercises a put option on a security, it will sell the instrument

Part II - 45

underlying the option at the strike price. If a Fund exercises an option on an index, settlement is in cash and does not involve the actual purchase or sale of securities. If an option is American style, it may be exercised on any day up to its expiration date. A European style option may be exercised only on its expiration date.

The buyer of a typical put option can expect to realize a gain if the value of the underlying instrument falls substantially. However, if the price of the instrument underlying the option does not fall enough to offset the cost of purchasing the option, a put buyer can expect to suffer a loss (limited to the amount of the premium paid, plus related transaction costs). The market value of an option may be adversely affected if the market for the option is reduced or becomes less liquid. Additionally, the market for an option may be impacted by the availability of additional expiry cycles, which may lead trading volume into contracts closer to expiration.

The features of call options are essentially the same as those of put options, except that the purchaser of a call option obtains the right to purchase, rather than sell, the instrument underlying the option at the option’s strike price. A call buyer typically attempts to participate in potential price increases of the instrument underlying the option with risk limited to the cost of the option if security prices fall. At the same time, the buyer can expect to suffer a loss if security prices do not rise sufficiently to offset the cost of the option.

Selling (Writing) Put and Call Options on Securities. When a Fund writes a put option on a security, it takes the opposite side of the transaction from the option’s purchaser. In return for the receipt of the premium, a Fund assumes the obligation to pay the strike price for the security underlying the option if the other party to the option chooses to exercise it. A Fund may seek to terminate its position in a put option it writes before exercise by purchasing an offsetting option in the market at its current price. If the market is not liquid for a put option a Fund has written, however, it must continue to be prepared to pay the strike price while the option is outstanding, regardless of price changes, and must continue to post margin as discussed below. If the market value of the underlying securities does not move to a level that would make exercise of the option profitable to its holder, the option will generally expire unexercised, and a Fund will realize as profit the premium it received.

If the price of the underlying securities rises, a put writer would generally expect to profit, although its gain would be limited to the amount of the premium it received. If security prices remain the same over time, it is likely that the writer will also profit, because it should be able to close out the option at a lower price. If security prices fall, the put writer would expect to suffer a loss. This loss should be less than the loss from purchasing and holding the underlying security directly, however, because the premium received for writing the option should offset a portion of the decline.

Writing a call option obligates a Fund to sell or deliver the option’s underlying security in return for the strike price upon exercise of the option. The characteristics of writing call options are similar to those of writing put options, except that writing calls generally is a profitable strategy if prices remain the same or fall. Through receipt of the option premium a call writer offsets part of the effect of a price decline. At the same time, because a call writer must be prepared to deliver the underlying instrument in return for the strike price, even if its current value is greater, a call writer gives up some ability to participate in security price increases.

When a Fund writes an exchange traded put or call option on a security, it will be required to deposit cash or securities or a letter of credit as margin and to make mark to market payments of variation margin as the position becomes unprofitable.

Certain Funds will usually sell covered call options or cash-secured put options on securities. A call option is covered if the writer either owns the underlying security (or comparable securities satisfying the cover requirements of the securities exchanges) or has the right to acquire such securities. Alternatively, for risk management purposes, a Fund will segregate or earmark liquid assets (i) in an amount equal to the Fund’s obligation under the contract with respect to call options or (ii) an amount greater of the market value of the instrument underlying the option or the strike price of the contract with respect to call options. A call option is also covered if a Fund (i) acquires a call option on the same security with a strike price equal to or lower than the strike price of the written call or (ii) acquires a call option on the same security with a strike price higher than the strike price of the written call and segregates liquid assets in an amount equal to the difference between the strike price of the two options. As the writer of a covered call option, a Fund foregoes, during the option’s life, the opportunity to profit from increases in the market value of the security covering the call option above the sum of the premium and the strike price of the call, but has retained the risk of loss should the price of the underlying security decline. As a Fund writes covered calls over more of its portfolio, its ability to benefit from capital appreciation becomes more limited. The writer

Part II - 46

of an option has no control over the time when it may be required to fulfill its obligation, but may terminate its position by entering into an offsetting option. Once an option writer has received an exercise notice, it cannot effect an offsetting transaction in order to terminate its obligation under the option and must deliver the underlying security at the exercise price.

A put option is cash-secured if the writer segregates cash, high-grade short-term debt obligations, or other permissible collateral equity to the exercise price. Alternatively, a put option is covered if a Fund (i) acquires a put option on the same security with a strike price equal to or higher than the strike price of written put or (ii) acquires a put option on the same security with a strike price lower than the strike price of the written put and segregates liquid assets in the amount equal to the difference between the strike price of the two options. When a Fund writes cash-secured put options, it bears the risk of loss if the value of the underlying stock declines below the exercise price minus the put premium. If the option is exercised, a Fund could incur a loss if it is required to purchase the stock underlying the put option at a price greater than the market price of the stock at the time of exercise plus the put premium the Fund received when it wrote the option. While a Fund’s potential gain in writing a cash-secured put option is limited to distributions earned on the liquid assets securing the put option plus the premium received from the purchaser of the put option, the Fund risks a loss equal to the entire exercise price of the option minus the put premium.

Engaging in Straddles and Spreads. In a straddle transaction, a Fund either buys a call and a put or sells a call and a put on the same security. In a spread, a Fund purchases and sells a call or a put. A Fund will sell a straddle when the Fund’s Adviser believes the price of a security will be stable. A Fund will receive a premium on the sale of the put and the call. A spread permits a Fund to make a hedged investment that the price of a security will increase or decline.

Options on ETFs and Indexes. Certain Funds may purchase and sell options on securities indexes and other types of indexes. Options on indexes are similar to options on securities, except that the exercise of index options may be settled by cash payments (or in some instances by a futures contract) and does not involve the actual purchase or sale of securities or the instruments in the index. In addition, these options are designed to reflect price fluctuations in a group of securities or instruments or segment of the securities’ or instruments’ market rather than price fluctuations in a single security or instrument. Certain Funds may also purchase and sell options on passively managed ETFs.

The value of a Fund’s options on an underlying ETF or index will fluctuate with changes in the value of the underlying ETF or index, and the value of the underlying ETF or index (the share price, in the case of an ETF, or the cash value of the level of an index) in turn will fluctuate with changes in the market values of the securities held by or included in the underlying ETF or index. The value of options is affected by changes in the value and dividend rates of the securities held by the underlying ETFs or represented in the index underlying the option, changes in interest rates, changes in the actual or perceived volatility of the underlying ETFs or the index and the remaining time to the options’ expiration, as well as trading conditions in the options market.

A Fund, in purchasing or selling index options, is subject to the risk that the value of its portfolio may not change as much as an index because a Fund’s investments generally will not match the composition of an index. Additionally, each of the options exchanges, boards of trade or other trading facilities, can establish limitations governing the maximum number of call or put options on the same underlying ETF or index that may be purchased or written by a single investor, whether acting alone or in concert with others (regardless of whether such options are written on the same or different exchanges or are held or written on one or more accounts or through one or more brokers). As such, the number of options any single Fund can purchase or write may be affected by options already purchased or written by other Funds. Under such limitations, option positions of all investment companies advised by the Adviser may be combined for purposes of these limits, and an exchange may order the liquidation of positions or may impose other sanctions or restrictions. Unlike options on securities, index options are cash settled, or settled with a futures contract in some instances, rather than settled by delivery of the underlying index securities or instruments.

Certain Funds purchase and sell credit options which are options on indexes of derivative instruments such as credit default swap indexes. Like other index options, credit options can be cash settled or settled with a futures contract in some instances. In addition, credit options can also be settled in some instances by delivery of the underlying index instrument. Credit options may be used for a variety of purposes including hedging, risk management such as positioning a portfolio for anticipated volatility or increasing income or gain to a Fund. There is no guarantee that the strategy of using options on indexes or credit options in particular will be successful. A Fund also risks losing all or part of the cash paid for purchasing

Part II - 47

put options. Unusual market conditions or the lack of a ready market for any particular option at a specific time may reduce the effectiveness of a Fund’s option strategies, and for these and other reasons, a Fund’s option strategies may not reduce a Fund’s volatility to the extent desired and could result in losses.

For a number of reasons, if a liquid secondary market does not exist, it might not be possible to effect a closing transaction with respect to a particular option a Fund has previously entered into. When a Fund purchases an OTC option (as defined below), it will be relying on its counterparty to perform its obligations and the Fund may incur additional losses if the counterparty is unable to perform.

Exchange-Traded and OTC Options. All options purchased or sold by a Fund will be traded on a securities exchange or will be purchased or sold by securities dealers (“OTC options”) that meet the Fund’s creditworthiness standards. While exchange-traded options are obligations of the Options Clearing Corporation, in the case of OTC options, a Fund relies on the dealer from which it purchased the option to perform if the option is exercised. Thus, when a Fund purchases an OTC option, it relies on the dealer from which it purchased the option to make or take delivery of the underlying securities. Failure by the dealer to do so would result in the loss of the premium paid by a Fund as well as loss of the expected benefit of the transaction. Accordingly, these OTC options are subject to heightened credit risk, as well as liquidity and valuation risk depending upon the type of OTC options in which a Fund invests.

Futures Contracts. When a Fund purchases a futures contract, it agrees to purchase a specified quantity of an underlying instrument at a specified future date or, in the case of an index futures contract, to make a cash payment based on the value of a securities index. When a Fund sells a futures contract, it agrees to sell a specified quantity of the underlying instrument at a specified future date or, in the case of an index futures contract, to receive a cash payment based on the value of a securities index. The price at which the purchase and sale will take place is fixed when a Fund enters into the contract. Futures can be held until their delivery dates or the position can be (and normally is) closed out before then. There is no assurance, however, that a liquid market will exist when a Fund wishes to close out a particular position.

When a Fund purchases a futures contract, the value of the futures contract tends to increase and decrease in tandem with the value of its underlying instrument. Therefore, purchasing futures contracts will tend to increase a Fund’s exposure to positive and negative price fluctuations in the underlying instrument, much as if it had purchased the underlying instrument directly. When a Fund sells a futures contract, by contrast, the value of its futures position will tend to move in a direction contrary to the value of the underlying instrument. Selling futures contracts, therefore, will tend to offset both positive and negative market price changes, much as if the underlying instrument had been sold.

The purchaser or seller of a futures contract is not required to deliver or pay for the underlying instrument unless the contract is held until the delivery date. However, when a Fund buys or sells a futures contract, it will be required to deposit “initial margin” with a futures commission merchant (“FCM”). Initial margin deposits are typically equal to a small percentage of the contract’s value. If the value of either party’s position declines, that party will be required to make additional “variation margin” payments equal to the change in value on a daily basis.

The party that has a gain may be entitled to receive all or a portion of this amount. A Fund may be obligated to make payments of variation margin at a time when it is disadvantageous to do so. Furthermore, it may not always be possible for a Fund to close out its futures positions. Until it closes out a futures position, a Fund will be obligated to continue to pay variation margin. Initial and variation margin payments do not constitute purchasing on margin for purposes of a Fund’s investment restrictions. In the event of the bankruptcy of an FCM that holds margin on behalf of a Fund, the Fund may be entitled to return of margin owed to it only in proportion to the amount received by the FCM’s other customers, potentially resulting in losses to the Fund.

The Funds only invest in futures contracts on securities to the extent they could invest in the underlying securities directly. Certain Funds may also invest in index futures where the underlying securities or instruments are not available for direct investments by the Funds.

Cash Equitization. The objective where equity futures are used to “equitize” cash is to match the notional value of all futures contracts to a Fund’s cash balance. The notional values of the futures contracts and of the cash are monitored daily. As the cash is invested in securities and/or paid out to participants in redemptions, the Adviser simultaneously adjusts the futures positions. Through such procedures, a Fund not only gains equity exposure from the use of futures, but also benefits from increased flexibility in responding to client cash flow needs. Additionally, because it can be less expensive to trade a list of securities as a package or program trade rather than as a group of individual orders, futures provide a means through which transaction costs can be reduced. Such non-hedging risk management techniques

Part II - 48

involve leverage, and thus present, as do all leveraged transactions, the possibility of losses as well as gains that are greater than if these techniques involved the purchase and sale of the securities themselves rather than their synthetic derivatives.

Options on Futures Contracts. Futures contracts obligate the buyer to take and the seller to make delivery at a future date of a specified quantity of a financial instrument or an amount of cash based on the value of a securities or other index. Currently, futures contracts are available on various types of securities, including but not limited to U.S. Treasury bonds, notes and bills, Eurodollar certificates of deposit and on indexes of securities. Unlike a futures contract, which requires the parties to buy and sell a security or make a cash settlement payment based on changes in a financial instrument or securities or other index on an agreed date, an option on a futures contract entitles its holder to decide on or before a future date whether to enter into such a contract. If the holder decides not to exercise its option, the holder may close out the option position by entering into an offsetting transaction or may decide to let the option expire and forfeit the premium thereon. The purchaser of an option on a futures contract pays a premium for the option but makes no initial margin payments or daily payments of cash in the nature of “variation margin” payments to reflect the change in the value of the underlying contract as does a purchaser or seller of a futures contract. The seller of an option on a futures contract receives the premium paid by the purchaser and may be required to pay initial margin.

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

Correlation of Price Changes. Because there are a limited number of types of exchange-traded options and futures contracts, it is likely that the standardized options and futures contracts available will not match a Fund’s current or anticipated investments exactly. A Fund may invest in options and futures contracts based on securities or instruments with different issuers, maturities, or other characteristics from the securities in which it typically invests, which involves a risk that the options or futures position will not track the performance of a Fund’s other investments.

Options and futures contracts prices can also diverge from the prices of their underlying instruments, even if the underlying instruments match a Fund’s investments well. Options and futures contracts prices are affected by such factors as current and anticipated short term interest rates, changes in volatility of the underlying instrument, and the time remaining until expiration of the contract, which may not affect security prices the same way. Imperfect correlation may also result from differing levels of demand in the options and futures markets and the securities markets, from structural differences in how options and futures and securities are traded, or from imposition of daily price fluctuation limits or trading halts. A Fund may purchase or sell options and futures contracts with a greater or lesser value than the securities it wishes to hedge or intends to purchase in order to attempt to compensate for differences in volatility between the contract and the securities, although this may not be successful in all cases. If price changes in a Fund’s options or futures positions are poorly correlated with its other investments, the positions may fail to produce anticipated gains or result in losses that are not offset by gains in other investments.

Liquidity of Options and Futures Contracts. There is no assurance that a liquid market will exist for any particular option or futures contract at any particular time even if the contract is traded on an exchange. In addition, exchanges may establish daily price fluctuation limits for options and futures contracts and may halt trading if a contract’s price moves up or down more than the limit in a given day. On volatile trading days when the price fluctuation limit is reached or a trading halt is imposed, it may be impossible for a Fund to enter into new positions or close out existing positions. If the market for a contract is not liquid because of price fluctuation limits or otherwise, it could prevent prompt liquidation of unfavorable positions, and could potentially require a Fund to continue to hold a position until delivery or expiration regardless of changes in its value. As a result, a Fund’s access to other assets posted as margin for its options or futures positions could also be impaired. (See “Exchange-Traded and OTC Options” above for a discussion of the liquidity of options not traded on an exchange.)

Part II - 49

Foreign Investment Risk. Certain Funds may buy and sell options on interest rate futures including global interest rate futures in which the reference interest rate is tied to currencies other than the U.S. dollar. Such investments are subject to additional risks including the risks associated with foreign investment and currency risk. See “Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies)” in this SAI Part II.

Position Limits. Futures exchanges can limit the number of futures and options on futures contracts that can be held or controlled by an entity. If an adequate exemption cannot be obtained, a Fund or the Fund’s Adviser may be required to reduce the size of its futures and options positions or may not be able to trade a certain futures or options contract in order to avoid exceeding such limits.

Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”)

Certain of the Funds may invest in equity interests or debt obligations issued by REITs. REITs are pooled investment vehicles which invest primarily in income producing real estate or real estate related loans or interest. REITs are generally classified as equity REITs, mortgage REITs or a combination of equity and mortgage REITs. Equity REITs invest the majority of their assets directly in real property and derive income primarily from the collection of rents. Equity REITs can also realize capital gains by selling property that has appreciated in value. Mortgage REITs invest the majority of their assets in real estate mortgages and derive income from the collection of interest payments. Similar to investment companies, REITs are not taxed on income distributed to shareholders provided they comply with several requirements of the Code. A Fund will indirectly bear its proportionate share of expenses incurred by REITs in which a Fund invests in addition to the expenses incurred directly by a Fund.

Investing in REITs involves certain unique risks in addition to those risks associated with investing in the real estate industry in general. Equity REITs may be affected by changes in the value of the underlying property owned by the REITs, while mortgage REITs may be affected by the quality of any credit extended. REITs are dependent upon management skills and on cash flows, are not diversified, and are subject to default by borrowers and self-liquidation. REITs are also subject to the possibilities of failing to qualify for tax free pass-through of income under the Code and failing to maintain their exemption from registration under the 1940 Act.

REITs (especially mortgage REITs) are also subject to interest rate risks. When interest rates decline, the value of a REIT’s investment in fixed rate obligations can be expected to rise. Conversely, when interest rates rise, the value of a REIT’s investment in fixed rate obligations can be expected to decline. In contrast, as interest rates on adjustable rate mortgage loans are reset periodically, yields on a REIT’s investment in such loans will gradually align themselves to fluctuate less dramatically in response to interest rate fluctuations than would investments in fixed rate obligations.

Investment in REITs involves risks similar to those associated with investing in small capitalization companies. These risks include:

●

limited financial resources;

●

infrequent or limited trading; and

●

more abrupt or erratic price movements than larger company securities.

In addition, small capitalization stocks, such as certain REITs, historically have been more volatile in price than the larger capitalization stocks included in the S&P 500® Index.

Recent Events Relating to the Overall Economy

The U.S. Government, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the SEC, the FDIC and other governmental and regulatory bodies have taken actions to address the 2008-2009 financial crisis and the recent disruption to economies and markets due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These actions included, in part, the enactment by the United States Congress of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was signed into law on July 21, 2010 and imposed a new regulatory framework over the U.S. financial services industry and the consumer credit markets in general, and proposed and final regulations by the SEC. Given the broad scope, sweeping nature, and relatively recent enactment of some of these regulatory measures, the potential impact they could have on securities held by the Funds is unknown. There can be no assurance that these measures will not have an adverse effect on the value or marketability of securities held by the Funds. Furthermore, no assurance can be made that the U.S. Government or any U.S. regulatory body (or other authority or regulatory body) will not continue to take further legislative or regulatory action, and the

Part II - 50

effect of such actions, if taken, cannot be known. However, current efforts by the U.S. Government to reduce the impact of regulations on the U.S. financial services industry could lead to the repeal of certain elements of the regulatory framework.

Additionally, COVID-19 has resulted in a global pandemic and major disruption to economies and markets around the world, including the United States. Financial markets have experienced extreme volatility and severe losses, and trading in many instruments has been disrupted. Liquidity for many instruments has been greatly reduced for periods of time. Some interest rates are very low and in some cases yields are negative. Some sectors of the economy and individual issuers have experienced particularly large losses. These circumstances may continue for an extended period of time, and may continue to affect adversely the value and liquidity of a Fund’s investments. The ultimate economic fallout from the pandemic, and the long-term impact on economies, markets, industries and individual issuers, are not known. Governments and central banks, including the Federal Reserve in the U.S., have taken extraordinary and unprecedented actions to support local and global economies and the financial markets. The impact of these measures, and whether they will be effective to mitigate the economic and market disruption, will not be known for some time.

Derivatives

Under the SEC rule related to the use of derivatives, short sales, reverse repurchase agreements and certain other transactions by registered investment companies. A Fund’s trading of derivatives and other transactions that create future payment or delivery obligations is subject to a value-at-risk (“VaR”) leverage limit and certain derivatives risk management program and reporting requirements. Generally, these requirements apply unless a Fund qualifies as a “limited derivatives user,” as defined in the rule. Under the rule, when a Fund trades reverse repurchase agreements or similar financing transactions, including certain tender option bonds, it needs to aggregate the amount of indebtedness associated with the reverse repurchase agreements or similar financing transactions with the aggregate amount of any other senior securities representing indebtedness when calculating the Fund’s asset coverage ratio or treat all such transactions as derivatives transactions. In addition, under the rule, a Fund is permitted to invest in a security on a when-issued or forward-settling basis, or with a non-standard settlement cycle, and the transaction will be deemed not to involve a senior security under the 1940 Act, provided that (i) the Fund intends to physically settle the transaction and (ii) the transaction will settle within 35 days of its trade date (the “Delayed-Settlement Securities Provision”). A Fund may otherwise engage in such transactions that do not meet the conditions of the Delayed-Settlement Securities Provision so long as the Fund treats any such transaction as a “derivatives transaction” for purposes of compliance with the rule. Furthermore, under the rule, a Fund will be permitted to enter into an unfunded commitment agreement, and such unfunded commitment agreement will not be subject to the asset coverage requirements under the 1940 Act, if the Fund reasonably believes, at the time it enters into such agreement, that it will have sufficient cash and cash equivalents to meet its obligations with respect to all such agreements as they come due. These requirements may limit the ability of a Fund to use derivatives and reverse repurchase agreements and similar financing transactions as part of its investment strategies. These requirements may increase the cost of a Fund’s investments and cost of doing business, which could adversely affect investors.

A Fund’s derivatives and other similar instruments (collectively referred to hereinafter in this section as “derivatives”) have risks, including the imperfect correlation between the value of such instruments and the underlying assets of the applicable Fund, which creates the possibility that the loss on such instruments may be greater than the gain in the value of the underlying assets in the Fund’s portfolio; the loss of principal; the possible default of the other party to the transaction; and illiquidity of the derivative investments. If a counterparty becomes bankrupt or otherwise fails to perform its obligations under a derivative contract due to financial difficulties, the applicable Fund may experience significant delays in obtaining any recovery under the derivative contract in a bankruptcy or other reorganization proceeding. Counterparty risk also includes the risks of having concentrated exposure to a counterparty. In addition, in the event of the insolvency of a counterparty to a derivative transaction, the derivative contract would typically be terminated at its fair market value. If a Fund is owed this fair market value in the termination of the derivative contract and its claim is unsecured, the Fund will be treated as a general creditor of such counterparty, and will not have any claim with respect to the underlying security. Using derivatives is also subject to operational and legal risks. Operational risk generally includes documentation or settlement issues, system failures, inadequate controls and human error. Legal risk generally includes the risk of loss resulting from insufficient or unenforceable contractual documentation or insufficient capacity or authority of a Fund’s counterparty.

Part II - 51

The counterparty risk for cleared derivative transactions is generally lower than for uncleared over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives because generally a clearing organization becomes substituted for each counterparty to a cleared derivative contract and, in effect, guarantees the parties’ performance under the contract as each party to a trade looks only to the clearing house for performance of financial obligations. However, there can be no assurance that the clearing house, or its members, will satisfy its obligations to a Fund.

Certain of the derivatives in which a Fund may invest may, in certain circumstances, give rise to a form of financial leverage, which may magnify the Fund’s gains and losses and the risk of owning such instruments. Like most other investments, derivatives are subject to the risk that the market value of the instrument will change in a way detrimental to a Fund’s interest. The ability to successfully use derivative investments depends on the ability of the Adviser to predict pertinent market movements, which cannot be assured. In addition, amounts paid by a Fund as premiums and cash or other assets held in margin accounts with respect to the Fund’s derivatives would not be available to the Fund for other investment purposes, which may result in lost opportunities for gain.

The use of derivatives may also subject a Fund to liquidity risk which generally refers to risk involving the liquidity demands that derivatives can create to make payments of margin, collateral, or settlement payments to counterparties. Liquidity risk also refers to the risk that a Fund may be required to hold additional cash or sell other investments in order to obtain cash to close out derivatives or meet the liquidity demands noted above. A Fund may have to sell a security at a disadvantageous time or price to meet such obligations.

A Fund may use derivatives for various purposes, including to gain targeted security exposure from its cash position, to manage duration or to gain or adjust sector or yield curve exposure, to hedge various investments, for risk management and to opportunistically enhance the Fund’s returns. Under certain market conditions, a Fund’s use of derivatives for cash management or other investment management purposes could be significant.

Repurchase Agreements

Repurchase agreements may be entered into with brokers, dealers or banks or other entities that meet the Adviser’s credit guidelines. A Fund will enter into repurchase agreements only with member banks of the Federal Reserve System and securities dealers or other entities believed by the Adviser to be creditworthy. The Adviser may consider the collateral received and any applicable guarantees in making its determination. In a repurchase agreement, a Fund buys a security from a seller that has agreed to repurchase the same security at a mutually agreed upon date and price. The resale price normally is in excess of the purchase price, reflecting an agreed upon interest rate. This interest rate is effective for the period of time a Fund is invested in the agreement and is not related to the coupon rate on the underlying security. A repurchase agreement may also be viewed as a fully collateralized loan of money by a Fund to the seller. The maximum maturity permitted for a non- “putable” repurchase agreement will be 190 days. In the case of a tri-party agreement, the maximum notice period permitted for a “putable” or “open” repurchase agreement (i.e., where a Fund has a right to put the repurchase agreement to the counterparty or terminate the transaction at par plus accrued interest at a specified notice period) will be 190 days. The securities which are subject to repurchase agreements, however, may have maturity dates in excess of 190 days from the effective date of the repurchase agreement. In addition, the maturity of a “putable” or “open” repurchase agreement may be in excess of 190 days. A Fund will always receive securities as collateral during the term of the agreement whose market value is at least equal to 100% of the dollar amount invested by the Fund in each agreement plus accrued interest. The repurchase agreements further authorize a Fund to demand additional collateral in the event that the dollar value of the collateral falls below 100%. A Fund will make payment for such securities only upon physical delivery or upon evidence of book entry transfer to the account of the custodian. Repurchase agreements are considered under the 1940 Act to be loans collateralized by the underlying securities.

All of the Funds that are permitted to invest in repurchase agreements may engage in repurchase agreement transactions that are collateralized fully as defined in Rule 5b-3(c)(1) of the 1940 Act, which has the effect of enabling a Fund to look to the collateral, rather than the counterparty, for determining whether its assets are “diversified” for 1940 Act purposes. The Adviser may consider the collateral received and any applicable guarantees in making its determination. Certain Funds may, in addition, engage in repurchase agreement transactions that are collateralized by money market instruments, debt securities, loan participations, equity securities or other securities including securities that are rated below

Part II - 52

investment grade by the requisite NRSROs or unrated securities of comparable quality. For these types of repurchase agreement transactions, the Fund would look to the counterparty, and not the collateral, for determining such diversification.

A repurchase agreement is subject to the risk that the seller may fail to repurchase the security. In the event of default by the seller under a repurchase agreement construed to be a collateralized loan, the underlying securities would not be owned by a Fund, but would only constitute collateral for the seller’s obligation to pay the repurchase price. Therefore, a Fund may suffer time delays and incur costs in connection with the disposition of the collateral. The collateral underlying repurchase agreements may be more susceptible to claims of the seller’s creditors than would be the case with securities owned by a Fund.

Under existing guidance from the SEC, certain Funds may transfer uninvested cash balances into a joint account, along with cash of other Funds and certain other accounts. These balances may be invested in one or more repurchase agreements and/or short-term money market instruments.

In December 2023, the SEC adopted rule amendments providing that any covered clearing agency (“Covered Clearing Agency”) for U.S. Treasury securities require that every direct participant of the Covered Clearing Agency (which generally would be a bank or broker-dealer) submit for clearance and settlement all eligible secondary market transactions in U.S. Treasury securities to which it is a counterparty. The clearing mandate includes in its scope all repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements of such direct participants collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities (collectively, “Treasury repo transactions”) of a type accepted for clearing by a registered Covered Clearing Agency, including both bilateral Treasury repo transactions and triparty Treasury repo transactions where a bank agent provides custody, collateral management and settlement services.

The Treasury repo transactions of registered funds with any direct participants of a Covered Clearing Agency will be subject to the mandatory clearing requirement. Currently, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) is the only Covered Clearing Agency for U.S. Treasury securities. Since the typical repurchase transaction counterparties of the Funds are direct participants of FICC, this means that eligible secondary market transactions by the Funds will be required to be cleared. FICC currently operates a “Sponsored Program” for clearing of Treasury repo transactions pursuant to which a registered fund may enter into a clearing arrangement with a “sponsoring member” bank or broker-dealer that is a direct participant of FICC as a “sponsored member” of FICC.

Compliance with the clearing mandate for Treasury repo transactions is scheduled to be required by June 30, 2026. The clearing mandate is expected to result in each Fund being required to clear all or substantially all of its Treasury repo transactions as of the compliance date, and may necessitate expenditures by each Fund that trades in Treasury repo transactions in connection with entering into new agreements with sponsoring members and taking other actions to comply with the new requirements. The Adviser will monitor developments in the Treasury repo transactions market as the implementation period progresses.

Reverse Repurchase Agreements

In a reverse repurchase agreement, a Fund sells a security and agrees to repurchase the same security at a mutually agreed upon date and price reflecting the interest rate effective for the term of the agreement. For purposes of the 1940 Act, a reverse repurchase agreement is considered borrowing by a Fund and, therefore, a form of leverage. Leverage may cause any gains or losses for a Fund to be magnified. The Funds will invest the proceeds of borrowings under reverse repurchase agreements. In addition, except for liquidity purposes, a Fund will enter into a reverse repurchase agreement only when the expected return from the investment of the proceeds is greater than the expense of the transaction. A Fund will not invest the proceeds of a reverse repurchase agreement for a period which exceeds the duration of the reverse repurchase agreement. A Fund would be required to pay interest on amounts obtained through reverse repurchase agreements, which are considered borrowings under federal securities laws. The repurchase price is generally equal to the original sales price plus interest. Reverse repurchase agreements are usually for seven days or less and cannot be repaid prior to their expiration dates. Reverse repurchase agreements involve the risk that the market value of the portfolio securities transferred may decline below the price at which a Fund is obliged to purchase the securities.

Securities Lending

The following will apply to certain Funds if and when approved by the Board. This SAI will not be updated to reflect any such Board approval.

Part II - 53

To generate additional income, certain Funds may lend up to 33 1∕3% of such Fund’s total assets pursuant to agreements requiring that the loan be continuously secured by collateral equal to at least 100% of the market value plus accrued interest on the securities lent. The Funds use Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) as their securities lending agent. Pursuant to a Third Party Securities Lending Rider to the Custody Agreement between JPMorgan Chase Bank, Citibank and the Funds (the “Third Party Securities Lending Rider”) approved by the Board of Trustees, Citibank compensates JPMorgan Chase Bank for certain custodial services provided by JPMorgan Chase Bank in connection with the Funds’ use of Citibank as securities lending agent.

Pursuant to the Global Securities Lending Agency Agreement approved by the Board of Trustees between Citibank and the Trust on behalf of the applicable Funds, severally and not jointly (the “Securities Lending Agency Agreement”), collateral for loans will consist only of cash. The Funds receive payments from the borrowers equivalent to the dividends and interest that would have been earned on the securities lent. For loans secured by cash, the Funds seek to earn interest on the investment of cash collateral in investments permitted by the Securities Lending Agency Agreement. Under the Securities Lending Agency Agreement, cash collateral may be invested in IM Shares of JPMorgan Prime Money Market Fund, JPMorgan U.S. Government Money Market Fund, and Class Agency SL Shares of the JPMorgan Securities Lending Money Market Fund.

Under the Securities Lending Agency Agreement, Citibank marks to market the loaned securities on a daily basis. In the event the cash received from the borrower is less than 102% of the value of the loaned securities (105% for non-U.S. securities), Citibank requests additional cash from the borrower so as to maintain a collateralization level of at least 102% of the value of the loaned securities plus accrued interest (105% for non-U.S. securities) subject to certain de minimis amounts. Loans are subject to termination by a Fund or the borrower at any time, and are therefore not considered to be illiquid investments. A Fund does not have the right to vote proxies for securities on loans over a record date of such proxies. However, if the Adviser has notice of the proxy in advance of the record date, an Adviser may terminate a loan in advance of the record date if the Adviser determines the vote is considered material with respect to an investment such as when the Adviser believes that its participation in the vote is necessary to preserve the long-term value of a Fund’s investment or in highly contested issues for which the Adviser believes its vote is important to the Fund’s strategy. In determining whether a vote is material, the Adviser’s determination is informed by its responsibility to act in a Fund’s best interests. In most cases, the Adviser anticipates that the potential long-term value to a Fund of voting shares would not be material and would therefore not justify forgoing the potential revenue the loan may provide the Fund. This may result in proxies being voted by the borrower of the security in a way that would be contrary with how the Adviser would vote if the security had not been lent including for certain Funds that have strategies to invest in companies that the Adviser believes are sustainable leaders based on the Adviser’s sustainability criteria or that meet certain other ESG criteria. However, in certain instances, the Adviser may determine, in its independent business judgment, that the value of voting outweighs the securities lending revenue loss to a Fund and would therefore recall shares to be voted in those instances.

Securities lending involves counterparty risk, including the risk that the loaned securities may not be returned or returned in a timely manner and/or a loss of rights in the collateral if the borrower or the lending agent defaults or fails financially. This risk is increased when a Fund’s loans are concentrated with a single or limited number of borrowers. The earnings on the collateral invested may not be sufficient to pay fees incurred in connection with the loan. Also, the principal value of the collateral invested may decline and may not be sufficient to pay back the borrower for the amount of collateral posted. There are no limits on the number of borrowers a Fund may use and a Fund may lend securities to only one or a small group of borrowers. In addition, loans may be made to affiliates of Citibank. Funds participating in securities lending bear the risk of loss in connection with investments of the cash collateral received from the borrowers, which do not trigger additional collateral requirements from the borrower.

To the extent that the value or return of a Fund’s investments of the cash collateral declines below the amount owed to a borrower, the Fund may incur losses that exceed the amount it earned on lending the security. In situations where the Adviser does not believe that it is prudent to sell the cash collateral investments in the market, a Fund may borrow money to repay the borrower the amount of cash collateral owed to the borrower upon return of the loaned securities. This will result in financial leverage, which may cause a Fund to be more volatile because financial leverage tends to exaggerate the effect of any increase or decrease in the value of the Fund’s portfolio securities.

Part II - 54

Short Selling

In short selling transactions, a Fund sells a security it does not own in anticipation of a decline in the market value of the security. To complete the transaction, a Fund must borrow the security to make delivery to the buyer. A Fund is obligated to replace the security borrowed by purchasing it subsequently at the market price at the time of replacement. The price at such time may be more or less than the price at which the security was sold by a Fund, which may result in a loss or gain, respectively. Unlike taking a long position in a security by purchasing the security, where potential losses are limited to the purchase price, short sales have no cap on maximum losses, and gains are limited to the price of the security at the time of the short sale.

Short sales of forward commitments and derivatives do not involve borrowing a security. These types of short sales may include futures, options, contracts for differences, forward contracts on financial instruments and options such as contracts, credit linked instruments, and swap contracts.

A Fund may not always be able to borrow a security it wants to sell short. A Fund also may be unable to close out an established short position at an acceptable price and may have to sell long positions at disadvantageous times to cover its short positions. The value of your investment in a Fund will fluctuate in response to movements in the market. Fund performance also will depend on the effectiveness of the Adviser’s research and the management team’s investment decisions. The SEC and financial industry regulatory authorities in other countries may impose prohibitions, restrictions or other regulatory requirements on short sales, which could inhibit the ability of the Adviser to sell securities short on behalf of a Fund. For example, in September 2008, in response to spreading turmoil in the financial markets, the SEC temporarily banned short selling in the stocks of numerous financial services companies, and also promulgated new disclosure requirements with respect to short positions held by investment managers. The SEC’s temporary ban on short selling of such stocks has since expired, but should similar restrictions and/or additional disclosure requirements be promulgated, especially if market turmoil occurs, a Fund may be forced to cover short positions more quickly than otherwise intended and may suffer losses as a result. Such restrictions may also adversely affect the ability of a Fund (especially if a Fund utilizes short selling as a significant portion of its investment strategy) to execute its investment strategies generally.

Short sales also involve other costs. A Fund must repay to the lender an amount equal to any dividends or interest that accrues while the loan is outstanding. To borrow the security, a Fund may be required to pay a premium. A Fund also will incur transaction costs in effecting short sales. The amount of any ultimate gain for a Fund resulting from a short sale will be decreased and the amount of any ultimate loss will be increased by the amount of premiums, interest or expenses a Fund may be required to pay in connection with the short sale. Realized gains from short sales are typically treated as short-term gains/losses.

Certain of a Fund’s service providers may have agreed to waive fees and reimburse expenses to limit the Fund’s operating expenses in the amount and for the time period specified in the Fund’s prospectuses. The expense limitation does not include certain expenses including, to the extent indicated in a Fund’s prospectuses, dividend and interest expense on short sales. In calculating the interest expense on short sales for purposes of this exclusion, a Fund will recognize all economic elements of interest costs, including premium and discount adjustments.

Short-Term Funding Agreements

Short-term funding agreements issued by insurance companies are sometimes referred to as Guaranteed Investment Contracts (“GICs”), while those issued by banks are referred to as Bank Investment Contracts (“BICs”). Pursuant to such agreements, a Fund makes cash contributions to a deposit account at a bank or insurance company. The bank or insurance company then credits to a Fund on a monthly basis guaranteed interest at either a fixed, variable or floating rate. These contracts are general obligations of the issuing bank or insurance company (although they may be the obligations of an insurance company separate account) and are paid from the general assets of the issuing entity.

Generally, there is no active secondary market in short-term funding agreements. Therefore, short-term funding agreements may be considered by a Fund to be illiquid investments.

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies

A Fund may invest in stocks, warrants, rights, debt and other securities of special purpose acquisition companies (“SPACs”) or similar special purpose entities in a private placement transaction or as part of a public offering. A SPAC is a publicly traded company that raises investment capital for the purpose of acquiring or merging with an existing company. The shares of a SPAC are typically issued in “units.” Units

Part II - 55

include one share of common stock and one right or warrant (or partial right or warrant) conveying the right to purchase additional shares of common stock. At a specified time, the rights and warrants may be separated from the common stock at the election of the holder, after which each security typically is freely tradeable. An alternative to private companies making an initial public offering (“IPO”) can be combining with a SPAC, which permits the private company to go public by taking the SPAC’s place on an exchange. Until an acquisition or merger is completed, a SPAC generally invests its assets, less a portion retained to cover expenses, in U.S. government securities, money market securities and cash and does not typically pay dividends in respect of its common stock. In addition, a Fund may elect not to participate in a proposed SPAC transaction or may be required to divest its interests in the SPAC due to regulatory or other considerations. As a result, it is possible that an investment in a SPAC may lose value.

If an acquisition or merger that meets the requirements of the SPAC is not completed within a pre-established period of time (typically, two years), the funds invested in the SPAC (less any permitted expenses and any losses experienced by the SPAC) are returned to its shareholders, unless shareholders approve alternative option. Any warrants or other rights with respect to a SPAC held by a Fund may expire worthless or may be repurchased or retired by the SPAC.

Because SPACs and similar entities are blank check companies and do not have any operating history or ongoing business other than seeking acquisitions, the value of their securities is particularly dependent on the ability of the SPAC’s management to identify a merger target and complete an acquisition. Some SPACs pursue acquisitions only within certain industries or regions, which may increase the volatility of their prices and the risks associated with these investments. In addition, the securities issued by a SPAC may be classified as illiquid and/or be subject to restrictions on resale, which may be for an extended time, and may only be traded in the over-the-counter market. If there is no market for the shares of the SPAC or only a thinly traded market for shares or interests in the SPAC develops, a Fund may not be able to sell its interest in a SPAC or to sell its interest only at a price below what the Fund believes is the SPAC interest’s value. If not subject to a restriction on resale, a Fund may sell its investments in a SPAC at any time, including before, at or after the time of an acquisition or merger.

An investment in a SPAC may be diluted by additional, later offerings of securities by the SPAC or by other investors exercising existing rights to purchase securities of the SPAC. Generally, SPACs provide the opportunity for common shareholders to have some or all of their shares of common stock redeemed by the SPAC at or around the time of a proposed acquisition or merger. An investment in a SPAC is subject to the risks that any proposed acquisition or merger may not obtain the requisite approval of SPAC shareholders or that an acquisition or merger may prove unsuccessful and lose value. An investment in a SPAC is also subject to the risk that a significant portion of the funds raised by the SPAC may be expended during the search for a target acquisition or merger. The values of investments in SPACs may be highly volatile and may depreciate over time.

In addition, investments in SPACs may be subject to the risks of investing in an IPO. These risks include risks associated with companies that have little or no operating history as public companies, unseasoned trading and small number of shares available for trading and limited information about the issuer. Additionally, investments in SPACs may be subject to the risks inherent in those sectors of the market where these new issuers operate. The market for IPO issuers may be volatile, and share prices of newly-public companies have fluctuated significantly over short periods of time. Although some IPOs may produce high, double-digit returns, such returns are highly unusual and may not be sustainable.

Structured Investments

A structured investment is a security having a return tied to an underlying index or other security or asset class. Structured investments generally are individually negotiated agreements and may be traded over-the-counter. Structured investments are organized and operated to restructure the investment characteristics of the underlying security. This restructuring involves the deposit with or purchase by an entity, such as a corporation or trust, or specified instruments (such as commercial bank loans) and the issuance by that entity or one or more classes of securities (“structured securities”) backed by, or representing interests in, the underlying instruments. The cash flow on the underlying instruments may be apportioned among the newly issued structured securities to create securities with different investment characteristics, such as varying maturities, payment priorities and interest rate provisions, and the extent of such payments made with respect to structured securities is dependent on the extent of the cash flow on the underlying instruments. Because structured securities typically involve no credit enhancement, their credit risk generally will be equivalent to that of the underlying instruments. Investments in structured securities are generally of a class of structured securities that is either subordinated or unsubordinated to the right of payment of another class. Subordinated structured securities typically have higher yields and present

Part II - 56

greater risks than unsubordinated structured securities. Structured instruments include structured notes. In addition to the risks applicable to investments in structured investments and debt securities in general, structured notes bear the risk that the issuer may not be required to pay interest on the structured note if the index rate rises above or falls below a certain level. Structured securities are typically sold in private placement transactions, and there currently is no active trading market for structured securities. Investments in government and government-related restructured debt instruments are subject to special risks, including the inability or unwillingness to repay principal and interest, requests to reschedule or restructure outstanding debt and requests to extend additional loan amounts. Structured investments include a wide variety of instruments including, without limitation, CDOs, credit linked notes, and participation notes and participatory notes. Additional information including risk information is included under Asset-Backed Securities.

Credit Linked Notes. Certain Funds may invest in structured instruments known as credit linked securities or credit linked notes (“CLNs”). CLNs are typically issued by a limited purpose trust or other vehicle (the “CLN trust”) that, in turn, invests in a derivative or basket of derivatives instruments, such as credit default swaps, interest rate swaps and/or other securities, in order to provide exposure to certain high yield, sovereign debt, emerging markets, or other fixed income markets. Generally, investments in CLNs represent the right to receive periodic income payments (in the form of distributions) and payment of principal at the end of the term of the CLN. However, these payments are conditioned on the CLN trust’s receipt of payments from, and the CLN trust’s potential obligations, to the counterparties to the derivative instruments and other securities in which the CLN trust invests. For example, the CLN trust may sell one or more credit default swaps, under which the CLN trust would receive a stream of payments over the term of the swap agreements provided that no event of default has occurred with respect to the referenced debt obligation upon which the swap is based. If a default were to occur, the stream of payments may stop and the CLN trust would be obligated to pay the counterparty the par (or other agreed upon value) of the referenced debt obligation. This, in turn, would reduce the amount of income and principal that a Fund would receive as an investor in the CLN trust.

Certain Funds may enter into CLNs structured as “First-to-Default” CLNs. In a First-to-Default CLN, the CLN trust enters into a credit default swap on a portfolio of a specified number of individual securities pursuant to which the CLN trust sells protection to a counterparty. The CLN trust uses the proceeds of issuing investments in the CLN trust to purchase securities, which are selected by the counterparty and the total return of which is paid to the counterparty. Upon the occurrence of a default or credit event involving any one of the individual securities, the credit default swaps terminate and a Fund’s investment in the CLN trust is redeemed for an amount equal to “par” minus the amount paid to the counterparty under the credit default swap.

Certain Funds may also enter in CLNs to gain access to sovereign debt and securities in emerging market particularly in markets where the Fund is not able to purchase securities directly due to domicile restrictions or tax restrictions or tariffs. In such an instance, the issuer of the CLN may purchase the reference security directly and/or gain exposure through a credit default swap or other derivative.

A Fund’s investments in CLNs is subject to the risks associated with the underlying reference obligations and derivative instruments, including, among others, credit risk, default or similar event risk, counterparty risk, interest rate risk, leverage risk and management risk.

Equity-Linked Notes. Certain Funds may invest in structured investments known as equity-linked notes (“ELNs”). ELNs are hybrid derivative-type instruments that are designed to combine the characteristics of one or more reference securities (e.g., a single stock, a stock index or a basket of stocks (“underlying securities”)) and a related equity derivative. ELNs are structured as notes that are issued by counterparties, including banks, broker-dealers or their affiliates, and are designed to offer a return linked to the underlying securities within the ELN. ELNs can provide a Fund with an efficient investment tool that may be less expensive than investing directly in the underlying securities and the related equity derivative.

Generally, when purchasing an ELN, a Fund pays the counterparty the current value of the underlying securities plus a commission. Upon the maturity of the note, a Fund generally receives the par value of the note plus a return based on the appreciation of the underlying securities. If the underlying securities have

Part II - 57

depreciated in value or if their price fluctuates outside of a preset range, depending on the type of ELN in which a Fund invested, the Fund may receive only the principal amount of the note, or may lose the principal invested in the ELN entirely.

ELNs are available with an assortment of features, such as periodic coupon payments (e.g., monthly, quarterly or semiannually), varied participation rates (the rate at which a Fund participates in the appreciation of the underlying securities), limitations on the appreciation potential of the underlying securities by a maximum payment or call right, and different protection levels on a Fund’s principal investment. In addition, when the underlying securities are foreign securities or indices, an ELN may be priced with or without currency exposure. A Fund may engage in all types of ELNs, including those that: (1) provide for protection of the Fund’s principal in exchange for limited participation in the appreciation of the underlying securities, and (2) do not provide for such protection and subject the Fund to the risk of loss of the Fund’s principal investment.

Investing in ELNs may be more costly to a Fund than if the Fund had invested in the underlying instruments directly. Investments in ELNs often have risks similar to the underlying instruments, which include market risk and, as applicable, foreign securities and currency risk. In addition, since ELNs are in note form, ELNs are also subject to certain debt securities risks, such as credit or counterparty risk. Should the prices of the underlying instruments move in an unexpected manner, a Fund may not achieve the anticipated benefits of an investment in an ELN, and may realize losses, which could be significant and could include the entire principal investment. Investments in ELNs are also subject to liquidity risk, which may make ELNs difficult to sell and value. A lack of liquidity may also cause the value of the ELN to decline. In addition, ELNs may exhibit price behavior that does not correlate with the underlying securities.

ELN investments are subject to the risk that issuers and/or counterparties will fail to make payments when due or default completely. Prices of these investments may be adversely affected if any of the issuers or counterparties it is invested in are subject to an actual or perceived deterioration in their credit quality.

If the ELN is held to maturity, the issuer would pay to the purchaser the underlying instrument’s value at maturity with any necessary adjustments. The holder of an ELN that is linked to a particular underlying security or instrument may be entitled to receive dividends paid in connection with that underlying equity security, but typically does not receive voting rights as it would if it directly owned the underlying equity security. In addition, there can be no assurance that there will be a trading market for an ELN or that the trading price of the ELN will equal the underlying value of the instruments that it seeks to replicate. Unlike a direct investment in equity securities, ELNs typically involve a term or expiration date, potentially increasing a Fund’s turnover rate, transaction costs and tax liability.

Participation Notes and Participatory Notes. Certain Funds may invest in instruments that have similar economic characteristics to equity securities, such as participation notes (also known as participatory notes (“P-notes”)) or other structured instruments that may be developed from time to time (“structured instruments”). Structured instruments are notes that are issued by banks, broker-dealers or their affiliates and are designed to offer a return linked to a particular underlying equity or market.

If the structured instrument were held to maturity, the issuer would pay to the purchaser the underlying instrument’s value at maturity with any necessary adjustments. The holder of a structured instrument that is linked to a particular underlying security or instrument may be entitled to receive dividends paid in connection with that underlying security or instrument, but typically does not receive voting rights as it would if it directly owned the underlying security or instrument. Structured instruments have transaction costs. In addition, there can be no assurance that there will be a trading market for a structured instrument or that the trading price of a structured instrument will equal the underlying value of the security, instrument or market that it seeks to replicate. Unlike a direct investment in equity securities, structured instruments typically involve a term or expiration date, potentially increasing a Fund’s turnover rate, transaction costs and tax liability.

Due to transfer restrictions, the secondary markets on which a structured instrument is traded may be less liquid than the market for other securities, or may be completely illiquid, which may expose a Fund to risks of mispricing or improper valuation. Structured instruments typically constitute general unsecured contractual obligations of the banks, broker-dealers or their relevant affiliates that issue them, which subjects a Fund to counterparty risk (and this risk may be amplified if the Fund purchases structured instruments from only a small number of issuers). Structured instruments also have the same risks associated with a direct investment in the underlying securities, instruments or markets that they seek to replicate.

Part II - 58

Swaps and Related Swap Products

Swap transactions may include, but are not limited to, interest rate swaps, currency swaps, cross-currency interest rate swaps, forward rate agreements, contracts for differences, total return swaps, index swaps, basket swaps, specific security swaps, fixed income sectors swaps, commodity swaps, asset-backed swaps (ABX), commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) and indexes of CMBS (CMBX), credit default swaps, interest rate caps, price lock swaps, floors and collars and swaptions (collectively defined as “swap transactions”).

A Fund may enter into swap transactions for any legal purpose consistent with its investment objective and policies, such as for the purpose of attempting to obtain or preserve a particular return or spread at a lower cost than obtaining that return or spread through purchases and/or sales of instruments in cash markets, to protect against currency fluctuations, to protect against any increase in the price of securities a Fund anticipates purchasing at a later date, or to gain exposure to certain markets in the most economical way possible.

Swap agreements are two-party contracts entered into primarily by institutional counterparties for periods ranging from a few weeks to several years. They may be bilaterally negotiated between the two parties (referred to as OTC swaps) or traded over an exchange. In a standard swap transaction, two parties agree to exchange the returns (or differentials in rates of return) that would be earned or realized on specified notional investments or instruments. The gross returns to be exchanged or “swapped” between the parties are calculated by reference to a “notional amount,” i.e., the return on or increase in value of a particular dollar amount invested at a particular interest rate, in a particular foreign currency or commodity, or in a “basket” of securities representing a particular index. The purchaser of an interest rate cap or floor, upon payment of a fee, has the right to receive payments (and the seller of the cap or floor is obligated to make payments) to the extent a specified interest rate exceeds (in the case of a cap) or is less than (in the case of a floor) a specified level over a specified period of time or at specified dates. The purchaser of an interest rate collar, upon payment of a fee, has the right to receive payments (and the seller of the collar is obligated to make payments) to the extent that a specified interest rate falls outside an agreed upon range over a specified period of time or at specified dates. The purchaser of an option on an interest rate swap, also known as a “swaption,” upon payment of a fee (either at the time of purchase or in the form of higher payments or lower receipts within an interest rate swap transaction) has the right, but not the obligation, to initiate a new swap transaction of a pre-specified notional amount with pre-specified terms with the seller of the swaption as the counterparty.

The “notional amount” of a swap transaction is the agreed upon basis for calculating the payments that the parties have agreed to exchange. For example, one swap counterparty may agree to pay a floating rate of interest (e.g., 3 month LIBOR) calculated based on a $10 million notional amount on a quarterly basis in exchange for receipt of payments calculated based on the same notional amount and a fixed rate of interest on a semi-annual basis. In the event a Fund is obligated to make payments more frequently than it receives payments from the other party, it will incur incremental credit exposure to that swap counterparty. This risk may be mitigated somewhat by the use of swap agreements which call for a net payment to be made by the party with the larger payment obligation when the obligations of the parties fall due on the same date. Under most swap agreements entered into by a Fund, payments by the parties will be exchanged on a “net basis,” and a Fund will receive or pay, as the case may be, only the net amount of the two payments.

The amount of a Fund’s potential gain or loss on any swap transaction is not subject to any fixed limit. Nor is there any fixed limit on a Fund’s potential loss if it sells a cap or collar. If a Fund buys a cap, floor or collar, however, the Fund’s potential loss is limited to the amount of the fee that it has paid. When measured against the initial amount of cash required to initiate the transaction, which is typically zero in the case of most conventional swap transactions, swaps, caps, floors and collars tend to be more volatile than many other types of instruments.

The use of swap transactions, caps, floors and collars involves investment techniques and risks that are different from those associated with portfolio security transactions. If a Fund’s Adviser is incorrect in its forecasts of market values, interest rates, and other applicable factors, the investment performance of the Fund will be less favorable than if these techniques had not been used. These instruments are typically not traded on exchanges. Accordingly, there is a risk that the other party to certain of these instruments will not perform its obligations to a Fund or that a Fund may be unable to enter into offsetting positions to terminate its exposure or liquidate its position under certain of these instruments when it wishes to do so. Such occurrences could result in losses to a Fund. A Fund’s Adviser will consider such risks and will enter into swap and other derivatives transactions only when it believes that the risks are not unreasonable.

Part II - 59

A Fund will not enter into any swap transaction, cap, floor, or collar, unless the counterparty to the transaction is deemed creditworthy by the Fund’s Adviser. If a counterparty defaults, a Fund may have contractual remedies pursuant to the agreements related to the transaction. The swap markets in which many types of swap transactions are traded have grown substantially in recent years, with a large number of banks and investment banking firms acting both as principals and as agents utilizing standardized swap documentation. As a result, the markets for certain types of swaps (e.g., interest rate swaps) have become relatively liquid. The markets for some types of caps, floors and collars are less liquid.

The liquidity of swap transactions, caps, floors and collars will be as set forth in guidelines established by a Fund’s Adviser and approved by the Trustees which are based on various factors, including: (1) the availability of dealer quotations and the estimated transaction volume for the instrument, (2) the number of dealers and end users for the instrument in the marketplace, (3) the level of market making by dealers in the type of instrument, (4) the nature of the instrument (including any right of a party to terminate it on demand) and (5) the nature of the marketplace for trades (including the ability to assign or offset a Fund’s rights and obligations relating to the instrument). Such determination will govern whether the instrument will be deemed within the applicable liquidity restriction on investments in securities that are not readily marketable.

During the term of a swap, cap, floor or collar, changes in the value of the instrument are recognized as unrealized gains or losses by marking to market to reflect the market value of the instrument. When the instrument is terminated, a Fund will record a realized gain or loss equal to the difference, if any, between the proceeds from (or cost of) the closing transaction and a Fund’s basis in the contract.

The federal income tax treatment with respect to swap transactions, caps, floors, and collars may impose limitations on the extent to which a Fund may engage in such transactions.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, certain swaps that were historically traded OTC must now be traded on an exchange or facility regulated by the CFTC and/or centrally cleared (central clearing interposes a central clearing house to each participant’s swap). Exchange trading and central clearing are intended to reduce counterparty credit risk and increase liquidity and transparency, but they do not make swap transactions risk-free. Moving trading to an exchange-type system may increase market transparency and liquidity but may require Funds to incur increased expenses to access the same types of cleared and uncleared swaps. Moreover, depending on the size of a Fund and other factors, the margin required under the clearinghouse rules and by a clearing member may be in excess of the collateral required to be posted by the Fund to support its obligations under a similar uncleared swap. But applicable regulators have also adopted rules imposing margin requirements, including minimums, on uncleared swaps, which may result in a Fund and its counterparties posting higher margin amounts for uncleared swaps as well. Recently adopted rules also require centralized reporting of detailed information about many types of cleared and uncleared swaps. Swaps data reporting may result in greater market transparency, but may subject a Fund to additional administrative burdens, and the safeguards established to protect trader anonymity may not function as expected. Implementing these new exchange trading, central clearing, margin and data reporting regulations may increase a Fund’s cost of hedging risk and, as a result, may affect returns to Fund investors.

Credit Default Swaps. As described above, swap agreements are two party contracts entered into primarily by institutional investors for periods ranging from a few weeks to more than one year. In the case of a credit default swap (“CDS”), the contract gives one party (the buyer) the right to recoup the economic value of a decline in the value of debt securities of the reference issuer if the credit event (a downgrade or default) occurs. This value is obtained by delivering a debt security of the reference issuer to the party in return for a previously agreed payment from the other party (frequently, the par value of the debt security). CDS include credit default swaps, which are contracts on individual securities, and credit default swap indices (“CDX”), which are contracts on baskets or indices of securities.

Credit default swaps may require initial premium (discount) payments as well as periodic payments (receipts) related to the interest leg of the swap or to the default of a reference obligation.

If a Fund is a seller of protection under a CDS contract, the Fund would be required to pay the par (or other agreed upon) value of a referenced debt obligation to the counterparty in the event of a default or other credit event by the reference issuer, such as a U.S. or foreign corporate issuer, with respect to such debt obligations. In return, a Fund would receive from the counterparty a periodic stream of payments over the term of the contract provided that no event of default has occurred. If no default occurs, a Fund would keep the stream of payments and would have no payment obligations. As the seller, a Fund would be subject to investment exposure on the notional amount of the swap.

Part II - 60

If a Fund is a buyer of protection under a CDS contract, the Fund would have the right to deliver a referenced debt obligation and receive the par (or other agreed-upon) value of such debt obligation from the counterparty in the event of a default or other credit event (such as a downgrade in credit rating) by the reference issuer, such as a U.S. or foreign corporation, with respect to its debt obligations. In return, a Fund would pay the counterparty a periodic stream of payments over the term of the contract provided that no event of default has occurred. If no default occurs, the counterparty would keep the stream of payments and would have no further obligations to a Fund.

The use of CDSs, like all swap agreements, is subject to certain risks. If a counterparty’s creditworthiness declines, the value of the swap would likely decline. Moreover, there is no guarantee that a Fund could eliminate its exposure under an outstanding swap agreement by entering into an offsetting swap agreement with the same or another party. In addition to general market risks, CDSs involve liquidity, credit and counterparty risks. The recent increase in corporate defaults further raises these liquidity and credit risks, increasing the possibility that sellers will not have sufficient funds to make payments. As unregulated instruments, CDSs are difficult to value and are therefore susceptible to liquidity and credit risks. Counterparty risks also stem from the lack of regulation of CDSs. Collateral posting requirements are individually negotiated between counterparties and there is no regulatory requirement concerning the amount of collateral that a counterparty must post to secure its obligations under a CDS. Because they are unregulated, there is no requirement that parties to a contract be informed in advance when a CDS is sold. As a result, investors may have difficulty identifying the party responsible for payment of their claims.

If a counterparty’s credit becomes significantly impaired, multiple requests for collateral posting in a short period of time could increase the risk that a Fund may not receive adequate collateral. There is no readily available market for trading out of CDS contracts. In order to eliminate a position it has taken in a CDS, a Fund must terminate the existing CDS contract or enter into an offsetting trade. A Fund may only exit its obligations under a CDS contract by terminating the contract and paying applicable breakage fees, which could result in additional losses to the Fund. Furthermore, the cost of entering into an offsetting CDS position could cause a Fund to incur losses.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, certain CDS indices are subject to mandatory central cleaning and exchange trading, which may reduce counterparty credit risk and increase liquidity compared to other credit default swap or CDS index transactions.

Synthetic Variable Rate Instruments

Synthetic variable rate instruments generally involve the deposit of a long-term tax exempt bond in a custody or trust arrangement and the creation of a mechanism to adjust the long-term interest rate on the bond to a variable short-term rate and a right (subject to certain conditions) on the part of the purchaser to tender it periodically to a third party at par. A Fund’s Adviser reviews the structure of synthetic variable rate instruments to identify credit and liquidity risks (including the conditions under which the right to tender the instrument would no longer be available) and will monitor those risks. In the event that the right to tender the instrument is no longer available, the risk to a Fund will be that of holding the long-term bond. In the case of some types of instruments credit enhancement is not provided, and if certain events occur, which may include (a) default in the payment of principal or interest on the underlying bond, (b) downgrading of the bond below investment grade or (c) a loss of the bond’s tax exempt status, then the put will terminate and the risk to a Fund will be that of holding a long-term bond.

Treasury Receipts

A Fund may purchase interests in separately traded interest and principal component parts of U.S. Treasury obligations that are issued by banks or brokerage firms and are created by depositing U.S. Treasury notes and U.S. Treasury bonds into a special account at a custodian bank. Receipts include Treasury Receipts (“TRs”), Treasury Investment Growth Receipts (“TIGRs”), and Certificates of Accrual on Treasury Securities (“CATS”). Receipts in which an entity other than the government separates the interest and principal components are not considered government securities unless such securities are issued through the Treasury Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal of Securities (“STRIPS”) program.

Part II - 61

Trust Preferred Securities

Certain Funds may purchase trust preferred securities, also known as “trust preferreds,” which are preferred stocks issued by a special purpose trust subsidiary backed by subordinated debt of the corporate parent. An issuer creates trust preferred securities by creating a trust and issuing debt to the trust. The trust in turn issues trust preferred securities. Trust preferred securities are hybrid securities with characteristics of both subordinated debt and preferred stock. Such characteristics include long maturities (typically 30 years or more), early redemption by the issuer, periodic fixed or variable interest payments, and maturities at face value. In addition, trust preferred securities issued by a bank holding company may allow deferral of interest payments for up to 5 years. Holders of trust preferred securities have limited voting rights to control the activities of the trust and no voting rights with respect to the parent company.

U.S. Government Obligations

U.S. government obligations may include direct obligations of the U.S. Treasury, including Treasury bills, notes and bonds, all of which are backed as to principal and interest payments by the full faith and credit of the U.S., and separately traded principal and interest component parts of such obligations that are transferable through the Federal book-entry system known as STRIPS and Coupons Under Book Entry Safekeeping (“CUBES”). The Funds may also invest in TIPS. U.S. government obligations are subject to market risk, interest rate risk and credit risk.

The principal and interest components of U.S. Treasury bonds with remaining maturities of longer than ten years are eligible to be traded independently under the STRIPS program. Under the STRIPS program, the principal and interest components are separately issued by the U.S. Treasury at the request of depository financial institutions, which then trade the component parts separately. The interest component of STRIPS may be more volatile than that of U.S. Treasury bills with comparable maturities.

Other obligations include those issued or guaranteed by U.S. government agencies, GSEs or instrumentalities. These obligations may or may not be backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. Securities which are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. include obligations of the Government National Mortgage Association, the Farmers Home Administration, and the Export-Import Bank. In the case of securities not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S., the Funds must look principally to the federal agency issuing or guaranteeing the obligation for ultimate repayment and may not be able to assert a claim against the U.S. itself in the event the agency or instrumentality does not meet its commitments. Securities in which the Funds may invest that are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. include, but are not limited to: (i) obligations of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Federal Home Loan Banks and the U.S. Postal Service, each of which has the right to borrow from the U.S. Treasury to meet its obligations; (ii) securities issued by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which are supported only by the credit of such securities, but for which the Secretary of the Treasury has discretionary authority to purchase limited amounts of the agency’s obligations; and (iii) obligations of the Federal Farm Credit System and the Student Loan Marketing Association, each of whose obligations may be satisfied only by the individual credits of the issuing agency.

The total public debt of the United States and other countries around the globe as a percent of gross domestic product has grown rapidly since the beginning of the 2008 financial downturn and has accelerated in connection with the U.S. government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although high debt levels do not necessarily indicate or cause economic problems, they may create certain systemic risks if sound debt management practices are not implemented. A high national debt level may increase market pressures to meet government funding needs, which may drive debt cost higher and cause a country to sell additional debt, thereby increasing refinancing risk. A high national debt also raises concerns that a government will not be able to make principal or interest payments when they are due. Unsustainable debt levels can cause devaluations of currency, prevent a government from implementing effective counter-cyclical fiscal policy in economic downturns, and contribute to market volatility. In addition, the high and rising national debt may adversely impact the U.S. economy and securities in which a Fund may invest. From time to time, uncertainty regarding the status of negotiations in the U.S. government to increase the statutory debt ceiling could: increase the risk that the U.S. government may default on payments on certain U.S. government securities; cause the credit rating of the U.S. government to be downgraded or increase volatility in both stock and bond markets; result in higher interest rates; reduce prices of U.S. Treasury securities; and/or increase the costs of certain kinds of debt.

Part II - 62

In the past, U.S. sovereign credit has experienced downgrades and there can be no guarantee that it will not experience further downgrades in the future by rating agencies. The market prices and yields of securities supported by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government may be adversely affected by a rating agency’s decision to downgrade the sovereign credit rating of the United States.

When-Issued Securities, Delayed Delivery Securities and Forward Commitments

Securities may be purchased on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis. For example, delivery of and payment for these securities can take place a month or more after the date of the purchase commitment. The purchase price and the interest rate payable, if any, on the securities are fixed on the purchase commitment date or at the time the settlement date is fixed. The value of such securities is subject to market fluctuation, and for money market instruments and other fixed income securities, no interest accrues to a Fund until settlement takes place. At the time a Fund makes the commitment to purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis, it will record the transaction, reflect the value each day of such securities in determining its NAV and, if applicable, calculate the maturity for the purposes of average maturity from that date. At the time of settlement, a when-issued security may be valued at less than the purchase price. If a Fund chooses to dispose of the right to acquire a when-issued security prior to its acquisition, it could, as with the disposition of any other portfolio obligation, incur a gain or loss due to market fluctuation. Also, a Fund may be disadvantaged if the other party to the transaction defaults.

Forward Commitments. Securities may be purchased for delivery at a future date, which may increase their overall investment exposure and involves a risk of loss if the value of the securities declines prior to the settlement date. In order to invest a Fund’s assets immediately, while awaiting delivery of securities purchased on a forward commitment basis, short-term obligations that offer same-day settlement and earnings will normally be purchased.

Purchases of securities on a forward commitment basis may involve more risk than other types of purchases. Securities purchased on a forward commitment basis and the securities held in the respective Fund’s portfolio are subject to changes in value based upon the public’s perception of the issuer and changes, real or anticipated, in the level of interest rates. Purchasing securities on a forward commitment basis can involve the risk that the yields available in the market when the delivery takes place may actually be higher or lower than those obtained in the transaction itself. On the settlement date of the forward commitment transaction, the respective Fund will meet its obligations from then-available cash flow, sale of securities reserved for payment of the commitment, sale of other securities or, although it would not normally expect to do so, from sale of the forward commitment securities themselves (which may have a value greater or lesser than such Fund’s payment obligations). The sale of securities to meet such obligations may result in the realization of capital gains or losses. Purchasing securities on a forward commitment basis can also involve the risk of default by the other party on its obligation, delaying or preventing a Fund from recovering the collateral or completing the transaction.

To the extent a Fund engages in forward commitment transactions, it will do so for the purpose of acquiring securities consistent with its investment objective and policies and not for the purpose of investment leverage.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING FUND INVESTMENT PRACTICES

ESG Integration

Certain Funds disclose in their prospectuses that the adviser integrates financially material environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) factors as part of the Fund’s investment process (“ESG Integration”). ESG Integration is the systematic inclusion of ESG issues in investment analysis and investment decisions. ESG Integration does not change a Fund’s investment objective, exclude specific types of companies or constrain a Fund’s investable universe. Environmental issues are defined as issues related to the quality and function of the natural environment and natural systems. Some examples include greenhouse gas emissions, climate change resilience, pollution (air, water, noise, and light), biodiversity/habitat protection and waste management. Social issues are defined as issues related to the rights, wellbeing and interests of people and communities. Some examples include workplace safety, cybersecurity and data privacy, human rights, local stakeholder relationships, and discrimination prevention. Governance issues are issues related to the way companies are managed and overseen. Some examples include independence of chair/board, fiduciary duty, board diversity, executive compensation and bribery and corruption. These examples of ESG issues are provided for illustrative purposes only and are not exhaustive. In addition, as ESG Integration focuses on financial materiality, not all ESG factors are relevant to a particular investment, asset class, or Fund.

Part II - 63

ESG Integration for a Fund is dependent upon the availability of sufficient ESG information on the Fund’s investment universe. In addition, in order for a Fund to be considered ESG integrated, JPMIM requires: (1) portfolio management teams to consider proprietary research on the financial materiality of ESG issues on the Fund’s investments; (2) documentation of the adviser’s research views and methodology throughout the investment process; and (3) appropriate monitoring of ESG considerations in ongoing risk management and portfolio monitoring. ESG determinations may not be conclusive and securities of companies /issuers may be purchased and retained, without limit, by the adviser regardless of potential ESG impact. The impact of ESG Integration on a Fund’s performance is not specifically measurable as investment decisions are discretionary regardless of ESG considerations.

Investments in the Asia Pacific Region

The economies in the Asia Pacific region are in all stages of economic development and may be intertwined. The small size of securities markets and the low trading volume in some countries in the Asia Pacific region may lead to a lack of liquidity. The share prices of companies in the region tend to be volatile and there is a significant possibility of loss. Many of the countries in the region are developing, both politically and economically, and as a result companies in the region may be subject to risks like nationalization or other forms of government interference, and/or may be heavily reliant on only a few industries or commodities. Investments in the region may also be subject to currency risks, such as restrictions on the flow of money in and out of the country, extreme volatility relative to the U.S. dollar, and devaluation, all of which could decrease the value of a Fund.

Investments in the European Market

Some of the Funds may invest in securities in the European Market. A Fund’s performance will be affected by political, social and economic conditions in Europe, such as growth of the economic output (the gross national product), the rate of inflation, the rate at which capital is reinvested into European economies, the success of governmental actions to reduce budget deficits, the resource self-sufficiency of European countries and interest and monetary exchange rates between European countries. European financial markets may experience volatility due to concerns about high government debt levels, credit rating downgrades, rising unemployment, the future of the euro as a common currency, possible restructuring of government debt and other government measures responding to those concerns, and fiscal and monetary controls imposed on member countries of the European Union. The risk of investing in Europe may be heightened due to steps taken by the United Kingdom to exit the European Union. On January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom officially withdrew from the European Union. As of May 1, 2021, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”) governs certain aspects of the European Union’s and the United Kingdom’s relationship, many of which are still to be determined, including those related to financial services. Notwithstanding the TCA, significant uncertainty remains in the market regarding the ramifications of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The impact on the United Kingdom and European economies and the broader global economy could be significant, resulting in increased volatility and illiquidity, currency fluctuations, impacts on arrangements for trading and on other existing cross-border cooperation arrangements (whether economic, tax, fiscal, legal, regulatory or otherwise), and in potentially lower growth for companies in the United Kingdom, Europe and globally, which could have an adverse effect on the value of a Fund’s investments. In addition, if one or more other countries were to exit the European Union or abandon the use of the euro as a currency, the value of investments tied to those countries or the euro could decline significantly and unpredictably.

On February 1, 2022, the European Union adopted a settlement discipline regime pursuant to Central Securities Depositories Regulation (“CSDR” and the “CSDR SDR”) which aims to address and prevent the number of settlement fails that occur where in-scope instruments settle in European Economic Area (“EEA”) central securities depositories (“CSDs”). Under the regime, among other things, EEA CSDs are required to impose cash penalties on participants that cause settlement fails and distribute these to receiving participants.

The CSDR requirements apply to transactions in transferable securities (e.g., stocks and bonds), money market instruments, shares of funds and emission allowances that will be settled through an EEA CSD and that are admitted to trading or traded on an EEA trading venue or cleared by an EEA central counterparty.

The most controversial aspect of the CSDR SDR, the mandatory buy-ins (“MBI”) i.e. if a settlement fail continues for a specified period of time after the intended settlement date, a buy-in process must be initiated to effect the settlement, has not yet taken effect. Its implementation was delayed while legislative changes to its form and nature were being considered. Those legislative changes, in the form of an

Part II - 64

amending regulation, (Regulation (EU) 2023/2845, the “CSDR Refit”) have, as of January 16, 2024 now entered into law. Depending on the particular provision in question, CSDR Refit will apply from January 16, 2024, May 1, 2024 or two years after entering into force (i.e. January 2026).

Pursuant to the CSDR Refit, the MBI regime will now be a measure of last resort. Although the exact form and scope of the MBI regime is unknown, and ultimately will be set out by way of a new delegated act. The CSDR Refit also expressly specifies certain types of transactions to which MBI will not apply, including securities financing transactions. Exact timing for the new, CSDR Refit revised MBI is unknown but it will not be before November 2, 2025, at the earliest. In addition to the MBI changes, CSDR Refit makes other amendments to CSDR including for example, for the CSDR SDR, clarifying that the SDR penalty mechanism shall not apply in certain cases.

The CSDR SDR may result in a Fund bearing increased operational and compliance costs and a Fund may bear the net effect of any penalties and credits incurred under the CSDR in respect of its trading, which could increase a Fund’s expenses and adversely affect Fund performance. JPMIM may seek reimbursement from the relevant broker or agent, as determined by JPMIM from time to time, although there can be no assurance that JPMIM will seek such reimbursement or that a Fund will recover or be reimbursed for any amounts at issue. CSDR may also affect liquidity and increase trading costs associated with relevant securities.

Investments in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and certain of its instrumentalities in recent years experienced financial difficulties, including persistent government budget deficits and significant debt service obligations, and continues to face fiscal and economic challenges including underfunded government retirement systems, a high unemployment rate and tax erosion from significant out-migration. In addition, Puerto Rico is prone to severe weather events and natural disasters. Severe weather events or natural disasters that may occur in the future could have a significant and long-lasting adverse impact on Puerto Rico’s economy.

A Fund’s investments in municipal securities may be affected by political and economic developments within the applicable municipality and by the financial condition of the municipality. Certain of the issuers in which a Fund may invest have recently experienced, or may experience, significant financial difficulties. For example, Puerto Rico, in particular, has been experiencing significant financial difficulties since 2000, and in 2017 Puerto Rico and certain of its instrumentalities entered bankruptcy-like proceedings allowing Puerto Rico and its instrumentalities to halt debt payments pending the restructuring of their debt. A default by issuers of Puerto Rico municipal securities on their obligations under securities held by a Fund may adversely affect the Fund and cause the Fund to lose the value of its investment in such securities.

An insolvent municipality may take steps to reorganize its debt, which might include extending debt maturities, reducing the amount of principal or interest, refinancing the debt or taking other measures that may significantly affect the rights of creditors and the value of the securities issued by the municipality and the value of a Fund’s investments in those securities. Pursuant to Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, certain municipalities that meet specific conditions may be provided protection from creditors while they develop and negotiate plans for reorganizing their debts. The U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides that individual U.S. states are not permitted to pass their own laws purporting to bind non-consenting creditors to a restructuring of a municipality’s indebtedness, and thus all such restructurings must be pursuant to Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Municipal bankruptcies are relatively rare, and certain provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code governing such bankruptcies are unclear and remain untested. Although Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory, neither Puerto Rico nor its subdivisions or agencies are eligible to file under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in order to seek protection from creditors or restructure their debt. In June 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Puerto Rico legislation that would have allowed certain Puerto Rico public corporations to seek protection from creditors and to restructure their debt was unconstitutional. In the same month, the U.S. Congress passed the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”), which established a federally-appointed fiscal oversight board (“Oversight Board”) to oversee Puerto Rico’s financial operations and possible debt restructuring. On May 3, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a debt restructuring petition in the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico to seek bankruptcy-like protections from, at the time of the filing, approximately $74 billion in debt and approximately $48 billion in unfunded pension obligations. In addition to the debt restructuring petition filed on behalf of Puerto Rico, in May 2017, the Oversight Board separately filed debt restructuring petitions for certain Puerto Rico instrumentalities, including the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”), Puerto Rico

Part II - 65

Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”), Puerto Rico Electric and Power Authority (“PREPA”) and Employee Retirement System. In February 2019, a federal judge approved a Plan of Adjustment reducing COFINA debt from $18 billion to $6 billion. More recently, on January 18, 2022, a federal judge approved a Plan of Adjustment, which became effective in March 2022, under which the largest portion of Puerto Rico’s debt was reduced from $34.3 billion to $7.4 billion, and its annual debt service was reduced from $4.2 billion to $1.15 billion. Later that year, on October 13, 2022, a federal judge approved a Plan of Adjustment to reduce the HTA debt from $6 billion to $1.6 billion. There continue to be ongoing efforts to restructure more than $10 billion of PREPA debt. There can be no assurances that these debt restructuring efforts will be effective or that Puerto Rico will be able to service debt payments following the completion of the debt restructuring. In addition, any restructurings approved by a federal court could be appealed and overturned. The mediation process and certain litigation is ongoing with respect to certain municipal securities issued by Puerto Rico and its political subdivisions, instrumentalities and authorities. It is not presently possible to predict the results of this mediation and litigation, but such outcomes will have a significant impact on bondholders of those municipal securities. Further legislation by the U.S. Congress, or actions by the oversight board established by PROMESA, or court approval of an unfavorable debt restructuring deal could have a negative impact on the marketability, liquidity or value of certain investments held by a Fund and could reduce a Fund’s performance.

Investments in the Greater China Region

Investing in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan (collectively, “the China Region”) involves a high degree of risk and special considerations not typically associated with investing in other more established economies or securities markets. Such risks may include: (a) the risk of nationalization or expropriation of assets or confiscatory taxation; (b) greater social, economic and political uncertainty (including the risk of war); (c) dependency on exports and the corresponding importance of international trade; (d) the increasing competition from Asia’s other low-cost emerging economies; (e) greater price volatility and significantly smaller market capitalization of securities markets, particularly in Mainland China; (f) substantially less liquidity, particularly of certain share classes of Mainland Chinese securities; (g) currency exchange rate fluctuations and the lack of available currency hedging instruments; (h) higher rates of inflation; (i) controls on foreign investment and limitations on repatriation of invested capital and on a Fund’s ability to exchange local currencies for U.S. dollars; (j) greater governmental involvement in and control over the economy; (k) the risk that the Mainland Chinese government may decide not to continue to support the economic reform programs implemented since 1978 and could return to the prior, completely centrally planned, economy; (l) the fact that China Region companies, particularly those located in Mainland China, may be smaller, less seasoned and newly organized companies; (m) the difference in, or lack of, auditing and financial reporting standards which may result in unavailability of material information about issuers, particularly in Mainland China; (n) the fact that statistical information regarding the economy of Mainland China may be inaccurate or not comparable to statistical information regarding the U.S. or other economies; (o) the less extensive, and still developing, regulation of the securities markets, business entities and commercial transactions; (p) the fact that the settlement period of securities transactions in foreign markets may be longer; (q) the willingness and ability of the Mainland Chinese government to support the Mainland Chinese and Hong Kong economies and markets is uncertain; (r) the risk that it may be more difficult, or impossible, to obtain and/or enforce a judgment than in other countries; (s) the rapidity and erratic nature of growth, particularly in Mainland China, resulting in inefficiencies and dislocations; (t) the risk of embargoes, sanctions, investment restrictions and other trade limitations, including that certain securities are, or may in the future, become restricted, and a Fund may be forced to sell such restricted security and incur a loss as a result; (u) the risk that, because of the degree of interconnectivity between the economies and financial markets of Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, any sizable reduction in the demand for goods from Mainland China, or an economic downturn in Mainland China, could negatively affect the economies and financial markets of Hong Kong and Taiwan, as well; and (v) limitations on the ability of U.S. authorities to enforce actions against non-U.S. companies and non-U.S. persons. China’s growing trade surplus with the United States has increased the risk of trade disputes. For example, recent developments in relations between the United States and China have heightened concerns of increased tariffs and restrictions on trade between the two countries. An increase in tariffs or trade restrictions, or even the threat of such developments, could lead to a significant reduction in international trade, which could have a negative impact on China’s, or other countries, export industry and a negative impact on a Fund. In addition, as China’s economic and political strength has grown in recent years, it has shown a greater willingness to assert itself militarily in the region. Military or diplomatic moves to resolve any issues could adversely affect the economies in the region and, thus, a Fund’s investments.

Part II - 66

Investment in the China Region is subject to certain political risks. Following the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) by the Communist Party in 1949, the Mainland Chinese government renounced various debt obligations incurred by Mainland China’s predecessor governments, which obligations remain in default, and expropriated assets without compensation. There can be no assurance that the Mainland Chinese government will not take similar action in the future. An investment in a Fund involves risk of a total loss. The political reunification of Mainland China and Taiwan is a highly problematic issue and is unlikely to be settled in the near future. This situation poses a threat to Taiwan’s economy and could negatively affect its stock market. Mainland China has committed by treaty to preserve Hong Kong’s autonomy and its economic, political and social freedoms for fifty years from the July 1, 1997 transfer of sovereignty from Great Britain to Mainland China. However, if Mainland China would exert its authority so as to alter the economic, political or legal structures or the existing social policy of Hong Kong, investor and business confidence in Hong Kong could be negatively affected, which in turn could negatively affect markets and business performance.

As with all transition economies, Mainland China’s ability to develop and sustain a credible legal, regulatory, monetary, and socioeconomic system could influence the course of outside investment. Hong Kong is closely tied to Mainland China, economically and through China’s 1997 acquisition of the country as a Special Autonomous Region (SAR). Hong Kong’s success depends, in large part, on its ability to retain the legal, financial, and monetary systems that allow economic freedom and market expansion. In addition to the risks inherent in investing in the emerging markets, the risks of investing in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan merit special consideration.

People’s Republic of China. The government of the PRC is dominated by the one-party rule of the Chinese Communist Party.

Mainland China’s economy has transitioned from a rigidly central-planned state-run economy to one that has been only partially reformed by more market-oriented policies. Although the Mainland Chinese government has implemented economic reform measures, reduced state ownership of companies and established better corporate governance practices, a substantial portion of productive assets in Mainland China are still owned by the Mainland Chinese government. The government continues to exercise significant control over regulating industrial development and, ultimately, control over Mainland China’s economic growth through the allocation of resources, controlling payment of foreign currency denominated obligations, setting monetary policy and providing preferential treatment to particular industries or companies.

Following years of steady growth, the pace of growth of Mainland China’s economy has relatively slowed, partly as a result of the government’s attempts to shift the economy away from export manufacturing and towards domestic consumption and to prevent the overheating of certain sectors. The slow down subjects Mainland China’s economy to significant risks, including economic, social, and political risks. Additionally, Mainland China’s economy remains heavily dependent on exports. The imposition of tariffs or other trade barriers or a downturn in the economy of a significant trading partner could adversely impact Mainland Chinese companies. Over the long term, Mainland China’s major challenges include dealing with its aging infrastructure, worsening environmental conditions and rapidly widening urban and rural income gap.

As with all transition economies, Mainland China’s ability to develop and sustain a credible legal, regulatory, monetary, and socioeconomic system could influence the course of outside investment. The Mainland Chinese legal system, in particular, constitutes a significant risk factor for investors. The Mainland Chinese legal system is based on statutes. Since the late 1970s, Chinese legislative bodies have promulgated laws and regulations dealing with various economic matters such as foreign investment, corporate organization and governance, commerce, taxation, and trade. However, despite the expanding body of law in Mainland China, legal precedent and published court decisions based on these laws are limited and non-binding. The interpretation and enforcement of these laws and regulations are uncertain.

Hong Kong. In 1997, Great Britain handed over control of Hong Kong to the Chinese mainland government. Since that time, Hong Kong has been governed by a semi-constitution known as the Basic Law, which guarantees a high degree of autonomy in certain matters until 2047, while defense and foreign affairs are the responsibility of the central government in Beijing. The chief executive of Hong Kong is appointed by the Mainland Chinese government. Hong Kong is able to participate in international organizations and agreements and it continues to function as an international financial center, with no exchange controls, free convertibility of the Hong Kong dollar and free inward and outward movement of capital. The Basic Law guarantees existing freedoms, including free speech and assembly, press, religion, and the right to strike and travel. Business ownership, private property, the right of inheritance and foreign

Part II - 67

investment are also protected by law. Mainland China has committed by treaty to preserve Hong Kong’s autonomy until 2047. However, as of July 2020, the Chinese Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress enacted the law of the PRC on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. As of the same month, Hong Kong is no longer afforded preferential economic treatment by the United States under U.S. law, and there is uncertainty as to how the economy of Hong Kong will be affected. If Mainland China were to exert its authority so as to alter the economic, political, or legal structures or the existing social policy of Hong Kong, investor and business confidence in Hong Kong could be negatively affected, which in turn could negatively affect markets and business performance.

Taiwan. For decades, a state of hostility has existed between Taiwan and the PRC. Beijing has long deemed Taiwan a part of the “one China” and has made a nationalist cause of recovering it. In the past, Mainland China has staged frequent military provocations off the coast of Taiwan and made threats of full-scale military action. Foreign trade has been the engine of rapid growth in Taiwan and has transformed the island into one of Asia’s great exporting nations. However, investing in Taiwan involves the possibility of the imposition of exchange controls, such as restrictions on the repatriation of Fund investments or on the conversion of local currency into foreign currencies. As an export-oriented economy, Taiwan depends on an open world trade regime and remains vulnerable to downturns in the world economy. Taiwanese companies continue to compete mostly on price, producing generic products or branded merchandise on behalf of multinational companies. Accordingly, these businesses can be particularly vulnerable to currency volatility and increasing competition from neighboring lower-cost countries. Moreover, many Taiwanese companies are heavily invested in Mainland China and other countries throughout Southeast Asia, making them susceptible to political events and economic crises in these parts of the region.

Mainland Chinese operating companies sometimes rely on variable interest entity (“VIE”) structures to raise capital from non-Chinese investors. In a VIE structure, a Mainland China-based operating company establishes an entity (typically offshore) that enters into service and other contracts with the Mainland Chinese company designed to provide economic exposure to the company. The offshore entity then issues exchange-traded shares that are sold to the public, including non-Chinese investors (such as a Fund). Shares of the offshore entity are not equity ownership interests in the Mainland Chinese operating company and therefore the ability of the offshore entity to control the activities at the Mainland Chinese company are limited and the Mainland Chinese company may engage in activities that negatively impact investment value. The VIE structure is designed to provide the offshore entity (and in turn, investors in the entity) with economic exposure to the Mainland Chinese company that replicates equity ownership, without actual equity ownership. VIE structures are used due to Mainland Chinese government prohibitions on foreign ownership of companies in certain industries and it is not clear that the contracts are enforceable or that the structures will otherwise work as intended.

On December 24, 2021, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (“CSRC”) published for consultation the Provisions of the State Council on the Administration of Overseas Securities Offering and Listing by Domestic Companies (Draft for Comments) and Administrative Measures for the Filing of Overseas Securities Offering and Listing by Domestic Companies (Draft for Comments) (together, the “Draft Rules”), which, in effect, require Chinese companies that pursue listings outside of Mainland China, including those that do so using the VIE structure, to make a filing with the CSRC. The Draft Rules propose that companies that are already listed using an existing VIE structure will be grandfathered. Although the Draft Rules effectively signal the CSRC’s acknowledgment of the VIE structure, they are not an endorsement. Further, there is no guarantee that the Draft Rules will ultimately be enacted in their current form and the final version of the Draft Rules may set out more stringent requirements that interfere with the operation of VIE structures by listed Chinese companies. Finally, it is unclear how the Draft Rules, and other laws and regulations promulgated by the CSRC and other government authorities from time to time, might impact Chinese companies that are currently using VIE structures, including how companies operating in “prohibited industries” will be affected, as well as investor appetite for such companies. Despite the Draft Rules and the CSRC’s publications that they do not object to the use of VIE structures for Mainland Chinese companies to raise capital from non-Chinese investors, there is no guarantee that the Mainland Chinese government or a Mainland Chinese regulator will not otherwise interfere with the operation of VIE structures.

Intervention by the Mainland Chinese government with respect to VIE structures could adversely affect the Mainland Chinese operating company’s performance, the enforceability of the offshore entity’s contractual arrangements with the Mainland Chinese company and the value of the offshore entity’s shares. Further, if the Mainland Chinese government determines that the agreements establishing the VIE structure do not comply with Mainland Chinese law and regulations, including those related to

Part II - 68

prohibitions on foreign ownership, the Mainland Chinese government could subject the Mainland Chinese company to penalties, revocation of business and operating licenses or forfeiture of ownership interests. The offshore entity’s control over the Mainland Chinese company may also be jeopardized if certain legal formalities are not observed in connection with the agreements, if the agreements are breached or if the agreements are otherwise determined not to be enforceable. If any of the foregoing were to occur, the market value of a Fund’s associated portfolio holdings would likely fall, causing substantial investment losses for the Fund.

In addition, Mainland Chinese companies listed on U.S. exchanges, including ADRs and companies that rely on VIE structures, may be delisted if they do not meet U.S. accounting standards and auditor oversight requirements. Delisting could significantly decrease the liquidity and value of the securities of these companies, decrease the ability of a Fund to invest in such securities and increase the cost of the Fund if it is required to seek alternative markets in which to invest in such securities.

Securities are listed on either the Shanghai and/or Shenzhen stock exchanges. Securities listed on these exchanges are divided into two classes, A shares, which are mostly limited to domestic investors, and B shares, which are allocated for both international and domestic investors. A Fund’s exposure to securities listed on either the Shanghai or Shenzhen exchanges will initially be through B shares. The government of Mainland China has announced plans to exchange B shares for A shares and to merge the two markets. Such an event may produce greater liquidity and stability for the combined markets. However, it is uncertain whether or the extent to which these plans will be implemented. In addition to B shares, a Fund may also invest in Hong Kong listed H shares, Hong Kong listed Red chips (which are companies owned by Mainland China enterprises, but are listed in Hong Kong), and companies that meet one of the following categories: the company is organized under the laws of, or has a principal office in China (including Hong Kong and Macau) or Taiwan; the principal securities market for the issuer is Mainland China or Taiwan; the issuer derives at least 50% of its total revenues or profits from goods that are produced or sold, investments made, or services performed in Mainland China or Taiwan; or at least 50% of the issuer’s assets are located in Mainland China or Taiwan.

Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect and Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect. The Funds may invest in certain China A-Shares through the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect program or the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect Program (the “Programs”). The Programs are securities trading and clearing linked programs developed by Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (“HKEx”), the Hong Kong Securities Clearing Company Limited (“HKSCC”), Shanghai Stock Exchange (“SSE”), Shenzhen Stock Exchange (“SZSE”) and China Securities Depository and Clearing Corporation Limited (“ChinaClear”) with an objective to achieve mutual stock market access between Mainland China and Hong Kong. The Programs will allow foreign investors to trade certain SSE and SZSE listed China A-Shares through Hong Kong based brokers.

Trading through the Programs are subject to various risks described below, including liquidity risk, currency risk, legal and regulatory uncertainty risk, execution risk, operational risk, tax risk, counterparty risk and credit risk.

Securities purchased under each Program generally may not be sold, purchased or otherwise transferred other than through that Program in accordance with applicable rules. While each Program is not subject to individual investment quotas, daily investment quotas apply to all Program participants, which may restrict or preclude a Fund’s ability to purchase particular securities at a particular time. In addition, securities purchased through the Programs are subject to Mainland Chinese securities regulations that restrict the levels of foreign ownership in local securities which could require a Fund to sell securities if ownership of the securities exceeds applicable quotas. Furthermore, additional restrictions may preclude a Fund from being eligible to invest in certain securities traded through a Program. Because all trades in the Programs must be settled in Renminbi (“RMB”), the Mainland Chinese currency, investors must have timely access to a reliable supply of offshore RMB, which cannot be guaranteed. Trades through each Program are subject to certain requirements prior to trading which may limit the number of brokers that a Fund may use. This may affect the quality of execution received by a Fund. In addition, applicable laws may, under certain circumstances, require an investor to return profits obtained from the purchase and sale of shares.

The HKSCC provides clearing, settlement, nominee functions and other related services of the trades executed by Hong Kong market participants through an arrangement with ChinaClear. The PRC regulations, which include certain restrictions on selling and buying, will apply to all market participants.

Part II - 69

In the case of a sale, brokers must have access to certain information about the transaction prior to execution. Because of the various requirements and restrictions applicable to the Programs, a Fund may not be able to purchase and/or dispose of holdings of China A-Shares in a timely manner.

To the extent that HKSCC is deemed to be performing safekeeping functions with respect to assets held through it, it should be noted that a Fund will have no legal relationship with HKSCC and no direct legal recourse against HKSCC in the event that the Fund suffers losses resulting from the performance or insolvency of HKSCC.

The Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect Program began operation in November 2014 and the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect Program began operation in December 2016. The relevant regulations relating to the Programs are untested and subject to change. There is no certainty as to how they will be applied which could adversely affect a Fund. The Programs require use of new information technology systems which may be subject to operational risk due to its cross-border nature. If the relevant systems fail to function properly, trading in the Shanghai and Shenzhen markets through the Programs could be disrupted.

