Form 497 Fidelity Rutland Square
Tweet
Share
E-mail| Fund | Ticker |
| Strategic Advisers® Core Fund | FCSAX |
Fund of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
July 30, 2018
As Revised June 20, 2019
Offered exclusively to certain clients of Strategic Advisers LLC (Strategic Advisers) - not available for sale to the general public.
This statement of additional information (SAI) is not a prospectus. Portions of the fund's annual report are incorporated herein. The annual report is supplied with this SAI.
To obtain a free additional copy of the prospectus, dated July 30, 2018, as supplemented on June 6, 2019, or SAI, dated July 30, 2018, As Revised June 20, 2019, or an annual report, please call Fidelity at 1-800-544-3455 or visit Fidelity’s web site at www.fidelity.com.
SAI-COR-PTB-0718-01
1.902946.122
245 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INVESTMENT POLICIES AND LIMITATIONS
The following policies and limitations supplement those set forth in the prospectus. Unless otherwise noted, whenever an investment policy or limitation states a maximum percentage of the fund's assets that may be invested in any security or other asset, or sets forth a policy regarding quality standards, such standard or percentage limitation will be determined immediately after and as a result of the fund's acquisition of such security or other asset. Accordingly, any subsequent change in values, net assets, or other circumstances will not be considered when determining whether the investment complies with the fund's investment policies and limitations.
The fund's fundamental investment policies and limitations cannot be changed without approval by a "majority of the outstanding voting securities" (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940 (1940 Act)) of the fund. However, except for the fundamental investment limitations listed below, the investment policies and limitations described in this SAI are not fundamental and may be changed without shareholder approval.
The following are the fund's fundamental investment limitations set forth in their entirety.
Diversification
The fund may not with respect to 75% of the fund's total assets, purchase the securities of any issuer (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or securities of other investment companies) if, as a result, (a) more than 5% of the fund's total assets would be invested in the securities of that issuer, or (b) the fund would hold more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of that issuer.
Senior Securities
The fund may not issue senior securities, except in connection with the insurance program established by the fund pursuant to an exemptive order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission or as otherwise permitted under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
Borrowing
The fund may not borrow money, except that the fund may borrow money for temporary or emergency purposes (not for leveraging or investment) in an amount not exceeding 33 1/3% of its total assets (including the amount borrowed) less liabilities (other than borrowings). Any borrowings that come to exceed this amount will be reduced within three days (not including Sundays and holidays) to the extent necessary to comply with the 33 1/3% limitation.
Underwriting
The fund may not underwrite securities issued by others, except to the extent that the fund may be considered an underwriter within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 in the disposition of restricted securities or in connection with investments in other investment companies.
Concentration
The fund may not purchase the securities of any issuer (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities) if, as a result, more than 25% of the fund's total assets would be invested in the securities of companies whose principal business activities are in the same industry.
For purposes of the fund's concentration limitation discussed above, with respect to any investment in repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. Government securities, Strategic Advisers LLC (Strategic Advisers) looks through to the U.S. Government securities.
For purposes of the fund's concentration limitation discussed above, Strategic Advisers or an affiliate may analyze the characteristics of a particular issuer and security and assign an industry or sector classification consistent with those characteristics in the event that the third-party classification provider used by Strategic Advisers does not assign a classification.
Real Estate
The fund may not purchase or sell real estate unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments (but this shall not prevent the fund from investing in securities or other instruments backed by real estate or securities of companies engaged in the real estate business).
Commodities
The fund may not purchase or sell physical commodities unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments (but this shall not prevent the fund from purchasing or selling options and futures contracts or from investing in securities or other instruments backed by physical commodities).
Loans
The fund may not lend any security or make any other loan if, as a result, more than 33 1/3% of its total assets would be lent to other parties, but this limitation does not apply to purchases of debt securities or to repurchase agreements, or to acquisitions of loans, loan participations or other forms of debt instruments.
The following investment limitations are not fundamental and may be changed without shareholder approval.
Margin Purchases
The fund does not currently intend to purchase securities on margin, except that the fund may obtain such short-term credits as are necessary for the clearance of transactions, and provided that margin payments in connection with futures contracts and options on futures contracts shall not constitute purchasing securities on margin.
Borrowing
The fund may borrow money only (a) from a bank or from a registered investment company or portfolio for which Strategic Advisers or an affiliate serves as investment adviser or (b) by engaging in reverse repurchase agreements with any party (reverse repurchase agreements are treated as borrowings for purposes of the fundamental borrowing investment limitation).
Illiquid Securities
The fund does not currently intend to purchase any security if, as a result, more than 10% of its net assets would be invested in securities that are deemed to be illiquid because they are subject to legal or contractual restrictions on resale or because they cannot be sold or disposed of in the ordinary course of business at approximately the prices at which they are valued.
For purposes of the fund's illiquid securities limitation discussed above, if through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, the fund were in a position where more than 10% of its net assets were invested in illiquid securities, it would consider appropriate steps to protect liquidity.
To the extent that the fund acquires the shares of an underlying fund in accordance with Section 12(d)(1)(F) of the 1940 Act, the underlying fund is not obligated to redeem its shares in an amount exceeding 1% of its shares outstanding during any period of less than 30 days. Those underlying fund shares will not be treated as illiquid securities for purposes of the fund's illiquid securities limitation described above to the extent that the fund is able to dispose of such securities by distributing them in kind to redeeming shareholders. (See "Investment Policies and Limitations - Securities of Other Investment Companies.")
Loans
The fund does not currently intend to lend assets other than securities to other parties, except by (a) lending money (up to 15% of the fund's net assets) to a registered investment company or portfolio for which Strategic Advisers or an affiliate serves as investment adviser or (b) assuming any unfunded commitments in connection with the acquisition of loans, loan participations, or other forms of debt instruments. (This limitation does not apply to purchases of debt securities, to repurchase agreements, or to acquisitions of loans, loan participations or other forms of debt instruments.)
In addition to the fund's fundamental and non-fundamental investment limitations discussed above:
In order to qualify as a "regulated investment company" under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the fund currently intends to comply with certain diversification limits imposed by Subchapter M.
For the fund's policies and limitations on futures and options transactions, see "Investment Policies and Limitations - Futures, Options, and Swaps."
Notwithstanding the foregoing investment limitations, the underlying funds in which the fund may invest have adopted certain investment limitations that may be more or less restrictive than those listed above, thereby permitting the fund to engage indirectly in investment strategies that are prohibited under the investment limitations listed above. The investment limitations of each underlying fund are set forth in its registration statement.
In accordance with its investment program as set forth in the prospectus, the fund may invest more than 25% of its assets in any one underlying Fidelity® fund. Although the fund does not intend to concentrate its investments in a particular industry, the fund may indirectly concentrate in a particular industry or group of industries through its investments in one or more underlying funds.
The following pages contain more detailed information about types of instruments in which the fund may invest, techniques the fund's adviser (or a sub-adviser) may employ in pursuit of the fund's investment objective, and a summary of related risks. The fund's adviser (or a sub-adviser) may not buy all of these instruments or use all of these techniques unless it believes that doing so will help the fund achieve its goal. However, the fund's adviser (or a sub-adviser) is not required to buy any particular instrument or use any particular technique even if to do so might benefit the fund.
Strategic Advisers® Core Fund may have exposure to instruments, techniques, and risks either directly or indirectly through an investment in an underlying fund. An underlying fund may invest in the same or other types of instruments and its adviser may employ the same or other types of techniques. Strategic Advisers® Core Fund's performance will be affected by the instruments, techniques, and risks associated with an underlying fund, in proportion to the amount of assets that the fund allocates to that underlying fund.
On the following pages in this section titled "Investment Policies and Limitations," and except as otherwise indicated, references to "a fund" or "the fund" may relate to Strategic Advisers® Core Fund or an underlying fund, and references to "an adviser" or "the adviser" may relate to Strategic Advisers (or its affiliates) or a sub-adviser of Strategic Advisers® Core Fund, or an adviser of an underlying fund.
Borrowing. If a fund borrows money, its share price may be subject to greater fluctuation until the borrowing is paid off. If a fund makes additional investments while borrowings are outstanding, this may be considered a form of leverage.
Cash Management. A fund may hold uninvested cash or may invest it in cash equivalents such as money market securities, repurchase agreements, or shares of short-term bond or money market funds, including (for Fidelity® funds and other advisory clients only) shares of Fidelity® central funds. Generally, these securities offer less potential for gains than other types of securities.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Notice of Exclusion. The trust, on behalf of the Fidelity® fund to which this SAI relates, has filed with the National Futures Association a notice claiming an exclusion from the definition of the term "commodity pool operator" (CPO) under the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, and the rules of the CFTC promulgated thereunder, with respect to the fund's operation. Accordingly, neither a fund nor its adviser is subject to registration or regulation as a commodity pool or a CPO. However, the CFTC has adopted certain rule amendments that significantly affect the continued availability of this exclusion, and may subject advisers to funds to regulation by the CFTC. As of the date of this SAI, the adviser does not expect to register as a CPO of the fund. However, there is no certainty that a fund or its adviser will be able to rely on an exclusion in the future as the fund's investments change over time. A fund may determine not to use investment strategies that trigger additional CFTC regulation or may determine to operate subject to CFTC regulation, if applicable. If a fund or its adviser operates subject to CFTC regulation, it may incur additional expenses.
Common Stock represents an equity or ownership interest in an issuer. In the event an issuer is liquidated or declares bankruptcy, the claims of owners of bonds and preferred stock take precedence over the claims of those who own common stock, although related proceedings can take time to resolve and results can be unpredictable. For purposes of a Fidelity® fund's policies related to investment in common stock Fidelity considers depositary receipts evidencing ownership of common stock to be common stock.
Convertible Securities are bonds, debentures, notes, or other securities that may be converted or exchanged (by the holder or by the issuer) into shares of the underlying common stock (or cash or securities of equivalent value) at a stated exchange ratio. A convertible security may also be called for redemption or conversion by the issuer after a particular date and under certain circumstances (including a specified price) established upon issue. If a convertible security held by a fund is called for redemption or conversion, the fund could be required to tender it for redemption, convert it into the underlying common stock, or sell it to a third party.
Convertible securities generally have less potential for gain or loss than common stocks. Convertible securities generally provide yields higher than the underlying common stocks, but generally lower than comparable non-convertible securities. Because of this higher yield, convertible securities generally sell at prices above their "conversion value," which is the current market value of the stock to be received upon conversion. The difference between this conversion value and the price of convertible securities will vary over time depending on changes in the value of the underlying common stocks and interest rates. When the underlying common stocks decline in value, convertible securities will tend not to decline to the same extent because of the interest or dividend payments and the repayment of principal at maturity for certain types of convertible securities. However, securities that are convertible other than at the option of the holder generally do not limit the potential for loss to the same extent as securities convertible at the option of the holder. When the underlying common stocks rise in value, the value of convertible securities may also be expected to increase. At the same time, however, the difference between the market value of convertible securities and their conversion value will narrow, which means that the value of convertible securities will generally not increase to the same extent as the value of the underlying common stocks. Because convertible securities may also be interest-rate sensitive, their value may increase as interest rates fall and decrease as interest rates rise. Convertible securities are also subject to credit risk, and are often lower-quality securities.
Debt Securities are used by issuers to borrow money. The issuer usually pays a fixed, variable, or floating rate of interest, and must repay the amount borrowed, usually at the maturity of the security. Some debt securities, such as zero coupon bonds, do not pay interest but are sold at a deep discount from their face values. Debt securities include corporate bonds, government securities, repurchase agreements, and mortgage and other asset-backed securities.
Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) are shares of other investment companies, commodity pools, or other entities that are traded on an exchange. Typically, assets underlying the ETF shares are stocks, though they may also be commodities or other instruments. An ETF may seek to replicate the performance of a specific index or may be actively managed.
Typically, shares of an ETF that tracks an index are expected to increase in value as the value of the underlying benchmark increases. However, in the case of inverse ETFs (also called "short ETFs" or "bear ETFs"), ETF shares are expected to increase in value as the value of the underlying benchmark decreases. Inverse ETFs seek to deliver the opposite of the performance of the benchmark they track and are often marketed as a way for investors to profit from, or at least hedge their exposure to, downward moving markets. Investments in inverse ETFs are similar to holding short positions in the underlying benchmark.
ETF shares are redeemable only in large blocks (typically, 50,000 shares) often called "creation units" by persons other than a fund, and are redeemed principally in-kind at each day's next calculated net asset value per share (NAV). ETFs typically incur fees that are separate from those fees incurred directly by a fund. A fund's purchase of ETFs results in the layering of expenses, such that the fund would indirectly bear a proportionate share of any ETF's operating expenses. Further, while traditional investment companies are continuously offered at NAV, ETFs are traded in the secondary market (e.g., on a stock exchange) on an intra-day basis at prices that may be above or below the value of their underlying portfolios.
Some of the risks of investing in an ETF that tracks an index are similar to those of investing in an indexed mutual fund, including tracking error risk (the risk of errors in matching the ETF's underlying assets to the index or other benchmark); and the risk that because an ETF that tracks an index is not actively managed, it cannot sell stocks or other assets as long as they are represented in the index or other benchmark. Other ETF risks include the risk that ETFs may trade in the secondary market at a discount from their NAV and the risk that the ETFs may not be liquid. ETFs also may be leveraged. Leveraged ETFs seek to deliver multiples of the performance of the index or other benchmark they track and use derivatives in an effort to amplify the returns (or decline, in the case of inverse ETFs) of the underlying index or benchmark. While leveraged ETFs may offer the potential for greater return, the potential for loss and the speed at which losses can be realized also are greater. Most leveraged and inverse ETFs "reset" daily, meaning they are designed to achieve their stated objectives on a daily basis. Leveraged and inverse ETFs can deviate substantially from the performance of their underlying benchmark over longer periods of time, particularly in volatile periods.
Exchange Traded Notes (ETNs) are a type of senior, unsecured, unsubordinated debt security issued by financial institutions that combines aspects of both bonds and ETFs. An ETN's returns are based on the performance of a market index or other reference asset minus fees and expenses. Similar to ETFs, ETNs are listed on an exchange and traded in the secondary market. However, unlike an ETF, an ETN can be held until the ETN's maturity, at which time the issuer will pay a return linked to the performance of the market index or other reference asset to which the ETN is linked minus certain fees. Unlike regular bonds, ETNs typically do not make periodic interest payments and principal typically is not protected.
ETNs also incur certain expenses not incurred by their applicable index. The market value of an ETN is determined by supply and demand, the current performance of the index or other reference asset, and the credit rating of the ETN issuer. The market value of ETN shares may differ from their intraday indicative value. The value of an ETN may also change due to a change in the issuer's credit rating. As a result, there may be times when an ETN's share trades at a premium or discount to its NAV. Some ETNs that use leverage in an effort to amplify the returns of an underlying index or other reference asset can, at times, be relatively illiquid and, thus, they may be difficult to purchase or sell at a fair price. Leveraged ETNs may offer the potential for greater return, but the potential for loss and speed at which losses can be realized also are greater.
Exposure to Foreign and Emerging Markets. Foreign securities, foreign currencies, and securities issued by U.S. entities with substantial foreign operations may involve significant risks in addition to the risks inherent in U.S. investments.
Foreign investments involve risks relating to local political, economic, regulatory, or social instability, military action or unrest, or adverse diplomatic developments, and may be affected by actions of foreign governments adverse to the interests of U.S. investors. Such actions may include expropriation or nationalization of assets, confiscatory taxation, restrictions on U.S. investment or on the ability to repatriate assets or convert currency into U.S. dollars, or other government intervention. From time to time, a fund's adviser and/or its affiliates may determine that, as a result of regulatory requirements that may apply to the adviser and/or its affiliates due to investments in a particular country, investments in the securities of issuers domiciled or listed on trading markets in that country above certain thresholds (which may apply at the account level or in the aggregate across all accounts managed by the adviser and its affiliates) may be impractical or undesirable. In such instances, the adviser may limit or exclude investment in a particular issuer, and investment flexibility may be restricted. Additionally, governmental issuers of foreign debt securities may be unwilling to pay interest and repay principal when due and may require that the conditions for payment be renegotiated. There is no assurance that a fund's adviser will be able to anticipate these potential events or counter their effects. In addition, the value of securities denominated in foreign currencies and of dividends and interest paid with respect to such securities will fluctuate based on the relative strength of the U.S. dollar.
It is anticipated that in most cases the best available market for foreign securities will be on an exchange or in over-the-counter (OTC) markets located outside of the United States. Foreign stock markets, while growing in volume and sophistication, are generally not as developed as those in the United States, and securities of some foreign issuers may be less liquid and more volatile than securities of comparable U.S. issuers. Foreign security trading, settlement and custodial practices (including those involving securities settlement where fund assets may be released prior to receipt of payment) are often less developed than those in U.S. markets, and may result in increased investment or valuation risk or substantial delays in the event of a failed trade or the insolvency of, or breach of duty by, a foreign broker-dealer, securities depository, or foreign subcustodian. In addition, the costs associated with foreign investments, including withholding taxes, brokerage commissions, and custodial costs, are generally higher than with U.S. investments.
Foreign markets may offer less protection to investors than U.S. markets. Foreign issuers are generally not bound by uniform accounting, auditing, and financial reporting requirements and standards of practice comparable to those applicable to U.S. issuers. Adequate public information on foreign issuers may not be available, and it may be difficult to secure dividends and information regarding corporate actions on a timely basis. In general, there is less overall governmental supervision and regulation of securities exchanges, brokers, and listed companies than in the United States. OTC markets tend to be less regulated than stock exchange markets and, in certain countries, may be totally unregulated. Regulatory enforcement may be influenced by economic or political concerns, and investors may have difficulty enforcing their legal rights in foreign countries.
Some foreign securities impose restrictions on transfer within the United States or to U.S. persons. Although securities subject to such transfer restrictions may be marketable abroad, they may be less liquid than foreign securities of the same class that are not subject to such restrictions.
American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) as well as other "hybrid" forms of ADRs, including European Depositary Receipts (EDRs) and Global Depositary Receipts (GDRs), are certificates evidencing ownership of shares of a foreign issuer. These certificates are issued by depository banks and generally trade on an established market in the United States or elsewhere. The underlying shares are held in trust by a custodian bank or similar financial institution in the issuer's home country. The depository bank may not have physical custody of the underlying securities at all times and may charge fees for various services, including forwarding dividends and interest and corporate actions. ADRs are alternatives to directly purchasing the underlying foreign securities in their national markets and currencies. However, ADRs continue to be subject to many of the risks associated with investing directly in foreign securities. These risks include foreign exchange risk as well as the political and economic risks of the underlying issuer's country.
The risks of foreign investing may be magnified for investments in emerging markets. Security prices in emerging markets can be significantly more volatile than those in more developed markets, reflecting the greater uncertainties of investing in less established markets and economies. In particular, countries with emerging markets may have relatively unstable governments, may present the risks of nationalization of businesses, restrictions on foreign ownership and prohibitions on the repatriation of assets, and may have less protection of property rights than more developed countries. The economies of countries with emerging markets may be based on only a few industries, may be highly vulnerable to changes in local or global trade conditions, and may suffer from extreme and volatile debt burdens or inflation rates. Local securities markets may trade a small number of securities and may be unable to respond effectively to increases in trading volume, potentially making prompt liquidation of holdings difficult or impossible at times.
Foreign Currency Transactions. A fund may conduct foreign currency transactions on a spot (i.e., cash) or forward basis (i.e., by entering into forward contracts to purchase or sell foreign currencies). Although foreign exchange dealers generally do not charge a fee for such conversions, they do realize a profit based on the difference between the prices at which they are buying and selling various currencies. Thus, a dealer may offer to sell a foreign currency at one rate, while offering a lesser rate of exchange should the counterparty desire to resell that currency to the dealer. Forward contracts are customized transactions that require a specific amount of a currency to be delivered at a specific exchange rate on a specific date or range of dates in the future. Forward contracts are generally traded in an interbank market directly between currency traders (usually large commercial banks) and their customers. The parties to a forward contract may agree to offset or terminate the contract before its maturity, or may hold the contract to maturity and complete the contemplated currency exchange.
The following discussion summarizes the principal currency management strategies involving forward contracts that could be used by a fund. A fund may also use swap agreements, indexed securities, and options and futures contracts relating to foreign currencies for the same purposes. Forward contracts not calling for physical delivery of the underlying instrument will be settled through cash payments rather than through delivery of the underlying currency. All of these instruments and transactions are subject to the risk that the counterparty will default.
A "settlement hedge" or "transaction hedge" is designed to protect a fund against an adverse change in foreign currency values between the date a security denominated in a foreign currency is purchased or sold and the date on which payment is made or received. Entering into a forward contract for the purchase or sale of the amount of foreign currency involved in an underlying security transaction for a fixed amount of U.S. dollars "locks in" the U.S. dollar price of the security. Forward contracts to purchase or sell a foreign currency may also be used to protect a fund in anticipation of future purchases or sales of securities denominated in foreign currency, even if the specific investments have not yet been selected.
A fund may also use forward contracts to hedge against a decline in the value of existing investments denominated in a foreign currency. For example, if a fund owned securities denominated in pounds sterling, it could enter into a forward contract to sell pounds sterling in return for U.S. dollars to hedge against possible declines in the pound's value. Such a hedge, sometimes referred to as a "position hedge," would tend to offset both positive and negative currency fluctuations, but would not offset changes in security values caused by other factors. A fund could also attempt to hedge the position by selling another currency expected to perform similarly to the pound sterling. This type of hedge, sometimes referred to as a "proxy hedge," could offer advantages in terms of cost, yield, or efficiency, but generally would not hedge currency exposure as effectively as a direct hedge into U.S. dollars. Proxy hedges may result in losses if the currency used to hedge does not perform similarly to the currency in which the hedged securities are denominated.
A fund may enter into forward contracts to shift its investment exposure from one currency into another. This may include shifting exposure from U.S. dollars to a foreign currency, or from one foreign currency to another foreign currency. This type of strategy, sometimes known as a "cross-hedge," will tend to reduce or eliminate exposure to the currency that is sold, and increase exposure to the currency that is purchased, much as if a fund had sold a security denominated in one currency and purchased an equivalent security denominated in another. A fund may cross-hedge its U.S. dollar exposure in order to achieve a representative weighted mix of the major currencies in its benchmark index and/or to cover an underweight country or region exposure in its portfolio. Cross-hedges protect against losses resulting from a decline in the hedged currency, but will cause a fund to assume the risk of fluctuations in the value of the currency it purchases.
Successful use of currency management strategies will depend on an adviser's skill in analyzing currency values. Currency management strategies may substantially change a fund's investment exposure to changes in currency exchange rates and could result in losses to a fund if currencies do not perform as an adviser anticipates. For example, if a currency's value rose at a time when a fund had hedged its position by selling that currency in exchange for dollars, the fund would not participate in the currency's appreciation. If a fund hedges currency exposure through proxy hedges, the fund could realize currency losses from both the hedge and the security position if the two currencies do not move in tandem. Similarly, if a fund increases its exposure to a foreign currency and that currency's value declines, the fund will realize a loss. Foreign currency transactions involve the risk that anticipated currency movements will not be accurately predicted and that a fund's hedging strategies will be ineffective. Moreover, it is impossible to precisely forecast the market value of portfolio securities at the expiration of a foreign currency forward contract. Accordingly, a fund may be required to buy or sell additional currency on the spot market (and bear the expenses of such transaction), if an adviser's predictions regarding the movement of foreign currency or securities markets prove inaccurate.
A fund may be required to limit its hedging transactions in foreign currency forwards, futures, and options in order to maintain its classification as a "regulated investment company" under the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Hedging transactions could result in the application of the mark-to-market provisions of the Code, which may cause an increase (or decrease) in the amount of taxable dividends paid by a fund and could affect whether dividends paid by a fund are classified as capital gains or ordinary income. A fund will cover its exposure to foreign currency transactions with liquid assets in compliance with applicable requirements. There is no assurance that an adviser's use of currency management strategies will be advantageous to a fund or that it will employ currency management strategies at appropriate times.
Options and Futures Relating to Foreign Currencies. Currency futures contracts are similar to forward currency exchange contracts, except that they are traded on exchanges (and have margin requirements) and are standardized as to contract size and delivery date. Most currency futures contracts call for payment or delivery in U.S. dollars. The underlying instrument of a currency option may be a foreign currency, which generally is purchased or delivered in exchange for U.S. dollars, or may be a futures contract. The purchaser of a currency call obtains the right to purchase the underlying currency, and the purchaser of a currency put obtains the right to sell the underlying currency.
The uses and risks of currency options and futures are similar to options and futures relating to securities or indexes, as discussed below. A fund may purchase and sell currency futures and may purchase and write currency options to increase or decrease its exposure to different foreign currencies. Currency options may also be purchased or written in conjunction with each other or with currency futures or forward contracts. Currency futures and options values can be expected to correlate with exchange rates, but may not reflect other factors that affect the value of a fund's investments. A currency hedge, for example, should protect a Yen-denominated security from a decline in the Yen, but will not protect a fund against a price decline resulting from deterioration in the issuer's creditworthiness. Because the value of a fund's foreign-denominated investments changes in response to many factors other than exchange rates, it may not be possible to match the amount of currency options and futures to the value of the fund's investments exactly over time.
Currency options traded on U.S. or other exchanges may be subject to position limits which may limit the ability of the fund to reduce foreign currency risk using such options.
Foreign Repurchase Agreements. Foreign repurchase agreements involve an agreement to purchase a foreign security and to sell that security back to the original seller at an agreed-upon price in either U.S. dollars or foreign currency. Unlike typical U.S. repurchase agreements, foreign repurchase agreements may not be fully collateralized at all times. The value of a security purchased by a fund may be more or less than the price at which the counterparty has agreed to repurchase the security. In the event of default by the counterparty, a fund may suffer a loss if the value of the security purchased is less than the agreed-upon repurchase price, or if the fund is unable to successfully assert a claim to the collateral under foreign laws. As a result, foreign repurchase agreements may involve higher credit risks than repurchase agreements in U.S. markets, as well as risks associated with currency fluctuations. In addition, as with other emerging market investments, repurchase agreements with counterparties located in emerging markets or relating to emerging markets may involve issuers or counterparties with lower credit ratings than typical U.S. repurchase agreements.
Funds of Funds and Other Large Shareholders. Certain Fidelity® funds and accounts (including funds of funds) invest in other funds ("underlying funds") and, as a result, may at times have substantial investments in one or more underlying funds.
An underlying fund may experience large redemptions or investments due to transactions in its shares by funds of funds, other large shareholders, or similarly managed accounts. While it is impossible to predict the overall effect of these transactions over time, there could be an adverse impact on an underlying fund's performance. In the event of such redemptions or investments, an underlying fund could be required to sell securities or to invest cash at a time when it may not otherwise desire to do so. Such transactions may increase an underlying fund's brokerage and/or other transaction costs and affect the liquidity of a fund's portfolio. In addition, when funds of funds or other investors own a substantial portion of an underlying fund's shares, a large redemption by such an investor could cause actual expenses to increase, or could result in the underlying fund's current expenses being allocated over a smaller asset base, leading to an increase in the underlying fund's expense ratio. Redemptions of underlying fund shares could also accelerate the realization of taxable capital gains in the fund if sales of securities result in capital gains. The impact of these transactions is likely to be greater when a fund of funds or other significant investor purchases, redeems, or owns a substantial portion of the underlying fund's shares.
When possible, Fidelity will consider how to minimize these potential adverse effects, and may take such actions as it deems appropriate to address potential adverse effects, including redemption of shares in-kind rather than in cash or carrying out the transactions over a period of time, although there can be no assurance that such actions will be successful. A high volume of redemption requests can impact an underlying fund the same way as the transactions of a single shareholder with substantial investments. As an additional safeguard, Fidelity® fund of funds may manage the placement of their redemption requests in a manner designed to minimize the impact of such requests on the day-to-day operations of the underlying funds in which they invest. This may involve, for example, redeeming its shares of an underlying fund gradually over time.
Fund's Rights as an Investor. Fidelity® funds do not intend to direct or administer the day-to-day operations of any company. A fund may, however, exercise its rights as a shareholder or lender and may communicate its views on important matters of policy to a company's management, board of directors, and shareholders, and holders of a company's other securities when such matters could have a significant effect on the value of the fund's investment in the company. The activities in which a fund may engage, either individually or in conjunction with others, may include, among others, supporting or opposing proposed changes in a company's corporate structure or business activities; seeking changes in a company's directors or management; seeking changes in a company's direction or policies; seeking the sale or reorganization of the company or a portion of its assets; supporting or opposing third-party takeover efforts; supporting the filing of a bankruptcy petition; or foreclosing on collateral securing a security. This area of corporate activity is increasingly prone to litigation and it is possible that a fund could be involved in lawsuits related to such activities. Such activities will be monitored with a view to mitigating, to the extent possible, the risk of litigation against a fund and the risk of actual liability if a fund is involved in litigation. No guarantee can be made, however, that litigation against a fund will not be undertaken or liabilities incurred. A fund's proxy voting guidelines are included in its SAI.
Futures, Options, and Swaps. The success of any strategy involving futures, options, and swaps depends on an adviser's analysis of many economic and mathematical factors and a fund's return may be higher if it never invested in such instruments. Additionally, some of the contracts discussed below are new instruments without a trading history and there can be no assurance that a market for the instruments will continue to exist. Government legislation or regulation could affect the use of such instruments and could limit a fund's ability to pursue its investment strategies. If a fund invests a significant portion of its assets in derivatives, its investment exposure could far exceed the value of its portfolio securities and its investment performance could be primarily dependent upon securities it does not own.
Strategic Advisers® Core Fund will not: (a) sell futures contracts, purchase put options, or write call options if, as a result, more than 25% of the fund's total assets would be hedged with futures and options under normal conditions; (b) purchase futures contracts or write put options if, as a result, the fund's total obligations upon settlement or exercise of purchased futures contracts and written put options would exceed 25% of its total assets under normal conditions; or (c) purchase call options if, as a result, the current value of option premiums for call options purchased by the fund would exceed 5% of the fund's total assets. These limitations do not apply to options attached to or acquired or traded together with their underlying securities, and do not apply to structured notes.
The policies and limitations regarding the fund's investments in futures contracts, options, and swaps may be changed as regulatory agencies permit.
The requirements for qualification as a regulated investment company may limit the extent to which a fund may enter into futures, options on futures, and forward contracts.
Futures Contracts. In purchasing a futures contract, the buyer agrees to purchase a specified underlying instrument at a specified future date. In selling a futures contract, the seller agrees to sell a specified underlying instrument at a specified date. Futures contracts are standardized, exchange-traded contracts and the price at which the purchase and sale will take place is fixed when the buyer and seller enter into the contract. Some currently available futures contracts are based on specific securities or baskets of securities, some are based on commodities or commodities indexes (for funds that seek commodities exposure), and some are based on indexes of securities prices (including foreign indexes for funds that seek foreign exposure). Futures on indexes and futures not calling for physical delivery of the underlying instrument will be settled through cash payments rather than through delivery of the underlying instrument. Futures can be held until their delivery dates, or can be closed out by offsetting purchases or sales of futures contracts before then if a liquid market is available. A fund may realize a gain or loss by closing out its futures contracts.
The value of a 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 market for 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 or an option for a futures contract is not required to deliver or pay for the underlying instrument or the final cash settlement price, as applicable, unless the contract is held until the delivery date. However, both the purchaser and seller are required to deposit "initial margin" with a futures broker, known as a futures commission merchant (FCM), when the contract is entered into. If the value of either party's position declines, that party will be required to make additional "variation margin" payments to settle the change in value on a daily basis. This process of "marking to market" will be reflected in the daily calculation of open positions computed in a fund's NAV. The party that has a gain is entitled to receive all or a portion of this amount. Initial and variation margin payments do not constitute purchasing securities on margin for purposes of a fund's investment limitations. Variation margin does not represent a borrowing or loan by a fund, but is instead a settlement between a fund and the FCM of the amount one would owe the other if the fund's contract expired. In the event of the bankruptcy or insolvency 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. A fund is also required to segregate liquid assets equivalent to the fund's outstanding obligations under the contract in excess of the initial margin and variation margin, if any.
Although futures exchanges generally operate similarly in the United States and abroad, foreign futures exchanges may follow trading, settlement, and margin procedures that are different from those for U.S. exchanges. Futures contracts traded outside the United States may not involve a clearing mechanism or related guarantees and may involve greater risk of loss than U.S.-traded contracts, including potentially greater risk of losses due to insolvency of a futures broker, exchange member, or other party that may owe initial or variation margin to a fund. Because initial and variation margin payments may be measured in foreign currency, a futures contract traded outside the United States may also involve the risk of foreign currency fluctuation.
There is no assurance a liquid market will exist for any particular futures contract at any particular time. Exchanges may establish daily price fluctuation limits for futures contracts, and may halt trading if a contract's price moves upward or downward 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 to enter into new positions or close out existing positions. The daily limit governs only price movements during a particular trading day and therefore does not limit potential losses because the limit may work to prevent the liquidation of unfavorable positions. For example, futures prices have occasionally moved to the daily limit for several consecutive trading days with little or no trading, thereby preventing prompt liquidation of positions and subjecting some holders of futures contracts to substantial losses.
If the market for a contract is not liquid because of price fluctuation limits or other market conditions, it could prevent prompt liquidation of unfavorable positions, and potentially could 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 held to cover its futures positions could also be impaired. These risks may be heightened for commodity futures contracts, which have historically been subject to greater price volatility than exists for instruments such as stocks and bonds.
Because there are a limited number of types of exchange-traded futures contracts, it is likely that the standardized contracts available will not match a fund's current or anticipated investments exactly. A fund may invest in futures contracts based on securities with different issuers, maturities, or other characteristics from the securities in which the fund typically invests, which involves a risk that the futures position will not track the performance of the fund's other investments.
Futures prices can also diverge from the prices of their underlying instruments, even if the underlying instruments match a fund's investments well. Futures 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 futures markets and the securities markets, from structural differences in how futures and securities are traded, or from imposition of daily price fluctuation limits or trading halts. A fund may purchase or sell 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 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. In addition, the price of a commodity futures contract can reflect the storage costs associated with the purchase of the physical commodity.
Futures contracts on U.S. Government securities historically have reacted to an increase or decrease in interest rates in a manner similar to the manner in which the underlying U.S. Government securities reacted. To the extent, however, that a fund enters into such futures contracts, the value of these futures contracts will not vary in direct proportion to the value of the fund's holdings of U.S. Government securities. Thus, the anticipated spread between the price of the futures contract and the hedged security may be distorted due to differences in the nature of the markets. The spread also may be distorted by differences in initial and variation margin requirements, the liquidity of such markets and the participation of speculators in such markets.
Options. By purchasing a put option, the purchaser obtains the right (but not the obligation) to sell the option's underlying instrument at a fixed strike price. In return for this right, the purchaser pays the current market price for the option (known as the option premium). Options have various types of underlying instruments, including specific assets or securities, baskets of assets or securities, indexes of securities or commodities prices, and futures contracts (including commodity futures contracts). Options may be traded on an exchange or OTC. The purchaser may terminate its position in a put option by allowing it to expire or by exercising the option. If the option is allowed to expire, the purchaser will lose the entire premium. If the option is exercised, the purchaser completes the sale of the underlying instrument at the strike price. Depending on the terms of the contract, upon exercise, an option may require physical delivery of the underlying instrument or may be settled through cash payments. A purchaser may also terminate a put option position by closing it out in the secondary market at its current price, if a liquid secondary market exists.
The buyer of a typical put option can expect to realize a gain if the underlying instrument's price falls substantially. However, if the underlying instrument's price 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, plus related transaction costs).
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 (but not the obligation) to purchase, rather than sell, the underlying instrument at the option's strike price. A call buyer typically attempts to participate in potential price increases of the underlying instrument with risk limited to the cost of the option if the underlying instrument's price falls. At the same time, the buyer can expect to suffer a loss if the underlying instrument's price does not rise sufficiently to offset the cost of the option.
The writer of a put or call option takes the opposite side of the transaction from the option's purchaser. In return for receipt of the premium, the writer assumes the obligation to pay or receive the strike price for the option's underlying instrument if the other party to the option chooses to exercise it. The writer may seek to terminate a position in a put option before exercise by closing out the option in the secondary market at its current price. If the secondary market is not liquid for a put option, however, the writer must continue to be prepared to pay the strike price while the option is outstanding, regardless of price changes. When writing an option on a futures contract, a fund will be required to make margin payments to an FCM as described above for futures contracts.
If the underlying instrument's price rises, a put writer would generally expect to profit, although its gain would be limited to the amount of the premium it received. If the underlying instrument's price remains 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 the underlying instrument's price falls, the put writer would expect to suffer a loss. This loss should be less than the loss from purchasing the underlying instrument directly, however, because the premium received for writing the option should mitigate the effects of the decline.
Writing a call option obligates the writer to sell or deliver the option's underlying instrument or make a net cash settlement payment, as applicable, 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 should mitigate the effects of a price increase. At the same time, because a call writer must be prepared to deliver the underlying instrument or make a net cash settlement payment, as applicable, 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.
Where a put or call option on a particular security is purchased to hedge against price movements in a related security, the price to close out the put or call option on the secondary market may move more or less than the price of the related security.
There is no assurance a liquid market will exist for any particular options contract at any particular time. Options may have relatively low trading volume and liquidity if their strike prices are not close to the underlying instrument's current price. In addition, exchanges may establish daily price fluctuation limits for exchange-traded options contracts, and may halt trading if a contract's price moves upward or downward 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 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 potentially could 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 held to cover its options positions could also be impaired.
Unlike exchange-traded options, which are standardized with respect to the underlying instrument, expiration date, contract size, and strike price, the terms of OTC options (options not traded on exchanges) generally are established through negotiation with the other party to the option contract. While this type of arrangement allows the purchaser or writer greater flexibility to tailor an option to its needs, OTC options generally are less liquid and involve greater credit risk than exchange-traded options, which are backed by the clearing organization of the exchanges where they are traded.
Combined positions involve purchasing and writing options in combination with each other, or in combination with futures or forward contracts, to adjust the risk and return characteristics of the overall position. For example, purchasing a put option and writing a call option on the same underlying instrument would 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, 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.
A fund may also buy and sell options on swaps (swaptions), which are generally options on interest rate swaps. An option on a swap gives a party the right (but not the obligation) to enter into a new swap agreement or to extend, shorten, cancel or modify an existing contract at a specific date in the future in exchange for a premium. Depending on the terms of the particular option agreement, a fund will generally incur a greater degree of risk when it writes (sells) an option on a swap than it will incur when it purchases an option on a swap. When a fund purchases an option on a swap, it risks losing only the amount of the premium it has paid should it decide to let the option expire unexercised. However, when a fund writes an option on a swap, upon exercise of the option the fund will become obligated according to the terms of the underlying agreement. A fund that writes an option on a swap receives the premium and bears the risk of unfavorable changes in the preset rate on the underlying interest rate swap. Whether a fund's use of options on swaps will be successful in furthering its investment objective will depend on the adviser's ability to predict correctly whether certain types of investments are likely to produce greater returns than other investments. Options on swaps may involve risks similar to those discussed below in "Swap Agreements."
Because there are a limited number of types of exchange-traded options contracts, it is likely that the standardized contracts available will not match a fund's current or anticipated investments exactly. A fund may invest in options contracts based on securities with different issuers, maturities, or other characteristics from the securities in which the fund typically invests, which involves a risk that the options position will not track the performance of the fund's other investments.
Options prices can also diverge from the prices of their underlying instruments, even if the underlying instruments match a fund's investments well. Options 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 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 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.
Swap Agreements. Swap agreements are two-party contracts entered into primarily by institutional investors. Cleared swaps are transacted through FCMs that are members of central clearinghouses with the clearinghouse serving as a central counterparty similar to transactions in futures contracts. In a standard "swap" transaction, two parties agree to exchange one or more payments based, for example, on the returns (or differentials in rates of return) earned or realized on particular predetermined investments or instruments (such as securities, commodities, indexes, or other financial or economic interests). The gross payments to be exchanged between the parties are calculated with respect to a notional amount, which is the predetermined dollar principal of the trade representing the hypothetical underlying quantity upon which payment obligations are computed.
Swap agreements can take many different forms and are known by a variety of names. Depending on how they are used, swap agreements may increase or decrease the overall volatility of a fund's investments and its share price and, if applicable, its yield. Swap agreements are subject to liquidity risk, meaning that a fund may be unable to sell a swap contract to a third party at a favorable price. Certain standardized swap transactions are currently subject to mandatory central clearing or may be eligible for voluntary central clearing. Central clearing is expected to decrease counterparty risk and increase liquidity compared to uncleared swaps because central clearing interposes the central clearinghouse as the counterpart to each participant's swap. However, central clearing does not eliminate counterparty risk or illiquidity risk entirely. In addition depending on the size of a fund and other factors, the margin required under the rules of a clearinghouse and by a clearing member FCM may be in excess of the collateral required to be posted by a fund to support its obligations under a similar uncleared swap. It is expected, however, that regulators will adopt rules imposing certain margin requirements, including minimums, on uncleared swaps in the near future, which could reduce the distinction.
A total return swap is a contract whereby one party agrees to make a series of payments to another party based on the change in the market value of the assets underlying such contract (which can include a security or other instrument, commodity, index or baskets thereof) during the specified period. In exchange, the other party to the contract agrees to make a series of payments calculated by reference to an interest rate and/or some other agreed-upon amount (including the change in market value of other underlying assets). A fund may use total return swaps to gain exposure to an asset without owning it or taking physical custody of it. For example, a fund investing in total return commodity swaps will receive the price appreciation of a commodity, commodity index or portion thereof in exchange for payment of an agreed-upon fee.
In a credit default swap, the credit default protection buyer makes periodic payments, known as premiums, to the credit default protection seller. In return the credit default protection seller will make a payment to the credit default protection buyer upon the occurrence of a specified credit event. A credit default swap can refer to a single issuer or asset, a basket of issuers or assets or index of assets, each known as the reference entity or underlying asset. A fund may act as either the buyer or the seller of a credit default swap. A fund may buy or sell credit default protection on a basket of issuers or assets, even if a number of the underlying assets referenced in the basket are lower-quality debt securities. In an unhedged credit default swap, a fund buys credit default protection on a single issuer or asset, a basket of issuers or assets or index of assets without owning the underlying asset or debt issued by the reference entity. Credit default swaps involve greater and different risks than investing directly in the referenced asset, because, in addition to market risk, credit default swaps include liquidity, counterparty and operational risk.