As in other emerging and less developed markets, the legislative framework is only beginning to develop the concept of legal/formal ownership and of beneficial ownership or interest in securities in Mainland China. Consequently the applicable courts may consider that any nominee or custodian as registered holder of securities would have full ownership thereof and that a beneficial owner may have no rights whatsoever in respect thereof and may be limited in its ability to pursue claims against the issuer of a security. Additionally, the securities that a Fund may invest in through the Programs may present illiquidity and price volatility concerns and difficulty in determining market valuations of securities due to limited public information on issuers. Such securities may also be subject to limited regulatory oversight and an increased risk of being delisted or suspended. Suspensions or delistings may become widespread, and the length of suspension may be significant and difficult to predict.

The Programs utilize an omnibus clearing structure, and a Fund’s shares will be registered in its custodian’s, subcustodian’s or clearing broker’s name on the HKSCC system and in HKSCC’s name on the ChinaClear system. This may limit a Fund’s adviser’s or subadviser’s ability to effectively manage a Fund, and may expose a Fund to the credit risk of its custodian or subcustodian or to greater risk of expropriation.

Similarly, HKSCC would be responsible for the exercise of shareholder rights with respect to corporate actions (including all dividends, rights issues, merger proposals or other shareholder votes). While HKSCC may provide investors with the opportunity to provide voting instructions, investors may not have sufficient time or the opportunity to consider proposals or provide instructions.

The Hong Kong Investor Compensation Fund covers losses in relation to defaults occurring on or after January 1, 2020 by securities brokers in Hong Kong on securities traded on a stock market operated by the SSE or the SZSE and in respect of which an order for sale or purchase is routed through the Programs. Otherwise, defaults with respect to investments in the Programs may not be covered by the China Securities Investor Protection Fund and, without the protection of such programs, will be subject to the risk of default by a broker in Mainland China. In the event ChinaClear defaults, HKSCC’s liabilities under its market contracts with clearing participants will be limited to assisting clearing participants with claims. While it is anticipated that HKSCC will act in good faith to seek recovery of the outstanding stocks and monies from ChinaClear through available legal channels or the liquidation of ChinaClear, there can be no assurances that it will do so, or that it will be successful in doing so. In this event, the Fund may not fully recover its losses and the process could be delayed.

The Programs will only operate on days when both the PRC and Hong Kong markets are open for trading and when banks in each applicable market are open on the corresponding settlement days and the Funds will only trade through each Program on days that they are open. There may be occasions when it is a normal trading day for the PRC market but a Fund cannot carry out any China A-Shares trading. A Fund may be subject to risks of price fluctuations in China A-Shares during the time when each Program is not trading as a result. Additionally, different fees and costs are imposed on foreign investors acquiring China A-Shares acquired through the Programs, and these fees and costs may be higher than comparable fees and costs imposed on owners of other securities providing similar investment exposure. There is uncertainty of whether and how certain gains on PRC securities will to be taxed, the possibility of the rules being changed and the possibility of taxes being applied retrospectively. Consequently, investors may be advantaged or disadvantaged depending upon the final outcome of how such gains will be taxed and when they subscribed and/or redeemed their shares.

Part II - 70

Because the Programs are relatively new, the actual effect on the market for trading China A-Shares with the introduction of large numbers of foreign investors is unknown. The Programs are subject to regulations promulgated by regulatory authorities for the applicable exchanges and further regulations or restrictions, such as limitations on redemptions or suspension of trading, may adversely impact the Programs, if the authorities believe it necessary to assure orderly markets or for other reasons. There is no guarantee that the exchanges will continue to support the Programs in the future.

China Interbank Bond Market. The China Interbank Bond Market (“CIBM”) is an OTC market established in 1997, and accounts for approximately 90% of outstanding bond values of the total trading volume in the PRC. On CIBM, domestic institutional investors and certain foreign institutional investors can trade, on a one-to-one quote-driven basis, sovereign bonds, government bonds, corporate bonds, bond repos, bond lending, bills issued by the People’s Bank of China (“PBOC”) and other financial debt instruments. CIBM is regulated and supervised by the PBOC. The PBOC is responsible for, among others, promulgating the applicable CIBM listing, trading and operating rules, and supervising the market operators of CIBM. CIBM provides for two trading models: (i) bilateral negotiation and (ii) “click-and-deal.” The China Foreign Exchange Trading System (“CFETS”) is the unified trading platform for CIBM, on which all products are traded through independent bilateral negotiation on a transaction by transaction basis. A market-making mechanism has also been introduced to improve market liquidity and enhance efficiency with respect to trading on CIBM.

Once a transaction is agreed, the parties will, in accordance with the terms of the transaction, promptly send instructions for the delivery of bonds and funds. Parties are required to have sufficient bonds and funds for delivery on the agreed delivery date. China Central Depository & Clearing Co., Ltd (“CCDC”) will deliver bonds according to the instructions sent by the parties. Clearing banks will handle the transfer of funds and settlement of the payments of the bonds on behalf of the parties.

Certain Funds, including the Core Plus Bond ETF and International Bond Opportunities ETF, may invest in certain Chinese fixed income products traded on the CIBM through the “Mutual Bond Market Access between Mainland China and Hong Kong” (“Bond Connect”) program. The Bond Connect program is a new initiative launched in July 2017 established by CFETS, CCDC, Shanghai Clearing House (“SHCH”), and Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (“HKEx”) and Central Moneymarkets Unit (“CMU”) of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (“HKMA”) to facilitate investors from Mainland China and Hong Kong to trade in each other’s bond markets through connection between the Mainland China and Hong Kong financial institutions.

Under the prevailing PRC regulations, eligible foreign investors are allowed to invest in the bonds available on the CIBM through the northbound trading of Bond Connect (“Northbound Trading Link”). There is no investment quota for the Northbound Trading Link. Under the Northbound Trading Link, eligible foreign investors are required to appoint the CFETS or other institutions recognized by the PBOC as registration agents to apply for registration with the PBOC.

Cash deposited in the cash account of a Fund with the relevant onshore settlement agent will not be segregated. In the event of the bankruptcy or liquidation of the onshore settlement agent, a Fund will not have any proprietary rights to the cash deposited in such cash account and may face difficulty and/or encounter delays in recovering such assets, or may not be able to recover it in full or at all, in which case the Fund will suffer losses.

Market volatility and potential lack of liquidity due to low trading volume of certain debt securities in the China interbank bond market may result in prices of certain debt securities traded on such market fluctuating significantly. A Fund is therefore subject to liquidity and volatility risks. The bid and offer spreads of the prices of such securities may be large, and a Fund may therefore incur significant trading and realization costs and may even suffer losses when selling such investments.

A Fund is also exposed to risks associated with settlement procedures and default of counterparties. The counterparty which has entered into a transaction with a Fund may default in its obligation to settle the transaction by delivery of the relevant security or by payment for value.

The Northbound Trading Link refers to the trading platform that is located outside of Mainland China and is connected to CFETS for eligible foreign investors to submit their trade requests for bonds circulated in the CIBM through Bond Connect. HKEx and CFETS will work together with offshore electronic bond trading platforms to provide electronic trading services and platforms to allow direct trading between eligible foreign investors and approved onshore dealers in Mainland China through CFETS.

Part II - 71

Eligible foreign investors may submit trade requests for bonds circulated in the CIBM through the Northbound Trading Link provided by offshore electronic bond trading platforms, which will in turn transmit their requests for quotation to CFETS. CFETS will send the requests for quotation to a number of approved onshore dealers (including market makers and others engaged in the market making business) in Mainland China. The approved onshore dealers will respond to the requests for quotation via CFETS, and CFETS will send its responses to those eligible foreign investors through the same offshore electronic bond trading platforms. Once the eligible foreign investor accepts the quotation, the trade is concluded on CFETS.

On the other hand, the settlement and custody of bond securities traded in the CIBM under Bond Connect are conducted through the settlement and custody link between the CMU, as an offshore custody agent, and the CCDC and the SHCH, as onshore custodian and clearing institutions in Mainland China. Under this settlement and custody link, CCDC or the SHCH will effect gross settlement of confirmed trades onshore and the CMU will process bond settlement instructions from the CMU members on behalf of eligible foreign investors in accordance with its relevant rules.

Pursuant to the prevailing regulations in Mainland China, the CMU, being the offshore custody agent recognized by the HKMA, opens omnibus nominee accounts with the onshore custody agent recognized by the PBOC (i.e., the CCDC and Interbank Clearing Company Limited). All bonds traded by eligible foreign investors will be registered in the name of the CMU, which will hold such bonds as a nominee owner.

A Fund’s investments in bonds through Bond Connect will be subject to a number of additional risks and restrictions that may affect the Fund’s investments and returns. Bond Connect is relatively new. Laws, rules, regulations, policies, notices, circulars or guidelines relating to Bond Connect (the “Applicable Bond Connect Regulations”) as published or applied by any of Bond Connect Authorities (as defined below) are untested and are subject to change from time to time. There can be no assurance that Bond Connect will not be restricted, suspended or abolished. If such event occurs, a Fund’s ability to invest in the CIBM through Bond Connect will be adversely affected. “Bond Connect Authorities” refers to the exchanges, trading systems, settlement systems, governmental, regulatory or tax bodies which provide services and/or regulate Bond Connect and activities relating to Bond Connect, including, without limitation, the PBOC, the HKMA, the HKEx, the CFETS, the CMU, the CCDC and the SHCH and any other regulator, agency or authority with jurisdiction, authority or responsibility in respect of Bond Connect.

Hedging activities under Bond Connect are subject to the Applicable Bond Connect Regulations and any prevailing market practice. There is no guarantee that a Fund will be able to carry out hedging transactions at terms which are satisfactory to the investment manager of the Fund and to the best interest of the Fund. A Fund may also be required to unwind its hedge in unfavorable market conditions.

Potential lack of liquidity due to low trading volume of certain fixed income securities in the CIBM may result in prices of certain fixed income securities traded on such market fluctuating significantly, which may expose a Fund to liquidity risks. In addition, the fixed income securities traded in the CIBM may be difficult or impossible to sell, and this would affect a Fund’s ability to acquire or dispose of such securities at their intrinsic value.

Although delivery-versus-payment (“DVP”) settlement (e.g., simultaneous delivery of security and payment) is the dominant settlement method adopted by CCDC and SHCH for all bond transactions in the CIBM, there is no assurance that settlement risks can be eliminated. In addition, DVP settlement practices in the PRC may differ from practices in developed markets. In particular, such settlement may not be instantaneous and be subject to a delay of a period of hours. Where the counterparty does not perform its obligations under a transaction or there is otherwise a failure due to CCDC or SHCH (as applicable), a Fund may sustain losses.

It is contemplated that the mainland Chinese authorities will reserve the right to suspend Northbound trading of Bond Connect, if necessary for ensuring an orderly and fair market and that risks are managed prudently. The relevant PRC government authority may also impose “circuit breakers” and other measures to halt or suspend Northbound trading. Where a suspension in the Northbound trading through Bond Connect is effected, a Fund’s ability to access the CIBM bond market will be adversely affected.

Under the prevailing Applicable Bond Connect Regulations, eligible foreign investors who wish to participate in Bond Connect may do so through an onshore settlement agent, offshore custody agent, registration agent or other third parties (as the case may be), who would be responsible for making the relevant filings and account opening with the relevant authorities. A Fund is therefore subject to the risk of default or errors on the part of such agents.

Part II - 72

Trading through Bond Connect is performed through newly developed trading platforms and operational systems. There is no assurance that such systems will function properly (in particular, under extreme market conditions) or will continue to be adapted to changes and developments in the market. In the event that the relevant systems fails to function properly, trading through Bond Connect may be disrupted. A Fund’s ability to trade through Bond Connect (and hence to pursue its investment strategy) may therefore be adversely affected. In addition, where a Fund invests in the CIBM through Bond Connect, it may be subject to risks of delays inherent in the order placing and/or settlement.

For a Fund’s investment under Bond Connect, although there is no quota restriction under the Applicable Bond Connect Regulations, relevant information about the Fund’s investments needs to be filed with PBOC and an updating filing may be required if there is any significant change to the filed information. It cannot be predicted whether PBOC will make any comments on or require any changes with respect to such information for the purpose of filing. If so required, a Fund will need to follow PBOC instructions and make the relevant changes accordingly, which, may not be in the best interests of the Fund and the Fund’s investors from a commercial perspective.

The CMU is the “nominee holder” of the bonds acquired by a Fund through Bond Connect. Although the Applicable Bond Connect Regulations expressly provide that investors enjoy the rights and interests of the bonds acquired through Bond Connect in accordance with applicable laws, how a beneficial owner (such as a Fund) of the relevant bonds exercises and enforces its rights over such securities in the courts in China is yet to be tested. Even if the concept of beneficial ownership is recognized under Chinese law, those securities may form part of the pool of assets of such nominee holder, which may be available for distribution to creditors upon liquidation of such nominee holder, and accordingly a beneficial owner may have no rights whatsoever in respect thereof.

Northbound trading through Bond Connect is able to be undertaken on days upon which the CIBM is open to trade, regardless of whether they are a public holiday in the domicile of a Fund. Accordingly, it is possible that bonds traded through Bond Connect may be subject to fluctuation at times when a Fund is unable to buy or sell bonds, as its globally-based intermediaries are not available to assist with trades. Accordingly, this may cause a Fund to be unable to realize gains, avoid losses or to benefit from an opportunity to invest in mainland CIBM bonds at an attractive price.

CIBM bonds under Northbound Trading of Bond Connect will be traded and settled in RMB. If a Fund issues classes denominated in a currency other than RMB, the Fund will be exposed to currency risk if the Fund invests in a RMB product due to the need for the conversion of the currency into RMB. A Fund will also incur currency conversion costs. Even if the price of the RMB asset remains the same when a Fund purchases and redeems, the Fund will still incur a loss when it converts the redemption proceeds into local currency if RMB has depreciated. Also, as a Fund may either settle CIBM bonds using offshore RMB (“CNH”) or by converting offshore currency into onshore RMB (“CNY”), any divergence between CNH and CNY may adversely impact investors.

People’s Republic of China Tax Considerations

Corporate Income Tax

If a Fund is considered a tax resident enterprise of the PRC, it will be subject to PRC corporate income tax (“CIT”) at 25% on its worldwide taxable income. If a Fund is considered a non-tax resident enterprise with a permanent establishment or place or establishment of business (“PE”) in the PRC, the profits attributable to that PE would be subject to CIT at 25%. Under the PRC CIT Law effective from January 1, 2008 and its implementation rules, a non-PRC tax resident enterprise without a PE in the PRC will generally be subject to withholding income tax (“WIT”) of 10% on its PRC sourced income, including but not limited to passive income (e.g. dividends, interest, gains arising from transfer of assets, etc.).

A Fund is intended to be managed and operated in such a manner that the Fund should not be treated as a tax resident enterprise of the PRC or a non-PRC tax resident enterprise with a PE in the PRC for CIT purposes, although due to uncertainty in tax laws and practices in the PRC, this result cannot be guaranteed.

Interest

Except for interest income from certain bonds (i.e., government bonds, local government bonds and railway bonds which are entitled to a 100% PRC CIT exemption and 50% PC CIT exemption respectively in accordance with the Implementation Rules to the Enterprise Income Tax Law and a circular dated March 19, 2016 on the Circular on Income Tax Policies on Interest Income from Railway Bonds under Caishui [2016] No. 30), non-PRC tax resident enterprises are subject to PRC WIT on the payment of

Part II - 73

interests on debt instruments issued by PRC tax resident enterprises, including bonds issued by enterprises established within the PRC. The general WIT rate applicable is 10%, subject to reduction under an applicable double tax treaty and agreement by the PRC tax authorities. Interest derived from government bonds issued by the in-charge Finance Bureau of the State Council and/or local government bonds approved by the State Council is exempt from PRC CIT under the PRC CIT Law.

On November 22, 2021, the Ministry of Finance and State Administration of Taxation jointly issued Circular [2021] No. 34 (“Circular 34”) to clarify that foreign institutional investors (including foreign institutional investors under Bond Connect) are temporarily exempt from PRC WIT and value-added tax (“VAT”) with respect to bond interest income derived in the PRC bond market for the period from November 7, 2021 to December 31, 2025. As this exemption is only temporary according to Circular 34, it remains unclear whether such an exemption will also apply after December 31, 2025 or what the PRC tax treatment will be after this date. It still remains to be confirmed as to the PRC WIT and VAT treatment with respect to non-government bond interest derived prior to November 7, 2018, being the date on which the WIT and VAT exemption for foreign institutional investors with respect to bond interest income derived from PRC bonds was first introduced.

Dividend

Under the current PRC CIT Law and its implementation rules, non-PRC tax resident enterprises are subject to PRC WIT on cash dividends and bonus distributions from PRC tax resident enterprises. The general WIT rate applicable is 10%, subject to reduction under an applicable double tax treaty and agreement by the PRC tax authorities.

Capital Gain

Based on the CIT Law and its implementation rules, “income from the transfer of property” sourced from the PRC by non-PRC tax resident enterprises should be subject to 10% PRC WIT unless exempt or reduced under an applicable tax treaty and agreement by the PRC tax authorities. The Ministry of Finance (“MoF”), State Administration of Taxation (“SAT”) and the CSRC issued joint circulars to clarify the taxation of the Programs, in which capital gain realized from the transfer of A-Shares is temporarily exempt from PRC WIT. The MoF, the SAT and the CSRC issued joint circulars Caishui [2014] No. 81 and Caishui [2016] No. 127 to clarify the taxation of the Programs, in which capital gain realized from the transfer of A-Shares via the Programs is temporarily exempt from PRC WIT.

Capital gains derived by non-resident institutional investors (with no place or establishment or permanent establishment in the PRC) from the trading of bonds through the Bond Connect are technically non-PRC-sourced income under the current CIT law and regulations, therefore, not subject to PRC CIT. While the PRC tax authorities are currently enforcing such non-taxable treatment in practice, there is a lack of clarity on such non-taxable treatment under the current CIT regulations.

VAT and Other Surcharges

According to the Circular Caishui [2016] 36 (“Circular 36”), VAT at 6% shall be levied on the difference between the selling and buying prices of those marketable securities.

The gains derived from trading of marketable securities (including A-Shares and other PRC listed securities) are exempted from VAT in the PRC under Circular 36 and Caishui [2016] No. 70. In addition, deposit interest income and interest received from government bonds and local government bonds are also exempt from VAT.

According to Circular 34, the foreign institutional investors are temporarily exempt from VAT with respect to bond interest income derived in the PRC bond market for the period from November 7, 2021 to December 31, 2025. However, there is no guarantee that such temporary tax exemption will continue to apply, will not be repealed and re-imposed retrospective, or that no new tax regulations and practice in China specifically relating to the PRC bond market will not be promulgated in the future. Dividend income or profit distributions on equity investment derived from PRC are not included in the taxable scope of VAT.

In addition, urban maintenance and construction tax (currently at the rate ranging from 1% to 7%), educational surcharge (currently at the rate of 3%) and local educational surcharge (currently at the rate of 2%) are imposed based on the VAT liabilities.

Stamp Duty

Part II - 74

Stamp duty under the PRC laws generally applies to the execution and receipt of all taxable documents listed in the PRC’s Provisional Rules on Stamp Duty. Stamp duty is generally imposed on the sale of PRC-listed shares at a rate of 0.1% of the sales consideration. The relevant Fund will be subject to this tax on each disposal of PRC listed shares. No stamp duty is expected to be imposed on non-PRC tax resident holders of government and corporate bonds, either upon issuance or upon a subsequent transfer of such bonds. Non-PRC tax resident shareholders will not be subject to PRC tax on distributions received from the Company or the relevant Fund, or on gains derived from the disposal of shares.

There can be no guarantee that no new tax laws, regulations and practice in the PRC specifically relating to the Programs or CIBM regime (as the case may be) may be promulgated in the future and may be applied retrospectively. The promulgation of such new laws, regulations and practice may operate to the advantage or disadvantage of the Shareholders due to the Company or the relevant Fund’s investments in the PRC market.

Investors should inform themselves of, and where appropriate consult their professional advisors on, the possible tax consequences of subscribing for, buying, holding, converting, redeeming or otherwise disposing of Shares under the laws of their country of citizenship, residence, or domicile or incorporation.

Investments in India

Securities of many issuers in the Indian market may be less liquid and more volatile than securities of comparable U.S. domestic issuers, but may offer the potential for higher returns over the long term. Indian securities will generally be denominated in foreign currency, mainly the rupee. Accordingly, the value of a Fund will fluctuate depending on the rate of exchange between the U.S. dollar and such foreign currency. India has less developed clearance and settlement procedures, and there have been times when settlements have been unable to keep pace with the volume of securities and have been significantly delayed. The Indian stock exchanges have in the past been subject to closure, broker defaults and broker strikes, and there can be no certainty that this will not recur. In addition, significant delays are common in registering transfers of securities and a Fund may be unable to sell securities until the registration process is completed and may experience delays in receipt of dividends and other entitlements.

The value of investments in Indian securities may also be affected by political and economic developments, social, religious or regional tensions, changes in government regulation and government intervention, high rates of inflation or interest rates and withholding tax affecting India. The risk of loss may also be increased because there may be less information available about Indian issuers since they are not subject to the extensive accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards and practices which are applicable in North America. There is also a lower level of regulation and monitoring of the Indian securities market and its participants than in other more developed markets.

Foreign investment in the securities of issuers in India is usually restricted or controlled to some degree. In addition, the availability of financial instruments with exposure to Indian financial markets may be substantially limited by the restrictions on investments by persons resident outside of India under the Foreign Portfolio Investment regime.

India’s guidelines under which foreign investors may invest in Indian securities are evolving. There can be no assurance that these investment control regimes will not change in a way that makes it more difficult or impossible for a Fund to implement investment objective or repatriate its income, gains and initial capital from these countries. Similar risks and considerations will be applicable to the extent that a Fund invests in other countries. Recently, certain policies have served to restrict foreign investment, and such policies may have the effect of reducing demand for such investments.

India may require withholding on dividends paid on portfolio securities and on realized capital gains. In the past, these taxes have sometimes been substantial. There can be no assurance that restrictions on repatriation of a Fund’s income, gains or initial capital from India will not occur.

A high proportion of the shares of many issuers in India may be held by a limited number of persons and financial institutions, which may limit the number of shares available for investment. In addition, further issuances, or the perception that such issuances may occur, of securities by Indian issuers in which a Fund has invested could dilute the earnings per share of a Fund’s investment and could adversely affect the market price of such securities. Sales of securities by such issuer’s major shareholders, or the perception that such sales may occur, may also significantly and adversely affect the market price of such securities and, in turn, a Fund’s investment. The prices at which investments may be acquired may be affected by trading by persons with material non-public information and by securities transactions by brokers in anticipation of transactions by a Fund in particular securities. Similarly, volume and liquidity in

Part II - 75

the bond markets in India are less than in the United States and, at times, price volatility can be greater than in the United States. The limited liquidity of securities markets in India may also affect a Fund’s ability to acquire or dispose of securities at the price and time it wishes to do so. In addition, India’s securities markets are susceptible to being influenced by large investors trading significant blocks of securities.

Political and economic structures in India are undergoing significant evolution and rapid development, and may lack the social, political and economic stability characteristic of the United States. The risks described above, including the risks of nationalization or expropriation of assets, may be heightened. In addition, unanticipated political or social developments may affect the values of investments in India and the availability of additional investments. The laws in India relating to limited liability of corporate shareholders, fiduciary duties of officers and directors, and the bankruptcy of state enterprises are generally less well developed than or different from such laws in the United States. It may be more difficult to obtain or enforce a judgment in the courts in India than it is in the United States. Monsoons and natural disasters also can affect the value of investments.

Religious and border disputes persist in India. Moreover, India has from time to time experienced civil unrest and hostilities with neighboring countries such as Pakistan. The Indian government has confronted separatist movements in several Indian states. The longstanding dispute with Pakistan over the bordering Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, a majority of whose population is Muslim, remains unresolved. If the Indian government is unable to control the violence and disruption associated with these tensions, the results could destabilize the economy and consequently, adversely affect a Fund’s investments.

A Fund may use P-notes. Indian-based brokerages may buy Indian-based securities and then issue P-notes to foreign investors. Any dividends or capital gains collected from the underlying securities may be remitted to the foreign investors. However, unlike ADRs, notes are subject to credit risk based on the uncertainty of the counterparty’s (i.e., the Indian-based brokerage’s) ability to meet its obligations.

Investments in Japan

The Japanese economy may be subject to economic, political and social instability, which could have a negative impact on Japanese securities. In the past, Japan’s economic growth rate has remained relatively low, and it may remain low in the future. Furthermore, the Japanese economic growth rate could be impacted by Bank of Japan monetary policies, rising interest rates, tax increases, budget deficits, consumer confidence and volatility in the Japanese yen. At times, the Japanese economy has been adversely impacted by government intervention and protectionism, changes in its labor market, and an unstable financial services sector. International trade, government support of the financial services sector and other troubled sectors, government policy, natural disasters, an aging demographic and declining population and/or geopolitical developments associated with actual or potential conflicts with one or more countries in Asia could significantly affect the Japanese economy. Strained foreign relations with neighboring countries (China, South Korea, North Korea and Russia) may not only negatively impact the Japanese economy but also the geographic region as well as globally. A significant portion of Japan’s trade is conducted with developing nations and can be affected by conditions in these nations or by currency fluctuations. Japan is an island state with few natural resources and limited land area and is reliant on imports for its commodity needs. Any fluctuations or shortages in the commodity markets could have a negative impact on the Japanese economy. In addition, Japan’s economy has in the past and could in the future be significantly impacted by natural disasters.

Investments in the Middle East and Africa

Certain countries in the region are in early stages of development. As a result, there may be a high concentration of market capitalization and trading volume in a small number of issuers representing a limited number of industries, as well as a high concentration of investors and financial intermediaries. Brokers may be fewer in number and less well capitalized than brokers in more developed regions. Certain economies in the region depend to a significant degree upon exports of commodities and are vulnerable to changes in commodity prices, which in turn may be affected by a variety of factors. In addition, certain governments in the region have exercised substantial influence over the private sector, including ownership or control of companies. Governmental actions in the future could have a significant economic impact. In particular, changes in investment policies or shifts in the prevailing political climate could result in the introduction of changes to government regulations with respect to price controls, export and import controls, income and other taxes, foreign ownership restrictions, foreign exchange and currency controls and labor and welfare benefit policies. Unexpected changes in these policies or regulations could lead to increased investment, operating or compliance expenses. Any such changes could have a material adverse

Part II - 76

effect on a Fund’s and the Adviser’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Certain armed conflict, territorial disputes, historical animosities, regional instability, terrorist activities and religious, ethnic and/or socioeconomic unrest. Such developments could have a negative effect on economic growth and could result in significant disruptions in the securities markets, including securities held by a Fund. Specific country risks that may have a material adverse effect on a Fund’s business, financial condition and results of operations are: potential political instability, riots or other forms of civil disturbance or violence; war, terrorism, invasion, rebellion or revolution; government interventions, including expropriation or nationalization of assets, increased protectionism and the introduction of tariffs or subsidies; changing fiscal and regulatory regimes; arbitrary or inconsistent Government action; inflation in local economies; cancellation, nullification or unenforceability of contractual rights; and underdeveloped industrial and economic infrastructure. In particular, since late 2010, there have been significant civil disturbances and events resulting from political turmoil affecting several countries in the Middle East and North Africa (“MENA”) Region, which to date have led to the collapse, or near collapse, of the political regimes of Syria, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. There are on-going protests in other countries in the MENA Region, including strikes, demonstrations, marches and rallies. In addition, since late 2011 tensions between western nations and Iran in respect of Iran’s nuclear program have escalated, with Iran threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz and western nations implementing more severe economic sanctions against Iran. Such continuing instability and unrest in the MENA Region may significantly impact economies in the region. Such impacts could occur through a lower flow of foreign direct investment into the region, the outflow of expatriate residents or capital, or increased volatility in the global and regional financial markets. Certain Middle Eastern and African countries have currencies pegged to the U.S. dollar, which, if abandoned, could cause sudden and significant currency adjustments, which could impact a Fund’s investment returns in those countries. The legal systems, and the unpredictability thereof, in certain countries in the region also may have an adverse impact on a Fund and may expose the Fund to significant or unlimited liabilities. Investment in certain countries in the region by a Fund may be restricted or prohibited under applicable regulation, and the Fund, as a foreign investor, may be required to obtain approvals and may have to invest on less advantageous terms (including price) than nationals. A Fund’s investments in securities of a country in the region may be subject to economic sanctions or other government restrictions, which may negatively impact the value or liquidity of the Fund’s investments. Investments in the region may adversely impact the operations of a Fund through the delay of the Fund’s ability to exercise its rights as a security holder. Substantial limitations may exist in the region with respect to a Fund’s ability to repatriate investment income, capital gains or its investment. Securities which are subject to material legal restrictions on repatriation of assets will be considered illiquid securities by a Fund and subject to the limitations on illiquid investments.

Saudi Arabia. To the extent a Fund invests in securities issued by Saudi Arabian issuers, the Fund may be subject to the risk of investing in those issuers. Saudi Arabian issuers may be impacted by the Saudi Arabian economy, which is significantly tied to petroleum exports. As a result, a reduction in petroleum exports with key partners or in petroleum prices could have an overall impact on the Saudi Arabian economy. The Saudi Arabian economy also relies heavily on cheap, foreign labor, and changes in the availability of this labor supply could have an adverse effect on the economy.

Although liberalization in the wider Saudi Arabian economy is underway, the government of Saudi Arabia exercises substantial influence over many aspects of the private sector. Political instability in Saudi Arabia or instability in the larger Middle East region could adversely impact the economy of Saudi Arabia. Instability may be caused by, among other things: military developments; government interventions in the marketplace; terrorism; extremist attitudes; attempted social or political reforms; religious differences; and other factors. Additionally, anti-Western views held by certain groups in the Middle East may influence the government of Saudi Arabia’s policies regarding foreign investment. In addition, certain issuers located in Saudi Arabia may operate in, or have dealings with, countries subject to sanctions and/or embargoes imposed by the U.S. government and the United Nations and/or countries identified by the U.S. government as state sponsors of terrorism. As a result, an issuer may sustain damage to its reputation if it is identified as an issuer that operates in, or has dealings with, such countries. A Fund, as an investor in such issuers, will be indirectly subject to those risks. A Fund is also subject to the risk of expropriation or nationalization of assets and property or the risk of restrictions on foreign investments and repatriation of capital.

The ability of foreign investors, including the Funds, to invest in Saudi Arabian issuers is relatively new and untested, and such ability may be revoked or restricted by the government of Saudi Arabia in the future, which may materially affect a Fund. A Fund may be unable to obtain or maintain the required licenses, which would affect the Fund’s ability to buy and sell securities at full value. Additionally, a Fund’s

Part II - 77

ownership of any single issuer listed on the Saudi Arabian Stock Exchange may be limited by the Saudi Arabia Capital Market Authority (“CMA”). Major disruptions or regulatory changes may occur in the Saudi Arabian market, which could negatively impact the Funds.

The securities markets in Saudi Arabia may not be as developed as those in other countries. As a result, securities markets in Saudi Arabia are subject to greater risks associated with market volatility, lower market capitalization, lower trading volume, illiquidity, inflation, greater price fluctuations, uncertainty regarding the existence of trading markets, governmental control and heavy regulation of labor and industry. Shares of certain Saudi Arabian companies tend to trade less frequently than those of companies on exchanges in more developed markets, which may adversely affect the pricing of these securities and a Fund’s ability to sell these securities in the future. Current regulations in the Saudi Arabian securities markets may require a Fund to execute trades of securities through a single broker. As a result, the investment adviser will have less flexibility to choose among brokers on behalf of a Fund than is typically the case for investment managers.

A Fund’s ability to achieve its investment objective depends on the ability of the investment adviser to maintain its status as a Qualified Foreign Investor (“QFI”) with the CMA and the Fund as a client of a QFI who has been approved by the CMA (“QFI Client”). Even if a Fund obtains QFI Client status, the Fund may not have an exclusive investment quota and will be subject to foreign investment limitations and other regulations imposed by the CMA on QFIs and QFI Clients (individually and in the aggregate), as well as local market participants. QFI regulations and local market infrastructure are relatively new and have not been tested and the CMA may discontinue the QFI regime at any time. Any change in the QFI system generally, including the possibility of the investment adviser or a Fund losing its QFI or QFI Client status, respectively, may adversely affect the Fund.

A Fund is required to use a trading account to buy and sell securities in Saudi Arabia. This trading account can be held directly with a broker or a custodian. Under the Independent Custody Model (“ICM”), securities are under the control of the custodian and would be recoverable in the event of the bankruptcy of the custodian. When a Fund utilizes the ICM approach, the Fund relies on a broker standing instruction letter to authorize the Fund’s sub-custodian to move securities to a trading account for settlement based on the details supplied by the broker. The risk of a fraudulent or erroneous transaction through the ICM approach is mitigated by the short trading hours in Saudi Arabia, a manual pre-matching process conducted by the custodian, which validates a Fund’s settlement instructions with the local broker contract note, and the transaction report from the depository. When a Fund utilizes a direct broker trading account, the account is set up in the Fund’s name and the assets are likely to be separated from any other accounts at the broker. However, if the broker defaults, there may be a delay to recovering the Fund’s assets that are held in the broker account and legal proceedings may need to be initiated in order to do so.

Investments in Latin America

As an emerging market, Latin America has long suffered from political, economic, and social instability. For investors, this has meant additional risk caused by periods of regional conflict, political corruption, totalitarianism, protectionist measures, nationalization, hyperinflation, debt crises, sudden and large currency devaluation, and intervention by the military in civilian and economic spheres. However, democracy is beginning to become well established in some countries. A move to a more mature and accountable political environment is well under way. Domestic economies have been deregulated, privatization of state-owned companies is almost completed and foreign trade restrictions have been relaxed. Nonetheless, to the extent that events such as those listed above continue in the future, they could reverse favorable trends toward market and economic reform, privatization, and removal of trade barriers, and result in significant disruption in securities markets in the region. Investors in the region continue to face a number of potential risks. Governments of many Latin American countries have exercised and continue to exercise substantial influence over many aspects of the private sector. Governmental actions and political instability in the future could have a significant effect on economic conditions in Latin American countries, which could affect the companies in which a Fund invests and, therefore, the value of Fund Shares. Other Latin American investment risks may include inadequate investor protection, less developed regulatory, accounting, auditing and financial standards, unfavorable changes in laws or regulations, pandemics, natural disasters, corruption and military activity.

Certain Latin American countries may experience sudden and large adjustments in their currency which, in turn, can have a disruptive and negative effect on foreign investors. In addition, some Latin American currencies have experienced steady devaluations relative to the U.S. dollar and certain Latin American countries have had to make major adjustments in their currencies from time to time. Certain Latin American countries may impose restrictions on the free conversion of their currency into foreign

Part II - 78

currencies, including the U.S. dollar. There is no significant foreign exchange market for many currencies and it would, as a result, be difficult for certain Funds to engage in foreign currency transactions designed to protect the value of the Funds’ interests in securities denominated in such currencies.

International economic conditions, particularly those in the United States, as well as world prices for oil and other commodities may also influence certain Latin American economies. Because commodities such as oil, gas, minerals and metals represent a significant percentage of the region’s exports, the economies of Latin American countries are particularly sensitive to fluctuations in commodity prices. As a result, the economies in many of these countries can experience significant volatility.

Almost all of the region’s economies have become highly dependent upon foreign credit and loans from external sources to fuel their state-sponsored economic plans. Government profligacy and ill-conceived plans for modernization have exhausted these resources with little benefit accruing to the economy and most countries have been forced to restructure their loans or risk default on their debt obligations. In addition, interest on the debt is subject to market conditions and may reach levels that would impair economic activity and create a difficult and costly environment for borrowers. Accordingly, these governments may be forced to reschedule or freeze their debt repayment, which could negatively affect the stock market. Latin American economies that depend on foreign credit and loans could fall into recession because of tighter international credit supplies in a global economic crisis.

Substantial limitations may exist in certain countries with respect to a Fund’s ability to repatriate investment income, capital or the proceeds of sales of securities. A Fund could be adversely affected by delays in, or a refusal to grant, any required governmental approval for repatriation of capital, as well as by the application to the Fund of any restrictions on investments.

Certain Latin American countries have entered into regional trade agreements that are designed to, among other things, reduce barriers between countries, increase competition among companies and reduce government subsidies in certain industries. No assurance can be given that these changes will be successful in the long term, or that these changes will result in the economic stability intended. There is a possibility that these trade arrangements will not be fully implemented, or will be partially or completely unwound. It is also possible that a significant participant could choose to abandon a trade agreement, which could diminish its credibility and influence. Any of these occurrences could have adverse effects on the markets of both participating and non-participating countries, including sharp appreciation or depreciation of participants’ national currencies and a significant increase in exchange rate volatility, a resurgence in economic protectionism, an undermining of confidence in the Latin American markets, an undermining of Latin American economic stability, the collapse or slowdown of the drive towards Latin American economic unity, and/or reversion of the attempts to lower government debt and inflation rates that were introduced in anticipation of such trade agreements. Such developments could have an adverse impact on a Fund’s investments in Latin America generally or in specific countries participating in such trade agreements.

Terrorism and related geo-political risks have led, and may in the future lead, to increased short-term market volatility and may have adverse long-term effects on world economies and markets generally.

Investments in Russia

Investing in Russian securities is highly speculative and involves significant risks and special considerations not typically associated with investing in the securities markets of the U.S. and most other developed countries.

Over the past century, Russia has experienced political, social and economic turbulence and has endured decades of communist rule under which the property of tens of millions of its citizens was collectivized into state agricultural and industrial enterprises. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s government has been faced with the daunting task of stabilizing its domestic economy, while transforming it into a modern and efficient structure able to compete in international markets and respond to the needs of its citizens. However, to date, many of the country’s economic reform initiatives have not been successful. In this environment, there is the risk that the Russian government will alter its political and economic policies in ways that would be detrimental to the interests of foreign investors.

Recently, the Russian government has asserted its regional geopolitical influence, including through military measures, which has increased tensions both with Russia’s neighbors and with other countries. Further possible actions by Russia could lead to greater adverse impact for the Russian economy.

Part II - 79

Many of Russia’s businesses have failed to mobilize the available factors of production because the country’s privatization program virtually ensured the predominance of the old management teams that are largely non-market-oriented in their management approach. Poor accounting standards, inept management, pervasive corruption, insider trading and crime, and inadequate regulatory protection for the rights of investors all pose a significant risk, particularly to foreign investors. In addition, there is the risk that the Russian tax system will be enforced inconsistently or in an arbitrary manner or that exorbitant taxes will be imposed.

Compared to most national stock markets, the Russian securities market suffers from a variety of problems not encountered in more developed markets. There is little long-term historical data on the Russian securities market because it is relatively new and a substantial proportion of securities transactions in Russia are privately negotiated outside of stock exchanges. The inexperience of the Russian securities market and the limited volume of trading in securities in the market may make obtaining accurate prices on portfolio securities from independent sources more difficult than in more developed markets. Additionally, because of less stringent auditing and financial reporting standards that apply to companies operating in Russia, there is little solid corporate information available to investors. As a result, it may be difficult to assess the value or prospects of an investment in Russian companies. Stocks of Russian companies also may experience greater price volatility than stocks of U.S. companies.

Settlement, clearing and registration of securities transactions in Russia are subject to additional risks because of the recent formation of the Russian securities market, the underdeveloped state of the banking and telecommunications systems, and the overall legal and regulatory framework. Prior to 2013, there was no central registration system for equity share registration in Russia and registration was carried out by either the issuers themselves or by registrars located throughout Russia. Such registrars were not necessarily subject to effective state supervision nor were they licensed with any governmental entity, thereby increasing the risk that a Fund could lose ownership of its securities through fraud, negligence, or even mere oversight. With the implementation of the National Settlement Depository (“NSD”) in Russia as a recognized central securities depository, title to Russian equities is now based on the records of the Depository and not the registrars. Although the implementation of the NSD has enhanced the efficiency and transparency of the Russian securities market, issues resulting in loss still might occur. In addition, issuers and registrars are still prominent in the validation and approval of documentation requirements for corporate action processing in Russia. Because the documentation requirements and approval criteria vary between registrars and/or issuers, there remain unclear and inconsistent market standards in the Russian market with respect to the completion and submission of corporate action elections. To the extent that a Fund suffers a loss relating to title or corporate actions relating to its portfolio securities, it may be difficult for the Fund to enforce its rights or otherwise remedy the loss.

The Russian economy is heavily dependent upon the export of a range of commodities including most industrial metals, forestry products, oil, and gas. Accordingly, it is strongly affected by international commodity prices and is particularly vulnerable to any weakening in global demand for these products. Over the long-term, Russia faces challenges including a shrinking workforce, high levels of corruption, difficulty in accessing capital for smaller, non-energy companies, and poor infrastructure in need of large investments.

Foreign investors also face a high degree of currency risk when investing in Russian securities and a lack of available currency hedging instruments. In addition, there is a risk that the government may impose capital controls on foreign portfolio investments in the event of extreme financial or political crisis. Such capital controls would prevent the sale of a portfolio of foreign assets and the repatriation of investment income and capital. These risks may cause flight from the ruble into U.S. dollars and other currencies.

The United States and the European Union have in the past, and may in the future, impose sanctions on certain Russian entities and individuals and certain sectors of Russia’s economy, which may result in, among other things, the devaluation of Russian currency, a downgrade in the country’s credit rating, and/or a decline in the value and liquidity of Russian securities, property or interests. The United States and other nations or international organizations may impose additional economic sanctions or take other actions that may adversely affect Russia-exposed issuers and companies in various sectors of the Russian economy, including, but not limited to, the financials, energy, metals and mining, engineering, and defense and defense-related materials sectors. These sanctions, or even the threat of further sanctions, may result in the decline of the value and liquidity of Russian securities, a weakening of the ruble or other adverse consequences to the Russian economy. These sanctions could also result in the immediate freeze of Russian securities and/or funds invested in prohibited assets, impairing the ability of a Fund to buy, sell, receive or deliver those securities and/or assets.

Part II - 80

Sanctions could also result in Russia taking counter measures or retaliatory actions which may further impair the value and liquidity of Russian securities. In February 2022, Russia launched a large-scale invasion of Ukraine and has been the subject of economic sanctions imposed by countries throughout the world, including the United States. Any retaliatory actions by Russia may further impair the value and liquidity of a Fund’s portfolio and potentially disrupt its operations. Uncertainty as to future relations between Russia and the United States or the European Union may also cause a decline in the value of a Fund’s shares.

RISK MANAGEMENT

Each actively managed Fund may employ non-hedging risk management techniques. Risk management strategies are used to keep the Funds fully invested and to reduce the transaction costs associated with cash flows into and out of a Fund. The Funds use a wide variety of instruments and strategies for risk management and the examples below are not meant to be exhaustive.

Examples of risk management strategies include synthetically altering the duration of a portfolio or the mix of securities in a portfolio. For example, if the Adviser wishes to extend maturities in a fixed income portfolio in order to take advantage of an anticipated decline in interest rates, but does not wish to purchase the underlying long-term securities, it might cause a Fund to purchase futures contracts on long term debt securities. Likewise, if the Adviser wishes to gain exposure to an instrument but does not wish to purchase the instrument it may use swaps and related instruments. Similarly, if the Adviser wishes to decrease exposure to fixed income securities or purchase equities, it could cause a Fund to sell futures contracts on debt securities and purchase futures contracts on a stock index. Such non-hedging risk management techniques involve leverage, and thus, present, as do all leveraged transactions, the possibility of losses as well as gains that are greater than if these techniques involved the purchase and sale of the securities themselves rather than their synthetic derivatives.

LIQUIDITY RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Funds, have adopted a Liquidity Risk Management Program (the “Program”) under Rule 22e-4 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Liquidity Risk Management Rule”). Effective October 31, 2021, the Program has been amended for all Funds to reflect the exemptions from certain provisions of the Liquidity Risk Management Rule and certain reporting requirements as permitted by the Exemptive Order issued by the SEC to the Funds on January 21, 2021(the “Exemptive Order”). Under the Program, the Funds limit Illiquid Investments that are assets to 15% of the Fund’s net assets (“Illiquid Limit”) and report to the Board and SEC within specified time periods of a Fund exceeding its 15% Illiquid Limit. An “Illiquid Investment” is defined pursuant to the Exemptive Order as any portfolio investment that a Fund reasonably expects could not be sold within three trading days without the sale or disposition significantly changing the market value of the investment.

RISK RELATED TO MANAGEMENT OF CERTAIN SIMILAR FUNDS

The name, investment objective and policies of certain Portfolios are similar to other funds advised by the adviser or its affiliates. However, the investment results of a Portfolio may be higher or lower than, and there is no guarantee that the investment results of a Portfolio will be comparable to, any other of the funds.

Similar investment strategies to that of a Fund may be provided by the adviser through other forms based on investor preferences and the needs of various distribution channels through which the strategies are available. In some, if not many, cases the strategies share the same or common names, and have identical or substantially similar investment strategies, are managed by identical or similar portfolio management teams at the adviser, or share various other attributes depending on the circumstances. For instance, the same or substantially similar strategies may be offered in the form of or through mutual funds, exchange traded products (including ETFs), collective investment trusts, 529 plans, institutional separately managed accounts, retail separately managed accounts, and model portfolios used by other investment professionals.

Despite any similarities, these offerings can have important differences that any investor should consider and discuss with their investment professionals. These differences can include, without limitation, differences in investment limitations, embedded fees and expenses, portfolio composition (including the number of securities), use of derivatives or leverage, use of fund assets to pay for distribution,

Part II - 81

administrative, or shareholder support services provided by investment professionals, investor eligibility, variations in share classes and related expenses, investor liquidity, differing level of involvement by other investment professionals in assisting or supporting investors, different risks (including risks related to portfolio diversification), different performance, different tracking against benchmarks or indices, different tax treatment and efficiency (which can be important to non-retirement plan investors), the extent to which an investor can impose investment restrictions, the extent to which fees and expenses are negotiable, the ability to hold stakes in non-publicly traded securities and securities traded on foreign exchanges, the frequency with which portfolio holdings are allocated and reallocated, the frequency with which transactions are effected, the frequency with which information on portfolio holdings is publicly available (and lags in such disclosure), and other differences which can be material.

To understand these differences and decide which offering is best suited for an investor, the investor should review the prospectus, offering document or brochure for the relevant offering and consult their investment professionals. Investment professionals providing advice or recommendations of these offerings are themselves responsible for undertaking appropriate due diligence, considering factors such as cost and complexity and evaluating any offering in relation to reasonably available alternatives under applicable law – all within the broader framework of an investor’s financial circumstances, needs and objectives.

DIVERSIFICATION

Certain Funds are diversified funds and as such intend to meet the diversification requirements of the 1940 Act. Please refer to the Funds’ SAI Part I for information about whether a Fund is a diversified or non-diversified Fund. Current 1940 Act diversification requirements require that with respect to 75% of the assets of a Fund, the Fund may not invest more than 5% of its total assets in the securities of any one issuer or own more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer, except cash or cash items, obligations of the U.S. government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and securities of other investment companies. As for the other 25% of a Fund’s assets not subject to the limitation described above, there is no limitation on investment of these assets under the 1940 Act, so that all of such assets may be invested in securities of any one issuer. Investments not subject to the limitations described above could involve an increased risk to a Fund should an issuer be unable to make interest or principal payments or should the market value of such securities decline.

Certain other Funds are registered as non-diversified investment companies. A Fund is considered “non-diversified” because a relatively high percentage of the Fund’s assets may be invested in the securities of a single issuer or a limited number of issuers, primarily within the same economic sector. A non-diversified Fund’s portfolio securities, therefore, may be more susceptible to any single economic, political, or regulatory occurrence than the portfolio securities of a more diversified investment company.

Regardless of whether a Fund is diversified under the 1940 Act, all of the Funds will comply with the diversification requirements imposed by the Code for qualification as a regulated investment company. See “Distributions and Tax Matters.”

DISTRIBUTIONS AND TAX MATTERS

The following discussion is a brief summary of some of the important federal (and, where noted, state) income tax consequences affecting each Fund and its shareholders. There may be other tax considerations applicable to particular shareholders. This section does not address in detail the tax consequences affecting any shareholder who, as to the U.S., is a nonresident alien individual, foreign trust or estate, foreign corporation, or foreign partnership. This section is based on the Code, the regulations thereunder, published rulings and court decisions, all as currently in effect. These laws are subject to change, possibly on a retroactive basis. The following tax discussion is very general; therefore, prospective investors are urged to consult their tax advisors about the impact an investment in a Fund may have on their own tax situations and the possible application of foreign, state and local law.

Each Fund generally will be treated as a separate entity for federal income tax purposes, and thus the provisions of the Code generally will be applied to each Fund separately. Net long-term and short-term capital gain, net income and operating expenses therefore will be determined separately for each Fund.

Special tax rules apply to investments held through defined contribution plans and other tax-qualified plans. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors to determine the suitability of Shares of the Fund as an investment through such plans.

Part II - 82

Qualification as a Regulated Investment Company

Each Fund intends to elect to be treated and qualify each year as a regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Code. In order to qualify for the special tax treatment accorded regulated investment companies and their shareholders, each Fund must, among other things:

(a)

derive at least 90% of its gross income for each taxable year from (i) dividends, interest, payments with respect to certain securities loans, and gain from the sale or other disposition of stock, securities, or foreign currencies, or other income (including, but not limited to, gain from options, swaps, futures, or forward contracts) derived with respect to its business of investing in such stock, securities, or currencies and (ii) net income derived from interests in “qualified publicly traded partnerships” (“QPTPs,” defined below);

(b)

diversify its holdings so that, at the end of each quarter of the Fund’s taxable year, (i) at least 50% of the market value of the Fund’s total assets is represented by cash and cash items, U.S. government securities, securities of other regulated investment companies, and other securities, limited in respect of any one issuer to an amount not greater than 5% of the value of the Fund’s total assets and not more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer, and (ii) not more than 25% of the value of the Fund’s total assets is invested (x) in the securities (other than cash or cash items, or securities issued by the U.S. government or other regulated investment companies) of any one issuer or of two or more issuers that the Fund controls and that are engaged in the same, similar, or related trades or businesses, or (y) in the securities of one or more QPTPs. In the case of a Fund’s investments in loan participations, the Fund shall treat both the financial intermediary and the issuer of the underlying loan as an issuer for the purposes of meeting this diversification requirement; and

(c)

distribute with respect to each taxable year at least 90% of the sum of its investment company taxable income (as that term is defined in the Code, without regard to the deduction for dividends paid — generally, taxable ordinary income and any excess of net short-term capital gain over net long-term capital loss) and net tax-exempt interest income, for such taxable year.

In general, for purposes of the 90% gross income requirement described in paragraph (a) above, income derived from a partnership will be treated as qualifying income only to the extent such income is attributable to items of income of the partnership which would be qualifying income if realized by the regulated investment company. However, 100% of the net income derived from an interest in a “qualified publicly traded partnership” (defined as a partnership (x) interests in which are traded on an established securities markets or readily tradable on a secondary market as the substantial equivalents thereof, (y) that derives at least 90% of its income from passive income sources defined in Section 7704(d) of the Code, and (z) that derives less than 90% of its income from the qualifying income described in (a)(i) above) will be treated as qualifying income. Although income from a QPTP is qualifying income, as discussed above, investments in QPTPs cannot exceed 25% of a Fund’s assets. In addition, although in general the passive loss rules of the Code do not apply to regulated investment companies, such rules do apply to a regulated investment company with respect to items attributable to an interest in a QPTP.

Gains from foreign currencies (including foreign currency options, foreign currency swaps, foreign currency futures and foreign currency forward contracts) currently constitute qualifying income for purposes of the 90% test, described in paragraph (a) above. However, the Treasury Department has the authority to issue regulations (possibly with retroactive effect) excluding from the definition of “qualifying income” a fund’s foreign currency gains to the extent that such income is not directly related to a Fund’s principal business of investing in stock or securities.

For purposes of paragraph (b) above, the term “outstanding voting securities of such issuer” will include the equity securities of a QPTP. A Fund’s investment in MLPs may qualify as an investment in (1) a QPTP, (2) a “regular” partnership, (3) a “passive foreign investment company” (a “PFIC”) or (4) a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The treatment of particular MLPs for U.S. federal income tax purposes will affect the extent to which a Fund can invest in MLPs. The U.S. federal income tax consequences of a Fund’s investments in “PFICs” and “regular” partnerships are discussed in greater detail below.

If a Fund qualifies for a taxable year as a regulated investment company that is accorded special tax treatment, the Fund will not be subject to federal income tax on income distributed in a timely manner to its shareholders in the form of dividends (including Capital Gain Dividends, defined below). If a Fund were to fail to qualify as a regulated investment company accorded special tax treatment in any taxable year, the Fund would be subject to taxation on its taxable income at corporate rates, and all distributions

Part II - 83

from earnings and profits, including any distributions of net tax-exempt income and net long-term capital gain, would be taxable to shareholders as ordinary income. Some portions of such distributions may be eligible for the dividends-received deduction in the case of corporate shareholders and for treatment as qualified dividend income in the case of individual shareholders. In addition, a Fund could be required to recognize unrealized gain, pay substantial taxes and interest, and make substantial distributions before re-qualifying as a regulated investment company that is accorded special tax treatment.

Each Fund intends to distribute at least annually to its shareholders all or substantially all of its investment company taxable income (computed without regard to the dividends-paid deduction) and may distribute its net capital gain (that is the excess of net long-term capital gain over net short-term capital loss). Investment company taxable income which is retained by a Fund will be subject to tax at regular corporate tax rates. A Fund might also retain for investment its net capital gain. If a Fund does retain such net capital gain, such gain will be subject to tax at regular corporate rates on the amount retained, but the Fund may designate the retained amount as undistributed capital gain in a notice to its shareholders who (i) will be required to include in income for federal income tax purposes, as long-term capital gain, their respective shares of the undistributed amount, and (ii) will be entitled to credit their respective shares of the tax paid by the Fund on such undistributed amount against their federal income tax liabilities, if any, and to claim refunds to the extent the credit exceeds such liabilities. For federal income tax purposes, the tax basis of shares owned by a shareholder of a Fund will be increased by an amount equal under current law to the difference between the amount of undistributed capital gain included in the shareholder’s gross income and the tax deemed paid by the shareholder under clause (ii) of the preceding sentence.

In determining its net capital gain, including in connection with determining the amount available to support a Capital Gain Dividend, its taxable income and its earnings and profits, a Fund may elect to treat part or all of any post-October capital loss (defined as any net capital loss attributable to the portion of the taxable year after October 31, or if there is no net capital loss, any net long-term capital loss or any net short-term capital loss attributable to the portion of the taxable year after that date) or late-year ordinary loss (generally, (i) net ordinary loss from the sale, exchange or other taxable disposition of property, attributable to the portion of the taxable year after October 31, plus (ii) other net ordinary loss attributable to the portion of the taxable year after December 31) as if incurred in the succeeding taxable year.

Excise Tax on Regulated Investment Companies

If a Fund fails to distribute in a calendar year an amount at least equal to the sum of 98% of its ordinary income (taking into account certain deferrals and elections) for such year and 98.2% of its capital gain net income (adjusted for certain ordinary losses) for the one-year period ending October 31 (or later if the Fund is permitted to elect and so elects), plus any retained amount from the prior year, the Fund will be subject to a nondeductible 4% excise tax on the undistributed amounts. The Funds intend to make distributions sufficient to avoid imposition of the 4% excise tax, although each Fund reserves the right to pay an excise tax rather than make an additional distribution when circumstances warrant (e.g., the excise tax amount is deemed by a Fund to be de minimis). Certain derivative instruments give rise to ordinary income and loss. If a Fund has a taxable year that begins in one calendar year and ends in the next calendar year, the Fund will be required to make this excise tax distribution during its taxable year. There is a risk that a Fund could recognize income prior to making this excise tax distribution and could recognize losses after making this distribution. As a result, all or a portion of an excise tax distribution could constitute a return of capital (see discussion below).

Fund Distributions

The Funds anticipate distributing substantially all of their net investment income for each taxable year. Distributions are taxable to shareholders even if they are paid from income or gain earned by the Fund before a shareholder’s investment (and thus were included in the price the shareholder paid). Distributions are taxable whether shareholders receive them in cash or reinvest them in additional shares. A shareholder whose distributions are reinvested in shares will be treated as having received a dividend equal to the amount of cash that the shareholder would have received if such shareholder had elected to receive the distribution in cash.

Dividends and distributions on a Fund’s shares generally are subject to federal income tax as described herein to the extent they do not exceed the Fund’s realized income and gains, even though such dividends and distributions may represent economically a return of a particular shareholder’s investment. Such dividends and distributions are likely to occur in respect of shares purchased at a time when a Fund’s NAV reflects gains that are either (i) unrealized, or (ii) realized but not distributed.

Part II - 84

For federal income tax purposes, distributions of net investment income generally are taxable as ordinary income. Taxes on distributions of capital gain are determined by how long a Fund owned the investment that generated it, rather than how long a shareholder may have owned shares in the Fund. Distributions of net capital gain from the sale of investments that a Fund owned for more than one year and that are properly reported by the Fund as capital gain dividends (“Capital Gain Dividends”) will be taxable as long-term capital gain. Distributions of capital gain generally are made after applying any available capital loss carryovers. The maximum individual rate applicable to long-term capital gains is either 15% or 20%, depending on whether the individual’s income exceeds certain threshold amounts. A distribution of gain from the sale of investments that a Fund owned for one year or less will be taxable as ordinary income. Distributions attributable to gain from the sale of MLPs that is characterized as ordinary income under the Code’s recapture provisions will be taxable as ordinary income.

Distributions of investment income reported by a Fund as derived from “qualified dividend income” will be taxed in the hands of individuals at the rates applicable to long-term capital gain. In order for some portion of the dividends received by a Fund shareholder to be qualified dividend income, the Fund must meet certain holding-period and other requirements with respect to some portion of the dividend-paying stocks in its portfolio, and the shareholder must meet certain holding-period and other requirements with respect to the Fund’s Shares. A dividend will not be treated as qualified dividend income (at either the Fund or shareholder level) (i) if the dividend is received with respect to any share of stock held for fewer than 61 days during the 121-day period beginning on the date which is 60 days before the date on which such share becomes ex-dividend with respect to such dividend (or, in the case of certain preferred stock, 91 days during the 181-day period beginning 90 days before such date), (ii) to the extent that the recipient is under an obligation (whether pursuant to a short sale or otherwise) to make related payments with respect to positions in substantially similar or related property, (iii) if the recipient elects to have the dividend income treated as investment interest for purposes of the limitation on deductibility of investment interest, or (iv) if the dividend is received from a foreign corporation that is (a) not eligible for the benefits of a comprehensive income tax treaty with the U.S. (with the exception of dividends paid on stock of such a foreign corporation readily tradable on an established securities market in the U.S.) or (b) treated as a PFIC. The amount of a Fund’s distributions that would otherwise qualify for this favorable tax treatment may be reduced as a result of a Fund’s securities lending activities or high portfolio turnover rate.

In general, distributions of investment income reported by a Fund as derived from qualified dividend income will be treated as qualified dividend income by a non-corporate taxable shareholder so long as the shareholder meets the holding period and other requirements described above with respect to the Fund’s Shares. In any event, if the qualified dividend income received by each Fund during any taxable year is equal to or greater than 95% of its “gross income,” then 100% of the Fund’s dividends (other than dividends that are properly reported as Capital Gain Dividends) will be eligible to be treated as qualified dividend income. For this purpose, the only gain included in the term “gross income” is the excess of net short-term capital gain over net long-term capital loss.

If a Fund receives dividends from an underlying fund, and the underlying fund reports such dividends as “qualified dividend income,” then the Fund may, in turn, report a portion of its distributions as “qualified dividend income” as well, provided the Fund meets the holding-period and other requirements with respect to shares of the underlying fund.

Any loss realized upon a taxable disposition of shares held for six months or less will be treated as long-term capital loss to the extent of any Capital Gain Dividends received by the shareholder with respect to those shares. All or a portion of any loss realized upon a taxable disposition of Fund Shares will be disallowed if other shares of such Fund are purchased within 30 days before or after the disposition. In such a case, the basis of the newly purchased shares will be adjusted to reflect the disallowed loss.

A distribution paid to shareholders by a Fund in January of a year generally is deemed to have been received by shareholders on December 31 of the preceding year, if the distribution was declared and payable to shareholders of record on a date in October, November, or December of that preceding year. The Funds will provide federal tax information annually, including information about dividends and distributions paid during the preceding year to taxable investors and others requesting such information.

If a Fund makes a distribution to its shareholders in excess of its current and accumulated “earnings and profits” in any taxable year, the excess distribution will be treated as a return of capital to the extent of each shareholder’s basis (for tax purposes) in its shares, and any distribution in excess of basis will be treated as capital gain. A return of capital is not taxable, but it reduces the shareholder’s basis in its shares, which reduces the loss (or increases the gain) on a subsequent taxable disposition by such shareholder of the shares.

Part II - 85

Dividends of net investment income received by corporate shareholders (other than shareholders that are S corporations) of a Fund will qualify for the 50% dividends-received deduction generally available to corporations to the extent of the amount of qualifying dividends received by the Fund from domestic corporations for the taxable year. A dividend received by a Fund will not be treated as a qualifying dividend (1) if the stock on which the dividend is paid is considered to be “debt-financed” (generally, acquired with borrowed funds), (2) if it has been received with respect to any share of stock that the Fund has held less than 46 days (91 days in the case of certain preferred stock) during the 91-day period beginning on the date which is 45 days before the date on which such share becomes ex-dividend with respect to such dividend (during the 181-day period beginning 90 days before such date in the case of certain preferred stock) or (3) to the extent that the Fund is under an obligation (pursuant to a short sale or otherwise) to make related payments with respect to positions in substantially similar or related property. Moreover, the dividends-received deduction may be disallowed or reduced (1) if the corporate shareholder fails to satisfy the foregoing requirements with respect to its Shares of a Fund or (2) by application of the Code. However, any distributions received by a Fund from REITs and PFICs will not qualify for the corporate dividends-received deduction. The amount eligible for the dividends received deduction may also be reduced as a result of a Fund’s securities lending activities or high portfolio turnover rate.

Certain distributions reported by a Fund as section 163(j) interest dividends may be treated as interest income by shareholders for purposes of the tax rules applicable to interest expense limitations under Code section 163(j). Such treatment by the shareholder is generally subject to holding period requirements and other potential limitations, although the holding period requirements are generally not applicable to dividends declared by money market funds and certain other funds that declare dividends daily and pay such dividends on a monthly or more frequent basis. The amount that a Fund is eligible to report as a Section 163(j) dividend for a tax year is generally limited to the excess of the Fund’s business interest income over the sum of the Fund’s (i) business interest expense and (ii) other deductions properly allocable to the Fund’s business interest income.

An additional 3.8% Medicare tax is imposed on certain net investment income (including ordinary dividends and capital gain distributions received from a Fund and net gains from redemptions or other taxable dispositions of Fund Shares, but excluding any exempt interest dividends from a Fund) of U.S. individuals, estates and trusts to the extent that such person’s “modified adjusted gross income” (in the case of an individual) or “adjusted gross income” (in the case of an estate or trust) exceeds certain threshold amounts.

Sale or Redemption of Shares

The sale, exchange, or redemption of Fund Shares may give rise to a gain or loss. In general, any gain or loss arising from (or treated as arising from) the sale or redemption of Shares of a Fund will be considered capital gain or loss and will be long-term capital gain or loss if the shares were held for more than one year. However, any capital loss arising from the sale or redemption of shares held for six months or less will be treated as a long-term capital loss to the extent of the amount of capital gain dividends received on (or undistributed capital gains credited with respect to) such shares. Additionally, any loss realized upon the sale or exchange of Fund Shares with a tax holding period of six months or less may be disallowed to the extent of any distributions treated as exempt interest dividends with respect to such shares. The maximum individual rate applicable to long-term capital gains is either 15% or 20%, depending on whether the individual’s income exceeds certain threshold amounts. Capital gain of a corporate shareholder is taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.

Fund Investments

Certain investments of the Funds, including transactions in options, swaptions, futures contracts, forward contracts, straddles, swaps, short sales, foreign currencies, inflation-linked securities and foreign securities, including for hedging purposes, will be subject to special tax rules (including mark-to-market, constructive sale, straddle, wash sale and short sale rules). In a given case, these rules may accelerate income to a Fund, defer losses to a Fund, cause adjustments in the holding periods of a Fund’s securities, convert long-term capital gain into short-term capital gain, convert short-term capital losses into long-term capital loss, or otherwise affect the character of a Fund’s income. These rules could therefore affect the amount, timing and character of distributions to shareholders and cause differences between a Fund’s book income and its taxable income. If a Fund’s book income exceeds its taxable income, the distribution (if any) of such excess generally will be treated as (i) a dividend to the extent of the Fund’s remaining earnings and profits (including earnings and profits arising from tax-exempt income), (ii) thereafter, as a return of capital to the extent of the recipient’s basis in its shares, and (iii) thereafter, as gain from the sale

Part II - 86

or exchange of a capital asset. If a Fund’s book income is less than taxable income, the Fund could be required to make distributions exceeding book income to qualify as a regulated investment company that is accorded special tax treatment. Income earned as a result of these transactions would, in general, not be eligible for the dividends-received deduction or for treatment as exempt-interest dividends when distributed to shareholders. The Funds will endeavor to make any available elections pertaining to such transactions in a manner believed to be in the best interest of each Fund and its shareholders.

A Fund’s participation in loans of securities may affect the amount, timing, and character of distributions to shareholders. With respect to any security subject to a securities loan, any (i) amounts received by a Fund in place of dividends earned on the security during the period that such security was not directly held by the Fund will not give rise to qualified dividend income and (ii) withholding taxes accrued on dividends during the period that such security was not directly held by the Fund will not qualify as a foreign tax paid by the Fund and therefore cannot be passed through to shareholders even if the Fund meets the requirements described in “Foreign Taxes,” below.

Certain debt securities purchased by the Funds are sold at an original issue discount and thus do not make periodic cash interest payments. Similarly, zero-coupon bonds do not make periodic interest payments. Generally, the amount of the original issue discount is treated as interest income and is included in taxable income (and required to be distributed) over the term of the debt security even though payment of that amount is not received until a later time, usually when the debt security matures. In addition, payment-in-kind securities will give rise to income that is required to be distributed and is taxable even though a Fund holding the security receives no interest payment in cash on the security during the year. Because each Fund distributes substantially all of its net investment income to its shareholders (including such imputed interest), a Fund may have to sell portfolio securities in order to generate the cash necessary for the required distributions. Such sales may occur at a time when the Adviser would not otherwise have chosen to sell such securities and may result in a taxable gain or loss. Some of the Funds may invest in inflation-linked debt securities. Any increase in the principal amount of an inflation-linked debt security will be original issue discount, which is taxable as ordinary income and is required to be distributed, even though a Fund will not receive the principal, including any increase thereto, until maturity. A Fund investing in such securities may be required to liquidate other investments, including at times when it is not advantageous to do so, in order to satisfy its distribution requirements and to eliminate any possible taxation at the Fund level. Certain debt securities that may be acquired by a Fund in the secondary market may be treated as having market discount. Generally, any gain recognized on the disposition of, and any partial payment of principal on, a debt security having market discount is treated as ordinary income to the extent the gain, or principal payment, does not exceed the “accrued market discount” on such debt security. Market discount generally accrues in equal daily installments. A Fund may make one or more of the elections applicable to debt securities having market discount, which could affect the character and timing of recognition of income.

A Fund may invest to a significant extent in debt obligations that are in the lowest rated categories (or are unrated), including debt obligations of issuers that are not currently paying interest or that are in default. Investments in debt obligations that are at risk of being in default (or are presently in default) present special tax issues for a Fund. Tax rules are not entirely clear about issues such as when a Fund may cease to accrue interest, original issue discount or market discount, when and to what extent deductions may be taken for bad debts or worthless securities and how payments received on obligations in default should be allocated between principal and income. These and other related issues will be addressed by each Fund when, as and if it invests in such securities, in order to seek to ensure that it distributes sufficient income to preserve its status as a regulated investment company and does not become subject to U.S. federal income taxation or any excise tax.

A Fund’s investments in foreign currencies, foreign currency denominated debt securities and certain options, futures or forward foreign currency contracts (and similar instruments) will be subject to special tax rules. Generally, transactions in foreign currencies give rise to ordinary income or loss. An election under Section 988(a)(1)(B) may be available to treat foreign currency gain or loss attributable to certain forward, futures and option contracts as capital, including certain “foreign currency contracts.” A “foreign currency contract” is a contract that (1) requires delivery of, or settlement of, a foreign currency that is a currency in which positions are also traded through regulated futures contracts, (2) is traded in the interbank market, and (3) is entered into at an arm’s-length price determined by reference to the price in the interbank market. If this Section 988(a)(1)(B) election is made, foreign currency contracts are treated as 60% long-term capital gain or loss and 40% short-term capital gain or loss under the Section 1256 mark-to-market rules. All other forward contracts under this 988(a)(1)(B) election would be characterized as capital and generally gain or loss would be recognized when the contract is closed and completed. Other

Part II - 87

rules apply to options, futures or forward foreign currency contracts that may be part of a straddle or a Section 988 hedging transaction within the meaning of Code Section 988(d). Proposed regulations also permit an election to use a mark-to-market method of accounting for currency gains and losses with respect to certain transactions. The elective method of accounting takes into account currently only changes in the value of the transaction attributable to exchange rate fluctuations and does not take into account changes in value due to other factors, such as changes in market interest rates. The election does not apply in certain cases, including with respect to any securities that are marked to market under any other provision.

Special tax considerations apply if a Fund invests in investment companies that are taxable as partnerships for federal income tax purposes. In general, a Fund will not recognize income earned by such an investment company until the close of the investment company’s taxable year. But a Fund will recognize such income as it is earned by the investment company for purposes of determining whether it is subject to the 4% excise tax. Therefore, if a Fund and such an investment company have different taxable years, the Fund may be compelled to make distributions in excess of the income recognized from such an investment company in order to avoid the imposition of the 4% excise tax. A Fund’s receipt of a non-liquidating cash distribution from an investment company taxable as a partnership generally will result in recognized gain (but not loss) only to the extent that the amount of the distribution exceeds the Fund’s adjusted basis in shares of such investment company before the distribution. A Fund that receives a liquidating cash distribution from an investment company taxable as a partnership will recognize capital gain or loss to the extent of the difference between the proceeds received by the Fund and the Fund’s adjusted tax basis in shares of such investment company; however, the Fund will recognize ordinary income, rather than capital gain, to the extent that the Fund’s allocable share of “unrealized receivables” (including any accrued but untaxed market discount) exceeds the shareholder’s share of the basis in those unrealized receivables.

Some amounts received by each Fund with respect to its investments in MLPs will likely be treated as a return of capital because of accelerated deductions available with respect to the activities of such MLPs. On the disposition of an investment in such an MLP, a Fund will likely realize taxable income in excess of economic gain with respect to that asset (or, if the Fund does not dispose of the MLP, the Fund likely will realize taxable income in excess of cash flow with respect to the MLP in a later period), and the Fund must take such income into account in determining whether the Fund has satisfied its distribution requirements. A Fund may have to borrow or liquidate securities to satisfy its distribution requirements and to meet its redemption requests, even though investment considerations might otherwise make it undesirable for the Fund to sell securities or borrow money at such time.

Some of the Funds may invest in REITs. Such investments in REIT equity securities may require a Fund to accrue and distribute income not yet received. In order to generate sufficient cash to make the requisite distributions, a Fund may be required to sell securities in its portfolio (including when it is not advantageous to do so) that it otherwise would have continued to hold. A Fund’s investments in REIT equity securities may at other times result in the Fund’s receipt of cash in excess of the REIT’s earnings; if the Fund distributes such amounts, such distribution could constitute a return of capital to Fund shareholders for federal income tax purposes. Dividends received by a Fund from a REIT generally will not constitute qualified dividend income.

Tax reform legislation established a 20% deduction for qualified business income. Under this provision, which is effective for taxable years beginning in 2018 and, without further legislation, will sunset for taxable years beginning after 2025, individuals, trusts, and estates generally may deduct (the “Deduction”) 20% of “qualified business income,” which includes all ordinary REIT dividends (“Qualifying REIT Dividends”) and certain income from investments in MLPs (“MLP Income”). Treasury regulations permit a RIC to pass through to its shareholders Qualifying REIT Dividends eligible for the deduction. However, the regulations do not provide a mechanism for a RIC to pass through to its shareholders MLP Income that would be eligible for such deduction. It is uncertain whether future legislation or other guidance will enable a RIC to pass through the special character of MLP Income to the RIC’s shareholders.

A Fund might invest directly or indirectly in residual interests in real estate mortgage investment conduits (“REMICs”) or equity interests in taxable mortgage pools (“TMPS”). Under a notice issued by the IRS in October 2006 and Treasury regulations that have not yet been issued (but may apply with retroactive effect) a portion of a Fund’s income from a REIT that is attributable to the REIT’s residual interest in a REMIC or a TMP (referred to in the Code as an “excess inclusion”) will be subject to federal income taxation in all events. This notice also provides, and the regulations are expected to provide, that excess inclusion income of a regulated investment company, such as each of the Funds, will generally be

Part II - 88

allocated to shareholders of the regulated investment company in proportion to the dividends received by such shareholders, with the same consequences as if the shareholders held the related REMIC or TMP residual interest 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) and (ii) will constitute unrelated business taxable income (“UBTI”) 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 UBTI, 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. In addition, because the Code provides that excess inclusion income is ineligible for treaty benefits, a regulated investment company must withhold tax on excess inclusions attributable to its foreign shareholders at a 30% rate of withholding, regardless of any treaty benefits for which a shareholder is otherwise eligible.

Any investment in residual interests of a CMO that has elected to be treated as a REMIC can create complex tax problems, especially if a Fund has state or local governments or other tax-exempt organizations as shareholders. Under current law, a Fund serves to block UBTI from being realized by its tax-exempt shareholders. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a tax-exempt shareholder will recognize UBTI by virtue of its investment in a Fund if Shares in the Fund constitute debt-financed property in the hands of the tax-exempt shareholder within the meaning of Section 514(b) of the Code. Furthermore, a tax-exempt shareholder may recognize UBTI if a Fund recognizes “excess inclusion income” derived from direct or indirect investments in REMIC residual interests or TMPs if the amount of such income recognized by the Fund exceeds the Fund’s investment company taxable income (after taking into account deductions for dividends paid by the Fund).

In addition, special tax consequences apply to charitable remainder trusts (“CRTs”) that invest in regulated investment companies that invest directly or indirectly in residual interests in REMICs or in TMPs. Under legislation enacted in December 2006, a CRT, as defined in Section 664 of the Code, that realizes UBTI for a taxable year must pay an excise tax annually of an amount equal to such UBTI. Under IRS guidance issued in October 2006, a CRT will not recognize UBTI solely as a result of investing in a Fund that recognizes “excess inclusion income.” Rather, if at any time during any taxable year a CRT (or one of certain other tax-exempt shareholders, such as the U.S., a state or political subdivision, or an agency or instrumentality thereof, and certain energy cooperatives) is a record holder of a share in a Fund that recognizes “excess inclusion income,” then the Fund will be subject to a tax on that portion of its “excess inclusion income” for the taxable year that is allocable to such shareholders at the highest federal corporate income tax rate. The extent to which this IRS guidance remains applicable in light of the December 2006 legislation is unclear. To the extent permitted under the 1940 Act, each Fund may elect to specially allocate any such tax to the applicable CRT, or other shareholder, and thus reduce such shareholder’s distributions for the year by the amount of the tax that relates to such shareholder’s interest in the Fund. The Funds have not yet determined whether such an election will be made. CRTs are urged to consult their tax advisors concerning the consequences of investing in a Fund.

If a Fund invests in PFICs, certain special tax consequences may apply. A PFIC is any foreign corporation in which (i) 75% or more of the gross income for the taxable year is passive income, or (ii) the average percentage of the assets (generally by value, but by adjusted tax basis in certain cases) that produce or are held for the production of passive income is at least 50%. Generally, passive income for this purpose includes dividends, interest (including income equivalent to interest), royalties, rents, annuities, the excess of gains over losses from certain property transactions and commodities transactions, and foreign currency gains. Passive income for this purpose does not include rents and royalties received by the foreign corporation from active business and certain income received from related persons. A Fund’s investments in certain PFICs could subject the Fund to a U.S. federal income tax (including interest charges) on distributions received from the company or on proceeds received from the disposition of shares in the company. This tax cannot be eliminated by making distributions to Fund shareholders. In addition, certain interest charges may be imposed on a Fund as a result of such distributions.

If a Fund is in a position to treat a PFIC as a “qualified electing fund” (“QEF”), the Fund will be required to include in its gross income its share of the company’s income and net capital gain annually, regardless of whether it receives any distributions from the company. Alternately, a Fund may make an election to mark the gains (and to a limited extent losses) in such holdings “to the market” as though it had sold and repurchased its holdings in those PFICs on the last day of the Fund’s taxable year. Such gain and loss are treated as ordinary income and loss. The QEF and mark-to-market elections may have the effect of accelerating the recognition of income (without the receipt of cash) and increasing the amount required to be distributed by a Fund to avoid taxation. Making either of these elections, therefore, may require a Fund

Part II - 89

to liquidate other investments (including when it is not advantageous to do so) to meet its distribution requirement, which also may accelerate the recognition of gain and affect the Fund’s total return. A Fund that invests indirectly in PFICs by virtue of the Fund’s investment in other investment companies that qualify as “U.S. persons” within the meaning of the Code may not make a QEF election; rather, such underlying investment companies investing directly in the PFICs would decide whether to make such election. Furthermore, the IRS recently issued final regulations that generally treat a Fund’s income inclusion with respect to a PFIC with respect to which the Fund has made a qualified electing fund, or “QEF,” election, as qualifying income for purposes of determining the Fund’s ability to be subject to tax as a RIC either if (A) there is a current distribution out of the earnings and profits of the PFIC that are attributable to such income inclusion or (B) such inclusion is derived with respect to the Fund’s business of investing in stock, securities, or currencies. Dividends paid by PFICs will not be eligible to be treated as “qualified dividend income.”

Certain Funds may have wholly-owned subsidiaries organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands, which are classified as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes (each, a “Subsidiary”). With respect to such Funds, a Fund may invest a portion of its assets in its Subsidiary. A foreign corporation, such as a Subsidiary, will generally not be subject to U.S. federal income taxation unless it is deemed to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business. It is expected that each Subsidiary will conduct its activities in a manner so as to meet the requirements of a safe harbor provided under Section 864(b)(2) of the Code under which the Subsidiary may engage in trading in stocks or securities or certain commodities without being deemed to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business. However, if certain of a Subsidiary’s activities were determined not to be of the type described in the safe harbor (which is not expected), then the activities of the Subsidiary may constitute a U.S. trade or business, and subject to U.S. taxation as such.

In general, a foreign corporation, such as a Subsidiary, that does not conduct a U.S. trade or business is nonetheless subject to tax at a flat rate of 30 percent (or lower tax treaty rate), generally payable through withholding, on the gross amount of certain U.S.-source income that is not effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. There is presently no tax treaty in force between the U.S. and the Cayman Islands that would reduce this rate of withholding tax. It is not expected that a Subsidiary will derive meaningful income subject to such withholding tax.

Each Subsidiary will be treated as a controlled foreign corporation (“CFC”) and a Fund investing in its Subsidiary will be treated as a “U.S. shareholder” of that Subsidiary. As a result, a Fund will be required to include in gross income for U.S. federal income tax purposes all of its Subsidiary’s “subpart F income,” whether or not such income is distributed by the Subsidiary. It is expected that all of the Subsidiary’s income will be “subpart F income.” A Fund’s recognition of its Subsidiary’s “subpart F income” will increase the Fund’s tax basis in the Subsidiary. Distributions by the Subsidiary to a Fund will be tax-free, to the extent of its previously undistributed “subpart F income,” and will correspondingly reduce the Fund’s tax basis in the Subsidiary. “Subpart F income” is generally treated as ordinary income, regardless of the character of the Subsidiary’s underlying income. If a net loss is realized by the Subsidiary, such loss is not generally available to offset the income earned by a Fund and such loss cannot be carried forward to offset taxable income of a Fund or the Subsidiary in future periods. The IRS recently issued final regulations that generally treat a Fund’s income inclusion with respect to a CFC as qualifying income for purposes of determining the Fund’s ability to be subject to tax as a RIC either if (A) there is a distribution out of the earnings and profits of the CFC that are attributable to such income inclusion or (B) such inclusion is derived with respect to the Fund’s business of investing in stock, securities, or currencies.

The ability of a Fund to invest directly in commodities, and in certain commodity-related securities and other instruments, is subject to significant limitations in order to enable a Fund to maintain its status as a regulated investment company under the Code.

Investment in Other Funds

If a Fund invests in shares of mutual funds, other ETFs or other companies that are taxable as regulated investment companies, as well as certain investments in REITs (collectively, “underlying funds”), its distributable income and gains will normally consist, in part, of distributions from the underlying funds and gains and losses on the disposition of shares of the underlying funds. To the extent that an underlying fund realizes net losses on its investments for a given taxable year, a Fund will not be able to recognize its share of those losses (so as to offset distributions of net income or capital gains from other underlying funds) until it disposes of shares of the underlying fund. Moreover, even when a Fund does make such a disposition, a portion of its loss may be recognized as a long-term capital loss, which will not be treated as favorably for federal income tax purposes as a short-term capital loss or an ordinary

Part II - 90

deduction. In particular, a Fund will not be able to offset any capital losses from its dispositions of underlying fund shares against its ordinary income (including distributions of any net short-term capital gain realized by an underlying fund).

In addition, in certain circumstances, the “wash sale” rules under Section 1091 of the Code may apply to a Fund’s sales of underlying fund shares that have generated losses. A wash sale occurs if shares of an underlying fund are sold by a Fund at a loss and the Fund acquires substantially identical shares of that same underlying fund 30 days before or after the date of the sale. The wash-sale rules could defer losses in a Fund’s hands on sales of underlying fund shares (to the extent such sales are wash sales) for extended (and, in certain cases, potentially indefinite) periods of time.

As a result of the foregoing rules, and certain other special rules, the amount of net investment income and net capital gain that each Fund will be required to distribute to shareholders may be greater than what such amounts would have been had the Fund directly invested in the securities held by the underlying funds, rather than investing in shares of the underlying funds. For similar reasons, the character of distributions from a Fund (e.g., long-term capital gain, exempt interest, eligibility for dividends-received deduction, etc.) will not necessarily be the same as it would have been had the Fund invested directly in the securities held by the underlying funds.

If a Fund received dividends from an underlying fund that qualifies as a regulated investment company, and the underlying fund reports such dividends as “qualified dividend income,” then the Fund is permitted in turn to designate a portion of its distributions as “qualified dividend income,” provided the Fund meets holding period and other requirements with respect to shares of the underlying fund.

Depending on a Fund’s percentage ownership in an underlying fund, both before and after a redemption, a redemption of shares of an underlying fund by a Fund may cause the Fund to be treated as distribution taxable as a dividend under the Code, to the extent of its allocable shares of earnings and profits, on the full amount of the distribution instead of receiving capital gain income on the shares of the underlying fund. Such a distribution may be treated as qualified dividend income and thus eligible to be taxed at the rates applicable to long-term capital gain. If qualified dividend income treatment is not available, the distribution may be taxed as ordinary income. This could cause shareholders of a Fund to recognize higher amounts of ordinary income than if the shareholders had held the shares of the underlying funds directly.

A Fund may elect to pass through to shareholders foreign tax credits from an underlying fund and exempt-interest dividends from an underlying fund, provided that at least 50% of the Fund’s total assets are invested in other regulated investment companies at the end of each quarter of the taxable year.

Backup Withholding

Each Fund generally is required to backup withhold and remit to the U.S. Treasury a percentage of the taxable dividends and other distributions paid to, and the proceeds of share sales, exchanges, or redemptions made by, any individual shareholder who fails to properly furnish the Fund with a correct taxpayer identification number (“TIN”), who has under-reported dividend or interest income, or who fails to certify to the Fund that he or she is not subject to backup withholding. The backup withholding rules may also apply to distributions that are properly reported as exempt-interest dividends. The backup withholding tax rate is 24%.

Foreign Shareholders

Distributions properly reported as Capital Gain Dividends and exempt-interest dividends generally will not be subject to withholding of federal income tax. However, exempt-interest dividends may be subject to backup withholding (as discussed above). In general, dividends other than Capital Gain Dividends and exempt-interest dividends paid by a Fund to a shareholder that is not a “U.S. person” within the meaning of the Code (a “foreign person”) are subject to withholding of U.S. federal income tax at a rate of 30% (or lower applicable treaty rate) even if they are funded by income or gains (such as portfolio interest, short-term capital gains, or foreign-source dividend and interest income) that, if paid to a foreign person directly, would not be subject to withholding. However, a Fund will not be required to withhold any amounts (i) with respect to distributions (other than distributions to a foreign person (w) that has not provided a satisfactory statement that the beneficial owner is not a U.S. person, (x) to the extent that the dividend is attributable to certain interest on an obligation if the foreign person is the issuer or is a 10% shareholder of the issuer, (y) that is within certain foreign countries that have inadequate information exchange with the United States, or (z) to the extent the dividend is attributable to interest paid by a person that is a related person of the foreign person and the foreign person is a controlled foreign corporation)

Part II - 91

from U.S.-source interest income of types similar to those not subject to U.S. federal income tax if earned directly by an individual foreign person, to the extent such distributions are properly reported by the Fund (“interest-related dividends”), and (ii) with respect to distributions (other than (a) distributions to an individual foreign person who is present in the United States for a period or periods aggregating 183 days or more during the year of the distribution and (b) distributions subject to special rules regarding the disposition of U.S. real property interests (as described below)) of net short-term capital gains in excess of net long-term capital losses to the extent such distributions are properly reported by the Fund (“short-term capital gain dividends”). Depending on the circumstances, a Fund may make reporting of interest-related and/or short-term capital gain dividends with respect to all, some or none of its potentially eligible dividends and/or treat such dividends, in whole or in part, as ineligible for these exemptions from withholding. In the case of shares held through an intermediary, the intermediary may withhold even if a Fund reports with respect to a payment. Foreign persons should contact their intermediaries regarding the application of these rules to their accounts.

A beneficial holder of shares who is a foreign person is not, in general, subject to U.S. federal income tax on gains (and is not allowed a deduction for losses) realized on the sale of Shares of a Fund or on Capital Gain Dividends or exempt-interest dividends unless (i) such gain or dividend is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business carried on by such holder within the United States or (ii) in the case of an individual holder, the holder is present in the United States for a period or periods aggregating 183 days or more during the year of the sale or the receipt of the Capital Gain Dividend and certain other conditions are met or (iii) the shares constitute “U.S. real property interests” (“USRPIs”) or the Capital Gain Dividends are attributable to gains from the sale or exchange of USRPIs in accordance with the rules set forth below.

Special rules apply to distributions to foreign shareholders from a Fund that is either a “U.S. real property holding corporation” (“USRPHC”) or would be a USRPHC but for the operation of the exceptions to the definition thereof described below. Additionally, special rules apply to the sale of Shares in a Fund that is a USRPHC. Very generally, a USRPHC is a domestic corporation that holds U.S. real property interests (“USRPIs”) — USRPIs are defined as any interest in U.S. real property or any equity interest in a USRPHC — the fair market value of which equals or exceeds 50% of the sum of the fair market values of the corporation’s USRPIs, interests in real property located outside the United States and certain other assets. A Fund that holds (directly or indirectly) significant interests in REITs may be a USRPHC. The special rules discussed in the next paragraph will also generally apply to distributions from a Fund that would be a USRPHC absent exclusions from USRPI treatment for interests in domestically controlled REITs or regulated investment companies and not-greater-than-10% or interests in publicly traded classes of stock in REITs or regulated investment companies, respectively.

In the case of a Fund that is a USRPHC or would be a USRPHC but for the exceptions from the definition of USRPI (described immediately above), distributions by the Fund that are attributable to (a) gains realized on the disposition of USRPIs by the Fund and (b) distributions received by the Fund from a lower-tier regulated investment company or REIT that the Fund is required to treat as USRPI gain in its hands will retain their character as gains realized from USRPIs in the hands of the Fund’s foreign shareholders. If the foreign shareholder holds (or has held in the prior year) more than a 5% interest in a Fund, such distributions will be treated as gains “effectively connected” with the conduct of a “U.S. trade or business,” and subject to tax at graduated rates. Moreover, such shareholders will be required to file a U.S. income tax return for the year in which the gain was recognized and a Fund will be required to withhold 21% of the amount of such distribution. In the case of all other foreign shareholders (i.e., those whose interest in a Fund did not exceed 5% at any time during the prior year), the USRPI distribution will be treated as ordinary income (regardless of any reporting by the Fund that such distribution is a short-term capital gain dividend or a Capital Gain Dividend), and the Fund must withhold 30% (or a lower applicable treaty rate) of the amount of the distribution paid to such foreign shareholder. Foreign shareholders of a Fund are also subject to “wash sale” rules to prevent the avoidance of the tax-filing and -payment obligations discussed above through the sale and repurchase of Fund Shares.

In addition, a Fund that is a USRPHC must typically withhold 15% of the amount realized in a redemption by a greater-than-5% foreign shareholder, and that shareholder must file a U.S. income tax return for the year of the disposition of the USRPI and pay any additional tax due on the gain. No withholding is generally required with respect to amounts paid in redemption of shares of a Fund if the Fund is a domestically controlled USRPHC or, in certain limited cases, if the Fund (whether or not domestically controlled) holds substantial investments in regulated investment companies that are domestically controlled USRPHCs.

Part II - 92

In order to qualify for any exemptions from withholding described above or for lower withholding tax rates under income tax treaties, or to establish an exemption from backup withholding, the foreign investor must comply with special certification and filing requirements relating to its non-US status (including, in general, furnishing an applicable IRS Form W-8 or substitute form). Foreign investors in a Fund should consult their tax advisers in this regard.

If a shareholder is eligible for the benefits of a tax treaty, any effectively connected income or gain will generally be subject to U.S. federal income tax on a net basis only if it is also attributable to a permanent establishment maintained by the shareholder in the United States.

A beneficial holder of shares who is a foreign person may be subject to state and local tax and to the U.S. federal estate tax in addition to the federal tax on income referred to above. Foreign shareholders in a Fund should consult their tax advisors with respect to the potential application of the above rules.

A Fund is required to withhold U.S. tax (at a 30% rate) on payments of taxable dividends made to certain non-U.S. entities that fail to comply (or be deemed compliant) with extensive new reporting and withholding requirements designed to inform the U.S. Department of the Treasury of U.S.-owned foreign investment accounts. Shareholders may be requested to provide additional information to a Fund to enable the Fund to determine whether withholding is required.

Foreign Taxes

Certain Funds may be subject to foreign withholding taxes or other foreign taxes with respect to income (possibly including, in some cases, capital gain) received from sources within foreign countries. Tax conventions between certain countries and the U.S. may reduce or eliminate such taxes. If more than 50% of a Fund’s assets at year-end consists of the securities of foreign corporations, the Fund may elect to permit shareholders to claim a credit or deduction on their income tax returns for their pro rata portion of qualified taxes paid by the Fund to foreign countries in respect of foreign securities the Fund has held for at least the minimum period specified in the Code. In such a case, shareholders will include in gross income from foreign sources their pro rata shares of such taxes. A shareholder’s ability to claim a foreign tax credit or deduction in respect of foreign taxes paid by a Fund may be subject to certain limitations imposed by the Code and the Treasury Regulations issued thereunder, as a result of which a shareholder may not get a full credit or deduction for the amount of such taxes. In particular, shareholders must hold their Fund Shares (without protection from risk of loss) on the ex-dividend date and for at least 15 additional days during the 30-day period surrounding the ex-dividend date to be eligible to claim a foreign tax credit with respect to a given dividend. Shareholders who do not itemize on their federal income tax returns may claim a credit (but no deduction) for such foreign taxes. Any foreign taxes withheld on payments made “in lieu of” dividends or interest with respect to loaned securities will not qualify for the pass-through of foreign tax credits to shareholders.

If a Fund does not make the above election or if more than 50% of its assets at the end of the year do not consist of securities of foreign corporations, the Fund’s net income will be reduced by the foreign taxes paid or withheld. In such cases, shareholders will not be entitled to claim a credit or deduction with respect to foreign taxes.

The foregoing is only a general description of the treatment of foreign source income or foreign taxes under the U.S. federal income tax laws. Because the availability of a credit or deduction depends on the particular circumstances of each shareholder, shareholders are advised to consult their own tax advisors.

Exempt-Interest Dividends

Some of the Funds intend to qualify to pay exempt-interest dividends to their respective shareholders. In order to qualify to pay exempt-interest dividends, at least 50% of the value of a Fund’s total assets must consist of tax-exempt municipal bonds at the close of each quarter of the Fund’s taxable year. An exempt-interest dividend is that part of a dividend that is properly designated as an exempt-interest dividend and that consists of interest received by a Fund on such tax-exempt securities. Shareholders of a Fund that pays exempt-interest dividends would not incur any regular federal income tax on the amount of exempt-interest dividends received by them from a Fund, but an investment in such a Fund may result in liability for federal and state alternative minimum taxation and may be subject to state and local taxes.

Part II - 93

Interest on indebtedness incurred or continued by a shareholder, whether a corporation or an individual, to purchase or carry shares of a Fund is not deductible to the extent it relates to exempt-interest dividends received by the shareholder from that Fund. Any loss incurred on the sale or redemption of a Fund’s Shares held for six months or less may be disallowed to the extent of exempt-interest dividends received with respect to such shares.

Interest on certain tax-exempt bonds that are private activity bonds within the meaning of the Code is treated as a tax preference item for purposes of the alternative minimum tax, and any such interest received by a Fund and distributed to shareholders will be so treated for purposes of any alternative minimum tax liability of shareholders to the extent of the dividend’s proportionate share of a Fund’s income consisting of such interest.

The exemption from federal income tax for exempt-interest dividends does not necessarily result in exemption for such dividends under the income or other tax laws of any state or local authority. Shareholders that receive social security or railroad retirement benefits should consult their tax advisors to determine what effect, if any, an investment in a Fund may have on the federal taxation of their benefits.

From time to time legislation may be introduced or litigation may arise that would change the tax treatment of exempt-interest dividends. Such legislation or litigation may have the effect of raising the state or other taxes payable by shareholders on such dividends. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors for the current federal, state and local law on exempt-interest dividends.

Creation Units

As a result of U.S. federal income tax requirements, the Trust on behalf of a Fund, has the right to reject an order for a creation of Shares if the creator (or group of creators) would, upon obtaining the Shares so ordered, own 80% or more of the outstanding Shares of a Fund and if, pursuant to Section 351 of the Code, the Fund would have a basis in the Deposit Instruments different from the market value of such securities on the date of deposit. The Trust also has the right to require information necessary to determine beneficial share ownership for purposes of the 80% determination. See “Creation and Redemption of Creation Units—Procedures for Creation of Creation Units” in Appendix A.

State and Local Tax Matters

Depending on the residence of the shareholders for tax purposes, distributions may also be subject to state and local taxation. Rules of state and local taxation regarding qualified dividend income, ordinary income dividends and capital gain dividends from regulated investment companies may differ from the rules of U.S. federal income tax in many respects. Shareholders are urged to consult their tax advisors as to the consequences of these and other state and local tax rules affecting investment in the Funds.

Most states provide that a regulated investment company may pass through (without restriction) to its shareholders state and local income tax exemptions available to direct owners of certain types of U.S. government securities (such as U.S. Treasury obligations). Thus, for residents of these states, distributions derived from a Fund’s investment in certain types of U.S. government securities should be free from state and local income taxation to the extent that the interest income from such investments would have been exempt from state and local taxes if such securities had been held directly by the respective shareholders. Certain states, however, do not allow a regulated investment company to pass through to its shareholders the state and local income tax exemptions available to direct owners of certain types of U.S. government securities unless a Fund holds at least a required amount of U.S. government securities. Accordingly, for residents of these states, distributions derived from a Fund’s investment in certain types of U.S. government securities may not be entitled to the exemptions from state and local income taxes that would be available if the shareholders had purchased U.S. government securities directly. The exemption from state and local income taxes does not preclude states from asserting other taxes on the ownership of U.S. government securities. To the extent that a Fund invests to a substantial degree in U.S. government securities which are subject to favorable state and local tax treatment, shareholders of the Fund will be notified as to the extent to which distributions from the Fund are attributable to interest on such securities.

Tax Shelter Reporting Regulations

If a shareholder realizes a loss on disposition of a Fund’s Shares of $2 million or more for an individual shareholder or $10 million or more for a corporate shareholder, the shareholder must file with the Internal Revenue Service a disclosure statement on Form 8886. Direct shareholders of portfolio securities are in many cases excepted from this reporting requirement, but under current guidance, shareholders of a regulated investment company are not excepted. Future guidance may extend the current

Part II - 94

exception from this reporting requirement to shareholders of most or all regulated investment companies. The fact that a loss is reportable under these regulations does not affect the legal determination whether the taxpayer’s treatment of the loss is proper. Shareholders should consult their tax advisers to determine the applicability of these regulations in light of their individual circumstances.

General Considerations

The federal income tax discussion set forth above is for general information only. Prospective investors should consult their tax advisers regarding the specific federal tax consequences of purchasing, holding, and disposing of Shares of each of the Funds, as well as the effects of state, local and foreign tax law and any proposed tax law changes.

TRUSTEES

The names of the Trustees of the Trust, together with information regarding their year of birth, the year each Trustee first became a Board member of any of the Funds overseen by the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board or any of the heritage J.P. Morgan Funds or heritage One Group Mutual Funds (as defined below), principal occupations and other board memberships, are shown below. The contact address for each of the Trustees is 277 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10172.

Name (Year of Birth; Term of Office, and Length of Time Served)(1)	Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years (or longer)	Number of Funds in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee(2)	Other Trusteeships/ Directorships Held During the Past 5 Years (or longer)(3)
Independent Trustees
John F. Finn (1947); Chair, since 2020; Trustee, since 1998.	Chairman, Gardner, Inc. (supply chain management company serving industrial and consumer markets) (serving in various roles 1974–present).	168	Director, Greif, Inc. (GEF) (industrial package products and services) (2007–2023); Trustee, Columbus Association for the Performing Arts (1988- present).

Part II - 95

Name (Year of Birth; Term of Office, and Length of Time Served)(1)	Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years (or longer)	Number of Funds in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee(2)	Other Trusteeships/ Directorships Held During the Past 5 Years (or longer)(3)
Stephen P. Fisher (1959); Trustee, since 2018.	Retired; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, NYLIFE Distributors LLC (registered broker- dealer) (serving in various roles 2008- 2013); Chairman, NYLIM Service Company LLC (transfer agent) (2008- 2017); New York Life Investment Management LLC (registered investment adviser) (serving in various roles 2005- 2017); Chairman, IndexIQ Advisors LLC (registered investment adviser for ETFs) (2014-2017); President, MainStay VP Funds Trust (2007-2017), MainStay DefinedTerm Municipal Opportunities Fund (2011-2017) and Main- Stay Funds Trust (2007-2017) (registered investment companies).	168	None.
Gary L. French (1951); Trustee, since 2014.	Real Estate Investor (2011-2020); Investment management industry Consultant and Expert Witness (2011-present); Senior Consultant for The Regulatory Fundamentals Group LLC (2011-2017).	168	Independent Trustee, The China Fund, Inc. (2013- 2019); Exchange Traded Concepts Trust II (2012- 2014); Exchange Traded Concepts Trust I (2011- 2014).

Part II - 96

Name (Year of Birth; Term of Office, and Length of Time Served)(1)	Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years (or longer)	Number of Funds in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee(2)	Other Trusteeships/ Directorships Held During the Past 5 Years (or longer)(3)
Kathleen M. Gallagher (1958); Trustee, since 2018.	Retired; Chief Investment Officer – Benefit Plans, Ford Motor Company (serving in various roles 1985-2016).	168	Non-Executive Director, Legal & General Investment Management (Holdings) (2018- present); Non-Executive Director, Legal & General Investment Management America (U.S. Holdings) (financial services and insurance) (2017- present); Advisory Board Member, State Street Global Advisors Total Portfolio Solutions (2017-present); Member, Client Advisory Council, Financial Engines, LLC (registered investment adviser) (2011-2016); Director, Ford Pension Funds Investment Management Ltd. (2007- 2016).
Robert J. Grassi (1957); Trustee, since 2014.	Sole Proprietor, Academy Hills Advisors LLC (2012- present); Pension Director, Corning Incorporated (2002- 2012).	168	None.
Frankie D. Hughes (1952); Trustee, since 2008.	President, Ashland Hughes Properties (property management) (2014–present); President and Chief Investment Officer, Hughes Capital Management, Inc. (fixed income asset management) (1993– 2014).	168	None.

Part II - 97

Name (Year of Birth; Term of Office, and Length of Time Served)(1)	Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years (or longer)	Number of Funds in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee(2)	Other Trusteeships/ Directorships Held During the Past 5 Years (or longer)(3)
Raymond Kanner (1953); Trustee, since 2017.	Retired; Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer, IBM Retirement Funds (2007–2016).	168	Advisory Board Member, Penso Advisors, LLC (2020- present); Advisory Board Member, Los Angeles Capital (2018-present); Advisory Board Member, State Street Global Advisors Total Portfolio Solutions (2017-present); Acting Executive Director, Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets (CIEBA) (2016-2017); Advisory Board Member, Betterment for Business (robo advisor) (2016– 2017); Advisory Board Member, BlueStar Indexes (index creator) (2013–2017); Director, Emerging Markets Growth Fund (registered investment company) (1997-2016); Member, Russell Index Client Advisory Board (2001- 2015).
Thomas P. Lemke (1954); Trustee, since 2014.	Retired since 2013.	168	Independent Trustee of Advisors’ Inner Circle III fund platform, consisting of the following: (i) the Advisors’ Inner Circle Fund III, (ii) the Gallery Trust, (iii) the Schroder Series Trust, (iv) the Delaware Wilshire Private Markets Fund (since 2020), (v) Chiron Capital Allocation Fund Ltd., (vi) formerly the Winton Diversified Opportunities Fund (2014-2018), and (vii) Symmetry Panoramic Trust (since 2018).
Lawrence R. Maffia (1950); Trustee, since 2014.	Retired; Director and President, ICI Mutual Insurance Company (2006-2013).	168	Director, ICI Mutual Insurance Company (1999-2013).

Part II - 98

Name (Year of Birth; Term of Office, and Length of Time Served)(1)	Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years (or longer)	Number of Funds in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee(2)	Other Trusteeships/ Directorships Held During the Past 5 Years (or longer)(3)
Mary E. Martinez (1960); Vice Chair, since 2021; Trustee, since 2013.	Associate, Special Properties, a Christie’s International Real Estate Affiliate (2010– present); Managing Director, Bank of America (asset management) (2007– 2008); Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Trust Asset Management, U.S. Trust Company (asset management) (2003–2007); President, Excelsior Funds (registered investment companies) (2004–2005).	168	None.
Marilyn McCoy (1948); Trustee, since 1999.	Retired; Vice President of Administration and Planning, Northwestern University (1985– 2023).	168	None.
Dr. Robert A. Oden, Jr. (1946); Trustee, since 1997.	Retired; President, Carleton College (2002–2010); President, Kenyon College (1995–2002).	168	Trustee, The Coldwater Conservation Fund; Trustee, American Museum of Fly Fishing (2013–present); Trustee and Vice Chair, Trout Unlimited (2017-2021); Trustee, Dartmouth- Hitchcock Medical Center (2011–2020).
Marian U. Pardo (1946); Trustee, since 2013.	Managing Director and Founder, Virtual Capital Management LLC (investment consulting) (2007– present); Managing Director, Credit Suisse Asset Management (portfolio manager) (2003–2006).	168	Board Chair and Member, Board of Governors, Columbus Citizens Foundation (not-for-profit supporting philanthropic and cultural programs) (2006–present).

Part II - 99

Name (Year of Birth; Term of Office, and Length of Time Served)(1)	Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years (or longer)	Number of Funds in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee(2)	Other Trusteeships/ Directorships Held During the Past 5 Years (or longer)(3)
Emily A. Youssouf (1951); Trustee, since 2014.	Adjunct Professor (2011-present) and Clinical Professor (2009-2011), NYU Schack Institute of Real Estate; Board Member and Member of the Audit Committee (2013-present), Chair of Finance Committee (2019-present), Member of Related Parties Committee (2013-2018) and Member of the Enterprise Risk Committee (2015- 2018), PennyMac Financial Services, Inc.; Board Member (2005-2018), Chair of Capital Committee (2006-2016), Chair of Audit Committee (2005-2018), Member of Finance Committee (2005-2018) and Chair of IT Committee (2016-2018), NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation.	168	Trustee, NYC School Construction Authority (2009-present); Board Member, NYS Job Development Authority (2008-present); Trustee and Chair of the Audit Committee of the Transit Center Foundation (2015-2019).
Interested Trustees
Robert F. Deutsch(4) (1957); Trustee, since 2014.	Retired; Head of ETF Business for JPMorgan Asset Management (2013-2017); Head of Global Liquidity Business for JPMorgan Asset Management (2003-2013).	168	Treasurer and Director of the JUST Capital Foundation (2017- present).
Nina O. Shenker(4) (1957); Trustee, since 2022.	Vice Chair (2017- 2021), General Counsel and Managing Director (2008-2016), Associate General Counsel and Managing Director (2004-2008), J.P. Morgan Asset & Wealth Management.	168	Director and Member of Executive, Legal and Human Resources Committees; American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (2018-present).

(1)

Trustees serve an indefinite term, until resignation, retirement, removal or death. The Board’s current retirement policy sets retirement at the end of the calendar year in which the Trustee attains the age of 75, provided that any Board member who was a member of the Mutual Fund Board prior to January 1, 2022 and was born prior to January 1, 1950 shall retire from the Board at the end of the calendar year in which the Trustee attains the age of 78.

Part II - 100

(2)

A Fund Complex means two or more registered investment companies that hold themselves out to investors as related companies for purposes of investment and investor services or have a common investment adviser or have an investment adviser that is an affiliated person of the investment adviser of any of the other registered investment companies. The J.P. Morgan Funds Complex for which the Board of Trustees serves currently includes eight registered investment companies (168 J.P. Morgan Funds).

(3)

Directorships held in: (i) any company with a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended the “Securities Exchange Act”), (ii) subject to the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act, or (ii) any company registered as an investment company under the 1940 Act, which are required to be disclosed in this SAI. In addition, certain other directorships not meeting the aforementioned requirements may be included for certain Trustees such as board positions on non-profit organizations. The Trustees may hold various other directorships unrelated to the Fund Complex.

(4)

Designation as an “Interested Trustee” is based on prior employment by the Adviser or an affiliate of the Adviser or interests in a control person of the Adviser.

The Board of Trustees decides upon general policies and is responsible for overseeing the business affairs of the Trusts.

Qualifications of Trustees

The Governance Committee and the Board consider the experience, qualifications, attributes, and skills of each Trustee to determine whether the person should serve as a Trustee of the Trusts. The Governance Committee and the Board consider the commitment that each Trustee has demonstrated in serving on the Board, including the significant time each Trustee devotes to preparing for meetings and active engagement and participation at Board meetings. The Governance Committee and the Board consider the character of each Trustee and each Trustee’s commitment to executing his or her duties as a Trustee with diligence, honesty and integrity. The Governance Committee and the Board consider the contributions that each Trustee makes to the Board in terms of experience, leadership, independence and the ability to work effectively and collaboratively with other Board members.

The Governance Committee also considers each Trustee’s significant and relevant experience and knowledge with respect to registered investment companies and asset management, including the additional experience that each of the Trustees has gained as a result of his or her service on the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board. Additionally, the Governance Committee and the Board consider each Trustee’s experience with respect to reviewing a Fund’s agreements with service providers, including the Funds’ investment advisers, custodian, and fund accountant.

The Governance Committee and the Board consider the experience and contribution of each Trustee in the context of the Board’s leadership and committee structure. The Board has seven committees including: the Audit and Valuation Committee, the Compliance Committee, the Governance Committee, the Equity Committee, the Money Market and Alternative Products Committee, the Fixed Income Committee, and the ETF Committee. The Equity Committee, the Money Market and Alternative Products Committee and the Fixed Income Committee are collectively referred to as the “Investment Committees.” Each Trustee, except the Chairman of the Board, serves on one of the Board’s investment committees, allowing the Board to effectively evaluate information for the Funds in the complex in a focused and disciplined manner.

The Governance Committee also considers the overall diversity of the Board’s composition. The Governance Committee believes the Board generally benefits from diversity of backgrounds, experiences and views among its members, and considers this a factor in evaluating the composition of the Board and potential nominees. In considering potential nominees, the Committee values diversity based on race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, veteran status, and other attributes. The Governance Committee expects to assess the effectiveness of the policy as part of the annual self-assessment process of the Board.

The Governance Committee also considers the operational efficiencies achieved by having a single Board for the Funds and the other registered investment companies overseen by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as the extensive experience of certain Trustees in serving on Boards for registered investment companies advised by subsidiaries or affiliates of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and/or Bank One Corporation (known as “heritage J.P. Morgan Funds” or “heritage One Group Mutual Funds”).

In reaching its conclusion that each Trustee should serve as a Trustee of the Trusts, the Board also considered the following additional specific qualifications, contributions and experience of the following Trustees:

Independent Trustees

Part II - 101

John F. Finn. Mr. Finn has served as the Chair of the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022 and previously served as Chair of the Mutual Fund Board since January 2020 and is also Chair of the Governance Committee. He has served as a member of the Mutual Fund Board since 2005 and previously was a member of the heritage One Group Mutual Funds Board since 1998. Mr. Finn is the Chairman at Gardner, Inc., a supply chain management company that serves industrial and consumer markets. Mr. Finn has experience with board functions through his current positions as a Director for Greif, Inc. (industrial package products and services) and as a Trustee for Columbus Association for the Performing Arts. Until June 2014, Mr. Finn was the head of the Mutual Fund Board’s Strategic Planning Working Group, comprised of Independent Trustees, which worked with the administrator to the Trusts on initiatives related to efficiency and effectiveness of Board materials and meetings.

Stephen P. Fisher. Mr. Fisher has served on the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022 and previously served on the Mutual Fund Board since 2018 and is also Chair of the Money Market and Alternative Products Committee. Mr. Fisher is also a member of the Compliance Committee and the ETF Committee. He retired after a 30-year career in the investment management industry, including most recently serving as President of New York Life Investment Management LLC (NYLIM) and the MainStay Funds group. In addition, until his retirement, he served as Chairman of NYLIM Service Company LLC (a transfer agent), Chairman and CEO of NYLIFE Distributor LLC (a registered broker-dealer) and Chairman of IndexIQ Advisors LLC (an investment adviser for the IndexIQ ETFs). As President of NYLIM, Mr. Fisher oversaw all operational aspects of NYLIM’s mutual fund and ETF clients, which included functioning as a liaison to the boards of the funds. Prior to his retirement, Mr. Fisher was involved in governance matters at NYLIM, including serving on the NYLIM Investment Governance Committee, the NYLIM Risk Steering Committee and the NYLIM Compliance Committee.

Gary L. French. Mr. French has served on the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022 and previously served on the ETF Board since 2014. Mr. French is a member of the Audit and Valuation Committee and the Equity Committee. Mr. French has over 35 years of experience in the financial services industry and related fields, including serving in various leadership roles with large financial institutions that operated and administered services to investment companies. He has familiarity with a variety of financial, accounting, investment, regulatory and operational matters through his prior experience (including as Senior Vice President and Business Head in the Fund Administration Division at State Street Bank) and through other positions held during his career in the investment management industry. He also gained experience serving as an independent director and officer of several other registered investment companies.

Kathleen M. Gallagher. Ms. Gallagher has served on the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022 and previously served on the Mutual Fund Board since 2018. Ms. Gallagher is Chair of the Audit and Valuation Committee and a member of the Money Market and Alternative Products Committee. She retired after a 30-year career as a finance professional in the automotive industry, including most recently as the Chief Investment Officer – Benefit Plans at Ford Motor Company (Ford), where she led Ford’s global pension de-risking investment strategy. In addition, Ms. Gallagher served as the Director of Global Risk Management, Corporate Treasury at Ford and as the Vice President of Finance at Ford Australia. During Ms. Gallagher’s career at Ford, she gained experience managing investment management and service provider relationships, and she frequently worked with Ford’s Board of Directors to recommend investment strategies and review performance. She also serves as a Non-Executive Director for Legal & General Investment Management (Holdings) and for Legal & General Investment Management America (U.S. Holdings) and as an advisory board member for State Street Global Advisors’ Total Portfolio Solutions business. She previously served as a member of the Client Advisory Council for Financial Engines, LLC and as a director of Ford Pension Funds Investment Management Ltd.

Robert J. Grassi. Mr. Grassi has served on the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022 and previously served on the ETF Board since 2014. Mr. Grassi is a member of the ETF Committee and the Fixed Income Committee. Mr. Grassi has over 30 years of experience in a variety of business and financial matters, including experience in senior management positions. He has familiarity with a variety of financial, accounting, investment and regulatory matters through his prior experience (including as Director of Pensions and Investments at Corning Incorporated) and through his current position as Sole Proprietor of Academy Hills Advisors LLC, an investment consulting firm. Mr. Grassi is licensed as an Investment Advisory Representative and is a Certified Employee Benefit Specialist.

Frankie D. Hughes. Ms. Hughes has served on the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022 and previously served on the Mutual Fund Board since 2008. Ms. Hughes is a member of the Compliance Committee, the ETF Committee and the Fixed Income Committee. Ms. Hughes has

Part II - 102

significant experience in the asset management industry, previously serving as President and Chief Investment Officer of Hughes Capital Management, Inc. from 1993-2014. Ms. Hughes is currently the President of Ashland Hughes Properties, a property management company, and she has held such position since 2014.

Raymond Kanner. Mr. Kanner has served on the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022 and previously served on the Mutual Fund Board since 2017. Mr. Kanner is Chair of the Equity Committee and a member of the Audit and Valuation Committee. Mr. Kanner retired after a 31-year career in the finance industry including most recently as the Chief Investment Officer for the IBM Retirement Funds. He started his career with IBM in 1978, joined IBM’s Credit Corporation in 1985 and moved to the Retirement Funds in 1993. During his career at IBM, Mr. Kanner gained experience overseeing substantial investments in all asset classes, including equities, fixed income and alternatives. Since his retirement and until 2017, he served as the Acting Executive Director of the Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets (CIEBA). He previously served as a director of an emerging markets equity fund and as an advisory board member to Betterment for Business and to BlueStar Indexes. He currently serves as an advisory board member for State Street Global Advisors’ Total Portfolio Solutions business, Los Angeles Capital and Penso Advisors. Mr. Kanner served as a member of the Compliance Committee and the Money Market and Alternative Products Committee until December 31, 2018.

Thomas P. Lemke. Mr. Lemke has served on the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022 and previously served on the ETF Board since 2014. Mr. Lemke is a member of the Compliance Committee and the Money Market and Alternative Products Committee. Mr. Lemke has over 35 years of experience in the financial services industry, including experience in various senior management positions with financial services firms in addition to multiple years of service with a regulatory agency and a major law firm. In addition, he has a background in internal controls, including legal, compliance, internal audit, risk management, and fund administration. He has also gained experience as an independent director of other registered investment companies, including his current position with each of The Advisors’ Inner Circle III and Symmetry Panoramic Trust. Mr. Lemke also is co-author of a number of treatises on the regulation of the investment management industry.

Lawrence R. Maffia. Mr. Maffia has served on the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022 and previously served on the ETF Board since 2014. Mr. Maffia is a member of the Audit and Valuation Committee and the Equity Committee. Mr. Maffia has over 30 years of experience in the financial services industry, including positions held at a public auditing firm and various other positions in the mutual fund industry. He has familiarity with a variety of financial, accounting, investment and regulatory matters through his prior experience (including as President and Company Director at ICI Mutual Insurance Company, a provider of D&O/E&O liability insurance and fidelity bonding for the U.S. mutual fund industry, and his prior positions as chief financial officer of Stein Roe & Farnham Mutual Funds and chief operations officer of Stein Roe & Farnham Mutual Funds’ transfer agent).

Mary E. Martinez. Ms. Martinez has served as Vice-Chair of the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022 and previously served as the Vice-Chair of the Mutual Fund Board since January 2021 and is a member of the Governance Committee and the Fixed Income Committee. She has served as a member of the Mutual Fund Board since January 2013. She has over 25 years of experience in asset management, wealth management and private banking services. She served as Managing Director of Asset Management at Bank of America (which acquired U.S. Trust Company (“U.S. Trust”) in 2007). Ms. Martinez served in various roles at U.S. Trust, including President of the Excelsior Funds, member of U.S. Trust’s Executive Management Committee, Chief Executive Officer and President of U.S. Trust Private Bank, and Chief Operating Officer of Asset Management where she had responsibility for product development, management, infrastructure and operating oversight. Prior to that she was Head of Products/Services/Strategic-Planning-Alternative & Asset/Wealth Management at Bessemer Trust Company and a member of their Executive Management Committee. Ms. Martinez is a real estate investor/adviser.

Marilyn McCoy. Ms. McCoy has served on the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022 and previously served on the Mutual Fund Board since 2005 and previously was a member of the heritage One Group Mutual Funds Board since 1999. She has served on the boards of the Pegasus Funds and the Prairie Funds. Ms. McCoy is a member of the Money Market and Alternative Products Committee and the Governance Committee. Until 2023, Ms. McCoy served as the Vice President of Administration and Planning at Northwestern University for over 38 years, where she managed strategic planning, program review, information and analytics, executive level searches, and other programs and initiatives. Ms. McCoy also oversaw Northwestern University’s Board of Trustees function and supported the University’s President.

Part II - 103

Dr. Robert A. Oden Jr. Dr. Oden has served on the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022 and previously served on the Mutual Fund Board since 2005 and previously was a member of the heritage One Group Mutual Funds Board since 1997. Dr. Oden is the Chair of the Fixed Income Committee and a member of the Governance Committee. He retired after a long career in the education industry, previously serving as the President of Carleton College from 2002 to 2010 and as the President of Kenyon College from 1995 to 2002. Prior to that, Dr. Oden was the Headmaster of the Hotchkiss School from 1989 to 1995 and a Professor at Dartmouth College from 1975 to 1989. Dr. Oden currently serves as a Trustee of The Coldwater Conservation Fund, as Vice Chair of the American Museum of Fly Fishing and as a member of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center Advancement Committee, and he previously served as a Trustee of American University in Cairo, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and Trout Unlimited.

Marian U. Pardo. Ms. Pardo has served on the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022 and previously served on the Mutual Fund Board since February 2013. Ms. Pardo is Chair of the Compliance Committee and a member of the Equity Committee. Ms. Pardo has been in the financial services industry since 1968, with experience in investment management, banking and lending. She is a Managing Director and founder of Virtual Capital Management LLC, an investment consulting firm. She has extensive experience with respect to portfolio management, the J.P. Morgan Funds’ investment advisory business and banking and investment management, and previously served as a portfolio manager for equity funds across the capitalization spectrum. In connection with prior employment with JPMorgan Chase, Ms. Pardo was the recipient of non-qualified pension plan payments from JPMorgan Chase in the amount of approximately $2,055 per month, which she irrevocably waived effective January 1, 2013, and deferred compensation payments from JPMorgan Chase in the amount of approximately $7,294 per year, which ended in January 2013. In addition, Ms. Pardo receives payments from a fully-funded qualified plan, which is not an obligation of JPMorgan Chase.

Emily A. Youssouf. Ms. Youssouf has served on the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022 and previously served on the ETF Board since 2014. Ms. Youssouf is a member of the ETF Committee and the Fixed Income Committee. Ms. Youssouf has extensive experience in strategic planning, financial analysis and regulatory matters from her over 30 years of business experience in the financial services and housing finance industries and related fields. She currently serves on the Board of PennyMac Financial Services, Inc. (where she serves as Chair of the Finance Committee and a member of the Audit Committee), the NYC School Construction Authority, and the NYS Job Development Authority (where she also serves as a member of the Audit Committee) and as an Adjunct Professor at the NYU Schack Institute of Real Estate. Her prior business experience includes executive level positions at Merrill Lynch, Prudential Securities and Credit Suisse. She also served as President of the New York City Housing Development Corporation, Vice Chair of the New York City Housing Authority, a Board Member of the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation (where she served as the Chair of the Audit Committee, Chair of the IT Committee and Member of the Finance Committee) and as a Trustee of the Transit Center Foundation (where she served as Chair of the Audit Committee).

Interested Trustees

Robert F. Deutsch. Mr. Deutsch has served on the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022 and previously served on the ETF Board since 2014. Mr. Deutsch is Chair of the ETF Committee and a member of the Money Market and Alternative Products Committee. Mr. Deutsch has over 30 years of experience in the financial services industry. He has substantial mutual fund background and is experienced with financial, accounting, investment and regulatory matters through his tenure at J.P. Morgan Asset Management1 (“JPMAM”) including his prior positions as head of the ETF Business and as head of the Global Liquidity Business. Prior roles also include National Sales Manager for the J.P. Morgan Mutual Funds and Client Advisor at Goldman Sachs Asset Management. Mr. Deutsch is considered an “interested” Trustee based on interests in JPMorgan Chase resulting from his prior employment at JPMAM.

Nina O. Shenker. Ms. Shenker has served on the Unified J.P. Morgan Funds Board since January 2022. Ms. Shenker is a member of the ETF Committee and the Fixed Income Committee. Ms. Shenker has over 35 years of experience in the financial services industry. She has substantial experience and expertise with mutual funds and ETFs across legal, compliance, operations, risk and controls, fiduciary, governance, product and business strategy and government and regulatory affairs. She has served as Vice Chair and as

J.P. Morgan Asset Management is the marketing name for the asset management businesses of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Those businesses include, but are not limited to, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.

Part II - 104

global General Counsel for J.P. Morgan Asset & Wealth Management. Prior to joining the JPMorgan Legal Department in 2001, Ms. Shenker was President of the Pierpont Group, the independent staff for the JPMorgan Mutual Funds Trustees and, prior to that, she was General Counsel and Senior Vice President at J. & W. Seligman & Co., an investment management firm. Ms. Shenker has also been actively engaged with industry associations. She also is actively engaged in supporting not-for-profit organizations’ governance and oversight. Ms. Shenker is considered an “interested” Trustee based on her prior employment at J.P. Morgan.

Board Leadership Structure

The Board decides upon general policies and is responsible for overseeing the business affairs of the Funds.

The Board currently has structured itself in a manner that allows it to effectively perform its oversight function. The Chair of the Board is an Independent Trustee, which allows him to carry out his leadership duties as Chair with objectivity.

In addition, the Board has adopted a committee structure that allows it to effectively perform its oversight function for all of the Funds. As described under “Qualifications of Trustees” and “Standing Committees,” the Board currently has seven committees: the Audit and Valuation Committee, the Compliance Committee, the Governance Committee, the ETF Committee, the Equity Committee, the Fixed Income Committee and the Money Market and Alternative Products Committee. The Board has determined that the current leadership and committee structure is appropriate for the Funds and allows the Board to effectively and efficiently evaluate issues that impact the Funds as a whole as well as issues that are unique to each Fund.

The Board and the Committees take an active role in overseeing the risk associated with registered investment companies including investment risk, compliance and valuation. In addition, the Board receives regular reports from the Chief Compliance Officer, JPMIM in its capacity both as administrator for the Funds and as investment adviser to the Funds (“Administrator” and “Adviser”, as applicable), and the internal audit department of JPMorgan Chase & Co. The Board also receives periodic reports from the Chief Risk Officer of Investment Management Americas and Alternatives of JPMAM including reports concerning operational controls that are designed to address market risk, credit risk, and liquidity risk among others. The Board also receives regular reports from personnel responsible for JPMAM’s business resiliency and disaster recovery.

In addition, the Board, the Equity Committee, the Fixed Income Committee, and the Money Market and Alternative Products Committee meet regularly with representatives of the Adviser and an independent consultant to review and evaluate the ongoing performance of the Funds. Each of these three Committees reports these reviews to the full Board. The Audit and Valuation Committee is responsible for oversight of the performance of the Funds’ audit, accounting and financial reporting policies, practices and internal controls and valuation policies, assisting the Board in its oversight of the valuation of the Funds’ securities by the Adviser, overseeing the quality and objectivity of the Funds’ independent audit and the financial statements of the Funds, and acting as a liaison between the Funds’ independent registered public accounting firm and the full Board. The Compliance Committee is responsible for oversight of the Funds’ compliance with legal, regulatory and contractual requirements and compliance with policy and procedures. The Governance Committee is responsible for, among other things, oversight of matters relating to the Funds’ corporate governance obligations, Fund service providers and litigation. The ETF Committee is responsible for, among other things, oversight of the J.P. Morgan ETFs with regard to the J.P. Morgan ETFs’ operational, legal, regulatory and contractual requirements relating to or impacting J.P. Morgan ETFs. At each quarterly meeting, each of the Governance Committee, the ETF Committee, the Audit and Valuation Committee and the Compliance Committee report their committee proceedings to the full Board. This Committee structure allows the Board to efficiently evaluate a large amount of material and effectively fulfill its oversight function. Annually, the Board considers the efficiency of this committee structure.

Additional information about each of the Committees is included below in “Standing Committees.”

Standing Committees

The Board of Trustees has seven standing committees: (i) the Audit and Valuation Committee, (ii) the Compliance Committee, (iii) the Governance Committee, (iv) the Equity Committee, (v) the ETF Committee, (vi) the Fixed Income Committee, and (vii) the Money Market and Alternative Products Committee.

Part II - 105

The members of each Committee are set forth below:

Name of Committee	Members	Committee Chair
Audit and Valuation Committee	Ms. Gallagher Mr. Maffia Mr. French Mr. Kanner	Ms. Gallagher
Compliance Committee	Ms. Pardo Mr. Fisher Ms. Hughes Mr. Lemke	Ms. Pardo
Governance Committee	Mr. Finn Ms. Martinez Ms. McCoy Dr. Oden	Mr. Finn
ETF Committee	Mr. Deutsch Mr. Fisher Mr. Grassi Ms. Hughes Ms. Shenker Ms. Youssouf	Mr. Deutsch
Equity Committee	Mr. Kanner Mr. French Mr. Maffia Ms. Pardo	Mr. Kanner
Fixed Income Committee	Dr. Oden Mr. Grassi Ms. Hughes Ms. Martinez Ms. Shenker Ms. Youssouf	Dr. Oden
Money Market and Alternative Products Committee	Mr. Fisher Mr. Deutsch Ms. Gallagher Mr. Lemke Ms. McCoy	Mr. Fisher

Audit and Valuation Committee. The Audit and Valuation Committee operates pursuant to a written charter. It is composed entirely of Independent Trustees. The purposes of the Audit and Valuation Committee are to: (i) appoint and determine compensation of the Funds’ independent accountants; (ii) evaluate the independence of the Funds’ independent accountants; (iii) oversee the performance of the Funds’ audit, accounting and financial reporting policies, practices and internal controls and valuation policies; (iv) approve non-audit services, as required by the statutes and regulations administered by the SEC, including the 1940 Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002; (v) assist the Board in its oversight of the valuation of the Funds’ securities by the Administrator and Adviser, as applicable, and any sub-adviser, as applicable; (vi) oversee the quality and objectivity of the Funds’ independent audit and the financial statements of the Funds; and (vii) act as a liaison between the Funds’ independent registered public accounting firm and the full Board. The Audit and Valuation Committee has delegated responsibilities to the Chair of the Committee or any designated member of the Committee to respond to inquiries on valuation matters and that occur between meetings of the Committee when the Funds’ valuation procedures or law require Board or Committee action, but it is impracticable or impossible to hold a meeting of the entire Board or Committee.

Compliance Committee. The Compliance Committee operates pursuant to a written charter. The primary purposes of the Compliance Committee are to (i) oversee the Funds’ compliance with legal and regulatory and contractual requirements and the Funds’ compliance policies and procedures; and (ii) consider the appointment, compensation and removal of the Funds’ Chief Compliance Officer.

Governance Committee. The Governance Committee operates pursuant to a written charter. The duties of the Governance Committee include, but are not limited to, (i) selection and nomination of persons for election or appointment as Trustees; (ii) periodic review of the compensation payable to the Independent Trustees; (iii) establishment of Independent Trustee expense policies; (iv) periodic review and evaluation of the functioning of the Board and its committees; (v) with respect to certain registrants,

Part II - 106

appointment and removal of the applicable funds’ Senior Officer, and approval of compensation for the funds’ Senior Officer and retention and compensation of the Senior Officer’s staff and consultants; (vi) selection of independent legal counsel to the Independent Trustees and legal counsel to the Funds; (vii) oversight of ongoing litigation affecting the Funds, the Adviser or the Independent Trustees; (viii) oversight of regulatory issues or deficiencies affecting the Funds (except financial matters considered by the Audit and Valuation Committee); and (ix) oversight and review of matters with respect to service providers to the Funds (except the Funds’ independent registered public accounting firm). When evaluating a person as a potential nominee to serve as an Independent Trustee, the Governance Committee may consider, among other factors, (i) whether or not the person is “independent” and whether the person is otherwise qualified under applicable laws and regulations to serve as a Trustee; (ii) whether or not the person is willing to serve, and willing and able to commit the time necessary for the performance of the duties of an Independent Trustee; (iii) the contribution that the person can make to the Board and the J.P. Morgan Funds, with consideration being given to the person’s business experience, education and such other factors as the Committee may consider relevant; (iv) the character and integrity of the person; (v) the desirable personality traits, including independence, leadership and the ability to work with the other members of the Board; and (vi) to the extent consistent with the 1940 Act, such recommendations from management as are deemed appropriate. The process of identifying nominees involves the consideration of candidates recommended by one or more of the following: current Independent Trustees, officers, shareholders and other sources that the Governance Committee deems appropriate, including the Mutual Fund Directors Forum. The Governance Committee will review nominees recommended to the Board by shareholders and will evaluate such nominees in the same manner as it evaluates nominees identified by the Governance Committee. Nominee recommendations may be submitted to the Secretary of the Trusts at each Trust’s principal business address.

ETF Committee. The ETF Committee operates pursuant to a written charter. The duties of the ETF Committee include, but are not limited to, (i) monitoring significant industry, legal and regulatory developments relating to ETFs; (ii) receiving reports from fund management and reviewing secondary market trading in J.P. Morgan ETF shares; (iii) receiving reports on and reviewing with fund management matters related to the listing of J.P. Morgan ETF’s shares on various exchanges; (iv) receiving reports on and reviewing with fund management matters related to self-indexing and third-party indexing; (v) receiving reports on and reviewing with fund management transaction fees charged in connection with J.P. Morgan ETF creation and redemption transactions; (vi) recommending action to the full Boards in regard to proposed changes to basket construction and custom basket policies and procedures; (vii) reviewing with fund management authorized participant relationships and agreements; (viii) receiving and reviewing reports with fund management related to J.P. Morgan ETF distribution matters; (ix) receiving reports from fund management on the investment performance of J.P. Morgan ETFs; (x) receiving reports from fund management on J.P. Morgan ETF risk matters; (xi) considering ETF-specific proposals and recommending action to the appropriate committee or the full boards in connection with the Trust’s ETFs; and (xii) assisting the compliance committee with its oversight responsibility related to J.P. Morgan ETFs.

Equity Committee, Fixed Income Committee and Money Market and Alternative Products Committee. Each member of the Board, other than Mr. Finn, serves on one of the following committees, which are divided by asset type: the Equity Committee, the Fixed Income Committee or the Money Market and Alternative Products Committee. The function of the Committees is to assist the Board in the oversight of the investment management services provided by the Adviser to the Funds, as well as any sub-adviser to the Funds. The primary purposes of each Committee are to (i) assist the Board in its oversight of the investment management services provided by the Adviser to the Funds designated for review by each Committee; and (ii) review and make recommendations to the Board concerning the approval of proposed new or continued advisory and distribution arrangements for the Funds or for new funds. The full Board may delegate to the applicable Committee from time to time the authority to make Board level decisions on an interim basis when it is impractical to convene a meeting of the full Board. Each of the Committees receives reports concerning investment management topics, concerns or exceptions with respect to particular Funds that the Committee is assigned to oversee, and works to facilitate the understanding by the Board of particular issues related to investment management of Funds reviewed by the applicable Committee.

For details of the number of times each of the standing committees met during the most recent fiscal year, see “TRUSTEES — Standing Committees” in Part I of this SAI.

For details of the dollar range of equity securities owned by each Trustee in the Funds, see “TRUSTEES — Ownership of Securities” in Part I of this SAI.

Part II - 107

Communications to the Board

Shareholder communications to any of the Boards or to specific members of such Board must be submitted in written form to Gregory Samuels, Secretary of the Trusts, at each Trust’s principal business address (277 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10172). All communications should clearly identify the specific Board or specific Board members to which each communication is directed.

Trustee Compensation

The Trustees instituted a Deferred Compensation Plan for Eligible Trustees (the “Deferred Compensation Plan”) pursuant to which the Trustees are permitted to defer part or all of their compensation. Amounts deferred are deemed invested in shares of one or more series of JPMT I, JPMT II, JPMT IV, Undiscovered Managers Funds, JPMFMFG, and JPMMFIT, as selected by the Trustee from time to time, to be used to measure the performance of a Trustee’s deferred compensation account. Amounts deferred under the Deferred Compensation Plan will be deemed to be invested in Class I Shares of the identified funds, unless Class I Shares are not available, in which case the amounts will be deemed to be invested in Class A Shares. A Trustee’s deferred compensation account will be paid at such times as elected by the Trustee, subject to certain mandatory payment provisions in the Deferred Compensation Plan (e.g., death of a Trustee). Deferral and payment elections under the Deferred Compensation Plan are subject to strict requirements for modification.

The Declaration of Trust provides that the Trust will indemnify its Trustees and officers against liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with litigation in which they may be involved because of their offices with the Trust, unless, as to liability to the Trust or its shareholders, it is finally adjudicated that they engaged in willful misfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence or reckless disregard of the duties involved in their offices (collectively, “disabling conduct”). In the case of settlement, such indemnification will not be provided unless it has been determined by a court or other body approving the settlement or disposition, or in the absence of such a determination, there has been a dismissal of the proceeding by the court or other body before it was brought for insufficiency of evidence of any disabling conduct with which the Trustee or officer has been charged, or by a reasonable determination based upon a review of readily available facts, by vote of a majority of disinterested Trustees or in a written opinion of independent counsel, that such officers or Trustees did not engage in disabling conduct.

For details of Trustee compensation paid by the Funds, including deferred compensation, see “TRUSTEES — Trustee Compensation” in Part I of this SAI.

OFFICERS

The Trust’s executive officers (listed below) generally are employees of the Adviser or one of its affiliates. The officers conduct and supervise the business operations of the Trust. The officers hold office until a successor has been elected and duly qualified. The Trust has no employees. The names of the officers of the Funds, together with their year of birth, information regarding their positions held with the Trust and principal occupations are shown below. The contact address for each of the officers, unless otherwise noted, is 277 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10172.

Name (Year of Birth), Positions Held with the Trust (Since)	Principal Occupations During Past 5 Years
Brian S. Shlissel (1964), President and Principal Executive Officer (2021)	Managing Director and Chief Administrative Officer for J.P. Morgan pooled vehicles, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since 2014.
Timothy J. Clemens (1975), Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer (2020)	Managing Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Mr. Clemens has been with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since 2013.
Gregory S. Samuels (1980), Secretary (2022) (formerly Assistant Secretary 2014-2022)	Managing Director and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase. Mr. Samuels has been with JPMorgan Chase since 2010.
Stephen M. Ungerman (1953), Chief Compliance Officer (2014)	Managing Director, JPMorgan Chase & Co. Mr. Ungerman has been with JPMorgan Chase & Co. since 2000.

Part II - 108

Name (Year of Birth), Positions Held with the Trust (Since)	Principal Occupations During Past 5 Years
Kiesha Astwood-Smith (1973), Assistant Secretary (2021)	Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase since June 2021; Senior Director and Counsel, Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company (formerly, AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company) from September 2015 through June 2021.
Matthew Beck (1988), Assistant Secretary (2021)*	Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase since May 2021; Senior Legal Counsel, Ultimus Fund Solutions from May 2018 through May 2021; General Counsel, The Nottingham Company from April 2014 through May 2018.
Elizabeth A. Davin (1964), Assistant Secretary (2022)* (formerly Secretary 2018-2022)	Executive Director and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase. Ms. Davin has been with JPMorgan Chase (formerly Bank One Corporation) since 2004.
Jessica K. Ditullio (1962), Assistant Secretary (2014)*	Executive Director and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase. Ms. Ditullio has been with JPMorgan Chase (formerly Bank One Corporation) since 1990.
Anthony Geron (1971), Assistant Secretary (2019)	Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase since September 2018; Lead Director and Counsel, AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company from 2015 to 2018 and Senior Director and Counsel, AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company from 2014 to 2015.
Carmine Lekstutis (1980), Assistant Secretary (2014)	Executive Director and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase. Mr. Lekstutis has been with JPMorgan Chase since 2011.
Max Vogel (1990), Assistant Secretary (2021)	Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase since June 2021; Associate, Proskauer Rose LLP (law firm) from March 2017 to June 2021.
Zachary E. Vonnegut-Gabovitch (1986), Assistant Secretary (2017)	Executive Director and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase. Mr. Vonnegut-Gabovitch has been with JPMorgan Chase since September 2016.
Frederick J. Cavaliere (1978), Assistant Treasurer (2015)**	Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Mr. Cavaliere has been with JPMorgan since May 2006.
Michael M. D’Ambrosio (1969), Assistant Treasurer (2014)	Managing Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Mr. D’Ambrosio has been with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since 2012.
Aleksandr Fleytekh (1972), Assistant Treasurer (2023)	Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Mr. Fleytekh has been with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since February 2012.
Shannon Gaines (1977), Assistant Treasurer (2019)*	Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Mr. Gaines has been with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since January 2014.
Jeffrey D. House (1972), Assistant Treasurer (2023)*	Vice President, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Mr. House has been with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since July 2006.
Michael Mannarino (1985), Assistant Treasurer (2023)	Vice President, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Mr. Mannarino has been with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since 2014.
Nektarios E. Manolakakis (1972), Assistant Treasurer (2020)	Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since February 2021, formerly Vice President, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since 2014; Vice President, J.P. Morgan Corporate & Investment Bank 2010-2014.
Todd McEwen (1981), Assistant Treasurer (2020)*	Vice President, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Mr. McEwen has been with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since 2010.

Part II - 109

Name (Year of Birth), Positions Held with the Trust (Since)	Principal Occupations During Past 5 Years
Joseph Parascondola (1963), Assistant Treasurer (2023)**	Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Mr. Parascondola has been with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since 2006.
Gillian I. Sands (1969), Assistant Treasurer (2023)	Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Ms. Sands has been with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since September 2012.

The contact address for the officer is 1111 Polaris Parkway, Columbus, OH 43240.

The contact address for the officer is 575 Washington Boulevard, Jersey City, NJ 07310.

For details of the percentage of Shares of the Funds owned by the officers and Trustees, as a group, see “SHARE OWNERSHIP — Trustees and Officers” in Part I of this SAI.

INVESTMENT ADVISER AND SUB-ADVISER

J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (“JPMIM” or the “Adviser”) serves as investment adviser and administrator to the Funds. JPMorgan Asset Management (Asia Pacific) Limited serves as sub-adviser (“JPMAM (AP)” or the “Sub-Adviser”) to the JPMorgan Active China ETF (“Active China ETF”) pursuant to a sub-advisory agreement with JPMIM (the “Sub-Advisory Agreement”).

The Trust’s Shares are not sponsored, endorsed or guaranteed by, and do not constitute obligations or deposits of JPMorgan Chase, any bank affiliate of JPMIM or any other bank, and are not insured by the FDIC or issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government or any of its agencies.

J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.

JPMIM serves as investment adviser and administrator to the Funds. Except as noted in the Part I of this SAI, JPMIM provides investment advisory and administrative services under a management agreement (each a “JPMIM Management Agreement”). JPMIM is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Asset Management Holdings Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“JPMorgan Chase”). JPMIM is a registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended. JPMIM is located at 383 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10179.

The investment advisory services JPMIM provides to the Funds are not exclusive. JPMIM is free to and does render similar investment advisory services to others. JPMIM serves as investment adviser to personal investors and other investment companies and acts as fiduciary for trusts, estates and employee benefit plans. Certain of the assets of trusts and estates under management are invested in common trust funds for which JPMIM serves as trustee. The accounts which are managed or advised by JPMIM have varying investment objectives, and JPMIM invests assets of such accounts in investments substantially similar to, or the same as, those which are expected to constitute the principal investments of the Funds. Such accounts are supervised by employees of JPMIM who may also be acting in similar capacities for the Funds. See “Portfolio Transactions.”

Each Fund is managed by employees of JPMIM who, in acting for their customers, including each Fund, do not discuss their investment decisions with any personnel of JPMorgan Chase or any personnel of other divisions of JPMIM or with any of their affiliated persons, with the exception of certain other investment management affiliates of JPMorgan Chase which execute transactions on behalf of a Fund.

JPMorgan Asset Management (Asia Pacific) Limited

JPMAM (AP) serves as the Sub-Adviser to the Active China ETF. As Sub-Adviser, JPMAM (AP) provides day-to-day management of the Fund’s portfolio. JPMAM (AP) is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Asset Management Holdings Inc. JPMAM (AP) is located at 19th Floor, Chater House, 8 Connaught Road Central, Hong Kong.

Active China ETF’s investment portfolio is managed on a day-to-day basis by the Sub-Adviser pursuant to the Sub-Advisory Agreement.

Under the Sub-Advisory Agreement relating to the Active China ETF between JPMIM and the Sub-Adviser, the Sub-Adviser is entitled to fees, payable at least monthly by JPMIM out of the fees JPMIM receives.

Part II - 110

The Sub-Advisory Agreement will continue in effect for a period of two years from the date of its execution, unless terminated sooner. It may be renewed from year to year thereafter, so long as continuance is specifically approved at least annually in accordance with the requirements of the 1940 Act.

The Sub-Advisory Agreement provides that it may be terminated without penalty by the Fund, by vote of the Board of Trustees or by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund, or by JPMIM or the Sub-Adviser at any time, without the payment of any penalty, on not more than 60 days’ nor less than 30 days’ written notice to the other party, and shall automatically terminate in the event of its assignment.

JPMIM Management Agreements

Pursuant to the JPMIM Management Agreements, JPMIM provides investment advisory and administrative services to certain Funds.

Subject to the supervision of the Trust’s Board of Trustees, JPMIM provides or will cause to be provided a continuous investment program for a Fund, including investment research and management with respect to all securities and investments and cash equivalents. JPMIM may delegate its responsibilities to a sub-adviser. Any subadvisory agreements must be approved by the Trust’s Board of Trustees and the applicable Fund’s shareholders, to the extent required by the 1940 Act.

Pursuant to the JPMIM Management Agreements, JPMIM also performs or supervises all operations of the Funds (other than those services performed under the custody and fund accounting agreement and the transfer agency agreement for the Funds). JPMIM has agreed to maintain the necessary office space for these Funds, and to furnish certain other services required by each of these Funds. JPMIM prepares annual and semi-annual reports to the SEC, prepares federal and state tax returns and generally assists in all aspects of a Fund’s operations other than those performed under any sub-advisory agreements, the custody and fund accounting agreement, and the transfer agency agreement. JPMIM may, at its expense, subcontract with any entity or person concerning the provision of the administrative services. JPMorgan Chase Bank serves as the Funds’ sub-administrator (the “Sub-administrator”).

Pursuant to JPMIM Management Agreements, JPMIM is entitled to a management fee, computed daily and payable monthly equal to the annual rate of each Fund’s average daily net assets as described in the Funds’ Prospectuses. Under the JPMIM Management Agreement, JPMIM is responsible for substantially all the expenses of the Trust relating to each Fund and each Fund (inclusive of any subsidiary expenses), except for the management fees, payments under a Fund’s 12b-1 plan (if any), interest expenses, dividend and interest expenses related to short sales, taxes, acquired fund fees and expenses (other than fees for funds advised by the Adviser and/or its affiliates), costs of holding shareholder meetings, and litigation and potential litigation and other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of a Fund’s business. Each Fund shall be responsible for its non-operating expenses, including brokerage commissions and fees and expenses associated with a Fund’s securities lending program, if applicable.

After an initial period, each JPMIM Management Agreement will continue in effect for successive annual periods only if specifically approved thereafter annually in the same manner as the Distribution Agreement; except that for any new funds, the initial approval will continue for up to two years, after which annual approvals are required. See the “Distributor” section for additional information. Each JPMIM Management Agreement will terminate with respect to a Fund automatically if assigned and is terminable at any time without penalty by a vote of a majority of the Trustees, or by a vote of the holders of a majority of a Fund’s outstanding voting securities (as defined in the 1940 Act), on 60 days’ written notice to JPMIM and by JPMIM on 90 days’ written notice to the Trust.

Each JPMIM Management Agreement provides that JPMIM shall not be liable for any error of judgment or mistake of law or for any loss suffered by any Fund in connection with the matters to which the JPMIM Management Agreement relates, except a loss resulting from willful misfeasance, bad faith or gross negligence on the part of JPMIM in the performance of its duties or from reckless disregard by it of its duties and obligations thereunder, or, a loss resulting from a breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services covered by the agreement.

For details of the fees paid under the management agreement, see “INVESTMENT ADVISER AND ADMINSTRATOR — Management Fees” or “INVESTMENT ADVISER, ADMINSTRATOR AND SUB-ADVISER— Management Fees” in Part I of the SAI for the applicable Fund.

Part II - 111

Under separate agreements, JPMorgan Chase Bank provides certain custodial, fund accounting and recordkeeping services to the Trust. JPMorgan Chase Bank is a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase and an affiliate of JPMIM. See the “Custodian” and “Transfer Agent” sections for additional information.

Prior JPMIM Investment Advisory Agreements

Prior to November 1, 2019, JPMIM provided investment advisory services to certain Funds under Investment Advisory Agreements whereby JPMIM provided investment advisory services substantially similar to those provided under the JPMIM Management Agreement.

For details of the investment advisory fees paid under the prior advisory agreements, see “INVESTMENT ADVISER AND ADMINISTRATOR—Investment Advisory Fees” in Part I of the SAI for the applicable Fund.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

JPMIM

JPMIM and/or its affiliates (the “Affiliates” and, together, “JPMorgan”) provide an array of discretionary and non-discretionary investment management services and products to institutional clients and individual investors. In addition, JPMorgan is a diversified financial services firm that provides a broad range of services and products to its clients and is a major participant in the global currency, equity, commodity, fixed-income and other markets in which a Fund invests or will invest. Investors should carefully review the following, which describes potential and actual conflicts of interest that JPMorgan can face in the operation of its investment management services. JPMorgan and the Funds have adopted policies and procedures reasonably designed to appropriately prevent, limit or mitigate the conflicts of interest described below. In addition, many of the activities that create these conflicts of interest are limited and/or prohibited by law, unless an exception is available.

This section is not, and is not intended to be, a complete enumeration or explanation of all of the potential conflicts of interest that may arise. Additional information about potential conflicts of interest regarding JPMIM and JPMorgan is set forth in JPMIM’s or the Sub-Adviser’s Form ADV. A copy of Part 1 and Part 2A of JPMIM’s Form ADV is available on the SEC’s website (www.adviserinfo.sec.gov).

Acting for Multiple Clients. In general, JPMIM faces conflicts of interest when it renders investment advisory services to several clients and, from time to time, provides dissimilar investment advice to different clients. For example, when funds or accounts managed by JPMIM (“Other Accounts”) engage in short sales of the same securities held by a Fund, JPMIM could be seen as harming the performance of a Fund for the benefit of the Other Accounts engaging in short sales, if the short sales cause the market value of the securities to fall. In addition, a conflict could arise when one or more Other Accounts invest in different instruments or classes of securities of the same issuer than those in which a Fund invests. In certain circumstances, Other Accounts have different investment objectives or could pursue or enforce rights with respect to a particular issuer in which a Fund has also invested and these activities could have an adverse effect on the Fund. For example, if a Fund holds debt instruments of an issuer and an Other Account holds equity securities of the same issuer, then if the issuer experiences financial or operational challenges, the Fund (which holds the debt instrument) may seek a liquidation of the issuer, whereas the Other Account (which holds the equity securities) may prefer a reorganization of the issuer. In addition, an issuer in which a Fund invests may use the proceeds of the Fund’s investment to refinance or reorganize its capital structure which could result in repayment of debt held by JPMorgan or an Other Account. If the issuer performs poorly following such refinancing or reorganization, a Fund’s results will suffer whereas the Other Account’s performance will not be affected because the Other Account no longer has an investment in the issuer. Conflicts are magnified with respect to issuers that become insolvent. It is possible that in connection with an insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization, or similar proceeding, a Fund will be limited (by applicable law, courts or otherwise) in the positions or actions it will be permitted to take due to other interests held or actions or positions taken by JPMorgan or Other Accounts.

Positions taken by Other Accounts may also dilute or otherwise negatively affect the values, prices or investment strategies associated with positions held by a Fund. For example, this may occur when investment decisions for a Fund are based on research or other information that is also used to support portfolio decisions by JPMIM for Other Accounts following different investment strategies or by Affiliates in managing their clients’ accounts. When an Other Account or an account managed by an Affiliate implements a portfolio decision or strategy ahead of, or contemporaneously with, similar portfolio decisions or strategies for a Fund (whether or not the portfolio decisions emanate from the same research

Part II - 112

analysis or other information), market impact, liquidity constraints, or other factors could result in the Fund receiving less favorable investment results, and the costs of implementing such portfolio decisions or strategies could be increased or the Fund could otherwise be disadvantaged.

Investment opportunities that are appropriate for a Fund may also be appropriate for Other Accounts and there is no assurance the Fund will receive an allocation of all or a portion of those investments it wishes to pursue. JPMIM’s management of an Other Account that pays it a performance fee or a higher management fee and follows the same or similar strategy as a Fund or invests in substantially similar assets as a Fund, creates an incentive for JPMIM to favor the account paying it the potentially higher fee, e.g., in placing securities trades.

JPMIM and its Affiliates, and any of their directors, officers or employees, also buy, sell, or trade securities for their own accounts or the proprietary accounts of JPMIM and/or an Affiliate. JPMIM or its Affiliates, within their discretion, may make different investment decisions and take other actions with respect to their own proprietary accounts than those made for client accounts, including the timing or nature of such investment decisions or actions. Further, JPMIM is not required to purchase or sell for any client account securities that it, an Affiliate or any of its or their employees may purchase or sell for their own accounts or the proprietary accounts of JPMIM or an Affiliate or its clients. JPMIM, its Affiliates and their respective directors, officers and employees face a conflict of interest as they will have income or other incentives to favor their own accounts or proprietary accounts.

The portfolio managers of certain Funds-of-Funds have access to the holdings and may have knowledge of the investment strategies and techniques of certain underlying Funds because they are portfolio managers of separately managed accounts following similar strategies as a Fund-of-Funds. They therefore face conflicts of interest in the timing and amount of allocations to an underlying fund, as well as in the choice of an underlying fund. JPMorgan also faces conflicts of interest when waiving certain fees if those waivers enhance performance.

The chart in Part I of this SAI entitled “Portfolio Managers’ Other Accounts Managed” shows the number, type and market value as of a specified date of the accounts and other Funds managed by each Fund’s (excluding the Money Market Funds’) portfolio managers.

Acting in Multiple Commercial Capacities. JPMorgan is a diversified financial services firm that provides a broad range of services and products to its clients and is a major participant in the global currency, equity, commodity, fixed-income and other markets in which a Fund invests or may invest. JPMorgan is typically entitled to compensation in connection with these activities and the Funds will not be entitled to any such compensation. In providing services and products to clients other than the Funds, JPMorgan, from time to time, faces conflicts of interest with respect to activities recommended to or performed for a Fund on one hand and for JPMorgan’s other clients on the other hand. For example, JPMorgan has, and continues to seek to develop, banking and other financial and advisory relationships with numerous U.S. and non-U.S. persons and governments. JPMorgan also advises and represents potential buyers and sellers of businesses worldwide. The Funds have invested in, or may wish to invest in, such entities represented by JPMorgan or with which JPMorgan has a banking or other financial relationship. In addition, certain clients of JPMorgan may invest in entities in which JPMorgan holds an interest, including a Fund. In providing services to its clients, JPMorgan from time to time recommends activities that compete with or otherwise adversely affect a Fund or the Fund’s investments. It should be recognized that such relationships may also preclude a Fund from engaging in certain transactions and may constrain the Fund’s investment flexibility. For example, Affiliates that are broker dealers cannot deal with the Funds as principal in the purchase and sale of securities unless an exemptive order allowing such transactions is obtained from the SEC. Certain of the Funds have received exemptive orders permitting the Funds to engage in principal transactions with Affiliates involving taxable and tax exempt money market instruments. However, for the purchase and sale of longer term fixed income securities, which are generally principal transactions, the Funds cannot use broker dealer Affiliates. Or, if an Affiliate is the sole underwriter of an initial or secondary offering, the Funds could not purchase in the offering. In both cases the number of securities and counterparties available to the Funds will be fewer than are available to mutual funds that are not affiliated with major broker dealers.

JPMorgan derives ancillary benefits from providing investment advisory, custody, administration, fund accounting and shareholder servicing and other services to the Funds, and providing such services to the Funds may enhance JPMorgan’s relationships with various parties, facilitate additional business development and enable JPMorgan to obtain additional business and generate additional revenue.

Part II - 113

Participations Adverse to the Funds. JPMorgan’s participation in certain markets or its actions for certain clients may also restrict or affect a Fund’s ability to transact in those markets and JPMorgan may face conflicts with respect to the interests involved. For example, when a Fund and another JPMorgan client invest in different parts of an issuer’s capital structure, decisions over whether to trigger an event of default, over the terms of any workout, or how to exit an investment implicate conflicts of interest. See also “Acting for Multiple Clients.”

Preferential Treatment. JPMIM receives more compensation with respect to certain Funds or Other Accounts than it receives with respect to a Fund, or receives compensation based in part on the performance of certain accounts. This creates a conflict of interest for JPMIM and its portfolio managers by providing an incentive to favor those accounts. Actual or potential conflicts of interest also arise when a portfolio manager has management responsibilities to more than one account or Fund, such as devotion of unequal time and attention to the management of the Funds or accounts.

Allocation and Aggregation. Potential conflicts of interest also arise with both the aggregation of trade orders and allocation of securities transactions or investment opportunities. Allocations of aggregated trades, particularly trade orders that were only partially filled due to limited availability, and allocation of investment opportunities raise a potential conflict of interest because JPMorgan has an incentive to allocate trades or investment opportunities to certain accounts or Funds. For example, JPMorgan has an incentive to cause accounts it manages to participate in an offering where such participation could increase JPMorgan’s overall allocation of securities in that offering. When JPMorgan serves as adviser to the Funds, as well as certain Funds-of-Funds, it faces certain potential conflicts of interest when allocating the assets of the Funds-of-Funds among its underlying Funds. For example, JPMorgan has an incentive to allocate assets of the Fund-of-Funds to seed a new Fund or to allocate to an underlying Fund that is small, pays higher fees to JPMorgan or to which JPMorgan has provided seed capital.

Overall Position Limits. Potential conflicts of interest also exist when JPMorgan maintains certain overall investment limitations on positions in securities or other financial instruments due to, among other things, investment restrictions imposed upon JPMorgan by law, regulation, contract or internal policies. These limitations have precluded and, in the future could preclude, a Fund from purchasing particular securities or financial instruments, even if the securities or financial instruments would otherwise meet the Fund’s objectives. For example, there are limits on the aggregate amount of investments by affiliated investors in certain types of securities that may not be exceeded without additional regulatory or corporate consent. There also are limits on the writing of options by a Fund that could be triggered based on the number of options written by JPMIM on behalf of other investment advisory clients. If certain aggregate ownership thresholds are reached or certain transactions are undertaken, the ability of a Fund to purchase or dispose of investments, or exercise rights or undertake business transactions, will be restricted.

Soft Dollars. JPMIM pays certain broker-dealers (including affiliates of JPMIM) with “soft” or commission dollars generated by client brokerage transactions in exchange for access to statistical information and other research services. JPMIM faces conflicts of interest because the statistical information and other research services may benefit certain other clients of JPMIM more than a Fund and can be used in connection with the management of accounts other than the accounts whose trades generated the commissions.

Additionally, when JPMIM uses client brokerage commissions to obtain statistical information and other research services, JPMIM receives a benefit because it does not have to produce or pay for the information or other research services itself. As a result, JPMIM may have an incentive to select a particular broker-dealer in order to obtain such information and other research services from that broker-dealer, rather than to obtain the lowest price for execution.

Redemptions. JPMorgan, as a seed investor, has significant ownership in certain of the Funds. In addition, JPMorgan Funds of Funds and JPMorgan on behalf of its discretionary clients could make significant investments in the Funds. JPMorgan faces conflicts of interest when considering the effect of redemptions on such Funds and on other shareholders in deciding whether and when to redeem its shares. A large redemption of shares by JPMorgan, by a JPMorgan Fund of Funds or by JPMorgan acting on behalf of its discretionary clients could result in a Fund selling securities when it otherwise would not have done so, accelerating the realization of capital gains and increasing transaction costs. A large redemption could significantly reduce the assets of a Fund, causing decreased liquidity and, depending on any applicable expense caps, a higher expense ratio.

Affiliated Transactions. The Funds are subject to conflicts of interest if they engage in principal or agency transactions with other Funds or with JPMorgan. To the extent permitted by law, the Funds can enter into transactions in which JPMorgan acts as principal on its own behalf (principal transactions),

Part II - 114

advises both sides of a transaction (cross transactions) and acts as broker for, and receives a commission from, the Funds (agency transactions). Principal and agency transactions create the opportunity for JPMorgan to engage in self-dealing. In accordance with applicable legal requirements, JPMIM currently expects, for certain U.S. equity Funds, to place certain U.S. equity trades, on an agency basis, through its affiliated broker, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (“JPMS”). JPMorgan faces a conflict of interest when it engages in a principal or agency transaction on behalf of a Fund, because such transactions result in additional compensation to JPMorgan. JPMorgan faces a potentially conflicting division of loyalties and responsibilities to the parties in these transactions.

In addition, Affiliates of JPMIM have direct or indirect interests in electronic communication networks and alternative trading systems (collectively “ECNs”). JPMIM, in accordance with its fiduciary obligation to seek to obtain best execution, from time to time executes client trades through ECNs in which an Affiliate has, or may acquire, an interest. In such case, the Affiliate will be indirectly compensated based upon its ownership percentage in relation to the transaction fees charged by the ECNs.

JPMorgan also faces conflicts of interest if a Fund purchases securities during the existence of an underwriting syndicate for such securities, of which JPMorgan is a member because JPMorgan typically receives fees for certain services that it provides to the syndicate and, in certain cases, will be relieved directly or indirectly of certain financial obligations as a result of a Fund’s purchase of securities.

Affiliated Service Providers. JPMorgan faces conflicts of interest when the Funds use service providers affiliated with JPMorgan because JPMorgan receives greater overall fees when they are used. Affiliates provide investment advisory, administration, fund accounting, custody, and transfer agency services to the Funds for which they are compensated by the Funds. Similarly, JPMIM faces a conflict of interest if it decides to use or negotiate the terms of a credit facility for a Fund if the facility is provided by an Affiliate. In addition, if a JPMorgan Fund of Funds is investing in actively managed underlying funds, JPMIM limits its selection to Funds in the JPMorgan family of mutual funds. JPMIM does not consider or canvass the universe of unaffiliated investment companies available, even though there may be unaffiliated investment companies that may be more appropriate for the JPMorgan Fund of Funds or that have superior returns. The JPMorgan affiliates providing services to the Funds benefit from additional fees when a Fund is included as an underlying Fund in a JPMorgan Fund of Funds. Certain laws applicable to JPMorgan may also have an impact on the ability of JPMorgan to conduct business with the Funds, which may have a negative impact on the Funds. The Funds are treated as affiliates of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. for purposes of Sections 23A and 23B of the U.S. Federal Reserve Act. Those sections require that banking subsidiaries of JPMorgan, such as JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its subsidiaries, comply with certain standards and restrictions in dealing with affiliates such as the Funds. For example, the Funds may be unable to enter into certain borrowing or servicing arrangements with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Indexes. JPMIM or one of its affiliates may develop or own and operate stock market and other indexes based on investment and trading strategies developed by JPMIM or its affiliates or assist unaffiliated entities in creating indexes that are tracked by certain Funds utilized by JPMIM. Some of the Funds seek to track the performance of these indexes. JPMIM may, from time to time, manage client accounts that invest in the Funds. In addition, JPMIM may manage client accounts which track the same indexes used by the Funds or which may be based on the same, or substantially similar, strategies that are used in the operation of the indexes and the Funds. The operation of the indexes, the Funds and client accounts in this manner may give rise to potential conflicts of interest. For example, client accounts that track the same indexes used by the Funds may engage in purchases and sales of securities relating to index changes prior to the implementation of index updates or the time as of which the Funds engage in similar transactions because the client accounts may be managed and rebalanced on an ongoing basis, whereas the Funds’ portfolios are only rebalanced on a periodic basis corresponding with the rebalancing of an index. These differences may result in the client accounts having more favorable performance relative to that of the index and the Funds or other client accounts that track the index.

JPMIM also serves as an administrator to certain indices and performs a separate, non-fiduciary function with respect to the relevant indices. This gives rise to potential conflicts of interest, including concerns regarding the ability of JPMIM to manipulate an underlying index to the benefit or detriment of self-indexing Funds. The potential for conflicts of interest may also arise with respect to the personal trading activity of personnel of JPMIM who have knowledge of changes to an underlying index prior to the time that such index changes or other information related to the index is publicly disseminated.

Part II - 115

Other potential conflicts include the potential for unauthorized access to index information, allowing index changes that benefit JPMIM or other client accounts and not the investors in the Funds. JPMIM has established certain information barriers and other policies to address the sharing of information between different businesses within JPMIM and its affiliates, including with respect to personnel responsible for maintaining the indexes and those involved in decision-making for the Funds.

Proxy Voting. Potential conflicts of interest can arise when JPMIM votes proxies for securities held by a Fund. A conflict is deemed to exist when the proxy is for JPMorgan Chase & Co. stock or for J.P. Morgan Funds, or when the proxy administrator has actual knowledge indicating that an Affiliate is an investment banker or rendered a fairness opinion with respect to the matter that is the subject of the proxy vote. When such conflicts are identified, the proxy will be voted by an independent third party either in accordance with JPMIM’s proxy voting guidelines or by the third party using its own guidelines. Potential conflicts of interest can arise when JPMIM invests Fund assets in securities of companies that are also clients of JPMIM or that have material business relationships with JPMIM or an Affiliate and a vote against management could harm or otherwise affect JPMIM’s or the Affiliate’s business relationship with that company. See the Proxy Voting section in this SAI.

Personal Trading. JPMorgan and any of its directors, officers, agents or employees, face conflicts of interest when transacting in securities for their own accounts because they could benefit by trading in the same securities as a Fund, which could have an adverse effect on a Fund.

Valuation. JPMIM acting in its capacity as the Funds’ administrator is the primary valuation agent of the Funds. JPMIM values securities and assets in the Funds according to the Funds’ valuation policies. From time to time JPMIM will value an asset differently than an Affiliate values the identical asset, including because the Affiliate has information regarding valuation techniques and models or other information that it does not share with JPMIM. This arises particularly in connection with securities or other assets for which market quotations are not readily available or for which market quotations do not represent the value at the time of pricing (e.g., startup companies) and which are fair valued. JPMIM will also face a conflict with respect to valuations as they affect the amount of JPMIM’s compensation as investment adviser and administrator.

Information Access. As a result of JPMorgan’s various other businesses, Affiliates, from time to time, come into possession of information about certain markets and investments which, if known to JPMIM, could cause JPMIM to seek to dispose of, retain or increase interests in investments held by a Fund or acquire certain positions on behalf of a Fund. However, JPMorgan’s internal information barriers restrict JPMIM’s ability to access such information even when it would be relevant to its management of the Funds. Such Affiliates can trade differently from the Funds potentially based on information not available to JPMIM. If JPMIM acquires or is deemed to acquire material non-public information regarding an issuer, JPMIM will be restricted from purchasing or selling securities of that issuer for its clients, including a Fund, until the information has been publicly disclosed or is no longer deemed material. (Such an issuer could include an underlying Fund in a Fund-of-Funds.)

Gifts and Entertainment. From time to time, employees of JPMIM receive gifts and/or entertainment from clients, intermediaries, or service providers to the Funds or JPMIM, which could have the appearance of affecting or may potentially affect the judgment of the employees, or the manner in which they conduct business.

Lending. JPMorgan faces conflicts of interest with respect to interfund lending or the JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. credit facility, which could harm the lending or the borrowing Fund if JPMorgan favors one Fund’s or JPMorgan’s interests over those of another Fund. If a Fund engages in securities lending transactions, JPMIM faces a conflict of interest when a JPMIM affiliate operates as a service provider in the securities lending transaction or otherwise receives compensation as part of the securities lending activities.

For Funds with Sub-Advisers: Additional Potential Conflicts of Interest

The Adviser to certain Funds have engaged affiliated and/or unaffiliated sub-advisers. The Adviser compensates sub-advisers out of the advisory fees it receives from the Fund, which creates an incentive for the Adviser to select sub-advisers with lower fee rates or to select affiliated sub-advisers. In addition, the sub-advisers have interests and relationships that create actual or potential conflicts of interest related to their management of the assets of the Funds allocated to such sub-advisers. Such conflicts of interest may be similar to, different from or supplement those conflicts described herein relating to JPMorgan. Potential conflicts relate to the sub-advisers’ trading and investment practices, including, but not limited to, their selection of broker-dealers, aggregation of orders for multiple clients or netting of orders for the same

Part II - 116

client and the investment of client assets in companies in which they have an interest. Additional information about potential conflicts of interest regarding the sub-advisers is set forth in each sub-adviser’s Form ADV. A copy of Part 1 and Part 2 of each sub-adviser’s Form ADV is available on the SEC’s website (www.adviserinfo.sec.gov).

For details of the dollar range of shares of each Fund beneficially owned by the portfolio managers, see “PORTFOLIO MANAGERS — Portfolio Managers’ Ownership of Securities” in Part I of this SAI.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS

Compensation. JPMIM’s compensation programs are designed to align the behavior of employees with the achievement of its short- and long-term strategic goals, which revolve around client investment objectives. This is accomplished in part, through a balanced performance assessment process and total compensation program, as well as a clearly defined culture that rigorously and consistently promotes adherence to the highest ethical standards.

The compensation framework for JPMIM portfolio managers (“Portfolio Managers”) participating in public market investing activities is based on several factors that drive alignment with client objectives, the primary of which is investment performance, alongside of the firm-wide performance dimensions. The framework focuses on Total Compensation – base salary and variable compensation. Variable compensation is in the form of cash incentives, and/or long-term incentives in the form of fund-tracking incentives (referred to as the “Mandatory Investment Plan” or “MIP”) and/or equity-based JPMorgan Chase Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) with defined vesting schedules and corresponding terms and conditions. Long-term incentive awards may comprise up to 60% of overall incentive compensation, depending on an employee’s pay level.

The performance dimensions for Portfolio Managers are evaluated annually based on several factors that drive investment outcomes and value—aligned with client objectives—including, but not limited to:

●

Investment performance, generally weighted more to the long-term, with specific consideration for Portfolio Managers of investment performance relative to competitive indices or peers over one-, three-, five- and ten-year periods, or, in the case of funds designed to track the performance of a particular index, the Portfolio Managers success in tracking such index;

●

The scale and complexity of their investment responsibilities;

●

Individual contribution relative to the client’s risk and return objectives;

●

Business results, as informed by investment performance; risk, controls and conduct objectives; client/customer/stakeholder objectives, teamwork and leadership objectives; and

●

Adherence with JPMorgan’s compliance, risk, regulatory and client fiduciary responsibilities, including, as applicable, adherence to the JPMorgan Asset Management Sustainability Risk Integration Policy, which contains relevant financially material Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (“ESG”) factors that are intended to be assessed in investment decision-making.

In addition to the above performance dimensions, the firm-wide pay-for-per performance framework is integrated into the final assessment of incentive compensation for an individual Portfolio Manager. Feedback from JPMorgan’s risk and control professionals is considered in assessing performance and compensation.

Portfolio Managers are subject to a mandatory deferral of long-term incentive compensation under JPMorgan’s “MIP”. In general, the MIP provides for a rate of return equal to that of the particular fund(s), thereby aligning the Portfolio Manager’s pay with that of the client’s experience/return.

For Portfolio Managers participating in public market investing activities, 50% of their long-term incentives are subject to a mandatory deferral in the MIP, and the remaining 50% can be granted in the form of RSUs or additional participation in MIP at the election of the Portfolio Manager.

For the portion of long-term incentives subject to mandatory deferral in the MIP (50%), the incentives are allocated to the fund(s) the Portfolio Manager manages, as determined by the employee’s respective manager and reviewed by senior management.

Part II - 117

In addition, named Portfolio Managers on a sustainable fund(s) are required to allocate at least 25% of their mandatory deferral in at least one dedicated sustainable fund(s).

To hold individuals responsible for taking risks inconsistent with JPMorgan’s risk appetite and to discourage future imprudent behavior, we have policies and procedures that enable us to take prompt and proportionate actions with respect to accountable individuals, including:

●

Reducing or altogether eliminating annual incentive compensation;

●

Canceling unvested awards (in full or in part);

●

Clawback/recovery of previously paid compensation (cash and/or equity);

●

Demotion, negative performance rating or other appropriate employment actions; and

●

Termination of employment.

The precise actions we take with respect to accountable individuals are based on circumstances, including the nature of their involvement, the magnitude of the event and the impact on JPMorgan.

Portfolio Manager Leaves of Absence – JPMorgan’s benefit programs include parental leave and other leave policies. For example, JPMorgan U.S. employees are entitled to up to 16 weeks of paid leave for the birth or adoption of a child. From time to time, the portfolio managers listed in the prospectuses may be on temporary leave from the firm. Most of the Funds are managed using a team approach such that other members of the team will absorb the responsibilities of the portfolio manager while on leave and the management of such Funds will continue without change. Ordinarily, the Funds will not supplement their prospectuses to identify portfolio managers who are on temporary leave except as otherwise determined by the Adviser. Portfolio managers on leave at the time of an annual prospectus update will continue to be included in the list of portfolio managers for a Fund unless otherwise determined by the Adviser.

Other Portfolio Manager Information. For details of the dollar range of shares of each Fund (excluding Money Market Funds) beneficially owned by the portfolio managers who serve on a team that manages such Fund, see “PORTFOLIO MANAGERS — Portfolio Managers’ Ownership of Securities” in Part I of this SAI. For details of the other accounts managed by each portfolio manager, see “PORTFOLIO MANAGERS — Portfolio Managers’ Other Accounts Managed” in Part I of this SAI.

CODES OF ETHICS

The Trust, the Adviser and the Distributor have each adopted codes of ethics pursuant to Rule 17j-1 under the 1940 Act (and pursuant to Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act with respect to the Adviser).

The Trust’s code of ethics includes policies which require “access persons” (as defined in Rule 17j-1) to: (i) place the interest of Trust shareholders first; (ii) conduct personal securities transactions in a manner that avoids any actual or potential conflict of interest or any abuse of a position of trust and responsibility; and (iii) refrain from taking inappropriate advantage of his or her position with the Trust or a Fund. The Trust’s code of ethics prohibits any access person from: (i) employing any device, scheme or artifice to defraud the Trust or a Fund; (ii) making to the Trust or a Fund any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state to the Trust or a Fund a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading; (iii) engaging in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the Trust or a Fund; or (iv) engaging in any manipulative practice with respect to the Trust or a Fund. The Trust’s code of ethics permits personnel subject to the code to invest in securities, including securities that may be purchased or held by a Fund so long as such investment transactions are not in contravention of the above noted policies and prohibitions.

The code of ethics adopted by the Adviser requires that all employees must: (i) place the interest of the accounts which are managed by the Adviser first; (ii) conduct all personal securities transactions in a manner that is consistent with the code of ethics and the individual employee’s position of trust and responsibility; and (iii) refrain from taking inappropriate advantage of their position. Employees of the Adviser are also prohibited from certain mutual fund trading activity including excessive trading of shares of a mutual fund and effecting or facilitating a mutual fund transaction to engage in market timing. The Adviser’s code of ethics permits personnel subject to the code to invest in securities, including securities

Part II - 118

that may be purchased or held by a Fund subject to certain restrictions. However, all employees are required to preclear securities trades (except for certain types of securities such as non-proprietary mutual fund shares and U.S. government securities).

The Distributor’s code of ethics requires that all employees of the Distributor must: (i) place the interest of the accounts which are managed by affiliates of the Distributor first; (ii) conduct all personal securities transactions in a manner that is consistent with the code of ethics and the individual employee’s position of trust and responsibility; and (iii) refrain from taking inappropriate advantage of their positions. The Distributor’s code of ethics permits personnel subject to the code to invest in securities, including securities that may be purchased or held by a Fund subject to the policies and restrictions in such code of ethics.

PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS

Investment Decisions and Portfolio Transactions

Pursuant to the JPMIM Advisory Agreement, the Adviser determines, subject to the general supervision of the Board of Trustees of the Trust and in accordance with a Fund’s investment objective and restrictions, which securities are to be purchased and sold by a Fund and which brokers are to be eligible to execute its portfolio transactions. The Adviser operates independently in providing services to their respective clients. Investment decisions are the product of many factors in addition to basic suitability for the particular client involved. Thus, for example, a particular security may be bought or sold for certain clients even though it could have been bought or sold for other clients at the same time. Likewise, a particular security may be bought for one or more clients when one or more other clients are selling the security. In some instances, one client may sell a particular security to another client. It also happens that two or more clients may simultaneously buy or sell the same security, in which event each day’s transactions in such security are, insofar as possible, averaged as to price and allocated between such clients in a manner which in the opinion of the Adviser is equitable to each and in accordance with the amount being purchased or sold by each. There may be circumstances when purchases or sales of portfolio securities for one or more clients will have an adverse effect on other clients.

Brokerage and Research Services

On behalf of a Fund, the Adviser places orders for all purchases and sales of portfolio securities, enters into repurchase agreements, and may enter into reverse repurchase agreements and execute loans of portfolio securities on behalf of a Fund unless otherwise prohibited. See “Investment Strategies and Policies.”

Fixed income and debt securities and municipal bonds and notes are generally traded at a net price with dealers acting as principal for their own accounts without a stated commission. The price of the security usually includes profit to the dealers. In underwritten offerings, securities are purchased at a fixed price, which includes an amount of compensation to the underwriter, generally referred to as the underwriter’s concession or discount. Transactions on stock exchanges (other than foreign stock exchanges) involve the payment of negotiated brokerage commissions. Such commissions vary among different brokers. Also, a particular broker may charge different commissions according to such factors as the difficulty and size of the transaction. Transactions in foreign securities generally involve payment of fixed brokerage commissions, which are generally higher than those in the U.S. On occasion, certain securities may be purchased directly from an issuer, in which case no commissions or discounts are paid.

In connection with portfolio transactions, the overriding objective is to obtain the best execution of purchase and sales orders. In making this determination, the Adviser considers a number of factors including, but not limited to: the price per unit of the security, the broker’s execution capabilities, the commissions charged, the broker’s reliability for prompt, accurate confirmations and on-time delivery of securities, the broker-dealer firm’s financial condition, the broker’s ability to provide access to public offerings, as well as the quality of research services provided. As permitted by Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act, the Adviser may cause the Funds to pay a broker-dealer (including an affiliate of the Adviser) which provides brokerage and research services to the Adviser, or the Funds and/or other accounts for which the Adviser exercises investment discretion an amount of commission for effecting a securities transaction for a Fund in excess of the amount other broker-dealers would have charged for the transaction if the Adviser determines in good faith that the greater commission is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services provided by the executing broker-dealer viewed in terms of either a particular transaction or the Adviser’s overall responsibilities to accounts over which it exercises investment discretion. Not all such services are useful or of value in advising the Funds. The Adviser

Part II - 119

reports to the Board of Trustees regarding overall commissions paid by the Funds and their reasonableness in relation to the benefits to the Funds. In accordance with Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act and consistent with applicable SEC guidance and interpretation, the term “brokerage and research services” includes (i) advice as to the value of securities; (ii) the advisability of investing in, purchasing or selling securities; (iii) the availability of securities or of purchasers or sellers of securities; (iv) furnishing analyses and reports concerning issues, industries, securities, economic factors and trends, portfolio strategy and the performance of accounts; and (v) effecting securities transactions and performing functions incidental thereto (such as clearance, settlement, and custody) or required by rule or regulation in connection with such transactions.

Brokerage and research services received from such broker-dealers (including an affiliate of the Adviser) will be in addition to, and not in lieu of, the services required to be performed by an Adviser under the Advisory Agreement. The fees that the Funds pay to the Adviser are not reduced as a consequence of the Adviser’s receipt of brokerage and research services. To the extent the Funds’ portfolio transactions are used to obtain such services, the brokerage commissions paid by the Funds may exceed those that might otherwise be paid by an amount that cannot be presently determined. Such services generally would be useful and of value to the Adviser in serving one or more of its other clients and, conversely, such services obtained by the placement of brokerage business of other clients generally would be useful to the Adviser in carrying out its obligations to the Funds. While such services are not expected to reduce the expenses of the Adviser, the Adviser would, through use of the services, avoid the additional expenses that would be incurred if it should attempt to develop comparable information through its own staff.

Subject to the overriding objective of obtaining the best execution of orders, the Adviser may allocate a portion of a Fund’s brokerage transactions to affiliates of the Adviser. Under the 1940 Act, persons affiliated with a Fund and persons who are affiliated with such persons are prohibited from dealing with the Fund as principal in the purchase and sale of securities unless an exemptive order allowing such transactions is obtained from the SEC. The SEC has granted an exemptive order permitting each Fund to engage in principal transactions with JPMS, an affiliated broker, involving taxable and tax exempt money market instruments (including commercial paper, banker acceptances and medium term notes) and repurchase agreements. The orders are subject to certain conditions. An affiliated person of a Fund may serve as its broker in listed or over-the-counter transactions conducted on an agency basis provided that, among other things, the fee or commission received by such affiliated broker is reasonable and fair compared to the fee or commission received by non-affiliated brokers in connection with comparable transactions.

In addition, a Fund may not purchase securities during the existence of any underwriting syndicate for such securities of which JPMorgan Chase Bank or an affiliate is a member or in a private placement in which JPMorgan Chase Bank or an affiliate serves as placement agent, except pursuant to procedures adopted by the Board of Trustees that either comply with rules adopted by the SEC or with interpretations of the SEC’s staff. Each Fund expects to purchase securities from underwriting syndicates of which certain affiliates of JPMorgan Chase act as a member or manager. Such purchases will be effected in accordance with the conditions set forth in Rule 10f-3 under the 1940 Act and related procedures adopted by the Trustees, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of a Fund. Among the conditions are that the issuer of any purchased securities will have been in operation for at least three years, that not more than 25% of the underwriting will be purchased by a Fund and all other accounts over which the same investment adviser has discretion, and that no shares will be purchased from the Distributor or any of its affiliates.

On those occasions when the Adviser deems the purchase or sale of a security to be in the best interests of a Fund as well as other customers, including other Funds, the Adviser, to the extent permitted by applicable laws and regulations, may, but is not obligated to, aggregate the securities to be sold or purchased for a Fund with those to be sold or purchased for other customers in order to obtain best execution, including lower brokerage commissions if appropriate. In such event, allocation of the securities so purchased or sold as well as any expenses incurred in the transaction will be made by the Adviser in the manner it considers to be most equitable and consistent with its fiduciary obligations to its customers, including the Funds. In some instances, the allocation procedure might not permit a Fund to participate in the benefits of the aggregated trade.

If a Fund that writes options effects a closing purchase transaction with respect to an option written by it, normally such transaction will be executed by the same broker-dealer who executed the sale of the option. The writing of options by a Fund will be subject to limitations established by each of the exchanges governing the maximum number of options in each class which may be written by a single investor or

Part II - 120

group of investors acting in concert, regardless of whether the options are written on the same or different exchanges or are held or written in one or more accounts or through one or more brokers. The number of options that a Fund may write may be affected by options written by the Adviser for other investment advisory clients. An exchange may order the liquidation of positions found to be in excess of these limits, and it may impose certain other sanctions.

Allocation of transactions, including their frequency, to various broker-dealers is determined by a Fund’s Adviser based on its best judgment and in a manner deemed fair and reasonable to Shareholders and consistent with the Adviser’s obligation to obtain the best execution of purchase and sales orders. In making this determination, the Adviser considers the same factors for the best execution of purchase and sales orders listed above. Accordingly, in selecting broker-dealers to execute a particular transaction, and in evaluating the best overall terms available, the Adviser is authorized to consider the brokerage and research services (as those terms are defined in Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act) provided to the Funds and/or other accounts over which the Adviser exercises investment discretion. The Adviser may cause a Fund to pay a broker-dealer that furnishes brokerage and research services a higher commission than that which might be charged by another broker-dealer for effecting the same transaction, provided that the Adviser determines in good faith that such commission is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services provided by such broker-dealer, viewed in terms of either the particular transaction or the overall responsibilities of the Adviser to the Funds. To the extent such services are permissible under the safe harbor requirements of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act and consistent with applicable SEC guidance and interpretation, such brokerage and research services might consist of advice as to the value of securities, the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, the availability of securities or purchasers or sellers of securities; analyses and reports concerning issuers, industries, securities, economic factors and trends, portfolio strategy, and the performance of accounts, market data, stock quotes, last sale prices, and trading volumes. Shareholders of the Funds should understand that the services provided by such brokers may be useful to the Adviser in connection with its services to other clients and not all the services may be used by the Adviser in connection with the Fund.

Under the policy for JPMIM, “soft dollar” services refer to arrangements that fall within the safe harbor requirements of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act, as amended, which allow JPMIM to allocate client brokerage transactions to a broker-dealer (including an affiliate of JPMIM) in exchange for products or services that are research and brokerage-related and provide lawful and appropriate assistance in the performance of the investment decision-making process. These services include third party research, market data services, and proprietary broker-dealer research. The Funds receive proprietary research where broker-dealers typically incorporate the cost of such research into their commission structure. Many brokers do not assign a hard dollar value to the research they provide, but rather bundle the cost of such research into their commission structure. It is noted in this regard that some research that is available only under a bundled commission structure is particularly important to the investment process. However, the Funds, except for the actively managed U.S. equity Funds, do not participate in soft dollar arrangements for market data services and third-party research.

The actively managed U.S. equity Funds participate in soft dollar arrangements whereby a broker-dealer (including an affiliate of JPMIM) may provide market data services or third-party research in addition to proprietary research. In order to obtain such research, the Adviser may utilize a Client Commission Arrangement (“CCA”). CCAs are agreements between an investment adviser and executing broker whereby the investment adviser and the broker agree to allocate a portion of commissions to a pool of credits maintained by the broker that are used to pay for eligible brokerage and research services. The Adviser will only enter into and utilize CCAs to the extent permitted by Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act. As required by interpretive guidance issued by the SEC, any CCAs entered into by the Adviser with respect to commissions generated by the actively managed U.S. equity Funds will provide that: (1) the broker-dealer pay the research preparer directly; and (2) the broker-dealer take steps to assure itself that the client commissions that the Adviser directs it to use to pay for such services are only for eligible research under Section 28(e).

Investment decisions for each Fund are made independently from those for the other Funds or any other investment company or account managed by the Adviser. Any such other investment company or account may also invest in the same securities as the Trust. When a purchase or sale of the same security is made at substantially the same time on behalf of a given Fund and another investment company or account, the transaction will be averaged as to price, and available investments allocated as to amount, in a manner which the Adviser of the given Fund believes to be equitable to the Fund(s) and such other investment company or account. In some instances, this procedure may adversely affect the price paid or received by a

Part II - 121

Fund or the size of the position obtained by a Fund. To the extent permitted by law, the Adviser may aggregate the securities to be sold or purchased by it for a Fund with those to be sold or purchased by it for other Funds or for other investment companies or accounts in order to obtain best execution. In making investment recommendations for the Trust, the Adviser will not inquire or take into consideration whether an issuer of securities proposed for purchase or sale by the Trust is a customer of the Adviser or their parents or subsidiaries or affiliates and in dealing with its commercial customers, the Adviser and their respective parent, subsidiaries, and affiliates will not inquire or take into consideration whether securities of such customers are held by the Trust.

In the European Union (“EU”) and the United Kingdom (“UK”), investment managers, including a segment of the operations of the Adviser, are required to either pay for research regarding certain types of securities and issuers out of their own resources or agree with clients to have those research costs paid by clients through research payment accounts that are funded out of trading commissions or by a specific client research charge, provided that the payments for research are unbundled from the payments for execution. Where such a restriction applies, the Adviser will pay for any research out of its own resources and not through soft dollars. Certain brokers may not accept payments from the Adviser for such research in which case they would not be compensated for any research attributable to those clients. Additionally, these requirements may have had, and may continue to have, practical ramifications outside the EU and the UK with respect to how U.S. asset managers acting under the delegated authority of an EU-based asset manager and U.S. asset managers that are part of a global asset management group with one or more EU affiliates restructure the way they procure, value and pay for research under U.S. laws and regulations. It is difficult to predict the full impact of these requirements on the Funds, the Adviser and any sub-advisers.

Portfolio Trading by Authorized Participants

When creation or redemption transactions consist of cash, the transactions may require a Fund to contemporaneously transact with broker-dealers for purchases or sales of portfolio securities, as applicable. Depending on the timing of the transactions and certain other factors, such transactions may be placed with the purchasing or redeeming Authorized Participant in its capacity as a broker-dealer or with its affiliated broker-dealer and conditioned upon an agreement with the Authorized Participant or its affiliated broker-dealer to transact at guaranteed prices in order to reduce transaction costs incurred as a consequence of settling creations or redemptions in cash rather than in-kind.