Credit default swaps allow a fund to acquire or reduce credit exposure to a particular issuer, asset or basket of assets. If a swap agreement calls for payments by a fund, the fund must be prepared to make such payments when due. If a fund is the credit default protection seller, the fund will experience a loss if a credit event occurs and the credit of the reference entity or underlying asset has deteriorated. If a fund is the credit default protection buyer, the fund will be required to pay premiums to the credit default protection seller.
If the creditworthiness of a fund's swap counterparty declines, the risk that the counterparty may not perform could increase, potentially resulting in a loss to the fund. To limit the counterparty risk involved in swap agreements, a Fidelity® fund will enter into swap agreements only with counterparties that meet certain standards of creditworthiness.
A fund bears the risk of loss of the amount expected to be received under a swap agreement in the event of the default or bankruptcy of a swap agreement counterparty. In order to cover its outstanding obligations to a swap counterparty, a fund would generally be required to provide margin or collateral for the benefit of that counterparty. If a counterparty to a swap transaction becomes insolvent, the fund may be limited temporarily or permanently in exercising its right to the return of related fund assets designated as margin or collateral in an action against the counterparty.
Swap agreements are subject to the risk that the market value of the instrument will change in a way detrimental to a fund's interest. A fund bears the risk that an adviser will not accurately forecast market trends or the values of assets, reference rates, indexes, or other economic factors in establishing swap positions for a fund. If an adviser attempts to use a swap as a hedge against, or as a substitute for, a portfolio investment, a fund may be exposed to the risk that the swap will have or will develop imperfect or no correlation with the portfolio investment, which could cause substantial losses for a fund. While hedging strategies involving swap instruments can reduce the risk of loss, they can also reduce the opportunity for gain or even result in losses by offsetting favorable price movements in other fund investments. Swaps are complex and often valued subjectively.
Hybrid and Preferred Securities. A hybrid security may be a debt security, warrant, convertible security, certificate of deposit or other evidence of indebtedness on which the value of the interest on or principal of which is determined by reference to changes in the value of a reference instrument or financial strength of a reference entity (e.g., a security or other financial instrument, asset, currency, interest rate, commodity, index, or business entity such as a financial institution). Another example is contingent convertible securities, which are fixed income securities that, under certain circumstances, either convert into common stock of the issuer or undergo a principal write-down by a predetermined percentage if the issuer's capital ratio falls below a predetermined trigger level. The liquidation value of such a security may be reduced upon a regulatory action and without the need for a bankruptcy proceeding. Preferred securities may take the form of preferred stock and represent an equity or ownership interest in an issuer that pays dividends at a specified rate and that has precedence over common stock in the payment of dividends. In the event an issuer is liquidated or declares bankruptcy, the claims of owners of bonds generally take precedence over the claims of those who own preferred and common stock.
The risks of investing in hybrid and preferred securities reflect a combination of the risks of investing in securities, options, futures and currencies. An investment in a hybrid or preferred security may entail significant risks that are not associated with a similar investment in a traditional debt or equity security. The risks of a particular hybrid or preferred security will depend upon the terms of the instrument, but may include the possibility of significant changes in the value of any applicable reference instrument. Such risks may depend upon factors unrelated to the operations or credit quality of the issuer of the hybrid or preferred security. Hybrid and preferred securities are potentially more volatile and carry greater market and liquidity risks than traditional debt or equity securities. Also, the price of the hybrid or preferred security and any applicable reference instrument may not move in the same direction or at the same time. In addition, because hybrid and preferred securities may be traded over-the-counter or in bilateral transactions with the issuer of the security, hybrid and preferred securities may be subject to the creditworthiness of the counterparty of the security and their values may decline substantially if the counterparty's creditworthiness deteriorates. In addition, uncertainty regarding the tax and regulatory treatment of hybrid and preferred securities may reduce demand for such securities and tax and regulatory considerations may limit the extent of a fund's investments in certain hybrid and preferred securities.
Illiquid Securities cannot be sold or disposed of in the ordinary course of business at approximately the prices at which they are valued. Difficulty in selling securities may result in a loss or may be costly to a fund.
Under the supervision of the Board of Trustees, a Fidelity® fund's adviser determines the liquidity of the fund's investments and, through reports from the fund's adviser, the Board monitors investments in illiquid securities.
Various factors may be considered in determining the liquidity of a fund's investments, including (1) the frequency and volume of trades and quotations, (2) the number of dealers and prospective purchasers in the marketplace, (3) dealer undertakings to make a market, and (4) the nature of the security and the market in which it trades (including any demand, put or tender features, the mechanics and other requirements for transfer, any letters of credit or other credit enhancement features, any ratings, the number of holders, the method of soliciting offers, the time required to dispose of the security, and the ability to assign or offset the rights and obligations of the security).
Increasing Government Debt. 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. 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. In the worst case, unsustainable debt levels can decline the valuation of currencies, and can prevent a government from implementing effective counter-cyclical fiscal policy in economic downturns.
On August 5, 2011, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States one level to "AA+" from "AAA." While Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed the United States' short-term sovereign credit rating as "A-1+," there is no guarantee that Standard & Poor's Ratings Services will not decide to lower this rating in the future. Standard & Poor's Ratings Services stated that its decision was prompted by its view on the rising public debt burden and its perception of greater policymaking uncertainty. The market prices and yields of securities supported by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government may be adversely affected by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services decisions to downgrade the long-term sovereign credit rating of the United States.
Indexed Securities are instruments whose prices are indexed to the prices of other securities, securities indexes, or other financial indicators. Indexed securities typically, but not always, are debt securities or deposits whose values at maturity or coupon rates are determined by reference to a specific instrument, statistic, or measure.
Indexed securities also include commercial paper, certificates of deposit, and other fixed-income securities whose values at maturity or coupon interest rates are determined by reference to the returns of particular stock indexes. Indexed securities can be affected by stock prices as well as changes in interest rates and the creditworthiness of their issuers and may not track the indexes as accurately as direct investments in the indexes.
Indexed securities may have principal payments as well as coupon payments that depend on the performance of one or more interest rates. Their coupon rates or principal payments may change by several percentage points for every 1% interest rate change.
Mortgage-indexed securities, for example, could be structured to replicate the performance of mortgage securities and the characteristics of direct ownership.
Inflation-protected securities, for example, can be indexed to a measure of inflation, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Commodity-indexed securities, for example, can be indexed to a commodities index such as the Bloomberg Commodity Index Total Return℠.
Gold-indexed securities typically provide for a maturity value that depends on the price of gold, resulting in a security whose price tends to rise and fall together with gold prices.
Currency-indexed securities typically are short-term to intermediate-term debt securities whose maturity values or interest rates are determined by reference to the values of one or more specified foreign currencies, and may offer higher yields than U.S. dollar-denominated securities. Currency-indexed securities may be positively or negatively indexed; that is, their maturity value may increase when the specified currency value increases, resulting in a security that performs similarly to a foreign-denominated instrument, or their maturity value may decline when foreign currencies increase, resulting in a security whose price characteristics are similar to a put on the underlying currency. Currency-indexed securities may also have prices that depend on the values of a number of different foreign currencies relative to each other.
The performance of indexed securities depends to a great extent on the performance of the instrument or measure to which they are indexed, and may also be influenced by interest rate changes in the United States and abroad. Indexed securities may be more volatile than the underlying instruments or measures. Indexed securities are also subject to the credit risks associated with the issuer of the security, and their values may decline substantially if the issuer's creditworthiness deteriorates. Recent issuers of indexed securities have included banks, corporations, and certain U.S. Government agencies.
Insolvency of Issuers, Counterparties, and Intermediaries. Issuers of fund portfolio securities or counterparties to fund transactions that become insolvent or declare bankruptcy can pose special investment risks. In each circumstance, risk of loss, valuation uncertainty, increased illiquidity, and other unpredictable occurrences may negatively impact an investment. Each of these risks may be amplified in foreign markets, where security trading, settlement, and custodial practices can be less developed than those in the U.S. markets, and bankruptcy laws differ from those of the U.S.
As a general matter, if the issuer of a fund portfolio security is liquidated or declares bankruptcy, the claims of owners of bonds and preferred stock have priority over the claims of common stock owners. These events can negatively impact the value of the issuer's securities and the results of related proceedings can be unpredictable.
If a counterparty to a fund transaction, such as a swap transaction, a short sale, a borrowing, or other complex transaction becomes insolvent, the fund may be limited in its ability to exercise rights to obtain the return of related fund assets or in exercising other rights against the counterparty. In addition, insolvency and liquidation proceedings take time to resolve, which can limit or preclude a fund's ability to terminate a transaction or obtain related assets or collateral in a timely fashion. Uncertainty may also arise upon the insolvency of a securities or commodities intermediary such as a broker-dealer or futures commission merchant with which a fund has pending transactions. If an intermediary becomes insolvent, while securities positions and other holdings may be protected by U.S. or foreign laws, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether these protections are available to specific trades based on the circumstances. Receiving the benefit of these protections can also take time to resolve, which may result in illiquid positions.
Interfund Borrowing and Lending Program. Pursuant to an exemptive order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a Fidelity® fund may lend money to, and borrow money from, other funds advised by Fidelity Management & Research Company (FMR) or its affiliates. A Fidelity® fund will borrow through the program only when the costs are equal to or lower than the costs of bank loans. A Fidelity® fund will lend through the program only when the returns are higher than those available from an investment in repurchase agreements. Interfund loans and borrowings normally extend overnight, but can have a maximum duration of seven days. Loans may be called on one day's notice. A Fidelity® fund may have to borrow from a bank at a higher interest rate if an interfund loan is called or not renewed. Any delay in repayment to a lending fund could result in a lost investment opportunity or additional borrowing costs.
Investment-Grade Debt Securities. Investment-grade debt securities include all types of debt instruments that are of medium and high-quality. Investment-grade debt securities include repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. Government securities as well as repurchase agreements collateralized by equity securities, non-investment-grade debt, and all other instruments in which a fund can perfect a security interest, provided the repurchase agreement counterparty has an investment-grade rating. Some investment-grade debt securities may possess speculative characteristics and may be more sensitive to economic changes and to changes in the financial conditions of issuers. An investment-grade rating means the security or issuer is rated investment-grade by a credit rating agency registered as a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO) with the SEC (for example, Moody's Investors Service, Inc.), or is unrated but considered to be of equivalent quality by a fund's adviser. For purposes of determining the maximum maturity of an investment-grade debt security, an adviser may take into account normal settlement periods.
Loans and Other Direct Debt Instruments. Direct debt instruments are interests in amounts owed by a corporate, governmental, or other borrower to lenders or lending syndicates (loans and loan participations), to suppliers of goods or services (trade claims or other receivables), or to other parties. Direct debt instruments involve a risk of loss in case of default or insolvency of the borrower and may offer less legal protection to the purchaser in the event of fraud or misrepresentation, or there may be a requirement that a fund supply additional cash to a borrower on demand. A fund may acquire loans by buying an assignment of all or a portion of the loan from a lender or by purchasing a loan participation from a lender or other purchaser of a participation.
Lenders and purchasers of loans and other forms of direct indebtedness depend primarily upon the creditworthiness of the borrower for payment of interest and repayment of principal. If scheduled interest or principal payments are not made, the value of the instrument may be adversely affected. Loans that are fully secured provide more protections than an unsecured loan in the event of failure to make scheduled interest or principal payments. However, there is no assurance that the liquidation of collateral from a secured loan would satisfy the borrower's obligation, or that the collateral could be liquidated. Indebtedness of borrowers whose creditworthiness is poor involves substantially greater risks and may be highly speculative. Borrowers that are in bankruptcy or restructuring may never pay off their indebtedness, or may pay only a small fraction of the amount owed. Direct indebtedness of foreign countries also involves a risk that the governmental entities responsible for the repayment of the debt may be unable, or unwilling, to pay interest and repay principal when due.
Direct lending and investments in loans through direct assignment of a financial institution's interests with respect to a loan may involve additional risks. For example, if a loan is foreclosed, the lender/purchaser could become part owner of any collateral, and would bear the costs and liabilities associated with owning and disposing of the collateral. In addition, it is conceivable that under emerging legal theories of lender liability, a purchaser could be held liable as a co-lender. Direct debt instruments may also involve a risk of insolvency of the lending bank or other intermediary.
A loan is often administered by a bank or other financial institution that acts as agent for all holders. The agent administers the terms of the loan, as specified in the loan agreement. Unless, under the terms of the loan or other indebtedness, the purchaser has direct recourse against the borrower, the purchaser may have to rely on the agent to apply appropriate credit remedies against a borrower. If assets held by the agent for the benefit of a purchaser were determined to be subject to the claims of the agent's general creditors, the purchaser might incur certain costs and delays in realizing payment on the loan or loan participation and could suffer a loss of principal or interest.
Direct indebtedness may include letters of credit, revolving credit facilities, or other standby financing commitments that obligate lenders/purchasers to make additional cash payments on demand. These commitments may have the effect of requiring a lender/purchaser to increase its investment in a borrower at a time when it would not otherwise have done so, even if the borrower's condition makes it unlikely that the amount will ever be repaid.
For a Fidelity® fund that limits the amount of total assets that it will invest in any one issuer or in issuers within the same industry, the fund generally will treat the borrower as the "issuer" of indebtedness held by the fund. In the case of loan participations where a bank or other lending institution serves as financial intermediary between a fund and the borrower, if the participation does not shift to the fund the direct debtor-creditor relationship with the borrower, SEC interpretations require a fund, in appropriate circumstances, to treat both the lending bank or other lending institution and the borrower as "issuers" for these purposes. Treating a financial intermediary as an issuer of indebtedness may restrict a fund's ability to invest in indebtedness related to a single financial intermediary, or a group of intermediaries engaged in the same industry, even if the underlying borrowers represent many different companies and industries.
Lower-Quality Debt Securities. Lower-quality debt securities include all types of debt instruments that have poor protection with respect to the payment of interest and repayment of principal, or may be in default. These securities are often considered to be speculative and involve greater risk of loss or price changes due to changes in the issuer's capacity to pay. The market prices of lower-quality debt securities may fluctuate more than those of higher-quality debt securities and may decline significantly in periods of general economic difficulty, which may follow periods of rising interest rates.
The market for lower-quality debt securities may be thinner and less active than that for higher-quality debt securities, which can adversely affect the prices at which the former are sold. Adverse publicity and changing investor perceptions may affect the liquidity of lower-quality debt securities and the ability of outside pricing services to value lower-quality debt securities.
Because the risk of default is higher for lower-quality debt securities, research and credit analysis are an especially important part of managing securities of this type. Such analysis may focus on relative values based on factors such as interest or dividend coverage, asset coverage, earnings prospects, and the experience and managerial strength of the issuer, in an attempt to identify those issuers of high-yielding securities whose financial condition is adequate to meet future obligations, has improved, or is expected to improve in the future.
A fund may choose, at its expense or in conjunction with others, to pursue litigation or otherwise to exercise its rights as a security holder to seek to protect the interests of security holders if it determines this to be in the best interest of the fund's shareholders.
Precious Metals. Precious metals, such as gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, at times have been subject to substantial price fluctuations over short periods of time and may be affected by unpredictable monetary and political policies such as currency devaluations or revaluations, economic and social conditions within a country, trade imbalances, or trade or currency restrictions between countries. The prices of gold and other precious metals, however, are less subject to local and company-specific factors than securities of individual companies. As a result, precious metals may be more or less volatile in price than securities of companies engaged in precious metals-related businesses. Investments in precious metals can present concerns such as delivery, storage and maintenance, possible illiquidity, and the unavailability of accurate market valuations. Although precious metals can be purchased in any form, including bullion and coins, a Fidelity® fund intends to purchase only those forms of precious metals that are readily marketable and that can be stored in accordance with custody regulations applicable to mutual funds. A fund may incur higher custody and transaction costs for precious metals than for securities. Also, precious metals investments do not pay income.
For a fund to qualify as a regulated investment company under current federal tax law, gains from selling precious metals may not exceed 10% of the fund's gross income for its taxable year. This tax requirement could cause a fund to hold or sell precious metals or securities when it would not otherwise do so.
Real Estate Investment Trusts. Equity real estate investment trusts own real estate properties, while mortgage real estate investment trusts make construction, development, and long-term mortgage loans. Their value may be affected by changes in the value of the underlying property of the trusts, the creditworthiness of the issuer, property taxes, interest rates, and tax and regulatory requirements, such as those relating to the environment. Both types of trusts are dependent upon management skill, are not diversified, and are subject to heavy cash flow dependency, defaults by borrowers, self-liquidation, and the possibility of failing to qualify for tax-free status of income under the Internal Revenue Code and failing to maintain exemption from the 1940 Act.
Reforms and Government Intervention in the Financial Markets. Economic downturns can trigger various economic, legal, budgetary, tax, and regulatory reforms across the globe. Instability in the financial markets in the wake of the 2008 economic downturn led the U.S. Government and other governments to take a number of unprecedented actions designed to support certain financial institutions and segments of the financial markets that experienced extreme volatility, and in some cases, a lack of liquidity. Reforms are ongoing and their effects are uncertain. Federal, state, local, foreign, and other governments, their regulatory agencies, or self-regulatory organizations may take actions that affect the regulation of the instruments in which a fund invests, or the issuers of such instruments, in ways that are unforeseeable. Reforms may also change the way in which a fund is regulated and could limit or preclude a fund's ability to achieve its investment objective or engage in certain strategies. Also, while reforms generally are intended to strengthen markets, systems, and public finances, they could affect fund expenses and the value of fund investments.
The value of a fund's holdings is also generally subject to the risk of future local, national, or global economic disturbances based on unknown weaknesses in the markets in which a fund invests. In the event of such a disturbance, the issuers of securities held by a fund may experience significant declines in the value of their assets and even cease operations, or may receive government assistance accompanied by increased restrictions on their business operations or other government intervention. In addition, it is not certain that the U.S. Government or foreign governments will intervene in response to a future market disturbance and the effect of any such future intervention cannot be predicted.
Repurchase Agreements involve an agreement to purchase a security and to sell that security back to the original seller at an agreed-upon price. The resale price reflects the purchase price plus an agreed-upon incremental amount which is unrelated to the coupon rate or maturity of the purchased security. As protection against the risk that the original seller will not fulfill its obligation, the securities are held in a separate account at a bank, marked-to-market daily, and maintained at a value at least equal to the sale price plus the accrued incremental amount. The value of the security purchased may be more or less than the price at which the counterparty has agreed to purchase the security. In addition, delays or losses could result if the other party to the agreement defaults or becomes insolvent. A fund may be limited in its ability to exercise its right to liquidate assets related to a repurchase agreement with an insolvent counterparty. A Fidelity® fund may engage in repurchase agreement transactions with parties whose creditworthiness has been reviewed and found satisfactory by the fund's adviser.
Restricted Securities are subject to legal restrictions on their sale. Difficulty in selling securities may result in a loss or be costly to a fund. Restricted securities generally can be sold in privately negotiated transactions, pursuant to an exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act), or in a registered public offering. Where registration is required, the holder of a registered security may be obligated to pay all or part of the registration expense and a considerable period may elapse between the time it decides to seek registration and the time it may be permitted to sell a security under an effective registration statement. If, during such a period, adverse market conditions were to develop, the holder might obtain a less favorable price than prevailed when it decided to seek registration of the security.
Reverse Repurchase Agreements. In a reverse repurchase agreement, a fund sells a security to another party, such as a bank or broker-dealer, in return for cash and agrees to repurchase that security at an agreed-upon price and time. A Fidelity® fund may enter into reverse repurchase agreements with parties whose creditworthiness has been reviewed and found satisfactory by the fund's adviser. Such transactions may increase fluctuations in the market value of a fund's assets and, if applicable, a fund's yield, and may be viewed as a form of leverage.
Securities Lending. A Fidelity® fund may lend securities to parties such as broker-dealers or other institutions, including an affiliate. Fidelity® funds for which Geode Capital Management, LLC (Geode) serves as sub-adviser will not lend securities to Geode or its affiliates. Securities lending allows a fund to retain ownership of the securities loaned and, at the same time, earn additional income. The borrower provides the fund with collateral in an amount at least equal to the value of the securities loaned. The fund seeks to maintain the ability to obtain the right to vote or consent on proxy proposals involving material events affecting securities loaned. If the borrower defaults on its obligation to return the securities loaned because of insolvency or other reasons, a fund could experience delays and costs in recovering the securities loaned or in gaining access to the collateral. These delays and costs could be greater for foreign securities. If a fund is not able to recover the securities loaned, the fund may sell the collateral and purchase a replacement investment in the market. The value of the collateral could decrease below the value of the replacement investment by the time the replacement investment is purchased. For a Fidelity® fund, loans will be made only to parties deemed by the fund's adviser to be in good standing and when, in the adviser's judgment, the income earned would justify the risks.
Cash received as collateral through loan transactions may be invested in other eligible securities, including shares of a money market fund. Investing this cash subjects that investment, as well as the securities loaned, to market appreciation or depreciation.
Securities of Other Investment Companies, including shares of closed-end investment companies (which include business development companies (BDCs)), unit investment trusts, and open-end investment companies, represent interests in professionally managed portfolios that may invest in any type of instrument. Investing in other investment companies involves substantially the same risks as investing directly in the underlying instruments, but may involve additional expenses at the underlying investment company-level, such as portfolio management fees and operating expenses. Fees and expenses incurred indirectly by a fund as a result of its investment in shares of one or more other investment companies generally are referred to as "acquired fund fees and expenses" and may appear as a separate line item in a fund's prospectus fee table. For certain investment companies, such as BDCs, these expenses may be significant. Certain types of investment companies, such as closed-end investment companies, issue a fixed number of shares that trade on a stock exchange or over-the-counter at a premium or a discount to their NAV. Others are continuously offered at NAV, but may also be traded in the secondary market.
The securities of closed-end funds may be leveraged. As a result, a fund may be indirectly exposed to leverage through an investment in such securities. An investment in securities of closed-end funds that use leverage may expose a fund to higher volatility in the market value of such securities and the possibility that the fund's long-term returns on such securities will be diminished.
A fund's ability to invest in securities of other investment companies may be limited by federal securities laws. To the extent a fund acquires securities issued by unaffiliated investment companies, the Adviser's access to information regarding such underlying fund's portfolio may be limited and subject to such fund's policies regarding disclosure of fund holdings.
Short Sales. Short sales involve the market sale of a security a fund has borrowed from a prime broker with which it has a contractual relationship, with the expectation that the security will underperform either the market or the securities that the fund holds long. A fund closes a short sale by purchasing the same security at the current market price and delivering it to the prime broker.
Until a fund closes out a short position, the fund is obligated to pay the prime broker (from which it borrowed the security sold short) interest as well as any dividends that accrue during the period of the loan. While a short position is outstanding, a fund must also pledge a portion of its assets to the prime broker as collateral for the borrowed security. The collateral will be marked to market daily.
Short positions create a risk that a fund will be required to cover them by buying the security at a time when the security has appreciated in value, thus resulting in a loss to the fund. A short position in a security poses more risk than holding the same security long. Because a short position loses value as the security's price increases, the loss on a short sale is theoretically unlimited. The loss on a long position is limited to what a fund originally paid for the security together with any transaction costs. A fund may not always be able to borrow a security the fund seeks to sell short at a particular time or at an acceptable price. As a result, a fund may be unable to fully implement its investment strategy due to a lack of available stocks or for other reasons. It is possible that the market value of the securities a fund holds in long positions will decline at the same time that the market value of the securities the fund has sold short increases, thereby increasing the fund's potential volatility. Because a fund may be required to pay dividends, interest, premiums and other expenses in connection with a short sale, any benefit for the fund resulting from the short sale will be decreased, and the amount of any ultimate gain will be decreased or of any loss will be increased, by the amount of such expenses.
A fund may also enter into short sales against the box. Short sales "against the box" are short sales of securities that a fund owns or has the right to obtain (equivalent in kind or amount to the securities sold short). If a fund enters into a short sale against the box, it will be required to set aside securities equivalent in kind and amount to the securities sold short (or securities convertible or exchangeable into such securities) and will be required to hold such securities while the short sale is outstanding. A fund will incur transaction costs, including interest expenses, in connection with opening, maintaining, and closing short sales against the box.
Sources of Liquidity or Credit Support. Issuers may employ various forms of credit and liquidity enhancements, including letters of credit, guarantees, swaps, puts, and demand features, and insurance provided by domestic or foreign entities such as banks and other financial institutions. An adviser and its affiliates may rely on their evaluation of the credit of the issuer or the credit of the liquidity or credit enhancement provider in determining whether to purchase or hold a security supported by such enhancement. In evaluating the credit of a foreign bank or other foreign entities, factors considered may include whether adequate public information about the entity is available and whether the entity may be subject to unfavorable political or economic developments, currency controls, or other government restrictions that might affect its ability to honor its commitment. Changes in the credit quality of the issuer and/or entity providing the enhancement could affect the value of the security or a fund's share price.
Sovereign Debt Obligations are issued or guaranteed by foreign governments or their agencies, including debt of Latin American nations or other developing countries. Sovereign debt may be in the form of conventional securities or other types of debt instruments such as loans or loan participations. Sovereign debt of developing countries may involve a high degree of risk, and may be in default or present the risk of default. Governmental entities responsible for repayment of the debt may be unable or unwilling to repay principal and pay interest when due, and may require renegotiation or rescheduling of debt payments. In addition, prospects for repayment of principal and payment of interest may depend on political as well as economic factors. Although some sovereign debt, such as Brady Bonds, is collateralized by U.S. Government securities, repayment of principal and payment of interest is not guaranteed by the U.S. Government.
Structured Securities (also called "structured notes") are derivative debt securities, the interest rate on or principal of which is determined by an unrelated indicator. The value of the interest rate on and/or the principal of structured securities is determined by reference to changes in the value of a reference instrument (e.g., a security or other financial instrument, asset, currency, interest rate, commodity, or index) or the relative change in two or more reference instruments. A structured security may be positively, negatively, or both positively and negatively indexed; that is, its value or interest rate may increase or decrease if the value of the reference instrument increases. Similarly, its value or interest rate may increase or decrease if the value of the reference instrument decreases. Further, the change in the principal amount payable with respect to, or the interest rate of, a structured security may be calculated as a multiple of the percentage change (positive or negative) in the value of the underlying reference instrument(s); therefore, the value of such structured security may be very volatile. Structured securities may entail a greater degree of market risk than other types of debt securities because the investor bears the risk of the reference instrument. Structured securities may also be more volatile, less liquid, and more difficult to accurately price than less complex securities or more traditional debt securities. In addition, because structured securities generally are traded over-the-counter, structured securities are subject to the creditworthiness of the counterparty of the structured security, and their values may decline substantially if the counterparty's creditworthiness deteriorates.
Temporary Defensive Policies. In response to market, economic, political, or other conditions, a fund may temporarily use a different investment strategy for defensive purposes. If a fund does so, different factors could affect the fund's performance and the fund may not achieve its investment objective.Strategic Advisers® Core Fund reserves the right to invest without limitation in preferred stocks and investment-grade debt instruments for temporary, defensive purposes.
Transfer Agent Bank Accounts. Proceeds from shareholder purchases of a Fidelity® fund may pass through a series of demand deposit bank accounts before being held at the fund's custodian. Redemption proceeds may pass from the custodian to the shareholder through a similar series of bank accounts.
If a bank account is registered to the transfer agent or an affiliate, who acts as an agent for the fund when opening, closing, and conducting business in the bank account, the transfer agent or an affiliate may invest overnight balances in the account in repurchase agreements. Any balances that are not invested in repurchase agreements remain in the bank account overnight. Any risks associated with such an account are investment risks of the fund. The fund faces the risk of loss of these balances if the bank becomes insolvent.
Warrants. Warrants are instruments which entitle the holder to buy an equity security at a specific price for a specific period of time. Changes in the value of a warrant do not necessarily correspond to changes in the value of its underlying security. The price of a warrant may be more volatile than the price of its underlying security, and a warrant may offer greater potential for capital appreciation as well as capital loss.
Warrants do not entitle a holder to dividends or voting rights with respect to the underlying security and do not represent any rights in the assets of the issuing company. A warrant ceases to have value if it is not exercised prior to its expiration date. These factors can make warrants more speculative than other types of investments.
Zero Coupon Bonds do not make interest payments; instead, they are sold at a discount from their face value and are redeemed at face value when they mature. Because zero coupon bonds do not pay current income, their prices can be more volatile than other types of fixed-income securities when interest rates change. In calculating a fund's dividend, a portion of the difference between a zero coupon bond's purchase price and its face value is considered income.
In addition to the investment policies and limitations discussed above, a fund is subject to the additional operational risk discussed below.
Considerations Regarding Cybersecurity. With the increased use of technologies such as the Internet to conduct business, a fund’s service providers are susceptible to operational, information security and related risks. In general, cyber incidents can result from deliberate attacks or unintentional events and may arise from external or internal sources. Cyber attacks include, but are not limited to, gaining unauthorized access to digital systems (e.g., through “hacking” or malicious software coding) for purposes of misappropriating assets or sensitive information; corrupting data, equipment or systems; or causing operational disruption. Cyber attacks may also be carried out in a manner that does not require gaining unauthorized access, such as causing denial-of-service attacks on websites (i.e., efforts to make network services unavailable to intended users). Cyber incidents affecting a fund’s manager, any sub-adviser and other service providers (including, but not limited to, fund accountants, custodians, transfer agents and financial intermediaries) have the ability to cause disruptions and impact business operations, potentially resulting in financial losses, interference with a fund’s ability to calculate its NAV, impediments to trading, the inability of fund shareholders to transact business, destruction to equipment and systems, violations of applicable privacy and other laws, regulatory fines, penalties, reputational damage, reimbursement or other compensation costs, or additional compliance costs. Similar adverse consequences could result from cyber incidents affecting issuers of securities in which a fund invests, counterparties with which a fund engages in transactions, governmental and other regulatory authorities, exchange and other financial market operators, banks, brokers, dealers, insurance companies and other financial institutions (including financial intermediaries and service providers for fund shareholders) and other parties. In addition, substantial costs may be incurred in order to prevent any cyber incidents in the future.
While a fund’s service providers have established business continuity plans in the event of, and risk management systems to prevent, such cyber incidents, there are inherent limitations in such plans and systems including the possibility that certain risks have not been identified. Furthermore, a fund cannot control the cyber security plans and systems put in place by its service providers or any other third parties whose operations may affect a fund or its shareholders. A fund and its shareholders could be negatively impacted as a result.
PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS
To the extent that Strategic Advisers grants investment management authority over an allocated portion of the fund's assets to a sub-adviser (see the section entitled "Management Contract"), that sub-adviser is authorized to provide the services described in the respective sub-advisory agreement, and in accordance with the policies described in this section.
Orders for the purchase or sale of portfolio securities are placed on behalf of the fund by Strategic Advisers (either directly or through its affiliates) or a sub-adviser, pursuant to authority contained in the management contract and the respective sub-advisory agreement.
Strategic Advisers or a sub-adviser may be responsible for the placement of portfolio securities transactions for other investment companies and investment accounts for which it has or its affiliates have investment discretion.
The fund will not incur any commissions or sales charges when it invests in affiliated funds, but it may incur such costs when it invests in non-affiliated funds and when it invests directly in other types of securities, including exchange traded funds (ETFs).
Purchases and sales of equity securities on a securities exchange or OTC are effected through brokers who receive compensation for their services. Generally, compensation relating to securities traded on foreign exchanges will be higher than compensation relating to securities traded on U.S. exchanges and may not be subject to negotiation. Compensation may also be paid in connection with principal transactions (in both OTC securities and securities listed on an exchange) and agency OTC transactions executed with an electronic communications network (ECN) or an alternative trading system. Equity securities may be purchased from underwriters at prices that include underwriting fees.
Purchases and sales of fixed-income securities are generally made with an issuer or a primary market-maker acting as principal. Although there is no stated brokerage commission paid by the fund for any fixed-income security, the price paid by the fund to an underwriter includes the disclosed underwriting fee and prices in secondary trades usually include an undisclosed dealer commission or markup reflecting the spread between the bid and ask prices of the fixed-income security. New issues of equity and fixed-income securities may also be purchased in underwritten fixed price offerings.
The Trustees of the fund periodically review Strategic Advisers' and its affiliates' and each sub-adviser's performance of their respective responsibilities in connection with the placement of portfolio securities transactions on behalf of the fund. The Trustees also review the compensation paid by the fund over representative periods of time to determine if it was reasonable in relation to the benefits to the fund.
Strategic Advisers.
The Selection of Securities Brokers and Dealers
Strategic Advisers or its affiliates generally have authority to select securities brokers (whether acting as a broker or a dealer) with which to place the fund's portfolio securities transactions. In selecting securities brokers, including affiliates of Strategic Advisers, to execute the fund's portfolio securities transactions, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates consider the factors they deem relevant in the context of a particular trade and in regard to Strategic Advisers' or its affiliates' overall responsibilities with respect to the fund and other investment accounts, including any instructions from the fund's portfolio manager, which may emphasize, for example, speed of execution over other factors. Based on the factors considered, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may choose to execute an order using ECNs or venues, including algorithmic trading, crossing networks, direct market access and program trading, or by actively working an order. Other possibly relevant factors may include, but are not limited to, the following: price; the size and type of the securities transaction; the reasonableness of compensation to be paid, including spreads and commission rates; the speed and certainty of trade executions, including broker willingness to commit capital; the nature and characteristics of the markets for the security to be purchased or sold, including the degree of specialization of the broker in such markets or securities; the availability of liquidity in the security, including the liquidity and depth afforded by a market center or market-maker; the reliability of a market center or broker; the broker's overall trading relationship with Strategic Advisers or its affiliates; the trader's assessment of whether and how closely the broker likely will follow the trader's instructions to the broker; the degree of anonymity that a particular broker or market can provide; the potential for avoiding or lessening market impact; the execution services rendered on a continuing basis; the execution efficiency, settlement capability, and financial condition of the firm; arrangements for payment of fund expenses, if applicable; and the provision of additional brokerage and research products and services, if applicable.
The trading desks through which Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may execute trades are instructed to execute portfolio transactions on behalf of the fund based on the quality of execution without any consideration of brokerage and research products and services the broker or dealer may provide. The administration of brokerage and research products and services is managed separately from the trading desks, which means that traders have no responsibility for administering soft dollar activities.
In seeking best qualitative execution for portfolio securities transactions, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may select a broker that uses a trading method, including algorithmic trading, for which the broker may charge a higher commission than its lowest available commission rate. Strategic Advisers or its affiliates also may select a broker that charges more than the lowest commission rate available from another broker. Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may execute an entire securities transaction with a broker and allocate all or a portion of the transaction and/or related commissions to a second broker where a client does not permit trading with an affiliate of Strategic Advisers or in other limited situations. In those situations, the commission rate paid to the second broker may be higher than the commission rate paid to the executing broker. For futures transactions, the selection of an FCM is generally based on the overall quality of execution and other services provided by the FCM. Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may choose to execute futures transactions electronically.
The Acquisition of Brokerage and Research Products and Services
Brokers (who are not affiliates of Strategic Advisers) that execute transactions for the fund may receive higher compensation from the fund than other brokers might have charged the fund, in recognition of the value of the brokerage or research products and services they provide to Strategic Advisers or its affiliates.
Research Products and Services. These products and services may include, when permissible under applicable law: economic, industry, company, municipal, sovereign (U.S. and non-U.S.), legal, or political research reports; market color; company meeting facilitation; compilation of securities prices, earnings, dividends and similar data; quotation services, data, information and other services; analytical computer software and services; and investment recommendations. In addition to receiving brokerage and research products and services via written reports and computer-delivered services, such reports may also be provided by telephone and in-person meetings with securities analysts, corporate and industry spokespersons, economists, academicians and government representatives and others with relevant professional expertise. Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may request that a broker provide a specific proprietary or third-party product or service. Some of these brokerage and research products and services supplement Strategic Advisers' or its affiliates' own research activities in providing investment advice to the fund. Execution Services. In addition, brokerage and research products and services may include, when permissible under applicable law, those that assist in the execution, clearing, and settlement of securities transactions, as well as other incidental functions (including, but not limited to, communication services related to trade execution, order routing and algorithmic trading, post-trade matching, exchange of messages among brokers or dealers, custodians and institutions, and the use of electronic confirmation and affirmation of institutional trades). Mixed-Use Products and Services. Although Strategic Advisers or its affiliates do not use fund commissions to pay for products or services that do not qualify as brokerage and research products and services, they may use commission dollars to obtain certain products or services that are not used exclusively in Strategic Advisers' or its affiliates' investment decision-making process (mixed-use products or services). In those circumstances, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates will make a good faith judgment to evaluate the various benefits and uses to which they intend to put the mixed-use product or service, and will pay for that portion of the mixed-use product or service that does not qualify as brokerage and research products and services with their own resources (referred to as "hard dollars"). Benefit to Strategic Advisers. Strategic Advisers' or its affiliates' expenses likely would be increased if they attempted to generate these additional brokerage and research products and services through their own efforts, or if they paid for these brokerage and research products or services with their own resources. To minimize the potential for conflicts of interest, the trading desks through which Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may execute trades are instructed to execute portfolio transactions on behalf of the fund based on the quality of execution without any consideration of brokerage and research products and services the broker or dealer may provide. The administration of brokerage and research products and services is managed separately from the trading desks, which means that traders have no responsibility for administering soft dollar activities. Furthermore, certain of the brokerage and research products and services Strategic Advisers or its affiliates receive are furnished by brokers on their own initiative, either in connection with a particular transaction or as part of their overall services. Some of these brokerage and research products or services may be provided at no additional cost to Strategic Advisers or its affiliates or have no explicit cost associated with them. In addition, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may request that a broker provide a specific proprietary or third-party product or service, certain of which third-party products or services may be provided by a broker that is not a party to a particular transaction and is not connected with the transacting broker's overall services. Strategic Advisers' Decision-Making Process. In connection with the allocation of fund brokerage, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates make a good faith determination that the compensation paid to brokers and dealers is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and/or research products and services provided to Strategic Advisers or its affiliates, viewed in terms of the particular transaction for the fund or Strategic Advisers' or its affiliates' overall responsibilities to that fund or other investment companies and investment accounts for which Strategic Advisers or its affiliates have investment discretion; however, each brokerage and research product or service received in connection with the fund's brokerage may not benefit the fund. While Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may take into account the brokerage and/or research products and services provided by a broker or dealer in determining whether compensation paid is reasonable, neither Strategic Advisers, its affiliates, nor the fund incur an obligation to any broker, dealer, or third party to pay for any brokerage and research product or service (or portion thereof) by generating a specific amount of compensation or otherwise. Typically, these brokerage and research products and services assist Strategic Advisers or its affiliates in terms of their overall investment responsibilities to the fund or any other investment companies and investment accounts for which Strategic Advisers or its affiliates have investment discretion. Certain funds or investment accounts may use brokerage commissions to acquire brokerage and research products and services that may also benefit other funds or accounts managed by Strategic Advisers or its affiliates. Research Contracts. Strategic Advisers or its affiliates have arrangements with certain third-party research providers and brokers through whom Strategic Advisers or its affiliates effect fund trades, whereby Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may pay with fund commissions or hard dollars for all or a portion of the cost of research products and services purchased from such research providers or brokers. If hard dollar payments are used, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may still cause the fund to pay more for execution than the lowest commission rate available from the broker providing research products and services to Strategic Advisers or its affiliates, or that may be available from another broker. Strategic Advisers or its affiliates view hard dollar payments for research products and services as likely to reduce the fund's total commission costs even though it is expected that in such hard dollar arrangements the commissions available for recapture and used to pay fund expenses, as described below, will decrease. Strategic Advisers' or its affiliates' determination to pay for research products and services separately is wholly voluntary on Strategic Advisers' or its affiliates' part and may be extended to additional brokers or discontinued with any broker participating in this arrangement.Commission Recapture
Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may allocate brokerage transactions to brokers (who are not affiliates of Strategic Advisers) who have entered into arrangements with Strategic Advisers or its affiliates under which the broker may rebate a portion of the compensation paid by a fund. Not all brokers with whom the fund trades have been asked to participate in brokerage commission recapture.
Affiliated Transactions
Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may place trades with certain brokers, including National Financial Services LLC (NFS) and Luminex Trading & Analytics LLC (Luminex), with whom they are under common control or affiliated, provided Strategic Advisers or its affiliates determine that these affiliates' trade-execution abilities and costs are comparable to those of non-affiliated, qualified brokerage firms. In addition, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may place trades with brokers that use NFS or Fidelity Clearing Canada ULC (FCC) as a clearing agent.
The Trustees of the fund have approved procedures whereby a fund may purchase securities that are offered in underwritings in which an affiliate of the adviser or certain other affiliates participate. In addition, for underwritings where such an affiliate participates as a principal underwriter, certain restrictions may apply that could, among other things, limit the amount of securities that the fund could purchase in the underwritings.
Non-U.S. Transactions
To facilitate trade settlement and related activities in non-United States securities transactions, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates may effect spot foreign currency transactions with foreign currency dealers. In certain circumstances, due to local law and regulation, logistical or operational challenges, or the process for settling securities transactions in certain markets (e.g., short settlement periods), spot currency transactions may be effected on behalf of funds by parties other than Strategic Advisers or its affiliates, including funds' custodian banks (working through sub-custodians or agents in the relevant non-U.S. jurisdiction) or broker-dealers that executed the related securities transaction.
Trade Allocation
Although the Trustees and officers of the fund are substantially the same as those of certain other funds managed by Strategic Advisers or its affiliates, investment decisions for the fund are made independently from those of other funds or investment accounts (including proprietary accounts) managed by Strategic Advisers or its affiliates. The same security is often held in the portfolio of more than one of these funds or investment accounts. Simultaneous transactions are inevitable when several funds and investment accounts are managed by the same investment adviser, or an affiliate thereof, particularly when the same security is suitable for the investment objective of more than one fund or investment account.