Specifically, following a Fund’s receipt of a creation or redemption order, to the extent such purchases or redemptions consist of a cash portion, the Fund may enter an order with the Authorized Participant or its affiliated broker-dealer to purchase or sell the portfolio securities, as applicable. Such Authorized Participant or its affiliated broker-dealer will be required to guarantee that a Fund will achieve execution of its order at a price at least as favorable to the Fund as the Fund’s valuation of the portfolio securities used for purposes of calculating the NAV applied to the creation or redemption transaction giving rise to the order (the “Execution Performance Guarantee”). Whether the execution of the order is at a price at least as favorable to a Fund will depend on the results achieved by the executing firm and will vary depending on market activity, timing and a variety of other factors.

An Authorized Participant is required to deposit an amount (the “Execution Performance Deposit”) with a Fund in order to ensure that the Execution Performance Guarantee will be honored on orders arising from creation transactions executed by an Authorized Participant or its affiliate as broker-dealer. If the broker-dealer executing the order achieves executions in market transactions at a price equal to or more favorable than a Fund’s valuation of the portfolio securities, the Authorized Participant generally may retain the benefit of the favorable executions and the Execution Performance Deposit is returned to the Authorized Participant. If, however, the broker-dealer executing the order is unable to achieve a price at least equal to a Fund’s valuation of the securities, the Fund retains the portion of the Execution Performance Deposit equal to the full amount of the execution shortfall (including any taxes, brokerage commissions or other costs) and may require the Authorized Participant to deposit any additional amount required to cover the full amount of the actual Performance Execution Guarantee.

An Authorized Participant agrees to pay the shortfall amount (the “Execution Performance Offset”) in order to ensure that the Execution Performance Guarantee will be honored for brokerage orders arising from redemption transactions executed by an Authorized Participant or its affiliate as broker-dealer. If the broker-dealer executing the order achieves executions in market transactions at a price equal to or more favorable than a Fund’s valuation of the portfolio securities, the Authorized Participant generally may retain the benefit of the favorable executions and the Authorized Participant is not called upon to honor the Execution Performance Offset. If, however, the broker-dealer is unable to achieve executions in market

Part II - 122

transactions at a price at least equal to a Fund’s valuation of the securities, the Fund will be entitled to the portion of the Execution Performance Offset equal to the full amount of the execution shortfall (including any taxes, brokerage commissions or other costs).

If an Authorized Participant has entered into an Execution Performance Guarantee, but the Authorized Participant is unable, as determined by the Adviser in its sole discretion, to execute the market transactions that are the subject of the Execution Performance Guarantee due to an extended market holiday that goes over seven calendar days or in certain other situations where all or a portion of the transactions are unable to be executed within seven calendar days, then a Fund may pay the full amount of the redemption order (or the remaining amount of the redemption order based on the unexecuted portion of the transaction) within the original seven calendar day period by using interfund lending, the Fund’s overdraft facility or cash on hand. The Authorized Participant (or an affiliated broker-dealer), acting on an agency basis, will subsequently enter into one or more separate market transactions when the markets reopen or the trades are otherwise able to be executed through which a Fund sells the portfolio securities (or the remaining unsold portfolio securities) subject to a guaranteed sales price. If the Authorized Participant (or an affiliated broker-dealer) achieves executions in market transactions at a price more favorable than a Fund’s valuation of the portfolio securities as of the NAV calculation applicable on the date of the redemption, then the Authorized Participant generally may retain the excess transaction proceeds. Specifically, if the Authorized Participant is unable to achieve executions in market transactions at a price at least equal to a Fund’s valuation of the portfolio securities as of the NAV calculation applicable on the date of the redemption, then the Authorized Participant is generally required to make the applicable shortfall payment to the Fund.

In addition, if transacting as broker with a Fund in a non-U.S. jurisdiction, the Authorized Participant may be required to cover foreign exchange costs through an Execution Performance Guarantee. If the foreign exchange transaction associated with the applicable security trades can only occur upon the settlement of a security trade and such trades are unable, as determined by the Adviser in its sole discretion, to be settled by the seventh calendar day after receipt of the Authorized Participant’s redemption order, then a Fund may pay within the original seven calendar day period the amount due in respect of the redemption order based on the foreign exchange rate as of the date of the redemption order by using interfund lending, the Fund’s overdraft facility or cash on hand (in addition to any sales proceeds from the executed portion of the original brokerage order) and subsequently enter into one or more separate foreign exchange transactions with the Authorized Participant (or a broker-dealer affiliate of the Authorized Participant), acting on an agency basis, and be subject to a guaranteed sales price. If the Authorized Participant achieves execution of the foreign exchange transactions at a price more favorable than the foreign exchange rate as of the NAV calculation applicable on the date of the redemption, then the Authorized Participant generally may retain the excess transaction proceeds. If the Authorized Participant is unable to achieve execution of the foreign exchange transactions at a price at least equal to the foreign exchange rate as of the NAV calculation applicable on the date of the redemption, then the Authorized Participant is required to make the applicable shortfall payment to a Fund.

The circumstances under which the Execution Performance Guarantee will be used and the expected amount of any Execution Performance Deposit or Execution Performance Offset for a Fund will be disclosed in the Authorized Participant Procedures Handbook and may change from time to time based on the actual experience of the Fund.

For details of brokerage commissions paid by the Funds, see “BROKERAGE — Brokerage Commissions” in Part I of this SAI.

For details of the Funds’ ownership of securities of the Funds’ regular broker dealers, see “BROKERAGE — Securities of Regular Broker-Dealers” in Part I of this SAI.

ADMINISTRATOR

JPMIM provides administrative services under the JPMIM Management Agreement (refer to the “INVESTMENT ADVISER — JPMIM Management Agreement” section of the SAI Part II for additional information). In addition, to the extent described in a Fund's Part I of its SAI, JPMIM may serve as administrator to certain other Funds under a separate administration agreement.

DISTRIBUTOR

Shares will be continuously offered for sale by the Distributor only. The Distributor will deliver the Prospectus and, upon request, this SAI to persons purchasing Creation Unit Aggregations and will maintain records of both orders placed with it and confirmations of acceptance furnished by it. The Distributor, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase, is a broker-dealer registered under

Part II - 123

the Securities Exchange Act and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). Although the Distributor does not receive any fees under the Distribution Agreement with the Trust, JPMIM pays the Distributor for certain distribution related services.

Unless otherwise terminated, the Distribution Agreement will continue in effect for successive one-year terms after the initial two year term if approved at least annually by: (a) the vote of the Board of Trustees, including the vote of a majority of those members of the Board of Trustees who are not parties to the Distribution Agreement or interested persons of any such party, cast in person at a meeting for the purpose of voting on such approval, or (b) the vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of a Fund. The Distribution Agreement for the Funds provides that it may be terminated as to a Fund at any time, without the payment of any penalty (i) by vote of the Trustees; (ii) by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Fund; or (iii) by the Distributor upon not less than 60 days’ prior written notice to the Trust. The Distribution Agreement will terminate automatically in the event of its assignment (as defined in the 1940 Act).

The Distributor may also enter into agreements with securities dealers (“Soliciting Dealers”) who will solicit purchases of Creation Unit Aggregations of Fund Shares. Such Soliciting Dealers may also be Participating Parties (as defined in “Procedures for Creation of Creation Unit Aggregations” below) and DTC Participants (as defined in “DTC Acts as Securities Depository” below).

CUSTODIAN

Pursuant to the Amended and Restated Global Custody and Fund Accounting Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, 383 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10179 (the “JPMorgan Custody Agreement”), JPMorgan Chase Bank serves as the custodian and fund accounting agent for each Fund. Pursuant to the JPMorgan Custody Agreement, JPMorgan Chase Bank is responsible for holding portfolio securities and cash and maintaining the books of account and records of portfolio transactions. JPMorgan Chase Bank is an affiliate of JPMIM and the Distributor.

CUSTODY AND FUND ACCOUNTING FEES AND EXPENSES

Fees Beginning December 1, 2022

For custodian services beginning December 1, 2022, JPMorgan Chase Bank will be paid annual safekeeping fees of between 0.0004% and 0.50% of a Fund’s assets held by JPMorgan Chase Bank (depending on the domicile in which the asset is held), calculated monthly in arrears and fees between $2.25 and $100 for securities trades (depending on the domicile in which the trade is settled), as well as additional transaction fees on certain activities of $2.20 to $50 per transaction. JPMorgan Chase Bank is also reimbursed for its reasonable out-of-pocket or incidental expenses, including, but not limited to, registration and transfer fees and related legal fees.

JPMorgan Chase Bank may also be paid for the following additional custody services:

●

$15 or $45 per proxy (depending on the country where the issuer is located) for its service which helps facilitate the voting of proxies throughout the world. For securities in the U.S. market, this fee is waived if the Adviser votes the proxies directly;

●

$1,900 per year for account maintenance for each custody collateral control account;

●

$2.25 or $15 for income or redemption processing (depending on whether the security is held book entry or physically); and

●

$2.50 to $50 for each cash payment or receipt transaction.

With respect to fund accounting services, the following schedule shall be employed in the calculation of the fees payable for the services provided under the JPMorgan Custody Agreement. For purposes of determining the asset levels at which a tier applies, assets for all the Funds shall be used.

Tier One	Up to $15 billion	0.0030%
Tier Two	Next $85 billion	0.0025%
Tier Three	Over $100 billion	0.0015%

Other Fees:
Minimum		$20,000 per Fund per year

Part II - 124

In addition, JPMorgan Chase Bank provides additional servicing for certain types of more complex assets. The fees for these services include a monthly transaction fee of $12 for processing each Contract for Difference position, a transaction fee of $50 for each manual trade and an annual fee of $500 for each bank loan position held by a Fund. In addition, JPMorgan Chase Bank will be paid fees of $0.50 to $4.50 per position per day for the valuation and processing of certain asset positions covered by these services.

If agreed-upon by the Trust and JPMorgan Chase Bank, custodian fees may, from time to time, be reduced by amounts calculated as a percentage of uninvested balances for certain Funds.

A Fund may at times hold some of their assets in cash, which may subject the Fund to additional risks and costs, such as increased credit exposure to the custodian bank and fees imposed for cash balances. Cash positions may also hurt a Fund’s performance.

Except as disclosed in the Part I of this SAI, JPMIM will be responsible for paying the fees under the JPMorgan Custody Agreement to JPMorgan Chase Bank.

TRANSFER AGENT

JPMorgan Chase Bank also serves as the Funds’ transfer agent. As transfer agent, JPMorgan Chase Bank is also responsible for maintaining account records, detailing the ownership of Fund Shares and for crediting income, capital gains and other changes in share ownership to shareholder accounts. JPMorgan Chase Bank will be paid $225 per creation or redemption transaction. The Trust may be reimbursed for all or part of this fee by the Authorized Participant placing the creation or redemption order.

Except as disclosed in Part I of this SAI, JPMIM is responsible for paying the fees under this agreement to JPMorgan Chase Bank.

SECURITIES LENDING AGENT

To generate additional income, the Funds may lend up to 33 1∕3% of their total assets pursuant to agreements (“Borrower Agreements”) requiring that the loan be continuously secured by cash. Citibank serves as securities lending agent pursuant to the Securities Lending Agency Agreement effective June 18, 2018, as amended from time to time. For Funds that engaged in securities lending during the last fiscal year, information concerning the amounts of income and fees/compensation related to securities lending activities for the Fund’s most recent fiscal year is include in Part I under Securities Lending Activities. To the extent that the Funds have engaged in securities lending during the most recently completed fiscal year, information concerning the amounts of income and fees/compensation related to securities lending activities is included in the Part I of the applicable Funds’ SAI in the Funds’ next annual update to its registration statement.

Under the Securities Lending Agency Agreement, Citibank acting as agent for the Funds, loans securities to approved borrowers pursuant to Borrower Agreements substantially in the form approved by the Board of Trustees in exchange for collateral. During the term of the loan, a Fund receives payments from borrowers equivalent to the dividends and interest that would have been earned on securities lent while simultaneously seeking to earn loan fees and income on the investment of cash collateral in accordance with investment guidelines contained in the Securities Lending Agency Agreement. The Fund retains loan fees and the interest on cash collateral investments but is required to pay the borrower a rebate for the use of cash collateral. In cases where the lent security is of high value to borrowers, there may be a negative rebate (i.e., a net payment to the Funds). The net income earned on the securities lending (after payment of rebates and the lending agent’s fee) is included in the Statement of Operations as income from securities lending (net in a Fund’s financial statements). Information on the investment of cash collateral is shown in the Schedule of Portfolio Investments (in a Fund’s financial statements).

Under the Securities Lending Agency Agreement, Citibank is entitled to a fee equal to 8% of (i) the investment income (net of rebates) on cash collateral delivered to Citibank on a Fund’s behalf in respect of any loans by the Borrowers; and (ii) fees paid by a Borrower with respect to a loan for which non-cash collateral is provided (to the extent that the Funds subsequently authorize Citibank to accept non-cash collateral for securities loans).

A report of a Fund’s percentage on loan as of the prior calendar quarter may be obtained by calling the Financial Advisor Services Line at 1-800-343-1113. Information concerning the percentage on loan is derived from information provided by Citibank as the securities lending agent, has not been audited and may differ from that reported in other publicly available information.

Part II - 125

EXPENSES

Prior to the adoption of the Management Agreement by the Funds, the Funds paid the expenses incurred in their operations, including their pro-rata share of expenses of the Trust. These expenses include: investment advisory and administrative fees; the compensation of the Trustees; registration fees; interest charges; taxes; expenses connected with the execution, recording and settlement of security transactions; fees and expenses of the Funds’ custodian for all services to the Funds, including safekeeping of funds and securities and maintaining required books and accounts; expenses of preparing and mailing reports to investors and to government offices and commissions; expenses of meetings of investors; listing fees; fees and expenses of independent accountants, legal counsel and any transfer agent, registrar or dividend disbursing agent of the Trust; insurance premiums; and expenses of calculating the NAV of, and the net income on, Shares of the Funds. With the adoption of the Management Agreement as described above, JPMIM is responsible for substantially all of the expenses of the Trust relating to each Fund and each Fund’s expenses. Service providers to the Funds may, from time to time, voluntarily waive all or a portion of any fees to which they are entitled.

The Adviser may agree that it will waive fees or reimburse the Funds as may be described in the Funds’ Prospectuses.

COMPENSATION TO INTERMEDIARIES

JPMIM and/or its affiliates (“JPMorgan Entities”) may pay certain broker-dealers, banks and other financial intermediaries (“Intermediaries”) for certain activities related to the Funds (“Compensation”). Any Compensation by JPMorgan Entities will be paid at their own expense out of their legitimate profits and not from the assets of the Funds. Although a portion of JPMorgan Entities’ revenue comes directly or indirectly in part from fees paid by the Funds, Compensation does not increase the price paid by investors for the purchase of Shares of, or the cost of owning, a Fund. JPMorgan Entities may pay Compensation for Intermediaries’ participating in activities that are designed to make registered representatives, other professionals and individual investors more knowledgeable about the Funds or for other activities, such as participation in marketing activities and presentations, educational training programs, the support of technology platforms and/or reporting systems. In addition, JPMorgan Entities may pay Compensation to Intermediaries that make Shares available to their clients or for otherwise promoting the Funds. These may include Compensation to Intermediaries that agree not to charge their customers any trading commissions when those customers purchase or sell Shares of the Funds online and/or that promote the availability of commission-free ETF trading to their customers. Compensation payments of this type are sometimes referred to as revenue-sharing payments. Compensation will only be paid to the Intermediary, never to individuals other than occasional gifts and entertainment that are permitted by rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (also known as FINRA). JPMIM has entered into written agreements to pay Compensation to 55I, LLC, 55 Institutional Partners, LLC, American Enterprise Investment Services, Inc., BNY Mellon Capital Markets, LLC, Brinker Capital Investments, LLC, Cetera Advisor Networks LLC, Cetera Advisors LLC, Cetera Financial Specialists LLC, Cetera Investment Services LLC, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Envestnet Asset Management, Inc., E*TRADE Securities LLC, Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Fidelity Institutional Wealth Adviser LLC, Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Co., LPL Financial LLC, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, National Financial Services LLC, Pershing LLC, Raymond James & Associates, Inc. and UBS Financial Services, Inc.

The JPMorgan Entities may be motivated to pay Compensation to promote the purchase of Fund Shares by clients of Intermediaries and the retention of those investments by those clients. To the extent clients of Intermediaries purchase more Shares of the Funds or retain Shares of the Funds in their clients’ accounts, the JPMorgan Entities benefit from the incremental management and other fees paid by the Funds with respect to those assets.

Compensation to an Intermediary may be significant to the Intermediary, and amounts that Intermediaries pay to your salesperson or other investment professional may also be significant for your salesperson or other investment professional. Because an Intermediary may make decisions about which investment options it will recommend or make available to its clients or what services to provide for various products based on payments it receives or is eligible to receive, Compensation creates conflicts of interest between the Intermediary and its clients and these financial incentives may cause the Intermediary to recommend the Funds over other investments. The same conflict of interest exists with respect to your salesperson or other investment professional if he or she receives similar payments from his or her Intermediary firm.

Part II - 126

JPMorgan Entities may determine to pay Compensation based on any number of metrics. For example, JPMorgan Entities may pay Compensation at year-end or other intervals in a fixed amount, an amount based upon an Intermediary’s services at defined levels or an amount based on the Intermediary’s net sales of one or more Funds in a year or other period or calculated in basis points based on average net assets attributed to the Intermediary. Please contact your salesperson or other investment professional or visit the Intermediary’s website for more information regarding any Compensation his or her Intermediary firm may receive. Any Compensation paid by the JPMorgan Entities to an Intermediary may create the incentive for an Intermediary to encourage customers to buy Shares of the Funds.

TRUST COUNSEL

The law firm of Dechert LLP, 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, is counsel to the Trust.

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The independent registered public accounting firm for the Trust and the Funds is PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PWC”), 300 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017. PWC conducts an annual audit of the financial statements of each of the Funds and assists in the preparation and/or review of each Fund’s federal and state income tax returns.

DIVIDENDS AND DISTRIBUTIONS

Each Fund declares and pays dividends and distributions as described under “Distribution and Tax Matters” in the Prospectuses.

NET ASSET VALUE

The NAV per share of a Fund is equal to the value of all the assets, minus the liabilities, divided by the number of outstanding shares. As described in a Fund’s prospectus, NAV of each Fund is calculated each business day as of the close of the New York Stock Exchange, or Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. or the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC® (each, an “Exchange”), depending on which exchange a Fund is listed on, which is typically 4:00 p.m. E.T. On occasion, an Exchange will close before 4:00 p.m. E.T. When that happens, NAV will be calculated as of the time applicable Exchange closes, as applicable. The Funds will not treat an intraday unscheduled disruption or closure in an Exchange’s trading as a closure of the Exchange, as applicable and will calculate NAV as of 4:00 p.m. E.T. if the particular disruption or closure directly affects only the Exchange. The following is a discussion of the procedures used by a Fund in valuing its assets.

Securities for which market quotations are readily available are generally valued at their current market value. Other securities and assets, including securities for which market quotations are not readily available; market quotations are determined not to be reliable; or, their value has been materially affected by events occurring after the close of trading on the exchange or market on which the security is principally traded (for example, a natural disaster affecting an entire country or region, or an event that affects an individual company) but before a Fund’s NAV is calculated, may be valued at its fair value in accordance with policies and procedures adopted by the Trust’s Board of Trustees. Fair value represents a good faith determination of the value of a security or other asset based upon specifically applied procedures. Fair valuation determinations may require subjective determinations. There can be no assurance that the fair value of an asset is the price at which the asset could have been sold during the period in which the particular fair value was used in determining a Fund’s NAV.

Equity securities listed on a North American, Central American, South American or Caribbean (“Americas”) securities exchange are generally valued at the last sale price on the exchange on which the security is principally traded that is reported before the time when the net assets of a Fund are valued. The value of securities listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc. is generally the NASDAQ official closing price.

Generally, trading of foreign equity securities on most foreign markets (i.e., non-Western hemisphere) is completed before the close in trading in U.S. markets. The Funds have implemented fair value pricing on a daily basis for all foreign equity securities and investments with foreign equity reference obligations. The fair value pricing utilizes the quotations of an independent pricing service. Trading on foreign markets may also take place on days on which the U.S. markets and the Funds are closed.

Part II - 127

Shares of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are generally valued at the last sale price on the exchange on which the ETF is principally traded. Shares of open-end mutual funds are valued at their respective NAVs.

Fixed income securities are valued using prices supplied by approved independent third party pricing services, affiliated pricing services or broker/dealers. In determining security prices, pricing services and broker/dealers may consider a variety of inputs and factors, including, but not limited to proprietary models that may take into account market transactions in securities with comparable characteristics, yield curves, option-adjusted spreads, credit spreads, estimated default rates, coupon rates, underlying collateral and estimated cash flows.

Assets and liabilities initially expressed in foreign currencies will be converted into U.S. dollars at the prevailing market rates from an approved independent pricing service as of 4:00 PM ET.

Options (e.g., on stock indices or equity securities) traded on U.S. equity securities exchanges are valued at the composite mean price, using the National Best Bid and Offer quotes at the close of options trading on such exchanges.

Options traded on foreign exchanges or U.S. commodity exchanges are valued at the settled price, or if no settled price is available, at the last sale price available prior to the calculation of a Fund’s NAV. Exchange traded futures (e.g., on stock indices, debt securities or commodities) are valued at the settled price, or if no settled price is available, at the last sale price as of the close of the exchanges on which they trade.

Non-listed over-the-counter options and futures are valued at the evaluated price provided by a counterparty or broker/dealer.

Swaps and structured notes are priced generally by an approved independent third party or affiliated pricing service or at an evaluated price provided by a counterparty or broker/dealer.

Certain fixed income securities and swaps may be valued using prices provided by pricing services affiliated with the Adviser. Valuations received by the Funds from affiliated pricing services are the same as those provided to other affiliated and unaffiliated entities by these affiliated pricing services.

With respect to all Funds, securities or other assets for which market quotations are not readily available or for which market quotations do not represent the value at the time of pricing (including certain illiquid securities) are fair valued in accordance with policies and procedures (“Policies”) established by and under the supervision and responsibility of the Trustees. The Board of Trustees has established an Audit and Valuation Committee to assist the Board of Trustees in its oversight of the valuation of the Funds’ securities and, in accordance with SEC Rule 2a-5 (Good Faith Determinations of Fair Value), designated to the Adviser the responsibility for implementing the day-to-day operational aspects of the valuation process. The Adviser leverages the JPMAM Americas Valuation Committee (“VC”) to oversee and carry out the Policies for the valuation of investments held in the Funds. The VC is comprised of senior representatives from various functions of the Adviser, including Investment Directors, Administrator, Control Management Organization, Compliance and Risk Management. Fair value situations could include, but are not limited to: (1) a significant event that affects the value of a Fund’s securities (e.g., news relating to natural disasters affecting an issuer’s operations or earnings announcements); (2) illiquid securities; (3) securities that may be defaulted or de-listed from an exchange and are no longer trading; or (4) any other circumstance in which the VC believes that market quotations do not accurately reflect the value of a security.

From time to time, there may be errors in the calculation of the NAV of a Fund or the processing of creations and redemptions. Shareholders will generally not be notified of the occurrence of an error or the resolution thereof.

DELAWARE TRUST

The Trust was formed as a Delaware statutory trust on February 25, 2010 pursuant to a Declaration of Trust.

Under Delaware law, shareholders of a statutory trust shall have the same limitation of personal liability that is extended to stockholders of private corporations for profit organized under Delaware law, unless otherwise provided in the trust’s governing trust instrument. The Trust’s Declaration of Trust provides that shareholders of the Trust shall not be personally liable for the debts, liabilities, obligations and expenses incurred by, contracted for, or otherwise existing with respect to the Trust or any series thereof. In addition, the Declaration of Trust provides that neither the Trust, nor the Trustees, officers,

Part II - 128

employees, nor agents thereof shall have any power to bind personally any shareholders nor to call upon any shareholder for payment of any sum of money or assessment other than such as the shareholder may personally agree to pay. Moreover, the Trust’s Declaration of Trust expressly provides that the shareholders shall have the same limitation of personal liability that is extended to shareholders of a private corporation for profit organized under the General Corporation Law of in the State of Delaware.

The Trust’s Declaration of Trust provides for the indemnification out of the assets held with respect to a particular series of shares of any shareholder or former shareholder held personally liable solely by reason of a claim or demand relating to the person being or having been a shareholder and not because of the shareholder’s acts or omissions. The Trust’s Declaration of Trust also provides that the Trust, on behalf of the applicable series, may, at its option with prior written notice, assume the defense of any claim made against a shareholder.

The Trust’s Declaration of Trust provides that the Trust will indemnify its Trustees and officers against liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with any proceeding in which they may be involved because of their offices with the Trust, unless, as to liability to the Trust or the shareholders thereof, the Trustees engaged in willful misfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence or reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of their offices. In addition, the Declaration of Trust provides that any Trustee who has been determined to be an “audit committee financial expert” shall not be subject to a greater liability or duty of care because of such determination.

The Trust shall continue without limitation of time subject to the provisions in the Declaration of Trust concerning termination by action of the shareholders or by action of the Trustees upon written notice to the shareholders.

DESCRIPTION OF SHARES

The Trust is an open-end, management investment company organized as a Delaware statutory trust. Each Fund represents a separate series of shares of beneficial interest. See “Delaware Trust.”

The Trust’s Declaration of Trust permits the Trustees to issue an unlimited number of full and fractional shares (par value $0.0001 per share (or such other value as the Trustees may determine from time to time)) of one or more series and classes within any series and to divide or combine the shares of any series or class without materially changing the proportionate beneficial interest of such shares of such series or class in the assets held with respect to that series. Each share represents an equal beneficial interest in the net assets of a Fund with each other share of that Fund. The Trustees of the Trust may authorize the issuance of shares of additional series and the creation of classes of shares within any series with such preferences, voting powers, rights, duties and privileges as the Trustees may determine; however, the Trustees may not classify or change outstanding shares in a manner materially adverse to shareholders of each share. Upon liquidation of a Fund, shareholders are entitled to share pro rata in the net assets of a Fund available for distribution to such shareholders. The rights of redemption and exchange are described in the Prospectus and elsewhere in this SAI.

The shareholders of a Fund are entitled to one vote for each dollar of NAV (or a proportionate fractional vote with respect to the remainder of the NAV of shares, if any), on matters on which shares of a Fund shall be entitled to vote. Subject to the 1940 Act, the Trustees themselves have the power to alter the number and the terms of office of the Trustees, to lengthen their own terms, or to make their terms of unlimited duration subject to certain removal procedures, and appoint their own successors, provided, however, that immediately after such appointment the requisite majority of the Trustees have been elected by the shareholders. The voting rights of shareholders are not cumulative with respect to the election of Trustees. It is the intention of the Trust not to hold meetings of shareholders annually. The Trustees may call meetings of shareholders for action by shareholder vote as may be required by either the 1940 Act or the Declaration of Trust of the Trust.

Each share of a series represents an equal proportionate interest in the assets in that series with each other share of that series. The shares of each series participate equally in the earnings, dividends and assets of the particular series. Expenses of the Trust which are not attributable to a specific series are allocated among all of their series in a manner deemed by the Trustees to be fair and equitable. Shares have no pre-emptive or conversion rights, and when issued, are fully paid and non-assessable. Shares of each series generally vote together, except when required under federal securities laws to vote separately on matters that may affect a particular series, such as the approval of a management agreement for a particular series.

Part II - 129

The Trustees of the Trust may, without shareholder approval (unless otherwise required by applicable law): (i) cause the Trust to merge or consolidate with or into one or more trusts (or series thereof to the extent permitted by law), partnerships, associations, corporations or other business entities (including trusts, partnerships, associations, corporations, or other business entities created by the Trustees to accomplish such merger or consolidation) so long as the surviving or resulting entity is an investment company as defined in the 1940 Act, or is a series thereof, that will succeed to or assume the Trust’s registration under the 1940 Act and that is formed, organized, or existing under the laws of the U.S. or of a state, commonwealth, possession or territory of the U.S., unless otherwise permitted under the 1940 Act; (ii) cause the shares to be exchanged under or pursuant to any state or federal statute to the extent permitted by law; or (iii) cause the Trust to reorganize as a corporation, limited liability company or limited liability partnership under the laws of Delaware or any other state or jurisdiction. However, the exercise of such authority may be subject to certain restrictions under the 1940 Act.

The Trustees may, without shareholder vote, generally restate, amend or otherwise supplement the Trust’s governing instruments, including the Declaration of Trust and the By-Laws, without the approval of shareholders, subject to limited exceptions, such as the right to elect Trustees.

The Trustees, without obtaining any authorization or vote of shareholders, may change the name of any series or dissolve or terminate any series.

Shares have no subscription or preemptive rights and only such conversion or exchange rights as the Board may grant in its discretion. When issued for payment as described in the Prospectus and this SAI, Shares will be fully paid and non-assessable. In the event of a liquidation or dissolution of the Trust, Shares of a Fund are entitled to receive the assets available for distribution belonging to the Fund, and a proportionate distribution, based upon the relative asset values of a Fund, of any general assets not belonging to any particular Fund which are available for distribution.

Rule 18f-2 under the 1940 Act provides that any matter required to be submitted to the holders of the outstanding voting securities of an investment company such as the Trust shall not be deemed to have been effectively acted upon unless approved by the holders of a majority of the outstanding Shares of a Fund affected by the matter. For purposes of determining whether the approval of a majority of the outstanding Shares of a Fund will be required in connection with a matter, a Fund will be deemed to be affected by a matter unless it is clear that the interests of a Fund in the matter are identical, or that the matter does not affect any interest of the Fund. Under Rule 18f-2, the approval of an investment advisory agreement or any change in investment policy would be effectively acted upon with respect to a Fund only if approved by a majority of the outstanding Shares of a Fund. However, Rule 18f-2 also provides that the ratification of independent public accountants, the approval of principal underwriting contracts, and the election of Trustees may be effectively acted upon by Shareholders of the Trust voting without regard to series.

PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS DISCLOSURE

Portfolio Holdings Disclosure for Funds that Disclose Portfolio Holdings on a Daily Basis

The Trust has adopted a policy regarding the disclosure of information about each Fund’s portfolio holdings. The Board of Trustees of the Trust must approve all material amendments to this policy. A Fund’s complete portfolio holdings are publicly disseminated each day the Fund is open for business through financial reporting and news services, including publicly accessible Internet web sites. The complete portfolio holdings are also included on the Funds’ website, www.jpmorganfunds.com. In addition, a basket composition file, which includes the security names and share quantities to deliver in exchange for Fund Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, is publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of the Exchange via the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”). The basket represents one Creation Unit of a Fund. The Trust, the Adviser and the Distributor will not disseminate non-public information concerning the Trust, except: (i) to a party for a legitimate business purpose related to the day-to-day operations of the Funds or (ii) to any other party for a legitimate business or regulatory purpose, upon waiver or exception. The portfolio holdings of the Funds are made available on a daily basis as of the prior business day. While not expected, it is possible that a recipient of portfolio holdings information for a Fund or other similarly managed account or vehicle advised or sub-advised by the Adviser or its affiliates could cause harm to a Fund, including by trading ahead of or against a Fund based on the information received.

Part II - 130

Portfolio Holdings Disclosure for Semi-Transparent Funds

As described in the Prospectuses and pursuant to the procedures approved by the Trustees, each business day, a Fund will make available to the public upon request by calling 1-844-457-6383 for a complete, uncertified schedule of its actual portfolio holdings as of the last day of that prior month for Funds that only disclose their portfolio holdings periodically as described below and in the Funds’ prospectus (“Semi-Transparent Funds”). Generally, actual portfolio holdings information will not be provided until it is first posted on the J.P. Morgan Funds’ website.

The Funds’ publicly available uncertified, complete list of actual portfolio holdings information as described above, may also be provided regularly pursuant to a standing request, such as on a monthly or quarterly basis, to (i) third party service providers, rating and ranking agencies, financial intermediaries, and affiliated persons of the Funds and (ii) clients of the Adviser or its affiliates that invest in the Funds or such clients’ consultants. No compensation or other consideration is received by a Fund or the Adviser, or any other person for these disclosures.

For a list of the entities that receive the Funds’ actual portfolio holdings information, the frequency with which it is provided and the length of the lag between the date of the information and the date it is disclosed, see “PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS DISCLOSURE” in Part I of this SAI.

In addition, certain service providers to the Funds or the Adviser, Administrator or Distributor may for legitimate business purposes receive the Funds’ actual portfolio holdings earlier than the time period specified in the applicable prospectus, such as rating and ranking agencies, pricing services, IOPV service providers, proxy voting service providers, accountants, attorneys, custodians, securities lending agents (to the extent the Funds engage in securities lending), brokers in connection with Fund transactions and in providing pricing quotations and transfer agents. The Funds may also release portfolio holdings to the Adviser and affiliates of JPMorgan Chase for the limited purposes of hedging seed capital investment of the Adviser in the Funds, risk management, and for regulatory reporting purposes applicable to bank holding companies and their subsidiaries. The Adviser and affiliates of JPMorgan Chase may also have access to portfolio holdings of certain Funds for the limited purpose of hedging the Adviser's liability to pay deferred compensation to portfolio managers and other eligible employees based on the performance of certain designated Funds. The Funds will also provide actual portfolio holdings information earlier than the time periods specified in the applicable prospectus to the Investment Company Institute (the “ICI”) to support the ICI’s advocacy efforts on behalf of the mutual fund industry. The Funds also may release portfolio holdings and related information to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) in order for FINRA to perform surveillances. Such holdings are released on conditions of confidentiality, which include appropriate trading prohibitions. “Conditions of confidentiality” include confidentiality terms included in written agreements, implied by the nature of the relationship (e.g., attorney–client relationship), or required by fiduciary or regulatory principles (e.g., custody services provided by financial institutions, Codes of Ethics and Informational Barriers applicable to JPMorgan Chase and its affiliates).

Disclosure of a Fund’s actual portfolio securities as an exception to the Funds’ normal business practice requires the business unit proposing such exception to identify a legitimate business purpose for the disclosure and to submit the proposal to the Fund’s Treasurer for approval following compliance and legal review. Additionally, no compensation or other consideration is received by a Fund or the Adviser, or any other person for these disclosures. The Trustees will review annually a list of such entities that have received such information, the frequency of such disclosures and the business purpose therefor. These procedures are designed to address conflicts of interest between the Funds’ shareholders on the one hand and the Adviser or any affiliated person of the Fund or such entities on the other hand by creating a structured review and approval process which seeks to ensure that disclosure of information about the Fund’s actual portfolio securities is in the best interests of the Fund’s shareholders. There can be no assurance, however, that a Fund’s policies and procedures with respect to the disclosure of actual portfolio holdings information will prevent the misuse of such information by individuals or firms in possession of such information.

In addition to the foregoing, the actual portfolio holdings of certain of the Adviser’s separately managed account investment strategies and other vehicles advised or sub-advised by the Adviser or its affiliates, which are the same or substantially similar to certain of the J.P. Morgan Funds, are made available on a more timely basis than the time period specified in the applicable prospectus. In some cases, such portfolio holdings are made publicly available on a daily basis. While not expected, it is possible that a recipient of portfolio holdings information for a Fund or other similarly managed account or vehicle could cause harm to a Fund, including by trading ahead of or against a Fund based on the information received.

Part II - 131

In addition, the portfolio managers of certain J.P. Morgan funds-of-funds and separate accounts have periodic access to risk exposure information such as currency, sector, region, country, asset class, credit quality, volatility characteristics, VaR and stress information, exposure versus benchmarks, duration and ESG ratings of an underlying Fund in which such funds-of-funds and separate accounts invest. While such reports do not disclose individual portfolio holdings of the underlying Funds, they are derived from daily portfolio holdings of the underlying Fund. The Adviser has adopted procedures to determine that: (1) ongoing disclosure continues to strike an appropriate balance between the need of the funds-of-funds’ and separate accounts’ portfolio managers to have access to such information and protecting an underlying Fund from potentially harmful disclosure and (2) the disclosure of such risk exposure information is unlikely to be harmful to an underlying Fund or its shareholders.

Finally, the Funds release information concerning any and all actual portfolio holdings when required by law. Such releases may include providing information concerning holdings of a specific security to the issuer of such security. In addition to information on actual portfolio holdings, no sooner than 15 days after month end, the Funds may post a portfolio characteristics summary to the J.P. Morgan Funds’ website at www.jpmorganfunds.com. In addition, other fund statistical information may be found on the J.P. Morgan Funds’ website from time to time.

PROXY VOTING PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES

The Board of Trustees has delegated to the Adviser and its affiliated advisers, proxy voting authority with respect to the Funds’ portfolio securities. To ensure that the proxies of portfolio companies are voted in the best interests of the Funds, the Funds’ Board of Trustees has adopted the Adviser’s detailed proxy voting procedures (the “Procedures”) that incorporate guidelines (“Guidelines”) for voting proxies on specific types of issues.

The Adviser and its affiliated advisers are part of a global asset management organization with the capability to invest in securities of issuers located around the globe. Because the regulatory framework and the business cultures and practices vary from region to region, the Guidelines are customized for each region to take into account such variations. The Adviser has adopted a separate set of Guidelines that covers the regions of each of: (1) North America, (2) Europe, Middle East, Africa, Central America and South America (“EMEA”), (3) Asia (ex-Japan) and (4) Japan (each, a “Region”; collectively, the “Regions”). In addition, for each Region, the Adviser has adopted Sustainable Strategy Proxy Voting Guidelines (“Sustainable Proxy Guidelines”) for certain sustainable strategies, which may apply to certain Funds as approved by the Board of Trustees. The Sustainable Proxy Guidelines for those sustainable strategies replace certain sections of the Guidelines for each of the Regions. Proposals for securities held in the sustainable strategies that are not covered by the Sustainable Proxy Guidelines will continue to be voted in accordance with the other provisions of the applicable Guidelines for each of the Regions. The Board of Trustees has adopted the Sustainable Proxy Guidelines for the JPMorgan Carbon Transition U.S. Equity ETF, JPMorgan Climate Change Solutions ETF, JPMorgan Sustainable Infrastructure ETF and JPMorgan Sustainable Municipal Income ETF.

Notwithstanding the variations among the Guidelines, all of the Guidelines have been designed with the uniform objective of encouraging corporate action that enhances shareholder value consistent with each Fund’s objectives and strategies. As a general rule, in voting proxies of a particular security, the Adviser and its affiliated advisers will apply the Guidelines of the Region in which the issuer of such security is organized. Except as noted below, proxy voting decisions will be made in accordance with the Guidelines covering a multitude of both routine and non-routine matters that the Adviser and its affiliated advisers have encountered globally, based on many years of collective investment management experience.

To oversee the proxy voting process on an ongoing basis, the Adviser has established a proxy committee (“Proxy Committee”) for each global location where proxy voting decisions are made. Each Proxy Committee is composed of members and invitees including a proxy administrator (“Proxy Administrator”) and senior officers from among the investment, legal, compliance, and risk management departments. The primary functions of each Proxy Committee include: (1) reviewing and approving the Guidelines annually; (2) providing advice and recommendations on general proxy voting matters, including potential or material conflicts of interest escalated to it from time to time as well as on specific voting issues to be implemented by the Adviser; and (3) determining the independence of any third-party vendor to which it has delegated proxy voting responsibilities (such as, for example, delegation when the Adviser has identified a material conflict of interest) and to conclude that there are no conflicts of interest that would prevent such vendor from providing such proxy voting services prior to delegating proxy responsibilities.

Part II - 132

The Guidelines are proprietary to the Adviser and reflect the Adviser’s views on proxy voting matters as informed by its investment experience and research over many years of proxy voting. Certain guidelines are prescriptive (“Prescribed Guidelines”) meaning they specify how the Adviser will vote a particular proxy proposal except where the Adviser, pursuant to its procedures, determines to vote in a manner contrary to its Prescribed Guidelines also known as an “Override”. Other guidelines contemplate voting on a case-by-case basis. In addition, there will undoubtedly be proxy matters that are not contemplated by the Guidelines. Individual company facts and circumstances vary. In some cases, the Adviser may determine that, in the best interest of its clients, a particular proxy item should be voted in a manner that is not consistent with the Prescribed Guidelines. Where the Adviser chooses to vote in a manner contrary to its Prescribed Guideline (an “Override”) or where the Proxy Administrator determines that such vote requires further escalation to certain portfolio management teams (“escalated votes”), the procedures include a review and, for certain votes, an attestation process. These processes are designed to identify actual or potential material conflicts of interest (between a Fund on the one hand, and the Fund’s Adviser, principal underwriter or an affiliate of any of the foregoing, on the other hand), ensure that relevant personnel were not in possession of material non-public information (“MNPI”), and ensure that the proxy vote is cast in the best interests of the Fund.

In order to maintain the integrity and independence of the Adviser’s investment processes and decisions, including proxy voting decisions, and to protect the Adviser’s decisions from influences that could lead to a vote other than in the Funds’ best interests, JPMC (including the Adviser) has adopted policies and procedures that (i) address the handling of conflicts, (ii) establish information barriers, and (iii) restrict the use of MNPI. Material conflicts of interest are further avoided by voting in accordance with the Adviser’s Prescribed Guidelines. A material conflict is deemed to exist when the proxy is for JPMorgan Chase & Co. stock or for a J.P. Morgan Fund, or when the Proxy Administrator has actual knowledge indicating that a JPMorgan affiliate is an investment banker or rendered a fairness opinion with respect to the matter that is the subject of the proxy vote. When such conflicts are identified, the proxy will be voted by an independent third party using its own guidelines; provided, however, that the Adviser’s investment professional(s) may request an exception to this process to vote against a proposal rather than referring it to an independent third party (“Exception Request”) where the Proxy Administrator has actual knowledge indicating that a JPMorgan Chase affiliate is an investment banker or rendered a fairness opinion with respect to the matter that is the subject of the proxy vote. The applicable proxy committee shall review the Exception Request and shall determine whether the Adviser should vote against the proposal or whether such proxy should still be referred to an independent third party due to the potential for additional conflicts or otherwise.

Depending on the nature of the conflict, the Adviser may elect to take one or more of the following measures, or other appropriate action: removing certain Adviser personnel from the proxy voting process; “walling off” personnel with knowledge of the conflict to ensure that such personnel do not influence the relevant proxy vote; voting in accordance with the applicable Prescribed Guidelines, if any, if the application of the Prescribed Guidelines would objectively result in the casting of a proxy vote in a predetermined manner; or deferring the vote to an independent third party, in which case the proxy will be voted by the independent third party in accordance with its own determination. In the event that a J.P. Morgan Fund, in the aggregate, holds more than 25% of the outstanding voting securities of an open-end registered investment company or registered unit investment trust that is not managed by JPMIM (a “Non-J.P. Morgan Fund”), the J.P. Morgan Fund will vote its respective securities in a Non-J.P. Morgan Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of such securities.

For securities held in Funds that seek to follow the investment returns of an underlying index, the Adviser may abstain from voting if it determines that casting a vote would not have a material effect on the value of the Fund’s investments based on the size of the Fund’s holdings, its ownership in the issuer, and/or its consideration of the importance of the proxy vote.

The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting policies of the North America Guidelines:

●

The Adviser considers votes on director nominees on a case-by-case basis. Votes generally will be withheld from directors who: (a) attend less than 75% of board and committee meetings without a valid excuse; (b) adopt or renew a poison pill without shareholder approval; (c) are affiliated outside directors who serve on audit, compensation or nominating committees or are affiliated outside directors and the full board serves on such committees or the company does not have such committees; (d) ignore a shareholder proposal that is approved by a majority of either the shares outstanding or the votes cast based on a review over a consecutive two year time frame; (e) are insiders and affiliated outsiders on boards that are not at least majority independent except, in the

Part II - 133

case of controlled companies, vote for non-independent directors who serve on committees other than the audit committee; or (f) are CEOs of publicly-traded companies who serve on more than two public boards (besides his or her own board) or for all other directors, who serve on more than four public company boards. In addition, votes are generally withheld for directors who serve on committees in certain cases. For example, the Adviser generally withholds votes from audit committee members in circumstances in which there is evidence that there exists material weaknesses in the company’s internal controls. Votes generally are also withheld from directors when there is a demonstrated history of poor performance or inadequate risk oversight or when the board adopts changes to the company’s governing documents without shareholder approval if the changes materially diminish shareholder rights. Votes generally will be withheld from board chair, lead independent directors, or governance committee chairs of publicly traded companies where employees have departed for significant violation of code of conduct without claw back of compensation. In addition, the Adviser generally votes against the chair of the nominating committee if one or more directors remain on the board after having received less than majority of votes cast in the prior election.

●

The Adviser votes proposals to classify boards on a case-by-case basis, but normally will vote in favor of such proposal if the issuer’s governing documents contain each of eight enumerated safeguards (for example, a majority of the board is composed of independent directors and the nominating committee is composed solely of such directors).

●

The Adviser also considers management poison pill proposals on a case-by-case basis, looking for shareholder-friendly provisions before voting in favor.

●

The Adviser votes against proposals for a super-majority vote to approve a merger.

●

The Adviser considers proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan on a case-by-case basis, taking into account such factors as the extent of dilution and whether the transaction will result in a change in control.

●

The Adviser considers vote proposals with respect to compensation plans on a case-by-case basis. The analysis of compensation plans focuses primarily on the transfer of shareholder wealth (the dollar cost of pay plans to shareholders) and includes an analysis of the structure of the plan and pay practices of other companies in the relevant industry and peer companies. Other matters included in the analysis are the amount of the company’s outstanding stock to be reserved for the award of stock options, whether the exercise price of an option is less than the stock’s fair market value at the date of the grant of the options, and whether the plan provides for the exchange of outstanding options for new ones at lower exercise prices.

●

The Adviser also considers on a case-by-case basis proposals to change an issuer’s state of incorporation, mergers and acquisitions and other corporate restructuring proposals and certain social issue proposals.

●

The Adviser generally votes for management proposals which seek shareholder approval to make the state of incorporation the exclusive forum for disputes if the company is a Delaware corporation; otherwise, the Adviser votes on a case by case basis.

●

The Adviser supports board refreshment, independence, and a diverse skill set for directors as an important part of contributing to long-term shareholder value. The Adviser expects its investee companies to be committed to diversity and inclusiveness in their general recruitment policies as the Adviser believes such diversity contributes to the effectiveness of boards and further development of sound governance and risk oversight. As with all proxy votes, the Adviser seeks to vote in each Fund’s best interests to enhance long-term shareholder value. The Adviser will utilize its voting power to bring about change where boards are lagging in gender and racial/ethnic diversity. The Adviser will generally vote against the chair of the Nominating Committee when the issuer does not disclose the gender and racial and ethnic composition of the board, with adequate diversity data considered as adequate in instances where individual directors do not wish to disclose personal identification. The Adviser will also generally vote against the chair of the Nominating Committee when the issuer lacks any gender diversity or any racial/ethnic diversity unless there are mitigating factors such as recent retirement of relevant directors, a relatively new public company, and an ongoing search for a director.

●

The Adviser reviews Say on Pay proposals on a case by case basis with additional review of proposals where the issuer’s previous year’s proposal received a low level of support.

Part II - 134

The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting policies of Section 12 Social and Environmental Issues from the North America Guidelines:

●

The Adviser generally encourages a level of reporting on environmental matters that is not unduly costly or burdensome and which does not place the company at a competitive disadvantage, but which provides meaningful information to enable shareholders to evaluate the impact of the company’s environmental policies and practices on its financial performance. In general, the Adviser supports management disclosure practices that are overall consistent with the goals and objective expressed above. Proposals with respect to companies that have been involved in controversies, fines or litigation are expected to be subject to heightened review and consideration.

●

In evaluating how to vote environmental proposals, key considerations may include, but are not limited to, issuer considerations such as asset profile of the company, including whether it is exposed to potentially declining demand for the company’s products or services due to environmental considerations; cash deployments; cost structure of the company, including its position on the cost curve, expected impact of future carbon tax and exposure to high fixed operating costs; corporate behavior of the company; demonstrated capabilities of the company, its strategic planning process, and past performance; current level of disclosure of the company and consistency of disclosure across its industry; and whether the company incorporates environmental or social issues in a risk assessment or risk reporting framework. The Adviser may also consider whether adoption of the proposal would inform and educate shareholders; have companies that adopted the proposal provided insightful and meaningful information that would allow shareholders to evaluate the long-term risks and performance of the company; does the proposal require disclosure that is already addressed by existing and proposed mandated regulatory requirements or formal guidance at the local, state, or national level or the company’s existing disclosure practices; and does the proposal create the potential for unintended consequences such as a competitive disadvantage.

●

The Adviser votes against the chair of the committee responsible for providing oversight of environmental matters and/or risk where the Adviser believes the company is lagging peers in terms of disclosure, business practices or targets. The Adviser also votes against committee members, lead independent director and/or board chair for companies that have lagged over several years.

●

With regard to social issues, among other factors, the Adviser considers the company’s labor practices, supply chain, how the company supports and monitors those issues, what types of disclosure the company and its peers currently provide, and whether the proposal would result in a competitive disadvantage for the company.

●

The Adviser expects boards to provide oversight of human capital management which includes the company management of its workforce, use of full time versus part time employees, workforce cost, employee engagement and turnover, talent development, retention and training, compliance record and health and safety. As an engaged and diverse employee base is integral to a company’s ability to innovate, respond to a diverse customer base and engage with diverse communities and deliver shareholder returns, the Adviser will generally support shareholder resolutions seeking the company to disclose data on workforce demographics including diversity, and release of EEO-1 or comparable data where such disclosure is deemed by the Adviser as inadequate.

Sustainable Proxy Guidelines. For the JPMorgan Carbon Transition U.S. Equity ETF, JPMorgan Climate Change Solutions ETF, JPMorgan Sustainable Infrastructure ETF and JPMorgan Sustainable Municipal Income ETF, the Sustainable Proxy Guidelines are used in lieu of certain sections of the Guidelines for each of the Regions. Each Region’s Sustainable Proxy Guidelines are substantially the same as the North America Sustainable Proxy Guidelines except for certain regional differences. The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting policies of the Sustainable Proxy Guidelines and highlights some of the regional differences:

●

In voting shares of securities under the Sustainable Proxy Guidelines, the Adviser considers good corporate governance, the ethical behavior of corporations and the social and environmental impact of such companies’ actions consistent with the applicable Fund’s objectives and strategies. The Adviser believes that disclosure and benchmarking of performance versus peers can enable an issuer to generate better long-term performance. The Adviser generally encourages reporting that is material, informative and does not place the company at a competitive disadvantage. Disclosure should provide meaningful information that enables shareholders to evaluate the impact of the company’s environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) policies and practices.

Part II - 135

●

In evaluating how to vote to social proposals, the Adviser considers among other items: (1) the company’s business activities, workplace and product safety, labor practices, diversity and equality, and supply chain, (2) how the company supports and monitors these issues, and (3) what types of disclosure the company provides.

●

In evaluating how to vote environmental proposals, the Adviser considers among other items: (1) the company’s business activities, energy efficiency, impact on climate change, water use, toxic emissions, and operations in environmentally sensitive areas, (2) how the company supports and monitors these issues, and (3) what types of disclosure the company provides.

●

In general, the Adviser supports management disclosure practices that are consistent with the goals and objectives of the applicable Fund. Proposals with respect to companies that have been involved in controversies, fines or litigation are expected to be subject to heightened review and consideration. For companies that have demonstrated leadership in disclosure, the Adviser may yet elect to support a shareholder proposal if the Adviser believes that improvement in disclosures will help sustain the leadership, unless there are material adverse consequences to such disclosure.

●

The Sustainable Proxy Guidelines provide a framework for voting on social and environmental proposals. The Adviser notes that there may be cases in which the final vote varies from the guidelines due to the fact the Adviser reviews the merits of each proposal individually and considers relevant information in arriving at decisions. The Adviser considers among other items company-specific circumstances, whether or not the company has substantially achieved the stated objective, whether the proposal would be unduly burdensome, whether the proposal itself is well-framed and reasonable, as well as the most up-to-date research and information that is readily accessible to the Adviser as it pertains to the proposal.

●

Generally, the Adviser votes for proposals that seek to improve the representation of women and minorities in the work force.

●

The North America Sustainable Proxy Guidelines provide that generally, the Adviser votes against/withholds from individual directors who serve as members of the nominating committee and the board lacks at least one woman and one racially diverse director, and the board is not at least 30 percent diverse. The EMEA and Asia Ex-Japan Sustainable Proxy Guidelines provide that generally, the Adviser votes against /withholds from individual directors who serve as members of the nominating committee and the board lacks at least one woman, and the board is not at least 30 percent diverse (25% with respect to the Asia Ex-Japan Sustainable Proxy Guidelines), or does not adhere to the local market best practice. The Japan Sustainable Proxy Guidelines provide that generally, the Adviser votes against /withholds from individual directors who serve as members of the nominating committee and the board lacks at least one woman with the expectation that the board will be at least 30% diverse by 2030.

●

Generally, the Adviser votes for proposals linking executive compensation to material environmental and social factors.

●

Generally, the Adviser votes for proposals requiring reporting on environmental impacts and preparation of reports in accordance with certain external reporting standards.

●

Generally, the Adviser votes against directors of companies, that, in the Adviser’s opinion, face material climate related transition or asset risks, where climate disclosures are not available or where the Adviser believes such disclosures are not meaningful. See “North America and Non-U.S. Guidelines” below for a discussion of Climate Risk guidelines applicable to Funds that do not use the Sustainable Proxy Guidelines.

●

Generally, the Adviser votes for proposals requiring the company to take specific actions to mitigate climate change, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing and using renewable energy sources.

●

Generally, the Adviser votes for proposals requiring disclosure on the company’s land use, including its supply chain, deforestation and degradation.

●

Generally, the Adviser votes for proposals requiring disclosure of political expenditures and lobbying.

Part II - 136

Non-U.S. Guidelines. The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting policies of the EMEA, Asia (Ex-Japan) and Japan Guidelines (collectively, “Non-U.S. Guidelines”):

●

Corporate governance procedures differ among the countries. Because of time constraints and local customs, it is not always possible for the Adviser to receive and review all proxy materials in connection with each item submitted for a vote. Many proxy statements are in foreign languages. Proxy materials are generally mailed by the issuer to the sub-custodian which holds the securities for the client in the country where the portfolio company is organized, and there may not be sufficient time for such materials to be transmitted to the Adviser in time for a vote to be cast. In some countries, proxy statements are not mailed at all, and in some locations, the deadline for voting is two to four days after the initial announcement that a vote is to be solicited and it may not always be possible to obtain sufficient information to make an informed decision in good time to vote.

●

Certain markets require that shares being tendered for voting purposes are temporarily immobilized from trading until after the shareholder meeting has taken place. Elsewhere, notably emerging markets, it may not always be possible to obtain sufficient information to make an informed decision in good time to vote. Some markets require a local representative to be hired in order to attend the meeting and vote in person on our behalf, which can result in considerable cost. The Adviser also considers the cost of voting in light of the expected benefit of the vote. In certain instances, it may sometimes be in a Fund’s best interests to intentionally refrain from voting in certain overseas markets from time to time.

●

The Non-U.S. Guidelines reflect the applicable Region’s corporate governance or stewardship codes with respect to corporate governance and proxy voting. For example, JPMAM is a signatory to the UK Stewardship Code 2020 and believes that its existing stewardship policies meet the standards required under the Code. Additionally, for example, the EMEA Guidelines for UK companies are based on the revised UK Corporate Governance Code. If a portfolio company chooses to deviate from the provisions of the UK Corporate Governance Code, the Adviser takes the company’s explanation into account as appropriate, based on the Adviser’s overall assessment of the standards of corporate governance evidenced at the company. For Continental European markets, the Adviser expects companies to comply with local Corporate Governance Codes, where they exist. In markets where a comparable standard does not exist, the Adviser uses the EMEA Guidelines as the primary basis for voting, while taking local market practice into consideration where applicable. The Japan Guidelines reflect the 2020 revisions to the Japanese Stewardship Code. Likewise, the Asia (Ex-Japan) Guidelines endorse the stewardship principles promoted by different regulators and industry bodies in the Region including the Singapore Stewardship Principles for Responsible Investors supported by Monetary Authority of Singapore and Singapore Exchange, the Principles for Responsible Ownership issued by the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong, and the Principles of Internal Governance and Asset Stewardship issued by the Financial Services Council of Australia.

●

Where proxy issues concern corporate governance, takeover defense measures, compensation plans, capital structure changes and so forth, the Adviser pays particular attention to management’s arguments for promoting the prospective change.

●

The Non-U.S. Guidelines encourage transparency and disclosure with respect to remuneration reporting as well as processes and policies designed to align compensation with the long-term performance of portfolio companies.

●

In particular, the EMEA Guidelines indicate that the remuneration policy as it relates to senior management should ideally be presented to shareholders for approval with such votes normally occurring every third year. In addition, the EMEA Guidelines describe information that the Adviser expects to be included in remuneration reports including disclosure on amounts paid to executives, alignment between company performance and pay out to executives, disclosure of, among other things, variable incentive targets, levels of achievement and performance awards, information on the ratio of CEO pay to median employee pay.

●

With respect to the Japan Guidelines, the voting decision will be made taking into account matters such as recent trends in the company’s earnings and performance, with the expectation that companies will have a remuneration system comprised of a reasonable mix of fixed and variable (based on short term and medium to long term incentives) compensation. Such Guidelines also support the introduction of clawback clauses in order to prevent excessive risk taking which can negatively impact shareholder value and excessive pay.

Part II - 137

●

Where shareholders are able to exercise a binding vote on remuneration policies, the Asia (Ex-Japan) Guidelines reflect the Adviser’s belief that such polices should stand the test of time. The Asia (Ex-Japan) Guidelines further encourage companies to provide information on the ratio of CEO pay to median employee pay and to explain the reasons for changes to the ratio as it unfolds year by year. The Asia (Ex-Japan) Guidelines also highlight information that companies should have with regard to gender pay gaps and indicate how this issue is being addressed.

●

The Adviser is in favor of a unitary board structure of the type found in the United Kingdom as opposed to tiered board structures. Thus, under the EMEA Guidelines, the Adviser will generally vote to encourage the gradual phasing out of tiered board structures, in favor of a unitary board structure. However, since tiered boards are still very prevalent in markets outside of the United Kingdom, the Non-U.S. Guidelines do not mandate a unitary board structure and local market practice will always be taken into account.

●

The Adviser will use its voting powers to encourage appropriate levels of board independence and diversity as an important part of contributing to long-term shareholder value, taking into account local market practice.

●

The EMEA Guidelines indicate that the Adviser expects boards to have a strategy to improve female representation in particular. The EMEA Guidelines generally support the target of one-third of board positions being held by women, as recommended by the UK Government’s Women on Boards Report, the Davies Review and the FTSE Women Leaders Review (formerly the Hampton-Alexander Review).

●

The Japan Guidelines include provisions on board diversity and indicate that the Adviser believes directors with diverse backgrounds should make up a majority of a board over time. The Japan Guidelines provide that the current policy is to vote against the election of the representative directors, such as the president of the company, if there is only one or no female directors (at least 30% gender diversity before 2030).

●

The Asia ex Japan Guidelines reflect, as a minimum standard for all Asia ex Japan markets, that JPMAM would expect no single-gender boards and that such boards would have 25% gender diverse representation before 2025, with 30% gender diverse representation or such higher amounts as reflected by local market practice before 2030.

●

The Adviser will usually vote against discharging the board from responsibility in cases of pending litigation, or if there is evidence of wrongdoing for which the board must be held accountable.

●

The Adviser will vote in favor of increases in capital which enhance a company’s long-term prospects. The Adviser will also vote in favor of the partial suspension of preemptive rights if they are for purely technical reasons (e.g., rights offers which may not be legally offered to shareholders in certain jurisdictions). However, the Adviser will vote against increases in capital which would allow the company to adopt “poison pill” takeover defense tactics, or where the increase in authorized capital would dilute shareholder value in the long term.

●

The Adviser will vote in favor of proposals which will enhance a company’s long-term prospects. The Adviser will vote against an increase in bank borrowing powers which would result in the company reaching an unacceptable level of financial leverage, where such borrowing is expressly intended as part of a takeover defense, or where there is a material reduction in shareholder value.

●

The Adviser will generally vote against anti-takeover devices.

●

The Adviser considers social or environmental issues on a case-by-case basis under the Non-U.S. Guidelines, keeping in mind at all times the best economic interests of its clients. With respect to environmental proposals, the Non-U.S. Guidelines indicate that good corporate governance policies should consider the impact of company operations on the environment and the costs of compliance with laws and regulations relating to environmental matters, physical damage to the environment (including the costs of clean-ups and repairs), consumer preferences and capital investments related to climate change. The Non-U.S. Guidelines further encourage a level of environmental reporting that is not unduly costly or burdensome and which does not place the company at a competitive disadvantage, but which provides meaningful information to enable shareholders to evaluate the impact of the company’s environmental policies and practices on its financial performance. With regard to social issues, among other factors, the Adviser considers the

Part II - 138

company’s labor practices, supply chain, how the company supports and monitors those issues, what types of disclosure the company and its peers currently provide, and whether the proposal would result in a competitive disadvantage for the company.

North America and Non-U.S. Guidelines. The following describes certain elements that are common to the North America and Non-U.S. Guidelines:

●

The North America and Non-U.S. Guidelines note that, in certain markets, by-law changes have taken place to allow a company to hold virtual or hybrid general shareholder meetings and reflect that general shareholder meetings should be fair, constructive and foster dialogue between company management and shareholders. In principle, the Adviser is supportive of proposals allowing shareholder meetings to be convened by electronic means so long as the flexibility in the format of the meetings contributes to enhancing access to the meetings and where shareholder participation rights are protected, regardless of whether physical or virtual.

●

The North America and Non-U.S. Guidelines include climate risk guidelines due to the Adviser’s view that climate change has become a material risk to the strategy and financial performance of many companies. The Adviser may vote against directors of companies, that, in the Adviser’s opinion, face material climate-related transition or asset risks, where such disclosures are not available or where the Adviser believes such disclosures are not meaningful. To provide shareholders with meaningful disclosures on how the company is addressing risks related to climate change, the Adviser encourages disclosure aligned with the reporting framework developed by the Task Force on Climate related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”). In addition, for companies in industries where the Adviser believes climate change risks pose material financial risks, the Adviser encourages more comprehensive reporting including scenario analysis to help under the resilience of a company’s strategy and disclosures of Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gases (“GHG”) emission targets, where decarbonization of a company’s operations and purchased energy has been identified by the company as a key part of a company’s strategy to manage climate change risks. In addition, for companies who have chosen to set long-term net zero targets, the Adviser encourages the company to make disclosures including scope of emissions included in such targets in order to allow the Adviser to evaluate the long-term credibility of transition plans. The Adviser may vote for shareholder resolutions requesting information where disclosure is unavailable or not meaningful.

Bank and Bank Holding Company Securities. The Board of Trustees has authorized the Adviser to further delegate proxy voting for certain bank and bank holding company securities (“Bank Securities”), that are held in the JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Equity ETF, JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF, JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF and J.P. Morgan Carbon Transition U.S. Equity ETF and that are identified from time to time by the Adviser to Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (“ISS”) to be voted in accordance with ISS policies and procedures (“ISS Guidelines”) except proxies for Bank Securities issued by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. shall be delegated to Glass Lewis to be voted in accordance with Glass Lewis policies and procedures (“Glass Lewis Guidelines”) rather than ISS Guidelines. The delegation described in this section may occur where the Adviser is restricted under applicable laws from voting a particular security or in order to permit the Adviser to utilize exemptions from limitations arising under the Bank Holding Company Act that might otherwise prevent the Adviser from acquiring Bank Securities on behalf of a Fund. A copy of ISS Guidelines is attached to the SAI Part II as Appendix B. A copy of Glass Lewis Guidelines is attached to the SAI Part II as Appendix C.

Proxy Voting Record. No later than August 31 of each year, a copy of each Fund’s voting record, for the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available, without charge, upon request, by calling 1-800-338-4345 or on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov or on J.P. Morgan Funds’ website at www.jpmorganfunds.com.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The Trust is not required to hold a meeting of Shareholders for the purpose of electing Trustees except that (i) the Trust is required to hold a Shareholders’ meeting for the election of Trustees at such time as less than a majority of the Trustees holding office have been elected by Shareholders and (ii) if, as a result of a vacancy on the Board of Trustees, less than two-thirds of the Trustees holding office have been elected by the Shareholders, that vacancy may only be filled by a vote of the Shareholders. In addition, Trustees may be removed from office by a written consent signed by the holders of Shares representing two-thirds of the outstanding Shares of a Trust at a meeting duly called for the purpose, which meeting shall be called and held in accordance with the By-Laws of the Trust. Except as set forth above, the Trustees may continue to hold office and may appoint successor Trustees.

Part II - 139

As used in the Trust’s Prospectuses and in this SAI, “assets belonging to a Fund” means the consideration received by the Trust upon the issuance or sale of Shares in that Fund, together with all income, earnings, profits, and proceeds derived from the investment thereof, including any proceeds from the sale, exchange, or liquidation of such investments, and any funds or payments derived from any reinvestment of such proceeds, and any general assets of the Trust not readily identified as belonging to a particular Fund that are allocated to that Fund by the Trust’s Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees may allocate such general assets in any manner it deems fair and equitable. It is anticipated that the factor that will be used by the Board of Trustees in making allocations of general assets to particular Funds will be the relative NAV of the respective Funds at the time of allocation. Assets belonging to a particular Fund are charged with the direct liabilities and expenses in respect of that Fund, and with a share of the general liabilities and expenses of the Trust not readily identified as belonging to a particular Fund that are allocated to that Fund in proportion to the relative NAV of the respective Funds at the time of allocation. The timing of allocations of general assets and general liabilities and expenses of the Trust to a particular Fund will be determined by the Board of Trustees of the Trust and will be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Determinations by the Board of Trustees of the Trust as to the timing of the allocation of general liabilities and expenses and as to the timing and allocable portion of any general assets with respect to a particular Fund are conclusive.

As used in this SAI and the Prospectuses, the term “majority of the outstanding voting securities” of the Trust, a particular Fund means the following when the 1940 Act governs the required approval: the affirmative vote of the lesser of (a) more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the Trust, such Fund or such class of such Fund, or (b) 67% or more of the shares of the Trust, such Fund or such class of such Fund present at a meeting at which the holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the Trust, such Fund or such class of such Fund are represented in person or by proxy. Otherwise, the declaration of trust, articles of incorporation or by-laws usually govern the needed approval and generally require that if a quorum is present at a meeting, the vote of a majority of the shares of the Trust, such Fund or such class of such Fund, as applicable, shall decide the question.

Telephone calls to the Funds, the Funds’ service providers or a Financial Intermediary as Financial Intermediary may be recorded. With respect to the securities offered hereby, this SAI and the Prospectuses do not contain all the information included in the Registration Statements of the Trust filed with the SEC under the 1933 Act and the 1940 Act. Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC, certain portions have been omitted. The Registration Statement, including the exhibits filed therewith, may be examined at the office of the SEC in Washington, D.C.

Statements contained in this SAI and the Prospectuses concerning the contents of any contract or other document are not necessarily complete, and in each instance, reference is made to the copy of such contract or other document filed as an exhibit to the Registration Statements of the Trusts. Each such statement is qualified in all respects by such reference.

No dealer, salesman or any other person has been authorized to give any information or to make any representations, other than those contained in the Prospectuses and this SAI, in connection with the offer contained therein and, if given or made, such other information or representations must not be relied upon as having been authorized by the Trust, the Funds or the Distributor. The Prospectuses and this SAI do not constitute an offer by any Fund or by the Distributor to sell or solicit any offer to buy any of the securities offered hereby in any jurisdiction to any person to whom it is unlawful for the Funds or the Distributor to make such offer in such jurisdictions.

Part II - 140

APPENDIX A — PURCHASES AND REDEMPTIONS
BOOK ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM

The following information supplements and should be read in conjunction with the section in the Funds’ Prospectus entitled “Buying and Selling Shares.”

The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) acts as securities depositary for the Shares. Shares of a Fund are represented by securities registered in the name of DTC or its nominee and deposited with, or on behalf of, DTC. Certificates will not be issued for Shares.

DTC, a limited-purpose trust company, was created to hold securities of its participants (the “DTC Participants”) and to facilitate the clearance and settlement of securities transactions among the DTC Participants in such securities through electronic book-entry changes in accounts of the DTC Participants, thereby eliminating the need for physical movement of securities certificates. DTC Participants include securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations and certain other organizations, some of whom (and/or their representatives) own DTC. More specifically, DTC is owned by a number of its DTC Participants and by the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and FINRA. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as banks, brokers, dealers and trust companies that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a DTC Participant, either directly or indirectly (the “Indirect Participants”).

Beneficial ownership of Shares is limited to DTC Participants, Indirect Participants and persons holding interests through DTC Participants and Indirect Participants. Ownership of beneficial interests in Shares (owners of such beneficial interests are referred to herein as “Beneficial Owners”) is shown on, and the transfer of ownership is effected only through, records maintained by DTC (with respect to DTC Participants) and on the records of DTC Participants (with respect to Indirect Participants and Beneficial Owners that are not DTC Participants). Beneficial Owners will receive from or through the DTC Participant a written confirmation relating to their purchase of Shares.

Conveyance of all notices, statements and other communications to Beneficial Owners is effected as follows. Pursuant to the Depositary Agreement between the Trust and DTC, DTC is required to make available to the Trust upon request and for a fee to be charged to the Trust a listing of the Shares holdings of each DTC Participant. The Trust shall inquire of each such DTC Participant as to the number of Beneficial Owners holding Shares, directly or indirectly, through such DTC Participant. The Trust shall provide each such DTC Participant with copies of such notice, statement or other communication, in such form, number and at such place as such DTC Participant may reasonably request, in order that such notice, statement or communication may be transmitted by such DTC Participant, directly or indirectly, to such Beneficial Owners. In addition, the Trust shall pay to each such DTC Participant a fair and reasonable amount as reimbursement for the expenses attendant to such transmittal, all subject to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

Share distributions shall be made to DTC or its nominee, Cede & Co., as the registered holder of all Shares. DTC or its nominee, upon receipt of any such distributions, shall credit immediately DTC Participants’ accounts with payments in amounts proportionate to their respective beneficial interests in Shares as shown on the records of DTC or its nominee. Payments by DTC Participants to Indirect Participants and Beneficial Owners of Shares held through such DTC Participants will be governed by standing instructions and customary practices, as is now the case with securities held for the accounts of customers in bearer form or registered in a “street name,” and will be the responsibility of such DTC Participants.

The Trust has no responsibility or liability for any aspects of the records relating to or notices to Beneficial Owners, or payments made on account of beneficial ownership interests in such Shares, or for maintaining, supervising or reviewing any records relating to such beneficial ownership interests or for any other aspect of the relationship between DTC and the DTC Participants or the relationship between such DTC Participants and the Indirect Participants and Beneficial Owners owning through such DTC Participants.

DTC may determine to discontinue providing its service with respect to the Shares at any time by giving reasonable notice to the Trust and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. Under such circumstances, the Trust shall take action either to find a replacement for DTC to perform its functions at a comparable cost or, if such a replacement is unavailable, to issue and deliver printed certificates representing ownership of Shares, unless the Trust makes other arrangements with respect thereto satisfactory to the Exchange.

A-1

CREATION AND REDEMPTION OF CREATION UNITS

General

The Trust issues and sells Shares of the Funds only in Creation Units on a continuous basis through the Distributor, without an initial sales load, at their NAV next determined after receipt, on any Business Day (as defined herein), of an order in proper form. An Authorized Participant (defined below) that is not a “qualified institutional buyer,” as such term is defined under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933, will not be able to receive, as part of a redemption, restricted securities eligible for resale under Rule 144A.

A “Business Day” with respect to the Fund is any day on which the Exchange is open for business. As of the date of this SAI, the Exchange observes the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, President’s Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Juneteenth, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.

Continuous Offering

The method by which Creation Units are created and traded may raise certain issues under applicable securities laws. Because new Creation Units are issued and sold by a Fund on an ongoing basis, at any point a “distribution,” as such term is used in the 1933 Act, may occur. Broker-dealers and other persons are cautioned that some activities on their part may, depending on the circumstances, result in their being deemed participants in a distribution in a manner that could render them statutory underwriters and subject them to the prospectus delivery requirement and liability provisions of the 1933 Act.

For example, a broker-dealer firm or its client may be deemed a statutory underwriter if it takes Creation Units after placing an order with the Distributor, breaks them down into constituent shares and sells such shares directly to customers or if it chooses to couple the creation of new shares with an active selling effort involving solicitation of secondary market demand for shares. A determination of whether one is an underwriter for purposes of the 1933 Act must take into account all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the activities of the broker-dealer or its client in the particular case and the examples mentioned above should not be considered a complete description of all the activities that could lead to a categorization as an underwriter.

Broker-dealer firms should also note that dealers who are not “underwriters” but are effecting transactions in Shares, whether or not participating in the distribution of Shares, generally are required to deliver a prospectus. This is because the prospectus delivery exemption in Section 4(a)(3) of the 1933 Act is not available in respect of such transactions as a result of Section 24(d) of the 1940 Act. Firms that incur a prospectus delivery obligation with respect to Shares of a Fund are reminded that, pursuant to Rule 153 under the 1933 Act, a prospectus delivery obligation under Section 5(b)(2) of the 1933 Act owed to an exchange member in connection with a sale on the Exchange is satisfied by the fact that the prospectus is available at the Exchange upon request. The prospectus delivery mechanism provided in Rule 153 is available only with respect to transactions on an exchange.

Portfolio Deposit

The consideration for a purchase of Creation Units (except with respect to certain Funds) generally consists of the in-kind deposit of a portfolio of securities and other investments (the “Deposit Instruments”) included in each Fund and an amount of cash computed as described below (the “Cash Amount”). The Cash Amount together with the Deposit Instruments, as applicable, are referred to as the “Portfolio Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit of a Fund. For certain Funds, Creation Units are issued partially or principally for cash, as specified in the Fund’s Prospectus and Part I of this SAI.

In the event a Fund requires Deposit Instruments in consideration for purchasing a Creation Unit, the portfolio of securities required may be different than the portfolio of securities the Fund will deliver upon redemption of Fund Shares.

In the event a Fund requires Deposit Instruments and a Cash Amount in consideration for purchasing a Creation Unit, the function of the Cash Amount is to compensate for any differences between the NAV per Creation Unit and the Deposit Amount (as defined below). The Cash Amount would be an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares (per Creation Unit) and the “Deposit Amount,” which is an amount equal to the aggregate market value of the Deposit Instruments. If the Cash Amount is a positive number (the NAV per Creation Unit exceeds the Deposit Amount), the Authorized Participant will deliver the Cash Amount. If the Cash Amount is a negative number (the NAV per Creation Unit is less than the

A-2

Deposit Amount), the Authorized Participant will receive the Cash Amount. Computation of the Cash Amount excludes any stamp duty or other similar fees and expenses payable upon transfer of beneficial ownership of the Deposit Instruments, which shall be the sole responsibility of the Authorized Participant.

JPMIM, through the NSCC, makes available on each Business Day, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m. Eastern time), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Instrument to be included in the current Portfolio Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous Business Day), as well as information regarding the Cash Amount for a Fund. Such Portfolio Deposit is applicable, subject to any adjustments as described below, in order to effect creations of Creation Units of a Fund until such time as the next-announced Portfolio Deposit composition is made available.

In addition, the Trust reserves the right to accept a basket of securities or cash that differs from Deposit Instruments or to permit the substitution of an amount of cash (i.e., a “cash in lieu” amount) to be added to the Cash Amount to replace any Deposit Instrument.

Procedures for Creation of Creation Units

To be eligible to place orders with the Distributor to create Creation Units of a Fund, an entity or person either must be (1) a “Participating Party,” i.e., a broker-dealer or other participant in the clearing process through the Continuous Net Settlement System of the NSCC; or (2) a DTC Participant (see “Book Entry Only System”); which, in either case, must have executed an agreement with the Distributor (as it may be amended from time to time in accordance with its terms) (“Participant Agreement”) (discussed below). A Participating Party and DTC Participant are collectively referred to as an “Authorized Participant.” All Creation Units of a Fund, however created, will be entered on the records of DTC in the name of Cede & Co. for the account of a DTC Participant.

Except as described below, and in all cases subject to the terms of the applicable Participant Agreement, all orders to create Creation Units, whether through the NSCC Clearing Process or outside the NSCC Clearing Process through DTC or otherwise, must be received by the Distributor no later than the closing time of the regular trading session on the Exchange (“Closing Time”) (ordinarily 4:00 p.m. Eastern time or, for Custom Orders (discussed below), such earlier time set forth in the Participant Agreement or the Authorized Participant Procedures Handbook), in each case on the date such order is placed in order for creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of a Fund as determined on such date. A “Custom Order” may be placed by an Authorized Participant in the event that the Trust accepts (or delivers, in the case of a redemption) a basket or securities or cash that differs from the published Deposit Instruments or Redemption Instruments (discussed below). The Business Day on which a creation order (or order to redeem as discussed below) is placed is herein referred to as the “Transmittal Date.” Orders must be transmitted by telephone or other transmission method acceptable to the Distributor pursuant to procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement or Authorized Participant Procedures Handbook. Severe economic or market disruptions or changes, or telephone or other communication failure, may impede the ability to reach the Distributor, a Participating Party or a DTC Participant. Creation Units may be created in advance of the receipt by the Trust of all or a portion of the Portfolio Deposit. In such cases, the Authorized Participant will remain liable for the full deposit of the missing portion(s) of the Portfolio Deposit and will be required to post collateral with the Trust consisting of cash at least equal to a percentage of the marked-to-market value of such missing portion(s) that is specified in the Participant Agreement. The Trust may use such collateral to buy the missing portion(s) of the Portfolio Deposit at any time and will subject such Authorized Participant to liability for any shortfall between the cost to the Trust of purchasing such securities and the value of such collateral. The Trust will have no liability for any such shortfall. The Trust will return any unused portion of the collateral to the Authorized Participant once the entire Fund Deposit has been properly received by the Distributor and deposited into the Trust.

Orders to create Creation Units of a Fund shall be placed with a Participating Party or DTC Participant, as applicable, in the form required by such Participating Party or DTC Participant. Investors should be aware that their particular broker may not have executed a Participant Agreement, and that, therefore, orders to create Creation Units of a Fund may have to be placed by the investor’s broker through a Participating Party or a DTC Participant who has executed a Participant Agreement. At any given time there may be only a limited number of broker-dealers that have executed a Participant Agreement. Those placing orders to create Creation Units of the Fund through the NSCC Clearing Process should afford sufficient time to permit proper submission of the order to the Distributor prior to the Closing Time on the Transmittal Date.

A-3

Orders for creation that are effected outside the NSCC Clearing Process are likely to require transmittal by the DTC Participant earlier on the Transmittal Date than orders effected using the NSCC Clearing Process. Those persons placing orders outside the NSCC Clearing Process should ascertain the deadlines applicable to DTC and the Federal Reserve Bank wire system by contacting the operations department of the broker or depository institution effectuating such transfer of Deposit Instruments and Cash Amount.

The Distributor has adopted guidelines regarding Authorized Participants’ transactions in Creation Units that are made available to all Authorized Participants through the Participant Agreement or in the Authorized Participant Procedures Handbook. These guidelines set forth the processes and standards for Authorized Participants to transact with the Distributor and its agents in connection with creation and redemption transactions.

Placement of Creation Orders Using NSCC Clearing Process

Portfolio Deposits created through the NSCC Clearing Process, if available, must be delivered through a Participating Party that has executed a Participant Agreement.

The Participant Agreement authorizes the Distributor to transmit to the NSCC on behalf of the Participating Party such trade instructions as are necessary to effect the Participating Party’s creation order. Pursuant to such trade instructions from the Distributor to the NSCC, the Participating Party agrees to transfer, by the first (1st) Business Day (“T+1” basis) following the date on which the creation order is deemed received, the requisite Deposit Instruments (or contracts to purchase such Deposit Instruments that are expected to be delivered in a “regular way” manner on a T+1 basis) and the Cash Amount to the Trust, together with such additional information as may be required by the Distributor. Each Fund reserves the right to settle Creation Unit transactions on a basis other than T+1 if necessary or appropriate under the circumstances and compliant with applicable law. An order to create Creation Units of a Fund through the NSCC Clearing Process is deemed received by the Distributor on the Transmittal Date if (i) such order is received by the Distributor not later than the Closing Time on such Transmittal Date and (ii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed.

Placement of Creation Orders Outside NSCC Clearing Process — Domestic Funds

Portfolio Deposits created outside the NSCC Clearing Process must be delivered through a DTC Participant that has executed a Participant Agreement. A DTC Participant who wishes to place an order creating Creation Units of a Fund to be effected outside the NSCC Clearing Process need not be a Participating Party, but such orders must state that the DTC Participant is not using the NSCC Clearing Process and that the creation of Creation Units will instead be effected through a transfer of securities and cash. The Portfolio Deposit transfer must be ordered by the DTC Participant in a timely fashion so as to ensure the delivery of the requisite number of Deposit Instruments through DTC to the account of the Trust by no later than 11:00 a.m. Eastern time, of the next Business Day immediately following the Transmittal Date. All questions as to the number of Deposit Instruments to be delivered, and the validity, form and eligibility (including time of receipt) for the deposit of any tendered securities, will be determined by the Trust, whose determination shall be final and binding. The cash equal to the Cash Amount must be transferred directly to the Custodian through the Federal Reserve wire system in a timely manner so as to be received by the Custodian no later than 2:00 p.m. Eastern time, on the next Business Day immediately following the Transmittal Date. An order to create Creation Units of a Fund outside the NSCC Clearing Process is deemed received by the Distributor on the Transmittal Date if (i) such order is received by the Distributor not later than the Closing Time on such Transmittal Date; and (ii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed. However, if the Distributor does not receive both the requisite Deposit Instruments and the Cash Amount in a timely fashion on the next Business Day immediately following the Transmittal Date, such order may be cancelled. Upon written notice to the Distributor, such cancelled order may be resubmitted the following Business Day using the Portfolio Deposit as newly constituted to reflect the current NAV of the applicable Fund. The delivery of Creation Units so created will occur no later than the first (1st) Business Day following the day on which the creation order is deemed received by the Distributor. Each Fund reserves the right to settle Creation Unit transactions on a basis other T+1 if necessary or appropriate under the circumstances and compliant with applicable law.

Additional transaction fees may be imposed with respect to transactions effected outside the NSCC Clearing Process (through a DTC Participant) and in circumstances in which any cash can be used in lieu of Deposit Instruments to create Creation Units. (See “Creation Transaction Fee” section below.)

A-4

Placement of Creation Orders Outside NSCC Clearing Process — Foreign Funds

The Distributor will inform the Transfer Agent, the Adviser and the Custodian upon receipt of a Creation Order. The Custodian will then provide such information to the appropriate subcustodian. For each Fund, the Custodian will cause the subcustodian of such Fund to maintain an account into which the Deposit Instruments (or the cash value of all or part of such securities, in the case of a permitted or required cash purchase or “cash in lieu” amount) will be delivered. Deposit Instruments must be delivered to an account maintained at the applicable local custodian. The Trust must also receive, on or before the contractual settlement date, immediately available or same day funds estimated by the Custodian to be sufficient to pay the Cash Amount next determined after receipt in proper form of the purchase order, together with the creation transaction fee described below.

Once the Distributor has accepted a Creation Order, the Transfer Agent will confirm the issuance of a Creation Unit of the Fund against receipt of payment, at such NAV as will have been calculated after receipt in proper form of such order. The Transfer Agent will then transmit a confirmation of acceptance of such order.

Creation Units will not be issued until the transfer of good title to the Trust of the Deposit Instruments and the payment of the Cash Amount have been completed. When the subcustodian has delivered to the account of the relevant subcustodian, the Distributor and the Adviser will be notified of such delivery and the Transfer Agent will issue and cause the delivery of the Creation Units.

Acceptance of Creation Orders

The Trust and the Distributor reserve the right to reject or revoke acceptance of a creation order transmitted to it in respect of a Fund, for example, if (a) the order is not in proper form; (b) the purchaser or group of related purchasers, upon obtaining the Creation Units of Shares, would own 80% or more of the outstanding Shares of such Fund; (c) the acceptance of the Portfolio Deposit would, in the opinion of the Fund, be unlawful, as in the case of a purchaser who was banned from trading in securities; or (d) there exist circumstances outside the control of the Fund that make it impossible to process purchases of Creation Units of Shares for all practical purposes. Examples of such circumstances include: acts of God or public service or utility problems such as fires, floods, extreme weather conditions and power outage resulting in telephone, telecopy and computer failures; market conditions or activities causing trading halts; systems failures involving computer or other information systems affecting the Funds, the Adviser, any sub-adviser, the Transfer Agent, the Custodian, the Distributor, DTC, NSCC or any other participant in the purchase process; and similar extraordinary events. The Transfer Agent will notify a prospective creator of its rejection of the order. The Trust, the Custodian, any subcustodian and the Distributor are under no duty, however, to give notification of any defects or irregularities in the delivery of Fund Deposits to Authorized Participants nor shall either of them incur any liability to Authorized Participants for the failure to give any such notification. All questions as to the number of shares of each security in the Deposit Instruments and the validity, form, eligibility and acceptance for deposit of any securities to be delivered shall be determined by the Trust, and the Trust’s determination shall be final and binding.

Creation Units of a Fund may be created in advance of receipt by the Trust of all or a portion of the applicable Deposit Instruments as described below. In these circumstances, the initial deposit will have a value greater than the NAV of the Shares on the date the order is placed in proper form since, in addition to available Deposit Instruments, cash must be deposited in an amount equal to the sum of (i) the Cash Amount, plus (ii) at least 105%, which the Trust may change from time to time, of the market value of the undelivered Deposit Instruments (the “Additional Cash Deposit”) with the Fund pending delivery of any missing Deposit Instruments.

If an Authorized Participant determines to post an Additional Cash Deposit as collateral for any undelivered Deposit Instruments, such Authorized Participant must deposit with the Custodian the appropriate amount of federal funds by 10:00 a.m. New York, (or such other time as specified by the Trust) on the date of requested settlement. If the Custodian does not receive the Additional Cash Deposit in the appropriate amount by such time, then the order may be deemed to be rejected and the AP shall be liable to a fund for losses, if any, resulting therefrom. An additional amount of cash shall be required to be deposited with the Custodian, pending delivery of the missing Deposit Instruments to the extent necessary to maintain the Additional Cash Deposit with the Trust in an amount at least equal to 105% as required, which the Trust may change from time to time, of the daily marked to market value of the missing Deposit Instruments. To the extent that missing Deposit Securities are not received by the specified time on the settlement date, or in the event a marked-to market payment is not made within one Business Day following notification by the Distributor that such a payment is required, the Trust may use the cash on

A-5

deposit to purchase the missing Deposit Instruments. The Authorized Participant will be liable to the Trust for the costs incurred by the Trust in connection with any such purchases. These costs will be deemed to include the amount by which the actual purchase price of the Deposit Instruments exceeds the market value of such Deposit Instruments on the Transmittal Date plus the brokerage and related transaction costs associated with such purchases. The Trust will return any unused portion of the Additional Cash Deposit once all of the missing Deposit Instruments have been properly received by the Custodian or purchased by the Trust and deposited into the Trust. In addition, a transaction fee may be charged.

Creation Transaction Fee

A fixed creation transaction fee is generally imposed on each creation transaction regardless of the number of Creation Units purchased in the transaction. The variable fee is subject to the maximum fee limit described in “PURCHASE AND RECEMPTION OF CREATION UNITS” in the Part I of this SAI.

In the case of cash creations or where the Trust permits a creator to substitute cash in lieu of depositing a portion of the Deposit Instruments, the creator may be assessed an additional variable charge to compensate a Fund for the costs associated with purchasing the applicable securities. (See “Portfolio Deposit” section above.) As a result, in order to seek to replicate the in-kind creation order process, the Trust expects to purchase, in the secondary market or otherwise gain exposure to, the portfolio securities that could have been delivered as a result of an in-kind creation order pursuant to local law or market convention, or for other reasons (“Market Purchases”). In such cases where the Trust makes Market Purchases, the Authorized Participant may be required to reimburse the Trust for, among other things, any difference between the market value at which the securities and/or financial instruments were purchased by the Trust and the cash in lieu amount (which amount, at the Adviser’s discretion, may be capped), applicable registration fees, brokerage commissions and certain taxes. The Adviser may adjust the transaction fee to the extent the composition of the creation securities changes or cash in lieu is added to the Cash Amount to protect existing shareholders. Amounts in excess of any caps will be borne by a Fund. Creators of Creation Units are responsible for the costs of transferring the securities constituting the Deposit Instruments to the account of the Trust.

Redemption of Creation Units

Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Distributor, only on a Business Day and only through a Participating Party or DTC Participant who has executed a Participant Agreement. The Trust will not redeem Shares in amounts less than Creation Units. Beneficial owners also may sell Shares in the secondary market, but must accumulate enough Shares to constitute a Creation Unit in order to have such Shares redeemed by the Trust. There can be no assurance, however, that there will be sufficient liquidity in the public trading market at any time to permit assembly of a Creation Unit. Investors should expect to incur brokerage and other costs in connection with assembling a sufficient number of Shares to constitute a redeemable Creation Unit. See with respect to each Fund, the section entitled “Summary Information — The Fund’s Main Risks” and “More About the Fund — Investment Risks” in the applicable Prospectus.

JPMIM, through the NSCC, makes available on each Business Day prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m. Eastern time), the identity of a Fund’s securities and/or an amount of cash that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form (as defined below) on that day. The securities a Fund delivers upon redemption (“Redemption Instruments”) may not be identical to Deposit Instruments that are applicable to creations of Creation Units. An Authorized Participant submitting a redemption request is deemed to represent to the Trust that it (or its client) (i) owns outright or has full legal authority and legal beneficial right to tender for redemption the requisite number of Shares to be redeemed and can receive the entire proceeds of the redemption, and (ii) the Shares to be redeemed have not been loaned or pledged to another party nor are they the subject of a repurchase agreement, securities lending agreement or such other arrangement which would preclude the delivery of such Shares to the Trust. The Trust reserves the right to verify these representations at its discretion, but will typically require verification with respect to a redemption request from a Fund in connection with higher levels of redemption activity and/or short interest in the Fund. If the Authorized Participant, upon receipt of a verification request, does not provide sufficient verification of its representations as determined by the Trust, the redemption request will not be considered to have been received in proper form and may be rejected by the Trust. Unless cash redemptions are permitted or required for a Fund, the redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit generally consist of Redemption Instruments as announced on the Business Day of the request for redemption, plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after a receipt of a

A-6

request in proper form, and the value of the Redemption Instruments, less the redemption transaction fee and variable fees described below. Should the Redemption Instruments have a value greater than the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, a compensating cash payment to the Trust equal to the differential plus the applicable redemption transaction fee will be required to be arranged for by or on behalf of the redeeming shareholder. The Trust reserves the right to honor a redemption request by delivering a basket of securities or cash that differs from the Redemption Instruments.

The Trust may suspend the right of redemption or postpone the date of payment for Shares for more than seven days when:

(a)

trading on the Exchange is broadly restricted by the applicable rules and regulations of the SEC;

(b)

the Exchange is closed for other than customary weekend and holiday closing;

(c)

the SEC has by order permitted such suspension; or

(d)

the SEC has declared a market emergency.

Redemption Transaction Fee

The fixed redemption transaction fee is the same no matter how many Creation Units are being redeemed pursuant to any one redemption request.

An additional variable charge for cash redemptions or partial cash redemptions (when cash redemptions are permitted or required for a Fund) may also be imposed to compensate each applicable Fund for the costs associated with selling the applicable securities. As a result, in order to seek to replicate the in-kind redemption order process, the Trust expects to sell, in the secondary market, the portfolio securities or settle any financial instruments that may not be permitted to be re-registered in the name of the Participating Party as a result of an in-kind redemption order pursuant to local law or market convention, or for other reasons (“Market Sales”). In such cases where the Trust makes Market Sales, the Authorized Participant may be required to reimburse the Trust for, among other things, any difference between the market value at which the securities and/or financial instruments were sold or settled by the Trust and the cash in lieu amount (which amount, at the Adviser’s discretion, may be capped), applicable registration fees, brokerage commissions and certain taxes (“Transaction Costs”). The Adviser may adjust the transaction fee to the extent the composition of the redemption securities changes or cash in lieu is added to the Cash Amount to protect existing shareholders. In no event will transaction fees charged by a Fund in connection with a redemption exceed 2% of the value of each Creation Unit. Investors who use the services of a broker or other such intermediary may be charged a fee for such services. To the extent a Fund cannot recoup the amount of Transaction Costs incurred in connection with a redemption from the redeeming shareholder because of the 2% cap or otherwise, those Transaction Costs will be borne by the Fund’s remaining shareholders and negatively affect the Fund’s performance.

Placement of Redemption Orders Using NSCC Clearing Process

Orders to redeem Creation Units of the Fund through the NSCC Clearing Process, if available, must be delivered through a Participating Party that has executed the Participant Agreement. An order to redeem Creation Units of a Fund using the Clearing Process is deemed received on the Transmittal Date if (i) such order is received by the Distributor not later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern time on such Transmittal Date (or, for Custom Orders, such earlier time set forth in the Participant Agreement or the Authorized Participant Procedures Handbook); and (ii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed; such order will be effected based on the NAV of the Fund as next determined. An order to redeem Creation Units of the Fund using the NSCC Clearing Process made in proper form but received by the Fund after 4:00 p.m. Eastern time (or, for certain Custom Orders, such earlier time set forth in the Participant Agreement or the Authorized Participant Procedures Handbook), will be deemed received on the next Business Day immediately following the Transmittal Date. The requisite Redemption Instruments (or contracts to purchase such Redemption Instruments which are expected to be delivered in a “regular way” manner on a T+1 basis) and the applicable cash payment will be transferred by the first (1st)

A-7

Business Day following the date on which such request for redemption is deemed received. Each Fund reserves the right to settle Creation Unit transactions on a basis other than T+1 if necessary or appropriate under the circumstances and compliant with applicable law.

Placement of Redemption Orders Outside NSCC Clearing Process — Domestic Funds

Orders to redeem Creation Units of a Fund outside the NSCC Clearing Process must be delivered through a DTC Participant that has executed the Participant Agreement. A DTC Participant who wishes to place an order for redemption of Creation Units of a Fund to be effected outside the NSCC Clearing Process need not be a Participating Party, but such orders must state that the DTC Participant is not using the Clearing Process and that redemption of Creation Units of the Fund will instead be effected through transfer of Creation Units of the Fund directly through DTC. An order to redeem Creation Units of a Fund outside the Clearing Process is deemed received by the Distributor on the Transmittal Date if (i) such order is received by the Distributor not later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern time on such Transmittal Date (or, for certain Custom Orders, such earlier time disclosed in the Participant Agreement or the Authorized Participant Procedures Handbook); (ii) such order is preceded or accompanied by the requisite number of Shares of Creation Units specified in such order, which delivery must be made through DTC to the Custodian no later than 11:00 a.m. Eastern time, on such Transmittal Date (the “DTC Cut-Off-Time”); and (iii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed.

After the Distributor has deemed an order for redemption outside the NSCC Clearing Process received, the Custodian will initiate procedures to transfer the requisite Redemption Instruments (or contracts to purchase such Redemption Instruments) which are expected to be delivered within one Business Day and the cash redemption payment to the redeeming Beneficial Owner by the second Business Day following the Transmittal Date on which such redemption order is deemed received by the Custodian. Each Fund reserves the right to settle Creation Unit transactions on a basis other than T+1 if necessary or appropriate under the circumstances and compliant with applicable law.

To the extent contemplated by the Participant Agreement, in the event the Authorized Participant has submitted a redemption request in proper form but is unable to transfer all or part of the Creation Unit to be redeemed to the Fund’s Transfer Agent, the Transfer Agent will nonetheless accept the redemption request in reliance on the undertaking by the Authorized Participant to deliver the missing shares as soon as possible. Such undertaking shall be secured by the Authorized Participant’s delivery and maintenance of collateral consisting of cash having a value (marked to market daily) of at least 105%, which the Trust may change from time to time, of the value of the missing shares.

The current procedures for collateralization of missing shares require, among other things, that any cash collateral shall be in the form of U.S. dollars in immediately available funds and shall be held by the Custodian and marked to market daily, and that the fees of the Custodian and any sub-custodians in respect of the delivery, maintenance and redelivery of the cash collateral shall be payable by the Authorized Participant. The Participant Agreement will permit the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, to purchase the missing shares or acquire the Deposit Instruments and the Cash Amount underlying such shares at any time and will subject the Authorized Participant to liability for any shortfall between the cost to the Trust of purchasing such shares, Deposit Instruments or Cash Amount and the value of the collateral.

Placement of Redemption Orders Outside NSCC Clearing Process — Foreign Funds

Arrangements satisfactory to the Trust must be in place for the Participating Party to transfer the Creation Units through DTC on or before the settlement date. Redemptions of Shares for Redemption Instruments will be subject to compliance with applicable U.S. federal and state securities laws and a Fund (whether or not it otherwise permits or requires cash redemptions) reserves the right to redeem Creation Units for cash to the extent that the Fund could not lawfully deliver specific Redemption Instruments upon redemptions or could not do so without first registering the Deposit Securities under such laws.

In connection with taking delivery of Shares for Redemption Instruments upon redemption of Creation Units, a redeeming shareholder or entity acting on behalf of a redeeming shareholder must maintain appropriate custody arrangements with a qualified broker-dealer, bank or other custody providers in each jurisdiction in which any of the Redemption Instruments are customarily traded, to which account such Redemption Instruments will be delivered. If neither the redeeming shareholder nor the entity acting on behalf of a redeeming shareholder has appropriate arrangements to take delivery of the Redemption Instruments in the applicable foreign jurisdiction and it is not possible to make other such arrangements, or

A-8

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Coverage

The U.S. research team provides proxy analyses and voting recommendations for the common shareholder meetings of U.S. - incorporated companies that are publicly-traded on U.S. exchanges, as well as certain OTC companies, if they are held in our institutional investor clients’ portfolios. Coverage generally includes corporate actions for common equity holders, such as written consents and bankruptcies. ISS’ U.S. coverage includes investment companies (including open-end funds, closed-end funds, exchange-traded funds, and unit investment trusts), limited partnerships (“LPs”), master limited partnerships (“MLPs”), limited liability companies (“LLCs”), and business development companies. ISS reviews its universe of coverage on an annual basis, and the coverage is subject to change based on client need and industry trends.

Foreign-incorporated companies

In addition to U.S. - incorporated, U.S. – listed companies, ISS’ U.S. policies are applied to certain foreign-incorporated company analyses. Like the SEC, ISS distinguishes two types of companies that list but are not incorporated in the U.S.:

●

U.S. Domestic Issuers – which have a majority of outstanding shares held in the U.S. and meet other criteria, as determined by the SEC, and are subject to the same disclosure and listing standards as U.S. incorporated companies (e.g. they are required to file DEF14A proxy statements) – are generally covered under standard U.S. policy guidelines.

●

Foreign Private Issuers (FPIs) – which are allowed to take exemptions from most disclosure requirements (e.g., they are allowed to file 6-K for their proxy materials) and U.S. listing standards – are generally covered under a combination of policy guidelines:

●

FPI Guidelines (see the Americas Regional Proxy Voting Guidelines), may apply to companies incorporated in governance havens, and apply certain minimum independence and disclosure standards in the evaluation of key proxy ballot items, such as the election of directors; and/or

●

Guidelines for the market that is responsible for, or most relevant to, the item on the ballot.

U.S. incorporated companies listed only on non-U.S. exchanges are generally covered under the ISS guidelines for the market on which they are traded.

An FPI is generally covered under ISS’ approach to FPIs outlined above, even if such FPI voluntarily files a proxy statement and/or other filing normally required of a U.S. Domestic Issuer, so long as the company retains its FPI status.

In all cases – including with respect to other companies with cross-market features that may lead to ballot items related to multiple markets – items that are on the ballot solely due to the requirements of another market (listing, incorporation, or national code) may be evaluated under the policy of the relevant market, regardless of the “assigned” primary market coverage.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

8 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

1. Board of Directors

Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

Four fundamental principles apply when determining votes on director nominees:

Independence: Boards should be sufficiently independent from management (and significant shareholders) to ensure that they are able and motivated to effectively supervise management’s performance for the benefit of all shareholders, including in setting and monitoring the execution of corporate strategy, with appropriate use of shareholder capital, and in setting and monitoring executive compensation programs that support that strategy. The chair of the board should ideally be an independent director, and all boards should have an independent leadership position or a similar role in order to help provide appropriate counterbalance to executive management, as well as having sufficiently independent committees that focus on key governance concerns such as audit, compensation, and nomination of directors.

Composition: Companies should ensure that directors add value to the board through their specific skills and expertise and by having sufficient time and commitment to serve effectively. Boards should be of a size appropriate to accommodate diversity, expertise, and independence, while ensuring active and collaborative participation by all members. Boards should be sufficiently diverse to ensure consideration of a wide range of perspectives.

Responsiveness: Directors should respond to investor input, such as that expressed through significant opposition to management proposals, significant support for shareholder proposals (whether binding or non-binding), and tender offers where a majority of shares are tendered.

Accountability: Boards should be sufficiently accountable to shareholders, including through transparency of the company’s governance practices and regular board elections, by the provision of sufficient information for shareholders to be able to assess directors and board composition, and through the ability of shareholders to remove directors.

General Recommendation: Generally vote for director nominees, except under the following circumstances (with new nominees1 considered on case-by-case basis):

Independence

Vote against2 or withhold from non-independent directors (Executive Directors and Non-Independent Non-Executive Directors per ISS’ Classification of Directors) when:

●

Independent directors comprise 50 percent or less of the board;

●

The non-independent director serves on the audit, compensation, or nominating committee;

●

The company lacks an audit, compensation, or nominating committee so that the full board functions as that committee; or

1 A "new nominee" is a director who is being presented for election by shareholders for the first time. Recommendations on new nominees who have served for less than one year are made on a case-by-case basis depending on the timing of their appointment and the problematic governance issue in question.

2 In general, companies with a plurality vote standard use “Withhold” as the contrary vote option in director elections; companies with a majority vote standard use “Against”. However, it will vary by company and the proxy must be checked to determine the valid contrary vote option for the particular company.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

9 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

ISS Classification of Directors – U.S.

Executive Director

1.1.

Current officer1 of the company or one of its affiliates2.

Non-Independent Non-Executive Director

Board Identification

2.1.

Director identified as not independent by the board.

Controlling/Significant Shareholder

2.2.

Beneficial owner of more than 50 percent of the company’s voting power (this may be aggregated if voting power is distributed among more than one member of a group).

Current Employment at Company or Related Company

2.3.

Non-officer employee of the firm (including employee representatives).

2.4.

Officer1, former officer, or general or limited partner of a joint venture or partnership with the company.

Former Employment

2.5.

Former CEO of the company. 3, 4

2.6.

Former non-CEO officer1 of the company or an affiliate2 within the past five years.

2.7.

Former officer1 of an acquired company within the past five years.4

2.8.

Officer1 of a former parent or predecessor firm at the time the company was sold or split off within the past five years.

2.9.

Former interim officer if the service was longer than 18 months. If the service was between 12 and 18 months an assessment of the interim officer’s employment agreement will be made.5

Family Members

2.10.

Immediate family member6 of a current or former officer1 of the company or its affiliates2 within the last five years.

2.11.

Immediate family member6 of a current employee of company or its affiliates2 where additional factors raise concern (which may include, but are not limited to, the following: a director related to numerous employees; the company or its affiliates employ relatives of numerous board members; or a non-Section 16 officer in a key strategic role).

Professional, Transactional, and Charitable Relationships

2.12.

Director who (or whose immediate family member6) currently provides professional services7 in excess of $10,000 per year to: the company, an affiliate2, or an individual officer of the company or an affiliate; or who is (or whose immediate family member6 is) a partner, employee, or controlling shareholder of an organization which provides the services.

2.13.

Director who (or whose immediate family member6 ) currently has any material transactional relationship8 with the company or its affiliates2; or who is (or whose immediate family member6 is) a partner in, or a controlling shareholder or an executive officer of, an organization which has the material transactional relationship8 (excluding investments in the company through a private placement).

2.14.

Director who (or whose immediate family member6) is a trustee, director, or employee of a charitable or non-profit organization that receives material grants or endowments8 from the company or its affiliates2.

Other Relationships

2.15.

Party to a voting agreement9 to vote in line with management on proposals being brought to shareholder vote.

2.16.

Has (or an immediate family member6 has) an interlocking relationship as defined by the SEC involving members of the board of directors or its Compensation Committee.10

2.17.

Founder11 of the company but not currently an employee.

2.18.

Director with pay comparable to Named Executive Officers.

2.19.

Any material12 relationship with the company.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

11 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Independent Director

3.1.

No material12 connection to the company other than a board seat.

Footnotes:

1. The definition of officer will generally follow that of a “Section 16 officer” (officers subject to Section 16 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934) and includes the chief executive, operating, financial, legal, technology, and accounting officers of a company (including the president, treasurer, secretary, controller, or any vice president in charge of a principal business unit, division, or policy function). Current interim officers are included in this category. For private companies, the equivalent positions are applicable. A non-employee director serving as an officer due to statutory requirements (e.g. corporate secretary) will generally be classified as a Non-Independent Non-Executive Director under “Any material relationship with the company.” However, if the company provides explicit disclosure that the director is not receiving additional compensation exceeding $10,000 per year for serving in that capacity, then the director will be classified as an Independent Director.

2. “Affiliate” includes a subsidiary, sibling company, or parent company. ISS uses 50 percent control ownership by the parent company as the standard for applying its affiliate designation. The manager/advisor of an externally managed issuer (EMI) is considered an affiliate.

3. Includes any former CEO of the company prior to the company’s initial public offering (IPO).

4. When there is a former CEO of a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) serving on the board of an acquired company, ISS will generally classify such directors as independent unless determined otherwise taking into account the following factors: the applicable listing standards determination of such director’s independence; any operating ties to the firm; and the existence of any other conflicting relationships or related party transactions.

5. ISS will look at the terms of the interim officer’s employment contract to determine if it contains severance pay, long-term health and pension benefits, or other such standard provisions typically contained in contracts of permanent, non-temporary CEOs. ISS will also consider if a formal search process was under way for a full-time officer at the time.

6. “Immediate family member” follows the SEC’s definition of such and covers spouses, parents, children, step-parents, step-children, siblings, in-laws, and any person (other than a tenant or employee) sharing the household of any director, nominee for director, executive officer, or significant shareholder of the company.

7. Professional services can be characterized as advisory in nature, generally involve access to sensitive company information or to strategic decision-making, and typically have a commission- or fee-based payment structure. Professional services generally include but are not limited to the following: investment banking/financial advisory services, commercial banking (beyond deposit services), investment services, insurance services, accounting/audit services, consulting services, marketing services, legal services, property management services, realtor services, lobbying services, executive search services, and IT consulting services. The following would generally be considered transactional relationships and not professional services: deposit services, IT tech support services, educational services, and construction services. The case of participation in a banking syndicate by a non-lead bank should be considered a transactional (and hence subject to the associated materiality test) rather than a professional relationship. “Of Counsel” relationships are only considered immaterial if the individual does not receive any form of compensation (in excess of $10,000 per year) from, or is a retired partner of, the firm providing the professional service. The case of a company providing a professional service to one of its directors or to an entity with which one of its directors is affiliated, will be considered a transactional rather than a professional relationship. Insurance services and marketing services are assumed to be professional services unless the company explains why such services are not advisory.

8. A material transactional relationship, including grants to non-profit organizations, exists if the company makes annual payments to, or receives annual payments from, another entity, exceeding the greater of: $200,000 or 5 percent of the recipient’s gross revenues, for a company that follows NASDAQ listing standards; or the greater of $1,000,000 or 2 percent of the recipient’s gross revenues, for a company that follows NYSE listing standards. For a company that follows neither of the preceding standards, ISS will apply the NASDAQ-based materiality test. (The recipient is the party receiving the financial proceeds from the transaction).

9. Dissident directors who are parties to a voting agreement pursuant to a settlement or similar arrangement may be classified as Independent Directors if an analysis of the following factors indicates that the voting agreement does not compromise their alignment with all shareholders’ interests: the terms of the agreement; the duration of the standstill provision in the agreement; the limitations and requirements of actions that are agreed upon; if the dissident director nominee(s) is subject to the standstill; and if there any conflicting relationships or related party transactions.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

12 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

10. Interlocks include: executive officers serving as directors on each other’s compensation or similar committees (or, in the absence of such a committee, on the board); or executive officers sitting on each other’s boards and at least one serves on the other’s compensation or similar committees (or, in the absence of such a committee, on the board).

11. The operating involvement of the founder with the company will be considered; if the founder was never employed by the company, ISS may deem him or her an Independent Director.

12. For purposes of ISS’s director independence classification, “material” will be defined as a standard of relationship (financial, personal, or otherwise) that a reasonable person might conclude could potentially influence one’s objectivity in the boardroom in a manner that would have a meaningful impact on an individual’s ability to satisfy requisite fiduciary standards on behalf of shareholders.

Composition

Attendance at Board and Committee Meetings: Generally vote against or withhold from directors (except nominees who served only part of the fiscal year3) who attend less than 75 percent of the aggregate of their board and committee meetings for the period for which they served, unless an acceptable reason for absences is disclosed in the proxy or another SEC filing. Acceptable reasons for director absences are generally limited to the following:

●

Medical issues/illness;

●

Family emergencies; and

●

Missing only one meeting (when the total of all meetings is three or fewer).

In cases of chronic poor attendance without reasonable justification, in addition to voting against the director(s) with poor attendance, generally vote against or withhold from appropriate members of the nominating/governance committees or the full board.

If the proxy disclosure is unclear and insufficient to determine whether a director attended at least 75 percent of the aggregate of his/her board and committee meetings during his/her period of service, vote against or withhold from the director(s) in question.

Overboarded Directors: Generally vote against or withhold from individual directors who:

●

Sit on more than five public company boards; or

●

Are CEOs of public companies who sit on the boards of more than two public companies besides their own — withhold only at their outside boards4.

Gender Diversity: Generally vote against or withhold from the chair of the nominating committee (or other directors on a case-by-case basis) at companies where there are no women on the company’s board. An exception will be made if there was at least one woman on the board at the preceding annual meeting and the board makes a firm commitment to return to a gender-diverse status within a year.

Racial and/or Ethnic Diversity: For companies in the Russell 3000 or S&P 1500 indices, generally vote against or withhold from the chair of the nominating committee (or other directors on a case-by-case basis) where the board has no apparent racially or ethnically diverse members5. An exception will be made if there was racial and/or

3 Nominees who served for only part of the fiscal year are generally exempted from the attendance policy.

4 Although all of a CEO’s subsidiary boards with publicly-traded common stock will be counted as separate boards, ISS will not recommend a withhold vote for the CEO of a parent company board or any of the controlled (˃50 percent ownership) subsidiaries of that parent but may do so at subsidiaries that are less than 50 percent controlled and boards outside the parent/subsidiary relationships.

5 Aggregate diversity statistics provided by the board will only be considered if specific to racial and/or ethnic diversity.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

13 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

ethnic diversity on the board at the preceding annual meeting and the board makes a firm commitment to appoint at least one racial and/or ethnic diverse member within a year.

Responsiveness

Vote case-by-case on individual directors, committee members, or the entire board of directors as appropriate if:

●

The board failed to act on a shareholder proposal that received the support of a majority of the shares cast in the previous year or failed to act on a management proposal seeking to ratify an existing charter/bylaw provision that received opposition of a majority of the shares cast in the previous year. Factors that will be considered are:

●

Disclosed outreach efforts by the board to shareholders in the wake of the vote;

●

Rationale provided in the proxy statement for the level of implementation;

●

The subject matter of the proposal;

●

The level of support for and opposition to the resolution in past meetings;

●

Actions taken by the board in response to the majority vote and its engagement with shareholders;

●

The continuation of the underlying issue as a voting item on the ballot (as either shareholder or management proposals); and

●

Other factors as appropriate.

●

The board failed to act on takeover offers where the majority of shares are tendered; or

●

At the previous board election, any director received more than 50 percent withhold/against votes of the shares cast and the company has failed to address the issue(s) that caused the high withhold/against vote.

Vote case-by-case on Compensation Committee members (or, in exceptional cases, the full board) and the Say on Pay proposal if:

●

The company’s previous say-on-pay received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast. Factors that will be considered are:

●

The company’s response, including:

●

Disclosure of engagement efforts with major institutional investors, including the frequency and timing of engagements and the company participants (including whether independent directors participated);

●

Disclosure of the specific concerns voiced by dissenting shareholders that led to the say-on-pay opposition; and

●

Disclosure of specific and meaningful actions taken to address shareholders’ concerns;

●

Other recent compensation actions taken by the company;

●

Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated;

●

The company’s ownership structure; and

●

Whether the support level was less than 50 percent, which would warrant the highest degree of responsiveness.

●

The board implements an advisory vote on executive compensation on a less frequent basis than the frequency that received the plurality of votes cast.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

14 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Accountability

Problematic Takeover Defenses, Capital Structure, and Governance Structure

Poison Pills: Generally vote against or withhold from all nominees (except new nominees1, who should be considered case-by-case) if:

●

The company has a poison pill with a deadhand or slowhand feature6.

●

The board makes a material adverse modification to an existing pill, including, but not limited to, extension, renewal, or lowering the trigger, without shareholder approval; or

●

The company has a long-term poison pill (with a term of over one year) that was not approved by the public shareholders7.

Vote case-by-case on nominees if the board adopts an initial short-term pill6 (with a term of one year or less) without shareholder approval, taking into consideration:

●

The disclosed rationale for the adoption;

●

The trigger;

●

The company's market capitalization (including absolute level and sudden changes);

●

A commitment to put any renewal to a shareholder vote; and

●

Other factors as relevant.

Unequal Voting Rights: Generally vote withhold or against directors individually, committee members, or the entire board (except new nominees1, who should be considered case-by-case), if the company employs a common stock structure with unequal voting rights8.

Exceptions to this policy will generally be limited to:

●

Newly-public companies9 with a sunset provision of no more than seven years from the date of going public;

●

Limited Partnerships and the Operating Partnership (OP) unit structure of REITs;

●

Situations where the super-voting shares represent less than 5% of total voting power and therefore considered to be de minimis; or

●

The company provides sufficient protections for minority shareholders, such as allowing minority shareholders a regular binding vote on whether the capital structure should be maintained.

Classified Board Structure: The board is classified, and a continuing director responsible for a problematic governance issue at the board/committee level that would warrant a withhold/against vote recommendation is not up for election. All appropriate nominees (except new) may be held accountable.

6 If a short-term pill with a deadhand or slowhand feature is enacted but expires before the next shareholder vote, ISS will generally still recommend withhold/against nominees at the next shareholder meeting following its adoption.

7 Approval prior to, or in connection, with a company’s becoming publicly-traded, or in connection with a de-SPAC transaction, is insufficient.

8 This generally includes classes of common stock that have additional votes per share than other shares; classes of shares that are not entitled to vote on all the same ballot items or nominees; or stock with time-phased voting rights (“loyalty shares”).

9 Includes companies that emerge from bankruptcy, SPAC transactions, spin-offs, direct listings, and those who complete a traditional initial public offering.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

15 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Removal of Shareholder Discretion on Classified Boards: The company has opted into, or failed to opt out of, state laws requiring a classified board structure.

Problematic Governance Structure: For companies that hold or held their first annual meeting9 of public shareholders after Feb. 1, 2015, generally vote against or withhold from directors individually, committee members, or the entire board (except new nominees1, who should be considered case-by-case) if, prior to or in connection with the company's public offering, the company or its board adopted the following bylaw or charter provisions that are considered to be materially adverse to shareholder rights:

●

Supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter;

●

A classified board structure; or

●

Other egregious provisions.

A provision which specifies that the problematic structure(s) will be sunset within seven years of the date of going public will be considered a mitigating factor.

Unless the adverse provision is reversed or removed, vote case-by-case on director nominees in subsequent years.

Unilateral Bylaw/Charter Amendments: Generally vote against or withhold from directors individually, committee members, or the entire board (except new nominees1, who should be considered case-by-case) if the board amends the company’s bylaws or charter without shareholder approval in a manner that materially diminishes shareholders’ rights or that could adversely impact shareholders, considering the following factors:

●

The board’s rationale for adopting the bylaw/charter amendment without shareholder ratification;

●

Disclosure by the company of any significant engagement with shareholders regarding the amendment;

●

The level of impairment of shareholders’ rights caused by the board’s unilateral amendment to the bylaws/ charter;

●

The board’s track record with regard to unilateral board action on bylaw/charter amendments or other entrenchment provisions;

●

The company’s ownership structure;

●

The company’s existing governance provisions;

●

The timing of the board’s amendment to the bylaws/charter in connection with a significant business development; and

●

Other factors, as deemed appropriate, that may be relevant to determine the impact of the amendment on shareholders.

Unless the adverse amendment is reversed or submitted to a binding shareholder vote, in subsequent years vote case-by-case on director nominees. Generally vote against (except new nominees1, who should be considered case-by-case) if the directors:

●

Classified the board;

●

Adopted supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter;

●

Eliminated shareholders’ ability to amend bylaws;

●

Adopted a fee-shifting provision; or

●

Adopted another provision deemed egregious.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

16 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Restricting Binding Shareholder Proposals: Generally vote against or withhold from the members of the governance committee if:

●

The company’s governing documents impose undue restrictions on shareholders’ ability to amend the bylaws. Such restrictions include but are not limited to: outright prohibition on the submission of binding shareholder proposals or share ownership requirements, subject matter restrictions, or time holding requirements in excess of SEC Rule 14a-8. Vote against or withhold on an ongoing basis.

Submission of management proposals to approve or ratify requirements in excess of SEC Rule 14a-8 for the submission of binding bylaw amendments will generally be viewed as an insufficient restoration of shareholders' rights. Generally continue to vote against or withhold on an ongoing basis until shareholders are provided with an unfettered ability to amend the bylaws or a proposal providing for such unfettered right is submitted for shareholder approval.

Director Performance Evaluation: The board lacks mechanisms to promote accountability and oversight, coupled with sustained poor performance relative to peers. Sustained poor performance is measured by one-, three-, and five-year total shareholder returns in the bottom half of a company’s four-digit GICS industry group (Russell 3000 companies only). Take into consideration the company’s operational metrics and other factors as warranted. Problematic provisions include but are not limited to:

●

A classified board structure;

●

A supermajority vote requirement;

●

Either a plurality vote standard in uncontested director elections, or a majority vote standard in contested elections;

●

The inability of shareholders to call special meetings;

●

The inability of shareholders to act by written consent;

●

A multi-class capital structure; and/or

●

A non-shareholder-approved poison pill.

Management Proposals to Ratify Existing Charter or Bylaw Provisions: Vote against/withhold from individual directors, members of the governance committee, or the full board, where boards ask shareholders to ratify existing charter or bylaw provisions considering the following factors:

●

The presence of a shareholder proposal addressing the same issue on the same ballot;

●

The board’s rationale for seeking ratification;

●

Disclosure of actions to be taken by the board should the ratification proposal fail;

●

Disclosure of shareholder engagement regarding the board’s ratification request;

●

The level of impairment to shareholders’ rights caused by the existing provision;

●

The history of management and shareholder proposals on the provision at the company’s past meetings;

●

Whether the current provision was adopted in response to the shareholder proposal;

●

The company’s ownership structure; and

●

Previous use of ratification proposals to exclude shareholder proposals.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

17 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Problematic Audit-Related Practices

Generally vote against or withhold from the members of the Audit Committee if:

●

The non-audit fees paid to the auditor are excessive;

●

The company receives an adverse opinion on the company’s financial statements from its auditor; or

●

There is persuasive evidence that the Audit Committee entered into an inappropriate indemnification agreement with its auditor that limits the ability of the company, or its shareholders, to pursue legitimate legal recourse against the audit firm.

Vote case-by-case on members of the Audit Committee and potentially the full board if:

●

Poor accounting practices are identified that rise to a level of serious concern, such as: fraud; misapplication of GAAP; and material weaknesses identified in Section 404 disclosures. Examine the severity, breadth, chronological sequence, and duration, as well as the company’s efforts at remediation or corrective actions, in determining whether withhold/against votes are warranted.

Problematic Compensation Practices

In the absence of an Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) ballot item or in egregious situations, vote against or withhold from the members of the Compensation Committee and potentially the full board if:

●

There is an unmitigated misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (pay for performance);

●

The company maintains significant problematic pay practices; or

●

The board exhibits a significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders.

Generally vote against or withhold from the Compensation Committee chair, other committee members, or potentially the full board if:

●

The company fails to include a Say on Pay ballot item when required under SEC provisions, or under the company’s declared frequency of say on pay; or

●

The company fails to include a Frequency of Say on Pay ballot item when required under SEC provisions.

Generally vote against members of the board committee responsible for approving/setting non-employee director compensation if there is a pattern (i.e. two or more years) of awarding excessive non-employee director compensation without disclosing a compelling rationale or other mitigating factors.

Problematic Pledging of Company Stock:

Vote against the members of the committee that oversees risks related to pledging, or the full board, where a significant level of pledged company stock by executives or directors raises concerns. The following factors will be considered:

●

The presence of an anti-pledging policy, disclosed in the proxy statement, that prohibits future pledging activity;

●

The magnitude of aggregate pledged shares in terms of total common shares outstanding, market value, and trading volume;

●

Disclosure of progress or lack thereof in reducing the magnitude of aggregate pledged shares over time;

●

Disclosure in the proxy statement that shares subject to stock ownership and holding requirements do not include pledged company stock; and

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

18 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Any other relevant factors.

Climate Accountability

For companies that are significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters, through their operations or value chain10, generally vote against or withhold from the incumbent chair of the responsible committee (or other directors on a case-by-case basis) in cases where ISS determines that the company is not taking the minimum steps needed to understand, assess, and mitigate risks related to climate change to the company and the larger economy.

Minimum steps to understand and mitigate those risks are considered to be the following. Both minimum criteria will be required to be in alignment with the policy:

●

Detailed disclosure of climate-related risks, such as according to the framework established by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), including:

●

Board governance measures;

●

Corporate strategy;

●

Risk management analyses; and

●

Metrics and targets.

●

Appropriate GHG emissions reduction targets.

At this time, “appropriate GHG emissions reductions targets” will be medium-term GHG reduction targets or Net Zero-by-2050 GHG reduction targets for a company's operations (Scope 1) and electricity use (Scope 2). Targets should cover the vast majority of the company’s direct emissions.

Governance Failures

Under extraordinary circumstances, vote against or withhold from directors individually, committee members, or the entire board, due to:

●

Material failures of governance, stewardship, risk oversight11, or fiduciary responsibilities at the company;

●

Failure to replace management as appropriate; or

●

Egregious actions related to a director’s service on other boards that raise substantial doubt about his or her ability to effectively oversee management and serve the best interests of shareholders at any company.

Voting on Director Nominees in Contested Elections

Vote-No Campaigns

General Recommendation: In cases where companies are targeted in connection with public “vote-no” campaigns, evaluate director nominees under the existing governance policies for voting on director nominees in uncontested elections. Take into consideration the arguments submitted by shareholders and other publicly available information.

10 Companies defined as “significant GHG emitters” will be those on the current Climate Action 100+ Focus Group list.

11 Examples of failure of risk oversight include but are not limited to: bribery; large or serial fines or sanctions from regulatory bodies; demonstrably poor risk oversight of environmental and social issues, including climate change; significant adverse legal judgments or settlement; or hedging of company stock.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

19 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Proxy Contests/Proxy Access

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the election of directors in contested elections, considering the following factors:

●

Long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry;

●

Management’s track record;

●

Background to the contested election;

●

Nominee qualifications and any compensatory arrangements;

●

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

●

Likelihood that the proposed goals and objectives can be achieved (both slates); and

●

Stock ownership positions.

In the case of candidates nominated pursuant to proxy access, vote case-by-case considering any applicable factors listed above or additional factors which may be relevant, including those that are specific to the company, to the nominee(s) and/or to the nature of the election (such as whether there are more candidates than board seats).

Other Board-Related Proposals

Adopt Anti-Hedging/Pledging/Speculative Investments Policy

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals seeking a policy that prohibits named executive officers from engaging in derivative or speculative transactions involving company stock, including hedging, holding stock in a margin account, or pledging stock as collateral for a loan. However, the company’s existing policies regarding responsible use of company stock will be considered.

Board Refreshment

Board refreshment is best implemented through an ongoing program of individual director evaluations, conducted annually, to ensure the evolving needs of the board are met and to bring in fresh perspectives, skills, and diversity as needed.

Term/Tenure Limits

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals regarding director term/tenure limits, considering:

●

The rationale provided for adoption of the term/tenure limit;

●

The robustness of the company’s board evaluation process;

●

Whether the limit is of sufficient length to allow for a broad range of director tenures;

●

Whether the limit would disadvantage independent directors compared to non-independent directors; and

●

Whether the board will impose the limit evenly, and not have the ability to waive it in a discriminatory manner.

Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals asking for the company to adopt director term/tenure limits, considering:

●

The scope of the shareholder proposal; and

●

Evidence of problematic issues at the company combined with, or exacerbated by, a lack of board refreshment.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

20 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Age Limits

General Recommendation: Generally vote against management and shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of independent directors through mandatory retirement ages. Vote for proposals to remove mandatory age limits.

Board Size

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals seeking to fix the board size or designate a range for the board size.

Vote against proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board outside of a specified range without shareholder approval.

Classification/Declassification of the Board

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals to classify (stagger) the board.

Vote for proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors annually.

CEO Succession Planning

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals seeking disclosure on a CEO succession planning policy, considering, at a minimum, the following factors:

●

The reasonableness/scope of the request; and

●

The company’s existing disclosure on its current CEO succession planning process.

Cumulative Voting

General Recommendation: Generally vote against management proposals to eliminate cumulate voting, and for shareholder proposals to restore or provide for cumulative voting, unless:

●

The company has proxy access12, thereby allowing shareholders to nominate directors to the company’s ballot; and

●

The company has adopted a majority vote standard, with a carve-out for plurality voting in situations where there are more nominees than seats, and a director resignation policy to address failed elections.

Vote for proposals for cumulative voting at controlled companies (insider voting power ˃ 50%).

Director and Officer Indemnification, Liability Protection, and Exculpation

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals on director and officer indemnification, liability protection, and exculpation13.

12 A proxy access right that meets the recommended guidelines.

13 Indemnification: the condition of being secured against loss or damage.
Limited liability: a person's financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, or personal financial assets are not at risk if the individual loses a lawsuit that results in financial award/damages to the plaintiff.
Exculpation: to eliminate or limit the personal liability of a director or officer to the corporation or its shareholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director or officer.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

21 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Consider the stated rationale for the proposed change. Also consider, among other factors, the extent to which the proposal would:

●

Eliminate directors’ and officers’ liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of care;

●

Eliminate directors’ and officers’ liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of loyalty;

●

Expand coverage beyond just legal expenses to liability for acts that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligation than mere carelessness; and

●

Expand the scope of indemnification to provide for mandatory indemnification of company officials in connection with acts that previously the company was permitted to provide indemnification for, at the discretion of the company’s board (i.e., “permissive indemnification”), but that previously the company was not required to indemnify.

Vote for those proposals providing such expanded coverage in cases when a director’s or officer’s legal defense was unsuccessful if both of the following apply:

●

If the individual was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that the individual reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company; and

If only the individual’s legal expenses would be covered.

Establish/Amend Nominee Qualifications

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals that establish or amend director qualifications. Votes should be based on the reasonableness of the criteria and the degree to which they may preclude dissident nominees from joining the board.

Vote case-by-case on shareholder resolutions seeking a director nominee who possesses a particular subject matter expertise, considering:

●

The company’s board committee structure, existing subject matter expertise, and board nomination provisions relative to that of its peers;

●

The company’s existing board and management oversight mechanisms regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought;

●

The company’s disclosure and performance relating to the issue for which board oversight is sought and any significant related controversies; and

●

The scope and structure of the proposal.

Establish Other Board Committee Proposals

General Recommendation: Generally vote against shareholder proposals to establish a new board committee, as such proposals seek a specific oversight mechanism/structure that potentially limits a company’s flexibility to determine an appropriate oversight mechanism for itself. However, the following factors will be considered:

●

Existing oversight mechanisms (including current committee structure) regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought;

●

Level of disclosure regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought;

●

Company performance related to the issue for which board oversight is sought;

●

Board committee structure compared to that of other companies in its industry sector; and

●

The scope and structure of the proposal.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

22 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Filling Vacancies/Removal of Directors

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.

Vote for proposals to restore shareholders’ ability to remove directors with or without cause.

Vote against proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies. Vote for proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.

Independent Board Chair

General Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals requiring that the board chair position be filled by an independent director, taking into consideration the following:

●

The scope and rationale of the proposal;

●

The company’s current board leadership structure;

●

The company’s governance structure and practices;

●

Company performance; and

●

Any other relevant factors that may be applicable.

The following factors will increase the likelihood of a “for” recommendation:

●

A majority non-independent board and/or the presence of non-independent directors on key board committees;

●

A weak or poorly-defined lead independent director role that fails to serve as an appropriate counterbalance to a combined CEO/chair role;

●

The presence of an executive or non-independent chair in addition to the CEO, a recent recombination of the role of CEO and chair, and/or departure from a structure with an independent chair;

●

Evidence that the board has failed to oversee and address material risks facing the company;

●

A material governance failure, particularly if the board has failed to adequately respond to shareholder concerns or if the board has materially diminished shareholder rights; or

●

Evidence that the board has failed to intervene when management’s interests are contrary to shareholders’ interests.

Majority of Independent Directors/Establishment of Independent Committees

General Recommendation: Vote for shareholder proposals asking that a majority or more of directors be independent unless the board composition already meets the proposed threshold by ISS’ definition of Independent Director (See ISS’ Classification of Directors.)

Vote for shareholder proposals asking that board audit, compensation, and/or nominating committees be composed exclusively of independent directors unless they currently meet that standard.

Majority Vote Standard for the Election of Directors

General Recommendation: Generally vote for management proposals to adopt a majority of votes cast standard for directors in uncontested elections. Vote against if no carve-out for a plurality vote standard in contested elections is included.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

23 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Generally vote for precatory and binding shareholder resolutions requesting that the board change the company’s bylaws to stipulate that directors need to be elected with an affirmative majority of votes cast, provided it does not conflict with the state law where the company is incorporated. Binding resolutions need to allow for a carve-out for a plurality vote standard when there are more nominees than board seats.

Companies are strongly encouraged to also adopt a post-election policy (also known as a director resignation policy) that will provide guidelines so that the company will promptly address the situation of a holdover director.

Proxy Access

General Recommendation: Generally vote for management and shareholder proposals for proxy access with the following provisions:

●

Ownership threshold: maximum requirement not more than three percent (3%) of the voting power;

●

Ownership duration: maximum requirement not longer than three (3) years of continuous ownership for each member of the nominating group;

●

Aggregation: minimal or no limits on the number of shareholders permitted to form a nominating group; and

●

Cap: cap on nominees of generally twenty-five percent (25%) of the board.

Review for reasonableness any other restrictions on the right of proxy access. Generally vote against proposals that are more restrictive than these guidelines.

Require More Nominees than Open Seats

General Recommendation: Vote against shareholder proposals that would require a company to nominate more candidates than the number of open board seats.

Shareholder Engagement Policy (Shareholder Advisory Committee)

General Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting that the board establish an internal mechanism/process, which may include a committee, in order to improve communications between directors and shareholders, unless the company has the following features, as appropriate:

●

Established a communication structure that goes beyond the exchange requirements to facilitate the exchange of information between shareholders and members of the board;

●

Effectively disclosed information with respect to this structure to its shareholders;

●

Company has not ignored majority-supported shareholder proposals, or a majority withhold vote on a director nominee; and

●

The company has an independent chair or a lead director, according to ISS’ definition. This individual must be made available for periodic consultation and direct communication with major shareholders.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

24 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

2. Audit-Related

Auditor Indemnification and Limitation of Liability

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the issue of auditor indemnification and limitation of liability. Factors to be assessed include, but are not limited to:

●

The terms of the auditor agreement—the degree to which these agreements impact shareholders’ rights;

●

The motivation and rationale for establishing the agreements;

●

The quality of the company’s disclosure; and

●

The company’s historical practices in the audit area.

Vote against or withhold from members of an audit committee in situations where there is persuasive evidence that the audit committee entered into an inappropriate indemnification agreement with its auditor that limits the ability of the company, or its shareholders, to pursue legitimate legal recourse against the audit firm.

Auditor Ratification

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to ratify auditors unless any of the following apply:

●

An auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent;

●

There is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion that is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position;

●

Poor accounting practices are identified that rise to a serious level of concern, such as fraud or misapplication of GAAP; or

●

Fees for non-audit services (“Other” fees) are excessive.

Non-audit fees are excessive if:

●

Non-audit (“other”) fees ˃ audit fees + audit-related fees + tax compliance/preparation fees

Tax compliance and preparation include the preparation of original and amended tax returns and refund claims, and tax payment planning. All other services in the tax category, such as tax advice, planning, or consulting, should be added to “Other” fees. If the breakout of tax fees cannot be determined, add all tax fees to “Other” fees.

In circumstances where “Other” fees include fees related to significant one-time capital structure events (such as initial public offerings, bankruptcy emergence, and spin-offs) and the company makes public disclosure of the amount and nature of those fees that are an exception to the standard “non-audit fee” category, then such fees may be excluded from the non-audit fees considered in determining the ratio of non-audit to audit/audit-related fees/tax compliance and preparation for purposes of determining whether non-audit fees are excessive.

Shareholder Proposals Limiting Non-Audit Services

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals asking companies to prohibit or limit their auditors from engaging in non-audit services.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

25 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

3. Shareholder Rights & Defenses

Advance Notice Requirements for Shareholder Proposals/Nominations

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on advance notice proposals, giving support to those proposals which allow shareholders to submit proposals/nominations as close to the meeting date as reasonably possible and within the broadest window possible, recognizing the need to allow sufficient notice for company, regulatory, and shareholder review.

To be reasonable, the company’s deadline for shareholder notice of a proposal/nominations must be no earlier than 120 days prior to the anniversary of the previous year’s meeting and have a submittal window of no shorter than 30 days from the beginning of the notice period (also known as a 90-120 day window).The submittal window is the period under which shareholders must file their proposals/nominations prior to the deadline.

In general, support additional efforts by companies to ensure full disclosure in regard to a proponent’s economic and voting position in the company so long as the informational requirements are reasonable and aimed at providing shareholders with the necessary information to review such proposals.

Amend Bylaws without Shareholder Consent

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals giving the board exclusive authority to amend the bylaws.

Vote case-by-case on proposals giving the board the ability to amend the bylaws in addition to shareholders, taking into account the following:

●

Any impediments to shareholders’ ability to amend the bylaws (i.e. supermajority voting requirements);

●

The company’s ownership structure and historical voting turnout;

●

Whether the board could amend bylaws adopted by shareholders; and

●

Whether shareholders would retain the ability to ratify any board-initiated amendments.

Control Share Acquisition Provisions

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to opt out of control share acquisition statutes unless doing so would enable the completion of a takeover that would be detrimental to shareholders.

Vote against proposals to amend the charter to include control share acquisition provisions.

Vote for proposals to restore voting rights to the control shares.

Control share acquisition statutes function by denying shares their voting rights when they contribute to ownership in excess of certain thresholds. Voting rights for those shares exceeding ownership limits may only be restored by approval of either a majority or supermajority of disinterested shares. Thus, control share acquisition statutes effectively require a hostile bidder to put its offer to a shareholder vote or risk voting disenfranchisement if the bidder continues buying up a large block of shares.

Control Share Cash-Out Provisions

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to opt out of control share cash-out statutes.

Control share cash-out statutes give dissident shareholders the right to “cash-out” of their position in a company at the expense of the shareholder who has taken a control position. In other words, when an investor crosses a preset

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

27 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

threshold level, remaining shareholders are given the right to sell their shares to the acquirer, who must buy them at the highest acquiring price.

Disgorgement Provisions

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to opt out of state disgorgement provisions.

Disgorgement provisions require an acquirer or potential acquirer of more than a certain percentage of a company’s stock to disgorge, or pay back, to the company any profits realized from the sale of that company’s stock purchased 24 months before achieving control status. All sales of company stock by the acquirer occurring within a certain period of time (between 18 months and 24 months) prior to the investor’s gaining control status are subject to these recapture-of-profits provisions.

Fair Price Provisions

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to adopt fair price provisions (provisions that stipulate that an acquirer must pay the same price to acquire all shares as it paid to acquire the control shares), evaluating factors such as the vote required to approve the proposed acquisition, the vote required to repeal the fair price provision, and the mechanism for determining the fair price.

Generally vote against fair price provisions with shareholder vote requirements greater than a majority of disinterested shares.

Freeze-Out Provisions

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to opt out of state freeze-out provisions. Freeze-out provisions force an investor who surpasses a certain ownership threshold in a company to wait a specified period of time before gaining control of the company.

Greenmail

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.

Vote case-by-case on anti-greenmail proposals when they are bundled with other charter or bylaw amendments.

Greenmail payments are targeted share repurchases by management of company stock from individuals or groups seeking control of the company. Since only the hostile party receives payment, usually at a substantial premium over the market value of its shares, the practice discriminates against all other shareholders.

Shareholder Litigation Rights

Federal Forum Selection Provisions

Federal forum selection provisions require that U.S. federal courts be the sole forum for shareholders to litigate claims arising under federal securities law.

General Recommendation: Generally vote for federal forum selection provisions in the charter or bylaws that specify "the district courts of the United States" as the exclusive forum for federal securities law matters, in the absence of serious concerns about corporate governance or board responsiveness to shareholders.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

28 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Vote against provisions that restrict the forum to a particular federal district court; unilateral adoption (without a shareholder vote) of such a provision will generally be considered a one-time failure under the Unilateral Bylaw/Charter Amendments policy.

Exclusive Forum Provisions for State Law Matters

Exclusive forum provisions in the charter or bylaws restrict shareholders’ ability to bring derivative lawsuits against the company, for claims arising out of state corporate law, to the courts of a particular state (generally the state of incorporation).

General Recommendation: Generally vote for charter or bylaw provisions that specify courts located within the state of Delaware as the exclusive forum for corporate law matters for Delaware corporations, in the absence of serious concerns about corporate governance or board responsiveness to shareholders.

For states other than Delaware, vote case-by-case on exclusive forum provisions, taking into consideration:

●

The company's stated rationale for adopting such a provision;

●

Disclosure of past harm from duplicative shareholder lawsuits in more than one forum;

●

The breadth of application of the charter or bylaw provision, including the types of lawsuits to which it would apply and the definition of key terms; and

●

Governance features such as shareholders' ability to repeal the provision at a later date (including the vote standard applied when shareholders attempt to amend the charter or bylaws) and their ability to hold directors accountable through annual director elections and a majority vote standard in uncontested elections.

Generally vote against provisions that specify a state other than the state of incorporation as the exclusive forum for corporate law matters, or that specify a particular local court within the state; unilateral adoption of such a provision will generally be considered a one-time failure under the Unilateral Bylaw/Charter Amendments policy.

Fee shifting

Fee-shifting provisions in the charter or bylaws require that a shareholder who sues a company unsuccessfully pay all litigation expenses of the defendant corporation and its directors and officers.

General Recommendation: Generally vote against provisions that mandate fee-shifting whenever plaintiffs are not completely successful on the merits (i.e., including cases where the plaintiffs are partially successful).

Unilateral adoption of a fee-shifting provision will generally be considered an ongoing failure under the Unilateral Bylaw/Charter Amendments policy.

Net Operating Loss (NOL) Protective Amendments

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals to adopt a protective amendment for the stated purpose of protecting a company’s net operating losses (NOL) if the effective term of the protective amendment would exceed the shorter of three years and the exhaustion of the NOL.

Vote case-by-case, considering the following factors, for management proposals to adopt an NOL protective amendment that would remain in effect for the shorter of three years (or less) and the exhaustion of the NOL:

●

The ownership threshold (NOL protective amendments generally prohibit stock ownership transfers that would result in a new 5-percent holder or increase the stock ownership percentage of an existing 5-percent holder);

●

The value of the NOLs;

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

29 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Shareholder protection mechanisms (sunset provision or commitment to cause expiration of the protective amendment upon exhaustion or expiration of the NOL);

●

The company’s existing governance structure including: board independence, existing takeover defenses, track record of responsiveness to shareholders, and any other problematic governance concerns; and

●

Any other factors that may be applicable.

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)

Shareholder Proposals to Put Pill to a Vote and/or Adopt a Pill Policy

General Recommendation: Vote for shareholder proposals requesting that the company submit its poison pill to a shareholder vote or redeem it unless the company has: (1) A shareholder approved poison pill in place; or (2) The company has adopted a policy concerning the adoption of a pill in the future specifying that the board will only adopt a shareholder rights plan if either:

●

Shareholders have approved the adoption of the plan; or

●

The board, in its exercise of its fiduciary responsibilities, determines that it is in the best interest of shareholders under the circumstances to adopt a pill without the delay in adoption that would result from seeking stockholder approval (i.e., the “fiduciary out” provision). A poison pill adopted under this fiduciary out will be put to a shareholder ratification vote within 12 months of adoption or expire. If the pill is not approved by a majority of the votes cast on this issue, the plan will immediately terminate.

If the shareholder proposal calls for a time period of less than 12 months for shareholder ratification after adoption, vote for the proposal, but add the caveat that a vote within 12 months would be considered sufficient implementation.

Management Proposals to Ratify a Poison Pill

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals on poison pill ratification, focusing on the features of the shareholder rights plan. Rights plans should contain the following attributes:

●

No lower than a 20 percent trigger, flip-in or flip-over;

●

A term of no more than three years;

●

No deadhand, slowhand, no-hand, or similar feature that limits the ability of a future board to redeem the pill; and

●

Shareholder redemption feature (qualifying offer clause); if the board refuses to redeem the pill 90 days after a qualifying offer is announced, 10 percent of the shares may call a special meeting or seek a written consent to vote on rescinding the pill.

In addition, the rationale for adopting the pill should be thoroughly explained by the company. In examining the request for the pill, take into consideration the company’s existing governance structure, including: board independence, existing takeover defenses, and any problematic governance concerns.

Management Proposals to Ratify a Pill to Preserve Net Operating Losses (NOLs)

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals to adopt a poison pill for the stated purpose of protecting a company’s net operating losses (NOL) if the term of the pill would exceed the shorter of three years and the exhaustion of the NOL.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

30 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Vote case-by-case on management proposals for poison pill ratification, considering the following factors, if the term of the pill would be the shorter of three years (or less) and the exhaustion of the NOL:

●

The ownership threshold to transfer (NOL pills generally have a trigger slightly below 5 percent);

●

The value of the NOLs;

●

Shareholder protection mechanisms (sunset provision, or commitment to cause expiration of the pill upon exhaustion or expiration of NOLs);

●

Any other factors that may be applicable.

Proxy Voting Disclosure, Confidentiality, and Tabulation

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding proxy voting mechanics, taking into consideration whether implementation of the proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder rights. Specific issues covered under the policy include, but are not limited to, confidential voting of individual proxies and ballots, confidentiality of running vote tallies, and the treatment of abstentions and/or broker non-votes in the company’s vote-counting methodology.

While a variety of factors may be considered in each analysis, the guiding principles are: transparency, consistency, and fairness in the proxy voting process. The factors considered, as applicable to the proposal, may include:

●

The scope and structure of the proposal;

●

The company’s stated confidential voting policy (or other relevant policies) and whether it ensures a “level playing field” by providing shareholder proponents with equal access to vote information prior to the annual meeting;

●

The company’s vote standard for management and shareholder proposals and whether it ensures consistency and fairness in the proxy voting process and maintains the integrity of vote results;

●

Whether the company’s disclosure regarding its vote counting method and other relevant voting policies with respect to management and shareholder proposals are consistent and clear;

●

Any recent controversies or concerns related to the company’s proxy voting mechanics;

●

Any unintended consequences resulting from implementation of the proposal; and

●

Any other factors that may be relevant.

Ratification Proposals: Management Proposals to Ratify Existing Charter or Bylaw Provisions

General Recommendation: Generally vote against management proposals to ratify provisions of the company’s existing charter or bylaws, unless these governance provisions align with best practice.

In addition, voting against/withhold from individual directors, members of the governance committee, or the full board may be warranted, considering:

●

The presence of a shareholder proposal addressing the same issue on the same ballot;

●

The board’s rationale for seeking ratification;

●

Disclosure of actions to be taken by the board should the ratification proposal fail;

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

31 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Disclosure of shareholder engagement regarding the board’s ratification request;

●

The level of impairment to shareholders’ rights caused by the existing provision;

●

The history of management and shareholder proposals on the provision at the company’s past meetings;

●

Whether the current provision was adopted in response to the shareholder proposal;

●

The company’s ownership structure; and

●

Previous use of ratification proposals to exclude shareholder proposals.

Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses.

When voting in conjunction with support of a dissident slate, vote for the reimbursement of all appropriate proxy solicitation expenses associated with the election.

Generally vote for shareholder proposals calling for the reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred in connection with nominating one or more candidates in a contested election where the following apply:

●

The election of fewer than 50 percent of the directors to be elected is contested in the election;

●

One or more of the dissident’s candidates is elected;

●

Shareholders are not permitted to cumulate their votes for directors; and

●

The election occurred, and the expenses were incurred, after the adoption of this bylaw.

Reincorporation Proposals

General Recommendation: Management or shareholder proposals to change a company’s state of incorporation should be evaluated case-by-case, giving consideration to both financial and corporate governance concerns including the following:

●

Reasons for reincorporation;

●

Comparison of company’s governance practices and provisions prior to and following the reincorporation; and

●

Comparison of corporation laws of original state and destination state.

Vote for reincorporation when the economic factors outweigh any neutral or negative governance changes.

Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

General Recommendation: Generally vote against management and shareholder proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholders’ ability to act by written consent.

Generally vote for management and shareholder proposals that provide shareholders with the ability to act by written consent, taking into account the following factors:

●

Shareholders’ current right to act by written consent;

●

The consent threshold;

●

The inclusion of exclusionary or prohibitive language;

●

Investor ownership structure; and

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

32 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Shareholder support of, and management’s response to, previous shareholder proposals.

Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals if, in addition to the considerations above, the company has the following governance and antitakeover provisions:

●

An unfettered14 right for shareholders to call special meetings at a 10 percent threshold;

●

A majority vote standard in uncontested director elections;

●

No non-shareholder-approved pill; and

●

An annually elected board.

Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings

General Recommendation: Vote against management or shareholder proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholders’ ability to call special meetings.

Generally vote for management or shareholder proposals that provide shareholders with the ability to call special meetings taking into account the following factors:

●

Shareholders’ current right to call special meetings;

●

Minimum ownership threshold necessary to call special meetings (10 percent preferred);

●

The inclusion of exclusionary or prohibitive language;

●

Investor ownership structure; and

●

Shareholder support of, and management’s response to, previous shareholder proposals.

Stakeholder Provisions

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals that ask the board to consider non-shareholder constituencies or other non-financial effects when evaluating a merger or business combination.

State Antitakeover Statutes

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, and anti-greenmail provisions).

Supermajority Vote Requirements

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote.

Vote for management or shareholder proposals to reduce supermajority vote requirements. However, for companies with shareholder(s) who have significant ownership levels, vote case-by-case, taking into account:

●

Ownership structure;

●

Quorum requirements; and

14 “Unfettered” means no restrictions on agenda items, no restrictions on the number of shareholders who can group together to reach the 10 percent threshold, and only reasonable limits on when a meeting can be called: no greater than 30 days after the last annual meeting and no greater than 90 prior to the next annual meeting.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

33 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

4. Capital/Restructuring

Capital

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock

General Recommendation: Vote for management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock unless the action is being taken to facilitate an anti-takeover device or some other negative corporate governance action.

Vote for management proposals to eliminate par value.

Common Stock Authorization

General Authorization Requests

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of common stock that are to be used for general corporate purposes:

●

If share usage (outstanding plus reserved) is less than 50% of the current authorized shares, vote for an increase of up to 50% of current authorized shares;

●

If share usage is 50% to 100% of the current authorized, vote for an increase of up to 100% of current authorized shares;

●

If share usage is greater than current authorized shares, vote for an increase of up to the current share usage; or

●

In the case of a stock split, the allowable increase is calculated (per above) based on the post-split adjusted authorization.

Generally vote against proposed increases, even if within the above ratios, if the proposal or the company’s prior or ongoing use of authorized shares is problematic, including, but not limited to:

●

The proposal seeks to increase the number of authorized shares of the class of common stock that has superior voting rights to other share classes;

●

On the same ballot is a proposal for a reverse split for which support is warranted despite the fact that it would result in an excessive increase in the share authorization;

●

The company has a non-shareholder approved poison pill (including an NOL pill); or

●

The company has previous sizeable placements (within the past 3 years) of stock with insiders at prices substantially below market value, or with problematic voting rights, without shareholder approval.

However, generally vote for proposed increases beyond the above ratios or problematic situations when there is disclosure of specific and severe risks to shareholders of not approving the request, such as:

●

In, or subsequent to, the company’s most recent 10-K filing, the company discloses that there is substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern;

●

The company states that there is a risk of imminent bankruptcy or imminent liquidation if shareholders do not approve the increase in authorized capital; or

●

A government body has in the past year required the company to increase its capital ratios.

For companies incorporated in states that allow increases in authorized capital without shareholder approval, generally vote withhold or against all nominees if a unilateral capital authorization increase does not conform to the above policies.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

35 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Specific Authorization Requests

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals to increase the number of authorized common shares where the primary purpose of the increase is to issue shares in connection with transaction(s) (such as acquisitions, SPAC transactions, private placements, or similar transactions) on the same ballot, or disclosed in the proxy statement, that warrant support. For such transactions, the allowable increase will be the greater of:

●

twice the amount needed to support the transactions on the ballot, and

●

the allowable increase as calculated for general issuances above.

Dual Class Structure

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals to create a new class of common stock unless:

●

The company discloses a compelling rationale for the dual-class capital structure, such as:

●

The company’s auditor has concluded that there is substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern; or

●

The new class of shares will be transitory;

●

The new class is intended for financing purposes with minimal or no dilution to current shareholders in both the short term and long term; and

●

The new class is not designed to preserve or increase the voting power of an insider or significant shareholder.

Issue Stock for Use with Rights Plan

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals that increase authorized common stock for the explicit purpose of implementing a non-shareholder-approved shareholder rights plan (poison pill).

Preemptive Rights

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals that seek preemptive rights, taking into consideration:

●

The size of the company;

●

The shareholder base; and

●

The liquidity of the stock.

Preferred Stock Authorization

General Authorization Requests

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to increase the number of authorized shares of preferred stock that are to be used for general corporate purposes:

●

If share usage (outstanding plus reserved) is less than 50% of the current authorized shares, vote for an increase of up to 50% of current authorized shares;

●

If share usage is 50% to 100% of the current authorized, vote for an increase of up to 100% of current authorized shares;

●

If share usage is greater than current authorized shares, vote for an increase of up to the current share usage;

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

36 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

In the case of a stock split, the allowable increase is calculated (per above) based on the post-split adjusted authorization; or

●

If no preferred shares are currently issued and outstanding, vote against the request, unless the company discloses a specific use for the shares.

Generally vote against proposed increases, even if within the above ratios, if the proposal or the company’s prior or ongoing use of authorized shares is problematic, including, but not limited to:

●

If the shares requested are blank check preferred shares that can be used for antitakeover purposes;16

●

The company seeks to increase a class of non-convertible preferred shares entitled to more than one vote per share on matters that do not solely affect the rights of preferred stockholders “supervoting shares”);

●

The company seeks to increase a class of convertible preferred shares entitled to a number of votes greater than the number of common shares into which they are convertible (“supervoting shares”) on matters that do not solely affect the rights of preferred stockholders;

●

The stated intent of the increase in the general authorization is to allow the company to increase an existing designated class of supervoting preferred shares;

●

On the same ballot is a proposal for a reverse split for which support is warranted despite the fact that it would result in an excessive increase in the share authorization;

●

The company has a non-shareholder approved poison pill (including an NOL pill); and

●

In, or subsequent to, the company’s most recent 10-K filing, the company discloses that there is substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern;

●

The company states that there is a risk of imminent bankruptcy or imminent liquidation if shareholders do not approve the increase in authorized capital; or

●

A government body has in the past year required the company to increase its capital ratios.

Specific Authorization Requests

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals to increase the number of authorized preferred shares where the primary purpose of the increase is to issue shares in connection with transaction(s) (such as acquisitions, SPAC transactions, private placements, or similar transactions) on the same ballot, or disclosed in the proxy statement, that warrant support. For such transactions, the allowable increase will be the greater of:

●

twice the amount needed to support the transactions on the ballot, and

●

the allowable increase as calculated for general issuances above.

16 To be acceptable, appropriate disclosure would be needed that the shares are “declawed”: i.e., representation by the board that it will not, without prior stockholder approval, issue or use the preferred stock for any defensive or anti-takeover purpose or for the purpose of implementing any stockholder rights plan.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

37 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Recapitalization Plans

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on recapitalizations (reclassifications of securities), taking into account the following:

●

More simplified capital structure;

●

Enhanced liquidity;

●

Fairness of conversion terms;

●

Impact on voting power and dividends;

●

Reasons for the reclassification;

●

Conflicts of interest; and

●

Other alternatives considered.

Reverse Stock Splits

General Recommendation: Vote for management proposals to implement a reverse stock split if:

●

The number of authorized shares will be proportionately reduced; or

●

The effective increase in authorized shares is equal to or less than the allowable increase calculated in accordance with ISS’ Common Stock Authorization policy.

Vote case-by-case on proposals that do not meet either of the above conditions, taking into consideration the following factors:

●

Stock exchange notification to the company of a potential delisting;

●

Disclosure of substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern without additional financing;

●

The company’s rationale; or

●

Other factors as applicable.

Share Issuance Mandates at U.S. Domestic Issuers Incorporated Outside the U.S. 

General Recommendation: For U.S. domestic issuers incorporated outside the U.S. and listed solely on a U.S. exchange, generally vote for resolutions to authorize the issuance of common shares up to 20 percent of currently issued common share capital, where not tied to a specific transaction or financing proposal.

For pre-revenue or other early-stage companies that are heavily reliant on periodic equity financing, generally vote for resolutions to authorize the issuance of common shares up to 50 percent of currently issued common share capital. The burden of proof will be on the company to establish that it has a need for the higher limit.

Renewal of such mandates should be sought at each year’s annual meeting.

Vote case-by-case on share issuances for a specific transaction or financing proposal.

Share Repurchase Programs

General Recommendation: For U.S.-incorporated companies, and foreign-incorporated U.S. Domestic Issuers that are traded solely on U.S. exchanges, vote for management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

38 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms, or to grant the board authority to conduct open-market repurchases, in the absence of company-specific concerns regarding:

●

Greenmail;

●

The use of buybacks to inappropriately manipulate incentive compensation metrics;

●

Threats to the company’s long-term viability; or

●

Other company-specific factors as warranted.

Vote case-by-case on proposals to repurchase shares directly from specified shareholders, balancing the stated rationale against the possibility for the repurchase authority to be misused, such as to repurchase shares from insiders at a premium to market price.

Share Repurchase Programs Shareholder Proposals

General Recommendation: Generally vote against shareholder proposals prohibiting executives from selling shares of company stock during periods in which the company has announced that it may or will be repurchasing shares of its stock. Vote for the proposal when there is a pattern of abuse by executives exercising options or selling shares during periods of share buybacks.

Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends

General Recommendation: Generally vote for management proposals to increase the common share authorization for stock split or stock dividend, provided that the effective increase in authorized shares is equal to or is less than the allowable increase calculated in accordance with ISS’ Common Stock Authorization policy.

Tracking Stock

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the creation of tracking stock, weighing the strategic value of the transaction against such factors as:

●

Adverse governance changes;

●

Excessive increases in authorized capital stock;

●

Unfair method of distribution;

●

Diminution of voting rights;

●

Adverse conversion features;

●

Negative impact on stock option plans; and

●

Alternatives such as spin-off.

Restructuring

Appraisal Rights

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to restore or provide shareholders with rights of appraisal.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

39 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Asset Purchases

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on asset purchase proposals, considering the following factors:

●

Purchase price;

●

Fairness opinion;

●

Financial and strategic benefits;

●

How the deal was negotiated;

●

Conflicts of interest;

●

Other alternatives for the business; and

●

Non-completion risk.

Asset Sales

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on asset sales, considering the following factors:

●

Impact on the balance sheet/working capital;

●

Potential elimination of diseconomies;

●

Anticipated financial and operating benefits;

●

Anticipated use of funds;

●

Value received for the asset;

●

Fairness opinion;

●

How the deal was negotiated; and

●

Conflicts of interest.

Bundled Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on bundled or “conditional” proxy proposals. In the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, examine the benefits and costs of the packaged items. In instances when the joint effect of the conditioned items is not in shareholders’ best interests, vote against the proposals. If the combined effect is positive, support such proposals.

Conversion of Securities

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding conversion of securities. When evaluating these proposals, the investor should review the dilution to existing shareholders, the conversion price relative to market value, financial issues, control issues, termination penalties, and conflicts of interest.

Vote for the conversion if it is expected that the company will be subject to onerous penalties or will be forced to file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

40 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Corporate Reorganization/Debt Restructuring/Prepackaged Bankruptcy Plans/Reverse Leveraged Buyouts/Wrap Plans

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan, after evaluating:

●

Dilution to existing shareholders’ positions;

●

Terms of the offer - discount/premium in purchase price to investor, including any fairness opinion; termination penalties; exit strategy;

●

Financial issues - company’s financial situation; degree of need for capital; use of proceeds; effect of the financing on the company’s cost of capital;

●

Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives;

●

Control issues - change in management; change in control, guaranteed board and committee seats; standstill provisions; voting agreements; veto power over certain corporate actions; and

●

Conflict of interest - arm’s length transaction, managerial incentives.

Vote for the debt restructuring if it is expected that the company will file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

Formation of Holding Company

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding the formation of a holding company, taking into consideration the following:

●

The reasons for the change;

●

Any financial or tax benefits;

●

Regulatory benefits;

●

Increases in capital structure; and

●

Changes to the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the company.

Absent compelling financial reasons to recommend for the transaction, vote against the formation of a holding company if the transaction would include either of the following:

●

Increases in common or preferred stock in excess of the allowable maximum (see discussion under “Capital”); or

●

Adverse changes in shareholder rights.

Going Private and Going Dark Transactions (LBOs and Minority Squeeze-outs)

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on going private transactions, taking into account the following:

●

Offer price/premium;

●

Fairness opinion;

●

How the deal was negotiated;

●

Conflicts of interest;

●

Other alternatives/offers considered; and

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

41 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Non-completion risk.

Vote case-by-case on going dark transactions, determining whether the transaction enhances shareholder value by taking into consideration:

●

Whether the company has attained benefits from being publicly-traded (examination of trading volume, liquidity, and market research of the stock); and

●

Balanced interests of continuing vs. cashed-out shareholders, taking into account the following:

●

Are all shareholders able to participate in the transaction?

●

Will there be a liquid market for remaining shareholders following the transaction?

●

Does the company have strong corporate governance?

●

Will insiders reap the gains of control following the proposed transaction? and

●

Does the state of incorporation have laws requiring continued reporting that may benefit shareholders?

Joint Ventures

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to form joint ventures, taking into account the following:

●

Percentage of assets/business contributed;

●

Percentage ownership;

●

Financial and strategic benefits;

●

Governance structure;

●

Conflicts of interest;

●

Other alternatives; and

●

Non-completion risk.

Liquidations

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on liquidations, taking into account the following:

●

Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives;

●

Appraisal value of assets; and

●

The compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation.

Vote for the liquidation if the company will file for bankruptcy if the proposal is not approved.

Mergers and Acquisitions

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on mergers and acquisitions. Review and evaluate the merits and drawbacks of the proposed transaction, balancing various and sometimes countervailing factors including:

●

Valuation - Is the value to be received by the target shareholders (or paid by the acquirer) reasonable? While the fairness opinion may provide an initial starting point for assessing valuation reasonableness, emphasis is placed on the offer premium, market reaction, and strategic rationale.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

42 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Market reaction - How has the market responded to the proposed deal? A negative market reaction should cause closer scrutiny of a deal.

●

Strategic rationale - Does the deal make sense strategically? From where is the value derived? Cost and revenue synergies should not be overly aggressive or optimistic, but reasonably achievable. Management should also have a favorable track record of successful integration of historical acquisitions.

●

Negotiations and process - Were the terms of the transaction negotiated at arm’s-length? Was the process fair and equitable? A fair process helps to ensure the best price for shareholders. Significant negotiation “wins” can also signify the deal makers’ competency. The comprehensiveness of the sales process (e.g., full auction, partial auction, no auction) can also affect shareholder value.

●

Conflicts of interest - Are insiders benefiting from the transaction disproportionately and inappropriately as compared to non-insider shareholders? As the result of potential conflicts, the directors and officers of the company may be more likely to vote to approve a merger than if they did not hold these interests. Consider whether these interests may have influenced these directors and officers to support or recommend the merger. The CIC figure presented in the “ISS Transaction Summary” section of this report is an aggregate figure that can in certain cases be a misleading indicator of the true value transfer from shareholders to insiders. Where such figure appears to be excessive, analyze the underlying assumptions to determine whether a potential conflict exists.

●

Governance - Will the combined company have a better or worse governance profile than the current governance profiles of the respective parties to the transaction? If the governance profile is to change for the worse, the burden is on the company to prove that other issues (such as valuation) outweigh any deterioration in governance.

Private Placements/Warrants/Convertible Debentures

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding private placements, warrants, and convertible debentures taking into consideration:

●

Dilution to existing shareholders’ position: The amount and timing of shareholder ownership dilution should be weighed against the needs and proposed shareholder benefits of the capital infusion. Although newly issued common stock, absent preemptive rights, is typically dilutive to existing shareholders, share price appreciation is often the necessary event to trigger the exercise of “out of the money” warrants and convertible debt. In these instances from a value standpoint, the negative impact of dilution is mitigated by the increase in the company’s stock price that must occur to trigger the dilutive event.

●

Terms of the offer (discount/premium in purchase price to investor, including any fairness opinion, conversion features, termination penalties, exit strategy):

●

The terms of the offer should be weighed against the alternatives of the company and in light of company’s financial condition. Ideally, the conversion price for convertible debt and the exercise price for warrants should be at a premium to the then prevailing stock price at the time of private placement.

●

When evaluating the magnitude of a private placement discount or premium, consider factors that influence the discount or premium, such as, liquidity, due diligence costs, control and monitoring costs, capital scarcity, information asymmetry, and anticipation of future performance.

●

Financial issues:

●

The company’s financial condition;

●

Degree of need for capital;

●

Use of proceeds;

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

43 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Effect of the financing on the company’s cost of capital;

●

Current and proposed cash burn rate; and

●

Going concern viability and the state of the capital and credit markets.

●

Management’s efforts to pursue alternatives and whether the company engaged in a process to evaluate alternatives: A fair, unconstrained process helps to ensure the best price for shareholders. Financing alternatives can include joint ventures, partnership, merger, or sale of part or all of the company.

●

Control issues:

●

Change in management;

●

Change in control;

●

Guaranteed board and committee seats;

●

Standstill provisions;

●

Voting agreements;

●

Veto power over certain corporate actions; and

●

Minority versus majority ownership and corresponding minority discount or majority control premium.

●

Conflicts of interest:

●

Conflicts of interest should be viewed from the perspective of the company and the investor; and

●

Were the terms of the transaction negotiated at arm’s length? Are managerial incentives aligned with shareholder interests?

●

Market reaction:

●

The market’s response to the proposed deal. A negative market reaction is a cause for concern. Market reaction may be addressed by analyzing the one day impact on the unaffected stock price.

Vote for the private placement, or for the issuance of warrants and/or convertible debentures in a private placement, if it is expected that the company will file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not approved.

Reorganization/Restructuring Plan (Bankruptcy)

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to common shareholders on bankruptcy plans of reorganization, considering the following factors including, but not limited to:

●

Estimated value and financial prospects of the reorganized company;

●

Percentage ownership of current shareholders in the reorganized company;

●

Whether shareholders are adequately represented in the reorganization process (particularly through the existence of an Official Equity Committee);

●

The cause(s) of the bankruptcy filing, and the extent to which the plan of reorganization addresses the cause(s);

●

Existence of a superior alternative to the plan of reorganization; and

●

Governance of the reorganized company.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

44 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs)

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on SPAC mergers and acquisitions taking into account the following:

●

Valuation - Is the value being paid by the SPAC reasonable? SPACs generally lack an independent fairness opinion and the financials on the target may be limited. Compare the conversion price with the intrinsic value of the target company provided in the fairness opinion. Also, evaluate the proportionate value of the combined entity attributable to the SPAC IPO shareholders versus the pre-merger value of SPAC. Additionally, a private company discount may be applied to the target if it is a private entity.

●

Market reaction - How has the market responded to the proposed deal? A negative market reaction may be a cause for concern. Market reaction may be addressed by analyzing the one-day impact on the unaffected stock price.

●

Deal timing - A main driver for most transactions is that the SPAC charter typically requires the deal to be complete within 18 to 24 months, or the SPAC is to be liquidated. Evaluate the valuation, market reaction, and potential conflicts of interest for deals that are announced close to the liquidation date.

●

Negotiations and process - What was the process undertaken to identify potential target companies within specified industry or location specified in charter? Consider the background of the sponsors.

●

Conflicts of interest - How are sponsors benefiting from the transaction compared to IPO shareholders? Potential conflicts could arise if a fairness opinion is issued by the insiders to qualify the deal rather than a third party or if management is encouraged to pay a higher price for the target because of an 80 percent rule (the charter requires that the fair market value of the target is at least equal to 80 percent of net assets of the SPAC). Also, there may be sense of urgency by the management team of the SPAC to close the deal since its charter typically requires a transaction to be completed within the 18-24 month timeframe.

●

Voting agreements - Are the sponsors entering into enter into any voting agreements/tender offers with shareholders who are likely to vote against the proposed merger or exercise conversion rights?

●

Governance - What is the impact of having the SPAC CEO or founder on key committees following the proposed merger?

Special Purpose Acquisition Corporations (SPACs) - Proposals for Extensions

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on SPAC extension proposals taking into account the length of the requested extension, the status of any pending transaction(s) or progression of the acquisition process, any added incentive for non-redeeming shareholders, and any prior extension requests.

●

Length of request: Typically, extension requests range from two to six months, depending on the progression of the SPAC’s acquistion process.

●

Pending transaction(s) or progression of the acquisition process: Sometimes an intial business combination was already put to a shareholder vote, but, for varying reasons, the transaction could not be consummated by the termination date and the SPAC is requesting an extension. Other times, the SPAC has entered into a definitive transaction agreement, but needs additional time to consummate or hold the shareholder meeting.

●

Added incentive for non-redeeming shareholders: Sometimes the SPAC sponsor (or other insiders) will contribute, typically as a loan to the company, additional funds that will be added to the redemption value of each public share as long as such shares are not redeemed in connection with the extension request. The purpose of the “equity kicker” is to incentivize shareholders to hold their shares through the end of the requested extension or until the time the transaction is put to a shareholder vote, rather than electing redeemption at the extension proposal meeting.

●

Prior extension requests: Some SPACs request additional time beyond the extension period sought in prior extension requests.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

45 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Spin-offs

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on spin-offs, considering:

●

Tax and regulatory advantages;

●

Planned use of the sale proceeds;

●

Valuation of spinoff;

●

Fairness opinion;

●

Benefits to the parent company;

●

Conflicts of interest;

●

Managerial incentives;

●

Corporate governance changes; and

●

Changes in the capital structure.

Value Maximization Shareholder Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals seeking to maximize shareholder value by:

●

Hiring a financial advisor to explore strategic alternatives;

●

Selling the company; or

●

Liquidating the company and distributing the proceeds to shareholders.

These proposals should be evaluated based on the following factors:

●

Prolonged poor performance with no turnaround in sight;

●

Signs of entrenched board and management (such as the adoption of takeover defenses);

●

Strategic plan in place for improving value;

●

Likelihood of receiving reasonable value in a sale or dissolution; and

●

The company actively exploring its strategic options, including retaining a financial advisor.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

46 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

5. Compensation

Executive Pay Evaluation

Underlying all evaluations are five global principles that most investors expect corporations to adhere to in designing and administering executive and director compensation programs:

Maintain appropriate pay-for-performance alignment, with emphasis on long-term shareholder value: This principle encompasses overall executive pay practices, which must be designed to attract, retain, and appropriately motivate the key employees who drive shareholder value creation over the long term. It will take into consideration, among other factors, the link between pay and performance; the mix between fixed and variable pay; performance goals; and equity-based plan costs;

Avoid arrangements that risk “pay for failure”: This principle addresses the appropriateness of long or indefinite contracts, excessive severance packages, and guaranteed compensation;

Maintain an independent and effective compensation committee: This principle promotes oversight of executive pay programs by directors with appropriate skills, knowledge, experience, and a sound process for compensation decision-making (e.g., including access to independent expertise and advice when needed);

Provide shareholders with clear, comprehensive compensation disclosures: This principle underscores the importance of informative and timely disclosures that enable shareholders to evaluate executive pay practices fully and fairly; and

Avoid inappropriate pay to non-executive directors: This principle recognizes the interests of shareholders in ensuring that compensation to outside directors is reasonable and does not compromise their independence and ability to make appropriate judgments in overseeing managers’ pay and performance. At the market level, it may incorporate a variety of generally accepted best practices.

Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation—Management Proposals (Say-on-Pay)

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on ballot items related to executive pay and practices, as well as certain aspects of outside director compensation.

Vote against Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay or “SOP”) if:

●

There is an unmitigated misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (pay for performance);

●

The company maintains significant problematic pay practices; or

●

The board exhibits a significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders.

Vote against or withhold from the members of the Compensation Committee and potentially the full board if:

●

There is no SOP on the ballot, and an against vote on an SOP would otherwise be warranted due to pay-for- performance misalignment, problematic pay practices, or the lack of adequate responsiveness on compensation issues raised previously, or a combination thereof;

●

The board fails to respond adequately to a previous SOP proposal that received less than 70 percent support of votes cast;

●

The company has recently practiced or approved problematic pay practices, such as option repricing or option backdating; or

●

The situation is egregious.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

47 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Primary Evaluation Factors for Executive Pay

Pay-for-Performance Evaluation

ISS annually conducts a pay-for-performance analysis to identify strong or satisfactory alignment between pay and performance over a sustained period. With respect to companies in the S&P1500, Russell 3000, or Russell 3000E Indices17, this analysis considers the following:

Peer Group18 Alignment:

●

The degree of alignment between the company’s annualized TSR rank and the CEO’s annualized total pay rank within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period.

●

The rankings of CEO total pay and company financial performance within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period.

●

The multiple of the CEO’s total pay relative to the peer group median in the most recent fiscal year.

Absolute Alignment19 – the absolute alignment between the trend in CEO pay and company TSR over the prior five fiscal years – i.e., the difference between the trend in annual pay changes and the trend in annualized TSR during the period.

If the above analysis demonstrates significant unsatisfactory long-term pay-for-performance alignment or, in the case of companies outside the Russell indices, a misalignment between pay and performance is otherwise suggested, our analysis may include any of the following qualitative factors, as relevant to an evaluation of how various pay elements may work to encourage or to undermine long-term value creation and alignment with shareholder interests:

●

The ratio of performance- to time-based incentive awards;

●

The overall ratio of performance-based compensation to fixed or discretionary pay;

●

The rigor of performance goals;

●

The complexity and risks around pay program design;

●

The transparency and clarity of disclosure;

●

The company’s peer group benchmarking practices;

●

Financial/operational results, both absolute and relative to peers;

●

Special circumstances related to, for example, a new CEO in the prior FY or anomalous equity grant practices (e.g., bi-annual awards);

●

Realizable pay20 compared to grant pay; and

●

Any other factors deemed relevant.

17 The Russell 3000E Index includes approximately 4,000 of the largest U.S. equity securities.

18 The revised peer group is generally comprised of 14-24 companies that are selected using market cap, revenue (or assets for certain financial firms), GICS industry group, and company’s selected peers’ GICS industry group, with size constraints, via a process designed to select peers that are comparable to the subject company in terms of revenue/assets and industry, and also within a market-cap bucket that is reflective of the company’s market cap. For Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels companies, market cap is the only size determinant.

19 Only Russell 3000 Index companies are subject to the Absolute Alignment analysis.

20 ISS research reports include realizable pay for S&P1500 companies.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

48 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Problematic Pay Practices

Problematic pay elements are generally evaluated case-by-case considering the context of a company's overall pay program and demonstrated pay-for-performance philosophy. The focus is on executive compensation practices that contravene the global pay principles, including:

●

Problematic practices related to non-performance-based compensation elements;

●

Incentives that may motivate excessive risk-taking or present a windfall risk; and

●

Pay decisions that circumvent pay-for-performance, such as options backdating or waiving performance requirements.

The list of examples below highlights certain problematic practices that carry significant weight in this overall consideration and may result in adverse vote recommendations:

●

Repricing or replacing of underwater stock options/SARs without prior shareholder approval (including cash buyouts and voluntary surrender of underwater options);

●

Extraordinary perquisites or tax gross-ups;

●

New or materially amended agreements that provide for:

●

Excessive termination or CIC severance payments (generally exceeding 3 times base salary and average/ target/most recent bonus);

●

CIC severance payments without involuntary job loss or substantial diminution of duties (“single” or “modified single” triggers) or in connection with a problematic Good Reason definition;

●

CIC excise tax gross-up entitlements (including “modified” gross-ups); and/or

●

Multi-year guaranteed awards that are not at risk due to rigorous performance conditions;

●

Liberal CIC definition combined with any single-trigger CIC benefits;

●

Insufficient executive compensation disclosure by externally-managed issuers (EMIs) such that a reasonable assessment of pay programs and practices applicable to the EMI’s executives is not possible;

●

Severance payments made when the termination is not clearly disclosed as involuntary (for example, a termination without cause or resignation for good reason); and/or

●

Any other provision or practice deemed to be egregious and present a significant risk to investors.

The above examples are not an exhaustive list. Please refer to ISS' U.S. Compensation Policies FAQ document for additional detail on specific pay practices that have been identified as problematic and may lead to negative vote recommendations.

Options Backdating

The following factors should be examined case-by-case to allow for distinctions to be made between “sloppy” plan administration versus deliberate action or fraud:

●

Reason and motive for the options backdating issue, such as inadvertent vs. deliberate grant date changes;

●

Duration of options backdating;

●

Size of restatement due to options backdating;

●

Corrective actions taken by the board or compensation committee, such as canceling or re-pricing backdated options, the recouping of option gains on backdated grants; and

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

49 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Adoption of a grant policy that prohibits backdating, and creates a fixed grant schedule or window period for equity grants in the future.

Compensation Committee Communications and Responsiveness

Consider the following factors case-by-case when evaluating ballot items related to executive pay on the board’s responsiveness to investor input and engagement on compensation issues:

●

Failure to respond to majority-supported shareholder proposals on executive pay topics; or

●

Failure to adequately respond to the company’s previous say-on-pay proposal that received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast, taking into account:

●

Disclosure of the specific concerns voiced by dissenting shareholders that led to the say-on-pay opposition;

●

Disclosure of specific and meaningful actions taken to address shareholders’ concerns;

●

Other recent compensation actions taken by the company;

●

Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated;

●

The company’s ownership structure; and

●

Whether the support level was less than 50 percent, which would warrant the highest degree of responsiveness.

Frequency of Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (“Say When on Pay”)

General Recommendation: Vote for annual advisory votes on compensation, which provide the most consistent and clear communication channel for shareholder concerns about companies’ executive pay programs.

Voting on Golden Parachutes in an Acquisition, Merger, Consolidation, or Proposed Sale

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on say on Golden Parachute proposals, including consideration of existing change-in-control arrangements maintained with named executive officers but also considering new or extended arrangements.

Features that may result in an “against” recommendation include one or more of the following, depending on the number, magnitude, and/or timing of issue(s):

●

Single- or modified-single-trigger cash severance;

●

Single-trigger acceleration of unvested equity awards;

●

Full acceleration of equity awards granted shortly before the change in control;

●

Acceleration of performance awards above the target level of performance without compelling rationale;

●

Excessive cash severance (generally ˃3x base salary and bonus);

●

Excise tax gross-ups triggered and payable;

●

Excessive golden parachute payments (on an absolute basis or as a percentage of transaction equity value); or

●

Recent amendments that incorporate any problematic features (such as those above) or recent actions (such as extraordinary equity grants) that may make packages so attractive as to influence merger agreements that may not be in the best interests of shareholders; or

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

50 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

The company’s assertion that a proposed transaction is conditioned on shareholder approval of the golden parachute advisory vote.

Recent amendment(s) that incorporate problematic features will tend to carry more weight on the overall analysis. However, the presence of multiple legacy problematic features will also be closely scrutinized.

In cases where the golden parachute vote is incorporated into a company’s advisory vote on compensation (management say-on-pay), ISS will evaluate the say-on-pay proposal in accordance with these guidelines, which may give higher weight to that component of the overall evaluation.

Equity-Based and Other Incentive Plans

Please refer to ISS’ U.S. Equity Compensation Plans FAQ document for additional details on the Equity Plan Scorecard policy.

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on certain equity-based compensation plans21 depending on a combination of certain plan features and equity grant practices, where positive factors may counterbalance negative factors, and vice versa, as evaluated using an “Equity Plan Scorecard” (EPSC) approach with three pillars:

●

Plan Cost: The total estimated cost of the company’s equity plans relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company’s estimated Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) in relation to peers and considering both:

●

SVT based on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants, plus outstanding unvested/ unexercised grants; and

●

SVT based only on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants.

●

Plan Features:

●

Quality of disclosure around vesting upon a change in control (CIC);

●

Discretionary vesting authority;

●

Liberal share recycling on various award types;

●

Lack of minimum vesting period for grants made under the plan; and

●

Dividends payable prior to award vesting.

●

Grant Practices:

●

The company’s three-year burn rate relative to its industry/market cap peers;

●

Vesting requirements in CEO’s recent equity grants (3-year look-back);

●

The estimated duration of the plan (based on the sum of shares remaining available and the new shares requested, divided by the average annual shares granted in the prior three years);

●

The proportion of the CEO’s most recent equity grants/awards subject to performance conditions;

●

Whether the company maintains a sufficient claw-back policy; and

●

Whether the company maintains sufficient post-exercise/vesting share-holding requirements.

21 Proposals evaluated under the EPSC policy generally include those to approve or amend (1) stock option plans for employees and/or employees and directors, (2) restricted stock plans for employees and/or employees and directors, and (3) omnibus stock incentive plans for employees and/or employees and directors; amended plans will be further evaluated case-by-case.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

51 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Generally vote against the plan proposal if the combination of above factors indicates that the plan is not, overall, in shareholders’ interests, or if any of the following egregious factors (“overriding factors”) apply:

●

Awards may vest in connection with a liberal change-of-control definition;

●

The plan would permit repricing or cash buyout of underwater options without shareholder approval (either by expressly permitting it – for NYSE and Nasdaq listed companies – or by not prohibiting it when the company has a history of repricing – for non-listed companies);

●

The plan is a vehicle for problematic pay practices or a significant pay-for-performance disconnect under certain circumstances;

●

The plan is excessively dilutive to shareholders’ holdings;

●

The plan contains an evergreen (automatic share replenishment) feature; or

●

Any other plan features are determined to have a significant negative impact on shareholder interests.

Further Information on certain EPSC Factors:

Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT)

The cost of the equity plans is expressed as Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT), which is measured using a binomial option pricing model that assesses the amount of shareholders’ equity flowing out of the company to employees and directors. SVT is expressed as both a dollar amount and as a percentage of market value, and includes the new shares proposed, shares available under existing plans, and shares granted but unexercised (using two measures, in the case of plans subject to the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation, as noted above). All award types are valued. For omnibus plans, unless limitations are placed on the most expensive types of awards (for example, full-value awards), the assumption is made that all awards to be granted will be the most expensive types.

For proposals that are not subject to the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation, Shareholder Value Transfer is reasonable if it falls below a company-specific benchmark. The benchmark is determined as follows: The top quartile performers in each industry group (using the Global Industry Classification Standard: GICS) are identified. Benchmark SVT levels for each industry are established based on these top performers’ historic SVT. Regression analyses are run on each industry group to identify the variables most strongly correlated to SVT. The benchmark industry SVT level is then adjusted upwards or downwards for the specific company by plugging the company-specific performance measures, size, and cash compensation into the industry cap equations to arrive at the company’s benchmark22.

Three-Year Value-Adjusted Burn Rate

A “Value-Adjusted Burn Rate” is used for stock plan evaluations. Value-Adjusted Burn Rate benchmarks are calculated as the greater of: (1) an industry-specific threshold based on three-year burn rates within the company’s GICS group segmented by S&P 500, Russell 3000 index (less the S&P 500) and non-Russell 3000 index; and (2) a de minimis threshold established separately for each of the S&P 500, the Russell 3000 index less the S&P 500, and the non-Russell 3000 index. Year-over-year burn-rate benchmark changes will be limited to a predetermined range above or below the prior year’s burn-rate benchmark.

The Value-Adjusted Burn Rate is calculated as follows:

Value-Adjusted Burn Rate = ((# of options * option’s dollar value using a Black-Scholes model) + (# of full-value awards * stock price)) / (Weighted average common shares * stock price).

22 For plans evaluated under the Equity Plan Scorecard policy, the company’s SVT benchmark is considered along with other factors.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

52 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Egregious Factors

Liberal Change in Control Definition

Generally vote against equity plans if the plan has a liberal definition of change in control and the equity awards could vest upon such liberal definition of change in control, even though an actual change in control may not occur. Examples of such a definition include, but are not limited to, announcement or commencement of a tender offer, provisions for acceleration upon a “potential” takeover, shareholder approval of a merger or other transactions, or similar language.

Repricing Provisions

Vote against plans that expressly permit the repricing or exchange of underwater stock options/stock appreciate rights (SARs) without prior shareholder approval. “Repricing” typically includes the ability to do any of the following:

●

Amend the terms of outstanding options or SARs to reduce the exercise price of such outstanding options or SARs;

●

Cancel outstanding options or SARs in exchange for options or SARs with an exercise price that is less than the exercise price of the original options or SARs;

●

Cancel underwater options in exchange for stock awards; or

●

Provide cash buyouts of underwater options.

While the above cover most types of repricing, ISS may view other provisions as akin to repricing depending on the facts and circumstances.

Also, vote against or withhold from members of the Compensation Committee who approved repricing (as defined above or otherwise determined by ISS), without prior shareholder approval, even if such repricings are allowed in their equity plan.

Vote against plans that do not expressly prohibit repricing or cash buyout of underwater options without shareholder approval if the company has a history of repricing/buyouts without shareholder approval, and the applicable listing standards would not preclude them from doing so.

Problematic Pay Practices or Significant Pay-for-Performance Disconnect

If the equity plan on the ballot is a vehicle for problematic pay practices, vote against the plan.

ISS may recommend a vote against the equity plan if the plan is determined to be a vehicle for pay-for-performance misalignment. Considerations in voting against the equity plan may include, but are not limited to:

●

Severity of the pay-for-performance misalignment;

●

Whether problematic equity grant practices are driving the misalignment; and/or

●

Whether equity plan awards have been heavily concentrated to the CEO and/or the other NEOs.

Amending Cash and Equity Plans (including Approval for Tax Deductibility (162(m))

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on amendments to cash and equity incentive plans.

Generally vote for proposals to amend executive cash, stock, or cash and stock incentive plans if the proposal:

●

Addresses administrative features only; or

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

53 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Seeks approval for Section 162(m) purposes only, and the plan administering committee consists entirely of independent directors, per ISS’ Classification of Directors. Note that if the company is presenting the plan to shareholders for the first time for any reason (including after the company’s initial public offering), or if the proposal is bundled with other material plan amendments, then the recommendation will be case-by-case (see below).

Vote against proposals to amend executive cash, stock, or cash and stock incentive plans if the proposal:

●

Seeks approval for Section 162(m) purposes only, and the plan administering committee does not consist entirely of independent directors, per ISS’ Classification of Directors.

Vote case-by-case on all other proposals to amend cash incentive plans. This includes plans presented to shareholders for the first time after the company’s IPO and/or proposals that bundle material amendment(s) other than those for Section 162(m) purposes.

Vote case-by-case on all other proposals to amend equity incentive plans, considering the following:

●

If the proposal requests additional shares and/or the amendments include a term extension or addition of full value awards as an award type, the recommendation will be based on the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation as well as an analysis of the overall impact of the amendments;

●

If the plan is being presented to shareholders for the first time (including after the company’s IPO), whether or not additional shares are being requested, the recommendation will be based on the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation as well as an analysis of the overall impact of any amendments; and

●

If there is no request for additional shares and the amendments do not include a term extension or addition of full value awards as an award type, then the recommendation will be based entirely on an analysis of the overall impact of the amendments, and the EPSC evaluation will be shown only for informational purposes.

In the first two case-by-case evaluation scenarios, the EPSC evaluation/score is the more heavily weighted consideration.

Specific Treatment of Certain Award Types in Equity Plan Evaluations

Dividend Equivalent Rights

Options that have Dividend Equivalent Rights (DERs) associated with them will have a higher calculated award value than those without DERs under the binomial model, based on the value of these dividend streams. The higher value will be applied to new shares, shares available under existing plans, and shares awarded but not exercised per the plan specifications. DERS transfer more shareholder equity to employees and non-employee directors and this cost should be captured.

Operating Partnership (OP) Units in Equity Plan Analysis of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)

For Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS), include the common shares issuable upon conversion of outstanding Operating Partnership (OP) units in the share count for the purposes of determining: (1) market capitalization in the Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) analysis and (2) shares outstanding in the burn rate analysis.