When two or more funds or investment accounts are simultaneously engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security or instrument, the prices and amounts are allocated in accordance with procedures believed by Strategic Advisers to be appropriate and equitable to each fund or investment account. In some cases this could have a detrimental effect on the price or value of the security or instrument as far as the fund is concerned. In other cases, however, the ability of the fund to participate in volume transactions will produce better executions and prices for the fund.
FIAM LLC (FIAM).
The Selection of Securities Brokers and Dealers
FIAM or its affiliates generally have authority to select securities brokers (whether acting as a broker or a dealer) with which to place the fund's portfolio securities transactions. In selecting securities brokers, including affiliates of FIAM, to execute the fund's portfolio securities transactions, FIAM or its affiliates consider the factors they deem relevant in the context of a particular trade and in regard to FIAM's or its affiliates' overall responsibilities with respect to the fund and other investment accounts, including any instructions from the fund's portfolio manager, which may emphasize, for example, speed of execution over other factors. Based on the factors considered, FIAM or its affiliates may choose to execute an order using electronic channels, including broker-sponsored algorithms, internal crossing, or by actively working an order. Other possibly relevant factors may include, but are not limited to: price; the size and type of the securities transaction; the reasonableness of compensation to be paid, including spreads and commission rates; the speed and certainty of trade executions, including broker willingness to commit capital; the nature and character of the markets for the security to be purchased or sold, including the degree of specialization of the broker in such markets or securities; the availability of liquidity in the security, including the liquidity and depth afforded by a market center or market-maker; the reliability of a market center or broker; the broker's overall trading relationship with FIAM and/or its affiliates; the trader's assessment of whether and how closely the broker likely will follow the trader's instructions to the broker; the degree of anonymity that a particular broker or market can provide; the potential for lessening or avoiding market impact; the execution services rendered on a continuing basis; the execution efficiency, settlement capability, and financial condition of the firm; arrangements for payment of fund expenses, if applicable; and the provision of additional brokerage and research products and services, if applicable and where allowed by law.
In seeking best qualitative execution for portfolio securities transactions, FIAM and/or its affiliates may select a broker that uses a trading method, including algorithmic trading, for which the broker may charge a higher commission than its lowest available commission rate. FIAM and/or its affiliates also may select a broker that charges more than the lowest commission rate available from another broker. FIAM and/or its affiliates may execute an entire securities transaction with a broker and allocate all or a portion of the transaction and/or related commissions to a second broker where a client does not permit trading with an affiliate of FIAM or in other limited situations. In those situations, the commission rate paid to the second broker is generally the same as the commission rate paid to the executing broker. For futures transactions, the selection of an FCM is generally based on the overall quality of execution and other services provided by the FCM. FIAM and/or its affiliates may choose to execute futures transactions electronically.
The Acquisition of Brokerage and Research Products and Services
To the extent permitted by applicable law, brokers (who are not affiliates of FIAM) that execute transactions for the fund managed outside of the European Union may receive higher compensation from the fund than other brokers might have charged the fund, in recognition of the value of the brokerage or research products and services they provide to FIAM or its affiliates.
Research Products and Services. These products and services may include, when permissible under applicable law, but are not limited to: economic, industry, company, municipal, sovereign (U.S. and non-U.S.), legal, or political research reports; market color; company meeting facilitation; compilation of securities prices, earnings, dividends and similar data; quotation services, data, information and other services; analytical computer software and services; and investment recommendations. FIAM or its affiliates may request that a broker provide a specific proprietary or third-party product or service. Some of these brokerage and research products and services supplement FIAM's or its affiliates' own research activities in providing investment advice to the fund. In addition to receiving brokerage and research products and services via written reports and computer-delivered services, such reports may also be provided by telephone and in-person meetings with securities analysts, corporate and industry spokespersons, economists, academicians and government representatives and others with relevant professional expertise. Execution Services. In addition, brokerage and research products and services may include, when permissible under applicable law, those that assist in the execution, clearing, and settlement of securities transactions, as well as other incidental functions (including, but not limited to, communication services related to trade execution, order routing and algorithmic trading, post-trade matching, exchange of messages among brokers or dealers, custodians and institutions, and the use of electronic confirmation and affirmation of institutional trades). Mixed-Use Products and Services. Although FIAM or its affiliates do not use fund commissions to pay for products or services that do not qualify as brokerage and research products and services or eligible external research under MiFID II and FCA regulations (as defined below), where allowed by applicable law, they may use commission dollars to obtain certain products or services that are not used exclusively in their investment decision-making process (mixed-use products or services). In those circumstances, FIAM or its affiliates will make a good faith judgment to evaluate the various benefits and uses to which they intend to put the mixed-use product or service, and will pay for that portion of the mixed-use product or service that does not qualify as brokerage and research products and services or eligible external research with their own resources (referred to as "hard dollars"). Benefits to FIAM. FIAM's or its affiliates' expenses likely would be increased if they attempted to generate these additional brokerage and research products and services through their own efforts, or if they paid for these products or services with their own resources. To minimize the potential conflicts of interest, the trading desks through which FIAM or its affiliates may execute trades are instructed to execute portfolio transactions on behalf of the fund based on the quality of execution without any consideration of brokerage and research products and services the broker or dealer may provide. The administration of brokerage and research products and services is managed separately from the trading desks, which means that traders have no responsibility for administering soft dollar activities. Furthermore, certain of the brokerage and research products and services that FIAM or its affiliates receive are furnished by brokers on their own initiative, either in connection with a particular transaction or as part of their overall services. Some of these brokerage and research products or services may be provided at no additional cost to FIAM or its affiliates or might not have an explicit cost associated with them. In addition, FIAM or its affiliates may request that a broker provide a specific proprietary or third-party product or service, certain of which third-party products or services may be provided by a broker that is not a party to a particular transaction and is not connected with the transacting broker's overall services. FIAM's Decision-Making Process. In connection with the allocation of fund brokerage, FIAM or its affiliates make a good faith determination that the compensation paid to brokers and dealers is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and/or research products and services provided to FIAM or its affiliates, viewed in terms of the particular transaction for the fund or FIAM's or its affiliates' overall responsibilities to that fund or other investment companies and investment accounts for which FIAM or its affiliates have investment discretion; however, each brokerage and research product or service received in connection with the fund's brokerage may not benefit the fund. While FIAM or its affiliates may take into account the brokerage and/or research products and services provided by a broker or dealer in determining whether compensation paid is reasonable, neither FIAM, its affiliates, nor the fund incur an obligation to any broker, dealer, or third party to pay for any brokerage and research product or service (or portion thereof) by generating a specific amount of compensation or otherwise. Typically, these brokerage and research products and services assist FIAM or its affiliates in terms of their overall investment responsibilities to the fund or any other investment companies and investment accounts for which FIAM or its affiliates have investment discretion. Certain funds or investment accounts may use brokerage commissions to acquire brokerage and research products and services that may also benefit other funds or accounts managed by FIAM or its affiliates. Research Contracts. FIAM or its affiliates have arrangements with certain third-party research providers and brokers through whom FIAM or its affiliates effect fund trades, whereby FIAM or its affiliates may pay with fund commissions or hard dollars for all or a portion of the cost of research products and services purchased from such research providers or brokers. If hard dollar payments are used, FIAM or its affiliates may still cause the fund to pay more for execution than the lowest commission rate available from the broker providing research products and services to FIAM or its affiliates, or that may be available from another broker. FIAM's or its affiliates' determination to pay for research products and services separately (e.g., with hard dollars) is wholly voluntary on FIAM's or its affiliates' part and may be extended to additional brokers or discontinued with any broker participating in this arrangement. Funds Managed within the European Union. FIAM and its affiliates have established policies and procedures relating to brokerage commission uses in compliance with the revised Markets in Financial Instruments Directive in the European Union, commonly referred to as “MiFID II”, and the implementation of MiFID II within the United Kingdom through the Conduct of Business Sourcebook Rules of the UK Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”), where applicable.Funds, or portions thereof, that are managed within the European Union by FIAM or an affiliate will use research payment accounts (RPAs) to cover costs associated with high yield and equity external research that is consumed by those accounts in accordance with MiFID II and FCA regulations. With RPAs, funds pay for external research through a separate research charge that is generally assessed and collected alongside the execution commission1. For funds that use an RPA, FIAM or its affiliates will establish a research budget. The budget will be set by first grouping accounts by strategy (e.g., asset allocation, blend, growth, etc.), and then determining what external research is consumed to support the strategies and portfolio management services provided within the European Union. In this regard, research budgets are set by research need and are not otherwise linked to the volume or value of transactions executed on behalf of the account. For funds where portions are managed both within and outside of the European Union, external research may be paid using both soft dollars and an RPA. Determinations as to what is eligible research and how costs are allocated will be made in accordance with FIAM’s and its affiliates’ policies and procedures. Costs for research consumed by funds that use an RPA will be allocated among the accounts within defined strategies pro rata based on the assets under management for each account. While the research charge paid on behalf of any one fund that uses an RPA may vary over time, the overall research charge determined at the fund level on an annual basis will not be exceeded.
If the costs of paying for external research exceed the amount collected from funds in a given strategy, FIAM or its affiliates may continue to charge those accounts beyond the agreed amount in accordance with the requirements of MiFID II, continue to acquire external research for the accounts using its own resources (referred to as “hard dollars”), or cease to purchase external research for those accounts until the next annual research budget. In the event that assets for specific funds remain in the RPA at the end of a period, they may be rolled over to the next period to offset next year’s research charges for those funds or rebated to those funds.
Funds that trade only fixed income securities will not participate in RPAs because fixed income securities trade based on spreads rather than commissions, and thus unbundling the execution commission and research charge is impractical. Therefore, FIAM and its affiliates have established policies and procedures to ensure that external research that is paid for through RPAs is not made available to portfolio managers in the European Union that manage fixed income accounts in any manner inconsistent with MiFID II and FCA regulations.
1The staff of the SEC addressed concerns that reliance on an RPA mechanism to pay for research would not be deemed a “commission” for purposes of Section 28(e) by indicating that they would not recommend enforcement against investment advisers who used an RPA to pay for research and brokerage services so long as certain conditions were met. Therefore, references to “research charges” as part of the RPA mechanism to satisfy MiFID II requirements can be considered commissions for Section 28(e) purposes.
Commission Recapture
FIAM or its affiliates may allocate brokerage transactions to brokers (who are not affiliates of FIAM) who have entered into arrangements with FIAM or its affiliates under which the broker may rebate a portion of the compensation paid by a fund. Not all brokers with whom the fund trades have been asked to participate in brokerage commission recapture.
Affiliated Transactions
FIAM or its affiliates may place trades with certain brokers, including NFS and Luminex, with whom they are under common control or affiliated, provided FIAM or its affiliates determine that these affiliates' trade execution abilities and costs are comparable to those of non-affiliated, qualified brokerage firms, and that such transactions be executed in accordance with applicable rules under the 1940 Act and procedures adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Fund and subject to other applicable law. In addition, FIAM or its affiliates may place trades with brokers that use NFS or FCC as a clearing agent.
The Trustees of the fund have approved procedures whereby a fund may purchase securities that are offered in underwritings in which an affiliate of the adviser or certain other affiliates participate. In addition, for underwritings where such an affiliate participates as a principal underwriter, certain restrictions may apply that could, among other things, limit the amount of securities that the fund could purchase in the underwritings.
Non-U.S. Securities Transactions
To facilitate trade settlement and related activities in non-United States securities transactions, FIAM or its affiliates may effect spot foreign currency transactions with foreign currency dealers or may engage a third party to do so. In certain circumstances, due to local law and regulation, logistical or operational challenges, or the process for settling securities transactions in certain markets (e.g., short settlement periods), spot currency transactions may be effected on behalf of funds by parties other than FIAM or its affiliates, including funds' custodian banks (working through sub-custodians or agents in the relevant non-U.S. jurisdiction) or broker-dealers that executed the related securities transaction.
Trade Allocation
Although the Trustees and officers of the fund are substantially the same as those of certain other Fidelity® funds, investment decisions for the fund are made independently from those of other Fidelity® funds or investment accounts (including proprietary accounts). The same security is often held in the portfolio of more than one of these funds or investment accounts. Simultaneous transactions are inevitable when several funds and investment accounts are managed by the same investment adviser, or an affiliate thereof, particularly when the same security is suitable for the investment objective of more than one fund or investment account.
When two or more funds or investment accounts are simultaneously engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security or instrument, the prices and amounts are allocated in accordance with procedures believed by FIAM to be appropriate and equitable to each fund or investment account. In some cases this could have a detrimental effect on the price or value of the security or instrument as far as the fund is concerned. In other cases, however, the ability of the fund to participate in volume transactions will produce better executions and prices for the fund.
Geode.
The Selection of Brokers
In selecting brokers or dealers (including affiliates of Strategic Advisers) to execute the fund's portfolio transactions, Geode considers factors deemed relevant in the context of a particular trade and in regard to Geode's overall responsibilities with respect to the fund and other investment accounts, including any instructions from the fund's portfolio manager, which may emphasize, for example, speed of execution over other factors. The factors considered will influence whether it is appropriate to execute an order using ECNs, electronic channels including algorithmic trading, or by actively working an order. Other factors deemed relevant may include, but are not limited to: price; the size and type of the transaction; the reasonableness of compensation to be paid, including spreads and commission rates; the speed and certainty of trade executions; the nature and characteristics of the markets for the security to be purchased or sold, including the degree of specialization of the broker in such markets or securities; the availability of liquidity in the security, including the liquidity and depth afforded by a market center or market-maker; the reliability of a market center or broker; the degree of anonymity that a particular broker or market can provide; the potential for avoiding market impact; the execution services rendered on a continuing basis; the execution efficiency, settlement capability, and financial condition of the firm; arrangements for payment of fund expenses, if applicable; and the provision of additional brokerage and research products and services, if applicable. In seeking best qualitative execution, Geode may select a broker using a trading method for which the broker may charge a higher commission than its lowest available commission rate. Geode also may select a broker that charges more than the lowest commission rate available from another broker. For futures transactions, the selection of an FCM is generally based on the overall quality of execution and other services provided by the FCM.
The Acquisition of Brokerage and Research Products and Services
Brokers (who are not affiliates of Strategic Advisers) that execute transactions for the fund may receive higher compensation from the fund than other brokers might have charged the fund, in recognition of the value of the brokerage or research products and services they provide to Geode.
Research Products and Services. These products and services may include, when permissible under applicable law: economic, industry, company, municipal, sovereign (U.S. and non-U.S.), legal, or political research reports; market color; company meeting facilitation; compilation of securities prices, earnings, dividends and similar data; quotation services, data, information and other services; analytical computer software and services; and investment recommendations. In addition to receiving brokerage and research products and services via written reports and computer-delivered services, such reports may also be provided by telephone and in person meetings with securities analysts, corporate and industry spokespersons, economists, academicians and government representatives and others with relevant professional expertise. Geode may request that a broker provide a specific proprietary or third-party product or service. Some of these products and services supplement Geode's own research activities in providing investment advice to the fund. Execution Services. In addition, products and services may include, when permissible under applicable law, those that assist in the execution, clearing, and settlement of securities transactions, as well as other incidental functions (including, but not limited to, communication services related to trade execution, order routing and algorithmic trading, post-trade matching, exchange of messages among brokers or dealers, custodians and institutions, and the use of electronic confirmation and affirmation of institutional trades). Mixed-Use Products and Services. Geode may use commission dollars to obtain certain products or services that are not used exclusively in Geode's investment decision-making process (mixed-use products or services). In those circumstances, Geode will make a good faith judgment to evaluate the various benefits and uses to which they intend to put the mixed-use product or service, and will pay for that portion of the mixed-use product or service that does not qualify as brokerage and research products and services with their own resources (referred to as "hard dollars"). Benefit to Geode. Geode's expenses would likely be increased if it attempted to generate these additional products and services through its own efforts, or if it paid for these products or services itself. Certain of the brokerage and research products and services Geode receives are furnished by brokers on their own initiative, either in connection with a particular transaction or as part of their overall services. Some of these products or services may not have an explicit cost associated with such product or service. Geode's Decision-Making Process. Before causing the fund to pay a particular level of compensation, Geode will make a good faith determination that the compensation is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and/or research products and services provided to Geode, viewed in terms of the particular transaction for the fund or Geode's overall responsibilities to the fund or other investment companies and investment accounts. While Geode may take into account the brokerage and/or research products and services provided by a broker in determining whether compensation paid is reasonable, neither Geode nor the fund incur an obligation to any broker, dealer, or third party to pay for any product or service (or portion thereof) by generating a specific amount of compensation or otherwise. Typically, these products and services assist Geode in terms of its overall investment responsibilities to the fund and other investment companies and investment accounts; however, each product or service received may not benefit the fund. Certain funds or investment accounts may use brokerage commissions to acquire brokerage and research products and services that may also benefit other funds or accounts managed by Geode.Affiliated Transactions
Geode may place trades with certain brokers, including NFS and Luminex, with whom Strategic Advisers is under common control, provided it determines that these affiliates' trade execution abilities and costs are comparable to those of non-affiliated, qualified brokerage firms.
The Trustees of the fund have approved procedures whereby a fund may purchase securities that are offered in underwritings in which an affiliate of the adviser or certain other affiliates participate. In addition, for underwritings where such an affiliate participates as a principal underwriter, certain restrictions may apply that could, among other things, limit the amount of securities that the fund could purchase in the underwritings.
Trade Allocation
Although the Trustees and officers of the fund are substantially the same as those of certain other Fidelity® funds, investment decisions for the fund are made independently from those of other Fidelity® funds or investment accounts (including proprietary accounts). The same security is often held in the portfolio of more than one of these funds or investment accounts. Simultaneous transactions are inevitable when several funds and investment accounts are managed by the same investment adviser, particularly when the same security is suitable for the investment objective of more than one fund or investment account.
When two or more funds or investment accounts are simultaneously engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security or instrument, the prices and amounts are allocated in accordance with procedures believed to be appropriate and equitable to each fund or investment account. In some cases this could have a detrimental effect on the price or value of the security or instrument as far as the fund is concerned. In other cases, however, the ability of the fund to participate in volume transactions will produce better executions and prices for the fund.
Orders for funds and investment accounts are not typically combined or "blocked". However, Geode may, when feasible and when consistent with the fair and equitable treatment of all funds and investment accounts and best execution, block orders of various funds and investment accounts for order entry and execution.
Geode has established allocation policies for its various funds and investment accounts to ensure allocations are appropriate given its clients' differing investment objectives and other considerations. When the supply/demand is insufficient to satisfy all outstanding trade orders, generally the amount executed is distributed among participating funds and investment accounts based on account asset size (for purchases and short sales), and security position size (for sales and covers), or otherwise according to the allocation policies. These policies also apply to initial public and secondary offerings. Generally, allocations are determined by traders, independent of portfolio managers, in accordance with these policies. Allocations are determined and documented on trade date.
Geode's trade allocation policies identify circumstances under which it is appropriate to deviate from the general allocation criteria and describe the alternative procedures. For example, if a standard allocation would result in a fund or investment account receiving a very small allocation (e.g., because of its small asset size), the fund or investment account may receive an increased allocation to achieve a more meaningful allocation, or it may receive no allocation. Generally, any exceptions to Geode's policies (i.e., special allocations) must be approved by senior investment or trading personnel, reviewed by the compliance department, and documented.
AllianceBernstein L.P. (AllianceBernstein).
Subject to the general oversight of the fund’s directors, AllianceBernstein is responsible for the investment decisions and the placing of orders for portfolio transactions for its portion of the fund. AllianceBernstein as sub-adviser determines the broker or dealer to be used in each specific transaction it controls with the objective of negotiating a combination of the most favorable commission (for transactions on which a commission is payable) and the best price obtainable on each transaction (generally defined as “best execution”). AllianceBernstein does not consider sales of shares of the fund’s shares or other investment service it manages as a factor in the selection of brokers and dealers to effect portfolio transactions and has adopted a policy and procedures reasonably designed to preclude such consideration.
When consistent with the objective of obtaining best execution, brokerage may be directed by to persons or firms supplying investment information to AllianceBernstein. In these cases, the transaction cost charged by the executing broker may be greater than that which another broker may charge if AllianceBernstein determines in good faith that the amount of such transaction cost is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage, research and statistical services provided by the executing broker.
The investment information provided to AllianceBernstein is of the type described in Section 28(e)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is designed to augment our own internal research and investment strategy capabilities. Research services furnished by brokers through which AllianceBernstein effects securities transactions are used by AllianceBernstein in carrying out its investment management responsibilities with respect to all its client accounts.
AllianceBernstein may deal in some instances in securities that are not listed on a national stock exchange but are traded in the over-the-counter market. AllianceBernstein may also purchase listed securities through the third market, i.e., from a dealer that is not a member of the exchange on which a security is listed. Where transactions are executed in the over-the-counter market or third market, AllianceBernstein will seek to deal with the primary market makers; but when necessary in order to obtain the best price and execution, it will utilize the services of others. In all cases, AllianceBernstein will attempt to negotiate best execution.
AllianceBernstein may, from time to time, place orders for the purchase or sale of securities (including listed call options) with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC, an affiliate of AllianceBernstein (the “Affiliated Broker”). In such instances the placement of orders with such broker would be consistent with the fund’s objective of obtaining best execution and would not be dependent upon the fact that the Affiliated Broker is an affiliate. With respect to orders placed with the Affiliated Broker for execution on a national securities exchange, commissions received must conform to Section 17(e)(2)(A) of the 1940 Act and Rule 17e-1 thereunder, which permit an affiliated person of a registered investment company (such as the fund), or any affiliated person of such person, to receive a brokerage commission from such registered investment company provided that such commission is reasonable and fair compared to the commissions received by other brokers in connection with comparable transactions involving similar securities during a comparable period of time.
AllianceBernstein’s investment decisions for the fund are made independently from those for other investment companies and other advisory accounts managed by AllianceBernstein. It may happen that the same security is held in the portfolio of the fund and one or more of such other companies or accounts. When two or more accounts managed by the portfolio manager are simultaneously engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security, the transactions are allocated by AllianceBernstein to the respective companies or accounts both as to amount and price, in accordance with a method deemed equitable to each company or account. In some cases this system may adversely affect the price paid or received by the fund or the size of the position obtainable for the fund.
Aristotle Capital Management, LLC (Aristotle Capital).
In executing trades for clients, Aristotle Capital will at all times seek to obtain the most favorable terms for each transaction reasonably available under the circumstances. In placing brokerage, Aristotle Capital will consider the full range and quality of services including, among other things, the value of research provided as well as execution capability, commission rate, financial responsibility and responsiveness. Aristotle Capital's goal, when evaluating whether best execution is obtained, is to exercise reasonable, good faith judgment to select counterparties such as broker-dealers who will consistently provide best execution.
Aristotle Capital does not maintain formal soft dollar arrangements consisting of accumulation of credits which would be used to pay for products and services covered under the safe harbor provided by Section 28(e) of the Exchange Act. Aristotle Capital may receive certain benefits from broker-dealers it uses to execute client trades where proprietary research is provided as a result of commissions paid. When receiving services under these circumstances, Aristotle Capital does so consistent with the safe harbor provided by Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Aristotle Capital will not enter into any agreement or understanding with any broker-dealer which would obligate Aristotle Capital to direct a specific amount of brokerage transactions or commissions in return for such services.
Aristotle Capital may pay more than the lowest commission rate available to brokers whose proprietary research, services, execution abilities, or other legitimate and appropriate services are particularly helpful in Aristotle Capital's investment decision making process. As part of this determination, Aristotle Capital recognizes some brokerage firms are better at executing some types of orders than others. Thus, it may be in the best interest of the clients to utilize a broker whose commission rates are not the lowest, but whose executions result in lower overall transaction costs. The overriding consideration in selecting brokers for executing portfolio orders is the maximization of client returns through a combination of controlling transaction and securities costs and seeking the most effective uses of brokers' research and execution capabilities.
Boston Partners Global Investors, Inc. (Boston Partners).
Boston Partners is responsible for the execution of portfolio transactions and the allocation of brokerage transactions for the Fund. In executing portfolio transactions, Boston Partners seeks to obtain the best price and most favorable execution for the Fund, taking into account such factors as the price (including the applicable brokerage commission or dealer spread), size of the order, difficulty of execution and operational facilities of the firm involved. While Boston Partners generally seeks reasonably competitive commission rates, payment of the lowest commission or spread is not necessarily consistent with obtaining the best price and execution in particular transactions.
Boston Partners may, consistent with the interests of the Fund and subject to the approval of the Board of Directors, select brokers on the basis of the research, statistical and pricing services they provide to the Fund and other clients of Boston Partners. Information and research received from such brokers will be in addition to, and not in lieu of, the services required to be performed by Boston Partners under its respective contracts. A commission paid to such brokers may be higher than that which another qualified broker would have charged for effecting the same transaction, provided that Boston Partners determines in good faith that such commission is reasonable in terms either of the transaction or the overall responsibility of Boston Partners to a Fund and its other clients and that the total commissions paid by a Fund will be reasonable in relation to the benefits to a Fund over the long-term.
Brandywine Global Investment Management, LLC (Brandywine Global).
As a sub-advisor to the fund, Brandywine Global seeks to obtain the most favorable total cost or proceeds in the execution of portfolio transactions. Brandywine Global considers a number of factors in determining broker selection including but not limited to: order size, price of the security, execution difficulty of the transaction, liquidity of the security, market and exchange conditions, order flow information, speed of execution desired, value if brokerage and research services provided and commission cost. The commission paid may not always reflect the lowest commission available in the market at a given point of time. Brandywine Global may receive research services from a broker in connection with initiating portfolio transactions for the fund. Such research may be available for the benefit of other accounts managed by Brandywine Global. Brandywine Global utilizes research, research-related products and other brokerage services provided to the firm on a third party research commission basis. Brandywine Global seeks to operate within the safe harbor of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In accordance with that safe harbor, Brandywine Global may execute client portfolio transactions through broker-dealers who provide research and brokerage services to Brandywine Global if Brandywine Global determines that the commissions paid are reasonable in relation to the research or brokerage services received. Trading strategy is determined on Brandywine Global's trading desk after order review by portfolio manager and trader. The portfolio managers and traders analyze brokerage and execution results through review of trading reports available through proprietary Brandywine Global systems and a third-party transaction review provider.
ClariVest Asset Management LLC (ClariVest).
ClariVest’s principal objective in selecting broker/dealers and entering Client trades is to obtain best execution for Clients’ transactions. As such, ClariVest will follow procedures to ensure that it is seeking to receive the best execution available on Client trades as there may be conflicts of interests that on occasion arise in the trading function. ClariVest’s full policy regarding portfolio transactions is contained in its Compliance Manual.
Best Execution
It is ClariVest’s policy to always seek best execution for Client securities transactions. ClariVest maintains a process for ensuring that (1) it is seeking to execute client transactions under the most favorable terms given the circumstances and (2) ClariVest has made a good faith determination that the commissions paid are reasonable in relation to the value of the services provided. All broker-dealers are unaffiliated with ClariVest. ClariVest considers the full range and quality of the broker-dealer’s service in selecting broker-dealers to meet best execution obligations, and may not pay the lowest commission rate available. ClariVest shall evaluate its efforts to seek to obtain best execution on Client trades through:
• initial review of individual broker-dealers,
• contemporaneous reviews of trading by ClariVest’s Portfolio Managers, and
• quarterly Best Execution Committee meetings. The Best Execution Committee meetings shall include the Chief Investments Officer, CCO and representatives from the Portfolio Management and Operations teams.
Historically, ClariVest has not entered into any formal soft dollar commitments/arrangements, written or verbal, explicit or implied, with any broker-dealers. A soft dollar commitment/arrangement is viewed by ClariVest as a commitment, understanding or agreement to pay increased commissions, or direct trades to a broker-dealer, in exchange for research. ClariVest has, however, executed transactions for clients with broker-dealers that provide ClariVest with research or brokerage products and services, providing lawful and appropriate assistance to the Firm in the performance of its investment decision-making responsibilities. Research and brokerage products and services received from broker-dealers are supplements to ClariVest's own research efforts. Historically ClariVest has not separately compensated broker-dealers with soft dollars for such products and services.
In 2018 with the implementation of MiFID II in Europe, we are now directly compensating trading brokers for research provided as ClariVest corporate expense.
Allocation of Trades
ClariVest’s allocation procedures seek to allocate investment opportunities among clients in the fairest possible way taking into account all clients’ best interests. ClariVest will follow procedures to ensure that allocations do not involve a practice of favoring or discriminating against any client or group of clients. The firm’s policy is to allocate all trades (initial as well as position building) on a pro-rata basis across all client accounts, unless outside factors (such as client guidelines) prevent such allocation. ClariVest performs this allocation prior to trading, and securities are subsequently allocated by the end of the trading day.
Allocation of Brokerage
Portfolio Managers seek to allocate trades across a variety of broker-dealers in an effort to minimize exposure to any single broker-dealer and to mitigate the potential negative consequences to ClariVest’s ability to obtain best execution should there be personnel or other management changes at the broker-dealers. Portfolio Managers may utilize any number of trading venues to execute transactions with a broker-dealer from ClariVest’s approved broker-dealer list.
Order Aggregation
Orders for the same security entered at the same time on behalf of more than one Client in a strategy will generally be aggregated (i.e., blocked or bunched) when possible, subject to the aggregation being in the best interests of all participating Clients. Orders for the same security entered at the same time across various strategies may be aggregated, subject to the aggregation being in the best interests of all participating Clients. All Clients participating in each aggregated order shall receive the average price and subject to minimum ticket charges, pay a pro-rata portion of commissions. Orders for the same security may be traded at the same time with different broker-dealers (and possibly obtain different execution) for a variety of reasons, including if the security is being traded differently.
Invesco Advisers, Inc. (Invesco).
The Selection of Brokers
Invesco’s primary consideration in selecting brokers or dealers to execute portfolio transactions for the fund is to obtain best execution. Invesco considers the full range and quality of a broker’s services. These services include: execution capability, execution tools, commission rate, willingness to commit capital, ability to provide anonymity, responsiveness and, when permissible under applicable law or regulation, the value of research provided. For the avoidance of doubt, Invesco will not consider the value of research provided when selecting a Broker for any trades executed by Invesco on behalf of any affiliate subject to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (“MiFID II) or where otherwise impermissible under applicable law. The determinative factor is not the lowest commission or spread available but whether the transaction represents the best qualitative execution for the fund. Invesco will not select brokers based upon their promotion or sale of fund shares.
Brokers (who are not affiliates of Invesco) that execute transactions for the fund may receive higher compensation than other brokers might have charged the fund, in recognition of the value of brokerage or other research products and services (Soft Dollar Products) they provide to Invesco or its affiliates.
Research Products and Services supplement Invesco’s own research (and the research of certain of its affiliates), and may include the following types of products and services: database, analyses related to the investment process (such as forecasts and models used in the portfolio management process), quotation/trading/news systems, economic data/forecasting tools, quantitative/technical analysis, fundamental/industry analysis, and other specialized tools.
Execution Services. Invesco also uses soft dollars to acquire products from third parties that are supplied to Invesco through brokers executing the trades or other brokers who “step in” to a transaction and receive a portion of the brokerage commission for the trade. Invesco may from time to time instruct the executing broker to allocate or “step out” a portion of a transaction to another broker. The broker to which Invesco has “stepped out” would then settle and complete the designated portion of the transaction, and the executing broker would settle and complete the remaining portion of the transaction that has not been “stepped out.” Each broker may receive a commission or brokerage fee with respect to that portion of the transaction that it settles and completes.
Mixed-Use Products and Services. If Invesco determines that any service or product has a mixed use (i.e., it also serves functions that do not assist the investment decision-making or trading process), Invesco will allocate the costs of such service or product accordingly in its reasonable discretion. Invesco will allocate brokerage commissions to brokers only for the portion of the service or product that Invesco determines assists it in the investment decision-making or trading process and will pay for the remaining value of the product or service in cash.
Benefit to Invesco. Outside research assistance is useful to Invesco because the brokers used by Invesco tend to provide more in-depth analysis of a broader universe of securities and other matters than Invesco’s staff follows. In addition, such services provide Invesco with a diverse perspective on financial markets. Some brokers may indicate that the provision of research services is dependent upon the generation of certain specified levels of commissions and underwriting concessions by Invesco’s clients. In some cases, Soft Dollar Products are available only from the broker providing them. In other cases, Soft Dollar Products may be obtainable from alternative sources in return for cash payments. Invesco believes that because broker research supplements rather than replaces Invesco’s research, the receipt of such research tends to improve the quality of Invesco’s investment advice.
Potential Conflicts. Invesco faces a potential conflict of interest when it uses client trades to obtain Soft Dollar Products. This conflict exists because Invesco is able to use the Soft Dollar Products to manage client accounts without paying cash for the Soft Dollar Products, which reduces Invesco’s expenses to the extent that Invesco would have purchased such products had they not been provided by brokers. Section 28(e) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended permits Invesco to use Soft Dollar Products for the benefit of any account it manages. Certain Invesco-managed accounts may generate soft dollars used to purchase Soft Dollar Products that ultimately benefit other Invesco-managed accounts, effectively cross subsidizing the other Invesco-managed accounts that benefit directly from the product. Invesco may not use all of the Soft Dollar Products provided by brokers through which a fund effects securities transactions in connection with managing the fund whose trades generated the soft dollars used to purchase such products.
Invesco attempts to reduce or eliminate the potential conflicts of interest concerning the use of Soft Dollar Products by directing client trades for Soft Dollar Products only if Invesco concludes that the broker supplying the product is capable of providing best execution.
Invesco’s Decision-Making Process. In choosing brokers to execute portfolio transactions for the fund, Invesco may select brokers that provide Soft Dollar Products to the funds and/or the other accounts over which Invesco and its affiliates have investment discretion. Section 28(e) provides that Invesco, under certain circumstances, lawfully may cause an account to pay a higher commission than the lowest available. Invesco must make a good faith determination that the commissions paid are “reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services provided viewed in terms of either that particular transaction or Invesco’s overall responsibilities with respect to the accounts as to which it exercises investment discretion.” The services provided by the broker also must lawfully and appropriately assist Invesco in the performance of its investment decision-making responsibilities. Accordingly, the fund may pay a broker commissions higher than those available from another broker in recognition of the broker’s provision of Soft Dollar Products to Invesco.
Allocation of Portfolio Transactions
Invesco manages numerous funds and other accounts. Some of these accounts may have investment objectives similar to the fund. Occasionally, identical securities will be appropriate for investment by one of the funds and by another fund or one or more other accounts. However, the position of each account in the same security and the length of time that each account may hold its investment in the same security may vary. Invesco will also determine the timing and amount of purchases for an account based on its cash position. If the purchase or sale of securities is consistent with the investment policies of the fund(s) and one or more other accounts, and is considered at or about the same time, Invesco will allocate transactions in such securities among the fund(s) and these accounts on a pro rata basis based on order size or in such other manner believed by Invesco to be fair and equitable. Invesco may combine transactions in accordance with applicable laws and regulations to obtain the most favorable execution. Simultaneous transactions could, however, adversely affect a fund’s ability to obtain or dispose of the full amount of a security which it seeks to purchase or sell.
J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (JPMorgan).
In connection with portfolio transactions, the overriding objective is to obtain the best execution of purchase and sales orders. In making this determination, JPMorgan 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, JPMorgan may cause the fund to pay a broker-dealer which provides brokerage and research services to JPMorgan, or the fund and/or other accounts for which JPMorgan exercises investment discretion an amount of commission for effecting a securities transaction for the fund in excess of the amount other broker-dealers would have charged for the transaction if JPMorgan 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 JPMorgan’s overall responsibilities to accounts over which it exercises investment discretion. Not all such services are useful or of value in advising the fund. JPMorgan reports to the Board of Trustees regarding overall commissions paid by the fund and their reasonableness in relation to the benefits to the fund. 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 will be in addition to, and not in lieu of, the services required to be performed by JPMorgan under the sub-advisory agreement. The fees that the fund pays to JPMorgan are not reduced as a consequence of JPMorgan’s receipt of brokerage and research services. To the extent the fund’s portfolio transactions are used to obtain such services, the brokerage commissions paid by the fund 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 JPMorgan 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 JPMorgan in carrying out its obligations to the fund. While such services are not expected to reduce the expenses of JPMorgan, JPMorgan 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, JPMorgan may allocate a portion of the fund’s brokerage transactions to affiliates of JPMorgan. Under the 1940 Act, persons affiliated with the 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. An affiliated person of the 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, the 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. JPMorgan 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 JPMorgan. 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 the fund and all other accounts over which the same investment adviser has discretion, and that no shares will be purchased from JPMorgan Distribution Services or any of its affiliates.
On those occasions when JPMorgan deems the purchase or sale of a security to be in the best interests of the fund as well as other customers, including other funds, JPMorgan, to the extent permitted by applicable laws and regulations, may, but is not obligated to, aggregate the securities to be sold or purchased for the 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 JPMorgan in the manner it considers to be most equitable and consistent with its fiduciary obligations to its customers, including the fund. In some instances, the allocation procedure might not permit the fund to participate in the benefits of the aggregated trade.
Allocation of transactions, including their frequency, to various broker-dealers is determined by JPMorgan based on its best judgment and in a manner deemed fair and reasonable to shareholders and consistent with JPMorgan’s obligation to obtain the best execution of purchase and sales orders. In making this determination, JPMorgan 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, JPMorgan 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 fund and/or other accounts over which JPMorgan exercises investment discretion. JPMorgan may cause the 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 JPMorgan 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 JPMorgan to the fund. 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 fund should understand that the services provided by such brokers may be useful to JPMorgan in connection with its services to other clients and not all the services may be used by JPMorgan in connection with the fund.
Under the policy for JPMorgan, “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 JPMorgan to allocate client brokerage transactions to a broker-dealer 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 fund receives 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 fund does not participate in soft dollar arrangements for market data services and third-party research.
Investment decisions for each fund are made independently from those for the other funds or any other investment company or account managed by JPMorgan. Any such other investment company or account may also invest in the same securities as the Trusts. When a purchase or sale of the same security is made at substantially the same time on behalf of a given fund and another fund, investment company or account, the transaction will be averaged as to price, and available investments allocated as to amount, in a manner which JPMorgan 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 the fund or the size of the position obtained by the fund.
To the extent permitted by law, JPMorgan may aggregate the securities to be sold or purchased by it for the 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 Trusts, JPMorgan will not inquire or take into consideration whether an issuer of securities proposed for purchase or sale by the Trusts is a customer of JPMorgan or their parents or subsidiaries or affiliates and in dealing with its commercial customers, JPMorgan and their respective parent, subsidiaries, and affiliates will not inquire or take into consideration whether securities of such customers are held by the Trusts.
Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. (Loomis Sayles).
Portfolio Transactions
In placing orders for the purchase and sale of equity securities, Loomis Sayles selects only brokers that it believes are financially responsible, will provide efficient and effective services in executing, clearing and settling an order and will charge commission rates that, when combined with the quality of the foregoing services, will produce the best price and execution for the transaction. This does not necessarily mean that the lowest available brokerage commission will be paid. However, the commissions are believed to be competitive with generally prevailing rates. Loomis Sayles will use its best efforts to obtain information as to the general level of commission rates being charged by the brokerage community from time to time and will evaluate the overall reasonableness of brokerage commissions paid on transactions by reference to such data. In making such evaluation, all factors affecting liquidity and execution of the order, as well as the amount of the capital commitment by the broker in connection with the order, are taken into account. Other relevant factors may include, without limitation: (a) the execution capabilities of the brokers or dealers, (b) research and other products or services (as described in the section “Soft Dollars” below) provided by such brokers or dealers which are expected to enhance Loomis Sayles’ general portfolio management capabilities, (c) the size of the transaction, (d) the difficulty of execution, (e) the operations facilities of the brokers or dealers involved, (f) the risk in positioning a block of securities, (g) the quality of the overall brokerage and research services provided by the broker or dealer, and (h) fair dealing.
Loomis Sayles may place orders for a fund which, combined with orders for its other clients, may impact the price of the relevant security. This could cause a fund to obtain a worse price on the transaction than would otherwise be the case if the orders were placed in smaller amounts or spread out over a longer period of time.
Subject to the overriding objective of obtaining the best possible execution of orders, Loomis Sayles may allocate brokerage transactions to affiliated brokers. Any such transactions will comply with Rule 17e-1 under the 1940 Act. In order for the affiliated broker to effect portfolio transactions, the commissions, fees or other remuneration received by the affiliated broker must be reasonable and fair compared to the commissions, fees and other remuneration paid to other brokers in connection with comparable transactions involving similar securities being purchased or sold on a securities exchange during a comparable period.
Generally, Loomis Sayles seeks to obtain quality executions at favorable security prices and at competitive commission rates, where applicable, through brokers and dealers who, in Loomis Sayles’ opinion, can provide the best overall net results for its clients. Transactions in equity securities are frequently executed through a primary market maker, but may also be executed on an Electronic Communication Network (ECN), Alternative Trading System (ATS), or other execution system. Equity securities may also be purchased from underwriters at prices which include underwriting fees.
Soft Dollars
Loomis Sayles’ receipt of brokerage and research products or services are factors in Loomis Sayles’ selection of a broker-dealer to execute transactions for client accounts where Loomis Sayles believes that the broker-dealer will provide quality execution of the transactions. Such brokerage and research products or services may be paid for with Loomis Sayles’ own assets or may, in connection with transactions in equity securities effected for client accounts for which Loomis Sayles exercises investment discretion, be paid for with client commissions (i.e. “soft dollars”).
For purposes of this soft dollars discussion, the term “commission” includes commissions paid to brokers in connection with transactions effected on an agency basis. Loomis Sayles does not generate soft dollars on fixed income transactions. However, certain fixed income accounts that invest in equities may generate soft dollars on said equity transactions. Furthermore, certain fixed income accounts that invest in equities may prohibit soft dollars.