Other Compensation Plans

401(k) Employee Benefit Plans

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

54 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to implement an ESOP or increase authorized shares for existing ESOPs, unless the number of shares allocated to the ESOP is excessive (more than five percent of outstanding shares).

Employee Stock Purchase Plans—Qualified Plans

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on qualified employee stock purchase plans. Vote for employee stock purchase plans where all of the following apply:

●

Purchase price is at least 85 percent of fair market value;

●

Offering period is 27 months or less; and

●

The number of shares allocated to the plan is 10 percent or less of the outstanding shares.

Vote against qualified employee stock purchase plans where when the plan features do not meet all of the above criteria.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans—Non-Qualified Plans

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on nonqualified employee stock purchase plans. Vote for nonqualified employee stock purchase plans with all the following features:

●

Broad-based participation;

●

Limits on employee contribution, which may be a fixed dollar amount or expressed as a percent of base salary;

●

Company matching contribution up to 25 percent of employee’s contribution, which is effectively a discount of 20 percent from market value; and

●

No discount on the stock price on the date of purchase when there is a company matching contribution.

Vote against nonqualified employee stock purchase plans when the plan features do not meet all of the above criteria. If the matching contribution or effective discount exceeds the above, ISS may evaluate the SVT cost of the plan as part of the assessment.

Option Exchange Programs/Repricing Options

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals seeking approval to exchange/reprice options taking into consideration:

●

Historic trading patterns--the stock price should not be so volatile that the options are likely to be back “in-the-money” over the near term;

●

Rationale for the re-pricing--was the stock price decline beyond management’s control?;

●

Is this a value-for-value exchange?;

●

Are surrendered stock options added back to the plan reserve?;

●

Timing—repricing should occur at least one year out from any precipitous drop in company’s stock price;

●

Option vesting—does the new option vest immediately or is there a black-out period?;

●

Term of the option--the term should remain the same as that of the replaced option;

●

Exercise price—should be set at fair market or a premium to market; and

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

55 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Participants—executive officers and directors must be excluded.

If the surrendered options are added back to the equity plans for re-issuance, then also take into consideration the company’s total cost of equity plans and its three-year average burn rate.

In addition to the above considerations, evaluate the intent, rationale, and timing of the repricing proposal. The proposal should clearly articulate why the board is choosing to conduct an exchange program at this point in time. Repricing underwater options after a recent precipitous drop in the company’s stock price demonstrates poor timing and warrants additional scrutiny. Also, consider the terms of the surrendered options, such as the grant date, exercise price and vesting schedule. Grant dates of surrendered options should be far enough back (two to three years) so as not to suggest that repricings are being done to take advantage of short-term downward price movements. Similarly, the exercise price of surrendered options should be above the 52-week high for the stock price.

Vote for shareholder proposals to put option repricings to a shareholder vote.

Stock Plans in Lieu of Cash

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on plans that provide participants with the option of taking all or a portion of their cash compensation in the form of stock.

Vote for non-employee director-only equity plans that provide a dollar-for-dollar cash-for-stock exchange.

Vote case-by-case on plans which do not provide a dollar-for-dollar cash for stock exchange. In cases where the exchange is not dollar-for-dollar, the request for new or additional shares for such equity program will be considered using the binomial option pricing model. In an effort to capture the total cost of total compensation, ISS will not make any adjustments to carve out the in-lieu-of cash compensation.

Transfer Stock Option (TSO) Programs

General Recommendation: One-time Transfers: Vote against or withhold from compensation committee members if they fail to submit one-time transfers to shareholders for approval.

Vote case-by-case on one-time transfers. Vote for if:

●

Executive officers and non-employee directors are excluded from participating;

●

Stock options are purchased by third-party financial institutions at a discount to their fair value using option pricing models such as Black-Scholes or a Binomial Option Valuation or other appropriate financial models; and

●

There is a two-year minimum holding period for sale proceeds (cash or stock) for all participants.

Additionally, management should provide a clear explanation of why options are being transferred to a third-party institution and whether the events leading up to a decline in stock price were beyond management’s control. A review of the company’s historic stock price volatility should indicate if the options are likely to be back “in-the-money” over the near term.

Ongoing TSO program: Vote against equity plan proposals if the details of ongoing TSO programs are not provided to shareholders. Since TSOs will be one of the award types under a stock plan, the ongoing TSO program, structure, and mechanics must be disclosed to shareholders. The specific criteria to be considered in evaluating these proposals include, but not limited, to the following:

●

Eligibility;

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

56 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Vesting;

●

Bid-price;

●

Term of options;

●

Cost of the program and impact of the TSOs on company’s total option expense; and

●

Option repricing policy.

Amendments to existing plans that allow for introduction of transferability of stock options should make clear that only options granted post-amendment shall be transferable.

Director Compensation

Shareholder Ratification of Director Pay Programs

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals seeking ratification of non-employee director compensation, based on the following factors:

●

If the equity plan under which non-employee director grants are made is on the ballot, whether or not it warrants support; and

●

An assessment of the following qualitative factors:

●

The relative magnitude of director compensation as compared to companies of a similar profile;

●

The presence of problematic pay practices relating to director compensation;

●

Director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements;

●

Equity award vesting schedules;

●

The mix of cash and equity-based compensation;

●

Meaningful limits on director compensation;

●

The availability of retirement benefits or perquisites; and

●

The quality of disclosure surrounding director compensation.

Equity Plans for Non-Employee Directors

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on compensation plans for non-employee directors, based on:

●

The total estimated cost of the company’s equity plans relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company’s estimated Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) based on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants, plus outstanding unvested/unexercised grants;

●

The company’s three-year burn rate relative to its industry/market cap peers (in certain circumstances); and

●

The presence of any egregious plan features (such as an option repricing provision or liberal CIC vesting risk).

On occasion, non-employee director stock plans will exceed the plan cost or burn-rate benchmarks when combined with employee or executive stock plans. In such cases, vote case-by-case on the plan taking into consideration the following qualitative factors:

●

The relative magnitude of director compensation as compared to companies of a similar profile;

●

The presence of problematic pay practices relating to director compensation;

●

Director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements;

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

57 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Equity award vesting schedules;

●

The mix of cash and equity-based compensation;

●

Meaningful limits on director compensation;

●

The availability of retirement benefits or perquisites; and

●

The quality of disclosure surrounding director compensation.

Non-Employee Director Retirement Plans

General Recommendation: Vote against retirement plans for non-employee directors. Vote for shareholder proposals to eliminate retirement plans for non-employee directors.

Shareholder Proposals on Compensation

Bonus Banking/Bonus Banking “Plus”

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals seeking deferral of a portion of annual bonus pay, with ultimate payout linked to sustained results for the performance metrics on which the bonus was earned (whether for the named executive officers or a wider group of employees), taking into account the following factors:

●

The company’s past practices regarding equity and cash compensation;

●

Whether the company has a holding period or stock ownership requirements in place, such as a meaningful retention ratio (at least 50 percent for full tenure); and

●

Whether the company has a rigorous claw-back policy in place.

Compensation Consultants—Disclosure of Board or Company’s Utilization

General Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals seeking disclosure regarding the company, board, or compensation committee’s use of compensation consultants, such as company name, business relationship(s), and fees paid.

Disclosure/Setting Levels or Types of Compensation for Executives and Directors

General Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals seeking additional disclosure of executive and director pay information, provided the information requested is relevant to shareholders’ needs, would not put the company at a competitive disadvantage relative to its industry, and is not unduly burdensome to the company.

Generally vote against shareholder proposals seeking to set absolute levels on compensation or otherwise dictate the amount or form of compensation (such as types of compensation elements or specific metrics) to be used for executive or directors.

Generally vote against shareholder proposals that mandate a minimum amount of stock that directors must own in order to qualify as a director or to remain on the board.

Vote case-by-case on all other shareholder proposals regarding executive and director pay, taking into account relevant factors, including but not limited to: company performance, pay level and design versus peers, history of compensation concerns or pay-for-performance disconnect, and/or the scope and prescriptive nature of the proposal.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

58 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Golden Coffins/Executive Death Benefits

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals calling for companies to adopt a policy of obtaining shareholder approval for any future agreements and corporate policies that could oblige the company to make payments or awards following the death of a senior executive in the form of unearned salary or bonuses, accelerated vesting or the continuation in force of unvested equity grants, perquisites and other payments or awards made in lieu of compensation. This would not apply to any benefit programs or equity plan proposals for which the broad-based employee population is eligible.

Hold Equity Past Retirement or for a Significant Period of Time

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals asking companies to adopt policies requiring senior executive officers to retain a portion of net shares acquired through compensation plans. The following factors will be taken into account:

●

The percentage/ratio of net shares required to be retained;

●

The time period required to retain the shares;

●

Whether the company has equity retention, holding period, and/or stock ownership requirements in place and the robustness of such requirements;

●

Whether the company has any other policies aimed at mitigating risk taking by executives;

●

Executives’ actual stock ownership and the degree to which it meets or exceeds the proponent’s suggested holding period/retention ratio or the company’s existing requirements; and

●

Problematic pay practices, current and past, which may demonstrate a short-term versus long-term focus.

Pay Disparity

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals calling for an analysis of the pay disparity between corporate executives and other non-executive employees. The following factors will be considered:

●

The company’s current level of disclosure of its executive compensation setting process, including how the company considers pay disparity;

●

If any problematic pay practices or pay-for-performance concerns have been identified at the company; and

●

The level of shareholder support for the company’s pay programs.

Generally vote against proposals calling for the company to use the pay disparity analysis or pay ratio in a specific way to set or limit executive pay.

Pay for Performance/Performance-Based Awards

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals requesting that a significant amount of future long-term incentive compensation awarded to senior executives shall be performance-based and requesting that the board adopt and disclose challenging performance metrics to shareholders, based on the following analytical steps:

●

First, vote for shareholder proposals advocating the use of performance-based equity awards, such as performance contingent options or restricted stock, indexed options, or premium-priced options, unless the proposal is overly restrictive or if the company has demonstrated that it is using a “substantial” portion of performance-based awards for its top executives. Standard stock options and performance-accelerated awards do not meet the criteria to be considered as performance-based awards. Further, premium-priced options should have a meaningful premium to be considered performance-based awards; and

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

59 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Second, assess the rigor of the company’s performance-based equity program. If the bar set for the performance- based program is too low based on the company’s historical or peer group comparison, generally vote for the proposal. Furthermore, if target performance results in an above target payout, vote for the shareholder proposal due to program’s poor design. If the company does not disclose the performance metric of the performance- based equity program, vote for the shareholder proposal regardless of the outcome of the first step to the test.

In general, vote for the shareholder proposal if the company does not meet both of the above two steps.

Pay for Superior Performance

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals that request the board establish a pay-for-superior performance standard in the company’s executive compensation plan for senior executives. These proposals generally include the following principles:

●

Set compensation targets for the plan’s annual and long-term incentive pay components at or below the peer group median;

●

Deliver a majority of the plan’s target long-term compensation through performance-vested, not simply time- vested, equity awards;

●

Provide the strategic rationale and relative weightings of the financial and non-financial performance metrics or criteria used in the annual and performance-vested long-term incentive components of the plan;

●

Establish performance targets for each plan financial metric relative to the performance of the company’s peer companies; and

●

Limit payment under the annual and performance-vested long-term incentive components of the plan to when the company’s performance on its selected financial performance metrics exceeds peer group median performance.

Consider the following factors in evaluating this proposal:

●

What aspects of the company’s annual and long-term equity incentive programs are performance driven?

●

If the annual and long-term equity incentive programs are performance driven, are the performance criteria and hurdle rates disclosed to shareholders or are they benchmarked against a disclosed peer group?

●

Can shareholders assess the correlation between pay and performance based on the current disclosure? and

●

What type of industry and stage of business cycle does the company belong to?

Pre-Arranged Trading Plans (10b5-1 Plans)

General Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals calling for the addition of certain safeguards in prearranged trading plans (10b5-1 plans) for executives. Safeguards may include:

●

Adoption, amendment, or termination of a 10b5-1 Plan must be disclosed in a Form 8-K;

●

Amendment or early termination of a 10b5-1 Plan allowed only under extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the board;

●

Request that a certain number of days that must elapse between adoption or amendment of a 10b5-1 Plan and initial trading under the plan;

●

Reports on Form 4 must identify transactions made pursuant to a 10b5-1 Plan;

●

An executive may not trade in company stock outside the 10b5-1 Plan; and

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

60 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Trades under a 10b5-1 Plan must be handled by a broker who does not handle other securities transactions for the executive.

Prohibit Outside CEOs from Serving on Compensation Committees

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals seeking a policy to prohibit any outside CEO from serving on a company’s compensation committee, unless the company has demonstrated problematic pay practices that raise concerns about the performance and composition of the committee.

Recoupment of Incentive or Stock Compensation in Specified Circumstances

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to recoup incentive cash or stock compensation made to senior executives if it is later determined that the figures upon which incentive compensation is earned turn out to have been in error, or if the senior executive has breached company policy or has engaged in misconduct that may be significantly detrimental to the company’s financial position or reputation, or if the senior executive failed to manage or monitor risks that subsequently led to significant financial or reputational harm to the company. Many companies have adopted policies that permit recoupment in cases where an executive’s fraud, misconduct, or negligence significantly contributed to a restatement of financial results that led to the awarding of unearned incentive compensation. However, such policies may be narrow given that not all misconduct or negligence may result in significant financial restatements. Misconduct, negligence, or lack of sufficient oversight by senior executives may lead to significant financial loss or reputational damage that may have long-lasting impact.

In considering whether to support such shareholder proposals, ISS will take into consideration the following factors:

●

If the company has adopted a formal recoupment policy;

●

The rigor of the recoupment policy focusing on how and under what circumstances the company may recoup incentive or stock compensation;

●

Whether the company has chronic restatement history or material financial problems;

●

Whether the company’s policy substantially addresses the concerns raised by the proponent;

●

Disclosure of recoupment of incentive or stock compensation from senior executives or lack thereof; and

●

Any other relevant factors.

Severance and Golden Parachute Agreements

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals requiring that executive severance (including change-in-control related) arrangements or payments be submitted for shareholder ratification.

●

Factors that will be considered include, but are not limited to:

●

The company’s severance or change-in-control agreements in place, and the presence of problematic features (such as excessive severance entitlements, single triggers, excise tax gross-ups, etc.);

●

Any existing limits on cash severance payouts or policies which require shareholder ratification of severance payments exceeding a certain level;

●

Any recent severance-related controversies; and

●

Whether the proposal is overly prescriptive, such as requiring shareholder approval of severance that does not exceed market norms.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

61 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Share Buyback Impact on Incentive Program Metrics

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting the company exclude the impact of share buybacks from the calculation of incentive program metrics, considering the following factors:

●

The frequency and timing of the company’s share buybacks;

●

The use of per-share metrics in incentive plans;

●

The effect of recent buybacks on incentive metric results and payouts; and

●

Whether there is any indication of metric result manipulation.

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (SERPs)

General Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting to put extraordinary benefits contained in SERP agreements to a shareholder vote unless the company’s executive pension plans do not contain excessive benefits beyond what is offered under employee-wide plans.

Generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting to limit the executive benefits provided under the company’s supplemental executive retirement plan (SERP) by limiting covered compensation to a senior executive’s annual salary or those pay elements covered for the general employee population.

Tax Gross-Up Proposals

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals calling for companies to adopt a policy of not providing tax gross-up payments to executives, except in situations where gross-ups are provided pursuant to a plan, policy, or arrangement applicable to management employees of the company, such as a relocation or expatriate tax equalization policy.

Termination of Employment Prior to Severance Payment/Eliminating Accelerated Vesting of Unvested Equity

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals seeking a policy requiring termination of employment prior to severance payment and/or eliminating accelerated vesting of unvested equity.

The following factors will be considered:

●

The company’s current treatment of equity upon employment termination and/or in change-in-control situations (i.e., vesting is double triggered and/or pro rata, does it allow for the assumption of equity by acquiring company, the treatment of performance shares, etc.); and

●

Current employment agreements, including potential poor pay practices such as gross-ups embedded in those agreements.

Generally vote for proposals seeking a policy that prohibits automatic acceleration of the vesting of equity awards to senior executives upon a voluntary termination of employment or in the event of a change in control (except for pro rata vesting considering the time elapsed and attainment of any related performance goals between the award date and the change in control).

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

62 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

6. Routine/Miscellaneous

Adjourn Meeting

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals to provide management with the authority to adjourn an annual or special meeting absent compelling reasons to support the proposal.

Vote for proposals that relate specifically to soliciting votes for a merger or transaction if supporting that merger or transaction. Vote against proposals if the wording is too vague or if the proposal includes “other business.”

Amend Quorum Requirements

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to reduce quorum requirements for shareholder meetings below a majority of the shares outstanding, taking into consideration:

●

The new quorum threshold requested;

●

The rationale presented for the reduction;

●

The market capitalization of the company (size, inclusion in indices);

●

The company's ownership structure;

●

Previous voter turnout or attempts to achieve quorum;

●

Any provisions or commitments to restore quorum to a majority of shares outstanding, should voter turnout improve sufficiently; and

●

Other factors as appropriate.

In general, a quorum threshold kept as close to a majority of shares outstanding as is achievable is preferred.

Vote case-by-case on directors who unilaterally lower the quorum requirements below a majority of the shares outstanding, taking into consideration the factors listed above.

Amend Minor Bylaws

General Recommendation: Vote for bylaw or charter changes that are of a housekeeping nature (updates or corrections).

Change Company Name

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to change the corporate name unless there is compelling evidence that the change would adversely impact shareholder value.

Change Date, Time, or Location of Annual Meeting

General Recommendation: Vote for management proposals to change the date, time, or location of the annual meeting unless the proposed change is unreasonable.

Vote against shareholder proposals to change the date, time, or location of the annual meeting unless the current scheduling or location is unreasonable.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

63 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

7. Social and Environmental Issues

Global Approach – E&S Shareholder Proposals

ISS applies a common approach globally to evaluating social and environmental proposals which cover a wide range of topics, including consumer and product safety, environment and energy, labor standards and human rights, workplace and board diversity, and corporate political issues. While a variety of factors goes into each analysis, the overall principle guiding all vote recommendations focuses on how the proposal may enhance or protect shareholder value in either the short or long term.

General Recommendation: Generally vote case-by-case, examining primarily whether implementation of the proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder value. The following factors will be considered:

●

If the issues presented in the proposal are being appropriately or effectively dealt with through legislation or government regulation;

●

If the company has already responded in an appropriate and sufficient manner to the issue(s) raised in the proposal;

●

Whether the proposal’s request is unduly burdensome (scope or timeframe) or overly prescriptive;

●

The company’s approach compared with any industry standard practices for addressing the issue(s) raised by the proposal;

●

Whether there are significant controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company’s practices related to the issue(s) raised in the proposal;

●

If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether reasonable and sufficient information is currently available to shareholders from the company or from other publicly available sources; and

●

If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether implementation would reveal proprietary or confidential information that could place the company at a competitive disadvantage.

Endorsement of Principles

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals seeking a company’s endorsement of principles that support a particular public policy position. Endorsing a set of principles may require a company to take a stand on an issue that is beyond its own control and may limit its flexibility with respect to future developments. Management and the board should be afforded the flexibility to make decisions on specific public policy positions based on their own assessment of the most beneficial strategies for the company.

Animal Welfare

Animal Welfare Policies

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals seeking a report on a company’s animal welfare standards, or animal welfare-related risks, unless:

●

The company has already published a set of animal welfare standards and monitors compliance;

●

The company’s standards are comparable to industry peers; and

●

There are no recent significant fines, litigation, or controversies related to the company’s and/or its suppliers’ treatment of animals.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

65 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Animal Testing

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals to phase out the use of animals in product testing, unless:

●

The company is conducting animal testing programs that are unnecessary or not required by regulation;

●

The company is conducting animal testing when suitable alternatives are commonly accepted and used by industry peers; or

●

There are recent, significant fines or litigation related to the company’s treatment of animals.

Animal Slaughter

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals requesting the implementation of Controlled Atmosphere Killing (CAK) methods at company and/or supplier operations unless such methods are required by legislation or generally accepted as the industry standard.

Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting a report on the feasibility of implementing CAK methods at company and/ or supplier operations considering the availability of existing research conducted by the company or industry groups on this topic and any fines or litigation related to current animal processing procedures at the company.

Consumer Issues

Genetically Modified Ingredients

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals requesting that a company voluntarily label genetically engineered (GE) ingredients in its products. The labeling of products with GE ingredients is best left to the appropriate regulatory authorities.

Vote case-by-case on proposals asking for a report on the feasibility of labeling products containing GE ingredients, taking into account:

●

The potential impact of such labeling on the company’s business;

●

The quality of the company’s disclosure on GE product labeling, related voluntary initiatives, and how this disclosure compares with industry peer disclosure; and

●

Company’s current disclosure on the feasibility of GE product labeling.

Generally vote against proposals seeking a report on the social, health, and environmental effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Studies of this sort are better undertaken by regulators and the scientific community.

Generally vote against proposals to eliminate GE ingredients from the company’s products, or proposals asking for reports outlining the steps necessary to eliminate GE ingredients from the company’s products. Such decisions are more appropriately made by management with consideration of current regulations.

Reports on Potentially Controversial Business/Financial Practices

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for reports on a company’s potentially controversial business or financial practices or products, taking into account:

●

Whether the company has adequately disclosed mechanisms in place to prevent abuses;

●

Whether the company has adequately disclosed the financial risks of the products/practices in question;

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

66 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Whether the company has been subject to violations of related laws or serious controversies; and

●

Peer companies’ policies/practices in this area.

Pharmaceutical Pricing, Access to Medicines, and Prescription Drug Reimportation

General Recommendation: Generally vote against proposals requesting that companies implement specific price restraints on pharmaceutical products unless the company fails to adhere to legislative guidelines or industry norms in its product pricing practices.

Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting that a company report on its product pricing or access to medicine policies, considering:

●

The potential for reputational, market, and regulatory risk exposure;

●

Existing disclosure of relevant policies;

●

Deviation from established industry norms;

●

Relevant company initiatives to provide research and/or products to disadvantaged consumers;

●

Whether the proposal focuses on specific products or geographic regions;

●

The potential burden and scope of the requested report; and

●

Recent significant controversies, litigation, or fines at the company.

Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company report on the financial and legal impact of its prescription drug reimportation policies unless such information is already publicly disclosed.

Generally vote against proposals requesting that companies adopt specific policies to encourage or constrain prescription drug reimportation. Such matters are more appropriately the province of legislative activity and may place the company at a competitive disadvantage relative to its peers.

Product Safety and Toxic/Hazardous Materials

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company report on its policies, initiatives/procedures, and oversight mechanisms related to toxic/hazardous materials or product safety in its supply chain, unless:

●

The company already discloses similar information through existing reports such as a supplier code of conduct and/or a sustainability report;

●

The company has formally committed to the implementation of a toxic/hazardous materials and/or product safety and supply chain reporting and monitoring program based on industry norms or similar standards within a specified time frame; or

●

The company has not been recently involved in relevant significant controversies, fines, or litigation.

Vote case-by-case on resolutions requesting that companies develop a feasibility assessment to phase-out of certain toxic/hazardous materials, or evaluate and disclose the potential financial and legal risks associated with utilizing certain materials, considering:

●

The company’s current level of disclosure regarding its product safety policies, initiatives, and oversight mechanisms;

●

Current regulations in the markets in which the company operates; and

●

Recent significant controversies, litigation, or fines stemming from toxic/hazardous materials at the company.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

67 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Generally vote against resolutions requiring that a company reformulate its products.

Tobacco-Related Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on resolutions regarding the advertisement of tobacco products, considering:

●

Recent related fines, controversies, or significant litigation;

●

Whether the company complies with relevant laws and regulations on the marketing of tobacco;

●

Whether the company’s advertising restrictions deviate from those of industry peers;

●

Whether the company entered into the Master Settlement Agreement, which restricts marketing of tobacco to youth; and

●

Whether restrictions on marketing to youth extend to foreign countries.

Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding second-hand smoke, considering;

●

Whether the company complies with all laws and regulations;

●

The degree that voluntary restrictions beyond those mandated by law might hurt the company’s competitiveness; and

●

The risk of any health-related liabilities.

Generally vote against resolutions to cease production of tobacco-related products, to avoid selling products to tobacco companies, to spin-off tobacco-related businesses, or prohibit investment in tobacco equities. Such business decisions are better left to company management or portfolio managers.

Generally vote against proposals regarding tobacco product warnings. Such decisions are better left to public health authorities.

Climate Change

Say on Climate (SoC) Management Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals that request shareholders to approve the company’s climate transition action plan23, taking into account the completeness and rigor of the plan. Information that will be considered where available includes the following:

●

The extent to which the company’s climate related disclosures are in line with TCFD recommendations and meet other market standards;

●

Disclosure of its operational and supply chain GHG emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3);

●

The completeness and rigor of company’s short-, medium-, and long-term targets for reducing operational and supply chain GHG emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3 if relevant);

●

Whether the company has sought and received third-party approval that its targets are science-based;

●

Whether the company has made a commitment to be “net zero” for operational and supply chain emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3) by 2050;

23 Variations of this request also include climate transition related ambitions, or commitment to reporting on the implementation of a climate plan.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

68 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Whether the company discloses a commitment to report on the implementation of its plan in subsequent years;

●

Whether the company’s climate data has received third-party assurance;

●

Disclosure of how the company’s lobbying activities and its capital expenditures align with company strategy;

●

Whether there are specific industry decarbonization challenges; and

●

The company’s related commitment, disclosure, and performance compared to its industry peers.

Say on Climate (SoC) Shareholder Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals that request the company to disclose a report providing its GHG emissions levels and reduction targets and/or its upcoming/approved climate transition action plan and provide shareholders the opportunity to express approval or disapproval of its GHG emissions reduction plan, taking into account information such as the following:

●

The completeness and rigor of the company’s climate-related disclosure;

●

The company’s actual GHG emissions performance;

●

Whether the company has been the subject of recent, significant violations, fines, litigation, or controversy related to its GHG emissions; and

●

Whether the proposal’s request is unduly burdensome (scope or timeframe) or overly prescriptive.

Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

General Recommendation: Generally vote for resolutions requesting that a company disclose information on the financial, physical, or regulatory risks it faces related to climate change on its operations and investments or on how the company identifies, measures, and manages such risks, considering:

●

Whether the company already provides current, publicly-available information on the impact that climate change may have on the company as well as associated company policies and procedures to address related risks and/or opportunities;

●

The company’s level of disclosure compared to industry peers; and

●

Whether there are significant controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company’s climate change-related performance.

Generally vote for proposals requesting a report on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from company operations and/ or products and operations, unless:

●

The company already discloses current, publicly-available information on the impacts that GHG emissions may have on the company as well as associated company policies and procedures to address related risks and/or opportunities;

●

The company’s level of disclosure is comparable to that of industry peers; or

●

There are no significant, controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company’s GHG emissions.

Vote case-by-case on proposals that call for the adoption of GHG reduction goals from products and operations, taking into account:

●

Whether the company provides disclosure of year-over-year GHG emissions performance data;

●

Whether company disclosure lags behind industry peers;

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

69 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

The company’s actual GHG emissions performance;

●

The company’s current GHG emission policies, oversight mechanisms, and related initiatives; and

●

Whether the company has been the subject of recent, significant violations, fines, litigation, or controversy related to GHG emissions.

Energy Efficiency

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company report on its energy efficiency policies, unless:

●

The company complies with applicable energy efficiency regulations and laws, and discloses its participation in energy efficiency policies and programs, including disclosure of benchmark data, targets, and performance measures; or

●

The proponent requests adoption of specific energy efficiency goals within specific timelines.

Renewable Energy

General Recommendation: Generally vote for requests for reports on the feasibility of developing renewable energy resources unless the report would be duplicative of existing disclosure or irrelevant to the company’s line of business.

Generally vote against proposals requesting that the company invest in renewable energy resources. Such decisions are best left to management’s evaluation of the feasibility and financial impact that such programs may have on the company.

Generally vote against proposals that call for the adoption of renewable energy goals, taking into account:

●

The scope and structure of the proposal;

●

The company’s current level of disclosure on renewable energy use and GHG emissions; and

●

The company’s disclosure of policies, practices, and oversight implemented to manage GHG emissions and mitigate climate change risks.

Diversity

Board Diversity

General Recommendation: Generally vote for requests for reports on a company’s efforts to diversify the board, unless:

●

The gender and racial minority representation of the company’s board is reasonably inclusive in relation to companies of similar size and business; or

●

The board already reports on its nominating procedures and gender and racial minority initiatives on the board and within the company.

Vote case-by-case on proposals asking a company to increase the gender and racial minority representation on its board, taking into account:

●

The degree of existing gender and racial minority diversity on the company’s board and among its executive officers;

●

The level of gender and racial minority representation that exists at the company’s industry peers;

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

70 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

The company’s established process for addressing gender and racial minority board representation;

●

Whether the proposal includes an overly prescriptive request to amend nominating committee charter language;

●

The independence of the company’s nominating committee;

●

Whether the company uses an outside search firm to identify potential director nominees; and

●

Whether the company has had recent controversies, fines, or litigation regarding equal employment practices.

Equality of Opportunity

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting a company disclose its diversity policies or initiatives, or proposals requesting disclosure of a company’s comprehensive workforce diversity data, including requests for EEO-1 data, unless:

●

The company publicly discloses equal opportunity policies and initiatives in a comprehensive manner;

●

The company already publicly discloses comprehensive workforce diversity data; or

●

The company has no recent significant EEO-related violations or litigation.

Generally vote against proposals seeking information on the diversity efforts of suppliers and service providers. Such requests may pose a significant burden on the company.

Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Domestic Partner Benefits

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals seeking to amend a company’s EEO statement or diversity policies to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, unless the change would be unduly burdensome.

Generally vote against proposals to extend company benefits to, or eliminate benefits from, domestic partners. Decisions regarding benefits should be left to the discretion of the company.

Gender, Race/Ethnicity Pay Gap

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for reports on a company’s pay data by gender or race/ethnicity, or a report on a company’s policies and goals to reduce any gender or race/ethnicity pay gaps, taking into account:

●

The company’s current policies and disclosure related to both its diversity and inclusion policies and practices and its compensation philosophy on fair and equitable compensation practices;

●

Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to gender, race, or ethnicity pay gap issues;

●

The company’s disclosure regarding gender, race, or ethnicity pay gap policies or initiatives compared to its industry peers; and

●

Local laws regarding categorization of race and/or ethnicity and definitions of ethnic and/or racial minorities.

Racial Equity and/or Civil Rights Audit Guidelines

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals asking a company to conduct an independent racial equity and/or civil rights audit, taking into account:

●

The company’s established process or framework for addressing racial inequity and discrimination internally;

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

71 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Whether the company adequately discloses workforce diversity and inclusion metrics and goals;

●

Whether the company has issued a public statement related to its racial justice efforts in recent years, or has committed to internal policy review;

●

Whether the company has engaged with impacted communities, stakeholders, and civil rights experts;

●

The company’s track record in recent years of racial justice measures and outreach externally; and

●

Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to racial inequity or discrimination.

Environment and Sustainability

Facility and Workplace Safety

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for workplace safety reports, including reports on accident risk reduction efforts, taking into account:

●

The company’s current level of disclosure of its workplace health and safety performance data, health and safety management policies, initiatives, and oversight mechanisms;

●

The nature of the company’s business, specifically regarding company and employee exposure to health and safety risks;

●

Recent significant controversies, fines, or violations related to workplace health and safety; and

●

The company’s workplace health and safety performance relative to industry peers.

Vote case-by-case on resolutions requesting that a company report on safety and/or security risks associated with its operations and/or facilities, considering:

●

The company’s compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines;

●

The company’s current level of disclosure regarding its security and safety policies, procedures, and compliance monitoring; and

●

The existence of recent, significant violations, fines, or controversy regarding the safety and security of the company’s operations and/or facilities.

General Environmental Proposals and Community Impact Assessments

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for reports on policies and/or the potential (community) social and/or environmental impact of company operations, considering:

●

Current disclosure of applicable policies and risk assessment report(s) and risk management procedures;

●

The impact of regulatory non-compliance, litigation, remediation, or reputational loss that may be associated with failure to manage the company’s operations in question, including the management of relevant community and stakeholder relations;

●

The nature, purpose, and scope of the company’s operations in the specific region(s);

●

The degree to which company policies and procedures are consistent with industry norms; and

●

The scope of the resolution.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

72 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Hydraulic Fracturing

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting greater disclosure of a company’s (natural gas) hydraulic fracturing operations, including measures the company has taken to manage and mitigate the potential community and environmental impacts of those operations, considering:

●

The company’s current level of disclosure of relevant policies and oversight mechanisms;

●

The company’s current level of such disclosure relative to its industry peers;

●

Potential relevant local, state, or national regulatory developments; and

●

Controversies, fines, or litigation related to the company’s hydraulic fracturing operations.

Operations in Protected Areas

General Recommendation: Generally vote for requests for reports on potential environmental damage as a result of company operations in protected regions, unless:

●

Operations in the specified regions are not permitted by current laws or regulations;

●

The company does not currently have operations or plans to develop operations in these protected regions; or

●

The company’s disclosure of its operations and environmental policies in these regions is comparable to industry peers.

Recycling

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to report on an existing recycling program, or adopt a new recycling program, taking into account:

●

The nature of the company’s business;

●

The current level of disclosure of the company’s existing related programs;

●

The timetable and methods of program implementation prescribed by the proposal;

●

The company’s ability to address the issues raised in the proposal; and

●

How the company’s recycling programs compare to similar programs of its industry peers.

Sustainability Reporting

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company report on its policies, initiatives, and oversight mechanisms related to social, economic, and environmental sustainability, unless:

●

The company already discloses similar information through existing reports or policies such as an environment, health, and safety (EHS) report; a comprehensive code of corporate conduct; and/or a diversity report; or

●

The company has formally committed to the implementation of a reporting program based on Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines or a similar standard within a specified time frame.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

73 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Water Issues

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting a company report on, or adopt a new policy on, water-related risks and concerns, taking into account:

●

The company’s current disclosure of relevant policies, initiatives, oversight mechanisms, and water usage metrics;

●

Whether or not the company’s existing water-related policies and practices are consistent with relevant internationally recognized standards and national/local regulations;

●

The potential financial impact or risk to the company associated with water-related concerns or issues; and

●

Recent, significant company controversies, fines, or litigation regarding water use by the company and its suppliers.

General Corporate Issues

Charitable Contributions

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals restricting a company from making charitable contributions. Charitable contributions are generally useful for assisting worthwhile causes and for creating goodwill in the community. In the absence of bad faith, self-dealing, or gross negligence, management should determine which, and if, contributions are in the best interests of the company.

Data Security, Privacy, and Internet Issues

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting the disclosure or implementation of data security, privacy, or information access and management policies and procedures, considering:

●

The level of disclosure of company policies and procedures relating to data security, privacy, freedom of speech, information access and management, and Internet censorship;

●

Engagement in dialogue with governments or relevant groups with respect to data security, privacy, or the free flow of information on the Internet;

●

The scope of business involvement and of investment in countries whose governments censor or monitor the Internet and other telecommunications;

●

Applicable market-specific laws or regulations that may be imposed on the company; and

●

Controversies, fines, or litigation related to data security, privacy, freedom of speech, or Internet censorship.

ESG Compensation-Related Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals seeking a report or additional disclosure on the company's approach, policies, and practices on incorporating environmental and social criteria into its executive compensation strategy, considering:

●

The scope and prescriptive nature of the proposal;

●

The company's current level of disclosure regarding its environmental and social performance and governance;

●

The degree to which the board or compensation committee already discloses information on whether it has considered related E&S criteria; and

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

74 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Whether the company has significant controversies or regulatory violations regarding social or environmental issues.

Human Rights, Human Capital Management, and International Operations

Human Rights Proposals

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting a report on company or company supplier labor and/or human rights standards and policies unless such information is already publicly disclosed.

Vote case-by-case on proposals to implement company or company supplier labor and/or human rights standards and policies, considering:

●

The degree to which existing relevant policies and practices are disclosed;

●

Whether or not existing relevant policies are consistent with internationally recognized standards;

●

Whether company facilities and those of its suppliers are monitored and how;

●

Company participation in fair labor organizations or other internationally recognized human rights initiatives;

●

Scope and nature of business conducted in markets known to have higher risk of workplace labor/human rights abuse;

●

Recent, significant company controversies, fines, or litigation regarding human rights at the company or its suppliers;

●

The scope of the request; and

●

Deviation from industry sector peer company standards and practices.

Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting that a company conduct an assessment of the human rights risks in its operations or in its supply chain, or report on its human rights risk assessment process, considering:

●

The degree to which existing relevant policies and practices are disclosed, including information on the implementation of these policies and any related oversight mechanisms;

●

The company’s industry and whether the company or its suppliers operate in countries or areas where there is a history of human rights concerns;

●

Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation regarding human rights involving the company or its suppliers, and whether the company has taken remedial steps; and

●

Whether the proposal is unduly burdensome or overly prescriptive.

Mandatory Arbitration

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for a report on a company’s use of mandatory arbitration on employment-related claims, taking into account:

●

The company’s current policies and practices related to the use of mandatory arbitration agreements on workplace claims;

●

Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to the use of mandatory arbitration agreements on workplace claims; and

●

The company’s disclosure of its policies and practices related to the use of mandatory arbitration agreements compared to its peers.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

75 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Operations in High Risk Markets

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for a report on a company’s potential financial and reputational risks associated with operations in “high-risk” markets, such as a terrorism-sponsoring state or politically/socially unstable region, taking into account:

●

The nature, purpose, and scope of the operations and business involved that could be affected by social or political disruption;

●

Current disclosure of applicable risk assessment(s) and risk management procedures;

●

Compliance with U.S. sanctions and laws;

●

Consideration of other international policies, standards, and laws; and

●

Whether the company has been recently involved in recent, significant controversies, fines, or litigation related to its operations in “high-risk” markets.

Outsourcing/Offshoring

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals calling for companies to report on the risks associated with outsourcing/plant closures, considering:

●

Controversies surrounding operations in the relevant market(s);

●

The value of the requested report to shareholders;

●

The company’s current level of disclosure of relevant information on outsourcing and plant closure procedures; and

●

The company’s existing human rights standards relative to industry peers.

Sexual Harassment

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on requests for a report on company actions taken to strengthen policies and oversight to prevent workplace sexual harassment, or a report on risks posed by a company’s failure to prevent workplace sexual harassment, taking into account:

●

The company’s current policies, practices, oversight mechanisms related to preventing workplace sexual harassment;

●

Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to workplace sexual harassment issues; and

●

The company’s disclosure regarding workplace sexual harassment policies or initiatives compared to its industry peers.

Weapons and Military Sales

General Recommendation: Vote against reports on foreign military sales or offsets. Such disclosures may involve sensitive and confidential information. Moreover, companies must comply with government controls and reporting on foreign military sales.

Generally vote against proposals asking a company to cease production or report on the risks associated with the use of depleted uranium munitions or nuclear weapons components and delivery systems, including disengaging from current and proposed contracts. Such contracts are monitored by government agencies, serve multiple military and non-military uses, and withdrawal from these contracts could have a negative impact on the company’s business.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

76 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Political Activities

Lobbying

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting information on a company’s lobbying (including direct, indirect, and grassroots lobbying) activities, policies, or procedures, considering:

●

The company’s current disclosure of relevant lobbying policies, and management and board oversight;

●

The company’s disclosure regarding trade associations or other groups that it supports, or is a member of, that engage in lobbying activities; and

●

Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation regarding the company’s lobbying-related activities.

Political Contributions

General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting greater disclosure of a company’s political contributions and trade association spending policies and activities, considering:

●

The company’s policies, and management and board oversight related to its direct political contributions and payments to trade associations or other groups that may be used for political purposes;

●

The company’s disclosure regarding its support of, and participation in, trade associations or other groups that may make political contributions; and

●

Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation related to the company’s political contributions or political activities.

Vote against proposals barring a company from making political contributions. Businesses are affected by legislation at the federal, state, and local level; barring political contributions can put the company at a competitive disadvantage.

Vote against proposals to publish in newspapers and other media a company’s political contributions. Such publications could present significant cost to the company without providing commensurate value to shareholders.

Political Expenditures and Lobbying Congruency

General Recommendation: Generally vote case-by-case on proposals requesting greater disclosure of a company’s alignment of political contributions, lobbying, and electioneering spending with a company’s publicly stated values and policies, considering:

●

The company’s policies, management, board oversight, governance processes, and level of disclosure related to direct political contributions, lobbying activities, and payments to trade associations, political action committees, or other groups that may be used for political purposes;

●

The company’s disclosure regarding: the reasons for its support of candidates for public offices; the reasons for support of and participation in trade associations or other groups that may make political contributions; and other political activities;

●

Any incongruencies identified between a company’s direct and indirect political expenditures and its publicly stated values and priorities; and

●

Recent significant controversies related to the company’s direct and indirect lobbying, political contributions, or political activities.

Generally vote case-by-case on proposals requesting comparison of a company’s political spending to objectives that can mitigate material risks for the company, such as limiting global warming.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

77 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

8. Mutual Fund Proxies

Election of Directors

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the election of directors and trustees, following the same guidelines for uncontested directors for public company shareholder meetings. However, mutual fund boards do not usually have compensation committees, so do not withhold for the lack of this committee.

Closed End Funds- Unilateral Opt-In to Control Share Acquisition Statutes

General Recommendation: For closed-end management investment companies (CEFs), vote against or withhold from nominating/governance committee members (or other directors on a case-by-case basis) at CEFs that have not provided a compelling rationale for opting-in to a Control Share Acquisition statute, nor submitted a by-law amendment to a shareholder vote.

Converting Closed-end Fund to Open-end Fund

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on conversion proposals, considering the following factors:

●

Past performance as a closed-end fund;

●

Market in which the fund invests;

●

Measures taken by the board to address the discount; and

●

Past shareholder activism, board activity, and votes on related proposals.

Proxy Contests

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proxy contests, considering the following factors:

●

Past performance relative to its peers;

●

Market in which the fund invests;

●

Measures taken by the board to address the issues;

●

Past shareholder activism, board activity, and votes on related proposals;

●

Strategy of the incumbents versus the dissidents;

●

Independence of directors;

●

Experience and skills of director candidates;

●

Governance profile of the company; and

●

Evidence of management entrenchment.

Investment Advisory Agreements

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on investment advisory agreements, considering the following factors:

●

Proposed and current fee schedules;

●

Fund category/investment objective;

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

79 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

Performance benchmarks;

●

Share price performance as compared with peers;

●

Resulting fees relative to peers; and

●

Assignments (where the advisor undergoes a change of control).

Approving New Classes or Series of Shares

General Recommendation: Vote for the establishment of new classes or series of shares.

Preferred Stock Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the authorization for or increase in preferred shares, considering the following factors:

●

Stated specific financing purpose;

●

Possible dilution for common shares; and

●

Whether the shares can be used for antitakeover purposes.

1940 Act Policies

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on policies under the Investment Advisor Act of 1940, considering the following factors:

●

Potential competitiveness;

●

Regulatory developments;

●

Current and potential returns; and

●

Current and potential risk.

Generally vote for these amendments as long as the proposed changes do not fundamentally alter the investment focus of the fund and do comply with the current SEC interpretation.

Changing a Fundamental Restriction to a Nonfundamental Restriction

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to change a fundamental restriction to a non-fundamental restriction, considering the following factors:

●

The fund’s target investments;

●

The reasons given by the fund for the change; and

●

The projected impact of the change on the portfolio.

Change Fundamental Investment Objective to Nonfundamental

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals to change a fund’s fundamental investment objective to non-fundamental.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

80 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Name Change Proposals

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on name change proposals, considering the following factors:

●

Political/economic changes in the target market;

●

Consolidation in the target market; and

●

Current asset composition.

Change in Fund’s Subclassification

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on changes in a fund’s sub-classification, considering the following factors:

●

Potential competitiveness;

●

Current and potential returns;

●

Risk of concentration; and

●

Consolidation in target industry.

Business Development Companies—Authorization to Sell Shares of Common Stock at a Price below Net Asset Value

General Recommendation: Vote for proposals authorizing the board to issue shares below Net Asset Value (NAV) if:

●

The proposal to allow share issuances below NAV has an expiration date no more than one year from the date shareholders approve the underlying proposal, as required under the Investment Company Act of 1940;

●

The sale is deemed to be in the best interests of shareholders by (1) a majority of the company’s independent directors and (2) a majority of the company’s directors who have no financial interest in the issuance; and

●

The company has demonstrated responsible past use of share issuances by either:

●

Outperforming peers in its 8-digit GICS group as measured by one- and three-year median TSRs; or

●

Providing disclosure that its past share issuances were priced at levels that resulted in only small or moderate discounts to NAV and economic dilution to existing non-participating shareholders.

Disposition of Assets/Termination/Liquidation

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to dispose of assets, to terminate or liquidate, considering the following factors:

●

Strategies employed to salvage the company;

●

The fund’s past performance; and

●

The terms of the liquidation.

Changes to the Charter Document

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on changes to the charter document, considering the following factors:

●

The degree of change implied by the proposal;

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

81 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

●

The efficiencies that could result;

●

The state of incorporation; and

●

Regulatory standards and implications.

Vote against any of the following changes:

●

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to reorganize or terminate the trust or any of its series;

●

Removal of shareholder approval requirement for amendments to the new declaration of trust;

●

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to amend the fund’s management contract, allowing the contract to be modified by the investment manager and the trust management, as permitted by the 1940 Act;

●

Allow the trustees to impose other fees in addition to sales charges on investment in a fund, such as deferred sales charges and redemption fees that may be imposed upon redemption of a fund’s shares; or

●

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to engage in and terminate subadvisory arrangements;

●

Removal of shareholder approval requirement to change the domicile of the fund.

Changing the Domicile of a Fund

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on re-incorporations, considering the following factors:

●

Regulations of both states;

●

Required fundamental policies of both states; and

●

The increased flexibility available.

Authorizing the Board to Hire and Terminate Subadvisers Without Shareholder Approval

General Recommendation: Vote against proposals authorizing the board to hire or terminate subadvisers without shareholder approval if the investment adviser currently employs only one subadviser.

Distribution Agreements

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on distribution agreement proposals, considering the following factors:

●

Fees charged to comparably sized funds with similar objectives;

●

The proposed distributor’s reputation and past performance;

●

The competitiveness of the fund in the industry; and

●

The terms of the agreement.

Master-Feeder Structure

General Recommendation: Vote for the establishment of a master-feeder structure.

Mergers

General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on merger proposals, considering the following factors:

●

Resulting fee structure;

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

82 of 84

UNITED STATES

Proxy Voting Guidelines

We empower investors and companies to build
for long-term and sustainable growth by providing
high-quality data, analytics, and insight.

GET STARTED WITH ISS SOLUTIONS

Email sales@issgovernance.com or visit www.issgovernance.com for more information.

Founded in 1985, Institutional Shareholder Services group of companies (ISS) empowers investors and companies to build for long-term and sustainable growth by providing high-quality data, analytics and insight. ISS, which is majority owned by Deutsche Bourse Group, along with Genstar Capital and ISS management, is a leading provider of corporate governance and responsible investment solutions, market intelligence, fund services, and events and editorial content for institutional investors and corporations, globally. ISS’ 2,600 employees operate worldwide across 29 global locations in 15 countries. Its approximately 3,400 clients include many of the world’s leading institutional investors who rely on ISS’ objective and impartial offerings, as well as public companies focused on ESG and governance risk mitigation as a shareholder value enhancing measure. Clients rely on ISS’ expertise to help them make informed investment decisions. This document and all of the information contained in it, including without limitation all text, data, graphs, and charts (collectively, the “Information”) is the property of Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS), its subsidiaries, or, in some cases third party suppliers.

The Information has not been submitted to, nor received approval from, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or any other regulatory body. None of the Information constitutes an offer to sell (or a solicitation of an offer to buy), or a promotion or recommendation of, any security, financial product or other investment vehicle or any trading strategy, and ISS does not endorse, approve, or otherwise express any opinion regarding any issuer, securities, financial products or instruments or trading strategies.

The user of the Information assumes the entire risk of any use it may make or permit to be made of the Information.

ISS MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ORIGINALITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS for A PARTICULAR PURPOSE) WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THE INFORMATION.

Without limiting any of the foregoing and to the maximum extent permitted by law, in no event shall ISS have any liability regarding any of the Information for any direct, indirect, special, punitive, consequential (including lost profits), or any other damages even if notified of the possibility of such damages. The foregoing shall not exclude or limit any liability that may not by applicable law be excluded or limited.

WWW.ISSGOVERNANCE.COM

84 of 84

About Glass Lewis

Glass Lewis is the world’s choice for governance solutions. We enable institutional investors and publicly listed companies to make informed decisions based on research and data. We cover 30,000+ meetings each year, across approximately 100 global markets. Our team has been providing in-depth analysis of companies since 2003, relying solely on publicly available information to inform its policies, research, and voting recommendations.

Our customers include the majority of the world’s largest pension plans, mutual funds, and asset managers, collectively managing over $40 trillion in assets. We have teams located across the United States, Europe, and Asia-Pacific giving us global reach with a local perspective on the important governance issues.

Investors around the world depend on Glass Lewis’ Viewpoint platform to manage their proxy voting, policy implementation, recordkeeping, and reporting. Our industry leading Proxy Paper product provides comprehensive environmental, social, and governance research and voting recommendations weeks ahead of voting deadlines. Public companies can also use our innovative Report Feedback Statement to deliver their opinion on our proxy research directly to the voting decision makers at every investor client in time for voting decisions to be made or changed.

The research team engages extensively with public companies, investors, regulators, and other industry stakeholders to gain relevant context into the realities surrounding companies, sectors, and the market in general. This enables us to provide the most comprehensive and pragmatic insights to our customers.

Join the Conversation
Glass Lewis is committed to ongoing engagement with all market participants.
info@glasslewis.com	\|	www.glasslewis.com

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Guidelines Introduction

Summary of Changes for 2024

Glass Lewis evaluates these guidelines on an ongoing basis and formally updates them on an annual basis. This year we’ve made noteworthy revisions in the following areas, which are summarized below but discussed in greater detail in the relevant section of this document:

Material Weaknesses

We have included a new discussion on our approach to material weaknesses. Effective internal controls over financial reporting should ensure the integrity of companies’ accounting and financial reporting. A material weakness occurs when a company identifies a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal controls over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company's annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

When a material weakness is reported and the company has not disclosed a remediation plan, or when a material weakness has been ongoing for more than one year and the company has not disclosed an updated remediation plan that clearly outlines the company’s progress toward remediating the material weakness, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against all members of a company’s audit committee who served on the committee during the time when the material weakness was identified.

Cyber Risk Oversight

We have updated our discussion on our approach to cyber risk oversight. On July 26, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced rules requiring public companies to report cybersecurity incidents deemed material within four days of identifying them; furthermore, in annual reports, they must disclose their processes for assessing, identifying, and managing material cybersecurity risks, along with their material effects and past incidents' impacts. Similar rules were also adopted for foreign private issuers. The final rules became effective on September 5, 2023. Given the continued regulatory focus on and the potential adverse outcomes from cyber-related issues, it is our view that cyber risk is material for all companies.

In the absence of material cybersecurity incidents, we will generally not make voting recommendations on the basis of a company’s oversight or disclosure concerning cyber-related issues. However, in instances where cyber-attacks have caused significant harm to shareholders, we will closely evaluate the board’s oversight of cybersecurity as well as the company’s response and disclosures.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Moreover, in instances where a company has been materially impacted by a cyber-attack, we believe shareholders can reasonably expect periodic updates from the company communicating its ongoing progress towards resolving and remediating the impact of the cyber-attack. These disclosures should focus on the company’s response to address the impacts to affected stakeholders and should not reveal specific and/or technical details that could impede the company’s response or remediation of the incident or that could assist threat actors.

In instances where a company has been materially impacted by a cyber-attack, we may recommend against appropriate directors should we find the board’s oversight, response or disclosures concerning cybersecurity- related issues to be insufficient or are not provided to shareholders.

Board Oversight of Environmental and Social Issues

We have updated our discussion of board oversight of environmental and social issues. Given the importance of the board’s role in overseeing environmental and social risks, we believe that this responsibility should be formally designated and codified in the appropriate committee charters or other governing documents.

When evaluating the board’s role in overseeing environmental and/or social issues, we will examine a company’s committee charters and governing documents to determine if the company has codified a meaningful level of oversight of and accountability for a company’s material environmental and social impacts.

Board Accountability for Climate-Related Issues

We have updated our discussion of board accountability for climate-related issues, and how our policy is applied. In 2023, our policy on this topic was applied to the largest, most significant emitters; however beginning in 2024, Glass Lewis will apply this policy to companies in the S&P 500 index operating in industries where the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) has determined that the companies’ GHG emissions represent a financially material risk, as well as companies where we believe emissions or climate impacts, or stakeholder scrutiny thereof, represent an outsized, financially material risk.

We will assess whether such companies have produced disclosures in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). We have further clarified that we will also assess whether these companies have disclosed explicit and clearly defined board-level oversight responsibilities for climate- related issues. In instances where we find either of these disclosures to be absent of significantly lacking, we may recommend voting against responsible directors.

Clawback Provisions

In light of new NYSE and Nasdaq listing requirements to comply with SEC Rule 10D-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Glass Lewis has updated our views on the utility of clawback provisions. Although the negative impacts of excessive risk-taking do not always result in financial restatements, they may nonetheless prove harmful to shareholder value. In addition to meeting listing requirements, effective clawback policies should provide companies with the power to recoup incentive compensation from an executive when there is evidence of problematic decisions or actions, such as material misconduct, a material reputational failure, material risk management failure, or a material operational failure, the consequences of which have not already been reflected in incentive payments and where recovery is warranted. Such power to recoup should be provided regardless of whether the employment of the executive officer was terminated with or without cause.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

In these circumstances, rationale should be provided if the company determines ultimately to refrain from recouping compensation as well as disclosure of alternative measures that are instead pursued, such as the exercise of negative discretion on future payments.

Executive Ownership Guidelines

We have added a discussion to formally outline our approach to executive ownership guidelines. We believe that companies should facilitate an alignment between the interests of the executive leadership with those of long-term shareholders by adopting and enforcing minimum share ownership rules for their named executive officers. Companies should provide clear disclosure in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of the proxy statement of their executive share ownership requirements and how various outstanding equity awards are treated when determining an executive’s level of ownership.

In the process of determining an executive’s level of share ownership, counting unearned performance-based full value awards and/or unexercised stock options is inappropriate. Companies should provide a cogent rationale should they count these awards towards shares held by an executive.

Proposals for Equity Awards for Shareholders

Regarding proposals seeking approval for individual equity awards, we have included new discussion of provisions that require a non-vote, or vote of abstention, from a shareholder if the shareholder is also the recipient of the proposed grant. Such provisions help to address potential conflict of interest issues and provide disinterested shareholders with more meaningful say over the proposal. The inclusion of such provisions will be viewed positively during our holistic analysis, especially when a vote from the recipient of the proposed grant would materially influence the passage of the proposal.

Net Operating Loss (NOL) Pills

We have updated our discussion of NOL pills to include our concerns with acting in concert provisions. Over the past several years, the terms and structures of NOL pills have evolved to include features such as acting in concert provisions, among other concerning terms, that may disempower shareholders and insulate the board and management. When acting in concert provisions are present within the terms of a NOL pill, we believe this may raise concerns as to the true objective of the pill.

As such, we have added the inclusion of an acting in concert provision and whether the pill is implemented following the filing of a Schedule 13D by a shareholder or there is evidence of hostile activity or shareholder activism as part of our considerations to recommend shareholders vote against a management proposed NOL pill.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Control Share Statutes

We have added a new discussion outlining our approach to control share statutes. Certain states, including Delaware, have adopted control share acquisition statutes as an anti-takeover defense for certain closed-end investment companies and business development companies. Control share statutes may prevent changes in control by limiting voting rights of a person that acquires the ownership of “control shares.” Control shares are shares of stock equal to or exceeding specified percentages of company voting power, and a control share statute prevents shares in excess of the specified percentage from being voted, unless: (i) the board approves them to be voted; or (ii) the holder of the “control shares” receives approval from a supermajority of “non- interested” shareholders.

Depending on the state of incorporation, companies may automatically rely on control share statutes unless the fund’s board of trustees eliminates the application of the control share statute to any or all fund share acquisitions, through adoption of a provision in the fund's governing instrument or by fund board action alone. In certain other states, companies must adopt control share statutes.

In our view, control share statues disenfranchise shareholders by reducing their voting power to a level less than their economic interest and effectively function as an anti-takeover device. We believe all shareholders should have an opportunity to vote all of their shares. Moreover, we generally believe anti-takeover measures prevent shareholders from receiving a buy-out premium for their stock.

As such, we will generally recommend voting for proposals to opt out of control share acquisition statutes, unless doing so would allow the completion of a takeover that is not in the best interests of shareholders; and recommend voting against proposals to amend the charter to include control share acquisition provisions.

Further, in cases where a closed-end fund or business development company has received a public buyout offer and has relied on a control share statute as a defense mechanism in the prior year, we will generally recommend shareholders vote against the chair of the nominating and governance committee, absent a compelling rationale as to why a rejected acquisition was not in the best interests of shareholders.

Clarifying Amendments

The following clarifications of our existing policies are included this year:

Board Responsiveness

We have clarified our discussion of board responsiveness to remove a reference to shareholder proposals from our discussion of when 20% or more of shareholders vote contrary to management. In addition, we have clarified that our calculation of opposition includes votes cast as either AGAINST and/or ABSTAIN.

Interlocking Directorships

We have clarified our policy on interlocking directorships to reference that, on a case-by-case basis, we evaluate other types of interlocking relationships, such as interlocks with close family members of executives or within group companies.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Board Gender Diversity

We have clarified our policy on board gender diversity to emphasize that when making these voting

recommendations, we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations and may refrain from recommending that shareholders vote against directors when boards have provided a sufficient rationale or plan to address the lack of diversity on the board, including a timeline of when the board intends to appoint additional gender diverse directors (generally by the next annual meeting or as soon as is reasonably practicable).

Underrepresented Community Diversity

We have clarified our policy on underrepresented community diversity to emphasize that when making these voting recommendations, we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations and may refrain from recommending that shareholders vote against directors when boards have provided a sufficient rationale or plan to address the lack of diversity on the board, including a timeline of when the board intends to appoint additional directors from an underrepresented community (generally by the next annual meeting or as soon as is reasonably practicable).

Furthermore, we have revised our definition of “underrepresented community director” to replace our reference to an individual who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender with an individual who self-identifies as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community.

Non-GAAP to GAAP Reconciliation Disclosure

We have expanded the discussion of our approach to the use of non-GAAP measures in incentive programs in order to emphasize the need for thorough and transparent disclosure in the proxy statement that will assist shareholders in reconciling the difference between non-GAAP results used for incentive payout determinations and reported GAAP results. Particularly in situations where significant adjustments were applied and materially impacts incentive pay outcomes, the lack of such disclosure will impact Glass Lewis’ assessment of the quality of executive pay disclosure and may be a factor in our recommendation for the say-on-pay.

Pay-Versus-Performance Disclosure

We have revised our discussion of the pay-for-performance analysis to note that the pay-versus-performance disclosure mandated by the SEC may be used as part of our supplemental quantitative assessments supporting our primary pay-for-performance grade.

Company Responsiveness for Say-on-Pay Opposition

For increased clarity, we amended our discussion of company responsiveness to significant levels of say-on-pay opposition to note that our calculation of opposition includes votes cast as either AGAINST and/or ABSTAIN, with opposition of 20% or higher treated as significant.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

A Board of Directors that Serves Shareholder Interest

Election of Directors

The purpose of Glass Lewis’ proxy research and advice is to facilitate shareholder voting in favor of governance structures that will drive performance, create shareholder value and maintain a proper tone at the top. Glass Lewis looks for talented boards with a record of protecting shareholders and delivering value over the medium- and long-term. We believe that a board can best protect and enhance the interests of shareholders if it is sufficiently independent, has a record of positive performance, and consists of individuals with diverse backgrounds and a breadth and depth of relevant experience.

Independence

The independence of directors, or lack thereof, is ultimately demonstrated through the decisions they make. In assessing the independence of directors, we will take into consideration, when appropriate, whether a director has a track record indicative of making objective decisions. Likewise, when assessing the independence of directors we will also examine when a director’s track record on multiple boards indicates a lack of objective decision-making. Ultimately, we believe the determination of whether a director is independent or not must take into consideration both compliance with the applicable independence listing requirements as well as judgments made by the director.

We look at each director nominee to examine the director’s relationships with the company, the company’s executives, and other directors. We do this to evaluate whether personal, familial, or financial relationships (not including director compensation) may impact the director’s decisions. We believe that such relationships make it difficult for a director to put shareholders’ interests above the director’s or the related party’s interests. We also believe that a director who owns more than 20% of a company can exert disproportionate influence on the board, and therefore believe such a director’s independence may be hampered, in particular when serving on the audit committee.

Thus, we put directors into three categories based on an examination of the type of relationship they have with the company:

Independent Director — An independent director has no material financial, familial or other current relationships with the company, its executives, or other board members, except for board service and standard fees paid for that service. Relationships that existed within three to five years1 before the

1 NASDAQ originally proposed a five-year look-back period but both it and the NYSE ultimately settled on a three-year look-back prior to finalizing their rules. A five-year standard for former employment relationships is more appropriate, in our view, because we believe that the unwinding of conflicting relationships between former management and board members is more likely to be complete and final after five years. However, Glass Lewis does not apply the five-year look-back period to directors who have previously served as executives of the company on an interim basis for less than one year.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

inquiry are usually considered “current” for purposes of this test. For material financial relationships with the company, we apply a three-year look back, and for former employment relationships with the company, we apply a five-year look back.

Affiliated Director — An affiliated director has, (or within the past three years, had) a material financial, familial or other relationship with the company or its executives, but is not an employee of the company.2 This includes directors whose employers have a material financial relationship with the company.3 In addition, we view a director who either owns or controls 20% or more of the company’s voting stock, or is an employee or affiliate of an entity that controls such amount, as an affiliate.4

We view 20% shareholders as affiliates because they typically have access to and involvement with the management of a company that is fundamentally different from that of ordinary shareholders. More importantly, 20% holders may have interests that diverge from those of ordinary holders, for reasons such as the liquidity (or lack thereof) of their holdings, personal tax issues, etc.

Glass Lewis applies a three-year look back period to all directors who have an affiliation with the company other than former employment, for which we apply a five-year look back.

Definition of “Material”: A material relationship is one in which the dollar value exceeds:

●

$50,000 (or where no amount is disclosed) for directors who are paid for a service they have agreed to perform for the company, outside of their service as a director, including professional or other services. This threshold also applies to directors who are the majority or principal owner of a firm that receives such payments; or

●

$120,000 (or where no amount is disclosed) for those directors employed by a professional services firm such as a law firm, investment bank, or consulting firm and the company pays the firm, not the individual, for services.5 This dollar limit would also apply to charitable contributions to schools where a board

2 If a company does not consider a non-employee director to be independent, Glass Lewis will classify that director as an affiliate.

3 We allow a five-year grace period for former executives of the company or merged companies who have consulting agreements with the surviving company. (We do not automatically recommend voting against directors in such cases for the first five years.) If the consulting agreement persists after this five-year grace period, we apply the materiality thresholds outlined in the definition of “material.”

4 This includes a director who serves on a board as a representative (as part of his or her basic responsibilities) of an investment firm with greater than 20% ownership. However, while we will generally consider him/her to be affiliated, we will not recommend voting against unless (i) the investment firm has disproportionate board representation or (ii) the director serves on the audit committee.

5 We may deem such a transaction to be immaterial where the amount represents less than 1% of the firm’s annual revenues and the board provides a compelling rationale as to why the director’s independence is not affected by the relationship.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

member is a professor; or charities where a director serves on the board or is an executive;6 and any aircraft and real estate dealings between the company and the director’s firm; or

●

1% of either company’s consolidated gross revenue for other business relationships (e.g., where the director is an executive officer of a company that provides services or products to or receives services or products from the company).7

Definition of “Familial” — Familial relationships include a person’s spouse, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, nieces, nephews, in-laws, and anyone (other than domestic employees) who shares such person’s home. A director is an affiliate if: i) he or she has a family member who is employed by the company and receives more than $120,0008 in annual compensation; or, ii) he or she has a family member who is employed by the company and the company does not disclose this individual’s compensation.

Definition of “Company” — A company includes any parent or subsidiary in a group with the company or any entity that merged with, was acquired by, or acquired the company.

Inside Director — An inside director simultaneously serves as a director and as an employee of the company. This category may include a board chair who acts as an employee of the company or is paid as an employee of the company. In our view, an inside director who derives a greater amount of income as a result of affiliated transactions with the company rather than through compensation paid by the company (i.e., salary, bonus, etc. as a company employee) faces a conflict between making decisions that are in the best interests of the company versus those in the director’s own best interests. Therefore, we will recommend voting against such a director.

Additionally, we believe a director who is currently serving in an interim management position should be considered an insider, while a director who previously served in an interim management position for less than one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered independent. Moreover, a director who previously served in an interim management position for over one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered an affiliate for five years following the date of the director’s resignation or departure from the interim management position.

6 We will generally take into consideration the size and nature of such charitable entities in relation to the company’s size and industry along with any other relevant factors such as the director’s role at the charity. However, unlike for other types of related party transactions, Glass Lewis generally does not apply a look-back period to affiliated relationships involving charitable contributions; if the relationship between the director and the school or charity ceases, or if the company discontinues its donations to the entity, we will consider the director to be independent.

7 This includes cases where a director is employed by, or closely affiliated with, a private equity firm that profits from an acquisition made by the company. Unless disclosure suggests otherwise, we presume the director is affiliated.

8 Pursuant to SEC rule Item 404 of Regulation S-K under the Securities Exchange Act, compensation exceeding $120,000 is the minimum threshold deemed material for disclosure of transactions involving family members of directors.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Board Independence

Glass Lewis believes a board will be most effective in protecting shareholders’ interests if it is at least two-thirds independent. We note that each of the Business Roundtable, the Conference Board, and the Council of Institutional Investors advocates that two-thirds of the board be independent. Where more than one-third of the members are affiliated or inside directors, we typically8 recommend voting against some of the inside and/or affiliated directors in order to satisfy the two-thirds threshold.

In the case of a less than two-thirds independent board, Glass Lewis strongly supports the existence of a presiding or lead director with authority to set the meeting agendas and to lead sessions outside the insider chair’s presence.

In addition, we scrutinize avowedly “independent” chairs and lead directors. We believe that they should be unquestionably independent, or the company should not tout them as such.

Committee Independence

We believe that only independent directors should serve on a company’s audit, compensation, nominating, and governance committees.9 We typically recommend that shareholders vote against any affiliated or inside director seeking appointment to an audit, compensation, nominating, or governance committee, or who has served in that capacity in the past year.

Pursuant to Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as of January 11, 2013, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved new listing requirements for both the NYSE and NASDAQ which require that boards apply enhanced standards of independence when making an affirmative determination of the independence of compensation committee members. Specifically, when making this determination, in addition to the factors considered when assessing general director independence, the board’s considerations must include: (i) the source of compensation of the director, including any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee paid by the listed company to the director (the “Fees Factor”); and (ii) whether the director is affiliated with the listing company, its subsidiaries, or affiliates of its subsidiaries (the “Affiliation Factor”).

Glass Lewis believes it is important for boards to consider these enhanced independence factors when assessing compensation committee members. However, as discussed above in the section titled Independence, we apply our own standards when assessing the independence of directors, and these standards also take into account consulting and advisory fees paid to the director, as well as the director’s affiliations with the company and its subsidiaries and affiliates. We may recommend voting against compensation committee members who are not independent based on our standards.

8 With a staggered board, if the affiliates or insiders that we believe should not be on the board are not up for election, we will express our concern regarding those directors, but we will not recommend voting against the other affiliates or insiders who are up for election just to achieve two-thirds independence. However, we will consider recommending voting against the directors subject to our concern at their next election if the issue giving rise to the concern is not resolved.

9 We will recommend voting against an audit committee member who owns 20% or more of the company’s stock, and we believe that there should be a maximum of one director (or no directors if the committee is composed of less than three directors) who owns 20% or more of the company’s stock on the compensation, nominating, and governance committees.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Independent Chair

Glass Lewis believes that separating the roles of CEO (or, more rarely, another executive position) and chair creates a better governance structure than a combined CEO/chair position. An executive manages the business according to a course the board charts. Executives should report to the board regarding their performance in achieving goals set by the board. This is needlessly complicated when a CEO chairs the board, since a CEO/chair presumably will have a significant influence over the board.

While many companies have an independent lead or presiding director who performs many of the same functions of an independent chair (e.g., setting the board meeting agenda), we do not believe this alternate form of independent board leadership provides as robust protection for shareholders as an independent chair.

It can become difficult for a board to fulfill its role of overseer and policy setter when a CEO/chair controls the agenda and the boardroom discussion. Such control can allow a CEO to have an entrenched position, leading to longer-than-optimal terms, fewer checks on management, less scrutiny of the business operation, and limitations on independent, shareholder-focused goal-setting by the board.

A CEO should set the strategic course for the company, with the board’s approval, and the board should enable the CEO to carry out the CEO’s vision for accomplishing the board’s objectives. Failure to achieve the board’s objectives should lead the board to replace that CEO with someone in whom the board has confidence.

Likewise, an independent chair can better oversee executives and set a pro-shareholder agenda without the management conflicts that a CEO and other executive insiders often face. Such oversight and concern for shareholders allows for a more proactive and effective board of directors that is better able to look out for the interests of shareholders.

Further, it is the board’s responsibility to select a chief executive who can best serve a company and its shareholders and to replace this person when his or her duties have not been appropriately fulfilled. Such a replacement becomes more difficult and happens less frequently when the chief executive is also in the position of overseeing the board.

Glass Lewis believes that the installation of an independent chair is almost always a positive step from a corporate governance perspective and promotes the best interests of shareholders. Further, the presence of an independent chair fosters the creation of a thoughtful and dynamic board, not dominated by the views of senior management. Encouragingly, many companies appear to be moving in this direction — one study indicates that only 10 percent of incoming CEOs in 2014 were awarded the chair title, versus 48 percent in 2002.10 Another study finds that 53 percent of S&P 500 boards now separate the CEO and chair roles, up from 37 percent in 2009, although the same study found that only 34 percent of S&P 500 boards have truly independent chairs.11

We do not recommend that shareholders vote against CEOs who chair the board. However, we typically recommend that our clients support separating the roles of chair and CEO whenever that question is posed in a proxy (typically in the form of a shareholder proposal), as we believe that it is in the long-term best interests of the company and its shareholders.

10 Ken Favaro, Per-Ola Karlsson and Gary L. Nelson. “The $112 Billion CEO Succession Problem.” (Strategy+Business, Issue 79, Summer 2015).

11 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2019, p. 6.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Further, where the company has neither an independent chair nor independent lead director, we will recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee.

Performance

The most crucial test of a board’s commitment to the company and its shareholders lies in the actions of the board and its members. We look at the performance of these individuals as directors and executives of the company and of other companies where they have served.

We find that a director’s past conduct is often indicative of future conduct and performance. We often find directors with a history of overpaying executives or of serving on boards where avoidable disasters have occurred serving on the boards of companies with similar problems. Glass Lewis has a proprietary database of directors serving at over 8,000 of the most widely held U.S. companies. We use this database to track the performance of directors across companies.

Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Performance

We typically recommend that shareholders vote against directors who have served on boards or as executives of companies with records of poor performance, inadequate risk oversight, excessive compensation, audit- or accounting-related issues, and/or other indicators of mismanagement or actions against the interests of shareholders. We will reevaluate such directors based on, among other factors, the length of time passed since the incident giving rise to the concern, shareholder support for the director, the severity of the issue, the director’s role (e.g., committee membership), director tenure at the subject company, whether ethical lapses accompanied the oversight lapse, and evidence of strong oversight at other companies.

Likewise, we examine the backgrounds of those who serve on key board committees to ensure that they have the required skills and diverse backgrounds to make informed judgments about the subject matter for which the committee is responsible.

We believe shareholders should avoid electing directors who have a record of not fulfilling their responsibilities to shareholders at any company where they have held a board or executive position. We typically recommend voting against:

A director who fails to attend a minimum of 75% of board and applicable committee meetings, calculated in the aggregate.12

A director who belatedly filed a significant form(s) 4 or 5, or who has a pattern of late filings if the late filing was the director’s fault (we look at these late filing situations on a case-by-case basis).

A director who is also the CEO of a company where a serious and material restatement has occurred after the CEO had previously certified the pre-restatement financial statements.

A director who has received two against recommendations from Glass Lewis for identical reasons within the prior year at different companies (the same situation must also apply at the company being analyzed).

12 However, where a director has served for less than one full year, we will typically not recommend voting against for failure to attend 75% of meetings. Rather, we will note the poor attendance with a recommendation to track this issue going forward. We will also refrain from recommending to vote against directors when the proxy discloses that the director missed the meetings due to serious illness or other extenuating circumstances.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Furthermore, with consideration given to the company’s overall corporate governance, pay-for-performance alignment and board responsiveness to shareholders, we may recommend voting against directors who served throughout a period in which the company performed significantly worse than peers and the directors have not taken reasonable steps to address the poor performance.

Board Responsiveness

Glass Lewis believes that boards should be responsive to shareholders when a significant percentage of shareholders vote contrary to the recommendation of management, depending on the issue.

When 20% of more of shareholders vote contrary to management (which occurs when more than 20% of votes on the proposal are cast as AGAINST and/or ABSTAIN), we believe that boards should engage with shareholders on the issue and demonstrate some initial level of responsiveness. These include instances when 20% or more of shareholders:

(i)

withhold votes from (or vote against) a director nominee; or

(ii)

vote against a management-sponsored proposal.

In our view, a 20% threshold is significant enough to warrant a close examination of the underlying issues and an

evaluation of whether the board responded appropriately following the vote, particularly in the case of a compensation or director election proposal. While the 20% threshold alone will not automatically generate a negative vote recommendation from Glass Lewis on a future proposal (e.g., to recommend against a director nominee, against a say-on-pay proposal, etc.), it may be a contributing factor to our recommendation to vote against management’s recommendation in the event we determine that the board did not respond appropriately.

When a majority of shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders on the issue and provide a more robust response to fully address shareholder concerns. These include instances when a majority or more of shareholders:

(i)

withhold votes from (or vote against) a director nominee;

(ii)

vote against a management-sponsored proposal; or

(iii)

vote for a shareholder proposal.

In the case of shareholder proposals, we believe clear action is warranted when such proposals receive support from a majority of votes cast (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes). In our view, this may include fully implementing the request of the shareholder proposal and/or engaging with shareholders on the issue and providing sufficient disclosures to address shareholder concerns.

At controlled companies and companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, we will carefully examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining whether board responsiveness is warranted. In the case of companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, we will generally examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders on a “one share, one vote” basis. At controlled and multi-class companies, when at least 20% or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and demonstrate some initial level of responsiveness, and when a majority or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and provide a more robust response to address shareholder concerns.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

As a general framework, our evaluation of board responsiveness involves a review of publicly available disclosures (e.g., the proxy statement, annual report, 8-Ks, company website, etc.) released following the date of the company’s last annual meeting up through the publication date of our most current Proxy Paper. Depending on the specific issue, our focus typically includes, but is not limited to, the following:

●

At the board level, any changes in directorships, committee memberships, disclosure of related party transactions, meeting attendance, or other responsibilities;

●

Any revisions made to the company’s articles of incorporation, bylaws or other governance documents;

●

Any press or news releases indicating changes in, or the adoption of, new company policies, business practices or special reports; and

●

Any modifications made to the design and structure of the company’s compensation program, as well as an assessment of the company’s engagement with shareholders on compensation issues as discussed in the Compensation Discussion & Analysis (CD&A), particularly following a material vote against a company’s say-on-pay.

●

Proxy statement disclosure discussing the board’s efforts to engage with shareholders and the actions taken to address shareholder concerns.

Our Proxy Paper analysis will include a case-by-case assessment of the specific elements of board responsiveness that we examined along with an explanation of how that assessment impacts our current voting recommendations.

The Role of a Committee Chair

Glass Lewis believes that a designated committee chair maintains primary responsibility for the actions of his or her respective committee. As such, many of our committee-specific voting recommendations are against the applicable committee chair rather than the entire committee (depending on the seriousness of the issue). In cases where the committee chair is not up for election due to a staggered board, and where we have identified multiple concerns, we will generally recommend voting against other members of the committee who are up for election, on a case-by-case basis.

In cases where we would ordinarily recommend voting against a committee chair but the chair is not specified, we apply the following general rules, which apply throughout our guidelines:

●

If there is no committee chair, we recommend voting against the longest-serving committee member or, if the longest-serving committee member cannot be determined, the longest-serving board member serving on the committee (i.e., in either case, the “senior director”); and

●

If there is no committee chair, but multiple senior directors serving on the committee, we recommend voting against both (or all) such senior directors.

In our view, companies should provide clear disclosure of which director is charged with overseeing each committee. In cases where that simple framework is ignored and a reasonable analysis cannot determine which committee member is the designated leader, we believe shareholder action against the longest serving committee member(s) is warranted. Again, this only applies if we would ordinarily recommend voting against the committee chair but there is either no such position or no designated director in such role.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Audit Committees and Performance

Audit committees play an integral role in overseeing the financial reporting process because stable capital markets depend on reliable, transparent, and objective financial information to support an efficient and effective capital market process. Audit committees play a vital role in providing this disclosure to shareholders.

When assessing an audit committee’s performance, we are aware that an audit committee does not prepare financial statements, is not responsible for making the key judgments and assumptions that affect the financial statements, and does not audit the numbers or the disclosures provided to investors. Rather, an audit committee member monitors and oversees the process and procedures that management and auditors perform. The 1999 Report and Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees stated it best:

A proper and well-functioning system exists, therefore, when the three main groups responsible for financial reporting — the full board including the audit committee, financial management including the internal auditors, and the outside auditors — form a ‘three legged stool’ that supports responsible financial disclosure and active participatory oversight. However, in the view of the Committee, the audit committee must be ‘first among equals’ in this process, since the audit committee is an extension of the full board and hence the ultimate monitor of the process.

Standards for Assessing the Audit Committee

For an audit committee to function effectively on investors’ behalf, it must include members with sufficient knowledge to diligently carry out their responsibilities. In its audit and accounting recommendations, the Conference Board Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise said “members of the audit committee must be independent and have both knowledge and experience in auditing financial matters.”13

We are skeptical of audit committees where there are members that lack expertise as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or corporate controller, or similar experience. While we will not necessarily recommend voting against members of an audit committee when such expertise is lacking, we are more likely to recommend voting against committee members when a problem such as a restatement occurs and such expertise is lacking.

Glass Lewis generally assesses audit committees against the decisions they make with respect to their oversight and monitoring role. The quality and integrity of the financial statements and earnings reports, the completeness of disclosures necessary for investors to make informed decisions, and the effectiveness of the internal controls should provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements are materially free from errors. The independence of the external auditors and the results of their work all provide useful information by which to assess the audit committee.

When assessing the decisions and actions of the audit committee, we typically defer to its judgment and generally recommend voting in favor of its members. However, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:

All members of the audit committee when options were backdated, there is a lack of adequate controls in place, there was a resulting restatement, and disclosures indicate there was a lack of documentation with respect to the option grants.

13 Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise. The Conference Board. 2003.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

The audit committee chair, if the audit committee does not have a financial expert or the committee’s financial expert does not have a demonstrable financial background sufficient to understand the financial issues unique to public companies.

The audit committee chair, if the audit committee did not meet at least four times during the year.

The audit committee chair, if the committee has less than three members.

Any audit committee member who sits on more than three public company audit committees, unless the audit committee member is a retired CPA, CFO, controller or has similar experience, in which case the limit shall be four committees, taking time and availability into consideration including a review of the audit committee member’s attendance at all board and committee meetings.14

All members of an audit committee who are up for election and who served on the committee at the time of the audit, if audit and audit-related fees total one-third or less of the total fees billed by the auditor.

The audit committee chair when tax and/or other fees are greater than audit and audit-related fees paid to the auditor for more than one year in a row (in which case we also recommend against ratification of the auditor).

The audit committee chair when fees paid to the auditor are not disclosed.

All members of an audit committee where non-audit fees include fees for tax services (including, but not limited to, such things as tax avoidance or shelter schemes) for senior executives of the company. Such services are prohibited by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).

10.

All members of an audit committee that reappointed an auditor that we no longer consider to be independent for reasons unrelated to fee proportions.

11.

All members of an audit committee when audit fees are excessively low, especially when compared with other companies in the same industry.

12.

The audit committee chair if the committee failed to put auditor ratification on the ballot for shareholder approval. However, if the non-audit fees or tax fees exceed audit plus audit-related fees in either the current or the prior year, then Glass Lewis will recommend voting against the entire audit committee.

13.

All members of an audit committee where the auditor has resigned and reported that a section 10A15 letter has been issued.

14.

All members of an audit committee at a time when material accounting fraud occurred at the company.16

14 Glass Lewis may exempt certain audit committee members from the above threshold if, upon further analysis of relevant factors such as the director’s experience, the size, industry-mix and location of the companies involved and the director’s attendance at all the companies, we can reasonably determine that the audit committee member is likely not hindered by multiple audit committee commitments.

15 Auditors are required to report all potential illegal acts to management and the audit committee unless they are clearly inconsequential in nature. If the audit committee or the board fails to take appropriate action on an act that has been determined to be a violation of the law, the independent auditor is required to send a section 10A letter to the SEC. Such letters are rare and therefore we believe should be taken seriously.

16 Research indicates that revenue fraud now accounts for over 60% of SEC fraud cases, and that companies that engage in fraud experience significant negative abnormal stock price declines—facing bankruptcy, delisting, and material asset sales at much higher rates than do non-fraud firms (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. “Fraudulent Financial Reporting: 1998-2007.” May 2010).

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

15.

All members of an audit committee at a time when annual and/or multiple quarterly financial statements had to be restated, and any of the following factors apply:17

The restatement involves fraud or manipulation by insiders;

The restatement is accompanied by an SEC inquiry or investigation;

The restatement involves revenue recognition;

The restatement results in a greater than 5% adjustment to costs of goods sold, operating expense, or operating cash flows; or

The restatement results in a greater than 5% adjustment to net income, 10% adjustment to assets or shareholders equity, or cash flows from financing or investing activities.

16.

All members of an audit committee if the company repeatedly fails to file its financial reports in a timely fashion. For example, the company has filed two or more quarterly or annual financial statements late within the last five quarters.

17.

All members of an audit committee when it has been disclosed that a law enforcement agency has charged the company and/or its employees with a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

18.

All members of an audit committee when the company has aggressive accounting policies and/or poor disclosure or lack of sufficient transparency in its financial statements.

19.

All members of the audit committee when there is a disagreement with the auditor and the auditor resigns or is dismissed (e.g., the company receives an adverse opinion on its financial statements from the auditor).

20.

All members of the audit committee if the contract with the auditor specifically limits the auditor’s liability to the company for damages.18

21.

All members of the audit committee who served since the date of the company’s last annual meeting if, since the last annual meeting, the company has reported a material weakness that has not yet been corrected and the company has not disclosed a remediation plan; or when a material weakness has been ongoing for more than one year and the company has not disclosed an updated remediation plan that clearly outlines the company’s progress toward remediating the material weakness.

Material Weaknesses

Effective internal controls over financial reporting should ensure the integrity of companies’ accounting and financial reporting.

The SEC guidance regarding Management's Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting requires that reports on internal control should include: (i) a statement of management's responsibility for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting for the company; (ii) management's assessment of the effectiveness of the company's internal control over financial reporting as of the end of the company's most recent fiscal year; (iii) a statement identifying the framework used by management to evaluate the effectiveness

17 The SEC issued guidance in March 2021 related to classification of warrants as liabilities at special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). We will generally refrain from recommending against audit committee members when the restatement in question is solely as a result of the aforementioned SEC guidance.

18 The Council of Institutional Investors. “Corporate Governance Policies,” p. 4, April 5, 2006; and “Letter from Council of Institutional Investors to the AICPA,” November 8, 2006.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

of the company's internal control over financial reporting; and (iv) a statement that the registered public accounting firm that audited the company's financial statements included in the annual report has issued an attestation report on management's assessment of the company's internal control over financial reporting.

A material weakness occurs when a company identifies a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal controls over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company's annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Failure to maintain effective internal controls can create doubts regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP and may lead to companies publishing financial statements that are not free of errors or misstatements.

We believe it is the responsibility of audit committees to ensure that material weaknesses are remediated in a timely manner and that companies disclose remediation plans that include detailed steps to resolve a given material weakness. In cases where a material weakness has been ongoing for more than one fiscal year, we expect the company to disclose an updated remediation plan at least annually thereafter. Updates to existing remediation plans should state the progress the company has made toward remediating the material weakness and the remaining actions the company plans to take until the material weakness is fully remediated. As such, we are critical of audit committees when companies disclose remediation plans that remain unchanged from a prior period.

We also take a dim view of audit committee reports that are boilerplate, and which provide little or no information or transparency to investors. When a problem such as a material weakness, restatement or late filings occurs, in forming our judgment with respect to the audit committee we take into consideration the transparency of the audit committee report.

Compensation Committee Performance

Compensation committees have a critical role in determining the compensation of executives. This includes deciding the basis on which compensation is determined, as well as the amounts and types of compensation to be paid. This process begins with the hiring and initial establishment of employment agreements, including the terms for such items as pay, pensions and severance arrangements. It is important in establishing compensation arrangements that compensation be consistent with, and based on the long-term economic performance of, the business’s long-term shareholders returns.

Compensation committees are also responsible for the oversight of the transparency of compensation. This oversight includes disclosure of compensation arrangements, the matrix used in assessing pay for performance, and the use of compensation consultants. In order to ensure the independence of the board’s compensation consultant, we believe the compensation committee should only engage a compensation consultant that is not also providing any services to the company or management apart from their contract with the compensation committee. It is important to investors that they have clear and complete disclosure of all the significant terms of compensation arrangements in order to make informed decisions with respect to the oversight and decisions of the compensation committee.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Finally, compensation committees are responsible for oversight of internal controls over the executive compensation process. This includes controls over gathering information used to determine compensation, establishment of equity award plans, and granting of equity awards. For example, the use of a compensation consultant who maintains a business relationship with company management may cause the committee to make decisions based on information that is compromised by the consultant’s conflict of interests. Lax controls can also contribute to improper awards of compensation such as through granting of backdated or spring-loaded options, or granting of bonuses when triggers for bonus payments have not been met.

Central to understanding the actions of compensation committee is a careful review of the CD&A report included in each company’s proxy. We review the CD&A in our evaluation of the overall compensation practices of a company, as overseen by the compensation committee. The CD&A is also integral to the evaluation of compensation proposals at companies, such as advisory votes on executive compensation, which allow shareholders to vote on the compensation paid to a company’s top executives.

When assessing the performance of compensation committees, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:

All members of a compensation committee during whose tenure the committee failed to address shareholder concerns following majority shareholder rejection of the say-on-pay proposal in the previous year. Where the proposal was approved but there was a significant shareholder vote (i.e., greater than 20% of votes cast) against the say-on-pay proposal in the prior year, if the board did not respond sufficiently to the vote including actively engaging shareholders on this issue, we will also consider recommending voting against the chair of the compensation committee or all members of the compensation committee, depending on the severity and history of the compensation problems and the level of shareholder opposition.

All members of the compensation committee who are up for election and served when the company failed to align pay with performance if shareholders are not provided with an advisory vote on executive compensation at the annual meeting.19

Any member of the compensation committee who has served on the compensation committee of at least two other public companies that have consistently failed to align pay with performance and whose oversight of compensation at the company in question is suspect.

All members of the compensation committee (during the relevant time period) if the company entered into excessive employment agreements and/or severance agreements.

All members of the compensation committee when performance goals were changed (i.e., lowered) when employees failed or were unlikely to meet original goals, or performance-based compensation was paid despite goals not being attained.

All members of the compensation committee if excessive employee perquisites and benefits were allowed.

The compensation committee chair if the compensation committee did not meet during the year.

All members of the compensation committee when the company repriced options or completed a “self tender offer” without shareholder approval within the past two years.

19 If a company provides shareholders with a say-on-pay proposal, we will initially only recommend voting against the company's say-on-pay proposal and will not recommend voting against the members of the compensation committee unless there is a pattern of failing to align pay and performance and/or the company exhibits egregious compensation practices. For cases in which the disconnect between pay and performance is marginal and the company has outperformed its peers, we will consider not recommending against compensation committee members.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

All members of the compensation committee when vesting of in-the-money options is accelerated.

10.

All members of the compensation committee when option exercise prices were backdated. Glass Lewis will recommend voting against an executive director who played a role in and participated in option backdating.

11.

All members of the compensation committee when option exercise prices were spring-loaded or otherwise timed around the release of material information.

12.

All members of the compensation committee when a new employment contract is given to an executive that does not include a clawback provision and the company had a material restatement, especially if the restatement was due to fraud.

13.

The chair of the compensation committee where the CD&A provides insufficient or unclear information about performance metrics and goals, where the CD&A indicates that pay is not tied to performance, or where the compensation committee or management has excessive discretion to alter performance terms or increase amounts of awards in contravention of previously defined targets.

14.

All members of the compensation committee during whose tenure the committee failed to implement a shareholder proposal regarding a compensation-related issue, where the proposal received the affirmative vote of a majority of the voting shares at a shareholder meeting, and when a reasonable analysis suggests that the compensation committee (rather than the governance committee) should have taken steps to implement the request.20

15.

All members of the compensation committee when the board has materially decreased proxy statement disclosure regarding executive compensation policies and procedures in a manner which substantially impacts shareholders’ ability to make an informed assessment of the company’s executive pay practices.

16.

All members of the compensation committee when new excise tax gross-up provisions are adopted in employment agreements with executives, particularly in cases where the company previously committed not to provide any such entitlements in the future.

17.

All members of the compensation committee when the board adopts a frequency for future advisory votes on executive compensation that differs from the frequency approved by shareholders.

18.

The chair of the compensation committee when” mega-grants” have been granted and the awards present concerns such as excessive quantum, lack of sufficient performance conditions, and/or are excessively dilutive, among others.

Nominating and Governance Committee Performance

The nominating and governance committee is responsible for the governance by the board of the company and its executives. In performing this role, the committee is responsible and accountable for selection of objective and competent board members. It is also responsible for providing leadership on governance policies adopted by the company, such as decisions to implement shareholder proposals that have received a majority vote. At most companies, a single committee is charged with these oversight functions; at others, the governance and nominating responsibilities are apportioned among two separate committees.

Consistent with Glass Lewis’ philosophy that boards should have diverse backgrounds and members with a breadth and depth of relevant experience, we believe that nominating and governance committees should consider diversity when making director nominations within the context of each specific company and its

20 In all other instances (i.e., a non-compensation-related shareholder proposal should have been implemented) we recommend that shareholders vote against the members of the governance committee.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

industry. In our view, shareholders are best served when boards make an effort to ensure a constituency that is not only reasonably diverse on the basis of age, race, gender and ethnicity, but also on the basis of geographic knowledge, industry experience, board tenure and culture.

Regarding the committee responsible for governance, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:

All members of the governance committee21 during whose tenure a shareholder proposal relating to important shareholder rights received support from a majority of the votes cast (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes) and the board has not begun to implement or enact the proposal’s subject matter.22 Examples of such shareholder proposals include those seeking a declassified board structure, a majority vote standard for director elections, or a right to call a special meeting. In determining whether a board has sufficiently implemented such a proposal, we will examine the quality of the right enacted or proffered by the board for any conditions that may unreasonably interfere with the shareholders’ ability to exercise the right (e.g., overly restrictive procedural requirements for calling a special meeting).

All members of the governance committee when a shareholder resolution is excluded from the meeting agenda but the SEC has declined to state a view on whether such resolution should be excluded, or when the SEC has verbally permitted a company to exclude a shareholder proposal but there is no written record provided by the SEC about such determination and the company has not provided any disclosure concerning this no-action relief.

The governance committee chair when the chair is not independent and an independent lead or presiding director has not been appointed.23

The governance committee chair at companies with a multi-class share structure and unequal voting rights when the company does not provide for a reasonable sunset of the multi-class share structure (generally seven years or less).

In the absence of a nominating committee, the governance committee chair when there are fewer than five, or the whole governance committee when there are more than 20 members on the board.

The governance committee chair when the committee fails to meet at all during the year.

The governance committee chair, when for two consecutive years the company provides what we consider to be “inadequate” related party transaction disclosure (i.e., the nature of such transactions and/or the monetary amounts involved are unclear or excessively vague, thereby preventing a share- holder from being able to reasonably interpret the independence status of multiple directors above and beyond what the company maintains is compliant with SEC or applicable stock exchange listing requirements).

21 If the board does not have a committee responsible for governance oversight and the board did not implement a shareholder proposal that received the requisite support, we will recommend voting against the entire board. If the shareholder proposal at issue requested that the board adopt a declassified structure, we will recommend voting against all director nominees up for election.

22 Where a compensation-related shareholder proposal should have been implemented, and when a reasonable analysis suggests that the members of the compensation committee (rather than the governance committee) bear the responsibility for failing to implement the request, we recommend that shareholders only vote against members of the compensation committee.

23 We believe that one independent individual should be appointed to serve as the lead or presiding director. When such a position is rotated among directors from meeting to meeting, we will recommend voting against the governance committee chair as we believe the lack of fixed lead or presiding director means that, effectively, the board does not have an independent board leader.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

The governance committee chair, when during the past year the board adopted a forum selection clause (i.e., an exclusive forum provision)24 designating either a state's courts for intra-corporate disputes, and/or federal courts for matters arising under the Securities Act of 1933 without shareholder approval,25 or if the board is currently seeking shareholder approval of a forum selection clause pursuant to a bundled bylaw amendment rather than as a separate proposal.

All members of the governance committee during whose tenure the board adopted, without shareholder approval, provisions in its charter or bylaws that, through rules on director compensation, may inhibit the ability of shareholders to nominate directors.

10.

The governance committee chair when the board takes actions to limit shareholders’ ability to vote on matters material to shareholder rights (e.g., through the practice of excluding a shareholder proposal by means of ratifying a management proposal that is materially different from the shareholder proposal).

11.

The governance committee chair when directors’ records for board and committee meeting attendance are not disclosed, or when it is indicated that a director attended less than 75% of board and committee meetings but disclosure is sufficiently vague that it is not possible to determine which specific director’s attendance was lacking.

12.

The governance committee chair when a detailed record of proxy voting results from the prior annual meeting has not been disclosed.

13.

The governance committee chair when a company does not clearly disclose the identity of a shareholder proponent (or lead proponent when there are multiple filers) in their proxy statement. For a detailed explanation of this policy, please refer to our comprehensive Proxy Paper Guidelines for Shareholder Proposals & ESG Related Issues, available at www.glasslewis.com/voting-policies-current/.

In addition, we may recommend that shareholders vote against the chair of the governance committee, or the entire committee, where the board has amended the company’s governing documents to reduce or remove important shareholder rights, or to otherwise impede the ability of shareholders to exercise such right, and has done so without seeking shareholder approval. Examples of board actions that may cause such a recommendation include: the elimination of the ability of shareholders to call a special meeting or to act by written consent; an increase to the ownership threshold required for shareholders to call a special meeting; an increase to vote requirements for charter or bylaw amendments; the adoption of provisions that limit the ability of shareholders to pursue full legal recourse — such as bylaws that require arbitration of shareholder claims or that require shareholder plaintiffs to pay the company’s legal expenses in the absence of a court victory (i.e., “fee-shifting” or “loser pays” bylaws); the adoption of a classified board structure; and the elimination of the ability of shareholders to remove a director without cause.

Regarding the nominating committee, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following:

24 A forum selection clause is a bylaw provision stipulating that a certain state or federal jurisdiction is the exclusive forum for specified legal matters. Such a clause effectively limits a shareholder's legal remedy regarding appropriate choice of venue and related relief.

25 Glass Lewis will evaluate the circumstances surrounding the adoption of any forum selection clause as well as the general provisions contained therein. Where it can be reasonably determined that a forum selection clause is narrowly crafted to suit the particular circumstances facing the company and/or a reasonable sunset provision is included, we may make an exception to this policy.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

All members of the nominating committee, when the committee nominated or renominated an individual who had a significant conflict of interest or whose past actions demonstrated a lack of integrity or inability to represent shareholder interests.

The nominating committee chair, if the nominating committee did not meet during the year.

In the absence of a governance committee, the nominating committee chair when the chair is not independent, and an independent lead or presiding director has not been appointed.

The nominating committee chair, when there are fewer than five, or the whole nominating committee when there are more than 20 members on the board.

The nominating committee chair, when a director received a greater than 50% against vote the prior year and not only was the director not removed, but the issues that raised shareholder concern were not corrected.26

The chair of the nominating committee of a board that is not at least 30 percent gender diverse,27 or all members of the nominating committee of a board with no gender diverse directors, at companies within the Russell 3000 index. For companies outside of the Russell 3000 index, we will recommend voting against the chair of the nominating committee if there are no gender diverse directors.

The chair of the nominating committee of a board with fewer than one director from an underrepresented community on the board, at companies within the Russell 1000 index.

The nominating committee chair when, alongside other governance or board performance concerns, the average tenure of non-executive directors is 10 years or more and no new independent directors have joined the board in the past five years. We will not be making voting recommendations solely on this basis; rather, insufficient board refreshment may be a contributing factor in our recommendations when additional board-related concerns have been identified.

In addition, we may consider recommending shareholders vote against the chair of the nominating committee where the board’s failure to ensure the board has directors with relevant experience, either through periodic director assessment or board refreshment, has contributed to a company’s poor performance. Where these issues warrant an against vote in the absence of both a governance and a nominating committee, we will recommend voting against the board chair, unless the chair also serves as the CEO, in which case we will recommend voting against the longest-serving director.

Board-Level Risk Management Oversight

Glass Lewis evaluates the risk management function of a public company board on a strictly case-by-case basis. Sound risk management, while necessary at all companies, is particularly important at financial firms which inherently maintain significant exposure to financial risk. We believe such financial firms should have a chief risk officer reporting directly to the board and a dedicated risk committee or a committee of the board charged with risk oversight. Moreover, many non-financial firms maintain strategies which involve a high level of exposure to financial risk. Similarly, since many non-financial firms have complex hedging or trading strategies, those firms should also have a chief risk officer and a risk committee.

26 Considering that shareholder disapproval clearly relates to the director who received a greater than 50% against vote rather than the nominating chair, we review the severity of the issue(s) that initially raised shareholder concern as well as company responsiveness to such matters, and will only recommend voting against the nominating chair if a reasonable analysis suggests that it would be most appropriate. In rare cases, we will consider recommending against the nominating chair when a director receives a substantial (i.e., 20% or more) vote against based on the same analysis.

27 Women and directors that identify with a gender other than male or female.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Our views on risk oversight are consistent with those expressed by various regulatory bodies. In its December 2009 Final Rule release on Proxy Disclosure Enhancements, the SEC noted that risk oversight is a key competence of the board and that additional disclosures would improve investor and shareholder understanding of the role of the board in the organization’s risk management practices. The final rules, which became effective on February 28, 2010, now explicitly require companies and mutual funds to describe (while allowing for some degree of flexibility) the board’s role in the oversight of risk.

When analyzing the risk management practices of public companies, we take note of any significant losses or writedowns on financial assets and/or structured transactions. In cases where a company has disclosed a sizable loss or writedown, and where we find that the company’s board-level risk committee’s poor oversight contributed to the loss, we will recommend that shareholders vote against such committee members on that basis. In addition, in cases where a company maintains a significant level of financial risk exposure but fails to disclose any explicit form of board-level risk oversight (committee or otherwise),28 we will consider recommending to vote against the board chair on that basis. However, we generally would not recommend voting against a combined chair/CEO, except in egregious cases.

Board Oversight of Environmental and Social Issues

Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of ensuring the sustainability of companies’ operations. We believe that insufficient oversight of material environmental and social issues can present direct legal, financial, regulatory and reputational risks that could serve to harm shareholder interests. Therefore, we believe that these issues should be carefully monitored and managed by companies, and that all companies should have an appropriate oversight structure in place to ensure that they are mitigating attendant risks and capitalizing on related opportunities to the best extent possible.

To that end, Glass Lewis believes that companies should ensure that boards maintain clear oversight of material risks to their operations, including those that are environmental and social in nature. These risks could include, but are not limited to, matters related to climate change, human capital management, diversity, stakeholder relations, and health, safety & environment. Given the importance of the board’s role in overseeing environmental and social risks, we believe this responsibility should be formally designated and codified in the appropriate committee charters or other governing documents.

While we believe that it is important that these issues are overseen at the board level and that shareholders are afforded meaningful disclosure of these oversight responsibilities, we believe that companies should determine the best structure for this oversight. In our view, this oversight can be effectively conducted by specific directors, the entire board, a separate committee, or combined with the responsibilities of a key committee.

For companies in the Russell 3000 index and in instances where we identify material oversight concerns, Glass Lewis will review a company’s overall governance practices and identify which directors or board-level committees have been charged with oversight of environmental and/or social issues. Furthermore, given the

importance of the board’s role in overseeing environmental and social risks, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against the governance committee chair of a company in the Russell 1000 index that fails to provide explicit disclosure concerning the board’s role in overseeing these issues.

28 A committee responsible for risk management could be a dedicated risk committee, the audit committee, or the finance committee, depending on a given company’s board structure and method of disclosure. At some companies, the entire board is charged with risk management.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

When evaluating the board’s role in overseeing environmental and/or social issues, we will examine a company’s committee charters and governing documents to determine if the company has codified and maintained a meaningful level of oversight of and accountability for a company’s material environmental and social impacts.

Cyber Risk Oversight

Companies and consumers are exposed to a growing risk of cyber-attacks. These attacks can result in customer or employee data breaches, harm to a company’s reputation, significant fines or penalties, and interruption to a company’s operations. Further, in some instances, cyber breaches can result in national security concerns, such as those impacting companies operating as utilities, defense contractors, and energy companies.

In response to these issues, regulators have increasingly been focused on ensuring companies are providing appropriate and timely disclosures and protections to stakeholders that could have been adversely impacted by a breach in a company’s cyber infrastructure.

On July 26, 2023, the SEC approved final rules requiring public companies to report cybersecurity incidents deemed material within four days of identifying them, detailing their nature, scope, timing, and material impact under Item 1.05 on Form 8-K.

Furthermore, in annual reports, companies must disclose their processes for assessing, identifying, and managing material cybersecurity risks, along with their material effects; and describe whether any risks from prior incidents have materially affected its business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition (or are reasonably likely to), pursuant to Regulation S-K Item 106. Item 106 will also require registrants to describe the board of directors’ oversight of risks from cybersecurity threats and management’s role and expertise in assessing and managing material risks from cybersecurity threats. Similar rules were also adopted for foreign private issuers. The final rules became effective on September 5, 2023.

Given the regulatory focus on, and the potential adverse outcomes from, cyber-related issues, it is our view that cyber risk is material for all companies. We therefore believe that it is critical that companies evaluate and mitigate these risks to the greatest extent possible. With that view, we encourage all issuers to provide clear disclosure concerning the role of the board in overseeing issues related to cybersecurity, including how companies are ensuring directors are fully versed on this rapidly evolving and dynamic issue. We believe such disclosure can help shareholders understand the seriousness with which companies take this issue.

In the absence of material cyber incidents, we will generally not make voting recommendations on the basis of a company’s oversight or disclosure concerning cyber-related issues. However, in instances where cyber-attacks have caused significant harm to shareholders we will closely evaluate the board’s oversight of cybersecurity as well as the company’s response and disclosures.

Moreover, in instances where a company has been materially impacted by a cyber-attack, we believe shareholders can reasonably expect periodic updates communicating the company’s ongoing progress towards resolving and remediating the impact of the cyber-attack. We generally believe shareholders are best served when such updates include (but are not necessarily limited to) details such as when the company has fully restored its information systems, when the company has returned to normal operations, what resources the company is providing for affected stakeholders, and any other potentially relevant information, until the company considers the impact of the cyber-attack to be fully remediated. These disclosures should focus on the company’s response to address the impacts to affected stakeholders and should not reveal specific and/or

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

technical details that could impede the company’s response or remediation of the incident or that could assist threat actors.

In such instances, we may recommend against appropriate directors should we find the board’s oversight, response or disclosure concerning cybersecurity-related issues to be insufficient, or are not provided to shareholders.

Board Accountability for Environmental and Social Performance

Glass Lewis carefully monitors companies’ performance with respect to environmental and social issues, including those related to climate and human capital management. In situations where we believe that a company has not properly managed or mitigated material environmental or social risks to the detriment of shareholder value, or when such mismanagement has threatened shareholder value, Glass Lewis may recommend that shareholders vote against the members of the board who are responsible for oversight of environmental and social risks. In the absence of explicit board oversight of environmental and social issues, Glass Lewis may recommend that shareholders vote against members of the audit committee. In making these determinations, Glass Lewis will carefully review the situation, its effect on shareholder value, as well as any corrective action or other response made by the company.

For more information on how Glass Lewis evaluates environmental and social issues, please see Glass Lewis’ Overall Approach to ESG as well as our comprehensive Proxy Paper Guidelines for Shareholder Proposals & ESG Related Issues, available at www.glasslewis.com/voting-policies-current/.

Board Accountability for Climate-related Issues

Given the exceptionally broad impacts of a changing climate on companies, the economy, and society in general, we view climate risk as a material risk for all companies. We therefore believe that boards should be considering and evaluating their operational resilience under lower-carbon scenarios. While all companies maintain exposure to climate-related risks, we believe that additional consideration should be given to, and that disclosure should be provided by those companies whose GHG emissions represent a financially material risk.

We believe that companies with this increased risk exposure should provide clear and comprehensive disclosure regarding these risks, including how they are being mitigated and overseen. We believe such information is

crucial to allow investors to understand the company’s management of this issue, as well as the impact of a lower carbon future on the company’s operations.

In line with this view, Glass Lewis will carefully examine the climate-related disclosures provided by companies in the S&P 500 index with material exposure to climate risk stemming from their own operations29, as well as companies where we believe emissions or climate impacts, or stakeholder scrutiny thereof, represent an outsized, financially material risk, in order to assess whether they have produced disclosures in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). We will also assess whether

29 This policy will generally apply to companies in the following SASB-defined industries: agricultural products, air freight & logistics, airlines, chemicals, construction materials, containers & packaging, cruise lines, electric utilities & power generators, food retailers & distributors, health care distributors, iron & steel producers, marine transportation, meat, poultry & dairy, metals & mining, non-alcoholic beverages, oil & gas, pulp & paper products, rail transportation, road transportation, semiconductors, waste management.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

these companies have disclosed explicit and clearly defined board-level oversight responsibilities for climate- related issues. In instances where we find either (or both) of these disclosures to be absent or significantly lacking, we may recommend voting against the chair of the committee (or board) charged with oversight of climate-related issues, or if no committee has been charged with such oversight, the chair of the governance committee. Further, we may extend our recommendation on this basis to additional members of the responsible committee in cases where the committee chair is not standing for election due to a classified board, or based on other factors, including the company’s size, industry and its overall governance profile.

Director Commitments

We believe that directors should have the necessary time to fulfill their duties to shareholders. In our view, an overcommitted director can pose a material risk to a company’s shareholders, particularly during periods of crisis. In addition, recent research indicates that the time commitment associated with being a director has been on a significant upward trend in the past decade.30 As a result, we generally recommend that shareholders vote against a director who serves as an executive officer (other than executive chair) of any public company31 while serving on more than one external public company board, a director who serves as an executive chair of any public company while serving on more than two external public company boards, and any other director who serves on more than five public company boards.

Because we believe that executives will primarily devote their attention to executive duties, we generally will not recommend that shareholders vote against overcommitted directors at the companies where they serve as an executive.

When determining whether a director’s service on an excessive number of boards may limit the ability of the director to devote sufficient time to board duties, we may consider relevant factors such as the size and location of the other companies where the director serves on the board, the director’s board roles at the companies in question, whether the director serves on the board of any large privately-held companies, the director’s tenure on the boards in question, and the director’s attendance record at all companies. In the case of directors who serve in executive roles other than CEO (e.g., executive chair), we will evaluate the specific duties and responsibilities of that role in determining whether an exception is warranted.

We may also refrain from recommending against certain directors if the company provides sufficient rationale for their continued board service. The rationale should allow shareholders to evaluate the scope of the directors’ other commitments, as well as their contributions to the board including specialized knowledge of the company’s industry, strategy or key markets, the diversity of skills, perspective and background they provide, and other relevant factors. We will also generally refrain from recommending to vote against a director who serves on an excessive number of boards within a consolidated group of companies in related industries, or a director that represents a firm whose sole purpose is to manage a portfolio of investments which include the company.

30 For example, the 2015-2016 NACD Public Company Governance Survey states that, on average, directors spent a total of 248.2 hours annual on board-related matters during the past year, which it describes as a “historically high level” that is significantly above the average hours recorded in 2006. Additionally, the 2020 Spencer Stuart Board Index indicates that, while 39% of S&P 500 CEOs serve on one additional public board, just 2% of S&P 500 CEOs serve on two additional public boards and only one CEO serves on three.

31 When the executive officer in question serves only as an executive at a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) we will generally apply the higher threshold of five public company directorships.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Other Considerations

In addition to the three key characteristics — independence, performance, experience — that we use to evaluate board members, we consider conflict-of-interest issues as well as the size of the board of directors when making voting recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest

We believe board members should be wholly free of identifiable and substantial conflicts of interest, regardless of the overall level of independent directors on the board. Accordingly, we recommend that shareholders vote against the following types of directors:

A CFO who is on the board: In our view, the CFO holds a unique position relative to financial reporting and disclosure to shareholders. Due to the critical importance of financial disclosure and reporting, we believe the CFO should report to the board and not be a member of it.

A director who provides — or a director who has an immediate family member who provides — material consulting or other material professional services to the company. These services may include legal, consulting,32 or financial services. We question the need for the company to have consulting relationships with its directors. We view such relationships as creating conflicts for directors, since they may be forced to weigh their own interests against shareholder interests when making board decisions. In addition, a company’s decisions regarding where to turn for the best professional services may be compromised when doing business with the professional services firm of one of the company’s directors.

A director, or a director who has an immediate family member, engaging in airplane, real estate, or similar deals, including perquisite-type grants from the company, amounting to more than $50,000. Directors who receive these sorts of payments from the company will have to make unnecessarily complicated decisions that may pit their interests against shareholder interests.

Interlocking directorships: CEOs or other top executives who serve on each other’s boards create an interlock that poses conflicts that should be avoided to ensure the promotion of shareholder interests above all else.33

All board members who served at a time when a poison pill with a term of longer than one year was adopted without shareholder approval within the prior twelve months.34 In the event a board is classified and shareholders are therefore unable to vote against all directors, we will recommend voting against the remaining directors the next year they are up for a shareholder vote. If a poison pill with a term of one year or less was adopted without shareholder approval, and without adequate justification, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against all members of the governance

32 We will generally refrain from recommending against a director who provides consulting services for the company if the director is excluded from membership on the board’s key committees and we have not identified significant governance concerns with the board.

33 We do not apply a look-back period for this situation. The interlock policy applies to both public and private companies. On a case-by-case basis, we evaluate other types of interlocking relationships, such as interlocks with close family members of executives or within group companies. Further, we will also evaluate multiple board interlocks among non-insiders (i.e., multiple directors serving on the same boards at other companies), for evidence of a pattern of poor oversight.

34 Refer to the “Governance Structure and the Shareholder Franchise” section for further discussion of our policies regarding anti-takeover measures, including poison pills.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

committee. If the board has, without seeking shareholder approval, and without adequate justification, extended the term of a poison pill by one year or less in two consecutive years, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the entire board.

Size of the Board of Directors

While we do not believe there is a universally applicable optimal board size, we do believe boards should have at least five directors to ensure sufficient diversity in decision-making and to enable the formation of key board committees with independent directors. Conversely, we believe that boards with more than 20 members will typically suffer under the weight of “too many cooks in the kitchen” and have difficulty reaching consensus and making timely decisions. Sometimes the presence of too many voices can make it difficult to draw on the wisdom and experience in the room by virtue of the need to limit the discussion so that each voice may be heard.

To that end, we typically recommend voting against the chair of the nominating committee (or the governance committee, in the absence of a nominating committee) at a board with fewer than five directors or more than 20 directors.

Controlled Companies

We believe controlled companies warrant certain exceptions to our independence standards. The board’s function is to protect shareholder interests; however, when an individual, entity (or group of shareholders party to a formal agreement) owns more than 50% of the voting shares, the interests of the majority of shareholders are the interests of that entity or individual. Consequently, Glass Lewis does not apply our usual two-thirds board independence rule and therefore we will not recommend voting against boards whose composition reflects the makeup of the shareholder population.

Independence Exceptions

The independence exceptions that we make for controlled companies are as follows:

We do not require that controlled companies have boards that are at least two-thirds independent. So long as the insiders and/or affiliates are connected with the controlling entity, we accept the presence of non-independent board members.

The compensation committee and nominating and governance committees do not need to consist solely of independent directors.

We believe that standing nominating and corporate governance committees at controlled companies are unnecessary. Although having a committee charged with the duties of searching for, selecting, and nominating independent directors can be beneficial, the unique composition of a controlled company’s shareholder base makes such committees weak and irrelevant.

Likewise, we believe that independent compensation committees at controlled companies are unnecessary. Although independent directors are the best choice for approving and monitoring senior executives’ pay, controlled companies serve a unique shareholder population whose voting power ensures the protection of its interests. As such, we believe that having affiliated directors on a controlled company’s compensation committee is acceptable. However, given

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

that a controlled company has certain obligations to minority shareholders we feel that an insider should not serve on the compensation committee. Therefore, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against any insider (the CEO or otherwise) serving on the compensation committee.

Controlled companies do not need an independent chair or an independent lead or presiding director. Although an independent director in a position of authority on the board — such as chair or presiding director — can best carry out the board’s duties, controlled companies serve a unique shareholder population whose voting power ensures the protection of its interests.

Size of the Board of Directors

We have no board size requirements for controlled companies.

Audit Committee Independence

Despite a controlled company’s status, unlike for the other key committees, we nevertheless believe that audit committees should consist solely of independent directors. Regardless of a company’s controlled status, the interests of all shareholders must be protected by ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the company’s financial statements. Allowing affiliated directors to oversee the preparation of financial reports could create an insurmountable conflict of interest.

Board Responsiveness at Multi-Class Companies

At controlled companies and companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, we will carefully examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining whether board responsiveness is warranted. In the case of companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, we will generally examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders on a “one share, one vote” basis. At controlled and multi-class companies, when at least 20% or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and demonstrate some initial level of responsiveness, and when a majority or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and provide a more robust response to fully address shareholder concerns.

Significant Shareholders

Where an individual or entity holds between 20-50% of a company’s voting power, we believe it is reasonable to allow proportional representation on the board and committees (excluding the audit committee) based on the individual or entity’s percentage of ownership.

Governance Following an IPO, Spin-Off, or Direct Listing

We believe companies that have recently completed an initial public offering (IPO), spin-off, or direct listing should be allowed adequate time to fully comply with marketplace listing requirements and meet basic corporate governance standards. Generally speaking, we refrain from making recommendations on the basis of governance standards (e.g., board independence, committee membership and structure, meeting attendance, etc.) during the one-year period following an IPO.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

However, some cases warrant shareholder action against the board of a company that have completed an IPO, spin-off, or direct listing within the past year. When evaluating companies that have recently gone public, Glass Lewis will review the terms of the applicable governing documents in order to determine whether shareholder rights are being severely restricted indefinitely. We believe boards that approve highly restrictive governing documents have demonstrated that they may subvert shareholder interests following the IPO. In conducting this evaluation, Glass Lewis will consider:

The adoption of anti-takeover provisions such as a poison pill or classified board

Supermajority vote requirements to amend governing documents

The presence of exclusive forum or fee-shifting provisions

Whether shareholders can call special meetings or act by written consent

The voting standard provided for the election of directors

The ability of shareholders to remove directors without cause

The presence of evergreen provisions in the company’s equity compensation arrangements

The presence of a multi-class share structure which does not afford common shareholders voting power that is aligned with their economic interest

In cases where Glass Lewis determines that the board has approved overly restrictive governing documents, we will generally recommend voting against members of the governance committee. If there is no governance committee, or if a portion of such committee members are not standing for election due to a classified board structure, we will expand our recommendations to additional director nominees, based on who is standing for election.

In cases where, preceding an IPO, the board adopts a multi-class share structure where voting rights are not aligned with economic interest, or an anti-takeover provision, such as a poison pill or classified board, we will generally recommend voting against all members of the board who served at the time of the IPO if the board: (i) did not also commit to submitting these provisions to a shareholder vote at the company’s first shareholder meeting following the IPO; or (ii) did not provide for a reasonable sunset of these provisions (generally three to five years in the case of a classified board or poison pill; or seven years or less in the case of a multi-class share structure). In the case of a multi-class share structure, if these provisions are put to a shareholder vote, we will examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining the vote outcome.

In our view, adopting an anti-takeover device unfairly penalizes future shareholders who (except for electing to buy or sell the stock) are unable to weigh in on a matter that could potentially negatively impact their ownership interest. This notion is strengthened when a board adopts a classified board with an infinite duration or a poison pill with a five- to ten-year term immediately prior to going public, thereby insulating management for a substantial amount of time.

In addition, shareholders should also be wary of companies that adopt supermajority voting requirements before their IPO. Absent explicit provisions in the articles or bylaws stipulating that certain policies will be phased out over a certain period of time, long-term shareholders could find themselves in the predicament of having to attain a supermajority vote to approve future proposals seeking to eliminate such policies.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Governance Following a Business Combination with a Special Purpose Acquisition Company

The business combination of a private company with a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) facilitates the private entity becoming a publicly traded corporation. Thus, the business combination represents the private company’s de-facto IPO. We believe that some cases warrant shareholder action against the board of a company that have completed a business combination with a SPAC within the past year.

At meetings where shareholders vote on the business combination of a SPAC with a private company, shareholders are generally voting on a new corporate charter for the post-combination company as a condition to approval of the business combination. In many cases, shareholders are faced with the dilemma of having to approve corporate charters that severely restrict shareholder rights to facilitate the business combination. Therefore, when shareholders are required to approve binding charters as a condition to approval of a business combination with a SPAC, we believe shareholders should also be provided with advisory votes on material charter amendments as a means to voice their opinions on such restrictive governance provisions.

When evaluating companies that have recently gone public via business combination with a SPAC, Glass Lewis will review the terms of the applicable governing documents to determine whether shareholder rights are being severely restricted indefinitely and whether these restrictive provisions were put forth for a shareholder vote on an advisory basis at the prior meeting where shareholders voted on the business combination.

In cases where, prior to the combined company becoming publicly traded, the board adopts a multi-class share structure where voting rights are not aligned with economic interest, or an anti-takeover provision, such as a poison pill or classified board, we will generally recommend voting against all members of the board who served at the time of the combined company becoming publicly traded if the board: (i) did not also submit these provisions to a shareholder vote on an advisory basis at the prior meeting where shareholders voted on the business combination; (ii) did not also commit to submitting these provisions to a shareholder vote at the company’s first shareholder meeting following the company becoming publicly traded; or (iii) did not provide for a reasonable sunset of these provisions (generally three to five years in the case of a classified board or poison pill; or seven years or less in the case of a multi-class share structure).

Consistent with our view on IPOs, adopting an anti-takeover device unfairly penalizes future shareholders who (except for electing to buy or sell the stock) are unable to weigh in on a matter that could potentially negatively impact their ownership interest.

Dual-Listed or Foreign-Incorporated Companies

For companies that trade on multiple exchanges or are incorporated in foreign jurisdictions but trade only in the U.S., we will apply the governance standard most relevant in each situation. We will consider a number of factors in determining which Glass Lewis country-specific policy to apply, including but not limited to: (i) the corporate governance structure and features of the company including whether the board structure is unique to a particular market; (ii) the nature of the proposals; (iii) the location of the company’s primary listing, if one can be determined; (iv) the regulatory/governance regime that the board is reporting against; and (v) the availability and completeness of the company’s SEC filings.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

OTC-listed Companies

Companies trading on the OTC Bulletin Board are not considered “listed companies” under SEC rules and therefore not subject to the same governance standards as listed companies. However, we believe that more stringent corporate governance standards should be applied to these companies given that their shares are still publicly traded.

When reviewing OTC companies, Glass Lewis will review the available disclosure relating to the shareholder meeting to determine whether shareholders are able to evaluate several key pieces of information, including: (i) the composition of the board’s key committees, if any; (ii) the level of share ownership of company insiders or directors; (iii) the board meeting attendance record of directors; (iv) executive and non-employee director compensation; (v) related-party transactions conducted during the past year; and (vi) the board’s leadership structure and determinations regarding director independence.

We are particularly concerned when company disclosure lacks any information regarding the board’s key committees. We believe that committees of the board are an essential tool for clarifying how the responsibilities of the board are being delegated, and specifically for indicating which directors are accountable for ensuring: (i) the independence and quality of directors, and the transparency and integrity of the nominating process; (ii) compensation programs that are fair and appropriate; (iii) proper oversight of the company’s accounting, financial reporting, and internal and external audits; and (iv) general adherence to principles of good corporate governance.

In cases where shareholders are unable to identify which board members are responsible for ensuring oversight of the above-mentioned responsibilities, we may consider recommending against certain members of the board. Ordinarily, we believe it is the responsibility of the corporate governance committee to provide thorough disclosure of the board’s governance practices. In the absence of such a committee, we believe it is appropriate to hold the board’s chair or, if such individual is an executive of the company, the longest-serving non-executive board member accountable.

Mutual Fund Boards

Mutual funds, or investment companies, are structured differently from regular public companies (i.e., operating companies). Typically, members of a fund’s advisor are on the board and management takes on a different role from that of regular public companies. Thus, we focus on a short list of requirements, although many of our guidelines remain the same.

The following mutual fund policies are similar to the policies for regular public companies:

Size of the board of directors — The board should be made up of between five and twenty directors.

The CFO on the board — Neither the CFO of the fund nor the CFO of the fund’s registered investment advisor should serve on the board.

Independence of the audit committee — The audit committee should consist solely of independent directors.

Audit committee financial expert — At least one member of the audit committee should be designated as the audit committee financial expert.

The following differences from regular public companies apply at mutual funds:

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Independence of the board — We believe that three-fourths of an investment company’s board should be made up of independent directors. This is consistent with a proposed SEC rule on investment company boards. The Investment Company Act requires 40% of the board to be independent, but in 2001, the SEC amended the Exemptive Rules to require that a majority of a mutual fund board be independent. In 2005, the SEC proposed increasing the independence threshold to 75%. In 2006, a federal appeals court ordered that this rule amendment be put back out for public comment, putting it back into “proposed rule” status. Since mutual fund boards play a vital role in overseeing the relationship between the fund and its investment manager, there is greater need for independent oversight than there is for an operating company board.

When the auditor is not up for ratification — We do not recommend voting against the audit committee if the auditor is not up for ratification. Due to the different legal structure of an investment company compared to an operating company, the auditor for the investment company (i.e., mutual fund) does not conduct the same level of financial review for each investment company as for an operating company.

Non-independent chair — The SEC has proposed that the chair of the fund board be independent. We agree that the roles of a mutual fund’s chair and CEO should be separate. Although we believe this would be best at all companies, we recommend voting against the chair of an investment company’s nominating committee as well as the board chair if the chair and CEO of a mutual fund are the same person and the fund does not have an independent lead or presiding director. Seven former SEC commissioners support the appointment of an independent chair and we agree with them that “an independent board chair would be better able to create conditions favoring the long-term interests of fund shareholders than would a chair who is an executive of the advisor.” (See the comment letter sent to the SEC in support of the proposed rule at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/indchair.pdf.)

Multiple funds overseen by the same director — Unlike service on a public company board, mutual fund boards require much less of a time commitment. Mutual fund directors typically serve on dozens of other mutual fund boards, often within the same fund complex. The Investment Company Institute’s (ICI) Overview of Fund Governance Practices, 1994-2012, indicates that the average number of funds served by an independent director in 2012 was 53. Absent evidence that a specific director is hindered from being an effective board member at a fund due to service on other funds’ boards, we refrain from maintaining a cap on the number of outside mutual fund boards that we believe a director can serve on.

Declassified Boards

Glass Lewis favors the repeal of staggered boards and the annual election of directors. We believe staggered boards are less accountable to shareholders than boards that are elected annually. Furthermore, we feel the annual election of directors encourages board members to focus on shareholder interests.

Empirical studies have shown: (i) staggered boards are associated with a reduction in a firm’s valuation; and (ii) in the context of hostile takeovers, staggered boards operate as a takeover defense, which entrenches management, discourages potential acquirers, and delivers a lower return to target shareholders.

In our view, there is no evidence to demonstrate that staggered boards improve shareholder returns in a takeover context. Some research has indicated that shareholders are worse off when a staggered board blocks a transaction; further, when a staggered board negotiates a friendly transaction, no statistically significant

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

difference in premium occurs.35 Additional research found that charter-based staggered boards “reduce the market value of a firm by 4% to 6% of its market capitalization” and that “staggered boards bring about and not merely reflect this reduction in market value.”36 A subsequent study reaffirmed that classified boards reduce shareholder value, finding “that the ongoing process of dismantling staggered boards, encouraged by institutional investors, could well contribute to increasing shareholder wealth.”37

Shareholders have increasingly come to agree with this view. In 2019, 90% of S&P 500 companies had declassified boards, up from 68% in 2009.38 Management proposals to declassify boards are approved with near unanimity and shareholder proposals on the topic also receive strong shareholder support; in 2014, shareholder proposals requesting that companies declassify their boards received average support of 84% (excluding

abstentions and broker non-votes), whereas in 1987, only 16.4% of votes cast favored board declassification.39 Further, a growing number of companies, nearly half of all those targeted by shareholder proposals requesting that all directors stand for election annually, either recommended shareholders support the proposal or made no recommendation, a departure from the more traditional management recommendation to vote against shareholder proposals.

Given our belief that declassified boards promote director accountability, the empirical evidence suggesting staggered boards reduce a company’s value and the established shareholder opposition to such a structure, Glass Lewis supports the declassification of boards and the annual election of directors.

Board Composition and Refreshment

Glass Lewis strongly supports routine director evaluation, including independent external reviews, and periodic board refreshment to foster the sharing of diverse perspectives in the boardroom and the generation of new ideas and business strategies. Further, we believe the board should evaluate the need for changes to board composition based on an analysis of skills and experience necessary for the company, as well as the results of the director evaluations, as opposed to relying solely on age or tenure limits. When necessary, shareholders can address concerns regarding proper board composition through director elections.

In our view, a director’s experience can be a valuable asset to shareholders because of the complex, critical issues that boards face. This said, we recognize that in rare circumstances, a lack of refreshment can contribute to a lack of board responsiveness to poor company performance.

35 Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV, Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Further Findings and a Reply to Symposium Participants,” 55 Stanford Law Review 885-917 (2002).

36 Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen, “The Costs of Entrenched Boards” (2004).

37 Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen and Charles C.Y. Wang, “Staggered Boards and the Wealth of Shareholders: Evidence from a Natural Experiment,” SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1706806 (2010), p. 26.

38 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2019, p. 15.

39 Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV and Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence, and Policy”.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

We will note as a potential concern instances where the average tenure of non-executive directors is 10 years or more and no new directors have joined the board in the past five years. While we will be highlighting this as a potential area of concern, we will not be making voting recommendations strictly on this basis, unless we have identified other governance or board performance concerns.

On occasion, age or term limits can be used as a means to remove a director for boards that are unwilling to police their membership and enforce turnover. Some shareholders support term limits as a way to force change in such circumstances.

While we understand that age limits can aid board succession planning, the long-term impact of age limits restricts experienced and potentially valuable board members from service through an arbitrary means. We believe that shareholders are better off monitoring the board’s overall composition, including the diversity of its members, the alignment of the board’s areas of expertise with a company’s strategy, the board’s approach to corporate governance, and its stewardship of company performance, rather than imposing inflexible rules that don’t necessarily correlate with returns or benefits for shareholders.

However, if a board adopts term/age limits, it should follow through and not waive such limits. In cases where the board waives its term/age limits for two or more consecutive years, Glass Lewis will generally recommend that shareholders vote against the nominating and/or governance committee chair, unless a compelling rationale is provided for why the board is proposing to waive this rule, such as consummation of a corporate transaction.

Board Diversity

Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of ensuring that the board is composed of directors who have a diversity of skills, thought and experience, as such diversity benefits companies by providing a broad range of perspectives and insights. Glass Lewis closely reviews the composition of the board for representation of diverse director candidates.

Board Gender Diversity

We consider the nominating and governance committee to be responsible for ensuring sufficient board diversity, or for publicly communicating its rationale or a plan for increasing diversity. As such, we will generally recommend voting against the chair of the nominating committee of a board that is not at least 30 percent gender diverse, or all members of the nominating committee of a board with no gender diverse directors, at companies within the Russell 3000 index. For companies outside the Russell 3000 index, our policy requires a minimum of one gender diverse director.

When making these voting recommendations, we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations and may refrain from recommending that shareholders vote against directors when boards have provided sufficient rationale for the lack of diversity or a plan to address the lack of diversity, including a timeline of when the board intends to appoint additional gender diverse directors (generally by the next annual meeting or as soon as reasonably practicable).

We may extend our gender diversity recommendations to additional members of the nominating committee in cases where the committee chair is not standing for election due to a classified board, or based on other factors, including the company’s size and industry, applicable laws in its state of headquarters, and its overall governance profile.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Board Underrepresented Community Diversity

We will generally recommend against the chair of the nominating committee of a board with fewer than one director from an underrepresented community on the board at companies within the Russell 1000 index.

We define “underrepresented community director” as an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, North African, Middle Eastern, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaskan Native, or who self-identifies as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community. For the purposes of this evaluation, we will rely solely on self-identified demographic information as disclosed in company proxy statements.

When making these voting recommendations, we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations and may refrain from recommending that shareholders vote against directors when boards have provided a sufficient rationale or plan to address the lack of diversity on the board, including a timeline to appoint additional directors from an underrepresented community (generally by the next annual meeting or as soon as reasonably practicable).

We may extend our underrepresented community diversity recommendations to additional members of the nominating committee in cases where the committee chair is not standing for election due to a classified board, or based on other factors, including the company’s size and industry, applicable laws in its state of headquarters, and its overall governance profile.

State Laws on Diversity

Several states have begun to encourage board diversity through legislation. Some state laws imposed mandatory board composition requirements, while other states have enacted or are considering legislation that encourages companies to diversify their boards but does not mandate board composition requirements. Furthermore, several states have enacted or are considering enacting certain disclosure or reporting requirements in filings made with each respective state annually.

Glass Lewis will recommend in accordance with mandatory board composition requirements set forth in applicable state laws when they come into effect. We will generally refrain from recommending against directors when applicable state laws do not mandate board composition requirements, are non-binding, or solely impose disclosure or reporting requirements.

We note that during 2022, California’s Senate Bill 826 and Assembly Bill 979 regarding board gender and “underrepresented community” diversity, respectively, were both deemed to violate the equal protection clause of the California state constitution. These laws are currently in the appeals process.

Accordingly, where we previously recommended in accordance with mandatory board composition requirements set forth in California’s SB 826 and AB 979, we will refrain from providing recommendations pursuant to these state board composition requirements until further notice while we continue to monitor the appeals process. However, we will continue to monitor compliance with these requirements.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Disclosure of Director Diversity and Skills

Because company disclosure is critical when measuring the mix of diverse attributes and skills of directors, Glass Lewis assesses the quality of such disclosure in companies’ proxy statements. Accordingly, we reflect how a company’s proxy statement presents: (i) the board’s current percentage of racial/ethnic diversity; (ii) whether the board’s definition of diversity explicitly includes gender and/or race/ethnicity; (iii) whether the board has adopted a policy requiring women and minorities to be included in the initial pool of candidates when selecting new director nominees (aka “Rooney Rule”); and (iv) board skills disclosure. Such ratings will help inform our assessment of a company’s overall governance and may be a contributing factor in our recommendations when additional board-related concerns have been identified.

At companies in the Russell 1000 index that have not provided any disclosure in any of the above categories, we will generally recommend voting against the chair of the nominating and/or governance committee. Further, when companies in the Russell 1000 index have not provided any disclosure of individual or aggregate racial/ethnic minority board demographic information, we will generally recommend voting against the chair of the nominating and/or governance committee.

Stock Exchange Diversity Disclosure Requirements

On August 6, 2021, the SEC approved new listing rules regarding board diversity and disclosure for Nasdaq-listed companies. Beginning in 2022, companies listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange are required to disclose certain board diversity statistics annually in a standardized format in the proxy statement or on the company's website. Nasdaq-listed companies are required to provide this disclosure by the later of (i) August 8, 2022, or (ii) the date the company files its proxy statement for its 2022 annual meeting. Accordingly, for annual meetings held after August 8, 2022, of applicable Nasdaq-listed companies, we will recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee when the required disclosure has not been provided.

Proxy Access

In lieu of running their own contested election, proxy access would not only allow certain shareholders to nominate directors to company boards but the shareholder nominees would be included on the company’s ballot, significantly enhancing the ability of shareholders to play a meaningful role in selecting their representatives. Glass Lewis generally supports affording shareholders the right to nominate director candidates to management’s proxy as a means to ensure that significant, long-term shareholders have an ability to nominate candidates to the board.

Companies generally seek shareholder approval to amend company bylaws to adopt proxy access in response to shareholder engagement or pressure, usually in the form of a shareholder proposal requesting proxy access, although some companies may adopt some elements of proxy access without prompting. Glass Lewis considers several factors when evaluating whether to support proposals for companies to adopt proxy access including the specified minimum ownership and holding requirement for shareholders to nominate one or more directors, as well as company size, performance and responsiveness to shareholders.

For a discussion of recent regulatory events in this area, along with a detailed overview of the Glass Lewis approach to shareholder proposals regarding Proxy Access, refer to Glass Lewis’ Proxy Paper Guidelines for Shareholder Proposals & ESG Related Issues, available at www.glasslewis.com.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Majority Vote for Election of Directors

Majority voting for the election of directors is fast becoming the de facto standard in corporate board elections. In our view, the majority voting proposals are an effort to make the case for shareholder impact on director elections on a company-specific basis.

While this proposal would not give shareholders the opportunity to nominate directors or lead to elections where shareholders have a choice among director candidates, if implemented, the proposal would allow shareholders to have a voice in determining whether the nominees proposed by the board should actually serve as the overseer-representatives of shareholders in the boardroom. We believe this would be a favorable outcome for shareholders.

The number of shareholder proposals requesting that companies adopt a majority voting standard has declined significantly during the past decade, largely as a result of widespread adoption of majority voting or director resignation policies at U.S. companies. In 2019, 89% of the S&P 500 Index had implemented a resignation policy for directors failing to receive majority shareholder support, compared to 65% in 2009.40

The Plurality Vote Standard

Today, most U.S. companies still elect directors by a plurality vote standard. Under that standard, if one shareholder holding only one share votes in favor of a nominee (including that director, if the director is a shareholder), that nominee “wins” the election and assumes a seat on the board. The common concern among companies with a plurality voting standard is the possibility that one or more directors would not receive a majority of votes, resulting in “failed elections.”

Advantages of a Majority Vote Standard

If a majority vote standard were implemented, a nominee would have to receive the support of a majority of the shares voted in order to be elected. Thus, shareholders could collectively vote to reject a director they believe will not pursue their best interests. Given that so few directors (less than 100 a year) do not receive majority support from shareholders, we think that a majority vote standard is reasonable since it will neither result in many failed director elections nor reduce the willingness of qualified, shareholder-focused directors to serve in the future. Further, most directors who fail to receive a majority shareholder vote in favor of their election do not step down, underscoring the need for true majority voting.

We believe that a majority vote standard will likely lead to more attentive directors. Although shareholders only rarely fail to support directors, the occasional majority vote against a director’s election will likely deter the election of directors with a record of ignoring shareholder interests. Glass Lewis will therefore generally support proposals calling for the election of directors by a majority vote, excepting contested director elections.

In response to the high level of support majority voting has garnered, many companies have voluntarily taken steps to implement majority voting or modified approaches to majority voting. These steps range from a modified approach requiring directors that receive a majority of withheld votes to resign (i.e., a resignation policy) to actually requiring a majority vote of outstanding shares to elect directors.

40 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2019, p. 15.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

We feel that the modified approach does not go far enough because requiring a director to resign is not the same as requiring a majority vote to elect a director and does not allow shareholders a definitive voice in the election process. Further, under the modified approach, the corporate governance committee could reject a resignation and, even if it accepts the resignation, the corporate governance committee decides on the director’s replacement. And since the modified approach is usually adopted as a policy by the board or a board committee, it could be altered by the same board or committee at any time.

Conflicting and Excluded Proposals

SEC Rule 14a-8(i)(9) allows companies to exclude shareholder proposals “if the proposal directly conflicts with one of the company’s own proposals to be submitted to shareholders at the same meeting.” On October 22, 2015, the SEC issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14H (SLB 14H) clarifying its rule concerning the exclusion of certain shareholder proposals when similar items are also on the ballot. SLB 14H increased the burden on companies to prove to SEC staff that a conflict exists; therefore, many companies still chose to place management proposals alongside similar shareholder proposals in many cases.

During the 2018 proxy season, a new trend in the SEC’s interpretation of this rule emerged. Upon submission of shareholder proposals requesting that companies adopt a lower special meeting threshold, several companies petitioned the SEC for no-action relief under the premise that the shareholder proposals conflicted with management’s own special meeting proposals, even though the management proposals set a higher threshold than those requested by the proponent. No-action relief was granted to these companies; however, the SEC stipulated that the companies must state in the rationale for the management proposals that a vote in favor of management’s proposal was tantamount to a vote against the adoption of a lower special meeting threshold. In certain instances, shareholder proposals to lower an existing special meeting right threshold were excluded on the basis that they conflicted with management proposals seeking to ratify the existing special meeting rights. We find the exclusion of these shareholder proposals to be especially problematic as, in these instances, shareholders are not offered any enhanced shareholder right, nor would the approval (or rejection) of the ratification proposal initiate any type of meaningful change to shareholders’ rights.

In instances where companies have excluded shareholder proposals, such as those instances where special meeting shareholder proposals are excluded as a result of “conflicting” management proposals, Glass Lewis will take a case-by-case approach, taking into account the following issues:

●

The threshold proposed by the shareholder resolution;

●

The threshold proposed or established by management and the attendant rationale for the threshold;

●

Whether management’s proposal is seeking to ratify an existing special meeting right or adopt a bylaw that would establish a special meeting right; and

●

The company’s overall governance profile, including its overall responsiveness to and engagement with shareholders.

Glass Lewis generally favors a 10-15% special meeting right. Accordingly, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting for management or shareholder proposals that fall within this range. When faced with conflicting proposals, Glass Lewis will generally recommend in favor of the lower special meeting right and will recommend voting against the proposal with the higher threshold. However, in instances where there are conflicting management and shareholder proposals and a company has not established a special meeting right, Glass Lewis may recommend that shareholders vote in favor of the shareholder proposal and that they abstain from a management-proposed bylaw amendment seeking to establish a special meeting right. We believe that an

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

abstention is appropriate in this instance in order to ensure that shareholders are sending a clear signal regarding their preference for the appropriate threshold for a special meeting right, while not directly opposing the establishment of such a right.

In cases where the company excludes a shareholder proposal seeking a reduced special meeting right by means of ratifying a management proposal that is materially different from the shareholder proposal, we will generally recommend voting against the chair or members of the governance committee.

In other instances of conflicting management and shareholder proposals, Glass Lewis will consider the following:

●

The nature of the underlying issue;

●

The benefit to shareholders of implementing the proposal;

●

The materiality of the differences between the terms of the shareholder proposal and management proposal;

●

The context of a company’s shareholder base, corporate structure and other relevant circumstances; and

●

A company’s overall governance profile and, specifically, its responsiveness to shareholders as evidenced by a company’s response to previous shareholder proposals and its adoption of progressive shareholder rights provisions.

In recent years, we have seen the dynamic nature of the considerations given by the SEC when determining whether companies may exclude certain shareholder proposals. We understand that not all shareholder proposals serve the long-term interests of shareholders, and value and respect the limitations placed on shareholder proponents, as certain shareholder proposals can unduly burden companies. However, Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should be able to vote on issues of material importance.

We view the shareholder proposal process as an important part of advancing shareholder rights and encouraging responsible and financially sustainable business practices. While recognizing that certain proposals cross the line between the purview of shareholders and that of the board, we generally believe that companies should not limit investors’ ability to vote on shareholder proposals that advance certain rights or promote beneficial disclosure. Accordingly, Glass Lewis will make note of instances where a company has successfully petitioned the SEC to exclude shareholder proposals. If after review we believe that the exclusion of a shareholder proposal is detrimental to shareholders, we may, in certain very limited circumstances, recommend against members of the governance committee.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Transparency and Integrity in Financial Reporting

Auditor Ratification

The auditor’s role as gatekeeper is crucial in ensuring the integrity and transparency of the financial information necessary for protecting shareholder value. Shareholders rely on the auditor to ask tough questions and to do a thorough analysis of a company’s books to ensure that the information provided to shareholders is complete, accurate, fair, and that it is a reasonable representation of a company’s financial position. The only way shareholders can make rational investment decisions is if the market is equipped with accurate information about a company’s fiscal health. As stated in the October 6, 2008 Final Report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury:

“The auditor is expected to offer critical and objective judgment on the financial matters under consideration, and actual and perceived absence of conflicts is critical to that expectation. The Committee believes that auditors, investors, public companies, and other market participants must understand the independence requirements and their objectives, and that auditors must adopt a mindset of skepticism when facing situations that may compromise their independence.”

As such, shareholders should demand an objective, competent and diligent auditor who performs at or above professional standards at every company in which the investors hold an interest. Like directors, auditors should be free from conflicts of interest and should avoid situations requiring a choice between the auditor’s interests and the public’s interests. Almost without exception, shareholders should be able to annually review an auditor’s performance and to annually ratify a board’s auditor selection. Moreover, in October 2008, the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession went even further, and recommended that “to further enhance audit committee oversight and auditor accountability ... disclosure in the company proxy statement regarding shareholder ratification [should] include the name(s) of the senior auditing partner(s) staffed on the engagement.”41

On August 16, 2011, the PCAOB issued a Concept Release seeking public comment on ways that auditor independence, objectivity and professional skepticism could be enhanced, with a specific emphasis on mandatory audit firm rotation. The PCAOB convened several public roundtable meetings during 2012 to further discuss such matters. Glass Lewis believes auditor rotation can ensure both the independence of the auditor and the integrity of the audit; we will typically recommend supporting proposals to require auditor rotation when the proposal uses a reasonable period of time (usually not less than 5-7 years), particularly at companies with a history of accounting problems.

On June 1, 2017, the PCAOB adopted new standards to enhance auditor reports by providing additional important information to investors. For companies with fiscal year end dates on or after December 15, 2017, reports were required to include the year in which the auditor began serving consecutively as the company’s auditor. For large accelerated filers with fiscal year ends of June 30, 2019 or later, and for all other companies with fiscal year ends of December 15, 2020 or later, communication of critical audit matters (CAMs) will also be

41 “Final Report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.” p. VIII:20, October 6, 2008.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

required. CAMs are matters that have been communicated to the audit committee, are related to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements, and involve especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment.

Glass Lewis believes the additional reporting requirements are beneficial for investors. The additional disclosures can provide investors with information that is critical to making an informed judgment about an auditor’s independence and performance. Furthermore, we believe the additional requirements are an important step toward enhancing the relevance and usefulness of auditor reports, which too often are seen as boilerplate compliance documents that lack the relevant details to provide meaningful insight into a particular audit.

Voting Recommendations on Auditor Ratification

We generally support management’s choice of auditor except when we believe the auditor’s independence or audit integrity has been compromised. Where a board has not allowed shareholders to review and ratify an auditor, we typically recommend voting against the audit committee chair. When there have been material restatements of annual financial statements or material weaknesses in internal controls, we usually recommend voting against the entire audit committee.

Reasons why we may not recommend ratification of an auditor include:

When audit fees plus audit-related fees total less than the tax fees and/or other non-audit fees.

Recent material restatements of annual financial statements, including those resulting in the reporting of material weaknesses in internal controls and including late filings by the company where the auditor bears some responsibility for the restatement or late filing.42

When the auditor performs prohibited services such as tax-shelter work, tax services for the CEO or CFO, or contingent-fee work, such as a fee based on a percentage of economic benefit to the company.

When audit fees are excessively low, especially when compared with other companies in the same industry.

When the company has aggressive accounting policies.

When the company has poor disclosure or lack of transparency in its financial statements.

Where the auditor limited its liability through its contract with the company or the audit contract requires the corporation to use alternative dispute resolution procedures without adequate justification.

We also look for other relationships or concerns with the auditor that might suggest a conflict between the auditor’s interests and shareholder interests.

In determining whether shareholders would benefit from rotating the company’s auditor, where relevant we will consider factors that may call into question an auditor’s effectiveness, including auditor tenure, a pattern of inaccurate audits, and any ongoing litigation or significant controversies. When Glass Lewis considers ongoing litigation and significant controversies, it is mindful that such matters may involve unadjudicated allegations. Glass Lewis does not assume the truth of such allegations or that the

42 An auditor does not audit interim financial statements. Thus, we generally do not believe that an auditor should be opposed due to a restatement of interim financial statements unless the nature of the misstatement is clear from a reading of the incorrect financial statements.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

law has been violated. Instead, Glass Lewis focuses more broadly on whether, under the particular facts and circumstances presented, the nature and number of such lawsuits or other significant controversies reflects on the risk profile of the company or suggests that appropriate risk mitigation measures may be warranted.”

Pension Accounting Issues

A pension accounting question occasionally raised in proxy proposals is what effect, if any, projected returns on employee pension assets should have on a company’s net income. This issue often arises in the executive-compensation context in a discussion of the extent to which pension accounting should be reflected in business performance for purposes of calculating payments to executives.

Glass Lewis believes that pension credits should not be included in measuring income that is used to award performance-based compensation. Because many of the assumptions used in accounting for retirement plans are subject to the company’s discretion, management would have an obvious conflict of interest if pay were tied to pension income. In our view, projected income from pensions does not truly reflect a company’s performance.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

The Link Between Compensation and Performance

Glass Lewis carefully reviews the compensation awarded to senior executives, as we believe that this is an important area in which the board’s priorities are revealed. Glass Lewis strongly believes executive compensation should be linked directly with the performance of the business the executive is charged with managing. We believe the most effective compensation arrangements provide for an appropriate mix of performance-based short- and long-term incentives in addition to fixed pay elements while promoting a prudent and sustainable level of risk-taking.

Glass Lewis believes that comprehensive, timely and transparent disclosure of executive pay is critical to allowing shareholders to evaluate the extent to which pay is aligned with company performance. When reviewing proxy materials, Glass Lewis examines whether the company discloses the performance metrics used to determine executive compensation. We recognize performance metrics must necessarily vary depending on the company and industry, among other factors, and may include a wide variety of financial measures as well as industry-specific performance indicators. However, we believe companies should disclose why the specific performance metrics were selected and how the actions they are designed to incentivize will lead to better corporate performance.

Moreover, it is rarely in shareholders’ interests to disclose competitive data about individual salaries below the senior executive level. Such disclosure could create internal personnel discord that would be counterproductive for the company and its shareholders. While we favor full disclosure for senior executives and we view pay disclosure at the aggregate level (e.g., the number of employees being paid over a certain amount or in certain categories) as potentially useful, we do not believe shareholders need or will benefit from detailed reports about individual management employees other than the most senior executives.

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

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) required companies to hold an advisory vote on executive compensation at the first shareholder meeting that occurs six months after enactment of the bill (January 21, 2011).

This practice of allowing shareholders a non-binding vote on a company’s compensation report is standard practice in many non-U.S. countries, and has been a requirement for most companies in the United Kingdom since 2003 and in Australia since 2005. Although say-on-pay proposals are non-binding, a high level of “against” or “abstain” votes indicates substantial shareholder concern about a company’s compensation policies and procedures.

Given the complexity of most companies’ compensation programs, Glass Lewis applies a highly nuanced approach when analyzing advisory votes on executive compensation. We review each company’s compensation on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that each company must be examined in the context of industry, size, maturity, performance, financial condition, its historic pay for performance practices, and any other relevant internal or external factors.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

We believe that each company should design and apply specific compensation policies and practices that are appropriate to the circumstances of the company and, in particular, will attract and retain competent executives and other staff, while motivating them to grow the company’s long-term shareholder value.

Where we find those specific policies and practices serve to reasonably align compensation with performance, and such practices are adequately disclosed, Glass Lewis will recommend supporting the company’s approach. If, however, those specific policies and practices fail to demonstrably link compensation with performance, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against the say-on-pay proposal.

Glass Lewis reviews say-on-pay proposals on both a qualitative basis and a quantitative basis, with a focus on several main areas:

●

The overall design and structure of the company’s executive compensation programs including selection and challenging nature of performance metrics;

●

The implementation and effectiveness of the company’s executive compensation programs including pay mix and use of performance metrics in determining pay levels;

●

The quality and content of the company’s disclosure;

●

The quantum paid to executives; and

●

The link between compensation and performance as indicated by the company’s current and past pay-for-performance grades.

We also review any significant changes or modifications, including post fiscal year-end changes and one-time awards, particularly where the changes touch upon issues that are material to Glass Lewis recommendations. Additionally, while we recognize their rarity in the U.S. market, beneficial features such as but not limited to post-vesting and /or post-termination holding requirements may be viewed positively in our holistic analysis.

Say-on-Pay Voting Recommendations

In cases where we find deficiencies in a company’s compensation program’s design, implementation or management, we will recommend that shareholders vote against the say-on-pay proposal. Generally such instances include:

●

Evidence of a pattern of poor pay-for-performance practices (i.e., deficient or failing pay-for-performance grades),

●

Unclear or questionable disclosure regarding the overall compensation structure (e.g., limited information regarding benchmarking processes, limited rationale for bonus performance metrics and targets, etc.),

●

Questionable adjustments to certain aspects of the overall compensation structure (e.g., limited rationale for significant changes to performance targets or metrics, the payout of guaranteed bonuses or sizable retention grants, etc.), and/or

●

Other egregious compensation practices.

Although not an exhaustive list, the following issues when weighed together may cause Glass Lewis to recommend voting against a say-on-pay vote:

●

Inappropriate or outsized self-selected peer groups and/or benchmarking issues such as compensation targets set well above the median without adequate justification;

●

Egregious or excessive bonuses, equity awards or severance payments, including golden handshakes and golden parachutes;

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

●

Insufficient response to low shareholder support;

●

Problematic contractual payments, such as guaranteed bonuses;

●

Insufficiently challenging performance targets and/or high potential payout opportunities;

●

Performance targets lowered without justification;

●

Discretionary bonuses paid when short- or long-term incentive plan targets were not met;

●

High executive pay relative to peers that is not justified by outstanding company performance; and

●

The terms of the long-term incentive plans are inappropriate (please see “Long-Term Incentives”).

The aforementioned issues may also influence Glass Lewis’ assessment of the structure of a company’s compensation program. We evaluate structure on a “Good, Fair, Poor” rating scale whereby a “Good” rating represents a compensation program with little to no concerns, a “Fair” rating represents a compensation program with some concerns and a “Poor” rating represents a compensation program that deviates significantly from best practice or contains one or more egregious compensation practices.

We believe that it is important for companies to provide investors with clear and complete disclosure of all the significant terms of compensation arrangements. Similar to structure, we evaluate disclosure on a “Good, Fair, Poor” rating scale whereby a “Good” rating represents a thorough discussion of all elements of compensation, a “Fair” rating represents an adequate discussion of all or most elements of compensation and a “Poor” rating represents an incomplete or absent discussion of compensation. In instances where a company has simply failed to provide sufficient disclosure of its policies, we may recommend shareholders vote against this proposal solely on this basis, regardless of the appropriateness of compensation levels.

In general, most companies will fall within the “Fair” range for both structure and disclosure, and Glass Lewis largely uses the “Good” and “Poor” ratings to highlight outliers.

Where we identify egregious compensation practices, we may also recommend voting against the compensation committee based on the practices or actions of its members during the year. Such practices may include: approving large one-off payments, the inappropriate, unjustified use of discretion, or sustained poor pay for performance practices. (Refer to the section on "Compensation Committee Performance" for more information.)

Company Responsiveness

When companies receive a significant level of shareholder opposition to a say-on-pay proposal, which occurs when more than 20% of votes on the proposal are cast as AGAINST and/or ABSTAIN. We believe the board should demonstrate a commensurate level of engagement and responsiveness to the concerns behind the disapproval, with a particular focus on responding to shareholder feedback. When assessing the level of opposition to say-on-pay proposals, we may further examine the level of opposition among disinterested shareholders as an independent group. While we recognize that sweeping changes cannot be made to a compensation program without due consideration, and that often a majority of shareholders may have voted in favor of the proposal, given that the average approval rate for say-on-pay proposals is about 90%, we believe the compensation committee should provide some level of response to a significant vote against. In general, our expectations regarding the minimum appropriate levels of responsiveness will correspond with the level of shareholder opposition, as expressed both through the magnitude of opposition in a single year, and through the persistence of shareholder disapproval over time.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Responses we consider appropriate include engaging with large shareholders, especially dissenting shareholders, to identify their concerns, and, where reasonable, implementing changes and/or making commitments that directly address those concerns within the company’s compensation program. In cases where particularly egregious pay decisions caused the say on pay proposal to fail, Glass Lewis will closely consider whether any changes were made directly relating to the pay decision that may address structural concerns that shareholders have. In the absence of any evidence in the disclosure that the board is actively engaging shareholders on these issues and responding accordingly, we may recommend holding compensation committee members accountable for failing to adequately respond to shareholder opposition. Regarding such recommendations, careful consideration will be given to the level of shareholder protest and the severity and history of compensation practices.

Pay for Performance

Glass Lewis believes an integral part of a well-structured compensation package is a successful link between pay and performance. Our proprietary pay-for-performance model was developed to better evaluate the link between pay and performance. Generally, compensation and performance are measured against a peer group of appropriate companies that may overlap, to a certain extent, with a company’s self-disclosed peers. This quantitative analysis provides a consistent framework and historical context for our clients to determine how well companies link executive compensation to relative performance. Companies that demonstrate a weaker link are more likely to receive a negative recommendation; however, other qualitative factors such as overall incentive structure, significant forthcoming changes to the compensation program or reasonable long-term payout levels may mitigate our concerns to a certain extent.

While we assign companies a letter grade of A, B, C, D or F based on the alignment between pay and performance, the grades derived from the Glass Lewis pay-for-performance analysis do not follow the traditional U.S. school letter grade system. Rather, the grades are generally interpreted as follows:

Grade of A:

The company’s percentile rank for pay is significantly less than its percentile rank for performance

Grade of B:

The company’s percentile rank for pay is moderately less than its percentile rank for performance

Grade of C:

The company’s percentile rank for pay is approximately aligned with its percentile rank for performance

Grade of D:

The company’s percentile rank for pay is higher than its percentile rank for performance

Grade of F:

The company’s percentile rank for pay is significantly higher than its percentile rank for performance

Separately, a specific comparison between the company’s executive pay and its peers’ executive pay levels may be discussed in the analysis for additional insight into the grade. Likewise, a specific comparison between the company’s performance and its peers’ performance is reflected in the analysis for further context.

We also use this analysis to inform our voting decisions on say-on-pay proposals. As such, if a company receives a “D” or “F” from our proprietary model, we are more likely to recommend that shareholders vote against the say-on-pay proposal. However, supplemental quantitative factors like analyses of realized pay levels and the “compensation actually paid” data mandated by the SEC’s 2022 final rule regarding pay versus performance may be considered, and other qualitative factors such as an effective overall incentive structure, the relevance of selected performance metrics, significant forthcoming enhancements or reasonable long-term payout levels may give us cause to recommend in favor of a proposal even when we have identified a disconnect between pay and performance.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

In determining the peer groups used in our A-F pay-for-performance letter grades, Glass Lewis utilizes a proprietary methodology that considers both market and industry peers, along with each company’s network of self-disclosed peers. Each component is considered on a weighted basis and is subject to size-based ranking and screening. The peer groups used are provided to Glass Lewis by Diligent Intel based on Glass Lewis’ methodology and using Diligent Intel’s data.

Selecting an appropriate peer group to analyze a company’s compensation program is a subjective determination, requiring significant judgment and on which there is not a “correct” answer. Since the peer group used is based on an independent, proprietary technique, it will often differ from the one used by the company which, in turn, will affect the resulting analyses. While Glass Lewis believes that the independent, rigorous methodology it uses provides a valuable perspective on the company’s compensation program, the company’s self-selected peer group may also presented in the Proxy Paper for comparative purposes.

Short-Term Incentives

A short-term bonus or incentive (STI) should be demonstrably tied to performance. Whenever possible, we believe a mix of corporate and individual performance measures is appropriate. We would normally expect performance measures for STI plans to be based on company-wide or divisional financial measures as well as non-financial, qualitative or non-formulaic factors such as those related to safety, environmental issues, and customer satisfaction. While we recognize that companies operating in different sectors or markets may seek to utilize a wide range of metrics, we expect such measures to be appropriately tied to a company’s business drivers.

Further, the threshold, target and maximum performance goals and corresponding payout levels that can be achieved under STI plans should be disclosed. Shareholders should expect stretching performance targets for the maximum award to be achieved. Any increase in the potential target and maximum award should be clearly justified to shareholders, as should any decrease in target and maximum performance levels from the previous year.

Glass Lewis recognizes that disclosure of some measures or performance targets may include commercially confidential information. Therefore, we believe it may be reasonable to exclude such information in some cases as long as the company provides sufficient justification for non-disclosure. However, where a short-term bonus has been paid, companies should disclose the extent to which performance has been achieved against relevant targets, including disclosure of the actual target achieved.

Where management has received significant short-term incentive payments but overall performance and/or the shareholder experience over the measurement year prima facie appears to be poor or negative, we believe the company should provide a clear explanation of why these significant short-term payments were made. We also believe any significant changes to the program structure should be accompanied by rationalizing disclosure. Further, where a company has applied upward discretion, which includes lowering goals mid-year, increasing calculated payouts or retroactively pro-rating performance periods, we expect a robust discussion of why the decision was necessary. In addition, we believe that where companies use non-GAAP or bespoke metrics, clear reconciliations between these figures and GAAP figures in audited financial statements should be provided. Adjustments to GAAP figures may be considered in Glass Lewis’ assessment of the effectiveness of the incentive at tying executive pay with performance. Moreover, Glass Lewis believes that in circumstances where significant

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

adjustments were applied to performance results, thorough, detailed discussion of adjustments akin to a GAAP-to-non-GAAP reconciliation and their impact on payouts within the proxy statement is warranted. The absence of such enhanced disclosure for significant adjustments will impact Glass Lewis’ assessment of the quality of disclosure and, in turn, may play a role in the overall recommendation for the advisory vote on executive compensation.

Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of the compensation committee’s judicious and responsible exercise of discretion over incentive pay outcomes to account for significant, material events that would otherwise be excluded from performance results of selected metrics of incentive programs. For instance, major litigation settlement charges may be removed from non-GAAP results before the determination of formulaic incentive payouts, or health and safety failures may not be reflected in performance results where companies do not expressly include health and safety metrics in incentive plans; such events may nevertheless be consequential to corporate performance results, impact the shareholder experience, and, in some cases, may present material risks. Conversely, certain events may adversely impact formulaic payout results despite being outside executives’ control. We believe that companies should provide thorough discussion of how such events were considered in the committee’s decisions to exercise discretion or refrain from applying discretion over incentive pay outcomes. The inclusion of this disclosure may be helpful when we consider concerns around the exercise or absence of committee discretion.

We do not generally recommend against a pay program due to the use of a non-formulaic plan. If a company has chosen to rely primarily on a subjective assessment or the board’s discretion in determining short-term bonuses, we believe that the proxy statement should provide a meaningful discussion of the board’s rationale in determining the bonuses paid as well as a rationale for the use of a non-formulaic mechanism. Particularly where the aforementioned disclosures are substantial and satisfactory, such a structure will not provoke serious concern in our analysis on its own. However, in conjunction with other significant issues in a program’s design or operation, such as a disconnect between pay and performance, the absence of a cap on payouts, or a lack of performance-based long-term awards, the use of a non-formulaic bonus may help drive a negative recommendation.

Long-Term Incentives

Glass Lewis recognizes the value of equity-based incentive programs, which are often the primary long-term incentive for executives. When used appropriately, they can provide a vehicle for linking an executive’s pay to company performance, thereby aligning their interests with those of shareholders. In addition, equity-based compensation can be an effective way to attract, retain and motivate key employees.

There are certain elements that Glass Lewis believes are common to most well-structured long-term incentive (LTI) plans. These include:

●

No re-testing or lowering of performance conditions;

●

Performance metrics that cannot be easily manipulated by management;

●

Two or more performance metrics;

●

At least one relative performance metric that compares the company’s performance to a relevant peer group or index;

●

Performance periods of at least three years;

●

Stretching metrics that incentivize executives to strive for outstanding performance while not encouraging excessive risk-taking;

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

●

Reasonable individual award limits; and

●

Equity granting practices that are clearly disclosed.

In evaluating long-term incentive grants, Glass Lewis generally believes that at least half of the grant should consist of performance-based awards, putting a material portion of executive compensation at-risk and demonstrably linked to the performance of the company. While we will consistently raise concern with programs that do not meet this criterion, we may refrain from a negative recommendation in the absence of other significant issues with the program’s design or operation. However, in cases where performance-based awards are significantly rolled back or eliminated from a company’s long-term incentive plan, such decisions will generally be viewed negatively outside of exceptional circumstances, and may lead to a recommendation against the proposal.

As with the short-term incentive, Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of the compensation committee’s judicious and responsible exercise of discretion over incentive pay outcomes to account for significant events that would otherwise be excluded from performance results of selected metrics of incentive programs. We believe that companies should provide thorough discussion of how such events were considered in the committee’s decisions to exercise discretion or refrain from applying discretion over incentive pay outcomes. Furthermore, considerations related to the use of non-GAAP metrics under the STI plan similarly apply to the long-term incentive program.

Performance measures should be carefully selected and should relate to the specific business/industry in which the company operates and, especially, to the key value drivers of the company’s business. As with short-term incentive plans, the basis for any adjustments to metrics or results should be clearly explained, as should the company’s judgment on the use of discretion and any significant changes to the performance program structure.

While cognizant of the inherent complexity of certain performance metrics, Glass Lewis generally believes that measuring a company’s performance with multiple metrics serves to provide a more complete picture of the company’s performance than a single metric. Further, reliance on just one metric may focus too much management attention on a single target and is therefore more susceptible to manipulation. When utilized for relative measurements, external benchmarks such as a sector index or peer group should be disclosed and transparent. The rationale behind the selection of a specific index or peer group should also be disclosed. Internal performance benchmarks should also be disclosed and transparent, unless a cogent case for confidentiality is made and fully explained. Similarly, actual performance and vesting levels for previous grants earned during the fiscal year should be disclosed.

We also believe shareholders should evaluate the relative success of a company’s compensation programs, particularly with regard to existing equity-based incentive plans, in linking pay and performance when evaluating potential changes to LTI plans and determining the impact of additional stock awards. We will therefore review the company’s pay-for-performance grade (see above for more information) and specifically the proportion of total compensation that is stock-based.

Grants of Front-Loaded Awards

Many U.S. companies have chosen to provide large grants, usually in the form of equity awards, that are intended to serve as compensation for multiple years. This practice, often called front-loading, is taken up either in the regular course of business or as a response to specific business conditions and with a predetermined

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

objective. The so-called “mega-grant”, an outsized award to one individual sometimes valued at over $100 million is sometimes but not always provided as a front-loaded award. We believe shareholders should generally be wary of this approach, and we accordingly weigh these grants with particular scrutiny.

While the use of front-loaded awards is intended to lock-in executive service and incentives, the same rigidity also raises the risk of effectively tying the hands of the compensation committee. As compared with a more responsive annual granting schedule program, front-loaded awards may preclude improvements or changes to reflect evolving business strategies or to respond to other unforeseen factors. Additionally, if structured poorly, early vesting of such awards may reduce or eliminate the retentive power at great cost to shareholders. The considerable emphasis on a single grant can place intense pressures on every facet of its design, amplifying any potential perverse incentives and creating greater room for unintended consequences. In particular, provisions around changes of control or separations of service must ensure that executives do not receive excessive payouts that do not reflect shareholder experience or company performance.

We consider a company’s rationale for granting awards under this structure and also expect any front-loaded awards to include a firm commitment not to grant additional awards for a defined period, as is commonly associated with this practice. Even when such a commitment is provided, unexpected circumstances may lead the board to make additional payments or awards for retention purposes, or to incentivize management towards more realistic goals or a revised strategy. If a company breaks its commitment not to grant further awards, we may recommend against the pay program unless a convincing rationale is provided. In situations where the front-loaded award was meant to cover a certain portion of the regular long-term incentive grant for each year during the covered period, our analysis of the value of the remaining portion of the regular long-term incentives granted during the period covered by the award will account for the annualized value of the front-loaded portion, and we expect no supplemental grant be awarded during the vesting period of the front-loaded portion.

The multiyear nature of these awards generally lends itself to significantly higher compensation figures in the year of grant than might otherwise be expected. In our qualitative analysis of the grants of front-loaded awards to executives, Glass Lewis considers the quantum of the award on an annualized basis and may compare this result to the prior practice and peer data, among other benchmarks. Additionally, for awards that are granted in the form of equity, Glass Lewis may consider the total potential dilutive effect of such award on shareholders.

Linking Executive Pay to Environmental and Social Criteria

Glass Lewis believes that explicit environmental and/or social (E&S) criteria in executive incentive plans, when used appropriately, can serve to provide both executives and shareholders a clear line of sight into a company’s ESG strategy, ambitions, and targets. Although we are strongly supportive of companies’ incorporation of material E&S risks and opportunities in their long-term strategic planning, we believe that the inclusion of E&S metrics in compensation programs should be predicated on each company’s unique circumstances. In order to establish a meaningful link between pay and performance, companies must consider factors including their industry, size, risk profile, maturity, performance, financial condition, and any other relevant internal or external factors.

When a company is introducing E&S criteria into executive incentive plans, we believe it is important that companies provide shareholders with sufficient disclosure to allow them to understand how these criteria align with its strategy. Additionally, Glass Lewis recognizes that there may be situations where certain E&S performance criteria are reasonably viewed as prerequisites for executive performance, as opposed to behaviors and conditions that need to be incentivized. For example, we believe that shareholders should interrogate the use of metrics that award executives for ethical behavior or compliance with policies and regulations. It is our

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

view that companies should provide shareholders with disclosures that clearly lay out the rationale for selecting specific E&S metrics, the target-setting process, and corresponding payout opportunities. Further, particularly in the case of qualitative metrics, we believe that shareholders should be provided with a clear understanding of the basis on which the criteria will be assessed. Where quantitative targets have been set, we believe that shareholders are best served when these are disclosed on an ex-ante basis, or the board should outline why it believes it is unable to do so.

While we believe that companies should generally set long-term targets for their environmental and social ambitions, we are mindful that not all compensation schemes lend themselves to the inclusion of E&S metrics. We also are of the view that companies should retain flexibility in not only choosing to incorporate E&S metrics in their compensation plans, but also in the placement of these metrics. For example, some companies may resolve that including E&S criteria in the annual bonus may help to incentivize the achievement of short-term milestones and allow for more maneuverability in strategic adjustments to long-term goals. Other companies may determine that their long-term sustainability targets are best achieved by incentivizing executives through metrics included in their long-term incentive plans.

One-Time Awards

Glass Lewis believes shareholders should generally be wary of awards granted outside of the standard incentive schemes, as such awards have the potential to undermine the integrity of a company’s regular incentive plans or the link between pay and performance, or both. We generally believe that if the existing incentive programs fail to provide adequate incentives to executives, companies should redesign their compensation programs rather than make additional grants.

However, we recognize that in certain circumstances, additional incentives may be appropriate. In these cases, companies should provide a thorough description of the awards, including a cogent and convincing explanation of their necessity and why existing awards do not provide sufficient motivation and a discussion of how the quantum of the award and its structure were determined. Further, such awards should be tied to future service and performance whenever possible.

Additionally, we believe companies making supplemental or one-time awards should also describe if and how the regular compensation arrangements will be affected by these additional grants. In reviewing a company’s use of supplemental awards, Glass Lewis will evaluate the terms and size of the grants in the context of the company’s overall incentive strategy and granting practices, as well as the current operating environment.

Contractual Payments and Arrangements

Beyond the quantum of contractual payments, Glass Lewis will also consider the design of any entitlements. Certain executive employment terms may help to drive a negative recommendation, including, but not limited to:

●

Excessively broad change in control triggers;

●

Inappropriate severance entitlements;

●

Inadequately explained or excessive sign-on arrangements;

●

Guaranteed bonuses (especially as a multiyear occurrence); and

●

Failure to address any concerning practices in amended employment agreements.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

In general, we are wary of terms that are excessively restrictive in favor of the executive, or that could potentially incentivize behaviors that are not in a company’s best interest.

Sign-on Awards and Severance Benefits

We acknowledge that there may be certain costs associated with transitions at the executive level. In evaluating the size of severance and sign-on arrangements, we may consider the executive’s regular target compensation level, or the sums paid to other executives (including the recipient’s predecessor, where applicable) in evaluating the appropriateness of such an arrangement.

We believe sign-on arrangements should be clearly disclosed and accompanied by a meaningful explanation of the payments and the process by which the amounts were reached. Further, the details of and basis for any “make-whole” payments (paid as compensation for awards forfeited from a previous employer) should be provided.

With respect to severance, we believe companies should abide by predetermined payouts in most circumstances. While in limited circumstances some deviations may not be inappropriate, we believe shareholders should be provided with a meaningful explanation of any additional or increased benefits agreed upon outside of regular arrangements. However, where Glass Lewis determines that such predetermined payouts are particularly problematic or unfavorable to shareholders, we may consider the execution of such payments in a negative recommendation for the advisory vote on executive compensation.

In the U.S. market, most companies maintain severance entitlements based on a multiple of salary and, in many cases, bonus. In almost all instances we see, the relevant multiple is three or less, even in the case of a change in control. We believe the basis and total value of severance should be reasonable and should not exceed the upper limit of general market practice. We consider the inclusion of long-term incentives in cash severance calculations to be inappropriate, particularly given the commonality of accelerated vesting and the proportional weight of long-term incentives as a component of total pay. Additional considerations, however, will be accounted for when reviewing atypically structured compensation approaches.

Change in Control

Glass Lewis considers double-trigger change in control arrangements, which require both a change in control and termination or constructive termination, to be best practice. Any arrangement that is not explicitly double-trigger may be considered a single-trigger or modified single-trigger arrangement.

Further, we believe that excessively broad definitions of change in control are potentially problematic as they may lead to situations where executives receive additional compensation where no meaningful change in status or duties has occurred.

Excise Tax Gross-ups

Among other entitlements, Glass Lewis is strongly opposed to excise tax gross-ups related to IRC § 4999 and their expansion, especially where no consideration is given to the safe harbor limit. We believe that under no normal circumstance is the inclusion of excise tax gross-up provisions in new agreements or the addition of such

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

provisions to amended agreements acceptable. In consideration of the fact that minor increases in change-in-control payments can lead to disproportionately large excise taxes, the potential negative impact of tax gross-ups far outweighs any retentive benefit.

Depending on the circumstances, the addition of new gross-ups around this excise tax may lead to negative recommendations for a company’s say-on-pay proposal, the chair of the compensation committee, or the entire committee, particularly in cases where a company had committed not to provide any such entitlements in the future. For situations in which the addition of new excise tax gross ups will be provided in connection with a specific change-in-control transaction, this policy may be applied to the say-on-pay proposal, the golden parachute proposal and recommendations related to the compensation committee for all involved corporate parties, as appropriate.

Amended Employment Agreements

Any contractual arrangements providing for problematic pay practices which are not addressed in materially amended employment agreements will potentially be viewed by Glass Lewis as a missed opportunity on the part of the company to align its policies with current best practices. Such problematic pay practices include, but are not limited to, excessive change in control entitlements, modified single-trigger change in control entitlements, excise tax gross-ups, and multi-year guaranteed awards.

Recoupment Provisions (Clawbacks)

On October 26, 2022, the SEC adopted Rule 10D-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The rule mandates national securities exchanges and associations to promulgate new listing standards requiring companies to maintain recoupment policies (“clawback provisions”). The final clawback listing standards were approved by the SEC, effective October 2, 2023 and required listed companies to adopt a compliant policy by December 1, 2023. Glass Lewis believes that clawback provisions play an important role in mitigating excessive risk-taking that may be encouraged by poorly structured variable incentive programs. Current listing standards require recoupment of erroneously awarded payouts to current and former executive officers in the event of an accounting restatement or correction to previous financial statements that is material to the current period, regardless of fault or misconduct.

Glass Lewis recognizes that excessive risk-taking that can materially and adversely impact shareholders may not necessarily result in such restatements. We believe that clawback policies should allow recovery from current and former executive officers in the event of a restatement of financial results or similar revision of performance indicators upon which the awards were based. Additionally, recoupment policies should provide companies with the ability to claw back variable incentive payments (whether time-based or performance-based) when there is evidence of problematic decisions or actions, such as material misconduct, a material reputational failure, material risk management failure, or a material operational failure, the consequences of which have not already been reflected in incentive payments and where recovery is warranted.

In situations where the company ultimately determines not to follow through with recovery, Glass Lewis will assess the appropriateness of such determination for each case. A thorough, detailed discussion of the company’s decision to not pursue recoupment and, if applicable, how the company has otherwise rectified the disconnect between executive pay outcomes and negative impacts of their actions on the company and the shareholder experience will be considered. The absence of such enhanced disclosure may impact Glass Lewis’

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

assessment of the quality of disclosure and, in turn, may play a role in Glass Lewis’ overall recommendation for the advisory vote on executive compensation. The clawback policy should provide recoupment authority regardless of whether the employment of the executive officer was terminated with or without cause.

Hedging of Stock

Glass Lewis believes that the hedging of shares by executives in the shares of the companies where they are employed severs the alignment of interests of the executive with shareholders. We believe companies should adopt strict policies to prohibit executives from hedging the economic risk associated with their share ownership in the company.

Pledging of Stock

Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should examine the facts and circumstances of each company rather than apply a one-size-fits-all policy regarding employee stock pledging. Glass Lewis believes that shareholders benefit when employees, particularly senior executives, have meaningful financial interest in the success of the company under their management, and therefore we recognize the benefits of measures designed to encourage employees to both buy shares out of their own pocket and to retain shares they have been granted; blanket policies prohibiting stock pledging may discourage executives and employees from doing either.

However, we also recognize that the pledging of shares can present a risk that, depending on a host of factors, an executive with significant pledged shares and limited other assets may have an incentive to take steps to avoid a forced sale of shares in the face of a rapid stock price decline. Therefore, to avoid substantial losses from a forced sale to meet the terms of the loan, the executive may have an incentive to boost the stock price in the short term in a manner that is unsustainable, thus hurting shareholders in the long-term. We also recognize concerns regarding pledging may not apply to less senior employees, given the latter group’s significantly more limited influence over a company’s stock price. Therefore, we believe that the issue of pledging shares should be reviewed in that context, as should policies that distinguish between the two groups.

Glass Lewis believes that the benefits of stock ownership by executives and employees may outweigh the risks of stock pledging, depending on many factors. As such, Glass Lewis reviews all relevant factors in evaluating proposed policies, limitations and prohibitions on pledging stock, including:

●

The number of shares pledged;

●

The percentage executives’ pledged shares are of outstanding shares;

●

The percentage executives’ pledged shares are of each executive’s shares and total assets;

●

Whether the pledged shares were purchased by the employee or granted by the company;

●

Whether there are different policies for purchased and granted shares;

●

Whether the granted shares were time-based or performance-based;

●

The overall governance profile of the company;

●

The volatility of the company’s stock (in order to determine the likelihood of a sudden stock price drop);

●

The nature and cyclicality, if applicable, of the company’s industry;

●

The participation and eligibility of executives and employees in pledging;

●

The company’s current policies regarding pledging and any waiver from these policies for employees and executives; and

●

Disclosure of the extent of any pledging, particularly among senior executives.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Executive Ownership Guidelines

The alignment between shareholder interests and those of executives represents an important assurance to disinterested shareholders that executives are acting in their best long-term interests. Companies should facilitate this relationship through the adoption and enforcement of minimum executive share ownership requirements. Companies should clearly disclose their executive ownership requirements in their Compensation Discussion and Analysis section and how the various types of outstanding equity awards are counted or excluded from the ownership level calculation.

In determining whether executives have met the requirements or not, the inclusion of unearned performance- based full value awards and/or unexercised stock options without cogent rationale may be viewed as problematic. While Glass Lewis views the inclusion of unearned performance-based equity in the ownership determination as problematic, we continue to believe that performance-based equity compensation plays an important role in aligning executive pay with performance.

Compensation Consultant Independence

As mandated by Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as of January 11, 2013, the SEC approved listing requirements for both the NYSE and NASDAQ which require compensation committees to consider six factors (https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2012/33-9330.pdf, p.31-32) in assessing compensation advisor independence. According to the SEC, “no one factor should be viewed as a determinative factor.” Glass Lewis believes this six-factor assessment is an important process for every compensation committee to undertake but believes companies employing a consultant for board compensation, consulting and other corporate services should provide clear disclosure beyond just a reference to examining the six points, in order to allow shareholders to review the specific aspects of the various consultant relationships.

We believe compensation consultants are engaged to provide objective, disinterested, expert advice to the compensation committee. When the consultant or its affiliates receive substantial income from providing other services to the company, we believe the potential for a conflict of interest arises and the independence of the consultant may be jeopardized. Therefore, Glass Lewis will, when relevant, note the potential for a conflict of interest when the fees paid to the advisor or its affiliates for other services exceed those paid for compensation consulting.

CEO Pay Ratio

As mandated by Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Consumer and Protection Act, beginning in 2018, issuers will be required to disclose the median annual total compensation of all employees except the CEO, the total annual compensation of the CEO or equivalent position, and the ratio between the two amounts. Glass Lewis will display the pay ratio as a data point in our Proxy Papers, as available. While we recognize that the pay ratio has the potential to provide additional insight when assessing a company’s pay practices, at this time it will not be a determinative factor in our voting recommendations.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Frequency of Say-on-Pay

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires companies to allow shareholders a non-binding vote on the frequency of say-on-pay votes (i.e., every one, two or three years). Additionally, Dodd-Frank requires companies to hold such votes on the frequency of say-on-pay votes at least once every six years.

We believe companies should submit say-on-pay votes to shareholders every year. We believe that the time and financial burdens to a company with regard to an annual vote are relatively small and incremental and are outweighed by the benefits to shareholders through more frequent accountability. Implementing biannual or triennial votes on executive compensation limits shareholders’ ability to hold the board accountable for its compensation practices through means other than voting against the compensation committee. Unless a company provides a compelling rationale or unique circumstances for say-on-pay votes less frequent than annually, we will generally recommend that shareholders support annual votes on compensation.

Vote on Golden Parachute Arrangements

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires companies to provide shareholders with a separate non-binding vote on approval of golden parachute compensation arrangements in connection with certain change-in-control transactions. However, if the golden parachute arrangements have previously been subject to a say-on-pay vote which shareholders approved, then this required vote is waived.

Glass Lewis believes the narrative and tabular disclosure of golden parachute arrangements benefits all shareholders. Glass Lewis analyzes each golden parachute arrangement on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, among other items: the nature of the change-in-control transaction, the ultimate value of the payments particularly compared to the value of the transaction, any excise tax gross-up obligations, the tenure and position of the executives in question before and after the transaction, any new or amended employment agreements entered into in connection with the transaction, and the type of triggers involved (i.e., single vs. double). In cases where new problematic features, such as excise tax gross-up obligations, are introduced in a golden parachute proposal, such features may contribute to a negative recommendation not only for the golden parachute proposal under review, but for the next say-on-pay proposal of any involved corporate parties, as well as recommendations against their compensation committee as appropriate.

Equity-Based Compensation Proposals

We believe that equity compensation awards, when not abused, are useful for retaining employees and providing an incentive for them to act in a way that will improve company performance. Glass Lewis recognizes that equity-based compensation plans are critical components of a company’s overall compensation program, and we analyze such plans accordingly based on both quantitative and qualitative factors.

Our quantitative analysis assesses the plan’s cost and the company’s pace of granting utilizing a number of different analyses, comparing the program with absolute limits we believe are key to equity value creation and with a carefully chosen peer group. In general, our model seeks to determine whether the proposed plan is either absolutely excessive or is more than one standard deviation away from the average plan for the peer group on a range of criteria, including dilution to shareholders and the projected annual cost relative to the company’s financial performance. Each of the analyses (and their constituent parts) is weighted and the plan is scored in accordance with that weight.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

We compare the program’s expected annual expense with the business’s operating metrics to help determine whether the plan is excessive in light of company performance. We also compare the plan’s expected annual cost to the enterprise value of the firm rather than to market capitalization because the employees, managers and directors of the firm contribute to the creation of enterprise value but not necessarily market capitalization (the biggest difference is seen where cash represents the vast majority of market capitalization). Finally, we do not rely exclusively on relative comparisons with averages because, in addition to creeping averages serving to inflate compensation, we believe that some absolute limits are warranted.

We then consider qualitative aspects of the plan such as plan administration, the method and terms of exercise, repricing history, express or implied rights to reprice, and the presence of evergreen provisions. We also closely review the choice and use of, and difficulty in meeting, the awards’ performance metrics and targets, if any. We believe significant changes to the terms of a plan should be explained for shareholders and clearly indicated. Other factors such as a company’s size and operating environment may also be relevant in assessing the severity of concerns or the benefits of certain changes. Finally, we may consider a company’s executive compensation practices in certain situations, as applicable.

We evaluate equity plans based on certain overarching principles:

●

Companies should seek more shares only when needed;

●

Requested share amounts or share reserves should be conservative in size so that companies must seek shareholder approval every three to four years (or more frequently);

●

If a plan is relatively expensive, it should not grant options solely to senior executives and board members;

●

Dilution of annual net share count or voting power, along with the “overhang” of incentive plans, should be limited;

●

Annual cost of the plan (especially if not shown on the income statement) should be reasonable as a percentage of financial results and should be in line with the peer group;

●

The expected annual cost of the plan should be proportional to the business’s value;

●

The intrinsic value that option grantees received in the past should be reasonable compared with the business’s financial results;

●

Plans should not permit repricing of stock options without shareholder approval;

●

Plans should not contain excessively liberal administrative or payment terms;

●

Plans should not count shares in ways that understate the potential dilution, or cost, to common shareholders. This refers to “inverse” full-value award multipliers;

●

Selected performance metrics should be challenging and appropriate, and should be subject to relative performance measurements; and

●

Stock grants should be subject to minimum vesting and/or holding periods sufficient to ensure sustainable performance and promote retention.

Meanwhile, for individual equity award proposals where the recipient of the proposed grant is also a large shareholder of the company whose vote can materially affect the passage of the proposal, we believe that the company should strongly consider the level of approval from disinterested shareholders before proceeding with the proposed grant. Glass Lewis recognizes potential conflicts of interests when vote outcomes can be heavily influenced by the recipient of the grant. A required abstention vote or non-vote from the recipient for an equity award proposal in these situations can help to avoid such conflicts. This favorable feature will be weighed alongside the structure, disclosure, dilution, provided rationale, and other provisions related to the individual award to assess the award’s alignment with long-term shareholder interests.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Option Exchanges and Repricing

Glass Lewis is generally opposed to the repricing of employee and director options regardless of how it is accomplished. Employees should have some downside risk in their equity-based compensation program and repricing eliminates any such risk. As shareholders have substantial risk in owning stock, we believe that the equity compensation of employees and directors should be similarly situated to align their interests with those of shareholders. We believe this will facilitate appropriate risk- and opportunity-taking for the company by employees.

We are concerned that option grantees who believe they will be “rescued” from underwater options will be more inclined to take unjustifiable risks. Moreover, a predictable pattern of repricing or exchanges substantially alters a stock option’s value because options that will practically never expire deeply out of the money are worth far more than options that carry a risk of expiration.

In short, repricings and option exchange programs change the bargain between shareholders and employees after the bargain has been struck.

There is one circumstance in which a repricing or option exchange program may be acceptable: if macroeconomic or industry trends, rather than specific company issues, cause a stock’s value to decline dramatically and the repricing is necessary to motivate and retain employees. In viewing the company’s stock decline as part of a larger trend, we would expect the impact to approximately reflect the market or industry price decline in terms of timing and magnitude. In this circumstance, we think it fair to conclude that option grantees may be suffering from a risk that was not foreseeable when the original “bargain” was struck. In such a scenario, we may opt to support a repricing or option exchange program only if sufficient conditions are met. We are largely concerned with the inclusion of the following features:

●

Officers and board members cannot participate in the program; and

●

The exchange is value-neutral or value-creative to shareholders using very conservative assumptions.

●

In our evaluation of the appropriateness of the program design, we also consider the inclusion of the following features:

●

The vesting requirements on exchanged or repriced options are extended beyond one year;

●

Shares reserved for options that are reacquired in an option exchange will permanently retire (i.e., will not be available for future grants) so as to prevent additional shareholder dilution in the future; and

●

Management and the board make a cogent case for needing to motivate and retain existing employees, such as being in a competitive employment market.

Option Backdating, Spring-Loading and Bullet-Dodging

Glass Lewis views option backdating, and the related practices of spring-loading and bullet-dodging, as egregious actions that warrant holding the appropriate management and board members responsible. These practices are similar to repricing options and eliminate much of the downside risk inherent in an option grant that is designed to induce recipients to maximize shareholder return.