Loomis Sayles will only acquire research and brokerage products and services with soft dollars if they qualify as eligible products and services under the safe harbor of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Eligible research services and products that may be acquired by Loomis Sayles are those products and services that may provide advice, analysis or reports that will aid Loomis Sayles in carrying out its investment decision-making responsibilities. Eligible research must reflect the expression of reasoning or knowledge (having inherently intangible and non-physical attributes) and may include the following research items: traditional research reports; discussions with research analysts and corporate executives; seminars or conferences; financial and economic publications that are not targeted to a wide public audience; software that provides analysis of securities portfolios; market research including pre-trade and post-trade analytics; and market data. Eligible brokerage services and products that may be acquired by Loomis Sayles are those services or products that (i) are required to effect securities transactions; (ii) perform functions incidental to securities transactions; or (iii) are services that are required by an applicable self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) or SEC rule(s). The brokerage and research products or services provided to Loomis Sayles by a particular broker-dealer may include both (a) products and services created by such broker-dealer, (b) products and services created by other broker-dealers, and (c) products and services created by a third party (“third-party services”). All soft dollar services are reviewed and approved by Loomis Sayles’ Chief Compliance Officer.
If Loomis Sayles receives a particular product or service that both aids it in carrying out its investment decision-making responsibilities (i.e., a “research use”) and provides non-research related uses, Loomis Sayles will make a good faith determination as to the allocation of the cost of such “mixed-use item” between the research and non-research uses, and will only use soft dollars to pay for the portion of the cost relating to its research use. As of the date of this Brochure, there are no mixed-use services being provided to Loomis Sayles.
In connection with Loomis Sayles’ use of soft dollars, a client’s account may pay a broker-dealer an amount of commission for effecting a transaction for the client’s account in excess of the amount of commission it or another broker-dealer would have charged for effecting that transaction if Loomis Sayles determines in good faith that the amount of commission is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research products or services provided by the broker-dealer, viewed in terms of either the particular transaction or Loomis Sayles’ overall responsibilities with respect to the accounts as to which Loomis Sayles exercises investment discretion.
Loomis Sayles may use soft dollars to acquire brokerage or research products and services that have potential application to all client accounts or to a certain group of client accounts. However, the products or services may not be used in connection with the management of some of the accounts which paid commissions to the broker-dealer providing the products or services and may be used in connection with the management of other accounts. Furthermore, while some clients do not generate soft dollar commissions, such as Wrap/Model Program clients, clients with directed brokerage or zero commission arrangements (which may limit or prevent Loomis Sayles from using such clients’ commissions to pay for research and research services), and certain fixed income accounts, they may still benefit from the research provided to Loomis Sayles in connection with other transactions placed for other clients. As a result, certain clients may have more of their commissions directed for research and research services than others.
Loomis Sayles’ use of soft dollars to acquire brokerage and research products and services benefits Loomis Sayles by allowing it to obtain such products and services without having to purchase them with its own assets. Loomis Sayles believes that its use of soft dollars also benefits client accounts as described above.
Client Commission Arrangements
Loomis Sayles has entered into several client commission arrangements (“CCAs”) (also known as commission sharing arrangements) with some of its key broker-dealer relationships. Over the past few years, Loomis Sayles has significantly reduced the number of brokers with which it will trade. In a CCA, subject to best execution, Loomis Sayles will allocate a higher portion of its clients’ equity trading with broker-dealers who unbundle their commission rates in order to enable Loomis Sayles to separately negotiate rates for execution and research and research services. The execution rates Loomis Sayles has negotiated with such firms vary depending on the type of orders Loomis Sayles executes with the CCAs (i.e. electronic or traditional).
Pursuant to the CCA agreements Loomis Sayles has with these broker-dealers, each firm will pool the research commissions accumulated during a calendar quarter and then, at the direction of Loomis Sayles, pay various broker-dealers and third party services from this pool for the research and research services such firms have provided to Loomis Sayles. These CCAs are deemed to be soft dollar arrangements, and Loomis Sayles and each CCA intends to comply with the applicable requirements of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as the Commission Guidance Regarding Client Commission Practices under Section 28(e) in the SEC Release No. 34-54165 dated July 18, 2006.
Throughout the quarter, the Loomis Sayles’ equity portfolio managers, research analysts and strategists assess a value on the research they have received, which can include without limitation: research and other services, idea generation, models, expert consultants, political and economic analysts, technical analysts, discussions with research analysts and corporate executives, seminars and conferences. Loomis Sayles uses a software system from a third party vendor CommciseBuy (“Commcise”), that provides integrated commission management and research valuation functionality. Commcise is used to: track the Research that is provided to and consumed by Loomis Sayles’ investment professionals, assess the quality and value of said Research, reconcile the soft dollars generated, track consumption relative to budgets, instruct our CCAs on the payments to our Research providers, and provide an audit trail of Loomis Sayles’ research consumption.
The CCAs enable Loomis Sayles to strengthen its relationships with its key broker-dealers, and limit the broker-dealers with whom it trades to those with whom it has FIX connectivity, while still maintaining the research relationships with broker-dealers that provide Loomis Sayles with research and research services. In addition, the ability to unbundle the execution and research components of commissions enables Loomis Sayles to provide greater transparency to its clients in their commission reports.
In addition to trading with the CCA broker-dealers discussed above, Loomis Sayles continues to trade with full service broker-dealers and ECNs, ATSs and other electronic systems.
As a result of guidance from the UK Financial Conduct Authority, Loomis Sayles pays broker-dealers a “Corporate Access” arrangement fee in hard dollars in connection with the Corporate Access meetings attended by investment team members who manage equity accounts of clients organized in the United Kingdom.
Aggregation of Orders
When Loomis Sayles believes it is desirable, appropriate and feasible to purchase or sell the same security for a number of client accounts at the same time, Loomis Sayles may (but is not obligated to) aggregate its clients’ orders (“Aggregated Orders”), including orders on behalf of affiliated clients and hedge funds, in a way that seeks to obtain more favorable executions, in terms of the price at which the security is purchased or sold, the cost of the execution of the orders, and the efficiency of the processing of the transactions. Subject to certain exceptions, all client accounts participating in an Aggregated Order, including affiliated clients and hedge funds, will participate at the average price at which the Aggregated Order was executed and will bear a pro rata portion of the execution cost of the Aggregated Order.
Orders may be (but are not required to be) added to a block over a reasonable period of time during the trading day without first allocating executed shares if the traders believe that the additional orders are based on the same news item, analyst recommendation or other triggering event that prompted the first order.
Although Loomis Sayles believes that the ability to aggregate orders for client accounts will in general benefit its clients as a whole over time, in any particular instance, such aggregation may result in a less favorable price or execution for any particular client than might have been obtained if a particular transaction had been effected on an unaggregated basis.
With respect to client accounts that have provided Loomis Sayles with directions to use specific brokers or dealers to execute some or all of their trades, compliance with such directions may in some instances result in such a directed brokerage account not participating in an Aggregated Order. As a result, the directed brokerage account may receive a less favorable price or execution, or incur higher execution costs, in particular transactions than if the directed brokerage account had participated in an Aggregated Order with other client accounts.
LSV Asset Management (LSV).
In selecting brokers for transactions, LSV uses its best judgment to choose the broker most capable of providing the brokerage services necessary to obtain the best available price and most favorable execution, i.e., the price and commission which provides the most favorable total cost and proceeds reasonably obtainable under the circumstances. Brokers may be selected on the basis of such factors as the following: the ability to match up natural order flow; the ability to control anonymity; timing or price limits; the quality of the back office; commission rates; use of automation; and/or the ability to provide information relating to the particular transaction or security. LSV periodically evaluates the quality of these brokerage services as provided by various firms.
LSV does not consider itself obligated to choose the broker offering the lowest available commission rate provided that the rate paid is for execution only. LSV keeps informed of rate structures offered by the brokerage community. In the selection of brokers, LSV does not solicit principal or competitive bids unless there is a clear indication that doing so would be in the best interest of its clients. LSV uses algorithmic trading and crossing networks in order to minimize market impact and to trade more efficiently.
LSV may be in the position of buying or selling the same security for a number of its clients at roughly the same time. LSV will aggregate such transactions if it believes such aggregation is consistent with its duty to seek best execution for its clients and is consistent with the terms of LSV's investment advisory agreement with each client for which trades are being aggregated.
Because of market fluctuations, the prices obtained on such aggregated transactions within a single day may vary substantially. In order to more equitably allocate the effects of such market fluctuations, for certain transactions, LSV may use an "averaging" procedure. Under this procedure, purchases or sales of a particular security for a client's account will at times be combined with purchases or sales of the same security for other clients on the same day. In such cases, the price shown on the confirmation of the client's purchase or sale will be the average execution price on all of the purchases and sales that are aggregated for this purpose. LSV does not step-out trades from aggregated transactions. Commission costs will be shared pro-rata based on each client's participation in the transactions.
Massachusetts Financial Services Company (MFS).
Specific decisions to purchase or sell securities for the Fund are made by persons affiliated with MFS. Any such person may serve other clients of MFS or any subsidiary of MFS in a similar capacity.
MFS places all Fund orders for the purchase or sale of securities with the primary objective of seeking to obtain the best execution from responsible broker/dealers at competitive rates. MFS seeks to deal with broker/dealers that can provide high quality execution services. For accounts managed in whole or in part in the European Union, MFS may take the following factors into account: price; the size of the transaction; the nature of the market of the security; the amount of the commission; the timing and impact of the transaction, considering market prices and trends; the reputation, experience, and financial stability of the broker/dealer involved; the willingness of the broker/dealer to commit capital; the need for anonymity in the market; and the quality of services rendered by the broker/dealer in other transactions (but not including research or brokerage services). For accounts not managed in whole or in part in the European Union, MFS may take the following factors into account: price; the size of the transaction; the nature of the market of the security; the amount of the commission; the timing and impact of the transaction, considering market prices and trends; the reputation, experience, and financial stability of the broker/dealer involved; the willingness of the broker/dealer to commit capital; the need for anonymity in the market; and the quality of services rendered by the broker/dealer in other transactions, which may include the quality of the research and brokerage services provided by the broker/dealer. MFS may place Fund orders with Luminex Trading & Analytics LLC, an alternative trading system in which MFS owns approximately 4.9%.
In certain circumstances, such as a buy-in for failure to deliver, MFS is not able to select the broker/dealer who will transact to cover the failure. For example, if the Fund sells a security short and is unable to deliver the securities sold short, the broker/dealer through whom the Fund sold short must deliver securities purchased for cash, (i.e., effect a buy-in, unless it knows that the Fund either is in the process of forwarding the securities to the broker/dealer or will do so as soon as possible without undue inconvenience or expense). Similarly, there can also be a failure to deliver in a long transaction and a resulting buy-in by the broker/dealer through whom the securities were sold. If the broker/dealer effects a buy-in, MFS will be unable to control the trading techniques, methods, venues, or any other aspect of the trade used by the broker/dealer.
Commission rates for equity securities and some derivatives vary depending upon the trading methods, venues, and broker/dealers selected as well as the market(s) in which the securities are traded and their relative liquidity. MFS may utilize numerous broker/dealers and trading venues and strategies in order to seek the best execution for client transactions. MFS periodically and systematically reviews the performance of the broker/dealers that execute Fund transactions, including the commission rates paid to broker/dealers. The quality of a broker/dealer’s services is measured by analyzing various factors that could affect the execution of trades. These factors include the ability to execute trades with a minimum of market impact, the speed and efficiency of executions, electronic trading capabilities, adequacy of capital, commitment of capital when necessary or desirable, market color provided to MFS, and accommodation of MFS' special needs. MFS may employ outside vendors to provide reports on the quality of broker/dealer executions. With respect to transactions in derivatives, MFS trades only with broker/dealers with whom it has legally-required or client-requested documentation in place.
In the case of securities traded in the over-the-counter market, portfolio transactions may be effected either on an agency basis, which involves the payment of negotiated brokerage commissions to the broker/dealer (including electronic communication networks, multilateral trading facilities, or alternative trading systems), or on a principal basis, at net prices without commissions but including compensation to the broker/dealer in the form of a mark-up or mark-down, depending on where MFS believes best execution is available. In the case of securities purchased from underwriters, the cost of such securities generally includes a fixed underwriting commission or concession. From time to time, soliciting dealer fees are available to MFS on tender or exchange offers. Such soliciting or dealer fees are in effect recaptured by the Fund.
For accounts managed in whole or in part in the European Union, MFS will pay for external research out of its own resources. In allocating brokerage for accounts not managed in whole or in part in the European Union, MFS may take into consideration the receipt of research and brokerage services, consistent with its obligation to seek best execution for Fund transactions. As permitted by Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (‘‘Section 28(e)’’), MFS may cause the Fund to pay a broker/dealer that provides “Brokerage and Research Services” (as defined by Section 28(e)) to MFS an amount of commission for effecting a securities transaction for the Fund in excess of the amount other broker/dealers would have charged for the transaction if MFS 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 MFS' overall responsibilities to the Fund and its other clients. MFS has voluntarily undertaken to reimburse clients from its own resources for Research Commissions, as defined below. ‘‘Commissions,’’ as currently interpreted by the SEC, include fees paid to broker/dealers for trades conducted on an agency basis, and certain mark-ups, markdowns, commission equivalents, and other fees received by broker/dealers in riskless principal transactions, as well as any separately identifiable charge for Brokerage and Research Services collected together with the transaction charge for execution in connection with the purchase and sale of portfolio securities. "Research Commissions" represent the portion of Commissions that is paid on client transactions in excess of the portion that compensates the broker/dealer for executing, clearing, and/or settling the transaction.
Brokerage and Research Services includes advice as to the value of securities; the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities; and the availability of securities or purchasers or sellers of securities; furnishing analyses and reports concerning issuers, industries, securities, economic factors and trends, portfolio strategy, and the performance of portfolios; and effecting securities transactions and performing functions incidental thereto (such as clearance and settlement) or required in connection therewith by applicable rules. Such services can include access to corporate management; industry conferences; research field trips to visit corporate management and/or to tour manufacturing, production, or distribution facilities; statistical, research, and other factual information or services such as: investment research reports; access to analysts; execution systems and trading analytics; reports or databases containing corporate, fundamental, and technical analyses; portfolio modeling strategies; and economic research services, such as publications, chart services, and advice from economists concerning macroeconomics information, and analytical investment information about particular corporations (collectively, "Research").
The MFS global investment platform is built on the principle of close collaboration among members of its investment team, where research and investment ideas are shared. MFS the investment professionals utilize Research to help develop their own investment ideas as well as to help understand market consensus, sentiment, or perception, and identify relative inefficiencies more quickly and effectively. Research is one of many tools MFS uses to either corroborate or challenge investment professionals' individual investment theses in clients' portfolios. Specifically, Research can be useful in helping investment professionals understand current market consensus and sentiment.
Through the use of Research acquired with Research Commissions, MFS initially avoids the additional expenses that it would incur if it developed comparable information through its own staff or if it purchased such Research with its own resources. As a result, the Fund pays more for its portfolio transactions in the first instance than if MFS caused the Fund to pay execution only rates; however, because MFS has voluntarily undertaken to reimburse clients from its own resources for Research Commissions, MFS ultimately assumes the additional expenses that it would incur if it purchased such Research with its own resources. To the extent that MFS were to determine to discontinue its voluntary undertaking, it may have an incentive to select or recommend a broker/dealer based on its interest in receiving Research rather than the Fund's interest in receiving lower commission rates. The Research received may be useful and of value to MFS or its affiliates in serving both the Fund and other clients of MFS or its affiliates. Accordingly, not all of the Research provided by broker/dealers through which the Fund effects securities transactions may be used by MFS in connection with the Fund.
PineBridge Investments LLC (PineBridge Investments).
PineBridge Investments has a fiduciary duty to seek best execution when effecting securities transactions on behalf of its Clients. To fulfill this obligation, PineBridge Investments must not only seek for each transaction, the most favorable commission costs or proceeds under the circumstances, but also the best qualitative execution. Generally, equity securities are bought and sold through brokerage transactions for which commissions are payable. PineBridge Investments does not expect to use one particular broker, and when one or more brokers is believed capable of providing the best combination of price and execution, PineBridge Investments may select a broker based upon brokerage or research services provided to PineBridge Investments. PineBridge Investments may pay a higher commission than otherwise obtainable from other brokers in return for such services only if a good faith determination is made that the commission is reasonable in relation to the services provided. In placing trade orders in connection with PineBridge Investments' various investment strategies and investment transactions, PineBridge Investments will seek to obtain the most favorable terms and quality of execution for each transaction reasonably available. PineBridge Investments may consider the full range and quality of a broker-dealer's services including, among other things, the execution capability, commission rate, financial condition and responsibility, responsiveness, and the value of research provided. It is the responsibility of PineBridge Investments' investment and/or trading teams to seek to ensure that firm approved broker-dealers are selected for the execution of trades by PineBridge Investments and that they are evaluated in a manner consistent with the Policy.
In some instances, PineBridge Investments may receive products and services that may be used for both research and non-research purposes. In such instances, PineBridge Investments will make a good faith effort to determine the relative proportion of the products and services used for research purposes and the relative proportion used for non-research purposes. The proportion of the products and services attributable to research purposes may be paid through brokerage commissions generated by client transactions if they qualify as eligible products and services under the safe harbor of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; the proportion attributable to non-research purposes will be paid for by PineBridge Investments from its own resources.
It is the policy of PineBridge Investments to allocate investment opportunities and transactions it identifies as being appropriate and prudent among its clients on a fair and equitable basis over time. PineBridge Investments may place a combined order for two or more accounts it manages, including the Fund, engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security if, in its judgment, joint execution is in the best interest of each participant and will result in best price and execution. Transactions involving commingled orders are allocated in a manner deemed equitable to each account or fund. Although it is recognized that, in some cases, the joint execution of orders could adversely affect the price or volume of the security that a particular account or the Fund may obtain, it is the opinion of PineBridge Investments that the advantages of combined orders outweigh the possible disadvantages of combined orders.
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (T. Rowe Price) and T. Rowe Price International Ltd. (TRPIL).
Investment or Brokerage Discretion
Decisions with respect to the selection, purchase, and sale of portfolio securities on behalf of an allocated portion of the fund’s assets (the sub-fund) are made by T. Rowe Price. T. Rowe Price is responsible for implementing the decisions for the sub-fund, including, where applicable, the negotiation of commissions, the allocation of portfolio brokerage and principal business, and the use of affiliates to assist in routing orders for execution.
How Broker-Dealers Are Selected
In purchasing and selling equity securities, T. Rowe Price seeks to obtain best execution at favorable security prices through responsible broker-dealers and, in the case of agency transactions, at competitive commission rates. However, under certain conditions, higher brokerage commissions may be paid to broker-dealers providing brokerage and research services to T. Rowe Price than might be paid to other broker-dealers in accordance with Section 28(e) under the 1934 Act and subsequent guidance from regulators.
In selecting broker-dealers to execute T. Rowe Price’s portfolio transactions, consideration is given to such factors as the (i) liquidity of the security; (ii) the size and difficulty of the order; (iii) the speed and likelihood of execution and settlement; (iv) the reliability, integrity and creditworthiness, general execution and operational capabilities of competing broker-dealers and services provided; and (v) expertise in particular markets. It is not the policy of T. Rowe Price to seek the lowest available commission rate where it is believed that a broker-dealer charging a higher commission rate would offer greater reliability, provide better pricing, or more efficient execution. Therefore, T. Rowe Price pays higher commission rates to broker-dealers that are believed to offer greater reliability, better pricing, or more efficient execution.
T. Rowe Price may engage in foreign currency transactions ("FX") to facilitate trading in or settlement of trades in foreign securities. T. Rowe Price may use FX, including forward currency contracts, when seeking to manage exposure to or profit from changes in interest or exchange rates; protect the value of portfolio securities; or to facilitate cash management. T. Rowe Price selects broker-dealers that it believes will provide best execution on behalf of the investment accounts that it manages, frequently via electronic platforms. To minimize transaction costs, certain FX trading activity may be aggregated across accounts, but each account’s trade is individually settled with the counterparty.
In general, T. Rowe Price utilizes a broad spectrum of execution venues including traditional stock exchanges, electronic communication networks, alternative trading systems, and algorithmic solutions. In selecting a venue, T. Rowe Price seeks broker-dealers it believes to be actively and effectively trading the security being purchased or sold. Although T. Rowe Price may not be able to influence the venues where broker-dealers execute, it may request that a broker-dealer not route orders to certain venues it feels may not provide best execution. T. Rowe Price monitors brokers’ venue selection over time to evaluate trends and quality of execution.
Evaluating the Overall Reasonableness of Brokerage Commissions Paid
On a continuing basis, T. Rowe Price seeks to determine what levels of commission rates are reasonable in the marketplace for transactions executed on behalf of its mutual fund clients and other institutional clients. In evaluating the reasonableness of commission rates, T. Rowe Price may consider any or all of the following: (a) rates quoted by broker-dealers; (b) the size of a particular transaction, in terms of the number of shares, dollar amount, and number of clients involved; (c) the complexity of a particular transaction in terms of both execution and settlement; (d) the level and type of business conducted with a particular firm over a period of time; (e) the extent to which the broker-dealer has capital at risk in the transaction; (f) historical commission rates; (g) rates paid by other institutional investors based on available public information; and (h) research provided by the broker-dealer.
Commissions Paid to Broker-Dealers for Research
T. Rowe Price believes that original in-house research is the primary driver of value-added active management. Although proprietary and third party research from broker-dealers and independent third party research providers (external research) is an important component of T. Rowe Price’s investment approach, T. Rowe Price relies primarily upon its own research and subjects any outside research to internal analysis before incorporating it into the investment process. Research received from broker-dealers or independent third party research providers generally include information on the economy, industries, groups of securities, individual companies, statistical information, accounting and tax law interpretations, political developments, legal developments affecting portfolio securities, technical market action, pricing and appraisal services, credit analysis, currency and commodity market analysis, risk measurement analysis, performance analysis, and analysis of corporate, environmental, social and governance responsibility issues. Research services are received in the form of written reports, computer-generated data telephone contacts, investment conferences, bespoke services, financial models and personal meetings with security analysts, market specialists, corporate and industry executives, and other persons. Research may also include access to unaffiliated individuals with expertise in various industries, businesses, or other related areas, including use of expert referral networks which provide access to industry consultants, vendors, and suppliers. T. Rowe Price may use a limited number of expert networks and such use is closely monitored to ensure compliance with internal guidelines. T. Rowe Price may also use certain broker provided direct phone lines (“connectivity”) which provide direct access to broker-dealers as permitted. T. Rowe Price may receive proprietary research from broker-dealers who also provide trade execution, clearing, settlement and/or other services. Proprietary research may include research from an affiliate of the broker-dealer.
T. Rowe Price may use equity brokerage commissions or "soft dollars” consistent with Section 28(e) under the 1934 Act ("Section 28(e)") and other relevant regulatory guidance to pay for external research and services. Section 28(e) permits an investment adviser to cause an account to pay a higher commission to a broker-dealer that provides research services than the commission another broker-dealer would charge, provided the adviser seeks best execution and determines in good faith that the commission paid is reasonable in relation to the value of the brokerage and research services provided. An adviser may make this good faith determination based upon either the particular transaction involved or the overall responsibilities of the adviser with respect to the accounts over which it exercises investment discretion.
T. Rowe Price uses equity brokerage commissions to acquire external research through commission sharing arrangements ("CSAs") established with various broker-dealers. T. Rowe Price maintains CSAs with broker-dealers who provide “high touch” (which involves a fuller scope of services such as enhanced execution and liquidity services, among others) and “low touch” trading (which involves some form of electronic trading). Under these arrangements, broker-dealers retain the execution component of the brokerage commission as compensation for execution services and segregate a portion of the commission for research services. T. Rowe Price then requests research services to be paid for using the CSA assets.
Research payments are collected until the research budget targets established for the accounts managed by T. Rowe Price are reached, after which these accounts transact at execution only rates for the remainder of the applicable period. TRPIL pays for the external research that it receives directly out of its own resources.
Research budgets are set by T. Rowe Price’s Research Governance Oversight Committee ("RGOC") which oversees the consumption, valuation and appropriate remuneration of third party investment research consumed by T. Rowe Price and TRPIL globally. Research budgets may be adjusted by the RGOC throughout the calendar year. Trading with broker-dealers with whom T. Rowe Price has not established a CSA is done on an execution only basis.
Whenever commissions are pooled and used to pay for research, conflicts of interest may arise due to the potential that one account’s commissions could be subsidizing research that benefits another investment vehicle, such as another vehicle managed by T. Rowe Price. However, because research services often benefit several investment vehicles simultaneously or to differing degrees, it is impossible to directly quantify the benefit of research to any particular vehicle. T. Rowe Price believes that research received through the CSA program consistent with Section 28(e) assists the investment decision making responsibilities with respect to all clients and investment vehicles, and enhances its investment research process overall.
TRPIL has not established a CSA with any broker-dealer and, as described above, pays for the external research that it receives directly out of its own resources.
T. Rowe Price and TRPIL may use a portion of its research budget to purchase access to research from certain broker dealers together with its other affiliate advisers for a single platform fee. This allows the affiliated advisers to leverage their size and scale to purchase access to certain research services across a broad group of research users globally from each research provider. Based on the terms of these platform arrangements, research services available through these platform access arrangements may be shared among the affiliated advisers that participate.
T. Rowe Price and TRPIL generally pay for data subscriptions, investment technology tools and other specialized services to assist with the investment process directly from their own resources. They also pays for fixed income research and services directly from their own resources where feasible or required.
Allocation of Brokerage Commissions
T. Rowe Price and TRPIL have a policy of not pre-committing a specific amount of business to any broker-dealer over any specific time period. They make brokerage placement determinations, as appropriate, based on the needs of a specific transaction such as market-making, availability of a buyer or seller of a particular security, or specialized execution skills. T. Rowe Price and TRPIL may choose to allocate brokerage among several broker-dealers able to meet the needs of the transaction. Allocation of brokerage business is monitored on a regularly scheduled basis by appropriate personnel and the T. Rowe Price’s Global Trading Committee ("GTC"). The GTC oversees the brokerage allocation and trade execution policies for T. Rowe Price and TRPIL.
Trade Allocation Policies
T. Rowe Price and TRPIL developed written trade allocation guidelines for their trading desks. Generally, when the amount of securities available in a public or initial offering or the secondary markets is insufficient to satisfy the volume or price requirements for the participating clients, T. Rowe Price/TRPIL will make pro rata allocations based upon the relative sizes of the participating client portfolios or the relative sizes of the participating client orders, depending upon the market involved. Each client will receive the same average share price of the securities for each aggregated order. Because a pro rata allocation may not always accommodate all facts and circumstances, the guidelines provide for adjustments to allocate amounts in certain cases. For example, adjustments may be made: (i) to eliminate de minimis positions or satisfy minimum denomination requirements; (ii) to give priority to accounts with specialized investment policies and objectives; and (iii) to reallocate in light of a participating portfolio’s characteristics (e.g., available cash, industry or issuer concentration, duration, credit exposure). Such allocation processes may result in a partial execution of a proposed purchase or sale order.
T. Rowe Price/TRPIL employ certain guidelines in an effort to ensure equitable distribution of investment opportunities among clients of the firm, which may occasionally serve to limit the participation of certain clients in a particular security, based on factors such as client mandate or a sector or industry specific investment strategy or focus. For example, accounts that maintain a road investment mandate may have less access than targeted investment mandates to certain securities (e.g., sector specific securities) where T. Rowe Price/TRPIL does not receive a fully filled order (e.g., certain IPO transactions) or where aggregate ownership of such securities is approaching firm limits.
Also, for certain types of investments, most commonly private placement transactions, conditions imposed by the issuer may limit the number of clients allowed to participate or number of shares offered to T. Rowe Price/TRPIL.
T. Rowe Price/TRPIL have developed written trade sequencing and execution guidelines that they believe are reasonably designed to provide the fair and equitable allocation of equity trades, both long and short, to minimize the impact of trading activity across client accounts. The policies and procedures are intended to: (i) mitigate conflicts of interest when trading both long and short in the same equity security; and (ii) mitigate conflicts when shorting an equity security that is held by other accounts managed by T. Rowe Price/TRPIL that are not simultaneously transacting in the security. Notwithstanding the application of T. Rowe Price/TRPIL’s policies and procedures, it may not be possible to mitigate all conflicts of interest when transacting both long and short in the same equity security; therefore, there is a risk that one transaction will be completed ahead of the other transaction, that the pricing may not be consistent between long and short transactions, or that an equity long or short transaction may have an adverse impact on the market price of the security being traded.
Miscellaneous
It is the policy of T. Rowe Price not to favor one client over another in grouping orders for various clients. Clients should be aware that the grouping of orders could at times result in more or less favorable prices. In certain cases, where the aggregated order is executed in a series of transactions at various prices on a given day, each participating client’s proportionate share of grouped orders reflects the average price paid or received.
Conflicts of Interest
Portfolio managers at T. Rowe Price and its affiliates may manage multiple accounts. These accounts may include, among others, mutual funds, separate accounts (assets managed on behalf of institutions such as pension funds, colleges and universities, foundations), offshore funds and common trust funds. Portfolio managers make investment decisions for each portfolio based on the investment objectives, policies, practices, and other relevant investment considerations that the managers believe are applicable to that portfolio. Consequently, portfolio managers may purchase (or sell) securities for one portfolio and not another portfolio. T. Rowe Price and its affiliates have adopted brokerage and trade allocation policies and procedures that they believe are reasonably designed to address any potential conflicts associated with managing multiple accounts for multiple clients.
T. Rowe Price funds may, from time to time, own shares of Morningstar, Inc. Morningstar is a provider of investment research to individual and institutional investors, and publishes ratings on mutual funds, including the T. Rowe Price funds. T. Rowe Price manages the Morningstar retirement plan and T. Rowe Price and its affiliates pay Morningstar for a variety of products and services. In addition, Morningstar may provide investment consulting and investment management services to clients of T. Rowe Price or its affiliates.
Since the T. Rowe Price funds and other accounts have different investment objectives or strategies, potential conflicts of interest may arise in executing investment decisions or trades among client accounts. For example, if T. Rowe Price purchases a security for one account and sells the same security short (either directly or through derivatives, such as total return equity swaps) for another account, such a trading pattern could disadvantage either the account that is long or short. It is possible that short sale activity could adversely affect the market value of long positions in one or more T. Rowe Price funds and other accounts (and vice versa) and create potential trading conflicts, such as when long and short positions are being executed at the same time. To mitigate these potential conflicts of interest, T. Rowe Price has implemented policies and procedures requiring trading and investment decisions to be made in accordance with T. Rowe Price’s fiduciary duties to all accounts, including the T. Rowe Price funds. Pursuant to these policies, portfolio managers are generally prohibited from managing multiple strategies where they hold the same security long in one strategy and short in another, except in certain circumstances, including where an investment oversight committee has specifically reviewed and approved the holdings or strategy. Additionally, T. Rowe Price has implemented policies and procedures that it believes are reasonably designed to ensure the fair and equitable allocation of trades, both long and short, to minimize the impact of trading activity across client accounts. T. Rowe Price monitors short sales to determine whether its procedures are working as intended and that such short sale activity is not materially impacting our trade executions and long positions for other clients.
Commissions Paid
A fund may pay compensation including both commissions and spreads in connection with the placement of portfolio transactions. The amount of brokerage commissions paid by a fund may change from year to year because of, among other things, changing asset levels, shareholder activity, and/or portfolio turnover.
The following table shows the fund's portfolio turnover rate for the fiscal periods ended May 31, 2018 and 2017. Variations in turnover rate may be due to a fluctuating volume of shareholder purchase and redemption orders, market conditions, and/or changes in Strategic Advisers' investment outlook.
| Turnover Rates | 2018 | 2017 |
| Strategic Advisers® Core Fund | 98% | 100% |
During the fiscal year ended May 31, 2018, the fund held securities issued by one or more of its regular brokers or dealers or a parent company of its regular brokers or dealers. The following table shows the aggregate value of the securities of the regular broker or dealer or parent company held by the fund as of the fiscal year ended May 31, 2018.
| Fund | Regular Broker or Dealer | Aggregate Value of Securities Held |
| Strategic Advisers® Core Fund | Citigroup, Inc. | $301,944,910 |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. | $398,125,140 | |
| Bank of America Corp. | $322,001,154 | |
| Morgan Stanley | $100,388,403 | |
| Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. | $43,730,368 |
The following table shows the total amount of brokerage commissions paid by the fund, comprising commissions paid on securities and/or futures transactions, as applicable, for the fiscal years ended May 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016. The total amount of brokerage commissions paid is stated as a dollar amount and a percentage of the fund's average net assets.
| Fund | Fiscal Year Ended | Dollar Amount | Percentage of Average Net Assets |
| Strategic Advisers® Core Fund | May 31 | ||
| 2018 | $10,030,881 | 0.04% | |
| 2017 | $12,653,261 | 0.05% | |
| 2016 | $12,614,556 | 0.05% |
During the past three fiscal years, the following brokerage commissions were paid to affiliated brokers:
| Fiscal Year End May 31 | Broker | Affiliated With | Transaction Initiated By | Commissions | Percentage of Aggregate Brokerage Commissions | Percentage of Aggregate Dollar Amount of Brokerage Transactions |
| 2018 | FidelityCapitalMarkets | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | Strategic Advisers | $14,095 | 0.44% | 0.14% |
| 2018 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | Strategic Advisers | $328 | 0.03% | 0.00% |
| 2018 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | T. Rowe Price | $1,498 | 0.11% | 0.01% |
| 2018 | FidelityCapitalMarkets | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | OppenheimerFunds(1) | $940 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| 2018 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | OppenheimerFunds(1) | $62 | 0.01% | 0.00% |
| 2018 | FidelityCapitalMarkets | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | AllianceBernstein | $4,499 | 0.05% | 0.04% |
| 2018 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | AllianceBernstein | $179 | 0.02% | 0.00% |
| 2018 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | Brandywine Global | $594 | 0.02% | 0.01% |
| 2018 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | JPMorgan | $2,141 | 0.15% | 0.02% |
| 2018 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | FIAM | $2,578 | 0.15% | 0.03% |
| 2018 | FidelityCapitalMarkets | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | FIAM | $51,920 | 1.32% | 0.52% |
| 2017 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | T. Rowe Price | $2,317 | ||
| 2017 | FidelityCapitalMarkets | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | OppenheimerFunds(1) | $323 | ||
| 2017 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | OppenheimerFunds(1) | $26 | ||
| 2017 | FidelityCapitalMarkets | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | AllianceBernstein | $43,095 | ||
| 2017 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | AllianceBernstein | $837 | ||
| 2017 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | JPMorgan | $2,151 | ||
| 2017 | FidelityCapitalMarkets | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | FIAM | $61,195 | ||
| 2017 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | FIAM | $1,742 | ||
| 2016 | FidelityCapitalMarkets | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | T. Rowe Price | $367 | ||
| 2016 | FidelityCapitalMarkets | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | OppenheimerFunds(1) | $436 | ||
| 2016 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | OppenheimerFunds(1) | $24 | ||
| 2016 | FidelityCapitalMarkets | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | AllianceBernstein | $357,485 | ||
| 2016 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | AllianceBernstein | $44 | ||
| 2016 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | JPMorgan | $178 | ||
| 2016 | FidelityCapitalMarkets | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | FIAM | $17,359 | ||
| 2016 | Luminex | FMR LLC /Strategic Advisers | FIAM | $56 |
(1) The sub-advisory agreement with OppenheimerFunds terminated on May 24, 2019.
Brokerage commissions may vary significantly from year to year due to a variety of factors, including the types of investments selected by the sub-adviser(s), changes in transaction costs, and market conditions.
The following table shows the dollar amount of brokerage commissions paid to firms that may have provided research or brokerage services and the approximate dollar amount of the transactions involved for the fiscal year ended 2018.
| Fund | Fiscal Year Ended | $ Amount of Commissions Paid to Firms for Providing Research or Brokerage Services | $ Amount of Brokerage Transactions Involved |
| Strategic Advisers® Core Fund | May 31, 2018 | $6,731,929 | $26,618,731,096 |
VALUATION
The NAV is the value of a single share. NAV is computed by adding the value of a fund's investments, cash, and other assets, subtracting its liabilities, and dividing the result by the number of shares outstanding.
The Board of Trustees has ultimate responsibility for pricing, but has delegated day-to-day valuation responsibilities to Strategic Advisers. Strategic Advisers has established the Strategic Advisers Fair Value Committee (the Committee) to fulfill these responsibilities. The Committee may rely on information and recommendations provided by affiliates of Strategic Advisers in fulfilling its responsibilities, including the fair valuation of securities.
Shares of underlying funds (other than ETFs) held by a fund are valued at their respective NAVs. If an underlying fund's NAV is unavailable, shares of that underlying fund will be fair valued in good faith by the Committee in accordance with applicable fair value pricing policies.
Generally, other portfolio securities and assets held by a fund, as well as portfolio securities and assets held by an underlying Fidelity® non-money market fund, are valued as follows:
Most equity securities (including securities issued by ETFs) are valued at the official closing price or the last reported sale price or, if no sale has occurred, at the last quoted bid price on the primary market or exchange on which they are traded.
Debt securities and other assets for which market quotations are readily available may be valued at market values in the principal market in which they normally are traded, as furnished by recognized dealers in such securities or assets. Or, debt securities and convertible securities may be valued on the basis of information furnished by a pricing service that uses a valuation matrix which incorporates both dealer-supplied valuations and electronic data processing techniques.
Short-term securities with remaining maturities of sixty days or less for which market quotations and information furnished by a pricing service are not readily available may be valued at amortized cost, which approximates current value.
Futures contracts are valued at the settlement or closing price. Options are valued at their market quotations, if available. Swaps are valued daily using quotations received from independent pricing services or recognized dealers.
Prices described above are obtained from pricing services that have been approved by the Board of Trustees. A number of pricing services are available and the funds may use more than one of these services. The funds may also discontinue the use of any pricing service at any time. Strategic Advisers engages in oversight activities with respect to the fund's pricing services, which includes, among other things, testing the prices provided by pricing services prior to calculation of a fund's NAV, conducting periodic due diligence meetings, and periodically reviewing the methodologies and inputs used by these services.
Foreign securities and instruments are valued in their local currency following the methodologies described above. Foreign securities, instruments and currencies are translated to U.S. dollars, based on foreign currency exchange rate quotations supplied by a pricing service as of the close of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), which uses a proprietary model to determine the exchange rate. Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are valued at an interpolated rate based on days to maturity between the closest preceding and subsequent settlement period reported by the third party pricing service.
The Board of Trustees of the underlying Fidelity® funds has ultimate responsibility for pricing portfolio securities and assets held by those funds, but has delegated day-to-day valuation responsibilities to FMR. FMR has established the FMR Fair Value Committee (FMR Committee) to fulfill these responsibilities.
Other portfolio securities and assets for which market quotations, official closing prices, or information furnished by a pricing service are not readily available or, in the opinion of the FMR Committee or the Committee, are deemed unreliable will be fair valued in good faith by the FMR Committee or the Committee in accordance with applicable fair value pricing policies. For example, if, in the opinion of the FMR Committee or the Committee, a security's value has been materially affected by events occurring before a fund's pricing time but after the close of the exchange or market on which the security is principally traded, that security will be fair valued in good faith by the FMR Committee or the Committee in accordance with applicable fair value pricing policies. In fair valuing a security, the FMR Committee and the Committee may consider factors including price movements in futures contracts and ADRs, market and trading trends, the bid/ask quotes of brokers, and off-exchange institutional trading.
Portfolio securities and assets held by an underlying Fidelity® money market fund are valued on the basis of amortized cost. This technique involves initially valuing an instrument at its cost as adjusted for amortization of premium or accretion of discount rather than its current market value. The amortized cost value of an instrument may be higher or lower than the price a money market fund would receive if it sold the instrument.
At such intervals as they deem appropriate, the Trustees of an underlying Fidelity® money market fund consider the extent to which NAV calculated using market valuations would deviate from the $1.00 per share calculated using amortized cost valuation. If the Trustees believe that a deviation from a money market fund's amortized cost per share may result in material dilution or other unfair results to shareholders, the Trustees have agreed to take such corrective action, if any, as they deem appropriate to eliminate or reduce, to the extent reasonably practicable, the dilution or unfair results. Such corrective action could include selling portfolio instruments prior to maturity to realize capital gains or losses or to shorten average portfolio maturity; withholding dividends; redeeming shares in kind; establishing NAV by using available market quotations; and such other measures as the Trustees may deem appropriate.
Strategic Advisers reports to the Board on the Committee’s activities and fair value determinations. The Board monitors the appropriateness of the procedures used in valuing the fund’s investments and ratifies the fair value determinations of the Committee.
BUYING AND SELLING INFORMATION
Shares of the fund are offered only to certain clients of Strategic Advisers that have granted Strategic Advisers discretionary investment authority. If you are not currently a Strategic Advisers client, please call 1-800-544-3455 for more information.
Investors participating in a Strategic Advisers® discretionary investment program are charged an annual advisory fee based on a percentage of the average market value of assets in their account. The stated fee is then reduced by a credit reflecting the amount of fees, if any, received by Strategic Advisers or its affiliates from mutual funds for investment management or certain other services.
The fund may make redemption payments in whole or in part in readily marketable securities or other property pursuant to procedures approved by the Trustees if Strategic Advisers determines it is in the best interests of the fund. Such securities or other property will be valued for this purpose as they are valued in computing the fund's NAV. Shareholders that receive securities or other property will realize, upon receipt, a gain or loss for tax purposes, and will incur additional costs and be exposed to market risk prior to and upon the sale of such securities or other property.
The fund, in its discretion, may determine to issue its shares in kind in exchange for securities held by the purchaser having a value, determined in accordance with the fund's policies for valuation of portfolio securities, equal to the purchase price of the fund shares issued. The fund will accept for in-kind purchases only securities or other instruments that are appropriate under its investment objective and policies. In addition, the fund generally will not accept securities of any issuer unless they are liquid, have a readily ascertainable market value, and are not subject to restrictions on resale. All dividends, distributions, and subscription or other rights associated with the securities become the property of the fund, along with the securities. Shares purchased in exchange for securities in kind generally cannot be redeemed for fifteen days following the exchange to allow time for the transfer to settle.