Backdating an option is the act of changing an option’s grant date from the actual grant date to an earlier date when the market price of the underlying stock was lower, resulting in a lower exercise price for the option. In past studies, Glass Lewis identified over 270 companies that have disclosed internal or government investigations into their past stock-option grants.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Spring-loading is granting stock options while in possession of material, positive information that has not been disclosed publicly. Bullet-dodging is delaying the grants of stock options until after the release of material, negative information. This can allow option grants to be made at a lower price either before the release of positive news or following the release of negative news, assuming the stock’s price will move up or down in response to the information. This raises a concern similar to that of insider trading, or the trading on material non-public information.

The exercise price for an option is determined on the day of grant, providing the recipient with the same market risk as an investor who bought shares on that date. However, where options were backdated, the executive or the board (or the compensation committee) changed the grant date retroactively. The new date may be at or near the lowest price for the year or period. This would be like allowing an investor to look back and select the lowest price of the year at which to buy shares.

A 2006 study of option grants made between 1996 and 2005 at 8,000 companies found that option backdating can be an indication of poor internal controls. The study found that option backdating was more likely to occur at companies without a majority independent board and with a long-serving CEO; both factors, the study concluded, were associated with greater CEO influence on the company’s compensation and governance practices.43

Where a company granted backdated options to an executive who is also a director, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against that executive/director, regardless of who decided to make the award. In addition, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against those directors who either approved or allowed the backdating. Glass Lewis feels that executives and directors who either benefited from backdated options or authorized the practice have failed to act in the best interests of shareholders.

Given the severe tax and legal liabilities to the company from backdating, Glass Lewis will consider recommending voting against members of the audit committee who served when options were backdated, a restatement occurs, material weaknesses in internal controls exist and disclosures indicate there was a lack of documentation. These committee members failed in their responsibility to ensure the integrity of the company’s financial reports.

When a company has engaged in spring-loading or bullet-dodging, Glass Lewis will consider recommending voting against the compensation committee members where there has been a pattern of granting options at or near historic lows. Glass Lewis will also recommend voting against executives serving on the board who benefited from the spring-loading or bullet-dodging.

Director Compensation Plans

Glass Lewis believes that non-employee directors should receive reasonable and appropriate compensation for the time and effort they spend serving on the board and its committees. However, a balance is required. Fees should be competitive in order to retain and attract qualified individuals, but excessive fees represent a financial cost to the company and potentially compromise the objectivity and independence of non-employee directors. We will consider recommending support for compensation plans that include option grants or other equity-based awards that help to align the interests of outside directors with those of shareholders. However, to ensure directors are not incentivized in the same manner as executives but rather serve as a check on imprudent risk-taking in executive compensation plan design, equity grants to directors should not be performance-based.

43 Lucian Bebchuk, Yaniv Grinstein and Urs Peyer. “LUCKY CEOs.” November, 2006.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Where an equity plan exclusively or primarily covers non-employee directors as participants, we do not believe that the plan should provide for performance-based awards in any capacity.

When non-employee director equity grants are covered by the same equity plan that applies to a company’s broader employee base, we will use our proprietary model and analyst review of this model to guide our voting recommendations. If such a plan broadly allows for performance-based awards to directors or explicitly provides for such grants, we may recommend against the overall plan on this basis, particularly if the company has granted performance-based awards to directors in past.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

Glass Lewis believes that employee stock purchase plans (ESPPs) can provide employees with a sense of ownership in their company and help strengthen the alignment between the interests of employees and shareholders. We evaluate ESPPs by assessing the expected discount, purchase period, expected purchase activity (if previous activity has been disclosed) and whether the plan has a “lookback” feature. Except for the most extreme cases, Glass Lewis will generally support these plans given the regulatory purchase limit of $25,000 per employee per year, which we believe is reasonable. We also look at the number of shares requested to see if a ESPP will significantly contribute to overall shareholder dilution or if shareholders will not have a chance to approve the program for an excessive period of time. As such, we will generally recommend against ESPPs that contain “evergreen” provisions that automatically increase the number of shares available under the ESPP each year.

Executive Compensation Tax Deductibility — Amendment to IRC 162(M)

The “Tax Cut and Jobs Act” had significant implications on Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, a provision that allowed companies to deduct compensation in excess of $1 million for the CEO and the next three most highly compensated executive officers, excluding the CFO, if the compensation is performance-based and is paid under shareholder-approved plans. Glass Lewis does not generally view amendments to equity plans and changes to compensation programs in response to the elimination of tax deductions under 162(m) as problematic. This specifically holds true if such modifications contribute to the maintenance of a sound performance-based compensation program.

As grandfathered contracts may continue to be eligible for tax deductions under the transition rule for Section 162(m), companies may therefore submit incentive plans for shareholder approval to take of advantage of the tax deductibility afforded under 162(m) for certain types of compensation.

We believe the best practice for companies is to provide robust disclosure to shareholders so that they can make fully informed judgments about the reasonableness of the proposed compensation plan. To allow for meaningful shareholder review, we prefer that disclosure should include specific performance metrics, a maximum award pool, and a maximum award amount per employee. We also believe it is important to analyze the estimated grants to see if they are reasonable and in line with the company’s peers.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

We typically recommend voting against a 162(m) proposal where: (i) a company fails to provide at least a list of performance targets; (ii) a company fails to provide one of either a total maximum or an individual maximum; or (iii) the proposed plan or individual maximum award limit is excessive when compared with the plans of the company’s peers.

The company’s record of aligning pay with performance (as evaluated using our proprietary pay-for-performance model) also plays a role in our recommendation. Where a company has a record of setting reasonable pay relative to business performance, we generally recommend voting in favor of a plan even if the plan caps seem large relative to peers because we recognize the value in special pay arrangements for continued exceptional performance.

As with all other issues we review, our goal is to provide consistent but contextual advice given the specifics of the company and ongoing performance. Overall, we recognize that it is generally not in shareholders’ best interests to vote against such a plan and forgo the potential tax benefit since shareholder rejection of such plans will not curtail the awards; it will only prevent the tax deduction associated with them.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Governance Structure and the Shareholder Franchise

Anti-Takeover Measures

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)

Glass Lewis believes that poison pill plans are not generally in shareholders’ best interests. They can reduce management accountability by substantially limiting opportunities for corporate takeovers. Rights plans can thus prevent shareholders from receiving a buy-out premium for their stock. Typically we recommend that shareholders vote against these plans to protect their financial interests and ensure that they have an opportunity to consider any offer for their shares, especially those at a premium.

We believe boards should be given wide latitude in directing company activities and in charting the company’s course. However, on an issue such as this, where the link between the shareholders’ financial interests and their right to consider and accept buyout offers is substantial, we believe that shareholders should be allowed to vote on whether they support such a plan’s implementation. This issue is different from other matters that are typically left to board discretion. Its potential impact on and relation to shareholders is direct and substantial. It is also an issue in which management interests may be different from those of shareholders; thus, ensuring that shareholders have a voice is the only way to safeguard their interests.

In certain circumstances, we will support a poison pill that is limited in scope to accomplish a particular objective, such as the closing of an important merger, or a pill that contains what we believe to be a reasonable qualifying offer clause. We will consider supporting a poison pill plan if the qualifying offer clause includes each of the following attributes:

●

The form of offer is not required to be an all-cash transaction;

●

The offer is not required to remain open for more than 90 business days;

●

The offeror is permitted to amend the offer, reduce the offer, or otherwise change the terms;

●

There is no fairness opinion requirement; and

●

There is a low to no premium requirement.

Where these requirements are met, we typically feel comfortable that shareholders will have the opportunity to voice their opinion on any legitimate offer.

NOL Poison Pills

Similarly, Glass Lewis may consider supporting a limited poison pill in the event that a company seeks shareholder approval of a rights plan for the express purpose of preserving Net Operating Losses (NOLs). While companies with NOLs can generally carry these losses forward to offset future taxable income, Section 382 of

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

the Internal Revenue Code limits companies’ ability to use NOLs in the event of a “change of ownership.”44 In this case, a company may adopt or amend a poison pill (NOL pill) in order to prevent an inadvertent change of ownership by multiple investors purchasing small chunks of stock at the same time, and thereby preserve the ability to carry the NOLs forward. Often such NOL pills have trigger thresholds much lower than the common 15% or 20% thresholds, with some NOL pill triggers as low as 5%.

In many cases, companies will propose the adoption of bylaw amendments specifically restricting certain share transfers, in addition to proposing the adoption of a NOL pill. In general, if we support the terms of a particular NOL pill, we will generally support the additional protective amendment in the absence of significant concerns with the specific terms of that proposal.

As with traditional poison pills, NOL pills may deter shareholders and potentially serve as entrenchment mechanisms. Certain features such as low thresholds combined with acting in concert provisions, among other concerning terms, may disempower shareholders and insulate the board and management. When acting in concert provisions are present within the terms of a NOL pill, we believe this may raise concerns as to the true objective of the pill.

Acting in concert provisions broaden the definition of beneficial ownership to prohibit parallel conduct, or multiple shareholders party to a formal or informal agreement collaborating to influence the board and management of a company, and aggregate the ownership of such shareholders towards the triggering threshold. In our view, acting in concert provisions broadly limit the voice of shareholders and may diminish their ability to engage in a productive dialogue with the company and with other shareholders. When a board adopts defensive measures without engaging with shareholders, we take a dim view of the board and the overall governance of the company.

As such, Glass Lewis evaluates NOL pills on a strictly case-by-case basis, taking into consideration, among other factors: (i) the value of the NOLs to the company; (ii) the likelihood of a change of ownership based on the size of the holdings and the nature of the larger shareholders; (iii) the trigger threshold; (iv) the duration of the plan (i.e., whether it contains a reasonable “sunset” provision, generally one year or less); (v) the inclusion of an acting in concert provision; (vi) whether the pill is implemented following the filing of a Schedule 13D by a shareholder or there is evidence of hostile activity or shareholder activism; and (vii) if the pill is subject to periodic board review and/or shareholder ratification.

We believe that shareholders should be offered the opportunity to vote on any adoption or renewal of a NOL pill regardless of any potential tax benefit that it offers a company. As such, we will consider recommending voting against those members of the board who served at the time when an NOL pill was adopted without shareholder approval within the prior twelve months and where the NOL pill is not subject to shareholder ratification.

Fair Price Provisions

Fair price provisions, which are rare, require that certain minimum price and procedural requirements be observed by any party that acquires more than a specified percentage of a corporation’s common stock. The provision is intended to protect minority shareholder value when an acquirer seeks to accomplish a merger or other transaction which would eliminate or change the interests of the minority shareholders. The provision is

44 Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code refers to a “change of ownership” of more than 50 percentage points by one or more 5% shareholders within a three-year period. The statute is intended to deter the “trafficking” of net operating losses.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

generally applied against the acquirer unless the takeover is approved by a majority of ”continuing directors” and holders of a majority, in some cases a supermajority as high as 80%, of the combined voting power of all stock entitled to vote to alter, amend, or repeal the above provisions.

The effect of a fair price provision is to require approval of any merger or business combination with an “interested shareholder” by 51% of the voting stock of the company, excluding the shares held by the interested shareholder. An interested shareholder is generally considered to be a holder of 10% or more of the company’s outstanding stock, but the trigger can vary.

Generally, provisions are put in place for the ostensible purpose of preventing a back-end merger where the interested shareholder would be able to pay a lower price for the remaining shares of the company than he or she paid to gain control. The effect of a fair price provision on shareholders, however, is to limit their ability to gain a premium for their shares through a partial tender offer or open market acquisition which typically raise the share price, often significantly. A fair price provision discourages such transactions because of the potential costs of seeking shareholder approval and because of the restrictions on purchase price for completing a merger or other transaction at a later time.

Glass Lewis believes that fair price provisions, while sometimes protecting shareholders from abuse in a takeover situation, more often act as an impediment to takeovers, potentially limiting gains to shareholders from a variety of transactions that could significantly increase share price. In some cases, even the independent directors of the board cannot make exceptions when such exceptions may be in the best interests of shareholders. Given the existence of state law protections for minority shareholders such as Section 203 of the Delaware Corporations Code, we believe it is in the best interests of shareholders to remove fair price provisions.

Control Share Statutes

Certain states, including Delaware, have adopted control share acquisition statutes as an anti-takeover defense for certain closed-end investment companies and business development companies. Control share statutes may prevent changes in control by limiting voting rights of a person that acquires the ownership of “control shares.” Control shares are shares of stock equal to or exceeding specified percentages of company voting power, and a control share statute prevents shares in excess of the specified percentage from being voted, unless: (i) the board approves them to be voted; or (ii) the holder of the “control shares” receives approval from a supermajority of “non-interested” shareholders.

In our view, control share statues disenfranchise shareholders by reducing their voting power to a level less than their economic interest and effectively function as an anti-takeover device. We believe all shareholders should have an opportunity to vote all of their shares. Moreover, anti-takeover measures may prevent shareholders from receiving a buy-out premium for their stock.

As such, we will generally recommend voting for proposals to opt out of control share acquisition statutes, unless doing so would allow the completion of a takeover that is not in the best interests of shareholders; and against proposals to amend the charter to include control share acquisition provisions.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Quorum Requirements

Glass Lewis believes that a company’s quorum requirement should be set at a level high enough to ensure that a broad range of shareholders are represented in person or by proxy, but low enough that the company can transact necessary business. Companies in the U.S. are generally subject to quorum requirements under the laws of their specific state of incorporation. Additionally, those companies listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market are required to specify a quorum in their bylaws, provided however that such quorum may not be less than one-third of outstanding shares. Prior to 2013, the New York Stock Exchange required a quorum of 50% for listed companies, although this requirement was dropped in recognition of individual state requirements and potential confusion for issuers. Delaware, for example, required companies to provide for a quorum of no less than one-third of outstanding shares; otherwise such quorum shall default to a majority.

We generally believe a majority of outstanding shares entitled to vote is an appropriate quorum for the transaction of business at shareholder meetings. However, should a company seek shareholder approval of a lower quorum requirement we will generally support a reduced quorum of at least one-third of shares entitled to vote, either in person or by proxy. When evaluating such proposals, we also consider the specific facts and circumstances of the company, such as size and shareholder base.

Director and Officer Indemnification

While Glass Lewis strongly believes that directors and officers should be held to the highest standard when carrying out their duties to shareholders, some protection from liability is reasonable to protect them against certain suits so that these officers feel comfortable taking measured risks that may benefit shareholders. As such, we find it appropriate for a company to provide indemnification and/or enroll in liability insurance to cover its directors and officers so long as the terms of such agreements are reasonable.

Officer Exculpation

In August 2022, the Delaware General Assembly amended Section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) to authorize corporations to adopt a provision in their certificate of incorporation to eliminate or limit monetary liability of certain corporate officers for breach of fiduciary duty of care. Previously, the DGCL allowed only exculpation of corporate directors from breach of fiduciary duty of care claims if the corporation’s certificate of incorporation includes an exculpation provision.

The amendment authorizes corporations to provide for exculpation of the following officers: (i) the corporation’s president, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer, chief legal officer, controller, treasurer or chief accounting officer, (ii) “named executive officers” identified in the corporation’s SEC filings, and (iii) individuals who have agreed to be identified as officers of the corporation.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Corporate exculpation provisions under the DGCL only apply to claims for breach of the duty of care, and not to breaches of the duty of loyalty. Exculpation provisions also do not apply to acts or omissions not in good faith or that involve intentional misconduct, knowing violations of the law, or transactions involving the receipt of any improper personal benefits. Furthermore, officers may not be exculpated from claims brought against them by, or in the right of, the corporation (i.e., derivative actions).

Under Section 102(b)(7), a corporation must affirmatively elect to include an exculpation provision in its certificate of incorporation. We will closely evaluate proposals to adopt officer exculpation provisions on a case- by-case basis. We will generally recommend voting against such proposals eliminating monetary liability for breaches of the duty of care for certain corporate officers, unless compelling rationale for the adoption is provided by the board, and the provisions are reasonable.

Reincorporation

In general, Glass Lewis believes that the board is in the best position to determine the appropriate jurisdiction of incorporation for the company. When examining a management proposal to reincorporate to a different state or country, we review the relevant financial benefits, generally related to improved corporate tax treatment, as well as changes in corporate governance provisions, especially those relating to shareholder rights, resulting from the change in domicile. Where the financial benefits are de minimis and there is a decrease in shareholder rights, we will recommend voting against the transaction.

However, costly, shareholder-initiated reincorporations are typically not the best route to achieve the furtherance of shareholder rights. We believe shareholders are generally better served by proposing specific shareholder resolutions addressing pertinent issues which may be implemented at a lower cost, and perhaps even with board approval. However, when shareholders propose a shift into a jurisdiction with enhanced shareholder rights, Glass Lewis examines the significant ways would the company benefit from shifting jurisdictions including the following:

●

Is the board sufficiently independent?

●

Does the company have anti-takeover protections such as a poison pill or classified board in place?

●

Has the board been previously unresponsive to shareholders (such as failing to implement a shareholder proposal that received majority shareholder support)?

●

Do shareholders have the right to call special meetings of shareholders?

●

Are there other material governance issues of concern at the company?

●

Has the company’s performance matched or exceeded its peers in the past one and three years?

●

How has the company ranked in Glass Lewis’ pay-for-performance analysis during the last three years?

●

Does the company have an independent chair?

We note, however, that we will only support shareholder proposals to change a company’s place of incorporation in exceptional circumstances.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Exclusive Forum and Fee-Shifting Bylaw Provisions

Glass Lewis recognizes that companies may be subject to frivolous and opportunistic lawsuits, particularly in conjunction with a merger or acquisition, that are expensive and distracting. In response, companies have sought ways to prevent or limit the risk of such suits by adopting bylaws regarding where the suits must be brought or shifting the burden of the legal expenses to the plaintiff, if unsuccessful at trial.

Glass Lewis believes that charter or bylaw provisions limiting a shareholder’s choice of legal venue are not in the best interests of shareholders. Such clauses may effectively discourage the use of shareholder claims by increasing their associated costs and making them more difficult to pursue. As such, shareholders should be wary about approving any limitation on their legal recourse including limiting themselves to a single jurisdiction (e.g., Delaware or federal courts for matters arising under the Securities Act of 1933) without compelling evidence that it will benefit shareholders.

For this reason, we recommend that shareholders vote against any bylaw or charter amendment seeking to adopt an exclusive forum provision unless the company: (i) provides a compelling argument on why the provision would directly benefit shareholders; (ii) provides evidence of abuse of legal process in other, non-favored jurisdictions; (iii) narrowly tailors such provision to the risks involved; and (iv) maintains a strong record of good corporate governance practices.

Moreover, in the event a board seeks shareholder approval of a forum selection clause pursuant to a bundled bylaw amendment rather than as a separate proposal, we will weigh the importance of the other bundled provisions when determining the vote recommendation on the proposal. We will nonetheless recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee for bundling disparate proposals into a single proposal (refer to our discussion of nominating and governance committee performance in Section I of the guidelines).

Similarly, some companies have adopted bylaws requiring plaintiffs who sue the company and fail to receive a judgment in their favor pay the legal expenses of the company. These bylaws, also known as “fee-shifting” or “loser pays” bylaws, will likely have a chilling effect on even meritorious shareholder lawsuits as shareholders would face an strong financial disincentive not to sue a company. Glass Lewis therefore strongly opposes the adoption of such fee-shifting bylaws and, if adopted without shareholder approval, will recommend voting against the governance committee. While we note that in June of 2015 the State of Delaware banned the adoption of fee-shifting bylaws, such provisions could still be adopted by companies incorporated in other states.

Authorized Shares

Glass Lewis believes that adequate capital stock is important to a company’s operation. When analyzing a request for additional shares, we typically review four common reasons why a company might need additional capital stock:

Stock Split — We typically consider three metrics when evaluating whether we think a stock split is likely or necessary: The historical stock pre-split price, if any; the current price relative to the company’s most common trading price over the past 52 weeks; and some absolute limits on stock price that, in our view, either always make a stock split appropriate if desired by management or would almost never be a reasonable price at which to split a stock.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Shareholder Defenses — Additional authorized shares could be used to bolster takeover defenses such as a poison pill. Proxy filings often discuss the usefulness of additional shares in defending against or discouraging a hostile takeover as a reason for a requested increase. Glass Lewis is typically against such defenses and will oppose actions intended to bolster such defenses.

Financing for Acquisitions — We look at whether the company has a history of using stock for acquisitions and attempt to determine what levels of stock have typically been required to accomplish such transactions. Likewise, we look to see whether this is discussed as a reason for additional shares in the proxy.

Financing for Operations — We review the company’s cash position and its ability to secure financing through borrowing or other means. We look at the company’s history of capitalization and whether the company has had to use stock in the recent past as a means of raising capital.

Issuing additional shares generally dilutes existing holders in most circumstances. Further, the availability of additional shares, where the board has discretion to implement a poison pill, can often serve as a deterrent to interested suitors. Accordingly, where we find that the company has not detailed a plan for use of the proposed shares, or where the number of shares far exceeds those needed to accomplish a detailed plan, we typically recommend against the authorization of additional shares. Similar concerns may also lead us to recommend against a proposal to conduct a reverse stock split if the board does not state that it will reduce the number of authorized common shares in a ratio proportionate to the split.

With regard to authorizations and/or increases in preferred shares, Glass Lewis is generally against such authorizations, which allow the board to determine the preferences, limitations and rights of the preferred shares (known as “blank-check preferred stock”). We believe that granting such broad discretion should be of concern to common shareholders, since blank-check preferred stock could be used as an anti-takeover device or in some other fashion that adversely affects the voting power or financial interests of common shareholders. Therefore, we will generally recommend voting against such requests, unless the company discloses a commitment to not use such shares as an anti-takeover defense or in a shareholder rights plan, or discloses a commitment to submit any shareholder rights plan to a shareholder vote prior to its adoption. While we think that having adequate shares to allow management to make quick decisions and effectively operate the business is critical, we prefer that, for significant transactions, management come to shareholders to justify their use of additional shares rather than providing a blank check in the form of a large pool of unallocated shares available for any purpose.

Advance Notice Requirements

We typically recommend that shareholders vote against proposals that would require advance notice of shareholder proposals or of director nominees.

These proposals typically attempt to require a certain amount of notice before shareholders are allowed to place proposals on the ballot. Notice requirements typically range between three to six months prior to the annual meeting. Advance notice requirements typically make it impossible for a shareholder who misses the deadline to present a shareholder proposal or a director nominee that might be in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

We believe shareholders should be able to review and vote on all proposals and director nominees. Shareholders can always vote against proposals that appear with little prior notice. Shareholders, as owners of a business, are capable of identifying issues on which they have sufficient information and ignoring issues on which they have insufficient information. Setting arbitrary notice restrictions limits the opportunity for shareholders to raise issues that may come up after the window closes.

Virtual Shareholder Meetings

A growing contingent of companies have elected to hold shareholder meetings by virtual means only. Glass Lewis believes that virtual meeting technology can be a useful complement to a traditional, in-person shareholder meeting by expanding participation of shareholders who are unable to attend a shareholder meeting in person (i.e. a “hybrid meeting”). However, we also believe that virtual-only meetings have the potential to curb the ability of a company’s shareholders to meaningfully communicate with the company’s management.

Prominent shareholder rights advocates, including the Council of Institutional Investors, have expressed concerns that such virtual-only meetings do not approximate an in-person experience and may serve to reduce the board’s accountability to shareholders. When analyzing the governance profile of companies that choose to hold virtual-only meetings, we look for robust disclosure in a company’s proxy statement which assures shareholders that they will be afforded the same rights and opportunities to participate as they would at an in-person meeting.

Examples of effective disclosure include: (i) addressing the ability of shareholders to ask questions during the meeting, including time guidelines for shareholder questions, rules around what types of questions are allowed, and rules for how questions and comments will be recognized and disclosed to meeting participants; (ii) procedures, if any, for posting appropriate questions received during the meeting and the company’s answers, on the investor page of their website as soon as is practical after the meeting; (iii) addressing technical and logistical issues related to accessing the virtual meeting platform; and (iv) procedures for accessing technical support to assist in the event of any difficulties accessing the virtual meeting.

We will generally recommend voting against members of the governance committee where the board is planning to hold a virtual-only shareholder meeting and the company does not provide such disclosure.

Voting Structure

Multi-Class Share Structures

Glass Lewis believes multi-class voting structures are typically not in the best interests of common shareholders. Allowing one vote per share generally operates as a safeguard for common shareholders by ensuring that those who hold a significant minority of shares are able to weigh in on issues set forth by the board.

Furthermore, we believe that the economic stake of each shareholder should match their voting power and that no small group of shareholders, family or otherwise, should have voting rights different from those of other shareholders. On matters of governance and shareholder rights, we believe shareholders should have the power to speak and the opportunity to effect change. That power should not be concentrated in the hands of a few for reasons other than economic stake.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

We generally consider a multi-class share structure to reflect negatively on a company’s overall corporate governance. Because we believe that companies should have share capital structures that protect the interests of non-controlling shareholders as well as any controlling entity, we typically recommend that shareholders vote in favor of recapitalization proposals to eliminate dual-class share structures. Similarly, we will generally recommend against proposals to adopt a new class of common stock. We will generally recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee at companies with a multi-class share structure and unequal voting rights when the company does not provide for a reasonable sunset of the multi-class share structure (generally seven years or less).

In the case of a board that adopts a multi-class share structure in connection with an IPO, spin-off, or direct listing within the past year, we will generally recommend voting against all members of the board who served at the time of the IPO if the board: (i) did not also commit to submitting the multi-class structure to a shareholder vote at the company’s first shareholder meeting following the IPO; or (ii) did not provide for a reasonable sunset of the multi-class structure (generally seven years or less). If the multi-class share structure is put to a shareholder vote, we will examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining the vote outcome.

At companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, we will carefully examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining whether board responsiveness is warranted. In the case of companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights, we will generally examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders on a “one share, one vote” basis. At controlled and multi-class companies, when at least 20% or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management, we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and demonstrate some initial level of responsiveness, and when a majority or more of unaffiliated shareholders vote contrary to management we believe that boards should engage with shareholders and provide a more robust response to fully address shareholder concerns.

Cumulative Voting

Cumulative voting increases the ability of minority shareholders to elect a director by allowing shareholders to cast as many shares of the stock they own multiplied by the number of directors to be elected. As companies generally have multiple nominees up for election, cumulative voting allows shareholders to cast all of their votes for a single nominee, or a smaller number of nominees than up for election, thereby raising the likelihood of electing one or more of their preferred nominees to the board. It can be important when a board is controlled by insiders or affiliates and where the company’s ownership structure includes one or more shareholders who control a majority-voting block of company stock.

Glass Lewis believes that cumulative voting generally acts as a safeguard for shareholders by ensuring that those who hold a significant minority of shares can elect a candidate of their choosing to the board. This allows the creation of boards that are responsive to the interests of all shareholders rather than just a small group of large holders.

We review cumulative voting proposals on a case-by-case basis, factoring in the independence of the board and the status of the company’s governance structure. But we typically find these proposals on ballots at companies where independence is lacking and where the appropriate checks and balances favoring shareholders are not in place. In those instances we typically recommend in favor of cumulative voting.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Where a company has adopted a true majority vote standard (i.e., where a director must receive a majority of votes cast to be elected, as opposed to a modified policy indicated by a resignation policy only), Glass Lewis will recommend voting against cumulative voting proposals due to the incompatibility of the two election methods. For companies that have not adopted a true majority voting standard but have adopted some form of majority voting, Glass Lewis will also generally recommend voting against cumulative voting proposals if the company has not adopted anti-takeover protections and has been responsive to shareholders.

Where a company has not adopted a majority voting standard and is facing both a shareholder proposal to adopt majority voting and a shareholder proposal to adopt cumulative voting, Glass Lewis will support only the majority voting proposal. When a company has both majority voting and cumulative voting in place, there is a higher likelihood of one or more directors not being elected as a result of not receiving a majority vote. This is because shareholders exercising the right to cumulate their votes could unintentionally cause the failed election of one or more directors for whom shareholders do not cumulate votes.

Supermajority Vote Requirements

Glass Lewis believes that supermajority vote requirements impede shareholder action on ballot items critical to shareholder interests. An example is in the takeover context, where supermajority vote requirements can strongly limit the voice of shareholders in making decisions on such crucial matters as selling the business. This in turn degrades share value and can limit the possibility of buyout premiums to shareholders. Moreover, we believe that a supermajority vote requirement can enable a small group of shareholders to overrule the will of the majority shareholders. We believe that a simple majority is appropriate to approve all matters presented to shareholders.

Transaction of Other Business

We typically recommend that shareholders not give their proxy to management to vote on any other business items that may properly come before an annual or special meeting. In our opinion, granting unfettered discretion is unwise.

Anti-Greenmail Proposals

Glass Lewis will support proposals to adopt a provision preventing the payment of greenmail, which would serve to prevent companies from buying back company stock at significant premiums from a certain shareholder. Since a large or majority shareholder could attempt to compel a board into purchasing its shares at a large premium, the anti-greenmail provision would generally require that a majority of shareholders other than the majority shareholder approve the buyback.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Mutual Funds: Investment Policies and Advisory Agreements

Glass Lewis believes that decisions about a fund’s structure and/or a fund’s relationship with its investment advisor or sub-advisors are generally best left to management and the members of the board, absent a showing of egregious or illegal conduct that might threaten shareholder value. As such, we focus our analyses of such proposals on the following main areas:

●

The terms of any amended advisory or sub-advisory agreement;

●

Any changes in the fee structure paid to the investment advisor; and

●

Any material changes to the fund’s investment objective or strategy.

We generally support amendments to a fund’s investment advisory agreement absent a material change that is not in the best interests of shareholders. A significant increase in the fees paid to an investment advisor would be reason for us to consider recommending voting against a proposed amendment to an investment advisory agreement or fund reorganization. However, in certain cases, we are more inclined to support an increase in advisory fees if such increases result from being performance-based rather than asset-based. Furthermore, we generally support sub-advisory agreements between a fund’s advisor and sub-advisor, primarily because the fees received by the sub-advisor are paid by the advisor, and not by the fund.

In matters pertaining to a fund’s investment objective or strategy, we believe shareholders are best served when a fund’s objective or strategy closely resembles the investment discipline shareholders understood and selected when they initially bought into the fund. As such, we generally recommend voting against amendments to a fund’s investment objective or strategy when the proposed changes would leave shareholders with stakes in a fund that is noticeably different than when originally purchased, and which could therefore potentially negatively impact some investors’ diversification strategies.

Real Estate Investment Trusts

The complex organizational, operational, tax and compliance requirements of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) provide for a unique shareholder evaluation. In simple terms, a REIT must have a minimum of 100 shareholders (the 100 Shareholder Test) and no more than 50% of the value of its shares can be held by five or fewer individuals (the “5/50 Test”). At least 75% of a REITs’ assets must be in real estate, it must derive 75% of its gross income from rents or mortgage interest, and it must pay out 90% of its taxable earnings as dividends. In addition, as a publicly traded security listed on a stock exchange, a REIT must comply with the same general listing requirements as a publicly traded equity.

In order to comply with such requirements, REITs typically include percentage ownership limitations in their organizational documents, usually in the range of 5% to 10% of the REITs outstanding shares. Given the complexities of REITs as an asset class, Glass Lewis applies a highly nuanced approach in our evaluation of REIT proposals, especially regarding changes in authorized share capital, including preferred stock.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Preferred Stock Issuances at REITs

Glass Lewis is generally against the authorization of "blank-check preferred stock." However, given the requirement that a REIT must distribute 90% of its net income annually, it is inhibited from retaining capital to make investments in its business. As such, we recognize that equity financing likely plays a key role in a REIT’s growth and creation of shareholder value. Moreover, shareholder concern regarding the use of preferred stock as an anti-takeover mechanism may be allayed by the fact that most REITs maintain ownership limitations in their certificates of incorporation. For these reasons, along with the fact that REITs typically do not engage in private placements of preferred stock (which result in the rights of common shareholders being adversely impacted), we may support requests to authorize shares of blank-check preferred stock at REITs.

Business Development Companies

Business Development Companies (BDCs) were created by the U.S. Congress in 1980; they are regulated under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and are taxed as regulated investment companies (RICs) under the Internal Revenue Code. BDCs typically operate as publicly traded private equity firms that invest in early stage to mature private companies as well as small public companies. BDCs realize operating income when their investments are sold off, and therefore maintain complex organizational, operational, tax and compliance requirements that are similar to those of REITs—the most evident of which is that BDCs must distribute at least 90% of their taxable earnings as dividends.

Authorization to Sell Shares at a Price Below Net Asset Value

Considering that BDCs are required to distribute nearly all their earnings to shareholders, they sometimes need to offer additional shares of common stock in the public markets to finance operations and acquisitions. However, shareholder approval is required in order for a BDC to sell shares of common stock at a price below Net Asset Value (NAV). Glass Lewis evaluates these proposals using a case-by-case approach, but will recommend supporting such requests if the following conditions are met:

●

The authorization to allow share issuances below NAV has an expiration date of one year or less from the date that shareholders approve the underlying proposal (i.e., the meeting date);

●

The proposed discount below NAV is minimal (ideally no greater than 20%);

●

The board specifies that the issuance will have a minimal or modest dilutive effect (ideally no greater than 25% of the company’s then-outstanding common stock prior to the issuance); and

●

A majority of the company’s independent directors who do not have a financial interest in the issuance approve the sale.

In short, we believe BDCs should demonstrate a responsible approach to issuing shares below NAV, by proactively addressing shareholder concerns regarding the potential dilution of the requested share issuance, and explaining if and how the company’s past below-NAV share issuances have benefitted the company.

Auditor Ratification and Below-NAV Issuances

When a BDC submits a below-NAV issuance for shareholder approval, we will refrain from recommending against the audit committee chair for not including auditor ratification on the same ballot. Because of the unique way these proposals interact, votes may be tabulated in a manner that is not in shareholders’ interests. In cases

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

where these proposals appear on the same ballot, auditor ratification is generally the only “routine proposal,” the presence of which triggers a scenario where broker non-votes may be counted toward shareholder quorum, with unintended consequences.

Under the 1940 Act, below-NAV issuance proposals require relatively high shareholder approval. Specifically, these proposals must be approved by the lesser of: (i) 67% of votes cast if a majority of shares are represented at the meeting; or (ii) a majority of outstanding shares. Meanwhile, any broker non-votes counted toward quorum will automatically be registered as “against” votes for purposes of this proposal. The unintended result can be a case where the issuance proposal is not approved, despite sufficient voting shares being cast in favor. Because broker non-votes result from a lack of voting instruction by the shareholder, we do not believe shareholders’ ability to weigh in on the selection of auditor outweighs the consequences of failing to approve an issuance proposal due to such technicality.

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs), also known as “blank check companies,” are publicly traded entities with no commercial operations and are formed specifically to pool funds in order to complete a merger or acquisition within a set time frame. In general, the acquisition target of a SPAC is either not yet identified or otherwise not explicitly disclosed to the public even when the founders of the SPAC may have at least one target in mind. Consequently, IPO investors often do not know what company they will ultimately be investing in. SPACs are therefore very different from typical operating companies. Shareholders do not have the same expectations associated with an ordinary publicly traded company and executive officers of a SPAC typically do not continue in employment roles with an acquired company.

Extension of Business Combination Deadline

Governing documents of SPACs typically provide for the return of IPO proceeds to common shareholders if no qualifying business combination is consummated before a certain date. Because the time frames for the consummation of such transactions are relatively short, SPACs will sometimes hold special shareholder meetings at which shareholders are asked to extend the business combination deadline. In such cases, an acquisition target will typically have been identified, but additional time is required to allow management of the SPAC to finalize the terms of the deal.

Glass Lewis believes management and the board are generally in the best position to determine when the extension of a business combination deadline is needed. We therefore generally defer to the recommendation of management and support reasonable extension requests.

SPAC Board Independence

The board of directors of a SPAC’s acquisition target is in many cases already established prior to the business combination. In some cases, however, the board’s composition may change in connection with the business combination, including the potential addition of individuals who served in management roles with the SPAC. The role of a SPAC executive is unlike that of a typical operating company executive. Because the SPAC’s only business is identifying and executing an acquisition deal, the interests of a former SPAC executive are also different. Glass Lewis does not automatically consider a former SPAC executive to be affiliated with the acquired

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

operating entity when their only position on the board of the combined entity is that of an otherwise independent director. Absent any evidence of an employment relationship or continuing material financial interest in the combined entity, we will therefore consider such directors to be independent.

Director Commitments of SPAC Executives

We believe the primary role of executive officers at SPACs is identifying acquisition targets for the SPAC and consummating a business combination. Given the nature of these executive roles and the limited business operations of SPACs, when a directors’ only executive role is at a SPAC, we will generally apply our higher limit for company directorships. As a result, we generally recommend that shareholders vote against a director who serves in an executive role only at a SPAC while serving on more than five public company boards.

Shareholder Proposals

Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should seek to promote governance structures that protect shareholders, support effective ESG oversight and reporting, and encourage director accountability. Accordingly, Glass Lewis places a significant emphasis on promoting transparency, robust governance structures and companies’ responsiveness to and engagement with shareholders. We also believe that companies should be transparent on how they are mitigating material ESG risks, including those related to climate change, human capital management, and stakeholder relations.

To that end, we evaluate all shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis with a view to promoting long-term shareholder value. While we are generally supportive of those that promote board accountability, shareholder rights, and transparency, we consider all proposals in the context of a company’s unique operations and risk profile.

For a detailed review of our policies concerning compensation, environmental, social, and governance shareholder proposals, please refer to our comprehensive Proxy Paper Guidelines for Shareholder Proposals & ESG Related Issues, available at www.glasslewis.com/voting-policies-current/.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

Overall Approach to Environmental, Social & Governance Issues

Glass Lewis evaluates all environmental and social issues through the lens of long-term shareholder value. We believe that companies should be considering material environmental and social factors in all aspects of their operations and that companies should provide shareholders with disclosures that allow them to understand how these factors are being considered and how attendant risks are being mitigated. We also are of the view that governance is a critical factor in how companies manage environmental and social risks and opportunities and that a well-governed company will be generally managing these issues better than one without a governance structure that promotes board independence and accountability.

We believe part of the board’s role is to ensure that management conducts a complete risk analysis of company operations, including those that have material environmental and social implications. We believe that directors should monitor management’s performance in both capitalizing on environmental and social opportunities and mitigating environmental and social risks related to operations in order to best serve the interests of shareholders. Companies face significant financial, legal and reputational risks resulting from poor environmental and social practices, or negligent oversight thereof. Therefore, in cases where the board or management has neglected to take action on a pressing issue that could negatively impact shareholder value, we believe that shareholders should take necessary action in order to effect changes that will safeguard their financial interests.

Given the importance of the role of the board in executing a sustainable business strategy that allows for the realization of environmental and social opportunities and the mitigation of related risks, relating to environmental risks and opportunities, we believe shareholders should seek to promote governance structures that protect shareholders and promote director accountability. When management and the board have displayed disregard for environmental or social risks, have engaged in egregious or illegal conduct, or have failed to adequately respond to current or imminent environmental and social risks that threaten shareholder value, we believe shareholders should consider holding directors accountable. In such instances, we will generally recommend against responsible members of the board that are specifically charged with oversight of the issue in question.

When evaluating environmental and social factors that may be relevant to a given company, Glass Lewis does so in the context of the financial materiality of the issue to the company’s operations. We believe that all companies face risks associated with environmental and social issues. However, we recognize that these risks manifest themselves differently at each company as a result of a company’s operations, workforce, structure, and geography, among other factors. Accordingly, we place a significant emphasis on the financial implications of a company’s actions with regard to impacts on its stakeholders and the environment.

When evaluating environmental and social issues, Glass Lewis examines companies’:

Direct environmental and social risk — Companies should evaluate financial exposure to direct environmental risks associated with their operations. Examples of direct environmental risks include those associated with oil or gas spills, contamination, hazardous leakages, explosions, or reduced water or air quality, among others. Social risks may include non-inclusive employment policies, inadequate human rights policies, or issues that adversely

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

affect the company’s stakeholders. Further, we believe that firms should consider their exposure to risks emanating from a broad range of issues, over which they may have no or only limited control, such as insurance companies being affected by increased storm severity and frequency resulting from climate change.

Risk due to legislation and regulation — Companies should evaluate their exposure to changes or potential changes in regulation that affect current and planned operations. Regulation should be carefully monitored in all jurisdictions in which the company operates. We look closely at relevant and proposed legislation and evaluate whether the company has responded proactively.

Legal and reputational risk — Failure to take action on important environmental or social issues may carry the risk of inciting negative publicity and potentially costly litigation. While the effect of high-profile campaigns on shareholder value may not be directly measurable, we believe it is prudent for companies to carefully evaluate the potential impacts of the public perception of their impacts on stakeholders and the environment. When considering investigations and lawsuits, Glass Lewis is mindful that such matters may involve unadjudicated allegations or other charges that have not been resolved. Glass Lewis does not assume the truth of such allegations or charges or that the law has been violated. Instead, Glass Lewis focuses more broadly on whether, under the particular facts and circumstances presented, the nature and number of such concerns, lawsuits or investigations reflects on the risk profile of the company or suggests that appropriate risk mitigation measures may be warranted.

Governance risk — Inadequate oversight of environmental and social issues carries significant risks to companies. When leadership is ineffective or fails to thoroughly consider potential risks, such risks are likely unmitigated and could thus present substantial risks to the company, ultimately leading to loss of shareholder value.

Glass Lewis believes that one of the most crucial factors in analyzing the risks presented to companies in the form of environmental and social issues is the level and quality of oversight over such issues. When management and the board have displayed disregard for environmental risks, have engaged in egregious or illegal conduct, or have failed to adequately respond to current or imminent environmental risks that threaten shareholder value, we believe shareholders should consider holding directors accountable. When companies have not provided for explicit, board-level oversight of environmental and social matters and/or when a substantial environmental or social risk has been ignored or inadequately addressed, we may recommend voting against members of the board. In addition, or alternatively, depending on the proposals presented, we may also consider recommending voting in favor of relevant shareholder proposals or against other relevant management-proposed items, such as the ratification of auditor, a company’s accounts and reports, or ratification of management and board acts.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

DISCLAIMER

This document is intended to provide an overview of Glass Lewis’ proxy voting guidelines. It is not intended to be exhaustive and does not address all potential voting issues. Glass Lewis’ proxy voting guidelines, as they apply to certain issues or types of proposals, are further explained in supplemental guidelines and reports that are made available on Glass Lewis’ website – http://www.glasslewis.com. These guidelines have not been set or approved by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or any other regulatory body. Additionally, none of the information contained herein is or should be relied upon as investment advice. The content of this document has been developed based on Glass Lewis’ experience with proxy voting and corporate governance issues, engagement with clients and issuers, and review of relevant studies and surveys, and has not been tailored to any specific person or entity.

Glass Lewis’ proxy voting guidelines are grounded in corporate governance best practices, which often exceed minimum legal requirements. Accordingly, unless specifically noted otherwise, a failure to meet these guidelines should not be understood to mean that the company or individual involved has failed to meet applicable legal requirements.

No representations or warranties express or implied, are made as to the accuracy or completeness of any information included herein. In addition, Glass Lewis shall not be liable for any losses or damages arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use, reliance on, or inability to use any such information. Glass Lewis expects its subscribers to possess sufficient experience and knowledge to make their own decisions entirely independent of any information contained in this document.

All information contained in this report is protected by law, including, but not limited to, copyright law, and none of such information may be copied or otherwise reproduced, repackaged, further transmitted, transferred, disseminated, redistributed or resold, or stored for subsequent use for any such purpose, in whole or in part, in any form or manner, or by any means whatsoever, by any person without Glass Lewis’ prior written consent.

2024 Benchmark Policy Guidelines — United States

APPENDIX D — DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS

The following is a summary of published ratings by certain Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (“NRSROs”). Credit ratings evaluate only the safety of principal and interest payments, not the market value risk of lower quality securities. NRSROs may fail to change credit ratings to reflect subsequent events on a timely basis. Although the Adviser considers security ratings when making investment decisions, it also performs its own investment analysis and does not rely solely on the ratings assigned by NRSROs.

A Fund only purchases securities that meet the rating criteria, if any, described in its Prospectus and/or SAI. The Adviser will look at a security’s rating at the time of investment. If the securities are unrated, the Adviser must determine that they are of comparable quality to rated securities. Subsequent to its purchase by a Fund, a security may cease to be rated or its rating may be reduced below the minimum rating required for purchase by a Fund. The Adviser will consider such an event in determining whether a Fund should continue to hold the security and is not required to sell a security in the event of a downgrade. Securities issued by the U.S. Government and its agencies and instrumentalities are not rated by NRSROs and so the rating of such securities is determined based on the ratings assigned to the issuer by the NRSRO(s) or if unrated, based on the Adviser’s determination of the issuer’s credit quality. The Adviser may also use the ratings assigned by NRSROs to issuers that are issued by non-U.S. governments and their agencies and instrumentalities to determine the rating of such securities.

From time to time, NRSROs may not agree on the credit quality of a security and issuer and assign different ratings. Certain Funds use the NRSROs and methodology described in their prospectuses to determine the credit quality of their investments, including whether a security is in a particular rating category for purposes of the credit quality requirements specified below. For securities that are not rated by the applicable NRSROs, the Adviser must determine that they are of comparable quality to rated securities. If a Fund’s prospectus does not specify the methodology for determining the credit quality of securities that have received different ratings from more than one NRSRO, such securities will be considered investment grade if at least one agency has rated the security investment grade.

Certain Funds are rated by NRSROs. In order to maintain a rating from a rating organization, the Funds may be subject to additional investment restrictions.

DESCRIPTION OF SHORT-TERM CREDIT RATINGS

Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (“S&P”)

An S&P Global Ratings issue credit rating is a forward-looking opinion about the creditworthiness of an obligor with respect to a specific financial obligation, a specific class of financial obligations, or a specific financial program (including ratings on medium-term note programs and commercial paper programs). It takes into consideration the creditworthiness of guarantors, insurers, or other forms of credit enhancement on the obligation and takes into account the currency in which the obligation is denominated. The opinion reflects S&P Global Ratings’ view of the obligor’s capacity and willingness to meet its financial commitments as they come due, and this opinion may assess terms, such as collateral security and subordination, which could affect ultimate payment in the event of default.

Issue credit ratings can be either long-term or short-term. Short-term issue credit ratings are generally assigned to those obligations considered short-term in the relevant market, typically with an original maturity of no more than 365 days. Short-term issue credit ratings are also used to indicate the creditworthiness of an obligor with respect to put features on long-term obligations. Medium-term notes are assigned long-term ratings.

A-1	A short-term obligation rated ‘A-1’ is rated in the highest category by S&P Global Ratings. The obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is strong. Within this category, certain obligations are designated with a plus sign (+). This indicates that the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on these obligations is extremely strong.
A-2	A short-term obligation rated ‘A-2’ is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligations in higher rating categories. However, the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is satisfactory.
A-3	A short-term obligation rated ‘A-3’ exhibits adequate protection parameters. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to weaken an obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation.

D-1

B	A short-term obligation rated ‘B' is regarded as vulnerable and has significant speculative characteristics. The obligor currently has the capacity to meet its financial commitments; however, it faces major ongoing uncertainties that could lead to the obligor's inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitments.
C	A short-term obligation rated ‘C’ is currently vulnerable to nonpayment and is dependent upon favorable business, financial, and economic conditions for the obligor to meet its financial commitments on the obligation.
D	A short-term obligation rated ‘D’ is in default or in breach of an imputed promise. For non-hybrid capital instruments, the ‘D’ rating category is used when payments on an obligation are not made on the date due, unless S&P Global Ratings believes that such payments will be made within any stated grace period. However, any stated grace period longer than five business days will be treated as five business days. The ‘D’ rating also will be used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of a similar action and where default on an obligation is a virtual certainty, for example due to automatic stay provisions. A rating on an obligation is lowered to ‘D’ if it is subject to a distressed debt restructuring.

Dual Ratings

Dual ratings may be assigned to debt issues that have a put option or demand feature. The first component of the rating addresses the likelihood of repayment of principal and interest as due, and the second component of the rating addresses only the demand feature. The first component of the rating can relate to either a short-term or long-term transaction and accordingly use either short-term or long-term rating symbols. The second component of the rating relates to the put option and is assigned a short-term rating symbol (for example, ‘AAA/A-1’ or ‘A-1+/A-1’). With U.S. municipal short-term demand debt, the U.S. municipal short-term note rating symbols are used for the first component of the rating (for example, ‘SP-1+/A-1+’).

Active Qualifiers (Currently applied and/or outstanding)

L: Ratings qualified with ‘L’ apply only to amounts invested up to federal deposit insurance limits.

P: This suffix is used for issues in which the credit factors, the terms, or both, that determine the likelihood of receipt of payment of principal are different from the credit factors, terms or both that determine the likelihood of receipt of interest on the obligation. The ‘p’ suffix indicates that the rating addresses the principal portion of the obligation only and that the interest is not rated.

Preliminary: Preliminary ratings, with the “prelim” suffix, may be assigned to obligors or obligations, including financial programs, in the circumstances described below. Assignment of a final rating is conditional on the receipt by S&P Global Ratings of appropriate documentation. S&P Global Ratings reserves the right not to issue a final rating. Moreover, if a final rating is issued, it may differ from the preliminary rating.

●

Preliminary ratings may be assigned to obligations, most commonly structured and project finance issues, pending receipt of final documentation and legal opinions.

●

Preliminary ratings may be assigned to obligations that will likely be issued upon the obligor’s emergence from bankruptcy or similar reorganization, based on late-stage reorganization plans, documentation and discussions with the obligor. Preliminary ratings may also be assigned to the obligors. These ratings consider the anticipated general credit quality of the reorganized or post-bankruptcy issuer as well as attributes of the anticipated obligation(s).

●

Preliminary ratings may be assigned to entities that are being formed or that are in the process of being independently established when, in S&P Global Ratings’ opinion, documentation is close to final. Preliminary ratings may also be assigned to the obligations of these entities.

●

Preliminary ratings may be assigned when a previously unrated entity is undergoing a well-formulated restructuring, recapitalization, significant financing or other transformative event, generally at the point that investor or lender commitments are invited. The preliminary rating may be assigned to the entity and to its proposed obligation(s). These preliminary ratings consider the anticipated general credit quality of the obligor, as well as attributes of the anticipated obligation(s), assuming successful completion of the transformative event. Should the transformative event not occur, S&P Global Ratings would likely withdraw these preliminary ratings.

D-2

●

A preliminary recovery rating may be assigned to an obligation that has a preliminary issue credit rating.

t: This symbol indicates termination structures that are designed to honor their contracts to full maturity or, should certain events occur, to terminate and cash settle all their contracts before their final maturity date.

cir: This symbol indicates a counterparty instrument rating (CIR), which is a forward-looking opinion about the creditworthiness of an issuer in a securitization structure with respect to a specific financial obligation to a counterparty (including interest rate swaps, currency swaps, and liquidity facilities). The CIR is determined on an ultimate payment basis; these opinions do not take into account timeliness of payment.

Inactive Qualifiers (No longer applied or outstanding)

*: This symbol indicated that the rating was contingent upon S&P Global Ratings’ receipt of an executed copy of the escrow agreement or closing documentation confirming investments and cash flows. Discontinued use in August 1998.

c: This qualifier was used to provide additional information to investors that the bank may terminate its obligation to purchase tendered bonds if the long-term credit rating of the issuer was lowered to below an investment-grade level and/or the issuer’s bonds were deemed taxable. Discontinued use in January 2001.

G: The letter ‘G’ followed the rating symbol when a fund’s portfolio consisted primarily of direct U.S. government securities.

pi: This qualifier was used to indicate ratings that were based on an analysis of an issuer’s published financial information, as well as additional information in the public domain. Such ratings did not, however, reflect in-depth meetings with an issuer’s management and therefore could have been based on less comprehensive information than ratings without a ‘pi’ suffix. Discontinued use as of December 2014 and as of August 2015 for Lloyd’s Syndicate Assessments.

pr: The letters ‘pr’ indicate that the rating was provisional. A provisional rating assumed the successful completion of a project financed by the debt being rated and indicates that payment of debt service requirements was largely or entirely dependent upon the successful, timely completion of the project. This rating, however, while addressing credit quality subsequent to completion of the project, made no comment on the likelihood of or the risk of default upon failure of such completion.

q: A ‘q’ subscript indicates that the rating is based solely on quantitative analysis of publicly available information. Discontinued use in April 2001.

r: The ‘r’ modifier was assigned to securities containing extraordinary risks, particularly market risks, that are not covered in the credit rating. The absence of an ‘r’ modifier should not be taken as an indication that an obligation would not exhibit extraordinary noncredit-related risks. S&P Global Ratings discontinued the use of the ‘r’ modifier for most obligations in June 2000 and for the balance of obligations (mainly structured finance transactions) in November 2002.

Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”)

A short-term issuer or obligation rating is based in all cases on the short-term vulnerability to default of the rated entity and relates to the capacity to meet financial obligations in accordance with the documentation governing the relevant obligation. Short-term deposit ratings may be adjusted for loss severity. Short-Term Ratings are assigned to obligations whose initial maturity is viewed as “short term” based on market convention (a long-term rating can also be used to rate an issue with short maturity). Typically, this means up to 13 months for corporate, sovereign, and structured obligations, and up to 36 months for obligations in U.S. public finance markets.

F1	HIGHEST SHORT-TERM CREDIT QUALITY. Indicates the strongest intrinsic capacity for timely payment of financial commitments; may have an added “+” to denote any exceptionally strong credit feature.
F2	GOOD SHORT-TERM CREDIT QUALITY. Good intrinsic capacity for timely payment of financial commitments.
F3	FAIR SHORT-TERM CREDIT QUALITY. The intrinsic capacity for timely payment of financial commitments is adequate.

D-3

B	SPECULATIVE SHORT-TERM CREDIT QUALITY. Minimal capacity for timely payment of financial commitments, plus heightened vulnerability to near term adverse changes in financial and economic conditions.
C	HIGH SHORT-TERM DEFAULT RISK. Default is a real possibility.
RD	RESTRICTED DEFAULT. Indicates an entity that has defaulted on one or more of its financial commitments, although it continues to meet other financial obligations. Typically applicable to entity ratings only.
D	DEFAULT. Indicates a broad-based default event for an entity, or the default of a short- term obligation.

Limitations of the Credit Ratings Scale

Specific limitations relevant to the Credit Ratings scale include:

●

The ratings do not predict a specific percentage of default likelihood or failure likelihood over any given time period.

●

The ratings do not opine on the market value of any issuer’s securities or stock, or the likelihood that this value may change.

●

The ratings do not opine on the liquidity of the issuer’s securities or stock.

●

The ratings do not opine on the possible loss severity on an obligation should an issuer (or an obligation with respect to structured finance transactions) default, except in the following two cases:

●

Ratings assigned to individual obligations of issuers in corporate finance, banks, non-bank financial institutions, insurance and covered bonds.

●

In limited circumstances for U.S. public finance obligations where Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code provides reliably superior prospects for ultimate recovery to local government obligations that benefit from a statutory lien on revenues or during the pendency of a bankruptcy proceeding under the Code if there is sufficient visibility on potential recovery prospects.

●

The ratings do not opine on the suitability of an issuer as a counterparty to trade credit.

The ratings do not opine on any quality related to an issuer’s business, operational or financial profile other than the agency‘s opinion on its relative vulnerability to default or in the case of bank Viability Ratings on its relative vulnerability to failure. For the avoidance of doubt, not all defaults will be considered a default for rating purposes. Typically, a default relates to a liability payable to an unaffiliated, outside investor.

The ratings do not opine on any quality related to a transaction’s profile other than the agency’s opinion on the relative vulnerability to default of an issuer and/or of each rated tranche or security.

The ratings do not predict a specific percentage of extraordinary support likelihood over any given period.

In the case of bank Support Ratings and Support Rating Floors, the ratings do not opine on any quality related to an issuer’s business, operational or financial profile other than the agency’s opinion on its relative likelihood of receiving external extraordinary support.

The ratings do not opine on the suitability of any security for investment or any other purposes.

Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”)

Moody’s global short-term rating scales are forward-looking opinions of the relative credit risks of financial obligations issued by non-financial corporates, financial institutions, structured finance vehicles, project finance vehicles and public sector entities. Moody’s short-term ratings, unlike its long-term ratings, apply to an individual issuer’s capacity to repay all short-term obligations rather than to specific short-term borrowing programs. Once assigned to an issuer, a short-term rating is global in scope; it applies to all the issuer’s senior, unsecured obligations with an original maturity of less than one year regardless of the currency or market in which the obligations are issued. An exception to the global nature of these ratings occurs if an issuer’s rating is supported by another entity through vehicles such as a letter of credit or guarantee.

D-4

Moody’s employs the following designations to indicate the relative repayment ability of rated issuers:

P-1	Ratings of Prime-1 reflect a superior ability to repay short-term debt obligations.
P-2	Ratings of Prime-2 reflect a strong ability to repay short-term debt obligations.
P-3	Ratings of Prime-3 reflect an acceptable ability to repay short-term obligations.
NP	Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Not Prime do not fall within any of the Prime rating categories.

DBRS Morningstar

The DBRS Morningstar short-term debt rating scale provides an opinion on the risk that an issuer will not meet its short-term financial obligations in a timely manner. Ratings are based on quantitative and qualitative considerations relevant to the issuer and the relative ranking of claims. The R-1 and R-2 rating categories are further denoted by the subcategories “(high),” “(middle),” and “(low).”

R-1 (high)	Highest credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is exceptionally high. Unlikely to be adversely affected by future events.
R-1 (middle)	Superior credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is very high. Differs from R-1 (high) by a relatively modest degree. Unlikely to be significantly vulnerable to future events.
R-1 (low)	Good credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is substantial. Overall strength is not as favorable as higher rating categories. May be vulnerable to future events, but qualifying negative factors are considered manageable.
R-2 (high)	Upper end of adequate credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is acceptable. May be vulnerable to future events.
R-2 (middle)	Adequate credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is acceptable. May be vulnerable to future events or may be exposed to other factors that could reduce credit quality.
R-2 (low)	Lower end of adequate credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is acceptable. May be vulnerable to future events. A number of challenges are present that could affect the issuer’s ability to meet such obligations.
R-3	Lowest end of adequate credit quality. There is a capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due. May be vulnerable to future events and the certainty of meeting such obligations could be impacted by a variety of developments.
R-4	Speculative credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is uncertain.
R-5	Highly speculative credit quality. There is a high level of uncertainty as to the capacity to meet short-term financial obligations as they fall due.
D	When the issuer has filed under any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or winding up statute or there is a failure to satisfy an obligation after the exhaustion of grace periods, a downgrade to D may occur. DBRS Morningstar may also use SD (Selective Default) in cases where only some securities are impacted, such as the case of a “distressed exchange.”

DESCRIPTION OF LONG-TERM CREDIT RATINGS

S&P

Long-Term Issue Credit Ratings

Issue credit ratings are based, in varying degrees, on S&P Global Ratings’ analysis of the following considerations:

●

The likelihood of payment — the capacity and willingness of the obligor to meet its financial commitments on an obligation in accordance with the terms of the obligation;

●

The nature and provisions of the financial obligation, and the promise we impute; and

D-5

●

The protection afforded by, and relative position of, the financial obligation in the event of a bankruptcy, reorganization, or other arrangement under the laws of bankruptcy and other laws affecting creditors’ rights.

An issue rating is an assessment of default risk, but may incorporate an assessment of relative seniority or ultimate recovery in the event of default. Junior obligations are typically rated lower than senior obligations, to reflect lower priority in bankruptcy, as noted above. (Such differentiation may apply when an entity has both senior and subordinated obligations, secured and unsecured obligations, or operating company and holding company obligations.)

AAA	An obligation rated ‘AAA’ has the highest rating assigned by S&P Global Ratings. The obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is extremely strong.
AA	An obligation rated ‘AA’ differs from the highest-rated obligations only to a small degree. The obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is very strong.
A	An obligation rated ‘A’ is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligations in higher-rated categories. However, the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is still strong.
BBB	An obligation rated ‘BBB’ exhibits adequate protection parameters. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to weaken the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation.
BB,B,CCC,CC and C	Obligations rated ‘BB’, ‘B’, ‘CCC’, ‘CC’, and ‘C’ are regarded as having significant speculative characteristics. ‘BB’ indicates the least degree of speculation and ‘C’ the highest. While such obligations will likely have some quality and protective characteristics, these may be outweighed by large uncertainties or major exposure to adverse conditions.

BB	An obligation rated ‘BB’ is less vulnerable to nonpayment than other speculative issues. However, it faces major ongoing uncertainties or exposure to adverse business, financial, or economic conditions that could lead to the obligor’s inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation.
B	An obligation rated ‘B’ is more vulnerable to nonpayment than obligations rated ‘BB’, but the obligor currently has the capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. Adverse business, financial, or economic conditions will likely impair the obligor’s capacity or willingness to meet its financial commitments on the obligation.
CCC	An obligation rated ‘CCC’ is currently vulnerable to nonpayment, and is dependent upon favorable business, financial, and economic conditions for the obligor to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. In the event of adverse business, financial, or economic conditions, the obligor is not likely to have the capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation.
CC	An obligation rated ‘CC’ is currently highly vulnerable to nonpayment. The ‘CC’ rating is used when a default has not yet occurred but S&P Global Ratings expects default to be a virtual certainty, regardless of the anticipated time to default.
C	An obligation rated ‘C’ is currently highly vulnerable to nonpayment, and the obligation is expected to have lower relative seniority or lower ultimate recovery compared with obligations that are rated higher.
D	An obligation rated ‘D’ is in default or in breach of an imputed promise. For non-hybrid capital instruments, the ‘D’ rating category is used when payments on an obligation are not made on the date due, unless S&P Global Ratings believes that such payments will be made within five business days in the absence of a stated grace period or within the earlier of the stated grace period or 30 calendar days. The ‘D’ rating also will be used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of similar action and where default on an obligation is a virtual certainty, for example due to automatic stay provisions. A rating on an obligation is lowered to ‘D’ if it is subject to a distressed debt restructuring.

Plus (+) or Minus (-): The ratings from AA to CCC may be modified by the addition of a plus (+) or minus (-) sign to show relative standing within the rating categories.

D-6

Fitch

Rated entities in a number of sectors, including financial and non-financial corporations, sovereigns, insurance companies, and certain sectors within public finance, are generally assigned Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs). IDRs are also assigned to certain entities or enterprises in global infrastructure, project finance and public finance. IDRs opine on an entity’s relative vulnerability to default (including by way of a distressed debt exchange) on financial obligations. The threshold default risk addressed by the IDR is generally that of the financial obligations whose non-payment would best reflect the uncured failure of that entity. As such, IDRs also address relative vulnerability to bankruptcy, administrative receivership or similar concepts.

In aggregate, IDRs provide an ordinal ranking of issuers based on the agency’s view of their relative vulnerability to default, rather than a prediction of a specific percentage likelihood of default.

AAA	HIGHEST CREDIT QUALITY. ‘AAA’ ratings denote the lowest expectation of default risk. They are assigned only in cases of exceptionally strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is highly unlikely to be adversely affected by foreseeable events.
AA	VERY HIGH CREDIT QUALITY. ‘AA’ ratings denote expectations of very low default risk. They indicate very strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is not significantly vulnerable to foreseeable events.
A	HIGH CREDIT QUALITY. ‘A’ ratings denote expectations of low default risk. The capacity for payment of financial commitments is considered strong. This capacity may, nevertheless, be more vulnerable to adverse business or economic conditions than is the case for higher ratings.
BBB	GOOD CREDIT QUALITY. ‘BBB’ ratings indicate that expectations of default risk are currently low. The capacity for payment of financial commitments is considered adequate, but adverse business or economic conditions are more likely to impair this capacity.
BB	SPECULATIVE. ‘BB’ ratings indicate an elevated vulnerability to default risk, particularly in the event of adverse changes in business or economic conditions over time; however, business or financial flexibility exists that supports the servicing of financial commitments.
B	HIGHLY SPECULATIVE. ‘B’ ratings indicate that material default risk is present, but a limited margin of safety remains. Financial commitments are currently being met; however, capacity for continued payment is vulnerable to deterioration in the business and economic environment.
CCC	SUBSTANTIAL CREDIT RISK. Default is a real possibility.
CC	VERY HIGH LEVELS OF CREDIT RISK. Default of some kind appears probable.
C	NEAR DEFAULT. A default or default-like process has begun, or the issuer is in standstill, or for a closed funding vehicle, payment capacity is irrevocably impaired. Conditions that are indicative of a ‘C’ category rating for an issuer include:
	●the issuer has entered into a grace or cure period following non-payment of a material financial obligation; ●the issuer has entered into a temporary negotiated waiver or standstill agreement following a payment default on a material financial obligation; ●the formal announcement by the issuer or their agent of a distressed debt exchange; ●a closed financing vehicle where payment capacity is irrevocably impaired such that it is not expected to pay interest and/or principal in full during the life of the transaction, but where no payment default is imminent.
RD	RESTRICTED DEFAULT. ‘RD’ ratings indicate an issuer that in Fitch’s opinion has experienced:

D-7

●an uncured payment default or distressed debt exchange on a bond, loan or other

material financial obligation, but

●has not entered into bankruptcy filings, administration, receivership, liquidation or

other formal winding-up procedure, and

●has not otherwise ceased operating. This would include:

●the selective payment default on a specific class or currency of debt;

●the uncured expiry of any applicable grace period, cure period or default forbearance

period following a payment default on a bank loan, capital markets security or other

material financial obligation;

●the extension of multiple waivers or forbearance periods upon a payment default on

one or more material financial obligations, either in series or in parallel; ordinary

execution of a distressed debt exchange on one or more material financial

obligations.

DEFAULT. ‘D’ ratings indicate an issuer that in Fitch Ratings’ opinion has entered

into bankruptcy filings, administration, receivership, liquidation or other formal

winding-up procedure or that has otherwise ceased business.

Default ratings are not assigned prospectively to entities or their obligations; within this context, non-payment on an instrument that contains a deferral feature or grace period will generally not be considered a default until after the expiration of the deferral or grace period, unless a default is otherwise driven by bankruptcy or other similar circumstance, or by a distressed debt exchange.

In all cases, the assignment of a default rating reflects the agency’s opinion as to the most appropriate rating category consistent with the rest of its universe of ratings, and may differ from the definition of default under the terms of an issuer’s financial obligations or local commercial practice.

Limitations of the Credit Rating Scale:

Specific limitations relevant to the credit rating scale are listed under Description of Short-Term Credit Ratings section.

Moody’s

Long-Term Obligation Ratings

Moody’s long-term rating scales are forward-looking opinions of the relative credit risks of financial obligations issued by non-financial corporates, financial institutions, structured finance vehicles, project finance vehicles and public sector entities. Moody’s long-term obligation ratings are opinions of the relative credit risk of fixed-income obligations with an original maturity of one year or more. They address the possibility that a financial obligation will not be honored as promised. Such ratings reflect both the likelihood of default and any financial loss suffered in the event of default.

Aaa	Obligations rated Aaa are judged to be of the highest quality, with minimal risk.
Aa	Obligations rated Aa are judged to be of high quality and are subject to very low credit risk.
A	Obligations rated A are judged to be upper-medium-grade and are subject to low credit risk.
Baa	Obligations rated Baa are subject to moderate credit risk. They are considered medium- grade and as such may possess certain speculative characteristics.
Ba	Obligations rated Ba are judged to have speculative elements and are subject to substantial credit risk.
B	Obligations rated B are considered speculative and are subject to high credit risk.
Caa	Obligations rated Caa are judged to be of poor standing and are subject to very high credit risk.
Ca	Obligations rated Ca are highly speculative and are likely in, or very near, default, with some prospect of recovery in principal and interest.
C	Obligations rated C are the lowest-rated class of bonds and are typically in default, with little prospect for recovery of principal or interest.

D-8

Moody’s appends numerical modifiers, 1, 2, and 3 to each generic rating classification from Aa through Caa. The modifier 1 indicates that the obligation ranks in the higher end of its generic rating category; the modifier 2 indicates a mid-range ranking; and the modifier 3 indicates a ranking in the lower end of that generic rating category.

DBRS Morningstar

Long-Term Obligations

The DBRS Morningstar long-term credit ratings provides opinions on the risk of default. DBRS Morningstar considers risk of default to be the risk that an issuer will fail to satisfy the financial obligations in accordance with the terms under which a long-term obligation has been issued. Ratings are based on quantitative and qualitative considerations relevant to the issuer, and the relative ranking of claims. All rating categories other than AAA and D also contain subcategories “(high)” and “(low).” The absence of either a “(high)” or “(low)” designation indicates the credit rating is in the middle of the category.

AAA	Highest credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is exceptionally high and unlikely to be adversely affected by future events.
AA	Superior credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is considered high. Credit quality differs from AAA only to a small degree. Unlikely to be significantly vulnerable to future events.
A	Good credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is substantial, but of lesser credit quality than AA. May be vulnerable to future events, but qualifying negative factors are considered manageable.
BBB	Adequate credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is considered acceptable. May be vulnerable to future events.
BB	Speculative, non-investment grade credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is uncertain. Vulnerable to future events.
B	Highly speculative credit quality. There is a high level of uncertainty as to the capacity to meet financial obligations.
CCC/CC/C	Very highly speculative credit quality. In danger of defaulting on financial obligations. There is little difference between these three categories, although CC and C ratings are normally applied to obligations that are seen as highly likely to default, or subordinated to obligations rated in the CCC to B range. Obligations in respect of which default has not technically taken place but is considered inevitable may be rated in the C category.
D	When the issuer has filed under any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or winding up statute or there is a failure to satisfy an obligation after the exhaustion of grace periods, a downgrade to D may occur. DBRS Morningstar may also use SD (Selective Default) in cases where only some securities are impacted, such as the case of a “distressed exchange.”

DESCRIPTION OF INSURANCE RATINGS

S&P

Insurer Financial Strength Rating Definitions

An S&P Global Ratings insurer financial strength rating is a forward-looking opinion about the financial security characteristics of an insurance organization with respect to its ability to pay under its insurance policies and contracts in accordance with their terms. Insurer financial strength ratings are also assigned to health maintenance organizations and similar health plans with respect to their ability to pay under their policies and contracts in accordance with their terms.

This opinion is not specific to any particular policy or contract, nor does it address the suitability of a particular policy or contract for a specific purpose or purchaser. Furthermore, the opinion does not take into account deductibles, surrender or cancellation penalties, timeliness of payment, nor the likelihood of the use of a defense such as fraud to deny claims.

Insurer financial strength ratings do not refer to an organization’s ability to meet nonpolicy (i.e. debt) obligations. Assignment of ratings to debt issued by insurers or to debt issues that are fully or partially supported by insurance policies, contracts, or guarantees is a separate process from the determination of

D-9

insurer financial strength ratings, and it follows procedures consistent with those used to assign an issue credit rating. An insurer financial strength rating is not a recommendation to purchase or discontinue any policy or contract issued by an insurer.

Insurer Financial Strength Ratings

AAA	An insurer rated ‘AAA’ has extremely strong financial security characteristics. ‘AAA’ is the highest insurer financial strength rating assigned by S&P Global Ratings.
AA	An insurer rated ‘AA’ has very strong financial security characteristics, differing only slightly from those rated higher.
A	An insurer rated ‘A’ has strong financial security characteristics, but is somewhat more likely to be affected by adverse business conditions than are insurers with higher ratings.
BBB	An insurer rated ‘BBB’ has good financial security characteristics, but is more likely to be affected by adverse business conditions than are higher-rated insurers.
BB, B, CCC, and CC	An insurer rated ‘BB’ or lower is regarded as having vulnerable characteristics that may outweigh its strengths, ‘BB’ indicates the least degree of vulnerability within the range and ‘CC’ the highest.

BB	An insurer rated ‘BB’ has marginal financial security characteristics. Positive attributes exist, but adverse business conditions could lead to insufficient ability to meet financial commitments.
B	An insurer rated ‘B’ has weak financial security characteristics. Adverse business conditions will likely impair its ability to meet financial commitments.
CCC	An insurer rated ‘CCC’ has very weak financial security characteristics, and is dependent on favorable business conditions to meet financial commitments.
CC	An insurer rated ‘CC’ has extremely weak financial security characteristics and is likely not to meet some of its financial commitments.
SD and D	An insurer rated ‘SD’ (selective default) or ‘D’ is in default on one or more of its insurance policy obligations. The ‘D’ rating also will be used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of similar action if payments on a policy obligation are at risk. A ‘D’ rating is assigned when S&P Global Ratings believes that the default will be a general default and that the obligor will fail to pay substantially all of its obligations in full in accordance with the policy terms. An ‘SD’ rating is assigned when S&P Global Ratings believes that the insurer has selectively defaulted on a specific class of policies but it will continue to meet its payment obligations on other classes of obligations. An ‘SD’ includes the completion of a distressed debt restructuring. Claim denials due to lack of coverage or other legally permitted defenses are not considered defaults.

Ratings from ‘AA’ to ‘CCC’ may be modified by the addition of a plus (+) or minus (-) sign to show relative standing within the rating categories.

Fitch

Insurer Financial Strength Ratings

The Insurer Financial Strength (IFS) Rating provides an assessment of the financial strength of an insurance organization. The IFS Rating is assigned to the insurance company’s policyholder obligations, including assumed reinsurance obligations and contract holder obligations, such as guaranteed investment contracts. The IFS Rating reflects both the ability of the insurer to meet these obligations on a timely basis, and expected recoveries received by claimants in the event the insurer stops making payments or payments are interrupted, due to either the failure of the insurer or some form of regulatory intervention. In the context of the IFS Rating, the timeliness of payments is considered relative to both contract and/or policy terms but also recognizes the possibility of reasonable delays caused by circumstances common to the insurance industry, including claims reviews, fraud investigations and coverage disputes.

The IFS Rating does not encompass policyholder obligations residing in separate accounts, unit-linked products or segregated funds, for which the policyholder bears investment or other risks. However, any guarantees provided to the policyholder with respect to such obligations are included in the IFS Rating.

D-10

Expected recoveries are based on the agency’s assessments of the sufficiency of an insurance company’s assets to fund policyholder obligations, in a scenario in which payments have ceased or been interrupted. Accordingly, expected recoveries exclude the impact of recoveries obtained from any government sponsored guaranty or policyholder protection funds. Expected recoveries also exclude the impact of collateralization or security, such as letters of credit or trusteed assets, supporting select reinsurance obligations.

IFS Ratings can be assigned to insurance and reinsurance companies in any insurance sector, including the life & annuity, non-life, property/casualty, health, mortgage, financial guaranty, residual value and title insurance sectors, as well as to managed care companies such as health maintenance organizations.

The IFS Rating uses the same symbols used by the agency for its International and National credit ratings of long-term or short-term debt issues. However, the definitions associated with the ratings reflect the unique aspects of the IFS Rating within an insurance industry context.

Obligations for which a payment interruption has occurred due to either the insolvency or failure of the insurer or some form of regulatory intervention will generally be rated between ‘B’ and ‘C’ on the Long-Term IFS Rating scales (both International and National). International Short-Term IFS Ratings assigned under the same circumstances will align with the insurer’s International Long-Term IFS Rating.

Long-Term International IFS Ratings

The following rating scale applies to foreign currency and local currency ratings. Ratings of ‘BBB-’ and higher are considered to be “secure,” and those of ‘BB+’ and lower are considered to be “vulnerable.”

AAA	EXCEPTIONALLY STRONG. ‘AAA’ IFS Ratings denote the lowest expectation of ceased or interrupted payments. They are assigned only in the case of exceptionally strong capacity to meet policyholder and contract obligations. This capacity is highly unlikely to be adversely affected by foreseeable events.
AA	VERY STRONG. ‘AA’ IFS Ratings denote a very low expectation of ceased or interrupted payments. They indicate very strong capacity to meet policyholder and contract obligations. This capacity is not significantly vulnerable to foreseeable events.
A	STRONG. ‘A’ IFS Ratings denote a low expectation of ceased or interrupted payments. They indicate strong capacity to meet policyholder and contract obligations. This capacity may, nonetheless, be more vulnerable to changes in circumstances or in economic conditions than is the case for higher ratings.
BBB	GOOD. ‘BBB’ IFS Ratings indicate that there is currently a low expectation of ceased or interrupted payments. The capacity to meet policyholder and contract obligations on a timely basis is considered adequate, but adverse changes in circumstances and economic conditions are more likely to impact this capacity.
BB	MODERATELY WEAK. ‘BB’ IFS Ratings indicate that there is an elevated vulnerability to ceased or interrupted payments, particularly as the result of adverse economic or market changes over time. However, business or financial alternatives may be available to allow for policyholder and contract obligations to be met in a timely manner.
B	WEAK. ‘B’ IFS Ratings indicate two possible conditions. If obligations are still being met on a timely basis, there is significant risk that ceased or interrupted payments could occur in the future, but a limited margin of safety remains. Capacity for continued timely payments is contingent upon a sustained, favorable business and economic environment, and favorable market conditions. Alternatively, a ‘B’ IFS Rating is assigned to obligations that have experienced ceased or interrupted payments, but with the potential for extremely high recoveries. Such obligations would possess a recovery assessment of ‘RR1’ (Outstanding).
CCC	VERY WEAK. ‘CCC’ IFS Ratings indicate two possible conditions. If obligations are still being met on a timely basis, there is a real possibility that ceased or interrupted payments could occur in the future. Capacity for continued timely payments is solely reliant upon a sustained, favorable business and economic environment, and favorable market conditions. Alternatively, a ‘CCC’ IFS Rating is assigned to obligations that have experienced ceased or interrupted payments, and with the potential for average to superior recoveries. Such obligations would possess a recovery assessment of ‘RR2’ (Superior), ‘RR3’ (Good), and ‘RR4’ (Average).

D-11

EXTREMELY WEAK. ‘CC’ IFS Ratings indicate two possible conditions. If

obligations are still being met on a timely basis, it is probable that ceased or interrupted

payments will occur in the future. Alternatively, a ‘CC’ IFS Rating is assigned to

obligations that have experienced ceased or interrupted payments, with the potential for

average to below-average recoveries. Such obligations would possess a recovery

assessment of ‘RR4’ (Average) or ‘RR5’ (Below Average).

DISTRESSED. ‘C’ IFS Ratings indicate two possible conditions. If obligations are still

being met on a timely basis, ceased or interrupted payments are imminent. Alternatively,

a ‘C’ IFS Rating is assigned to obligations that have experienced ceased or interrupted

payments, and with the potential for below average to poor recoveries. Such obligations

would possess a recovery assessment of ‘RR5’ (Below Average) or ‘RR6’ (Poor).

Short-Term IFS Ratings

A Short-Term Insurer Financial Strength Rating (ST-IFS Rating) provides an assessment of the near-term financial health of an insurance organization and its capacity to meet senior obligations to policyholders and contract holders that would be expected to be due within one year. The analysis supporting the ST-IFS Rating encompasses all of the factors considered within the context of the IFS Rating, but with greater weight given to an insurer’s near-term liquidity, financial flexibility and regulatory solvency characteristics, and less weight given to longer-term issues such as competitiveness and earnings trends.

The agency will only assign a ST-IFS Rating to insurers that also have been assigned an IFS Rating. Currently, ST-IFS Ratings are used primarily by U.S. life insurance companies that sell short-term funding agreements.

The ST-IFS Rating uses the same international ratings scale used by the agency for short-term debt and issuer ratings.

F1	Insurers are viewed as having a strong capacity to meet their near-term obligations. When an insurer rated in this rating category is designated with a (+) sign, it is viewed as having a very strong capacity to meet near-term obligations.
F2	Insurers are viewed as having a good capacity to meet their near-term obligations.
F3	Insurers are viewed as having an adequate capacity to meet their near-term obligations.
B	Insurers are viewed as having a weak capacity to meet their near-term obligations.
C	Insurers are viewed as having a very weak capacity to meet their near-term obligations.

Recovery Ratings

Recovery Ratings are assigned to selected individual securities and obligations, most frequently for individual obligations of corporate finance issuers with IDRs in speculative grade categories.

Among the factors that affect recovery rates for securities are the collateral, the seniority relative to other obligations in the capital structure (where appropriate), and the expected value of the company or underlying collateral in distress.

The Recovery Rating scale is based on the expected relative recovery characteristics of an obligation upon the curing of a default, emergence from insolvency or following the liquidation or termination of the obligor or its associated collateral.

Recovery Ratings are an ordinal scale and do not attempt to precisely predict a given level of recovery. As a guideline in developing the rating assessments, the agency employs broad theoretical recovery bands in its ratings approach based on historical averages and analytical judgement, but actual recoveries for a given security may deviate materially from historical averages.

RR1	OUTSTANDING RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR1’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 91%–100% of current principal and related interest.
RR2	SUPERIOR RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR2’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 71%–90% of current principal and related interest.

D-12

RR3	GOOD RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR3’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 51%–70% of current principal and related interest.
RR4	AVERAGE RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR4’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 31%–50% of current principal and related interest.
RR5	BELOW AVERAGE RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR5’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 11%– 30% of current principal and related interest.
RR6	POOR RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR6’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 0%–10% of current principal and related interest.

Limitations of the Recovery Ratings Scale

Specific limitations relevant to the Recovery Ratings scale include:

●

The ratings do not predict a specific percentage of recovery should a default occur.

●

The ratings do not opine on the market value of any issuer’s securities or stock, or the likelihood that this value may change.

●

The ratings do not opine on the liquidity of the issuer’s securities or stock.

●

The ratings do not opine on any quality related to an issuer or transaction’s profile other than the agency’s opinion on the relative loss severity of the rated obligation should the obligation default.

●

Recovery Ratings, in particular, reflect a fundamental analysis of the underlying relationship between financial claims on an entity or transaction and potential sources to meet those claims. The size of such sources and claims is subject to a wide variety of dynamic factors outside the agency’s analysis that will influence actual recovery rates.

●

Out-of-court settlements are not contemplated by Fitch’s Recovery Ratings, other than in broad concession payments for some classes of junior-ranking bonds in some specific scenarios. In reality, out-of-court settlements will be influenced heavily by creditor composition and local political and economic imperatives, and Fitch does not attempt to factor these into its Recovery Ratings.

●

Creditor composition is outside the scope of Recovery Ratings. Concentration of creditors at a certain level of the capital structure, common ownership of claims at different levels in a capital structure or even differing entry prices of investors within a creditor class can have a profound effect on actual recovery rates.

●

Information flows for companies close to default can become erratic, which may reduce Fitch’s visibility on its Recovery Ratings.

●

Enterprise valuations play a key role in the allocation of recoveries across credit classes. Recovery Ratings assume cash-flow multiples or advance rates, which are driven by subjective forecasts of Fitch analysts of post-restructuring cash flow, achievable exit multiples and appropriate advance rates. All these parameters are subject to volatility before and during the restructuring process.

●

Recovery rates are strongly influenced by legal decisions. Potential legal decisions are not factored into Fitch’s Recovery Ratings.

Moody’s

Insurance Financial Strength Ratings

Moody’s Insurance Financial Strength Ratings are opinions of the ability of insurance companies to pay punctually senior policyholder claims and obligations and also reflect the expected financial loss suffered in the event of default.

Aaa	Insurance companies rated Aaa are judged to be of the highest quality, subject to the lowest level of credit risk.

D-13

Aa	Insurance companies rated Aa are judged to be of high quality and are subject to very low credit risk.
A	Insurance companies rated A are judged to be upper-medium grade and are subject to low credit risk.
Baa	Insurance companies rated Baa are judged to be medium-grade and subject to moderate credit risk and as such may possess certain speculative characteristics.
Ba	Insurance companies rated Ba are judged to be speculative and are subject to substantial credit risk.
B	Insurance companies rated B are considered speculative and are subject to high credit risk.
Caa	Insurance companies rated Caa are judged to be speculative of poor standing and are subject to very high credit risk.
Ca	Insurance companies rated Ca are highly speculative and are likely in, or very near, default, with some prospect of recovery of principal and interest.
C	Insurance companies rated C are the lowest rated and are typically in default, with little prospect for recovery of principal or interest.

Note: Moody’s appends numerical modifiers 1, 2, and 3 to each generic rating classification from Aa through Caa. The modifier 1 indicates that the obligation ranks in the higher end of its generic rating category; the modifier 2 indicates a mid-range ranking; and the modifier 3 indicates a ranking in the lower end of that generic rating category. Additionally, a “(hyb)” indicator is appended to all ratings of hybrid securities issued by banks, insurers, finance companies, and securities firms.*

*By their terms, hybrid securities allow for the omission of scheduled dividends, interest, or principal payments, which can potentially result in impairment if such an omission occurs. Hybrid securities may also be subject to contractually allowable write-downs of principal that could result in impairment. Together with the hybrid indicator, the long-term obligation rating assigned to a hybrid security is an expression of the relative credit risk associated with that security.

Short-Term Insurance Financial Strength Ratings

P-1	Ratings of Prime-1 reflect a superior ability to repay short-term debt obligations.
P-2	Ratings of Prime-2 reflect a strong ability to repay short-term debt obligations.
P-3	Ratings of Prime-3 reflect an acceptable ability to repay short-term obligations.
P-4	Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Not Prime do not fall within any of the Prime rating categories.

DESCRIPTION OF SHORT-TERM MUNICIPAL BOND RATINGS

S&P

Municipal Short-Term Note Ratings

An S&P Global Ratings U.S. municipal note rating reflects S&P Global Ratings’ opinion about the liquidity factors and market access risks unique to the notes. Notes due in three years or less will likely receive a note rating. Notes with an original maturity of more than three years will most likely receive a long-term debt rating. In determining which type of rating, if any, to assign, S&P Global Ratings’ analysis will review the following considerations:

●

Amortization schedule — the larger the final maturity relative to other maturities, the more likely it will be treated as a note; and

●

Source of payment — the more dependent the issue is on the market for its refinancing, the more likely it will be treated as a note.

Note rating symbols are as follows:

SP-1	Strong capacity to pay principal and interest. An issue determined to possess a very strong capacity to pay debt service is given a plus (+) designation.
SP-2	Satisfactory capacity to pay principal and interest, with some vulnerability to adverse financial and economic changes over the term of the notes.
SP-3	Speculative capacity to pay principal and interest.

D-14

D	‘D’ is assigned upon failure to pay the note when due, completion of a distressed debt restructuring, or the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of similar action and where default on an obligation is a virtual certainty, for example, due to automatic stay provisions.

Moody’s

Short-Term Obligation Ratings

The Municipal Investment Grade (MIG) scale is used to rate US municipal cash flow notes, bond anticipation notes and certain other short-term obligations, which typically mature in three years or less. Under certain circumstances, the MIG scale is used for bond anticipation notes with maturities of up to five years.

MIG 1	This designation denotes superior credit quality. Excellent protection is afforded by established cash flows, highly reliable liquidity support or demonstrated broad-based access to the market for refinancing.
MIG 2	This designation denotes strong credit quality. Margins of protection are ample, although not as large as in the preceding group.
MIG 3	This designation denotes acceptable credit quality. Liquidity and cash-flow protection may be narrow, and market access for refinancing is likely to be less well-established.
SG	This designation denotes speculative-grade credit quality. Debt instruments in this category may lack sufficient margins of protection.

Demand Obligation Ratings

In the case of variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs), a two-component rating is assigned. The components are a long-term rating and a short-term demand obligation rating. The long-term rating addresses the issuer’s ability to meet scheduled principal and interest payments. The short-term demand obligation rating addresses the ability of the issuer or the liquidity provider to make payments associated with the purchase-price-upon-demand feature (“demand feature”) of the VRDO. The short-term demand obligation rating uses the VMIG scale. VMIG ratings with liquidity support use as an input the short-term Counterparty Risk Assessment of the support provider, or the long-term rating of the underlying obligor in the absence of third party liquidity support. Transitions of VMIG ratings of demand obligations with conditional liquidity support differ from transitions on the Prime scale to reflect the risk that external liquidity support will terminate if the issuer’s long-term rating drops below investment grade.

VMIG 1	This designation denotes superior credit quality. Excellent protection is afforded by the superior short-term credit strength of the liquidity provider and structural and legal protections that ensure the timely payment of purchase price upon demand.
VMIG 2	This designation denotes strong credit quality. Good protection is afforded by the strong short-term credit strength of the liquidity provider and structural and legal protections that ensure the timely payment of purchase price upon demand.
VMIG 3	This designation denotes acceptable credit quality. Adequate protection is afforded by the satisfactory short-term credit strength of the liquidity provider and structural and legal protections that ensure the timely payment of purchase price upon demand.
SG	This designation denotes speculative-grade credit quality. Demand features rated in this category may be supported by a liquidity provider that does not have a sufficiently strong short-term rating or may lack the structural or legal protections necessary to ensure the timely payment of purchase price upon demand.

DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED STOCK RATINGS

DBRS Morningstar

Preferred Share Rating Scale

The DBRS Morningstar preferred share rating scale reflects an opinion on the risk that an issuer will not fulfil its obligations with respect to both dividend and principal commitments in respect of preferred shares issued in the Canadian securities market in accordance with the terms under which the relevant preferred shares have been issued. Every DBRS Morningstar rating using the preferred share rating scale

D-15

is based on quantitative and qualitative considerations relevant to the issuing entity. Each rating category may be denoted by the subcategories “high” and “low”. The absence of either a “high” or “low” designation indicates the rating is in the middle of the category.

Preferred shares issued in the Canadian securities markets are rated using the preferred share rating scale and preferred shares issued outside of the Canadian securities markets are rated using the long-term obligations scale. Because preferred share dividends are only payable when approved, the non-payment of a preferred share dividend does not necessarily result in a “D”. DBRS Morningstar may also use “SD” (Selective Default) in cases where only some securities are affected, such as in the case of a “distressed exchange”.

Pfd-1	Preferred shares rated Pfd-1 are generally of superior credit quality, and are supported by entities with strong earnings and balance sheet characteristics. Pfd-1 ratings generally correspond with issuers with a AAA or AA category reference point1.
Pfd-2	Preferred shares rated Pfd-2 are generally of good credit quality. Protection of dividends and principal is still substantial, but earnings, the balance sheet and coverage ratios are not as strong as Pfd-1 rated companies. Generally, Pfd-2 ratings correspond with issuers with an A category or higher reference point.
Pfd-3	Preferred shares rated Pfd-3 are generally of adequate credit quality. While protection of dividends and principal is still considered acceptable, the issuing entity is more susceptible to adverse changes in financial and economic conditions, and there may be other adverse conditions present which detract from debt protection. Pfd-3 ratings generally correspond with issuers with a BBB category or higher reference point.
Pfd-4	Preferred shares rated Pfd-4 are generally speculative, where the degree of protection afforded to dividends and principal is uncertain, particularly during periods of economic adversity. Issuers with preferred shares rated Pfd-4 generally correspond with issuers with a BB category or higher reference point.
Pfd-5	Preferred shares rated Pfd-5 are generally highly speculative and the ability of the entity to maintain timely dividend and principal payments in the future is highly uncertain. Entities with a Pfd-5 rating generally correspond with issuers with a B category or higher reference point. Preferred shares rated Pfd-5 often have characteristics that, if not remedied, may lead to default.
D	When the issuer has filed under any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or winding up or the issuer is in default per the legal documents, a downgrade to D may occur. Because preferred share dividends are only payable when approved, the non-payment of a preferred share dividend does not necessarily result in a D. DBRS Morningstar may also use SD (Selective Default) in cases where only some securities are impacted, such as the case of a “distressed exchange”. See the Default Definition document posted on the website for more information.

The reference point is a credit rating or intrinsic assessment on the relevant issuer expressed using the long-term obligations scale. For instance, it could be the issuer rating (for a corporate issuer), the intrinsic assessment (for a bank or a non-bank finance company), or the financial strength rating (for an insurance company).

D-16

North America	United States
	Headquarters
	100 Pine Street, Suite 1925 San Francisco, CA 94111 +1 415 678 4110

	New York, NY +1 646 606 2345

	2323 Grand Boulevard Suite 1125 Kansas City, MO 64108 +1 816 945 4525

Asia Pacific	Australia
	CGI Glass Lewis
	Suite 5.03, Level 5 255 George Street Sydney NSW 2000 +61 2 9299 9266

	Japan
	Shinjuku Mitsui Building 11th floor 2-1-1, Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-0411, Japan

Europe	Ireland
	15 Henry Street Limerick V94 V9T4 +353 61 292 800

	United Kingdom
	80 Coleman Street Suite 4.02 London EC2R 5BJ +44 20 7653 8800

	France
	Proxinvest
	6 Rue d’Uzès 75002 Paris +33 ()1 45 51 50 43

	Germany
	IVOX Glass Lewis
	Kaiserallee 23a 76133 Karlsruhe +49 721 35 49 622

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION	139
APPENDIX A — PURCHASES AND REDEMPTIONS	A-1
APPENDIX B — ISS PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES	B-1
APPENDIX C — GLASS LEWIS PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES	C-1
APPENDIX D — DESCRIPTION OF RATINGS	D-1

Corporate Website	\|	www.glasslewis.com
Email	\|	info@glasslewis.com
Social	\|		@glasslewis	Glass, Lewis & Co.