DISTRIBUTIONS AND TAXES
Dividends. A portion of the fund's income may qualify for the dividends-received deduction available to corporate shareholders, but it is unlikely that all of the fund's income will qualify for the deduction. A portion of the fund's dividends, when distributed to individual shareholders, may qualify for taxation at long-term capital gains rates (provided certain holding period requirements are met). Distributions by the fund to tax-advantaged retirement plan accounts are not taxable currently.
Capital Gain Distributions. Unless your shares of the fund are held in a tax-advantaged retirement plan, the fund's long-term capital gain distributions, including amounts attributable to an underlying fund's long-term capital gain distributions, are federally taxable to shareholders generally as capital gains.
Returns of Capital. If the fund's distributions exceed its taxable income and capital gains realized during a taxable year, all or a portion of the distributions made in the same taxable year may be recharacterized as a return of capital to shareholders. A return of capital distribution will generally not be taxable, but will reduce each shareholder's cost basis in the fund and result in a higher reported capital gain or lower reported capital loss when those shares on which the distribution was received are sold in taxable accounts.
Foreign Tax Credit or Deduction. Foreign governments may impose withholding taxes on dividends and interest earned by the fund with respect to foreign securities held directly by the fund. Foreign governments may also impose taxes on other payments or gains with respect to foreign securities held directly by the fund. As a general matter, if, at the close of its fiscal year, more than 50% of the fund's total assets is invested in securities of foreign issuers, the fund may elect to pass through eligible foreign taxes paid and thereby allow shareholders to take a deduction or, if they meet certain holding period requirements with respect to fund shares, a credit on their individual tax returns. In addition, if at the close of each quarter of its fiscal year at least 50% of the fund's total assets is represented by interests in other regulated investment companies, the same rules will apply to any foreign tax credits that underlying funds pass through to the fund. The amount of foreign taxes paid by the fund will be reduced to the extent that the fund lends securities over the dividend record date. Special rules may apply to the credit for individuals who receive dividends qualifying for the long-term capital gains tax rate.
Tax Status of the Fund. The fund intends to qualify each year as a "regulated investment company" under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code so that it will not be liable for federal tax on income and capital gains distributed to shareholders. In order to qualify as a regulated investment company, and avoid being subject to federal income or excise taxes at the fund level, the fund intends to distribute substantially all of its net investment income and net realized capital gains within each calendar year as well as on a fiscal year basis (if the fiscal year is other than the calendar year), and intends to comply with other tax rules applicable to regulated investment companies.
Under recent tax legislation, individuals (and certain other non-corporate entities) are generally eligible for a 20% deduction with respect to taxable ordinary dividends from real estate investment trusts and certain taxable income from publicly traded partnerships. Currently, there is not a regulatory mechanism for regulated investment companies to pass through the 20% deduction to shareholders. As a result, in comparison, investors investing directly in real estate investment trusts or publicly traded partnerships would generally be eligible for the 20% deduction for such taxable income from these investments while investors investing in real estate investment trusts or publicly traded partnerships indirectly through a fund would not be eligible for the 20% deduction for their share of such taxable income.
Other Tax Information. The information above is only a summary of some of the tax consequences generally affecting the fund and its shareholders, and no attempt has been made to discuss individual tax consequences. It is up to you or your tax preparer to determine whether the sale of shares of the fund resulted in a capital gain or loss or other tax consequence to you. In addition to federal income taxes, shareholders may be subject to state and local taxes on fund distributions, and shares may be subject to state and local personal property taxes. Investors should consult their tax advisers to determine whether the fund is suitable to their particular tax situation.
TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS
The Trustees, Members of the Advisory Board (if any), and officers of the trust and fund, as applicable, are listed below. The Board of Trustees governs the fund and is responsible for protecting the interests of shareholders. The Trustees are experienced executives who meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the fund's activities, review contractual arrangements with companies that provide services to the fund, oversee management of the risks associated with such activities and contractual arrangements, and review the fund's performance. If the interests of the fund and an underlying Fidelity® fund were to diverge, a conflict of interest could arise and affect how the Trustees and Members of the Advisory Board fulfill their fiduciary duties to the affected funds. Strategic Advisers has structured the fund to avoid these potential conflicts, although there may be situations where a conflict of interest is unavoidable. In such instances, Strategic Advisers, the Trustees, and Members of the Advisory Board would take reasonable steps to minimize and, if possible, eliminate the conflict. Each of the Trustees oversees 20 funds.
The Trustees hold office without limit in time except that (a) any Trustee may resign; (b) any Trustee may be removed by written instrument, signed by at least two-thirds of the number of Trustees prior to such removal; (c) any Trustee who requests to be retired or who has become incapacitated by illness or injury may be retired by written instrument signed by a majority of the other Trustees; and (d) any Trustee may be removed at any special meeting of shareholders by a two-thirds vote of the outstanding voting securities of the trust. Officers and Advisory Board Members hold office without limit in time, except that any officer or Advisory Board Member may resign or may be removed by a vote of a majority of the Trustees at any regular meeting or any special meeting of the Trustees. Except as indicated, each individual has held the office shown or other offices in the same company for the past five years.
Each Trustee who is not an interested person (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the trust and the fund is referred to herein as an Independent Trustee.
Experience, Skills, Attributes, and Qualifications of the Trustees. The Governance and Nominating Committee has adopted a statement of policy that describes the experience, qualifications, attributes, and skills that are necessary and desirable for potential Independent Trustee candidates (Statement of Policy). The Board believes that each Trustee satisfied at the time he or she was initially elected or appointed a Trustee, and continues to satisfy, the standards contemplated by the Statement of Policy. The Governance and Nominating Committee may also engage professional search firms to help identify potential Independent Trustee candidates with experience, qualifications, attributes, and skills consistent with the Statement of Policy. Additional criteria based on the composition and skills of the current Independent Trustees, as well as experience or skills that may be appropriate in light of future changes to board composition, business conditions, and regulatory or other developments, may be considered by the professional search firms and the Governance and Nominating Committee. In addition, the Board takes into account the Trustees' commitment and participation in Board and committee meetings, as well as their leadership of standing and ad hoc committees throughout their tenure.In determining that a particular Trustee was and continues to be qualified to serve as a Trustee, the Board has considered a variety of criteria, none of which, in isolation, was controlling. The Board believes that, collectively, the Trustees have balanced and diverse experience, qualifications, attributes, and skills, which allow the Board to operate effectively in governing the fund and protecting the interests of shareholders. Information about the specific experience, skills, attributes, and qualifications of each Trustee, which in each case led to the Board's conclusion that the Trustee should serve (or continue to serve) as a trustee of the fund, is provided below.
Board Structure and Oversight Function. Robert A. Lawrence is an interested person and currently serves as Chairman. The Trustees have determined that an interested Chairman is appropriate and benefits shareholders because an interested Chairman has a personal and professional stake in the quality and continuity of services provided to the fund. Independent Trustees exercise their informed business judgment to appoint an individual of their choosing to serve as Chairman, regardless of whether the Trustee happens to be independent or a member of management. The Independent Trustees have determined that they can act independently and effectively without having an Independent Trustee serve as Chairman and that a key structural component for assuring that they are in a position to do so is for the Independent Trustees to constitute a substantial majority for the Board. The Independent Trustees also regularly meet in executive session. Mary C. Farrell serves as the lead Independent Trustee and as such (i) acts as a liaison between the Independent Trustees and management with respect to matters important to the Independent Trustees and (ii) with management prepares agendas for Board meetings.Fidelity® funds are overseen by different Boards of Trustees. The fund's Board oversees asset allocation funds. Other Boards oversee Fidelity's investment-grade bond, money market, and asset allocation funds, and Fidelity's equity and high income funds. The fund may invest in Fidelity® funds overseen by such other Boards. The use of separate Boards, each with its own committee structure, allows the Trustees of each group of Fidelity® funds to focus on the unique issues of the funds they oversee, including common research, investment, and operational issues.
The Trustees primarily operate as a full Board, but also operate in committees, to facilitate the timely and efficient consideration of all matters of importance to the Trustees, the fund, and fund shareholders and to facilitate compliance with legal and regulatory requirements and oversight of the fund's activities and associated risks. The Board has charged Strategic Advisers and its affiliates with (i) identifying events or circumstances the occurrence of which could have demonstrably adverse effects on the fund's business and/or reputation; (ii) implementing processes and controls to lessen the possibility that such events or circumstances occur or to mitigate the effects of such events or circumstances if they do occur; and (iii) creating and maintaining a system designed to evaluate continuously business and market conditions in order to facilitate the identification and implementation processes described in (i) and (ii) above. Because the day-to-day operations and activities of the fund are carried out by or through Strategic Advisers, its affiliates and other service providers, the fund's exposure to risks is mitigated but not eliminated by the processes overseen by the Trustees. Board oversight of different aspects of the fund's activities is exercised primarily through the full Board, but also through the Audit and Compliance Committee. Appropriate personnel, including but not limited to the fund's Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), FMR's internal auditor, the independent accountants, the fund's Treasurer and portfolio management personnel, make periodic reports to the Board's committees, as appropriate. The responsibilities of each standing committee, including their oversight responsibilities, are described further under "Standing Committees of the Trustees."Interested Trustees*:
Correspondence intended for a Trustee who is an interested person may be sent to Fidelity Investments, 245 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02210.
Name, Year of Birth; Principal Occupations and Other Relevant Experience+
Brian B. Hogan (1964)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2018
Trustee
Mr. Hogan also serves as Trustee of other funds. Mr. Hogan serves as Head of Fidelity Investments’ Investment Solutions and Innovation organization (2018-present), a Director of Strategic Advisers LLC (2018-present), a Director of Fidelity SelectCo, LLC (investment adviser firm, 2014-present), and President of FMR Co., Inc. (2009-present). Previously, Mr. Hogan served as a Vice President of Fidelity's Equity and High Income funds (2009-2018), a Director of FMR Investment Management (UK) Limited (investment adviser firm, 2015-2018), Trustee of certain Fidelity® funds (2014-2018), President of the Equity Division of FMR (investment adviser firm, 2009-2018), Senior Vice President, Equity Research of FMR (2006-2009), and as a portfolio manager. Mr. Brian B. Hogan is not related to Mr. Colm A. Hogan.
Robert A. Lawrence (1952)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2016
Trustee
Chairman of the Board of Trustees
Mr. Lawrence also serves as Trustee of other funds. Previously, Mr. Lawrence served as a Member of the Advisory Board of certain funds. Prior to his retirement in 2008, Mr. Lawrence served as Vice President of certain Fidelity® funds (2006-2008), Senior Vice President, Head of High Income Division of Fidelity Management & Research Company (investment adviser firm, 2006-2008), and President of Fidelity Strategic Investments (investment adviser firm, 2002-2005).
* Determined to be an "Interested Trustee" by virtue of, among other things, his or her affiliation with the trust or various entities under common control with Strategic Advisers.
+ The information includes the Trustee's principal occupation during the last five years and other information relating to the experience, attributes, and skills relevant to the Trustee's qualifications to serve as a Trustee, which led to the conclusion that the Trustee should serve as a Trustee for the fund.
Independent Trustees:
Correspondence intended for an Independent Trustee may be sent to Fidelity Investments, P.O. Box 55235, Boston, Massachusetts 02205-5235.
Name, Year of Birth; Principal Occupations and Other Relevant Experience+
Peter C. Aldrich (1944)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2006
Trustee
Mr. Aldrich also serves as Trustee of other funds. Mr. Aldrich is a Director of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a Director of the funds of BlackRock Realty Group (2006-present), and a Director of LivelyHood, Inc. (private corporation, 2013-present). Previously, Mr. Aldrich served as a Trustee for the Fidelity Rutland Square Trust (2005-2010), a Managing Member of Poseidon, LLC (foreign private investment, 1998-2004), and Chairman and Managing Member of AEGIS, LLC (foreign private investment, 1997-2004). Mr. Aldrich previously was a founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of AEW Capital Management, L.P. (then “Aldrich, Eastman and Waltch, L.P.”). Mr. Aldrich also served as a Director of Zipcar, Inc. (car sharing services, 2001-2009) and as Faculty Chairman of The Research Council on Global Investment of The Conference Board (business and professional education non-profit, 1999-2004). Mr. Aldrich is a Member Emeritus of the Board of Trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts Boston and an Overseer of the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary.
Ralph F. Cox (1932)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2006
Trustee
Mr. Cox also serves as Trustee of other funds. Mr. Cox is President of RABAR Enterprises (management consulting for the petroleum industry). Mr. Cox is a Director of Abraxas Petroleum (exploration and production, 1999-present). Mr. Cox is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Business and Engineering Schools of Texas A&M University and the Engineering School of University of Texas at Austin. Previously, Mr. Cox served as a Trustee for the Fidelity Rutland Square Trust (2005-2010) and as an Advisory Director of CH2M Hill Companies (engineering, 1981-2011). Mr. Ralph F. Cox and Mr. Howard E. Cox, Jr. are not related.
Mary C. Farrell (1949)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2013
Trustee
Ms. Farrell also serves as Trustee of other funds. Ms. Farrell is a Director of the W.R. Berkley Corporation (insurance provider) and President (2009-present) and Director (2006-present) of the Howard Gilman Foundation (charitable organization). Previously, Ms. Farrell was Managing Director and Chief Investment Strategist at UBS Wealth Management USA and Co-Head of UBS Wealth Management Investment Strategy & Research Group (2003-2005). Ms. Farrell also served as Investment Strategist at PaineWebber (1982-2000) and UBS PaineWebber (2000-2002). Ms. Farrell serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Yale-New Haven Hospital and on the Yale New Haven Health System Board and previously served as Trustee on the Board of Overseers of the New York University Stern School of Business.
Karen Kaplan (1960)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2006
Trustee
Ms. Kaplan also serves as Trustee of other funds. Ms. Kaplan is Chairman (2014-present) and Chief Executive Officer (2013-present) of Hill Holliday (advertising and specialized marketing). Ms. Kaplan is a Director of The Michaels Companies, Inc. (specialty retailer, 2015-present), Member of the Board of Governors of the Chief Executives’ Club of Boston (2010-present), Member of the Executive Committee of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce (2006-present), Advisory Board Member of the National Association of Corporate Directors Chapter (2012-present), Member of the Board of Trustees of the Post Office Square Trust (2012-present), Trustee of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (2016-present), Overseer of the Boston Symphony Orchestra (2014-present), Member of the Board of Directors of The Advertising Council, Inc. (2016-present), and Member of the Ron Burton Training Village Executive Board of Advisors (2018-present). Previously, Ms. Kaplan served as an Advisory Board Member of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust (2006-2010), a member of the Clinton Global Initiative (2010-2015), Director of DSM (dba Delta Dental and DentaQuest) (2004-2014), Formal Appointee of the 2015 Baker-Polito Economic Development Council, Director of Vera Bradley Inc. (designer of women’s accessories, 2012-2015), Member of the Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Conference for Women (2008-2015), Member of the Board of Directors of Jobs for Massachusetts (2012-2015), President of the Massachusetts Women’s Forum (2008-2010), Treasurer of the Massachusetts Women’s Forum (2002-2006), and Vice Chair of the Board of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (2003-2010).
Heidi L. Steiger (1953)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2017
Trustee
Ms. Steiger also serves as Trustee of other funds. Ms. Steiger serves as a member of the Global Advisory Board and Of Counsel to Signum Global Advisors (international policy and strategy, 2018-present), a guest lecturer in the joint degree program in Global Luxury Management at North Carolina State University (Raleigh, NC) and Skema (Paris) (2018-present), Managing Partner of Topridge Associates, LLC (consulting, 2005-present), and a member of the Board of Directors (2013-present) and Chair of the Audit Committee and member of the Membership and Executive Committees (2017-present) of Business Executives for National Security (nonprofit). Previously, Ms. Steiger served as Eastern Region President of The Private Client Reserve of U.S. Bancorp (banking and financial services, 2010-2015), Advisory Director of Berkshire Capital Securities, LLC (financial services, 2009-2010), President and Senior Advisor of Lowenhaupt Global Advisors, LLC (financial services, 2005-2007), and President and Contributing Editor of Worth Magazine (2004-2005) and held a variety of positions at Neuberger Berman Group, LLC (financial services, 1986-2004), including Partner and Executive Vice President and Global Head of Private Asset Management at Neuberger Berman (1999-2004). Ms. Steiger also served as a member of the Board of Directors of Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd (insurer of nuclear utilities, 2006-2017), a member of the Board of Trustees and Audit Committee of the Eaton Vance Funds (2007-2010), a member of the Board of Directors of Aviva USA (formerly AmerUs) (insurance, 2004-2014), and a member of the Board of Trustees and Audit Committee and Chair of the Investment Committee of CIFG (financial guaranty insurance, 2009-2012), and a member of the Board of Directors of Kin Group Plc (formerly, Fitbug Holdings) (health and technology, 2016-2017).
+ The information includes the Trustee's principal occupation during the last five years and other information relating to the experience, attributes, and skills relevant to the Trustee's qualifications to serve as a Trustee, which led to the conclusion that the Trustee should serve as a Trustee for the fund.
Advisory Board Members and Officers:
Correspondence intended for an officer or Howard E. Cox, Jr. may be sent to Fidelity Investments, 245 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. Officers appear below in alphabetical order.
Name, Year of Birth; Principal Occupation
Howard E. Cox, Jr. (1944)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2009
Member of the Advisory Board
Mr. Cox also serves as Member of the Advisory Board of other funds. Mr. Cox is a Partner of Greylock (venture capital, 1971-present) and a Director of Stryker Corporation (medical products and services, 1974-present). Previously, Mr. Cox served as an Advisory Board Member of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust (2006-2010). Mr. Cox also serves as a Member of the Secretary of Defense's Business Board of Directors (2008-present), a Director of Business Executives for National Security (1997-present), a Director of the Brookings Institution (2010-present), a Director of the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders Foundation (2009-present), and is a Member of the Harvard Medical School Board of Fellows (2002-present). Mr. Howard E. Cox, Jr. and Mr. Ralph F. Cox are not related.
Elizabeth Paige Baumann (1968)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2017
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Officer
Ms. Baumann also serves as AML Officer of other funds. She is Chief AML Officer (2012-present) and Senior Vice President (2014-present) of FMR LLC (diversified financial services company) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments. Previously, Ms. Baumann served as AML Officer of the funds (2012-2016), and Vice President (2007-2014) and Deputy Anti-Money Laundering Officer (2007-2012) of FMR LLC.
Brian J. Blackburn (1975)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2014
Assistant Secretary
Mr. Blackburn also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Blackburn serves as Vice President & Associate General Counsel (2013-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2007-present).
Jonathan Davis (1968)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2010
Assistant Treasurer
Mr. Davis also serves as Assistant Treasurer of other funds. Mr. Davis serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments. Previously, Mr. Davis served as Vice President and Associate General Counsel of FMR LLC (diversified financial services company, 2003-2010).
Adrien E. Deberghes (1967)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2016
President and Treasurer
Mr. Deberghes also serves as an officer of other funds. He serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present), Executive Vice President of Fidelity Investments Money Management, Inc. (FIMM) (investment adviser firm, 2016-present), and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2008-present). Previously, Mr. Deberghes served as President and Treasurer of certain Fidelity® funds (2013-2018). Prior to joining Fidelity Investments, Mr. Deberghes was Senior Vice President of Mutual Fund Administration at State Street Corporation (2007-2008), Senior Director of Mutual Fund Administration at Investors Bank & Trust (2005-2007), and Director of Finance for Dunkin' Brands (2000-2005). Previously, Mr. Deberghes served in other fund officer roles.
Laura M. Del Prato (1964)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2018
Assistant Treasurer
Ms. Del Prato also serves as an officer of other funds. Ms. Del Prato is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2017-present). Prior to joining Fidelity Investments, Ms. Del Prato served as a Managing Director and Treasurer of the JPMorgan Mutual Funds (2014-2017). Prior to JPMorgan, Ms. Del Prato served as a partner at Cohen Fund Audit Services (accounting firm, 2012-2013) and KPMG LLP (accounting firm, 2004-2012).
Howard J. Galligan III (1966)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2015
Chief Financial Officer
Mr. Galligan also serves as Chief Financial Officer of other funds. Mr. Galligan serves as President of Fidelity Pricing and Cash Management Services (FPCMS) (2014-present). Previously, Mr. Galligan served as a Director of Strategic Advisers LLC (investment adviser firm, 2008-2018), Chief Administrative Officer of Asset Management (2011-2014), and Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President of Investment Support for Strategic Advisers, Inc. (2003-2011).
James D. Gryglewicz (1972)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2015
Chief Compliance Officer
Mr. Gryglewicz also serves as Chief Compliance Officer of other funds. Mr. Gryglewicz serves as Compliance Officer of Strategic Advisers LLC (investment adviser firm, 2015-present) and Fidelity SelectCo, LLC (investment adviser firm, 2014-present), Senior Vice President of Asset Management Compliance (2009-present), and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2004-present). Previously, Mr. Gryglewicz served as Chief Compliance Officer of certain Fidelity® funds (2014-2018).
John Hitt (1967)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2014
Secretary and Chief Legal Officer
Mr. Hitt also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Hitt serves as Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel in Fidelity's Asset Management Group (2010-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments.
Colm A. Hogan (1973)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2016
Assistant Treasurer
Mr. Hogan also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Hogan serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2005-present). Previously, Mr. Hogan served as Assistant Treasurer of certain Fidelity® funds (2016-2018).
Chris Maher (1972)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2016
Assistant Treasurer
Mr. Maher serves as Assistant Treasurer of other funds. Mr. Maher is Vice President of Valuation Oversight, serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present), and is an employee of Fidelity Investments. Previously, Mr. Maher served as Vice President of Asset Management Compliance (2013), Vice President of the Program Management Group of FMR (investment adviser firm, 2010-2013), and Vice President of Valuation Oversight (2008-2010).
Rieco E. Mello (1969)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2017
Assistant Treasurer
Mr. Mello also serves as Assistant Treasurer of other funds. Mr. Mello serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (1995-present).
Stacie M. Smith (1974)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2016
Assistant Treasurer
Ms. Smith also serves as an officer of other funds. Ms. Smith serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present), is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2009-present), and has served in other fund officer roles. Prior to joining Fidelity Investments, Ms. Smith served as Senior Audit Manager of Ernst & Young LLP (accounting firm, 1996-2009). Previously, Ms. Smith served as Assistant Treasurer (2013-2018) and Deputy Treasurer (2013-2016) of certain Fidelity® funds.
Marc L. Spector (1972)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2016
Assistant Treasurer
Mr. Spector also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Spector serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2016-present). Prior to joining Fidelity Investments, Mr. Spector served as Director at the Siegfried Group (accounting firm, 2013-2016), and prior to Siegfried Group as audit senior manager at Deloitte & Touche (accounting firm, 2005-2013).
Renee Stagnone (1975)
Year of Election or Appointment: 2016
Assistant Treasurer
Ms. Stagnone also serves as an officer of other funds. Ms. Stagnone serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (1997-present). Previously, Ms. Stagnone served as Deputy Treasurer of certain Fidelity® funds (2013-2016).
Standing Committees of the Trustees. The Board of Trustees has established two committees to supplement the work of the Board as a whole. The members of each committee are Independent Trustees.
The Audit and Compliance Committee is composed of all of the Independent Trustees, with Ms. Steiger currently serving as Chair. All committee members must be able to read and understand fundamental financial statements, including a company's balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement. The committee determines whether at least one member of the committee is an "audit committee financial expert" as defined in rules promulgated by the SEC under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The committee normally meets in conjunction with in person meetings of the Board of Trustees, or more frequently as called by the Chair or a majority of committee members. The committee meets separately periodically with the fund's Treasurer, the fund's Chief Financial Officer, the fund's CCO, personnel responsible for the internal audit function of FMR LLC, and the fund's outside auditors. The committee has direct responsibility for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of the work of the outside auditors employed by the fund for the purpose of preparing or issuing an audit report or related work. The committee assists the Trustees in overseeing and monitoring: (i) the systems of internal accounting and financial controls of the fund and the fund's service providers, (ii) the financial reporting processes of the fund, (iii) the independence, objectivity and qualification of the auditors to the fund, (iv) the annual audits of the fund's financial statements, and (v) the accounting policies and disclosures of the fund. The committee considers and acts upon (i) the provision by any outside auditor of any non-audit services for any fund, and (ii) the provision by any outside auditor of certain non-audit services to fund service providers and their affiliates to the extent that such approval (in the case of this clause (ii)) is required under applicable regulations (auditor independence regulations) of the SEC. It is responsible for approving all audit engagement fees and terms for the fund and for resolving disagreements between the fund and any outside auditor regarding any fund's financial reporting, and has sole authority to hire and fire any auditor. Auditors of the fund report directly to the committee. The committee will obtain assurance of independence and objectivity from the outside auditors, including a formal written statement delineating all relationships between the auditor and the fund and any service providers consistent with Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) Ethics and Independence Rule 3526, Communication with Audit Committees Concerning Independence. The committee will discuss with the outside auditors any such disclosed relationships and their impact on the auditor's independence and objectivity. The committee will receive reports of compliance with provisions of the auditor independence regulations relating to the hiring of employees or former employees of the outside auditors. It oversees and receives reports on the fund's service providers' internal controls and reviews with management, internal audit personnel of FMR LLC, and outside auditors the adequacy and effectiveness of the fund's and service providers' accounting and financial controls, including: (i) any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting that are reasonably likely to adversely affect the fund's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data; (ii) any change in the fund's internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the fund's internal control over financial reporting; and (iii) any fraud, whether material or not, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the fund's or service provider's internal controls over financial reporting. The committee will review with counsel any legal matters that may have a material impact on the fund's financial statements and any material reports or inquiries received from regulators or governmental agencies. The committee reviews at least annually a report from the outside auditor describing (i) any material issues raised by the most recent internal quality control review, peer review, or PCAOB examination of the auditing firm and (ii) any material issues raised by any inquiry or investigation by governmental or professional authorities of the auditing firm since the most recent report and in each case any steps taken to deal with such issues. The committee will oversee and receive reports on the fund's financial reporting process from the fund's Treasurer and outside auditors and will receive reports from any outside auditor relating to (i) critical accounting policies and practices used by the fund, (ii) alternative accounting treatments that the auditor has discussed with Strategic Advisers, and (iii) other material written communications between the auditor and Strategic Advisers (as determined by the auditor). The committee will discuss with Strategic Advisers, the fund's Treasurer, outside auditors and, if appropriate, internal audit personnel of FMR LLC, their qualitative judgments about the appropriateness and acceptability of accounting principles and financial disclosure practices used or proposed for adoption by the fund. The committee will review with Strategic Advisers, the fund's Treasurer, outside auditors, and internal audit personnel of FMR LLC (to the extent relevant) the results of audits of the fund's financial statements. The committee will discuss regularly and oversee the review of the fund's major internal controls exposures, the steps that have been taken to monitor and control such exposures, and any risk management programs relating to the fund. The committee also oversees the administration and operation of the compliance policies and procedures of the fund and fund's service providers as required by Rule 38a-1 of the 1940 Act. The committee is responsible for the review and approval of policies and procedures relating to (i) provisions of the Code of Ethics, (ii) anti-money laundering requirements, (iii) compliance with investment restrictions and limitations, (iv) privacy, (v) recordkeeping, and (vi) other compliance policies and procedures which are not otherwise delegated to another committee of the Board of Trustees or reserved to the Board itself. The committee has responsibility for recommending to the Board the designation of a CCO of the fund. The committee serves as the primary point of contact between the CCO and the Board, it oversees the annual performance review and compensation of the CCO and, if required, makes recommendations to the Board with respect to the removal of the appointed CCO. The committee receives reports on significant correspondence with regulators or governmental agencies, employee complaints or published reports which raise concerns regarding compliance matters, and copies of significant non-routine correspondence with the SEC. The committee receives reports from the CCO including the annual report concerning the fund's compliance policies as required by Rule 38a-1 and quarterly reports in respect of any breaches of fiduciary duty or violations of federal securities laws. During the fiscal year ended May 31, 2018, the committee held four meetings.
The Governance and Nominating Committee is composed of all of the Independent Trustees, with Ms. Farrell currently serving as Chair. The committee meets as called by the Chair. With respect to fund governance and board administration matters, the committee periodically reviews procedures of the Board of Trustees and its committees (including committee charters) and periodically reviews compensation of Independent Trustees. The committee monitors corporate governance matters and makes recommendations to the Board of Trustees on the frequency and structure of the Board of Trustee meetings and on any other aspect of Board procedures. It reviews the performance of legal counsel employed by the funds and the Independent Trustees. On behalf of the Independent Trustees, the committee will make such findings and determinations as to the independence of counsel for the Independent Trustees as may be necessary or appropriate under applicable regulations or otherwise. The committee is also responsible for Board administrative matters applicable to Independent Trustees, such as expense reimbursement policies and compensation for attendance at meetings, conferences and other events. The committee monitors compliance with, acts as the administrator of, and makes determinations in respect of, the provisions of the code of ethics and any supplemental policies regarding personal securities transactions applicable to the Independent Trustees. The committee monitors the functioning of each Board committee and makes recommendations for any changes, including the creation or elimination of standing or ad hoc Board committees. The committee monitors regulatory and other developments to determine whether to recommend modifications to the committee's responsibilities or other Trustee policies and procedures in light of rule changes, reports concerning "best practices" in corporate governance and other developments in mutual fund governance. The committee recommends that the Board establish such special or ad hoc Board committees as may be desirable or necessary from time to time in order to address ethical, legal, or other matters that may arise. The committee also oversees the annual self-evaluation of the Board of Trustees and establishes procedures to allow it to exercise this oversight function. In conducting this oversight, the committee shall address all matters that it considers relevant to the performance of the Board of Trustees and shall report the results of its evaluation to the Board of Trustees, including any recommended amendments to the principles of governance, and any recommended changes to the fund's or the Board of Trustees' policies, procedures, and structures. The committee reviews periodically the size and composition of the Board of Trustees as a whole and recommends, if necessary, measures to be taken so that the Board of Trustees reflects the appropriate balance of knowledge, experience, skills, expertise, and diversity required for the Board as a whole and contains at least the minimum number of Independent Trustees required by law. The committee makes nominations for the election or appointment of Independent Trustees and for membership on committees. The committee shall have authority to retain and terminate any third-party advisers, including authority to approve fees and other retention terms. Such advisers may include search firms to identify Independent Trustee candidates and board compensation consultants. The committee may conduct or authorize investigations into or studies of matters within the committee's scope of responsibilities, and may retain, at the fund's expense, such independent counsel or other advisers as it deems necessary. The committee will consider nominees to the Board of Trustees recommended by shareholders based upon the criteria applied to candidates presented to the committee by a search firm or other source. Recommendations, along with appropriate background material concerning the candidate that demonstrates his or her ability to serve as an Independent Trustee of the fund, should be submitted to the Chair of the committee at the address maintained for communications with Independent Trustees. If the committee retains a search firm, the Chair will generally forward all such submissions to the search firm for evaluation. During the fiscal year ended May 31, 2018, the committee held three meetings.
The following table sets forth information describing the dollar range of equity securities beneficially owned by each Trustee in the fund and in all funds in the aggregate within the same fund family overseen by the Trustee for the calendar year ended December 31, 2017.
| Interested Trustees | ||
| DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES | Brian B.Hogan | Robert A.Lawrence |
| Strategic Advisers® Core Fund | none | none |
| AGGREGATE DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES IN ALL FUNDS OVERSEEN WITHIN FUND FAMILY | none | none |
| Independent Trustees | ||||
| DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES | Peter C.Aldrich | Ralph F.Cox | Mary C.Farrell | KarenKaplan |
| Strategic Advisers® Core Fund | none | over $100,000 | over $100,000 | none |
| AGGREGATE DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES IN ALL FUNDS OVERSEEN WITHIN FUND FAMILY | over $100,000 | over $100,000 | over $100,000 | over $100,000 |
| DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES | Heidi L.Steiger | |||
| Strategic Advisers® Core Fund | none | |||
| AGGREGATE DOLLAR RANGE OF FUND SHARES IN ALL FUNDS OVERSEEN WITHIN FUND FAMILY | none | |||
The following table sets forth information describing the compensation of each Trustee and Member of the Advisory Board (if any) for his or her services for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2018, or calendar year ended December 31, 2017, as applicable.
| Compensation Table(1) | ||||
| AGGREGATE COMPENSATION FROM A FUND | Peter C.Aldrich | Ralph F.Cox | Mary C.Farrell | KarenKaplan |
| Strategic Advisers® Core Fund(2) | $50,785 | $50,832 | $50,237 | $47,980 |
| TOTAL COMPENSATION FROM THE FUND COMPLEX(3) | $272,500 | $287,500 | $257,500 | $257,500 |
| AGGREGATE COMPENSATION FROM A FUND | Heidi L.Steiger(4) | |||
| Strategic Advisers® Core Fund(2) | $29,609 | |||
| TOTAL COMPENSATION FROM THE FUND COMPLEX(3) | $47,500 | |||
(1) Brian B. Hogan, Robert A. Lawrence, and Howard E. Cox, Jr. are interested persons and are compensated by Strategic Advisers or an affiliate (including FMR).
(2) Compensation figures include cash and may include amounts elected to be deferred. Certain individuals' aggregate compensation from the fund includes accrued voluntary deferred compensation as follows: Mary C. Farrell, $20,264; and Karen Kaplan, $38,733.
(3) Reflects compensation received for the calendar year ended December 31, 2017, for 19 funds of one trust. Compensation figures include cash and may include amounts elected to be deferred. Certain individuals elected voluntarily to defer a portion of their compensation as follows: Mary C. Farrell, $105,000; and Karen Kaplan, $210,000.
(4) Ms. Steiger served as a Member of the Advisory Board of Fidelity Rutland Square Street Trust II from November 1, 2017 through December 6, 2017. Ms. Steiger serves as a Trustee of Fidelity Rutland Square Street Trust II effective December 7, 2017.
As of May 31, 2018, the Trustees, Members of the Advisory Board (if any), and officers of the fund owned, in the aggregate, less than 1% of each class's total outstanding shares, with respect to the fund.
CONTROL OF INVESTMENT ADVISERS
FMR LLC, as successor by merger to FMR Corp., is the ultimate parent company of Strategic Advisers and FIAM. The voting common shares of FMR LLC are divided into two series. Series B is held predominantly by members of the Abigail P. Johnson family, directly or through trusts, and is entitled to 49% of the vote on any matter acted upon by the voting common shares. Series A is held predominantly by non-Johnson family member employees of FMR LLC and its affiliates and is entitled to 51% of the vote on any such matter. The Johnson family group and all other Series B shareholders have entered into a shareholders' voting agreement under which all Series B shares will be voted in accordance with the majority vote of Series B shares. Under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (1940 Act), control of a company is presumed where one individual or group of individuals owns more than 25% of the voting securities of that company. Therefore, through their ownership of voting common shares and the execution of the shareholders' voting agreement, members of the Johnson family may be deemed, under the 1940 Act, to form a controlling group with respect to FMR LLC.
At present, the primary business activities of FMR LLC and its subsidiaries are: (i) the provision of investment advisory, management, shareholder, investment information and assistance and certain fiduciary services for individual and institutional investors; (ii) the provision of securities brokerage services; (iii) the management and development of real estate; and (iv) the investment in and operation of a number of emerging businesses.
As of December 31, 2017, AXA, a société anonyme organized under the laws of France and the holding company for the AXA Group, a worldwide leader in financial protection, through certain of its subsidiaries ("AXA and its subsidiaries") owns approximately 3.9% of the issued and outstanding units representing assignments of beneficial ownership of limited partnership interests in AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. ("AB Holding Units").
As of December 31, 2017, the ownership structure of AllianceBernstein, expressed as a percentage of general and limited partnership interests, is as follows: AXA and its subsidiaries, 63.3%; AB Holding, 35.5%; Unaffiliated holders, 1.2%.
AllianceBernstein Corporation (an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of AXA, "General Partner") is the general partner of both AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. ("AB Holding") and AllianceBernstein. AllianceBernstein Corporation owns 100,000 general partnership units in AB Holding and a 1% general partnership interest in AllianceBernstein. Including both the general partnership and limited partnership interests in AB Holding and AllianceBernstein, AXA and its subsidiaries had an approximate 64.7% economic interest in AllianceBernstein as of December 31, 2017.
Aristotle Capital, a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at 11100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90025. Aristotle Capital was founded in 1959 through predecessor entities. Aristotle Capital is a limited liability company majority owned by employees. Howard Gleicher, Aristotle Capital’s CEO and Chief Investment Officer and Richard S. Hollander, Aristotle Capital’s Chairman, each own 50% of the voting interest in Aristotle Capital. RCB Acquisition Company is a holding company whose sole purpose is to hold Mr. Hollander’s ownership interest in Aristotle Capital Management.
Boston Partners, an SEC-registered investment adviser, has its principal office at 909 Third Avenue, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10022. Boston Partners is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of ORIX Corporation of Japan.
Brandywine Global, a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Brandywine Global is a wholly owned, independently operated subsidiary of Legg Mason, Inc.
ClariVest is a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at 3611 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, California 92130. ClariVest employees own 55% of ClariVest. Eagle Asset Management, Inc., a subsidiary of Raymond James Financial, owns 45%.
FIAM is a registered investment adviser. FMR LLC is the ultimate parent company of FIAM. Information regarding the ownership of FMR LLC is disclosed above.
Geode, a registered investment adviser, is a subsidiary of Geode Capital Holdings, LLC. Geode and Geode Capital Holdings, LLC have principal offices at One Post Office Square, 20th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02109. Geode was founded in January 2001 to develop and manage quantitative and investment strategies and to provide advisory and sub-advisory services.
Invesco is located at 1555 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Invesco, as successor in interest to multiple investment advisers, has been a registered investment adviser since 1976 and is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Invesco Ltd., a publicly traded company that, through its subsidiaries, engages in the business of investment management on an international basis.
JPMorgan is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JP Morgan Asset Management Holdings Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan Chase), a bank holding company. JPMorgan is located at 270 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017.
Loomis Sayles, a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Loomis Sayles is an indirect subsidiary of Natixis Investment Managers, L.P. (formerly Natixis Global Asset Management, L.P.), which is an indirect subsidiary of Natixis Investment Managers (formerly Natixis Global Asset Management), an international asset management group based in Paris, France. Natixis Investment Managers is principally owned by BPCE, France’s second largest banking group.
LSV, a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at 155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4600, Chicago, IL 60606. LSV is a Delaware general partnership between its management team and current and retired employee partners (61%) and SEI Funds, Inc. (39%), a wholly-owned subsidiary of SEI Investments Company.
MFS is a registered investment adviser, has its principal offices at 111 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02199. MFS and its predecessor organizations have a history of money management dating from 1924. MFS is a subsidiary of Sun Life of Canada (U.S.) Financial Services Holdings, Inc., which in turn is an indirect majority-owned subsidiary of Sun Life Financial Inc. (a diversified financial services company).
PineBridge Investments is an SEC-registered investment adviser with its principal office located at 399 Park Avenue; 4th Floor; New York, New York 10022. Registered as an investment adviser since May 1983, PineBridge Investments was formerly known as AIG Global Investment Corporation. PineBridge Investments is currently an indirect subsidiary of PineBridge Investments, L.P., a company owned by Pacific Century Group (“PCG”), an Asia-based private investment group. PCG is majority owned by Richard Li Tzar Kai. As of March 31, 2019, PineBridge Investments and its affiliates had approximately $93.4 billion in assets under management.
T. Rowe Price is a registered investment adviser. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., a publicly-traded financial services holding company (NASDAQ: TROW), owns 100% of the stock of T. Rowe Price and all of its subsidiaries.
Strategic Advisers, AllianceBernstein, Aristotle Capital, Boston Partners, Brandywine Global, ClariVest, FIAM, Geode, Invesco, JPMorgan, Loomis Sayles, LSV, MFS, PineBridge Investments, and T. Rowe Price (the Investment Advisers), Fidelity Distributors Corporation (FDC), and the fund have adopted codes of ethics under Rule 17j-1 of the 1940 Act that set forth employees' fiduciary responsibilities regarding the fund, establish procedures for personal investing, and restrict certain transactions. Employees subject to the codes of ethics, including the Investment Advisers' investment personnel, may invest in securities for their own investment accounts, including securities that may be purchased or held by the fund.
MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
The fund has entered into a management contract with Strategic Advisers, pursuant to which Strategic Advisers furnishes investment advisory and other services.
The fund's initial shareholder approved a proposal permitting Strategic Advisers to enter into new or amended sub-advisory agreements with one or more unaffiliated sub-advisers without obtaining shareholder approval of such agreements, subject to conditions of an exemptive order that has been granted by the SEC (Exemptive Order). One of the conditions of the Exemptive Order requires the Board of Trustees to approve any such agreement. Subject to oversight by the Board of Trustees, Strategic Advisers has the ultimate responsibility to oversee the fund's sub-advisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement. In the event the Board of Trustees approves a sub-advisory agreement with a new unaffiliated sub-adviser, shareholders will be provided with information about the new sub-adviser and sub-advisory agreement within ninety days of appointment.
Strategic Advisers has retained AllianceBernstein, Aristotle Capital, Boston Partners, Brandywine Global, ClariVest, FIAM, Geode, Invesco, JPMorgan, Loomis Sayles, LSV, MFS, PineBridge Investments, and T. Rowe Price to serve as sub-advisers for the fund. The sub-advisers do not sponsor the fund.
It is not possible to predict the extent to which the fund's assets will be invested by a particular sub-adviser at any given time and one or more sub-advisers may not be managing any assets for the fund at any given time.
Management and Sub-Advisory Services. Under the terms of its management contract with the fund, Strategic Advisers acts as investment adviser and, subject to the supervision of the Board of Trustees, directs the investments of the fund in accordance with its investment objective, policies and limitations. Strategic Advisers is authorized, in its discretion, to allocate the fund's assets pursuant to its investment strategy. Strategic Advisers or its affiliates provide the fund with all necessary office facilities and personnel for servicing the fund's investments, compensate all officers of the fund and all Trustees who are interested persons of the trust or of Strategic Advisers, and compensate all personnel of the fund or Strategic Advisers performing services relating to research, statistical and investment activities.
In addition, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates, subject to the supervision of the Board of Trustees, provide the management and administrative services necessary for the operation of the fund. These services include providing facilities for maintaining the fund's organization; supervising relations with custodians, transfer and pricing agents, accountants, underwriters and other persons dealing with the fund; preparing all general shareholder communications and conducting shareholder relations; maintaining the fund's records and the registration of the fund's shares under federal securities laws and making necessary filings under state securities laws; developing management and shareholder services for the fund; and furnishing reports, evaluations and analyses on a variety of subjects to the Trustees.
Under its respective sub-advisory agreement, and subject to the supervision of the Board of Trustees, each sub-adviser directs the investment of its allocated portion of the fund's assets in accordance with the fund's investment objective, policies and limitations.
Management-Related Expenses. Under the terms of the fund's management contract, Strategic Advisers, either itself or through an affiliate, is responsible for payment of all operating expenses of the fund with limited exceptions. Specific expenses payable by Strategic Advisers include expenses for typesetting, printing, and mailing proxy materials to shareholders, legal expenses, fees of the custodian, auditor, and interested Trustees, the fund's proportionate share of insurance premiums and Investment Company Institute dues, and the costs of registering shares under federal securities laws and making necessary filings under state securities laws. The fund's management contract further provides that Strategic Advisers will pay for typesetting, printing, and mailing prospectuses, statements of additional information, notices, and reports to shareholders; however, under the terms of the fund's transfer agent agreement, the transfer agent bears these costs. Strategic Advisers also is responsible for the payment of any fees associated with pricing and bookkeeping services and the costs associated with securities lending, as applicable.
Strategic Advisers pays all other expenses of the fund with the following exceptions: fees and expenses of the Independent Trustees, interest on borrowings, taxes, brokerage commissions (if any), shareholder charges (if any) associated with investing in the underlying funds, prime brokerage fees and expenses, including margin interest and payments in lieu of dividends associated with short sale transactions, and such non-recurring expenses as may arise, including costs of any litigation to which the fund may be a party, and any obligation it may have to indemnify its officers and Trustees with respect to litigation.
Management Fee.
For the services of Strategic Advisers under the management contract, the fund pays Strategic Advisers a monthly management fee calculated by adding the annual rate of 0.25% of the fund's average daily net assets throughout the month plus the total fees payable monthly to the fund's sub-advisers based upon each sub-adviser's respective allocated portion of the fund's assets; provided, however, that the fund's maximum aggregate annual management fee will not exceed 1.00% of the fund's average daily net assets and that the fee, so computed, will be reduced by the compensation, including reimbursement of expenses, paid by the fund to the Independent Trustees.
In addition, Strategic Advisers has contractually agreed to waive a portion of the fund's management fee in an amount equal to 0.25% of the average daily net assets of the fund until September 30, 2020. The fee waiver will increase returns.
The following table shows the amount of management fees paid by the fund to Strategic Advisers for the past three fiscal years. In addition, the table shows the amount of waivers reducing management fees.
| Fund | Fiscal Years Ended May 31 | Amount of Waivers Reducing Management Fees | Amount of Credit Reducing Management Fees | Management Fees Paid to Investment Adviser | Management Fees Paid as a % of Average Net Assets of the Fund |
| Strategic Advisers® Core Fund | 2018 | $61,043,454 | $300,106 | $51,309,035 | 0.21% |
| 2017 | $58,529,726 | $25,371 | $47,718,714 | 0.21% | |
| 2016 | $60,124,719 | $90,038 | $42,809,171 | 0.18% |
Strategic Advisers may, from time to time, voluntarily reimburse all or a portion of a fund's or, in the case of a multiple class fund, a class's operating expenses. Strategic Advisers retains the ability to be repaid for these expense reimbursements in the amount that expenses fall below the limit prior to the end of the fiscal year.
Expense reimbursements will increase returns, and repayment of the reimbursement will decrease returns.
Sub-Adviser - AllianceBernstein. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with AllianceBernstein pursuant to which AllianceBernstein may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays AllianceBernstein fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by AllianceBernstein pursuant to a separately negotiated investment mandate (a "Strategy"). The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by AllianceBernstein under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by AllianceBernstein pursuant to that Strategy.
Sub-Adviser - Aristotle Capital. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Aristotle Capital pursuant to which Aristotle Capital may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Aristotle Capital fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Aristotle Capital pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Aristotle Capital under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Aristotle Capital pursuant to that Strategy.
Sub-Adviser - Boston Partners. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Boston Partners pursuant to which Boston Partners may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Boston Partners fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Boston Partners pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Boston Partners under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Boston Partners pursuant to that Strategy.
Sub-Adviser - Brandywine Global. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Brandywine Global pursuant to which Brandywine Global may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Brandywine Global fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Brandywine Global pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Brandywine Global under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Brandywine Global pursuant to that Strategy.
Sub-Adviser - ClariVest. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with ClariVest pursuant to which ClariVest may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays ClariVest fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by ClariVest pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by ClariVest under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by ClariVest pursuant to that Strategy.
Sub-Adviser - FIAM. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with FIAM pursuant to which FIAM may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays FIAM fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by FIAM pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by FIAM under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by FIAM pursuant to that Strategy.
The following fee rate schedules apply to the mandates below.
Large Cap Core: 0.40% of the first $100 million in assets and 0.30% on any amount in excess of $100 million in assets.
Quantitative Large Cap Core: 0.40% of the first $100 million in assets; 0.35% of the next $150 million in assets; 0.30% of the next $100 million in assets; and 0.25% on any amount in excess of $350 million in assets.
Sector Managed: 0.28% on all assets.
US Equity Strategy: 0.275% of the first $500 million in assets and 0.225% on any amount in excess of $500 million in assets.
Sub-Adviser - Geode. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Geode pursuant to which Geode may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Geode fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Geode pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Geode under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Geode pursuant to that Strategy.
The following fee rate schedule applies to the mandate below.
Factor-Based: 0.125% of the first $500 million in assets; 0.10% of the next $500 million in assets; and 0.075% on any amount in excess of $1 billion in assets.
Sub-Adviser - Invesco. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Invesco pursuant to which Invesco may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Invesco fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Invesco pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Invesco under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Invesco pursuant to that Strategy.
Sub-Adviser - JPMorgan. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with JPMorgan pursuant to which JPMorgan may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays JPMorgan fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by JPMorgan pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by JPMorgan under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by JPMorgan pursuant to that Strategy.
Sub-Adviser - Loomis Sayles. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Loomis Sayles pursuant to which Loomis Sayles may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Loomis Sayles fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Loomis Sayles pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Loomis Sayles under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Loomis Sayles pursuant to that Strategy.
Sub-Adviser - LSV. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with LSV pursuant to which LSV may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays LSV fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by LSV pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by LSV under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by LSV pursuant to that Strategy.
Sub-Adviser - MFS. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with MFS pursuant to which MFS may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays MFS fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by MFS pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by MFS under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by MFS pursuant to that Strategy.
Sub-Adviser - PineBridge Investments. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with PineBridge Investments pursuant to which PineBridge Investments may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays PineBridge Investments fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by PineBridge Investments pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by PineBridge Investments under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by PineBridge Investments pursuant to that Strategy.
Sub-Adviser - T. Rowe Price. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with T. Rowe Price pursuant to which T. Rowe Price may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays T. Rowe Price fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by T. Rowe Price pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by T. Rowe Price under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by T. Rowe Price pursuant to that Strategy.
The following table shows the amount of sub-advisory fees paid by Strategic Advisers, on behalf of the fund, to FIAM for the past three fiscal years.
| Fund | Fiscal Years Ended May 31, | Sub-Advisory Fees Paid by Strategic Advisers to FIAM | Sub-Advisory Fees Paid by Strategic Advisers to FIAM as a % of Average Net Assets of the Fund |
| Strategic Advisers® Core Fund | 2018 | $11,736,270 | 0.0486% |
| 2017 | $7,997,486 | 0.0345% | |
| 2016 | $4,647,373 | 0.0195% |
The following table shows the aggregate amount of sub-advisory fees paid by Strategic Advisers, on behalf of the fund, to unaffiliated sub-advisers for the past three fiscal years.
| Fund | Fiscal Years Ended May 31, | Aggregate Sub-Advisory Fees Paid to Unaffiliated Sub-Adviser(s) | Aggregate Sub-Advisory Fees Paid to Unaffiliated Sub-Adviser(s) as a % of Average Net Assets of the Fund |
| Strategic Advisers® Core Fund | 2018 | $40,165,132 | 0.1665% |
| 2017 | $40,044,559 | 0.1728% | |
| 2016 | $38,577,145 | 0.1618% |
Differences between the amount of the management fees paid by the fund to Strategic Advisers and the aggregate amount of the sub-advisory fees paid by Strategic Advisers, on behalf of the fund, to FIAM and unaffiliated sub-advisers may be due to expense estimates, which are accrued in the period to which they relate and adjusted when actual amounts are known.
John A. Stone and Niall Devitt are employees of Strategic Advisers, a subsidiary of FMR LLC and an affiliate of FMR. Strategic Advisers is the adviser to the fund.
Mr. Stone is lead portfolio manager of the fund and Mr. Devitt is co-manager of the fund, and each receives compensation for his services. As of May 31, 2018, portfolio manager compensation generally consists of a fixed base salary determined periodically (typically annually), a bonus, in certain cases, participation in several types of equity-based compensation plans, and, if applicable, relocation plan benefits. A portion of each portfolio manager's compensation may be deferred based on criteria established by Strategic Advisers or at the election of the portfolio manager.
Mr. Stone's base salary is determined by level of responsibility and tenure at Strategic Advisers or its affiliates. The primary components of the portfolio manager's bonus are based on (i) the pre-tax investment performance of the portfolio manager's fund(s) and account(s) measured against a benchmark index and a defined peer group assigned to each fund or account, and (ii) the investment performance of a broad range of Strategic Advisers funds and accounts, including the fund. Accounts may include model portfolios designed for asset allocation, retirement planning, or tax-sensitive goals. The pre-tax investment performance of the portfolio manager's fund(s) and account(s) is weighted according to his tenure on those fund(s) and account(s), and the average asset size of those fund(s) and account(s) over his tenure. Each component is calculated separately over a measurement period that initially is contemporaneous with the portfolio manager's tenure, but that eventually encompasses rolling periods of up to five years for the comparison to a benchmark index and peer group. A subjective component of the bonus is based on the portfolio manager's overall contribution to management of Strategic Advisers. The portion of the portfolio manager's bonus that is linked to the investment performance of the fund is based on the fund's pre-tax investment performance measured against the S&P 500® Index, and the pre-tax investment performance of the fund measured against the Morningstar® Large Blend Category. The portfolio manager may be compensated under equity-based compensation plans linked to increases or decreases in the net asset value of the stock of FMR LLC, Strategic Advisers' parent company. FMR LLC is a diverse financial services company engaged in various activities that include fund management, brokerage, retirement, and employer administrative services. If requested to relocate their primary residence, portfolio managers also may be eligible to receive benefits, such as home sale assistance and payment of certain moving expenses, under relocation plans for most full-time employees of FMR LLC and its affiliates.
Mr. Devitt's base salary is determined by level of responsibility and tenure at Strategic Advisers or its affiliates. The portfolio manager’s bonus is based on several components. The components of the portfolio manager's bonus are based on (i) the pre-tax investment performance of the portfolio manager's fund(s) and account(s) measured against a benchmark index and a defined peer group assigned to each fund or account, and (ii) the investment performance of a broad range of Strategic Advisers funds and accounts, including the fund. Accounts may include model portfolios designed for asset allocation, retirement planning, or tax-sensitive goals. The pre-tax investment performance of the portfolio manager's fund(s) and account(s) is weighted according to his tenure on those fund(s) and account(s), and the average asset size of those fund(s) and account(s) over his tenure. Each component is calculated separately over a measurement period that initially is contemporaneous with the portfolio manager's tenure, but that eventually encompasses rolling periods of up to five years for the comparison to a benchmark index and peer group. A subjective component of the bonus is based on the portfolio manager's overall contribution to management of Strategic Advisers. The portion of the portfolio manager's bonus that is linked to the investment performance of the fund is based on the fund's pre-tax investment performance measured against the S&P 500® Index, and the pre-tax investment performance of the fund measured against the Morningstar® Large Blend Category. The portfolio manager may be compensated under equity-based compensation plans linked to increases or decreases in the net asset value of the stock of FMR LLC, Strategic Advisers' parent company. FMR LLC is a diverse financial services company engaged in various activities that include fund management, brokerage, retirement, and employer administrative services. If requested to relocate their primary residence, portfolio managers also may be eligible to receive benefits, such as home sale assistance and payment of certain moving expenses, under relocation plans for most full-time employees of FMR LLC and its affiliates.
A portfolio manager's compensation plan may give rise to potential conflicts of interest. Although investors in the fund may invest through either tax-deferred accounts or taxable accounts, a portfolio manager's compensation is linked to the pre-tax performance of the fund, rather than its after-tax performance. A portfolio manager's base pay tends to increase with additional and more complex responsibilities that include increased assets under management and a portion of the bonus relates to marketing efforts, which together indirectly link compensation to sales. When a portfolio manager takes over a fund or an account, the time period over which performance is measured may be adjusted to provide a transition period in which to assess the portfolio. The management of multiple funds and accounts (including proprietary accounts) may give rise to potential conflicts of interest if the funds and accounts have different objectives, benchmarks, time horizons, and fees as a portfolio manager must allocate his time and investment ideas across multiple funds and accounts. In addition, a fund's trade allocation policies and procedures may give rise to conflicts of interest if the fund's orders do not get fully executed due to being aggregated with those of other accounts managed by Strategic Advisers or an affiliate. A portfolio manager may execute transactions for another fund or account that may adversely impact the value of securities held by a fund. Securities selected for other funds or accounts may outperform the securities selected for the fund. Portfolio managers may be permitted to invest in the funds they manage, even if a fund is closed to new investors. Trading in personal accounts, which may give rise to potential conflicts of interest, is restricted by a fund's Code of Ethics.
The following table provides information relating to other accounts managed by Mr. Stone as of May 31, 2018:
| Registered Investment Companies* | Other Pooled Investment Vehicles | Other Accounts |
|
| Number of Accounts Managed | 6 | 64 | none |
| Number of Accounts Managed with Performance-Based Advisory Fees | none | none | none |
| Assets Managed (in millions) | $47,985 | $93,001 | none |
| Assets Managed with Performance-Based Advisory Fees (in millions) | none | none | none |
* Includes Strategic Advisers® Core Fund ($24,986 (in millions) assets managed). The amount of assets managed of the fund reflects trades and other assets as of the close of the business day prior to the fund’s fiscal year-end.
As of May 31, 2018, the dollar range of shares of Strategic Advisers® Core Fund beneficially owned by Mr. Stone was $100,001 - $500,000.
The following table provides information relating to other accounts managed by Mr. Devitt as of May 31, 2018:
| Registered Investment Companies* | Other Pooled Investment Vehicles | Other Accounts |
|
| Number of Accounts Managed | 4 | none | none |
| Number of Accounts Managed with Performance-Based Advisory Fees | none | none | none |
| Assets Managed (in millions) | $36,720 | none | none |
| Assets Managed with Performance-Based Advisory Fees (in millions) | none | none | none |
* Includes Strategic Advisers® Core Fund ($24,986 (in millions) assets managed). The amount of assets managed of the fund reflects trades and other assets as of the close of the business day prior to the fund’s fiscal year-end.
As of May 31, 2018, the dollar range of shares of Strategic Advisers® Core Fund beneficially owned by Mr. Devitt was $10,001 - $50,000.
PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES
Proxy Voting - Strategic Advisers.
The following Proxy Voting Guidelines were established by the Board of Trustees of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II on behalf of the fund, after consultation with Strategic Advisers. (The guidelines are reviewed periodically by Strategic Advisers and its affiliates and by the Independent Trustees of the fund, and, accordingly, are subject to change.)
I. General Principles
A. The funds in the trust generally intend to vote shares of underlying funds using echo voting procedures (that is, in the same proportion as the holders of all other shares of the particular underlying fund).
B. Any proposals not covered by paragraph A above or other special circumstances will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with input from the appropriate Strategic Advisers analyst or portfolio manager, as applicable, subject to review and approval by the General Counsel or Compliance Officer of FMR or the General Counsel of FMR LLC.
Sub-Adviser(s):
Proxy voting policies and procedures are used by a sub-adviser to determine how to vote proxies relating to the securities held by its allocated portion of the fund's assets. The proxy voting policies and procedures used by a sub-adviser are described below.
Proxy Voting - AllianceBernstein.
Introduction
As an investment adviser, we are shareholder advocates and have a fiduciary duty to make investment decisions that are in our clients’ best interests by maximizing the value of their shares. Proxy voting is an integral part of this process, through which we support strong corporate governance structures, shareholder rights and transparency.
We have an obligation to vote proxies in a timely manner and we apply the principles in our Proxy Voting and Governance Policy (“Proxy Voting and Governance Policy” or “Policy”) and this policy statement to our proxy decisions. We believe a company’s environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) practices may have a significant effect on the value of the company, and we take these factors into consideration when voting. For additional information regarding our ESG policies and practices, please refer to our firm’s Statement of Policy Regarding Responsible Investment (“RI Policy”).
Our Policy, which outlines our policies for proxy voting and includes a wide range of issues that often appear on proxies, applies to all of AllianceBernstein’s investment management subsidiaries and investment services groups investing on behalf of clients globally. Both this Statement and the Policy are intended for use by those involved in the proxy voting decision-making process and those responsible for the administration of proxy voting (“Proxy Managers”), in order to ensure that our proxy voting policies and procedures are implemented consistently.
We sometimes manage accounts where proxy voting is directed by clients or newly-acquired subsidiary companies. In these cases, voting decisions may deviate from the Policy.
Research Underpins Decision Making
As a research-driven firm, we approach our proxy voting responsibilities with the same commitment to rigorous research and engagement that we apply to all of our investment activities. The different investment philosophies utilized by our investment teams may occasionally result in different conclusions being drawn regarding certain proposals and, in turn, may result in the Proxy Manager making different voting decisions on the same proposal. Nevertheless, the Proxy Manager votes proxies with the goal of maximizing the value of the securities in client portfolios.
In addition to our firm-wide proxy voting policies, we have a Proxy Voting and Governance Committee ("Proxy Voting and Governance Committee" or "Committee"), which provides oversight and includes senior investment professionals from Equities, Legal personnel and Operations personnel. It is the responsibility of the Committee to evaluate and maintain proxy voting procedures and guidelines, to evaluate proposals and issues not covered by these guidelines, to consider changes in policy, and to review this Statement and the Policy no less frequently than annually. In addition, the Committee meets at least three times a year and as necessary to address special situations.
Research Services
We subscribe to the corporate governance and proxy research services of Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”). All our investment professionals can access these materials via the Proxy Manager and/or the Committee.
Engagement
In evaluating proxy issues and determining our votes, we welcome and seek out the points of view of various parties. Internally, the Proxy Manager may consult the Committee, Chief Investment Officers, Directors of Research, and/or Research Analysts across our equities platforms, and Portfolio Managers in whose managed accounts a stock is held. Externally, we may engage with companies in advance of their Annual General Meeting, and throughout the year. We believe engagement provides the opportunity to share our philosophy, our corporate governance values, and more importantly, affect positive change. Also, these meetings often are joint efforts between the investment professionals, who are best positioned to comment on company-specific details, and the Proxy Manager(s), who offer a more holistic view of governance practices and relevant trends. In addition, we engage with shareholder proposal proponents and other stakeholders to understand different viewpoints and objectives.
Proxy Voting Guidelines
Our proxy voting guidelines are both principles-based and rules-based. We adhere to a core set of principles that are described in the Policy. We assess each proxy proposal in light of these principles. Our proxy voting “litmus test” will always be what we view as most likely to maximize long-term shareholder value. We believe that authority and accountability for setting and executing corporate policies, goals and compensation generally should rest with the board of directors and senior management. In return, we support strong investor rights that allow shareholders to hold directors and management accountable if they fail to act in the best interests of shareholders.
Our proxy voting guidelines pertaining to specific issues are set forth in the Policy and include guidelines relating to board and director proposals, compensation proposals, capital changes and anti-takeover proposals, auditor proposals, shareholder access and voting proposals, and environmental, social and disclosure proposals. The following are examples of specific issues within each of these broad categories:
Board and Director Proposals: Election of Directors
The election of directors is an important vote. We expect directors to represent shareholder interests at the company and maximize shareholder value. We generally vote in favor of the management-proposed slate of directors while considering a number of factors, including local market best practice. We believe companies should have a majority of independent directors and independent key committees. However, we will incorporate local market regulation and corporate governance codes into our decision making. We may support more progressive requirements than those implemented in a local market if we believe more progressive requirements may improve corporate governance practices. We will generally regard a director as independent if the director satisfies the criteria for independence (i) espoused by the primary exchange on which the company’s shares are traded, or (ii) set forth in the code we determine to be best practice in the country where the subject company is domiciled and may take into account affiliations, related-party transactions and prior service to the company. We consider the election of directors who are “bundled” on a single slate on a case-by-case basis considering the amount of information available and an assessment of the group’s qualifications.
Compensation Proposals: Executive and Employee Compensation Plans, Policies, and Reports
In certain markets, (e.g., Australia, Canada, Germany and the United States), publicly traded issuers are required by law to submit their company’s remuneration report to a non-binding shareholder vote. The report contains, among other things, the nature and amount of the compensation of the directors and certain executive officers as well as a discussion of the company’s performance. In other markets, remuneration policy resolutions are binding.
We evaluate remuneration reports and policies on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the reasonableness of the company’s compensation structure and the adequacy of the disclosure. In all cases, however, we assess each proposed Compensation Plan within the framework of four guiding principles, each of which ensures a company's Compensation Plan and helps to align to the long-term interests of management with shareholders:
1. Valid measures of business performance should be tied to the firm's strategy and shareholder value creation, which should also be clearly articulated and incorporate appropriate time periods;
2. Compensation costs should be managed in the same way as any other expense;
3. Compensation should reflect management's handling, or failure to handle, any recent social, environmental, governance, ethical, or legal issue that had a significant adverse financial or reputational effect on the company; and
4. In granting compensatory awards, management should exhibit a history of integrity and decision-making based on logic and well thought out processes.
We may oppose plans which include, and directors who establish, compensation plan provisions deemed to be in poor practice such as automatic acceleration of equity, or single-triggered, in the event of a change in control.
Although votes on compensation plans are by nature only broad indications of shareholder views, they do lead to more compensation-related dialogue between management and shareholders and help ensure that management and shareholders meet their common objective: maximizing shareholder value.
In markets where votes on compensation plans are not required for all companies, we will support shareholder proposals asking the board to adopt such a vote on an advisory basis.
Capital Changes and Anti-Takeover Proposals: Authorize Share Repurchase
We generally support share repurchase proposals that are part of a well-articulated and well-conceived capital strategy. We assess proposals to give the board unlimited authorization to repurchase shares on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, we would generally support the use of derivative instruments (e.g., put options and call options) as part of a share repurchase plan absent a compelling reason to the contrary. Also, absent a specific concern at the company, we will generally support a repurchase plan that could be continued during a takeover period.
Auditor Proposals: Appointment of Auditors
We believe that the company is in the best position to choose its accounting firm, and we generally support management's recommendation.
We recognize that there may be inherent conflicts when a company’s independent auditors perform substantial non-audit related services for the company. Therefore, in reviewing a proposed auditor, we will consider the amount of fees paid for non-audit related services performed compared to the total audit fees paid by the company to the auditing firm, and whether there are any other reasons for us to question the independence or performance of the firm’s auditor such as, for example, tenure. We generally will deem as excessive the non-audit fees paid by a company to its auditor if those fees account for 50% or more of total fees paid. In the UK market, which utilizes a different standard, we adhere to a non-audit fee cap of 100% of audit fees. Under these circumstances, we generally vote against the auditor and the directors, in particular the members of the company’s audit committee. In addition, we generally vote against authorizing the audit committee to set the remuneration of such auditors. We exclude from this analysis non-audit fees related to IPOs, bankruptcy emergence, and spin-offs and other extraordinary events. We may vote against or abstain due to a lack of disclosure of the name of the auditor while taking into account local market practice.
Shareholder Access and Voting Proposals: Proxy Access for Annual Meetings
These proposals allow “qualified shareholders” to nominate directors. We generally vote in favor of management and shareholder proposals for proxy access that employ guidelines reflecting the SEC framework for proxy access (adopted by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in 2010, but vacated by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011), which would have allowed a single shareholder, or group of shareholders, who hold at least 3% of the voting power for at least three years continuously to nominate up to 25% of the current board seats, or two directors, for inclusion in the subject company’s annual proxy statement alongside management nominees.
We may vote against proposals that use requirements that are stricter than the SEC’s framework, including implementation restrictions, and against individual board members, or entire boards, who exclude from their ballot properly submitted shareholder proxy access proposals or include their own competing, and stricter, proposals on the same ballot.
We will evaluate on a case-by-case basis proposals with less stringent requirements than the vacated SEC framework.
From time to time we may receive requests to join with other shareholders to support a shareholder action. We may, for example, receive requests to join a voting block for purposes of influencing management. If the third parties requesting our participation are not affiliated with us and have no business relationships with us, we will consider the request on a case-by-case basis. However, where the requesting party has a business relationship with us (e.g., the requesting party is a client or a significant service provider), agreeing to such a request may pose a potential conflict of interest. As a fiduciary we have an obligation to vote proxies in the best interest of our clients (without regard to our own interests in generating and maintaining business with our other clients) and given our desire to avoid even the appearance of a conflict, we will generally decline such a request.
Environmental, Social and Disclosure Proposals: Lobbying and Political Spending
We generally vote in favor of proposals requesting increased disclosure of political contributions and lobbying expenses, including those paid to trade organizations and political action committees, whether at the federal, state, or local level. These proposals may increase transparency.
We generally vote proposals in accordance with these guidelines but, consistent with our “principles-based” approach to proxy voting, we may deviate from the guidelines if warranted by the specific facts and circumstances of the situation (i.e., if, under the circumstances, we believe that deviating from our stated policy is necessary to help maximize long-term shareholder value). In addition, these guidelines are not intended to address all issues that may appear on all proxy ballots. Proposals not specifically addressed by these guidelines, whether submitted by management or shareholders, will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, always keeping in mind our fiduciary duty to make voting decisions that, by maximizing long-term shareholder value, are in our clients’ best interests.
Conflicts of Interest
As a fiduciary, we always must act in our clients’ best interests. We strive to avoid even the appearance of a conflict that may compromise the trust our clients have placed in us, and we insist on strict adherence to fiduciary standards and compliance with all applicable federal and state securities laws. We have adopted a comprehensive Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (“Code”) to help us meet these obligations. As part of this responsibility and as expressed throughout the Code, we place the interests of our clients first and attempt to avoid any perceived or actual conflicts of interest.
We recognize that there may be a potential material conflict of interest when we vote a proxy solicited by an issuer that sponsors a retirement plan we manage (or administer), that distributes AllianceBernstein-sponsored mutual funds, or with which we or one or more of our employees have another business or personal relationship that may affect how we vote on the issuer’s proxy. Similarly, we may have a potential material conflict of interest when deciding how to vote on a proposal sponsored or supported by a shareholder group that is a client. In order to avoid any perceived or actual conflict of interest, we have established procedures for use when we encounter a potential conflict to ensure that our voting decisions are based on our clients’ best interests and are not the product of a conflict. These procedures include compiling a list of companies and organizations whose proxies may pose potential conflicts of interest (e.g., if such company is our client) and reviewing our proposed votes for these companies and organizations in light of the Policy and ISS’s recommendations. If our proposed vote is contrary to, or not contemplated in, the Policy, is consistent with a client’s position and is contrary to ISS's recommendation, we refer to proposed vote to our Independent Compliance Officer for his determination.
In addition, our Proxy Voting and Governance Committee takes reasonable steps to verify that ISS continues to be independent, including an annual review of ISS’s conflict management procedures. When reviewing these conflict management procedures, we consider, among other things, whether ISS (i) has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues; and (ii) can offer research in an impartial manner and in the best interests of our clients.
Voting Transparency
Many clients have requested that we provide them with periodic reports on how we voted their proxies. Clients may obtain information about how we voted proxies on their behalf by contacting their Advisor. Alternatively, clients may make a written request to the Chief Compliance Officer.
Recordkeeping
All of the records referenced in our Policy will be kept in an easily accessible place for at least the length of time required by local regulation and custom, and, if such local regulation requires that records are kept for less than five years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry was made on such record, we will follow the U.S. rule of five years. We maintain the vast majority of these records electronically. We will keep paper records, if any, in one of our offices for at least two years.
Proxy Voting - Aristotle Capital.
Aristotle Capital's policy is to vote proxies on behalf of client accounts. Aristotle Capital has adopted Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures. Where Aristotle Capital has proxy voting authority for securities of its advisory clients, Aristotle Capital will vote such securities for the exclusive benefit, and in the best economic interest, of those clients and their beneficiaries, as determined by Aristotle Capital in good faith, subject to any restrictions or directions from the client. Aristotle Capital will not have the ability to accept direction from clients on a particular solicitation.
Aristotle Capital has written proxy voting policies and procedures ("Proxy Procedures") as required by Rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act. Such voting responsibilities are exercised in accordance with the general antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act, as well as with Aristotle Capital's fiduciary duties under federal and state law to act in the best interests of its clients.
Aristotle Capital has contracted with Institutional Shareholder Services ("ISS") and will use their proxy platform for proxy administration. Aristotle Capital will direct each custodian to forward proxy ballots to ISS for processing. Aristotle Capital has access to the ballots through the ISS website and may provide ISS with instructions on how to vote the ballots or Aristotle Capital may vote the ballots through the website. ISS records the votes and provides proxy voting accounting and reporting. Case-by-case proxy voting decisions are generally made by the Chief Investment Officer or his designee. All voting records are maintained by ISS, except that Aristotle Capital will maintain copies of any document created by Aristotle Capital that was material in making a determination of how to vote "case-by-case" proxy or that memorializes the basis for that decision.
Aristotle Capital acknowledges its responsibility for identifying material conflicts of interest related to voting proxies. In order to ensure that Aristotle Capital is aware of the facts necessary to identify conflicts, senior management of Aristotle Capital must disclose to the CCO any personal conflicts such as officer or director positions held by them, their spouses or close relatives, in any portfolio company. Conflicts based on business relationships with Aristotle Capital or any affiliate of Aristotle Capital will be considered only to the extent that Aristotle Capital has actual knowledge of such relationships. If a conflict may exist which cannot be otherwise addressed by the CIO, Aristotle Capital may choose one of several options including: (1) "echo" or "mirror" voting the proxies in the same proportion as the votes of other proxy holders that are not Aristotle Capital clients; (2) if possible, erecting information barriers around the person or persons making the voting decision sufficient to insulate the decision from the conflict; or (3) if agreed upon in writing with the client, forwarding the proxies to affected clients and allowing them to vote their own proxies.
Clients may choose to vote their own proxies for securities held in their account or designate a third party to vote proxies. If this is the case, the Client must notify Aristotle Capital and proxy solicitations will be sent directly to clients or the third party designee who will then assume responsibility for voting them. If Aristotle Capital does not have the authority to vote proxies on behalf of the client, the client may contact Aristotle Capital with questions about a particular solicitation.
Aristotle Capital will neither advise nor act on behalf of the client in legal proceedings involving companies whose securities are held in the client's account(s), including, but not limited to, the filing of "Proofs of Claim" in class action settlements. If desired, clients may direct Aristotle Capital to transmit copies of class action notices to the client or a third party. Upon such direction, Aristotle Capital will make commercially reasonable efforts to forward such notices in a timely manner. On an exception basis, clients can instruct Aristotle Capital to vote proxies according to particular criteria (for example, to vote for or against a proposal to allow a so-called "poison pill" defense against a possible takeover). These requests must be made in writing and with sufficient advance notice so Aristotle Capital is able to meet the voting deadline.
Proxy Voting - Boston Partners.
The Boston Partners' Governance Committee (the "Committee") is responsible for administering Boston Partners' proxy voting process. The Committee makes decisions on proxy policy, establishes formal Proxy Voting Policies (the "Guidelines") and updates the Guidelines as necessary, but no less frequently than annually. In addition, the Committee, in its sole discretion, may delegate certain functions to internal departments and/or engage third-party vendors to assist in the proxy voting process. Finally, selected members of the Committee will be responsible for evaluating and resolving conflicts of interest relating to Boston Partners' proxy voting process.
To assist Boston Partners in carrying out its responsibilities with respect to proxy activities, the firm has engaged Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. ("ISS"), a third party corporate governance research service. ISS receives all proxy-related materials for securities held in client accounts and votes the proposals in accordance with the Guidelines. While Boston Partners may consider ISS's recommendations on proxy issues, Boston Partners bears ultimate responsibility for proxy voting decisions. ISS also provides recordkeeping and vote-reporting services.
How Boston Partners Votes
The Guidelines were developed in conjunction with ISS and predominantly follow a combination of their standard and PVS (Taft-Hartley) guidelines. In determining how proxies should be voted, Boston Partners primarily focuses on maximizing the economic value of its clients' investments. In the case of social and political responsibility issues that, in its view, do not primarily involve financial considerations, it is Boston Partners' objective to support shareholder proposals that it believes promote good corporate citizenship.
Boston Partners has identified for ISS certain routine issues that enable them to vote in a consistent manner with regard to those proposals. In addition, Boston Partners has outlined certain criteria for addressing non-routine issues. ISS performs in-depth research and analysis and, where required by the Guidelines, performs a case-by-case evaluation prior to casting a ballot on Boston Partners' behalf. Although Boston Partners has instructed ISS to vote in accordance with the Guidelines, Boston Partners retains the right to deviate from those Guidelines if, in its estimation, doing so would be in the best interest of clients. Boston Partners may refrain from voting proxies where it is unable or unwilling to do so because of legal or operational difficulties or because it believes the administrative burden and/or associated cost exceeds the expected benefit to a client.
Conflicts
ISS is a third-party service provider engaged to make recommendations and to vote proxies in accordance with Boston Partners' predetermined Guidelines. Because Boston Partners votes proxies based on predetermined Guidelines, Boston Partners believes clients are sufficiently insulated from any actual or perceived conflicts Boston Partners may encounter between its interests and those of its clients. However, Boston Partners may deviate from the Guidelines in certain circumstances or its Guidelines may not address certain proxy voting proposals. If a member of Boston Partners' research or portfolio management team recommends that it vote a particular proxy proposal in a manner inconsistent with the Guidelines or if its Guidelines do not address a particular proposal, Boston Partners will adhere to certain procedures designed to ensure that the decision to vote the particular proxy proposal is based on the best interest of Boston Partners' clients. In summary, these procedures require the individual requesting a deviation from the Guidelines to complete a Conflicts Questionnaire (the "Questionnaire") along with written document of the economic rationale supporting the request. The Questionnaire seeks to identify possible relationships with the parties involved in the proxy that may not be readily apparent. Based on the responses to the Questionnaire, the Committee (or a subset of the Committee) will determine whether it believes a material conflict of interest is present. If a material conflict of interest is found to exist, Boston Partners will vote in accordance with the instructions of the client, seek the recommendation of an independent third party or resolve the conflict in such other manner as Boston Partners believes is appropriate, including by making its own determination that a particular vote is, notwithstanding the conflict, in the best interest of clients.
Disclosures
A copy of Boston Partners' Proxy Voting Procedures, as updated from time to time, as well as information regarding the voting of securities for a client account is available upon request from Boston Partners' relationship manager.
Proxy Voting - Brandywine Global.
Policy. Brandywine Global has a responsibility to its clients for voting proxies for portfolio securities consistent with the best economic interests of its clients. Brandywine Global maintains written policies and procedures as to the handling, research, voting and reporting of proxy voting and makes appropriate disclosures about our firm's proxy policies and practices. The policy and practice includes the fact that the firm has a responsibility to monitor corporate actions, receive and vote client proxies and disclose any potential conflicts of interest as well as making information available to clients about the voting of proxies for their portfolio securities and maintaining relevant and required records.
Background. Proxy voting is an important right of shareholders and reasonable care and diligence must be undertaken to ensure that such rights are properly and timely exercised.
Investment advisers registered with the SEC, and which exercise voting authority with respect to client securities, are required by Rule 206(4)-6 of the Advisers Act to (a) adopt and implement written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that client securities are voted in the best interests of clients, which must include how an adviser addresses material conflicts that may arise between an adviser's interests and those of its clients; (b) to disclose to clients how they may obtain information from the adviser with respect to the voting of proxies for their securities; (c) to describe to clients a summary of its proxy voting policies and procedures and, upon request, furnish a copy to its clients; and (d) maintain certain records relating to the adviser's proxy voting activities when the adviser does have proxy voting authority.
Responsibility. Compliance has the responsibility for the implementation and monitoring of the firm's proxy voting policy, practices, disclosures and record keeping, including outlining voting guidelines in the procedures.
Procedures. Brandywine Global has implemented policies and procedures that we believe are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interest of clients, in accordance with our fiduciary duties and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"). Our authority to vote the proxies of our clients is established through investment management agreements or comparable documents.
In exercising its voting authority, Brandywine Global will not consult or enter into agreements with officers, directors or employees of its parent, Legg Mason Inc., or any of its affiliates, regarding the voting of any securities owned by its clients.
While the guidelines included in the procedures are intended to provide a benchmark for voting standards, each vote is ultimately cast on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration Brandywine Global's contractual obligations to our clients and all other relevant facts and circumstances at the time of the vote (such that these guidelines may be overridden to the extent Brandywine Global believes appropriate).
Voting Authority
• Brandywine Global shall assume the responsibility and authority with respect to the voting of proxies for all client accounts, unless such responsibility and authority expressly have been delegated to others or reserved to the trustee or other named fiduciary of a client account. In no event will Brandywine Global's authority to vote proxies obligate it to undertake any shareholder activism on behalf of any client.
• Brandywine Global's clients shall be responsible for notifying their custodians of the name and address of the person or entity with voting authority.
• Brandywine Global's Compliance Department, on a random basis, reviews the proxy voting process. The gathering and voting of proxies is coordinated through the Administrative Department and Brandywine Global maintains internal procedures to govern the processing of proxies, including handling client requests and monitoring for potential material conflicts. Research analysts, corporate action specialists and portfolio managers, otherwise referred to as voting persons, and are responsible for determining appropriate voting positions on each proxy utilizing any applicable guidelines contained in these procedures.
• Brandywine Global will not decline to vote proxies except in extraordinary circumstances, nor will Brandywine Global accept direction from others with regard to the voting of proxies. Brandywine Global will take the investment guidelines of an account into consideration in deciding how to vote on a particular issue.
• Brandywine Global may vote proxies related to the same security differently for each client.
• Brandywine Global seeks to identify any material conflicts that may arise between the interests of Brandywine Global and its clients in accordance with the following procedures. Except for extraordinary circumstances, in any such instance, the material conflict will be resolved by either excluding any conflicted person from the voting process or by voting in accordance with the recommendation of Glass Lewis, an independent third party.
• All relevant proxies are reviewed by the Legal and Compliance Department for potential material conflicts of interest. Issues to be reviewed may include whether Brandywine Global manages assets for the issuer, a shareholder proponent or an employee group of the issuer or otherwise has a current or potential business relationship with the issuer; whether Brandywine Global, one of its officers or directors or any voting person is a close relative of or has any personal or business relationship with the issuer (excluding normal commercial transactions and investment relationships where there is no special treatment), with an officer, director or other executive person at the issuer, with a candidate for election to the board of the issuer or with a shareholder proponent; whether there is any other material business or personal relationship which may create an interest in the outcome of the matter on the part of a voting person; or whether an affiliate of Brandywine Global's has a conflict as described above which is known to Brandywine Global's voting persons. Conflicts of this nature will be considered material. If the conflict pertains to an individual voting person that person will exclude him- or herself from the vote determination process in order to shield the Brandywine Global and other voting persons from the conflict, provided the compliance department believes that the other voting persons can determine a vote completely separate from the conflicted voting person. If the conflict cannot be contained, the proxy is voted according to the recommendation of Glass Lewis. Any time a material conflict is encountered, Brandywine Global will keep records on the nature of the conflict, the actual vote and the basis for the vote determination.
Voting Guidelines
• Proxies will not be voted without an analysis of the underlying issues involved.
• Brandywine Global's proxy voting policy at all times shall be directed toward maximizing the value of the assets of managed accounts, for the benefit of the accounts' ultimate owners/beneficiaries.
• Any item on a proxy, which would tend to inhibit the realization of maximum value, may receive a negative vote from Brandywine Global. Examples of such items would be staggered terms for directors, restrictions against cumulative voting, and establishment of different classes of stock, excessive compensation, poor stewardship, or any activity, which could be viewed as a "poison pill" maneuver.
• On other matters specific to a company, such as the election of directors, the appointment of auditors, granting of options, repricing of options, mergers and other material issues, a decision shall be made in conjunction with the primary analyst responsible for overseeing that company, consistent with the policy of maximizing value.
Voting Records & Client Notification
• A complete record and file of all votes cast shall be maintained by Brandywine Global for the period prescribed by the Securities Exchange Commission. Brandywine Global will similarly maintain copies of policies and procedures, proxy booklets, copies of any documents created by Brandywine Global that were material to making a decision how to vote proxies and a log of proxy requests and responses.
A proxy log shall be maintained by Brandywine Global that includes the issuer name, exchange ticker symbol, CUSIP number, shareholder meeting date, brief identification of the matter voted on, whether the matter was proposed by the issuer or by a shareholder of the issuer, whether a vote was cast on the matter, record of how the vote was cast, and whether the vote was cast for or against the recommendation of the issuer's management team.
Administration of Proxies
• At the inception of a new account over which Brandywine Global has domestic proxy voting authority:
• New client information is entered onto the "Proxy System" Broadridge Proxy Edge.
• Custodians are notified by the Client that proxies should be forwarded to Brandywine Global.
• Those proxies that arrive in the Mail Room are sorted and forwarded to a Proxy Administrator.
• Proxies are placed in date order into pending vote proxy files by a Proxy Administrator.
• Proxies are cross-referenced against the Alert List (discussed under Identifying Potential Conflicts).
• Proxies are then distributed to either the appropriate investment team or, in those instances where a proxy matches an Alert List entry, to the Legal and Compliance Department.
• In the event that no material conflict exists, the following procedures apply:
• The voting person's initials are entered onto the Proxy System's tickler file in the analyst block.
• Ballots are voted by a voting person and are returned to a Proxy Administrator for processing on the Proxy System.
• If a material conflict exists, a Proxy Administrator will obtain a copy of the Glass Lewis recommendation, which will be attached to the ballot.
• The voting person will then either (i) complete the Proxy System ballot in accordance with the attached recommendation; or (ii) exclude themselves in writing from voting the proxy.
• A Proxy Administrator will redirect the proxy to another voting person in instances where an exclusion has occurred.
• Where applicable, a Proxy Administrator will verify that the ballot was in fact voted in accordance with the Glass Lewis recommendation before entering it onto the Proxy System.
• The proxy booklets and Proxy System ballots are subjected to an approval process by a Proxy Administrator.
• During the approval process, ballot shares are matched against holdings shares.
• Discrepancies are researched through Brandywine Global's internal data warehouse and custodian banks are contacted where necessary to reconcile share amounts.
• Brandywine Global personnel act in such a manner to ensure that, absent special circumstances, the proxy gathering and proxy voting steps noted above could be completed before the applicable deadline for returning proxy votes.
• Any pending unvoted meetings are reviewed and monitored on a daily basis by Proxy Administrators.
• All voting records are maintained within the Proxy Systems.
• Proxy booklets and all additional information (including copies of any documents created by Brandywine Global that were material to making a decision how to vote proxies) are filed.
Administration of Client Requests
• All client requests for proxy information (both written and oral), including but not limited to voting records and requests for detailed Policies and Procedures, are referred to a Proxy Administrator.
• All requests are entered onto a Proxy Request Log maintained by a Proxy Administrator. Information on the log includes the date of the request, the content of the request and the date of the response by Brandywine Global.
• The Proxy Administrator works in conjunction with the Client Service Department to respond to all requests in writing.
• Copies of all written requests and responses thereto, including voting record reports, are maintained in a separate Proxy Request file.
Identifying Potential Conflict of interest
Personal Conflicts
• Each voting person must certify in writing at the beginning of each proxy season that he or she will notify the Legal and Compliance Department of:
1. any potential personal conflict with regard to a specific proxy; and
2. any potential conflict of which they become aware relating to another voting person.
• Potential conflicts should be interpreted broadly in order to capture instances where a conflict of interest could be perceived to exist by a third party. An objective `reasonableness' standard should be applied as opposed to a subjective determination that the individual is not in fact conflicted.
• The following are examples of potential personal conflicts which are extracted from the SEC's Final Rule (17 CFR Part 275 [Release No. IA-2106; File No. S7-38-02], RIN 3235-AI65):
• The adviser may also have business or personal relationships with participants in proxy contests, corporate directors or candidates for directorships. For example, an executive of the adviser may have a spouse or other close relative that serves as a director or executive of a company.
• Any Board positions held on a publicly traded company by a voting person (as evidenced by their most recent Code of Ethics Certification) will be examined on a case-by-case basis as proxy votes arise in that security.
• A list of potentially conflicted securities ("Alert List") will be provided to the Proxy Administrators, who will cross-reference proxy votes as they arise.
• Any proxies matching securities on the Alert List will be referred to the Legal and Compliance Department for an assessment of the materiality of the conflict.
Professional Conflicts
• In order to identify instances where a professional association could be perceived as a conflict of interest between Brandywine Global and a client for purposes of proxy voting, the following procedures will be followed:
• The names of all clients who are directly connected to a publicly traded security, through a significant ownership interest, which was held by a Brandywine Global account during the relevant proxy period, will be added to the Alert List.
• The names of all significant prospects that are directly connected to a publicly traded security, through a significant ownership interest, which was held by a Brandywine Global account during the relevant proxy period, will be added to the Alert List.
• The Alert List will be cross-referenced by the Proxy Administrators against proxies on a day-to-day basis.
Proxy Voting - ClariVest.
It is ClariVest’s policy to vote proxies in the interest of maximizing value for ClariVest’s Clients. ClariVest’s full policy regarding proxy voting is contained in its Compliance Manual.
ClariVest utilizes ISS to vote proxies. As a default, proxies are generally voted by ISS in accordance with ISS recommendations. This default minimizes potential conflicts of interest in proxy voting, as we rely on a third party vendor. However, ClariVest retains ultimate decision making authority with respect to the voting of Client proxies and reserves the right to override ISS recommendations. If there is a vote for which ISS does not provide a recommendation, the Operations Manager, Portfolio Manager(s) and CCO discuss the vote to determine which option is in the interest of maximizing value for ClariVest’s Clients.
ClariVest is not required to vote every Client proxy and refraining from voting should not necessarily be construed as a violation of ClariVest’s fiduciary obligations. There may be times when refraining from voting is in the Client’s best interest, such as when an adviser’s analysis of a particular Client proxy reveals that the cost of voting the proxy may exceed the expected benefit to the Client (i.e., casting a vote on a foreign security may require that the adviser engage a translator or travel to a foreign country to vote in person).
Proxy Voting - FIAM
The following are FIAM's Proxy Voting Guidelines (the "Guidelines"):
I. General Principles
A. Voting of shares will be conducted in a manner consistent with the best interests of clients. In other words, securities of a portfolio company will generally be voted in a manner consistent with the Guidelines and without regard to any other FIAM or Fidelity companies' relationship, business or otherwise. In evaluating proposals, FIAM considers information from a number of sources, including management or shareholders of a company presenting a proposal and proxy voting advisory firms, and uses all this information as an input within the larger mix of information to which the Guidelines are applied.
B. Investment Proxy Research votes proxies on behalf of FIAM’s clients. Execution of FIAM Proxy Votes is delegated to Investment Proxy Research. Like other Fidelity employees, Investment Proxy Research employees have a fiduciary duty to never place their own personal interest ahead of the interests of FIAM’s clients. Fidelity employees, including Investment Proxy Research employees, are instructed to avoid situations that could present even the appearance of a conflict. In the event of a conflict of interest, Fidelity employees will follow the escalation process included in Fidelity's corporate policy on conflicts of interest.
C. For proposals not covered by the Guidelines or that involve other special circumstances, FIAM evaluates them on a case-by-case basis with input from the appropriate analyst or portfolio manager with review by a member of senior management within Investment Proxy Research or an attorney within Fidelity's General Counsel's office.
D. FIAM will vote on proposals not specifically addressed by the Guidelines based on an evaluation of a proposal's likelihood to enhance the long-term economic returns or profitability of the portfolio company or to maximize long-term shareholder value. Where information is not readily available to analyze the long-term economic impact of the proposal, FIAM will generally abstain.
E. Many FIAM accounts invest in voting securities issued by companies that are domiciled outside the United States and are not listed on a U.S. securities exchange. Corporate governance standards, legal or regulatory requirements and disclosure practices in foreign countries can differ from those in the United States. When voting proxies relating to non-U.S. securities, FIAM will generally evaluate proposals in the context of the Guidelines and where applicable and feasible, take into consideration differing laws, regulations and practices in the relevant foreign market in determining how to vote shares.
F. In certain non-U.S. jurisdictions, shareholders voting shares of a portfolio company may be restricted from trading the shares for a period of time around the shareholder meeting date. Because such trading restrictions can hinder portfolio management and could result in a loss of liquidity for a client, FIAM will generally not vote proxies in circumstances where such restrictions apply. In addition, certain non-U.S. jurisdictions require voting shareholders to disclose current share ownership on a fund-by-fund basis. When such disclosure requirements apply, FIAM will generally not vote proxies in order to safeguard fund holdings information.
G. Where a management-sponsored proposal is inconsistent with the Guidelines, FIAM may receive a company's commitment to modify the proposal or its practice to conform to the Guidelines, and FIAM will generally support management based on this commitment. If a company subsequently does not abide by its commitment, FIAM will generally withhold authority for the election of directors at the next election.
II. Definitions (as used in this document)
A. Anti-Takeover Provision - includes fair price amendments; classified boards; "blank check" preferred stock; Golden Parachutes; supermajority provisions; Poison Pills; restricting the right to call special meetings; provisions restricting the right of shareholders to set board size; and any other provision that eliminates or limits shareholder rights.
B. Golden Parachute - Employment contracts, agreements, or policies that include an excise tax gross-up provision; single trigger for cash incentives; or may result in a lump sum payment of cash and acceleration of equity that may total more than three times annual compensation (salary and bonus) in the event of a termination following a change in control.
C. Greenmail - payment of a premium to repurchase shares from a shareholder seeking to take over a company through a proxy contest or other means.
D. Sunset Provision - a condition in a charter or plan that specifies an expiration date.
E. Poison Pill - a strategy employed by a potential take-over/target company to make its stock less attractive to an acquirer. Poison Pills are generally designed to dilute the acquirer's ownership and value in the event of a take-over.
F. Large-Capitalization Company - a company included in the Russell 1000® Index or the Russell Global ex-U.S. Large Cap Index.
G. Small-Capitalization Company - a company not included in the Russell 1000® Index or the Russell Global ex-U.S. Large Cap Index that is not a Micro-Capitalization Company.
H. Micro-Capitalization Company - a company with a market capitalization under US $300 million.
I. Evergreen Provision - a feature which provides for an automatic increase in the shares available for grant under an equity award plan on a regular basis.
III. Directors
A. Election of Directors
FIAM will generally vote in favor of incumbent and nominee directors except where one or more such directors clearly appear to have failed to exercise reasonable judgment. FIAM will also generally withhold authority for the election of all directors or directors on responsible committees if:
1. An Anti-Takeover Provision was introduced, an Anti-Takeover Provision was extended, or a new Anti-Takeover Provision was adopted upon the expiration of an existing Anti-Takeover Provision, without shareholder approval except as set forth below.
With respect to Poison Pills, however, FIAM will consider not withholding authority on the election of directors if all of the features outlined under the Anti-Takeover Provisions below are met when a Poison Pill is introduced, extended, or adopted.
FIAM will also consider not withholding authority on the election of directors when:
a. FIAM determines that the Poison Pill was narrowly tailored to protect a specific tax benefit, and subject to an evaluation of its likelihood to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value; or
b. One or more of the features outlined under the Anti-Takeover Provisions below are not met if a board is willing to strongly consider seeking shareholder ratification of, or adding those features to an existing Poison Pill. In such a case, if the company does not take appropriate action prior to the next annual shareholder meeting, FIAM will withhold authority on the election of directors.
2. Within the last year and without shareholder approval, a company's board of directors or compensation committee has repriced outstanding options, exchanged outstanding options for equity, or tendered cash for outstanding options.
3. Within the last year and without shareholder approval, a company's board of directors or compensation committee has adopted or extended a Golden Parachute.
4. The company has not adequately addressed concerns communicated by FIAM in the process of discussing executive compensation.
5. To gain FIAM's support on a proposal, the company made a commitment to modify a proposal or practice to conform to the Guidelines and the company has failed to act on that commitment.
6. The director attended fewer than 75% of the aggregate number of meetings of the board and its committees on which the director served during the company's prior fiscal year, absent extenuating circumstances.
7. The board is not composed of a majority of independent directors.
B. Contested Director Elections
FIAM believes that strong management creates long-term shareholder value and we generally support management of companies in which the funds' assets are invested. FIAM will vote on a case-by-case basis in contested director elections, taking into account factors such as management's track record and strategic plan for enhancing shareholder value; the long-term performance of the target company compared to its industry peers; the qualifications of the shareholder's and management's nominees; and other factors. Ultimately, FIAM will vote for the outcome it believes has the best prospects for maximizing shareholder value over the long term.
C. Indemnification
FIAM will generally vote in favor of charter and by-law amendments expanding the indemnification of directors and/or limiting their liability for breaches of care unless FIAM is otherwise dissatisfied with the performance of management or the proposal is accompanied by Anti-Takeover Provisions.
D. Independent Chairperson
FIAM will generally vote against shareholder proposals calling for or recommending the appointment of a non-executive or independent chairperson. However, FIAM will consider voting for such proposals in limited cases if, based upon particular facts and circumstances, appointment of a non-executive or independent chairperson appears likely to further the interests of shareholders and to promote effective oversight of management by the board of directors.
E. Majority Voting in Director Elections
FIAM will generally vote in favor of proposals calling for directors to be elected by an affirmative majority of votes cast in a board election, provided that the proposal allows for plurality voting standard in the case of contested elections (i.e., where there are more nominees than board seats). FIAM may consider voting against such shareholder proposals where a company's board has adopted an alternative measure, such as a director resignation policy, that provides a meaningful alternative to the majority voting standard and appropriately addresses situations where an incumbent director fails to receive the support of a majority of the votes cast in an uncontested election.
F. Proxy Access
FIAM will evaluate management and shareholder proposals to adopt proxy access on a case-by-case basis, but generally will vote in favor of proposals that include ownership thresholds of at least 3% (5% in the case of Small-Capitalization Companies); holding periods of at least three years; establish the number of directors that eligible shareholders may nominate as 20% of the board; and limit to 20 the number of shareholders that may form a nominating group.
IV. Compensation
A. Executive Compensation
1. Advisory votes on executive compensation (Say on Pay)
a. FIAM will generally vote for proposals to ratify executive compensation unless such compensation appears misaligned with shareholder interests or otherwise problematic, taking into account:
(i) The actions taken by the board or compensation committee in the previous year, including whether the company repriced or exchanged outstanding stock options without shareholder approval; adopted or extended a Golden Parachute without shareholder approval; or adequately addressed concerns communicated by FIAM in the process of discussing executive compensation;
(ii) The alignment of executive compensation and company performance relative to peers; and
(iii) The structure of the compensation program, including factors such as whether incentive plan metrics are appropriate, rigorous and transparent; whether the long-term element of the compensation program is evaluated over at least a three-year period; the sensitivity of pay to below median performance; the amount and nature of non-performance-based compensation; the justification and rationale behind paying discretionary bonuses; the use of stock ownership guidelines and amount of executive stock ownership; and how well elements of compensation are disclosed.
b. FIAM will generally vote against proposals to ratify Golden Parachutes.
2. Advisory vote on frequency of Say on Pay votes
When presented with a frequency of Say on Pay vote, FIAM will generally support holding an annual advisory vote on Say on Pay.
B. Equity compensation plans
FIAM will generally vote against equity compensation plans or amendments to authorize additional shares under such plans if:
1. (a) The company's average three year burn rate is greater than 1.5% for a Large-Capitalization Company, 2.5% for a Small-Capitalization Company or 3.5% for a Micro-Capitalization Company; and (b) there were no circumstances specific to the company or the plans that lead FIAM to conclude that the burn rate is acceptable.
2. In the case of stock option plans, (a) the offering price of options is less than 100% of fair market value on the date of grant, except that the offering price may be as low as 85% of fair market value if the discount is expressly granted in lieu of salary or cash bonus; (b) the plan's terms allow repricing of underwater options; or (c) the board/committee has repriced options outstanding under the plan in the past two years without shareholder approval.
3. The plan includes an Evergreen Provision.
4. The plan provides for the acceleration of vesting of equity compensation even though an actual change in control may not occur.
C. Equity Exchanges and Repricing
FIAM will generally vote in favor of a management proposal to exchange, reprice or tender for cash, outstanding options if the proposed exchange, repricing, or tender offer is consistent with the interests of shareholders, taking into account such factors as:
1. Whether the proposal excludes senior management and directors;
2. Whether the exchange or repricing proposal is value neutral to shareholders based upon an acceptable pricing model;
3. The company's relative performance compared to other companies within the relevant industry or industries;
4. Economic and other conditions affecting the relevant industry or industries in which the company competes; and
5. Any other facts or circumstances relevant to determining whether an exchange or repricing proposal is consistent with the interests of shareholders.
D. Employee Stock Purchase Plans
FIAM will generally vote in favor of employee stock purchase plans if the minimum stock purchase price is equal to or greater than 85% of the stock's fair market value and the plan constitutes a reasonable effort to encourage broad based participation in the company's equity. In the case of non-U.S. company stock purchase plans, FIAM may permit a lower minimum stock purchase price equal to the prevailing "best practices" in the relevant non-U.S. market, provided that the minimum stock purchase price must be at least 75% of the stock's fair market value.
V. Anti-Takeover Provisions
FIAM will generally vote against a proposal to adopt or approve the adoption of an Anti-Takeover Provision unless:
A. In the case of a Poison Pill, it either:
1. Includes the following features:
a. A Sunset Provision of no greater than five years;
b. Links to a business strategy that is expected to result in greater value for the shareholders;
c. Requires shareholder approval to be reinstated upon expiration or if amended;
d. Contains a mechanism to allow shareholders to consider a bona fide takeover offer for all outstanding shares without triggering the Poison Pill; and
e. Allows Fidelity to hold an aggregate position of up to 20% of a company's total voting securities and of any class of voting securities; or
2. Is crafted only for the purpose of protecting a specific tax benefit and after evaluating the proposal based on its likelihood to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.
FIAM will generally vote in favor of a proposal to eliminate an Anti-Takeover Provisions unless:
B. In the case of shareholder proposals regarding shareholders' right to call special meetings, FIAM generally will vote against each proposal if the threshold required to call a special meeting is less than 25% of the outstanding stock.
C. In the case of proposals regarding shareholders' right to act by written consent, FIAM will generally vote against each proposal if it does not include appropriate mechanisms for implementation including, among other things, record date requests from at least 25% of the outstanding shareholders and consents must be solicited from all shareholders.
D. In the case of proposals regarding supermajority provisions, FIAM may vote to support such a provision when FIAM determines that it may protect minority shareholder interests in companies where there is a substantial or dominant shareholder.
VI. Capital Structure/Incorporation
A. Increases in Common Stock
FIAM will generally vote against a provision to increase a company's authorized common stock if such increase will result in a total number of authorized shares greater than three times the current number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares, including stock options.
However, in the case of real estate investment trusts (REIT), FIAM will generally vote against a provision to increase the REIT’s authorized common stock if the increase will result in a total number of authorized shares up to five times the current number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares.
B. Reverse Stock Splits
FIAM will generally vote in favor of reverse stock splits as long as the post-split authorized shares is no greater than three times the post-split number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares, including stock awards, or in the case of real estate investment trusts the number of post-split authorized shares is not greater than five times the post-split number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares.
C. Multi-Class Share Structures
FIAM will generally vote in favor of proposals to recapitalize multi-class share structures into structures that provide equal voting rights for all shareholders, and will generally vote against proposals to introduce or increase classes of stock with differential voting rights. However, FIAM will evaluate all such proposals in the context of their likelihood to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.
D. Cumulative Voting Rights
FIAM will generally vote against the introduction and in favor of the elimination of cumulative voting rights.
E. Acquisition or Business Combination Statutes
FIAM will generally vote in favor of proposed amendments to a company's certificate of incorporation or by-laws that enable the company to opt out of the control shares acquisition or business combination statutes.
F. Incorporation or Reincorporation in Another State or Country
FIAM will generally vote for management proposals calling for, or recommending that, a portfolio company reincorporate in another state or country if, on balance, the economic and corporate governance factors in the proposed jurisdiction appear reasonably likely to be better aligned with shareholder interests, taking into account the corporate laws of the current and proposed jurisdictions and any changes to the company's current and proposed governing documents. FIAM will consider supporting such shareholder proposals in limited cases if, based upon particular facts and circumstances, remaining incorporated in the current jurisdiction appears misaligned with shareholder interests.
VII. Shares of Fidelity® Funds, ETFs, or other non-Fidelity® Mutual Funds and ETFs
A. If applicable, when a FIAM account invests in an underlying Fidelity® Fund with public shareholders, an exchange traded fund (ETF), or non-affiliated fund, FIAM will vote in the same proportion as all other voting shareholders of the underlying fund ("echo voting"). FIAM may choose not to vote if "echo voting" is not operationally practical.
B. Certain FIAM accounts may invest in shares of underlying Fidelity® Funds that do not have public shareholders. For Fidelity® Funds without public shareholders that are managed by Fidelity or an affiliate, FIAM will generally vote in favor of proposals recommended by the underlying funds' Board of Trustees.
VIII. Other
A. Voting Process
FIAM will generally vote in favor of proposals to adopt confidential voting and independent vote tabulation practices.
B. Environmental and Social Issues
FIAM generally will vote in a manner consistent with management's recommendation on shareholder proposals concerning environmental or social issues, as it generally believes that management and the board are in the best position to determine how to address these matters. In certain cases, however, Fidelity may support shareholder proposals that request additional disclosures from companies regarding environmental or social issues, where it believes that the proposed disclosures could provide meaningful information to the investment management process without unduly burdening the company.
For example, FIAM may support shareholder proposals calling for reports on sustainability, renewable energy, and environmental impact issues. FIAM also may support proposals on issues such as equal employment, and board and workforce diversity.
Geode Proxy Voting Policies
As an investment adviser, Geode holds voting authority for securities in many of the client accounts that it manages. Geode takes seriously its responsibility to monitor corporate events affecting securities in those client accounts and to exercise its voting authority with respect to those securities in the best interests of its clients (including shareholders of mutual funds for which it serves as advisor or sub-advisor). The purposes of these proxy voting policies are to (1) establish a framework for Geode’s analysis and decision-making with respect to proxy voting and to (2) set forth operational procedures for Geode’s exercise of proxy voting authority.
Overview
Geode applies the same voting decision for all accounts in which it exercises voting authority, and seeks in all cases to vote in a manner that Geode believes represents the best interests of its clients (including shareholders of mutual funds for which it serves as advisor or sub-advisor). Geode anticipates that, based on its current business model, it will manage the vast majority of assets under its management using passive investment management techniques, such as indexing. Geode also manages private funds and separate accounts using active investment management techniques, primarily employing quantitative investment strategies.
Members of the Operations Committee oversee the exercise of voting authority under these proxy voting policies, consulting with Geode’s legal counsel with respect to controversial matters and for interpretive and other guidance. Geode will engage an established commercial proxy advisory service (the “Agent”) for comprehensive analysis, research and voting recommendations, particularly for matters that may be controversial, present potential conflicts of interest or require additional analysis under these guidelines.
Geode may determine to accept or reject any recommendation based on the research and analysis provided by the Agent or on any independent research and analysis obtained or generated by Geode. However, because the recommended votes are determined solely based on the customized policies established by Geode, Geode expects that the recommendations will be followed in most cases. The Agent also acts as a proxy voting agent to effect the votes and maintain records of all of Geode’s proxy votes. In all cases, the ultimate voting decision and responsibility rests with the members of the Operations Committee, which are accountable to Geode’s clients (including shareholders of mutual funds for which it serves as advisor or sub-advisor).
Due to its focused business model and the number of investments that Geode will make for its clients (particularly pursuant to its indexing strategy), Geode does not anticipate that actual or potential conflicts of interest are likely to occur in the ordinary course of its business. However, Geode believes it is essential to avoid having conflicts of interest affect its objective of voting in the best interests of its clients. Therefore, in the event that members of the Operations Committee, the Agent or any other person involved in the analysis or voting of proxies has knowledge of, or has reason to believe there may exist, any potential relationship, business or otherwise, between the portfolio company subject to the proxy vote and Geode (and any subsidiary of Geode) or their respective directors, officers, employees or agents, such person shall notify other members of the Operations Committee and may consult with outside counsel to Geode to analyze and address such potential conflict of interest. In the case of an actual conflict of interest, on the advice of counsel, Geode expects that the independent directors of Geode will consider the matter and may (1) determine that there is no conflict of interest (or that reasonable measures have been taken to remedy or avoid any conflict of interest) that would prevent Geode from voting the applicable proxy, (2) using such information as is available from the Agent, vote the applicable proxy, or (3) cause authority to be delegated to the Agent or a similar special fiduciary to vote the applicable proxy.
Geode has established the specific proxy voting policies that are summarized below to maximize the value of investments in its clients’ accounts, which it believes will be furthered through (1) accountability of a company’s management and directors to its shareholders, (2) alignment of the interests of management with those of shareholders (including through compensation, benefit and equity ownership programs), and (3) increased disclosure of a company’s business and operations. Geode reserves the right to override any of its proxy voting policies with respect to a particular shareholder vote when such an override is, in Geode’s best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of Geode’s clients.
Policies
All proxy votes shall be considered and made in a manner consistent with the best interests of Geode’s clients (including shareholders of mutual fund clients) without regard to any other relationship, business or otherwise, between the portfolio company subject to the proxy vote and Geode or its affiliates. As a general matter, (1) proxies will be voted FOR incumbent members of a board of directors and FOR routine management proposals, except as otherwise addressed under these policies;(2) shareholder and non-routine management proposals addressed by these policies will be voted as provided in these policies; and (3) shareholder and non-routine management proposals not addressed by these policies will be evaluated by members of Geode’s Operations Committee based on fundamental analysis and/or research and recommendations provided by the Agent, other third-party service providers, and the members of the Operations Committee, shall make the voting decision.
When voting the securities of non-US issuers, Geode will evaluate proposals in accordance with these policies but will also take local market standards and best practices into consideration. Geode may also limit or modify its voting at certain non-US meetings (e.g., if shares are required to be blocked or reregistered in connection with voting).
Geode’s specific policies are as follows:
I. Election of Directors
Geode will generally vote FOR incumbent members of a board of directors except:
• Attendance. The incumbent board member failed to attend at least 75% of meetings in the previous year and does not provide a reasonable explanation.
• Independent Directors. Nominee is not independent and full board comprises less than a majority of independents. Nominee is not independent and sits on the audit, compensation or nominating committee.
• Director Responsiveness. The board failed to act on shareholder proposals that received approval by Geode and a majority of the votes cast in the previous year. The board failed to act on takeover offers where the majority of shareholders tendered their shares. At the previous board election, directors received more than 50 percent withhold/against votes of the shares cast, and the company failed to address the issue(s) that caused the high withhold/against vote.
• Golden Parachutes. Incumbent members of the compensation committee adopted or renewed an excessive golden parachute within the past year.
• In Other Circumstances where a member of the board has acted in a manner inconsistent with the interests of shareholders of a company whose securities are held in client accounts.
II. Majority Election. Unless a company has a policy achieving a similar result, Geode will generally vote in favor of a proposal calling for directors to be elected by a majority of votes cast in a board election provided that the plurality vote applies when there are more nominees than board seats.
III. Say on Pay (non-binding).
• Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation. Geode will generally vote AGAINST advisory vote when: (1) there is a significant misalignment between executive pay and company performance, (2) the company maintains significant problematic pay practices; or (3) the board exhibits a significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders.
• Frequency Vote. Geode will generally vote FOR having an advisory vote on executive compensation every year.
• Advisory Vote on Golden Parachute. Geode will vote AGAINST excessive change-in-control severance payments.
IV. Vote AGAINST Anti-Takeover Proposals, including:
• Addition of Special Interest Directors to the board.
• Authorization of "Blank Check" Preferred Stock. Geode will vote FOR proposals to require shareholder approval for the distribution of preferred stock except for acquisitions and raising capital in the ordinary course of business.
• Classification of Boards. Geode will vote FOR proposals to de-classify boards.
• Fair Price Amendments, other than those that consider only a two-year price history and are not accompanied by other anti-takeover measures.
• Golden Parachutes, that Geode deems to be excessive in the event of change-in-control.
• Poison Pills. Adoption or extension of a Poison Pill without shareholder approval will result in our voting AGAINST the election of incumbents or a management slate in the concurrent or next following vote on the election of directors, provided the matter will be considered if (a) the board has adopted a Poison Pill with a sunset provision; (b) the Pill is linked to a business strategy that will result in greater value for the shareholders; (c) the term is less than three years; (d) the Pill includes a qualifying offer clause; and (e) shareholder approval is required to reinstate the expired Pill. Geode will vote FOR shareholder proposals requiring or recommending that shareholders be given an opportunity to vote on the adoption of poison pills.
• Reduction or Limitation of Shareholder Rights (e.g., action by written consent, ability to call meetings, or remove directors).
• Reincorporation in another state (when accompanied by Anti-Takeover Provisions, including increased statutory anti-takeover provisions). Geode will vote FOR reincorporation in another state when not accompanied by such anti-takeover provisions.
• Requirements that the Board Consider Non-Financial Effects of merger and acquisition proposals.
• Requirements regarding Size, Selection and Removal of the Board that are likely to have an anti-takeover effect (although changes with legitimate business purposes will be evaluated).
• Supermajority Voting Requirements (i.e., typically 2/3 or greater) for boards and shareholders. Geode will vote FOR proposals to eliminate supermajority voting requirements.
• Transfer of Authority from Shareholders to Directors.
V. Vote FOR proposed amendments to a company's certificate of incorporation or by-laws that enable the company to Opt Out of the Control Shares Acquisition Statutes.
VI. Vote AGAINST the introduction of new classes of Stock with Differential Voting Rights.
VII. Vote AGAINST introduction and FOR elimination of Cumulative Voting Rights, except in certain instances where it is determined not to enhance shareholders' interests.
VIII. Vote FOR elimination of Preemptive Rights.
IX. Vote FOR Anti-Greenmail proposals so long as they are not part of anti-takeover provisions (in which case the vote will be AGAINST).
X. Vote FOR charter and by-law amendments expanding the Indemnification of Directors to the maximum extent permitted under Delaware law (regardless of the state of incorporation) and vote AGAINST charter and by-law amendments completely Eliminating Directors' Liability for Breaches of Care.
XI. Vote FOR proposals to adopt Confidential Voting and Independent Vote Tabulation practices.
XII. Vote FOR Open-Market Stock Repurchase Programs, unless there is clear evidence of past abuse of the authority; the plan contains no safeguards against selective buybacks, or the authority can be used as an anti-takeover mechanism.
XIII. Vote FOR management proposals to implement a Reverse Stock Split when the number of authorized shares will be proportionately reduced or the Reverse Stock Split is necessary to avoid de-listing.
XIV. Vote FOR management proposals to Reduce the Par Value of common stock unless the proposal may facilitate an anti-takeover device or other negative corporate governance action.
XV. Vote FOR the Issuance of Large Blocks of Stock if such proposals have a legitimate business purpose and do not result in dilution of greater than 20%. However, a company's specific circumstances and market practices may be considered in determining whether the proposal is consistent with shareholder interests.
XVI. Vote AGAINST Excessive Increases in Common Stock. Vote AGAINST increases in authorized common stock that would result in authorized capital in excess of three times the company's shares outstanding and reserved for legitimate purposes. For non-U.S. securities with conditional capital requests, vote AGAINST issuances of shares with preemptive rights in excess of 100% of the company's current shares outstanding. Special requests will be evaluated, taking company-specific circumstances into account.
XVII. Vote AGAINST the adoption of or amendment to authorize additional shares under a Stock Option Plan if:
• The stock option plan includes evergreen provisions, which provides for an automatic allotment of equity compensation every year.
• The dilution effect of the shares authorized under the plan (including by virtue of any "evergreen" or replenishment provision), plus the shares reserved for issuance pursuant to all other option or restricted stock plans, is greater than 10%. However, dilution may be increased to 15% for small capitalization companies, and 20% for micro capitalization companies, respectively. If the plan fails this test, the dilution effect may be evaluated relative to any unusual factor involving the company.
• The offering price of options is less than 100% of fair market value on the date of grant, except that the offering price may be as low as 85% of fair market value if the discount is expressly granted in lieu of salary or cash bonus, except that a modest number of shares (limited to 5% for a large capitalization company and 10% for small and micro capitalization companies) may be available for grant to employees and directors under the plan if the grant is made by a compensation committee composed entirely of independent directors (the "De Minimis Exception").
• The plan is administered by (1) a compensation committee not comprised entirely of independent directors or (2) a board of directors not comprised of a majority of independent directors, provided that a plan is acceptable if it satisfies the De Minimis Exception.
• The plan's terms allow repricing of underwater options, or the board/committee has repriced options outstanding under the plan in the past two years without shareholder approval, unless by the express terms of the plan or a board resolution such repricing is rarely used (and then only to maintain option value due to extreme circumstances beyond management's control) and is within the limits of the De Minimis Exception.
• Liberal Definition of Change in Control: the plan provides that the vesting of equity awards may accelerate even though an actual change in control may not occur.
XVIII. Vote AGAINST the election of incumbent members of the compensation committee or a management slate in the concurrent or next following vote on the election of directors if, within the last year and without shareholder approval, the company's board of directors or compensation committee has repriced outstanding options.
XIX. Evaluate proposals to Reprice Outstanding Stock Options, taking into account such factors as: (1) whether the repricing proposal excludes senior management and directors; (2) whether the options proposed to be repriced exceeded the dilution thresholds described in these current proxy voting policies when initially granted; (3) whether the repricing proposal is value neutral to shareholders based upon an acceptable options pricing model; (4) the company's relative performance compared to other companies within the relevant industry or industries; (5) economic and other conditions affecting the relevant industry or industries in which the company competes; and (6) other facts or circumstances relevant to determining whether a repricing proposal is consistent with the interests of shareholders.
XX. Vote AGAINST adoption of or amendments to authorize additional shares for Restricted Stock Awards ("RSA") if:
• The dilution effect of the shares authorized under the plan, plus the shares reserved for issuance pursuant to all other option or restricted stock plans, is greater than 10%. However, dilution may be increased to 15% for small capitalization companies, and 20% for micro capitalization companies, respectively. If the plan fails this test, the dilution effect may be evaluated relative to any unusual factor involving the company.
XXI. Vote AGAINST Omnibus Stock Plans if one or more component violates any of the criteria applicable to Stock Option Plans or RSAs under these proxy voting policies, unless such component is de minimis. In the case of an omnibus stock plan, the dilution limits applicable to Stock Option Plans or RSAs under these proxy voting policies will be measured against the total number of shares under all components of such plan.
XXII. Vote AGAINST Employee Stock Purchase Plans if the plan violates any of the relevant criteria applicable to Stock Option Plans or RSAs under these proxy voting policies, except that (1) the minimum stock purchase price may be equal to or greater than 85% of the stock's fair market value if the plan constitutes a reasonable effort to encourage broad based participation in the company's equity, and (2) in the case of non-U.S. company stock purchase plans, the minimum stock purchase price may be equal to the prevailing "best practices," as articulated by the Agent, provided that the minimum stock purchase price must be at least 75% of the stock's fair market value.
XXIII. Vote AGAINST Stock Awards (other than stock options and RSAs) unless it is determined they are identified as being granted to officers/directors in lieu of salary or cash bonus, subject to number of shares being reasonable.
XXIV. Vote AGAINST equity vesting acceleration programs or amendments to authorize additional shares under such programs if the program provides for the acceleration of vesting of equity awards even though an actual change in control may not occur.
XXV. Vote FOR Employee Stock Ownership Plans ("ESOPs") of nonleveraged ESOPs, and in the case of leveraged ESOPs, giving consideration to the company's state of incorporation, existence of supermajority vote rules in the charter, number of shares authorized for the ESOP, and number of shares held by insiders. Geode may also examine where the ESOP shares are purchased and the dilution effect of the purchase. Geode will vote AGAINST a leveraged ESOP if all outstanding loans are due immediately upon a change in control.
XXVI. Vote AGAINST management or shareholder proposals on other Compensation Plans or Practices if such plans or practices are Inconsistent with the Interests of Shareholders. In addition, Geode may vote AGAINST the election of incumbents or a management slate in the concurrent or next following vote on the election of directors if Geode believes a board has approved executive compensation arrangements inconsistent with the interests of shareholders.
XXVII. Environmental and Social Proposals. Evaluate each proposal related to environmental and social issues. Generally, Geode expects to vote with management’s recommendation on shareholder proposals concerning environmental or social issues, as Geode believes management and the board are ordinarily in the best position to address these matters. Geode may support certain shareholder environmental and social proposals that request additional disclosures from companies which may provide material information to the investment management process, or where Geode otherwise believes support will help maximize shareholder value. Geode may take action against the re-election of board members if there are serious concerns over ESG practices or the board failed to act on related shareholder proposals that received approval by Geode and a majority of the votes cast in the previous year.
XXVIII. ABSTAIN with respect to shareholder proposals addressing Political Contributions, which Geode believes generally address ordinary business matters that are primarily the responsibility of a company's management and board, except where a proposal has substantial economic implications for the company's securities held in client accounts.
XXIX. Geode will generally vote AGAINST shareholder proposals seeking to establish proxy access. Geode will evaluate management proposals on proxy access.
XXX. Shares of Investment Companies.
• For institutional accounts, Geode will generally vote in favor of proposals recommended by the underlying funds' Board of Trustees.
• For retail managed accounts, Geode will employ echo voting when voting shares. To avoid certain potential conflicts of interest, if an investment company has a shareholder meeting, Geode would vote their shares in the investment company in the same proportion as the votes of other shareholders of the investment company.
Proxy Voting - Invesco
I. Guiding Principles and Philosophy
Public companies hold shareholder meetings attended by the company's executives, directors, and shareholders, during which important issues, such as appointments to the company’s board of directors, executive compensation, and auditors, are addressed and, where applicable, voted on. Proxy voting gives shareholders the opportunity to vote on issues that impact the company’s operations and policies without being present at the meetings.
Invesco views proxy voting as an integral part of its investment management responsibilities and believes that the right to vote proxies should be managed with the same high standards of care and fiduciary duty to its clients as all other elements of the investment process. Invesco’s proxy voting philosophy, governance structure and process are designed to ensure that proxy votes are cast in accordance with clients’ best interests, which Invesco interprets to mean clients’ best economic interests, this Policy and the operating guidelines and procedures of Invesco's regional investment centers.
Invesco investment teams vote proxies on behalf of Invesco-sponsored funds and non-fund advisory clients that have explicitly granted Invesco authority in writing to vote proxies on their behalf.
The proxy voting process at Invesco, which is driven by investment professionals, focuses on maximizing long-term value for our clients and protecting clients’ rights and promoting governance structures and practices that reinforce the accountability of corporate management and boards of directors to shareholders. Invesco takes a nuanced approach to voting and, therefore, many matters to be voted upon are reviewed on a case by case basis.
Votes in favor of board or management proposals should not be interpreted as an indication of insufficient consideration by Invesco fund managers. Such votes may reflect the outcome of past or ongoing engagement and active ownership by Invesco with representatives of the companies in which we invest.
II. Applicability of this Policy
This Policy sets forth the framework of Invesco’s corporate governance approach, broad philosophy and guiding principles that inform the proxy voting practices of Invesco’s investment teams around the world. Given the different nature of these teams and their respective investment processes, as well as the significant differences in regulatory regimes and market practices across jurisdictions, not all aspects of this Policy may apply to all Invesco investment teams at all times. In the case of a conflict between this Policy and the operating guidelines and procedures of a regional investment center the latter will control.
III. Proxy Voting for Certain Fixed Income, Money Market Accounts and Index
For proxies held by certain client accounts managed in accordance with fixed income, money market and index strategies (including exchange traded funds), Invesco will typically vote in line with the majority holder of the active-equity shares held by Invesco outside of those strategies (“Majority Voting”). In this manner Invesco seeks to leverage the active-equity expertise and comprehensive proxy voting reviews conducted by teams employing active-equity strategies, which typically incorporate analysis of proxy issues as a core component of the investment process. Portfolio managers for accounts employing Majority Voting still retain full discretion to override Majority Voting and to vote the shares as they determine to be in the best interest of those accounts, absent certain types of conflicts of interest, which are discussed elsewhere in this Policy.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
There may be occasions where voting proxies may present a real or perceived conflict of interest between Invesco, as investment manager, and one or more of Invesco’s clients or vendors. Under Invesco’s Code of Conduct, Invesco entities and individuals are strictly prohibited from putting personal benefit, whether tangible or intangible, before the interests of clients. “Personal benefit” includes any intended benefit for Invesco, oneself or any other individual, company, group or organization of any kind whatsoever, except a benefit for the relevant Invesco client.
Firm-level Conflicts of Interest
A conflict of interest may exist if Invesco has a material business relationship with, or is actively soliciting business from, either the company soliciting a proxy or a third party that has a material interest in the outcome of a proxy vote or that is actively lobbying for a particular outcome of a proxy vote (e.g., issuers that are distributors of Invesco’s products, or issuers that employ Invesco to manage portions of their retirement plans or treasury accounts). Invesco’s proxy governance team maintains a list of all such issuers for which a conflict of interest exists.
If the proposal that gives rise to the potential conflict is specifically addressed by this Policy or the operating guidelines and procedures of the relevant regional investment center, Invesco generally will vote the proxy in accordance therewith. Otherwise, based on a majority vote of its members, the Global IPAC (as described below) will vote the proxy.
Because this Policy and the operating guidelines and procedures of each regional investment center are pre-determined and crafted to be in the best economic interest of clients, applying them to vote client proxies should, in most instances, adequately resolve any potential conflict of interest. As an additional safeguard, persons from Invesco’s marketing, distribution and other customer-facing functions may not serve on the Global IPAC. For the avoidance of doubt, Invesco may not consider Invesco Ltd.’s pecuniary interest when voting proxies on behalf of clients.
Personal Conflicts of Interest
A conflict also may exist where an Invesco employee has a known personal relationship with other proponents of proxy proposals, participants in proxy contests, corporate directors, or candidates for directorships.
All Invesco personnel with proxy voting responsibilities are required to report any known personal conflicts of interest regarding proxy issues with which they are involved. In such instances, the individual(s) with the conflict will be excluded from the decision-making process relating to such issues.
Other Conflicts of Interest
In order to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, Invesco will not vote proxies issued by, or related to matters involving, Invesco Ltd. that may be held in client accounts from time to time. Shares of an Invesco-sponsored fund held by other Invesco funds will be voted in the same proportion as the votes of external shareholders of the underlying fund.
V. Use of Third-Party Proxy Advisory Services
Invesco may supplement its internal research with information from third-parties, such as proxy advisory firms. However, Invesco generally retains full and independent discretion with respect to proxy voting decisions.
As part of its fiduciary obligation to clients, Invesco performs extensive initial and ongoing due diligence on the proxy advisory firms it engages. This includes reviews of information regarding the capabilities of their research staffs and internal controls, policies and procedures, including those relating to possible conflicts of interest. In addition, Invesco regularly monitors and communicates with these firms and monitors their compliance with Invesco’s performance and policy standards.
VI. Global Proxy Voting Platform and Administration
Guided by its philosophy that investment teams should manage proxy voting, Invesco has created the Global Invesco Proxy Advisory Committee (“Global IPAC”). The Global IPAC is a global investments-driven committee comprised of representatives from various investment management teams and Invesco’s Global Head of Proxy Governance and Responsible Investment ("Head of Proxy Governance"). The Global IPAC provides a forum for investment teams to monitor, understand and discuss key proxy issues and voting trends within the Invesco complex. Absent a conflict of interest, the Global IPAC representatives, in consultation with the respective investment team, are responsible for voting proxies for the securities the team manages (unless such responsibility is explicitly delegated to the portfolio managers of the securities in question). In addition to the Global IPAC, for some clients, third parties (e.g., U.S. mutual fund boards) provide oversight of the proxy process. The Global IPAC and Invesco’s proxy administration and governance team, compliance and legal teams regularly communicate and review this Policy and the operating guidelines and procedures of each regional investment center to ensure that they remain consistent with clients’ best interests, regulatory requirements, governance trends and industry best practices.
Invesco maintains a proprietary global proxy administration platform, known as the “fund manager portal” and supported by the Head of Proxy Governance and a dedicated team of internal proxy specialists. The platform streamlines the proxy voting and ballot reconciliation processes, as well as related functions, such as share blocking and managing conflicts of interest issuers. Managing these processes internally, as opposed to relying on third parties, gives Invesco greater quality control, oversight and independence in the proxy administration process.
The platform also includes advanced global reporting and record-keeping capabilities regarding proxy matters that enable Invesco to satisfy client, regulatory and management requirements. Historical proxy voting information, including commentary by investment professionals regarding the votes they cast, where applicable, is stored to build institutional knowledge across the Invesco complex with respect to individual companies and proxy issues. Certain investment teams also use the platform to access third-party proxy research.
VII. Non-Votes
In the great majority of instances, Invesco is able to vote proxies successfully. However, in certain circumstances Invesco may refrain from voting where the economic or other opportunity costs of voting exceeds any anticipated benefits of that proxy proposal. In addition, there may be instances in which Invesco is unable to vote all of its clients’ proxies despite using commercially reasonable efforts to do so. For example:
• Invesco may not receive proxy materials from the relevant fund or client custodian with sufficient time and information to make an informed independent voting decision. In such cases, Invesco may choose not to vote, to abstain from voting, to vote in line with management or to vote in accordance with proxy advisor recommendations. These matters are left to the discretion of the fund manager.
• If the security in question is on loan as part of a securities lending program, Invesco may determine that the benefit to the client of voting a particular proxy is outweighed by the revenue that would be lost by terminating the loan and recalling the securities.
• In some countries the exercise of voting rights imposes temporary transfer restrictions on the related securities (“share blocking”). Invesco generally refrains from voting proxies in share-blocking countries unless Invesco determines that the benefit to the client(s) of voting a specific proxy outweighs the client’s temporary inability to sell the security.
• Some companies require a representative to attend meetings in person in order to vote a proxy. In such cases, Invesco may determine that the costs of sending a representative or signing a power-of-attorney outweigh the benefit of voting a particular proxy.
VIII. Proxy Voting Guidelines
The following guidelines describe Invesco’s general positions on various common proxy voting issues. This list is not intended to be exhaustive or prescriptive. As noted above, Invesco’s proxy process is investor-driven, and each fund manager retains ultimate discretion to vote proxies in the manner they deem most appropriate, consistent with Invesco’s proxy voting principles and philosophy discussed in Sections I through IV. Individual proxy votes therefore will differ from these guidelines from time to time.
A. Shareholder Access and Treatment of Shareholder Proposals
Invesco reviews on a case by case basis but generally votes in favor of proposals that would increase shareholders’ opportunities to express their views to boards of directors, proposals that would lower barriers to shareholder action, and proposals to promote the adoption of generally accepted best practices in corporate governance, provided that such proposals would not require a disproportionate amount of management attention or corporate resources or otherwise that may inappropriately disrupt the company’s business and main purpose, usually set out in their reporting disclosures and business model. Likewise, Invesco reviews on a case by case basis but generally votes for shareholder proposals that are designed to protect shareholder rights if a company’s corporate governance standards indicate that such additional protections are warranted (for example, where minority shareholders’ rights are not adequately protected).
B. Environmental, Social and Corporate Responsibility Issues
Invesco believes that a company’s long-term response to environmental, social and corporate responsibility issues can significantly affect its long-term shareholder value. We recognize that to manage a corporation effectively, directors and management may consider not only the interests of shareholders, but also the interests of employees, customers, suppliers, creditors and the local community, among others. While Invesco generally affords management discretion with respect to the operation of a company’s business, Invesco will evaluate such proposals on a case by case basis and will vote proposals relating to these issues in a manner intended to maximize long-term shareholder value.
C. Capitalization Structure Issues
i. Stock Issuances
Invesco generally supports a board’s decisions about the need for additional capital stock to meet ongoing corporate needs, except where the request could adversely affect Invesco clients’ ownership stakes or voting rights. Some capitalization proposals, such as those to authorize common or preferred stock with special voting rights or to issue additional stock in connection with an acquisition, may require additional analysis. Invesco generally opposes proposals to authorize classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend or other rights (“blank check” stock) when they appear to be intended as an anti-takeover mechanism; such issuances may be supported when used for general financing purposes.
ii. Stock Splits
Invesco generally supports a board’s proposal to increase common share authorization for a stock split, provided that the increase in authorized shares would not result in excessive dilution given the company’s industry and performance in terms of shareholder returns.
iii. Share Repurchases
Invesco generally supports a board’s proposal to institute open-market share repurchase plans only if all shareholders participate on an equal basis.
D. Corporate Governance Issues
i. Board of Directors
1. Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections
Subject to the other considerations described below, in an uncontested director election for a company without a controlling shareholder, Invesco generally votes in favor of the director slate if it is comprised of at least a majority of independent directors and if the board’s key committees are fully independent, effective and balanced. Key committees include the audit, compensation/remuneration and governance/nominating committees. Invesco’s standard of independence excludes directors who, in addition to the directorship, have any material business or family relationships with the companies they serve.
2. Director Nominees in Contested Elections
Invesco recognizes that short-term investment sentiments influence the corporate governance landscape and may influence companies in Invesco clients’ portfolios and more broadly across the market. Invesco recognizes that short-term investment sentiment may conflict with long-term value creation and as such looks at each proxy contest matter on a case by case basis, considering factors such as:
• Long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry,
• Management’s track record,
• Background to the proxy contest,
• Qualifications of director nominees (both slates),
• Evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders as well as the likelihood that the proposed objectives and goals can be met, and
• Stock ownership positions in the company.
3. Director Accountability
Invesco generally withholds votes from directors who exhibit a lack of accountability to shareholders. Examples include, without limitation, poor attendance (less than 75%, absent extenuating circumstances) at meetings, failing to implement shareholder proposals that have received a majority of votes and/or by adopting or approving egregious corporate-governance or other policies. In cases of material financial restatements, accounting fraud, habitually late filings, adopting shareholder rights plan (“poison pills”) without shareholder approval, or other areas of poor performance, Invesco may withhold votes from some or all of a company’s directors. In situations where directors’ performance is a concern, Invesco may also support shareholder proposals to take corrective actions such as so-called “clawback” provisions.
4. Director Independence
Invesco generally supports proposals to require a majority of directors to be independent unless particular circumstances make this not feasible or in the best interests of shareholders. We generally vote for proposals that would require the board’s audit, compensation/remuneration, and/or governance/nominating committees to be composed exclusively of independent directors since this minimizes the potential for conflicts of interest.
5. Director Indemnification
Invesco recognizes that individuals may be reluctant to serve as corporate directors if they are personally liable for all related lawsuits and legal costs. As a result, reasonable limitations on directors’ liability can benefit a company and its shareholders by helping to attract and retain qualified directors while preserving recourse for shareholders in the event of misconduct by directors. Invesco, therefore, generally supports proposals to limit directors’ liability and provide indemnification and/or exculpation, provided that the arrangements are limited to the director acting honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the company and, in criminal matters, are limited to the director having reasonable grounds for believing the conduct was lawful.
6. Separate Chairperson and CEO
Invesco evaluates these proposals on a case by case basis, recognizing that good governance requires either an independent chair or a qualified, proactive, and lead independent director.
Voting decisions may take into account, among other factors, the presence or absence of:
• a designated lead director, appointed from the ranks of the independent board members, with an established term of office and clearly delineated powers and duties;
• a majority of independent directors;
• completely independent key committees;
• committee chairpersons nominated by the independent directors;
• CEO performance reviewed annually by a committee of independent directors; and
• established governance guidelines.
7. Majority/Supermajority/Cumulative Voting for Directors
The right to elect directors is the single most important mechanism shareholders have to promote accountability. Invesco generally votes in favor of proposals to elect directors by a majority vote. Except in cases where required by law in the jurisdiction of incorporation or when a company has adopted formal governance principles that present a meaningful alternative to the majority voting standard, Invesco generally votes against actions that would impose any supermajority voting requirement, and generally supports actions to dismantle existing supermajority requirements.
The practice of cumulative voting can enable minority shareholders to have representation on a company’s board. Invesco generally opposes such proposals as unnecessary where the company has adopted a majority voting standard. However, Invesco generally supports proposals to institute the practice of cumulative voting at companies whose overall corporate-governance standards indicate a particular need to protect the interests of minority shareholders.
8. Staggered Boards/Annual Election of Directors
Invesco generally supports proposals to elect each director annually rather than electing directors to staggered multi-year terms because annual elections increase a board’s level of accountability to its shareholders.
9. Board Size
Invesco believes that the number of directors is an important factor to consider when evaluating the board’s ability to maximize long-term shareholder value. Invesco approaches proxies relating to board size on a case by case basis but generally will defer to the board with respect to determining the optimal number of board members, provided that the proposed board size is sufficiently large to represent shareholder interests and sufficiently limited to remain effective.
10. Term Limits for Directors
Invesco believes it is important for a board of directors to examine its membership regularly with a view to ensuring that the company continues to benefit from a diversity of director viewpoints and experience. We generally believe that an individual board’s nominating committee is best positioned to determine whether director term limits would be an appropriate measure to help achieve these goals and, if so, the nature of such limits.
ii. Audit Committees and Auditors
1. Qualifications of Audit Committee and Auditors
Invesco believes a company’s Audit Committee has a high degree of responsibility to shareholders in matters of financial disclosure, integrity of the financial statements and effectiveness of a company’s internal controls. Independence, experience and financial expertise are critical elements of a well-functioning Audit Committee. When electing directors who are members of a company’s Audit Committee, or when ratifying a company’s auditors, Invesco considers the past performance of the Audit Committee and holds its members accountable for the quality of the company’s financial statements and reports.
2. Auditor Indemnifications
A company’s independent auditors play a critical role in ensuring and attesting to the integrity of the company’s financial statements. It is therefore essential that they perform their work in accordance with the highest standards. Invesco generally opposes proposals that would limit the liability of or indemnify auditors because doing so could serve to undermine this obligation.
3. Adequate Disclosure of Auditor Fees
Understanding the fees earned by the auditors is important for assessing auditor independence. Invesco’s support for the re-appointment of the auditors will take into consideration the availability of adequate disclosure concerning the amount and nature of audit versus non-audit fees. Invesco generally will support proposals that call for this disclosure if it is not already being made.
E. Remuneration and Incentives
Invesco believes properly constructed compensation plans that include equity ownership are effective in creating incentives that induce management and employees of portfolio companies to create greater shareholder wealth. Invesco generally supports equity compensation plans that promote the proper alignment of incentives with shareholders’ long-term interests, and generally votes against plans that are overly dilutive to existing shareholders, plans that contain objectionable structural features, and plans that appear likely to reduce the value of the client’s investment.
i. Independent Compensation/Remuneration Committee
Invesco believes that an independent, experienced and well-informed compensation/remuneration committee is critical to ensuring that a company’s remuneration practices align with shareholders’ interests and, therefore, generally supports proposals calling for a compensation/remuneration committee to be comprised solely of independent directors.
ii. Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation
Invesco believes that an independent compensation/remuneration committee of the board, with input from management, is generally best positioned to determine the appropriate components and levels of executive compensation, as well as the appropriate frequency of related shareholder advisory votes. This is particularly the case where shareholders have the ability to express their views on remuneration matters through annual votes for or against the election of the individual directors who comprise the compensation/remuneration committee. Invesco, therefore, generally will support management’s recommendations with regard to the components and levels of executive compensation and the frequency of shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation. However, Invesco will vote against such recommendations where Invesco determines that a company’s executive remuneration policies are not properly aligned with shareholder interests or may create inappropriate incentives for management.
iii. Equity Based Compensation Plans
Invesco generally votes against plans that contain structural features that would impair the alignment of incentives between shareholders and management. Such features include, without limitation, the ability to reprice or reload options without shareholder approval, the ability to issue options below the stock’s current market price, or the ability to replenish shares automatically without shareholder approval.
iv. Severance Arrangements
Invesco considers proposed severance arrangements (sometimes known as “golden parachute” arrangements) on a case-by-case basis due to the wide variety among their terms. Invesco acknowledges that in some cases such arrangements, if reasonable, may be in shareholders’ best interests as a method of attracting and retaining high quality executive talent. Invesco generally votes in favor of proposals requiring advisory shareholder ratification of senior executives’ severance agreements while generally opposing proposals that require such agreements to be ratified by shareholders in advance of their adoption.
v. “Claw Back” Provisions
Invesco generally supports so called “claw back” policies intended to recoup remuneration paid to senior executives based upon materially inaccurate financial reporting (as evidenced by later restatements) or fraudulent accounting or business practices.
vi. Employee Stock Purchase Plans
Invesco generally supports employee stock purchase plans that are reasonably designed to provide proper incentives to a broad base of employees, provided that the price at which employees may acquire stock represents a reasonable discount from the market price.
F. Anti-Takeover Defenses; Reincorporation
Measures designed to protect a company from unsolicited bids can adversely affect shareholder value and voting rights, and they have the potential to create conflicts of interests among directors, management and shareholders. Such measures include adopting or renewing shareholder rights plans (“poison pills”), requiring supermajority voting on certain corporate actions, classifying the election of directors instead of electing each director to an annual term, or creating separate classes of common or preferred stock with special voting rights. In determining whether to support a proposal to add, eliminate or restrict anti-takeover measures, Invesco will examine the particular elements of the proposal to assess the degree to which it would adversely affect shareholder rights of adopted. Invesco generally supports shareholder proposals directing companies to subject their anti-takeover provisions to a shareholder vote. Invesco generally opposes payments by companies to minority shareholders intended to dissuade such shareholders from pursuing a takeover or other changes (sometimes known as “greenmail”) because these payments result in preferential treatment of some shareholders over others.
Reincorporation involves re-establishing the company in a different legal jurisdiction. Invesco generally will vote for proposals to reincorporate a company provided that the board and management have demonstrated sound financial or business reasons for the move. Invesco generally will oppose proposals to reincorporate if they are solely part of an anti-takeover defense or intended to limit directors’ liability.
PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES
The following guidelines apply to all institutional and retail funds and accounts that have explicitly authorized Invesco Advisers, Inc. (“Invesco”) to vote proxies associated with securities held on their behalf (collectively, “Clients”).
A. INTRODUCTION
Invesco Ltd. (“IVZ”), the ultimate parent company of Invesco, has adopted a global policy statement on corporate governance and proxy voting (the “Invesco Global Proxy Policy”). The policy describes IVZ’s views on governance matters and the proxy administration and governance approach. Invesco votes proxies by using the framework and procedures set forth in the Invesco Global Proxy Policy, while maintaining the Invesco-specific guidelines described below.
B. PROXY VOTING OVERSIGHT: THE MUTUAL FUNDS’ BOARD OF TRUSTEES
In addition to the Global Invesco Proxy Advisory Committee, the Invesco mutual funds’ board of trustees provides oversight of the proxy process through quarterly reporting and an annual in-person presentation by Invesco’s Global Head of Proxy Governance and Responsible Investment.
C. USE OF THIRD PARTY PROXY ADVISORY SERVICES
Invesco has direct access to third party proxy advisory analyses and recommendations (currently provided by Glass Lewis (“GL”) and Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (“ISS”)), among other research tools, and uses the information gleaned from those sources to make independent voting decisions.
Invesco’s proxy administration team performs extensive initial and ongoing due diligence on the proxy advisory firms that it engages. When deemed appropriate, representatives from the proxy advisory firms are asked to deliver updates directly to the mutual funds' board of trustees. Investco conducts semi-annual, in-person policy roundtables with key heads of research from ISS and GL to ensure transparency, dialogue and engagement with the firms. These meetings provide Invesco with an opportunity to assess the firms’ capabilities, conflicts of interest and service levels, as well as provide investment professionals with direct insight into the advisory firms’ stances on key governance and proxy topics and their policy framework/methodologies. Invesco’s proxy administration team also reviews the annual SSAE 16 reports for, and the periodic proxy guideline updates published by, each proxy advisory firm to ensure that their guidelines remain consistent with Invesco’s policies and procedures. Furthermore, each proxy advisory firm completes an annual due diligence questionnaire submitted by Invesco, and Invesco conducts on-site due diligence at each firm, in part to discuss their responses to the questionnaire.
If Invesco becomes aware of any material inaccuracies in the information provided by ISS or GL, Invesco’s proxy administration team will investigate the matter to determine the cause, evaluate the adequacy of the proxy advisory firm’s control structure and assess the efficacy of the measures instituted to prevent further errors.
ISS and GL provide updates to previously issued proxy reports when necessary to incorporate newly available information or to correct factual errors. ISS also has a Feedback Review Board, which provides a mechanism for stakeholders to communicate with ISS about issues related to proxy voting and policy formulation, research, and the accuracy of data contained in ISS reports.
D. PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES
The following guidelines describe Invesco’s general positions on various common proxy issues. The guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive or prescriptive. Invesco’s proxy process is investor-driven, and each portfolio manager retains ultimate discretion to vote proxies in the manner that he or she deems to be the most appropriate, consistent with the proxy voting principles and philosophy discussed in the Invesco Global Proxy Policy. Individual proxy votes therefore will differ from these guidelines from time to time.
I. Corporate Governance
Management teams of companies are accountable to the boards of directors and directors of publicly held companies are accountable to shareholders. Invesco endeavors to vote the proxies of companies in a manner that will reinforce the notion of a board’s accountability. Consequently, Invesco generally votes against any actions that would impair the rights of shareholders or would reduce shareholders’ influence over the board.
The following are specific voting issues that illustrate how Invesco applies this principle of accountability.
Elections of directors
In uncontested director elections for companies that do not have a controlling shareholder, Invesco generally votes in favor of slates if they are comprised of at least a majority of independent directors and if the boards’ key committees are fully independent. Key committees include the audit, compensation and governance or nominating Committees. Invesco’s standard of independence excludes directors who, in addition to the directorship, have any material business or family relationships with the companies they serve. Contested director elections are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Director performance
Invesco generally withholds votes from directors who exhibit a lack of accountability to shareholders, either through their level of attendance at meetings or by adopting or approving egregious corporate-governance or other policies. In cases of material financial restatements, accounting fraud, habitually late filings, adopting shareholder rights plan (“poison pills”) without shareholder approval, or other areas of poor performance, Invesco may withhold votes from some or all of a company’s directors. In situations where directors’ performance is a concern, Invesco may also support shareholder proposals to take corrective actions, such as so-called “clawback” provisions.
Auditors and Audit Committee members
Invesco believes a company’s audit committee has a high degree of responsibility to shareholders in matters of financial disclosure, integrity of the financial statements and effectiveness of a company’s internal controls. Independence, experience and financial expertise are critical elements of a well-functioning audit committee. When electing directors who are members of a company’s audit committee, or when ratifying a company’s auditors, Invesco considers the past performance of the committee and holds its members accountable for the quality of the company’s financial statements and reports.
Majority standard in director elections
The right to elect directors is the single most important mechanism shareholders have to promote accountability. Invesco supports the nascent effort to reform the U.S. convention of electing directors, and generally votes in favor of proposals to elect directors by a majority vote.
Staggered Boards/Annual Election of Directors
Invesco generally supports proposals to elect each director annually rather than electing directors to staggered multi-year terms because annual elections increase a board's level of accountability to its shareholders.
Supermajority voting requirements
Unless required by law in the state of incorporation, Invesco generally votes against actions that would impose any supermajority voting requirement, and generally supports actions to dismantle existing supermajority requirements.
Responsiveness of Directors
Invesco generally withholds votes for directors who do not adequately respond to shareholder proposals that were approved by a majority of votes cast the prior year.
Cumulative Voting
The practice of cumulative voting can enable minority shareholders to have representation on a company’s board. Invesco generally supports proposals to institute the practice of cumulative voting at companies whose overall corporate-governance standards indicate a particular need to protect the interests of minority shareholders.
Proxy Access
Invesco generally supports shareholders’ nominations of directors in the proxy statement and ballot because it increases the accountability of the board to shareholders. Invesco will generally consider the proposed minimum period of ownership (e.g., three years), minimum ownership percentage (e.g., three percent), limitations on a proponent’s ability to aggregate holdings with other shareholders and the maximum percentage of directors who can be nominated when determining how to vote on proxy access proposals.
Shareholder access
On business matters with potential financial consequences, Invesco generally votes in favor of proposals that would increase shareholders’ opportunities to express their views to boards of directors, proposals that would lower barriers to shareholder action and proposals to promote the adoption of generally accepted best practices in corporate governance. Furthermore, Invesco generally votes for shareholder proposals that are designed to protect shareholder rights if a company’s corporate governance standards indicate that such additional protections are warranted.
Exclusive Forum
Invesco generally supports proposals that would designate a specific jurisdiction in company bylaws as the exclusive venue for certain types of shareholder lawsuits in order to reduce costs arising out of multijurisdictional litigation.
II. Compensation and Incentives
Invesco believes properly constructed compensation plans that include equity ownership are effective in creating incentives that induce management and employees of companies to create greater shareholder wealth. Invesco generally supports equity compensation plans that promote the proper alignment of incentives with shareholders’ long-term interests, and generally votes against plans that are overly dilutive to existing shareholders, plans that contain objectionable structural features, and plans that appear likely to reduce the value of the Client’s investment.
Following are specific voting issues that illustrate how Invesco evaluates incentive plans.
Executive compensation
Invesco evaluates executive compensation plans within the context of the company’s performance under the executives’ tenure. Invesco believes independent compensation committees are best positioned to craft executive-compensation plans that are suitable for their company-specific circumstances. Invesco views the election of independent compensation committee members as the appropriate mechanism for shareholders to express their approval or disapproval of a company’s compensation practices. Therefore, Invesco generally does not support shareholder proposals to limit or eliminate certain forms of executive compensation. In the interest of reinforcing the notion of a compensation committee’s accountability to shareholders, Invesco generally supports proposals requesting that companies subject each year’s compensation record to an advisory shareholder vote, or so-called “say on pay” proposals.
Equity-based compensation plans
Invesco generally votes against plans that contain structural features that would impair the alignment of incentives between shareholders and management. Such features include the ability to reprice or reload options without shareholder approval, the ability to issue options below the stock’s current market price, or the ability automatically to replenish shares without shareholder approval.
Employee stock-purchase plans
Invesco generally supports employee stock-purchase plans that are reasonably designed to provide proper incentives to a broad base of employees, provided that the price at which employees may acquire stock is at most a 15 percent discount from the market price.
Severance agreements
Invesco generally votes in favor of proposals requiring advisory shareholder ratification of executives’ severance agreements. However, Invesco generally opposes proposals requiring such agreements to be ratified by shareholders in advance of their adoption. Given the vast differences that may occur in these agreements, some severance agreements are evaluated on an individual basis.
III. Capitalization
Examples of management proposals related to a company’s capital structure include authorizing or issuing additional equity capital, repurchasing outstanding stock, or enacting a stock split or reverse stock split. On requests for additional capital stock, Invesco analyzes the company’s stated reasons for the request. Except where the request could adversely affect the Client’s ownership stake or voting rights, Invesco generally supports a board’s decisions on its needs for additional capital stock. Some capitalization proposals require a case-by-case analysis. Examples of such proposals include authorizing common or preferred stock with special voting rights, or issuing additional stock in connection with an acquisition.
IV. Mergers, Acquisitions and Other Corporate Actions
Issuers occasionally require shareholder approval to engage in certain corporate actions such as mergers, acquisitions, name changes, dissolutions, reorganizations, divestitures and reincorporations and the votes for these types of corporate actions are generally determined on a case-by-case basis.
V. Anti-Takeover Measures
Practices designed to protect a company from unsolicited bids can adversely affect shareholder value and voting rights, and they potentially create conflicts of interests among directors, management and shareholders. Except under special issuer-specific circumstances, Invesco generally votes to reduce or eliminate such measures. These measures include adopting or renewing “poison pills”, requiring supermajority voting on certain corporate actions, classifying the election of directors instead of electing each director to an annual term, or creating separate classes of common or preferred stock with special voting rights. Invesco generally votes against management proposals to impose these types of measures, and generally votes for shareholder proposals designed to reduce such measures. Invesco generally supports shareholder proposals directing companies to subject their anti-takeover provisions to a shareholder vote.
VI. Environmental, Social and Corporate Responsibility Issues
Invesco believes that a company’s response to environmental, social and corporate responsibility issues and the risks attendant to them can have a significant effect on its long-term shareholder value. Invesco recognizes that to manage a corporation effectively, directors and management must consider not only the interest of shareholders, but also the interests of employees, customers, suppliers and creditors, among others. While Invesco generally affords management discretion with respect to the operation of a company’s business, Invesco will evaluate such proposals on a case-by-case basis and will vote proposals relating to these issues in a manner intended to maximize long-term shareholder value.
VII. Routine Business Matters
Routine business matters rarely have the potential to have a material effect on the economic prospects of Clients’ holdings, so Invesco generally supports a board’s discretion on these items. However, Invesco generally votes against proposals where there is insufficient information to make a decision about the nature of the proposal. Similarly, Invesco generally votes against proposals to conduct other unidentified business at shareholder meetings.
D. EXCEPTIONS
Client Maintains Right to Vote Proxies
In the case of institutional or sub-advised Clients, Invesco will vote the proxies in accordance with these guidelines and the Invesco Global Proxy Policy, unless the Client retains in writing the right to vote or the named fiduciary of a Client (e.g., the plan sponsor of an ERISA Client) retains in writing the right to direct the plan trustee or a third party to vote proxies.
Voting for Certain Investment Strategies
For cash sweep investment vehicles selected by a Client but for which Invesco has proxy voting authority over the account and where no other Client holds the same securities, Invesco will vote proxies based on ISS recommendations.
Funds of Funds
Some Invesco Funds offering diversified asset allocation within one investment vehicle own shares in other Invesco Funds. A potential conflict of interest could arise if an underlying Invesco Fund has a shareholder meeting with any proxy issues to be voted on, because Invesco’s asset-allocation funds or target-maturity funds may be large shareholders of the underlying fund. In order to avoid any potential for a conflict, the asset-allocation funds and target maturity funds vote their shares in the same proportion as the votes of the external shareholders of the underlying fund.
F. POLICIES AND VOTE DISCLOSURE
A copy of these guidelines, the Invesco Global Proxy Policy, and the voting record of each Invesco Retail Fund are available on Invesco’s web site, www.invesco.com. In accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, all Invesco Funds file a record of all proxy-voting activity for the prior 12 months ending June 30th. That filing is made on or before August 31st of each year. In the case of institutional and sub-advised Clients, Clients may contact their client service representative to request information about how Invesco voted proxies on their behalf. Absent specific contractual guidelines, such requests may be made on a semi-annual basis.
Proxy Voting - JPMorgan.
The Board of Trustees has delegated to JPMorgan, and its affiliated advisers, proxy voting authority with respect to the fund’s portfolio securities. To ensure that the proxies of portfolio companies are voted in the best interests of the fund, the fund’s Board of Trustees has adopted JPMorgan’s detailed proxy voting procedures (the “Procedures”) that incorporate guidelines (“Guidelines”) for voting proxies on specific types of issues.
JPMorgan 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. Separate Guidelines cover the regions of (1) North America, (2) Europe, Middle East, Africa, Central America and South America, (3) Asia (ex-Japan) and (4) Japan, respectively.
Notwithstanding the variations among the Guidelines, all of the Guidelines have been designed with the uniform objective of encouraging corporate action that enhances shareholder value. As a general rule, in voting proxies of a particular security, JPMorgan 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 JPMorgan and its affiliated advisers have encountered globally, based on many years of collective investment management experience.
To oversee and monitor the proxy-voting process, JPMorgan has established a proxy committee and appointed a proxy administrator in each global location where proxies are voted. The primary function of each proxy committee is to review periodically general proxy-voting matters, review and approve the Guidelines annually, and provide advice and recommendations on general proxy-voting matters as well as on specific voting issues. The procedures permit an independent voting service, to perform certain services otherwise carried out or coordinated by the proxy administrator.
Although for many matters the Guidelines specify the votes to be cast, for many others, the Guidelines contemplate case-by-case determinations. In addition, there will undoubtedly be proxy matters that are not contemplated by the Guidelines. For both of these categories of matters and to override the Guidelines, the Procedures require a certification and review process to be completed before the vote is cast. That process is designed to identify actual or potential material conflicts of interest (between the fund on the one hand, and JPMorgan and its affiliates on the other hand) and ensure that the proxy vote is cast in the best interests of the 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 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 either in accordance with JPMorgan proxy voting guidelines or by the third party using its own guidelines.
When other types of potential material conflicts of interest are identified, the proxy administrator and, as necessary, JPMorgan Asset Management’s Chief Fiduciary Officer will evaluate the potential conflict of interest and determine whether such conflict actually exists, and if so, will recommend how JPMorgan will vote the proxy. In addressing any material conflict, JPMorgan may take one or more of the following measures (or other appropriate action): removing or “walling off” from the proxy voting process certain JPMorgan personnel with knowledge of the conflict, voting in accordance with any applicable Guideline if the application of the Guideline would objectively result in the casting of a proxy vote in a predetermined manner, or deferring the vote to or obtaining a recommendation from a third independent party, in which case the proxy will be voted by, or in accordance with the recommendation of, the independent third party.
The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting policies of the non-U.S. Guidelines:
• Corporate governance procedures differ among the countries. Because of time constraints and local customs, it is not always possible for JPMorgan 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 JPMorgan 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. JPMorgan also considers the cost of voting in light of the expected benefit of the vote. In certain instances, it may sometimes be in the Fund’s best interests to intentionally refrain from voting in certain overseas markets from time to time.
• Where proxy issues concern corporate governance, takeover defense measures, compensation plans, capital structure changes and so forth, JPMorgan pays particular attention to management’s arguments for promoting the prospective change JPMorgan’s sole criterion in determining its voting stance is whether such changes will be to the economic benefit of the beneficial owners of the shares.
• JPMorgan is in favor of a unitary board structure of the type found in the United Kingdom as opposed to tiered board structures. Thus, JPMorgan will generally vote to encourage the gradual phasing out of tiered board structures, in favor of unitary boards. However, since tiered boards are still very prevalent in markets outside of the United Kingdom, local market practice will always be taken into account.
• JPMorgan will use its voting powers to encourage appropriate levels of board independence, taking into account local market practice.
• JPMorgan 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.
• JPMorgan will vote in favor of increases in capital which enhance a company’s long-term prospects. JPMorgan 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, JPMorgan 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.
• JPMorgan will vote in favor of proposals which will enhance a company’s long-term prospects. JPMorgan 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.
• JPMorgan will generally vote against anti-takeover devices.
• Where social or environmental issues are the subject of a proxy vote, JPMorgan will consider the issue on a case-by-case basis, keeping in mind at all times the best economic interests of its clients.
The following summarizes some of the more noteworthy types of proxy voting policies of the U.S. Guidelines:
• JPMorgan 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 directors who serve on audit, compensation or nominating committees or are affiliated 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; or (f) are CEOs of publically-traded companies who serve on more than three public boards or 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.
• JPMorgan 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).
• JPMorgan also considers management poison pill proposals on a case-by-case basis, looking for shareholder-friendly provisions before voting in favor.
• JPMorgan votes against proposals for a super-majority vote to approve a merger.
• JPMorgan 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.
• JPMorgan 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.
• JPMorgan 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.
• JPMorgan 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, JPMorgan votes on a case by case basis.
• JPMorgan 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, JPMorgan 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 secularly potentially declining demand for the company’s products or services due to environmental considerations; cash deployment; 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. JPMorgan may also consider whether peers have received similar proposals and if so, were the responses transparent and insightful; would adoption of the proposal inform and educate shareholders; and 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.
• With regard to social issues, among other factors, JPMorgan 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.
• JPMorgan 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.
Proxy Voting – Loomis Sayles.
1. GENERAL
A. Introduction.
Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. (“Loomis Sayles”) will vote proxies on behalf of a client if, in its investment management agreement (“IMA”) with Loomis Sayles, the client has delegated to Loomis Sayles the authority to vote proxies on its behalf. With respect to IMAs executed with clients prior to June 30, 2004, Loomis Sayles assumes that the proxy voting authority assigned by Loomis Sayles at account setup is accurate unless the client or their representative has instructed Loomis Sayles otherwise. Loomis Sayles has adopted and implemented these policies and procedures (“Proxy Voting Procedures”) to ensure that, where it has voting authority, proxy matters are handled in the best interest of clients, in accordance with Loomis Sayles’ fiduciary duties, SEC rule 206(4)-6 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Staff Legal Bulletin No. 20 (June 30, 2014). In addition to SEC requirements governing advisers, its Proxy Voting Procedures reflect the fiduciary standards and responsibilities for ERISA accounts set out in Department of Labor Bulletin 2016-01, 29 C.F.R. 2509. 2016-01 (December 29, 2016).
Loomis Sayles uses the services of third parties (“Proxy Voting Service(s)”), to research and administer the vote on proxies for those accounts and funds for which Loomis Sayles has voting authority. Loomis Sayles will generally follow its express policy with input from the Proxy Voting Services unless the Proxy Committee determines that the client’s best interests are served by voting otherwise.
B. General Guidelines.
The following guidelines will apply when voting proxies on behalf of accounts for which Loomis Sayles has voting authority.
1. Client’s Best Interest. Loomis Sayles’ Proxy Voting Procedures are designed and implemented in a way that is reasonably expected to ensure that proxy matters are conducted in the best interest of clients. When considering the best interest of clients, Loomis Sayles has determined that this means the best investment interest of its clients as shareholders of the issuer. Loomis Sayles has established its Proxy Voting Procedures to assist it in making its proxy voting decisions with a view to enhancing the value of its clients’ interests in an issuer over the period during which it expects its clients to hold their investments (taking into account the costs involved). Loomis Sayles will vote against proposals that it believes could adversely impact the current or potential market value of the issuer’s securities during the expected holding period.
2. Client Proxy Voting Policies. Rather than delegating proxy voting authority to Loomis Sayles, a client may (1) retain the authority to vote proxies on securities in its account, (2) delegate voting authority to another party or (3) instruct Loomis Sayles to vote proxies according to a policy that differs from that of Loomis Sayles. Loomis Sayles will honor any of these instructions if the client includes the instruction in writing in its IMA or in a written instruction from a person authorized under the IMA to give such instructions. If Loomis incurs additional costs or expenses in following any such instruction, Loomis may request payment of such additional costs or expenses from the client.
3. Stated Policies. These policies identify issues where Loomis Sayles will (1) generally vote in favor of a proposal, (2) generally vote against a proposal, (3) generally vote as recommended by the proxy voting service and (4) specifically consider its vote for or against a proposal. However, these policies are guidelines and each vote may be cast differently than the stated policy, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances at the time of the vote.
4. Abstain from Voting. Our policy is to vote rather than abstain from voting on issues presented unless the client’s best interest requires abstention. Loomis Sayles will abstain in cases where the impact of the expected costs involved in voting exceeds the expected benefits of the vote such as where foreign corporations follow share-blocking practices or where proxy material is not available in English. Loomis Sayles will vote against ballot issues where the issuer does not provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. In addition, there may be instances where Loomis Sayles is not able to vote proxies on a client's behalf, such as when ballot delivery instructions have not been processed by a client's custodian, the Proxy Voting Service has not received a ballot for a client's account or under other circumstances beyond Loomis Sayles' control.
5. Oversight. All issues presented for shareholder vote will be considered under the oversight of the Proxy Committee. All non-routine issues will be directly considered by the Proxy Committee and, when necessary, the equity analyst following the company and/or the portfolio manager of an account holding the security, and will be voted in the best investment interests of the client. All routine for and against issues will be voted according to Loomis Sayles’ policy approved by the Proxy Committee unless special factors require that they be considered by the Proxy Committee and, when necessary, the equity analyst following the company and/or the portfolio manager of an account holding the security. Loomis Sayles’ Proxy Committee has established these routine policies in what it believes are the client’s best interests.
6. Availability of Procedures. Upon request, Loomis Sayles provides clients with a copy of its Proxy Voting Procedures, as updated from time to time.
7. Disclosure of Vote. Upon request, a client can obtain information from Loomis Sayles on how its proxies were voted. Any client interested in obtaining this information should contact its Loomis Sayles representatives.
8. Disclosure to Third Parties. Loomis Sayles’ general policy is not to disclose to third parties how it (or its voting delegate) voted a client’s proxy except that for registered investment companies, Loomis Sayles makes disclosures as required by Rule 30(b)(1)-(4) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and, from time to time at the request of client groups, Loomis may make general disclosures (not specific as to client) of its voting instructions.
C. Proxy Committee.
1. Proxy Committee. Loomis Sayles has established a Proxy Committee. The Proxy Committee is composed of representatives of the Equity Research department and the Legal & Compliance department and other employees of Loomis Sayles as needed. In the event that any member is unable to participate in a meeting of the Proxy Committee, his or her designee acts on his or her behalf. A vacancy in the Proxy Committee is filled by the prior member’s successor in position at Loomis Sayles or a person of equivalent experience. Each portfolio manager of an account that holds voting securities of an issuer or analyst covering the issuer or its securities may be an ad hoc member of the Proxy Committee in connection with the vote of proxies.
2. Duties. The specific responsibilities of the Proxy Committee include,
a. to develop, authorize, implement and update these Proxy Voting Procedures, including:
(i) annual review of these Proxy Voting Procedures to ensure consistency with internal policies and regulatory agency policies,
(ii) annual review of existing voting guidelines and development of additional voting guidelines to assist in the review of proxy proposals, and
(iii) annual review of the proxy voting process and any general issues that relate to proxy voting;
b. to oversee the proxy voting process, including:
(i) overseeing the vote on proposals according to the predetermined policies in the voting guidelines,
(ii) directing the vote on proposals where there is reason not to vote according to the predetermined policies in the voting guidelines or where proposals require special consideration,
(iii) consulting with the portfolio managers and analysts for the accounts holding the security when necessary or appropriate, and
(iv) periodically sampling or engaging an outside party to sample proxy votes to ensure they comply with the Proxy Voting Procedures and are cast in accordance with the clients’ best interests;
c. to engage and oversee third-party vendors, such as Proxy Voting Services, including:
(i) determining whether a Proxy Voting Service has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues by considering:
(a) the adequacy and quality of the Proxy Voting Service’s staffing and personnel, and
(b) the robustness of the Proxy Voting Service’s policies and procedures regarding its ability to ensure that its recommendations are based on current and accurate information and to identify and address any relevant conflicts of interest,
(ii) providing ongoing oversight of Proxy Voting Services to ensure that proxies continue to be voted in the best interests of clients,
(iii) receiving and reviewing updates from Proxy Voting Services regarding relevant business changes or changes to Proxy Voting Services’ conflict policies and procedures, and
(iv) in the event that the Proxy Committee becomes aware that a Proxy Voting Service’s recommendation was based on a material factual error, investigating the error, considering the nature of the error and the related recommendation, and determining whether the Proxy Voting Service has taken reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood of similar errors in the future; and
d. to develop and/or modify these Proxy Voting Procedures as appropriate or necessary.
3. Standards.
a. When determining the vote of any proposal for which it has responsibility, the Proxy Committee shall vote in the client’s best interest as described in section 1(B)(1) above. In the event a client believes that its other interests require a different vote, Loomis Sayles shall vote as the client instructs if the instructions are provided as required in section 1(B)(2) above.
b. When determining the vote on any proposal, the Proxy Committee shall not consider any benefit to Loomis Sayles, any of its affiliates, any of its or their clients or service providers, other than benefits to the owner of the securities to be voted.
4. Charter. The Proxy Committee may adopt a Charter, which shall be consistent with these Proxy Voting Procedures. Any Charter shall set forth the Committee’s purpose, membership and operation and shall include procedures prohibiting a member from voting on a matter for which he or she has a conflict of interest by reason of a direct relationship with the issuer or other party affected by a given proposal (e.g., he or she is a portfolio manager for an account of the issuer).
D. Conflicts of Interest.
Loomis Sayles has established several policies to ensure that proxy votes are voted in its clients’ best interest and are not affected by any possible conflicts of interest. First, except in certain limited instances, Loomis Sayles votes in accordance with its pre-determined policies set forth in these Proxy Voting Procedures. Second, where these Proxy Voting Procedures allow for discretion, Loomis Sayles will generally consider the recommendations of the Proxy Voting Services in making its voting decisions. However, if the Proxy Committee determines that the Proxy Voting Services’ recommendation is not in the best interest of its clients, then the Proxy Committee may use its discretion to vote against the Proxy Voting Services’ recommendation, but only after taking the following steps: (1) conducting a review for any material conflict of interest Loomis Sayles may have and, (2) if any material conflict is found to exist, excluding anyone at Loomis Sayles who is subject to that conflict of interest from participating in the voting decision in any way. However, if deemed necessary or appropriate by the Proxy Committee after full prior disclosure of any conflict, that person may provide information, opinions or recommendations on any proposal to the Proxy Committee. In such event the Proxy Committee will make reasonable efforts to obtain and consider, prior to directing any vote information, opinions or recommendations from or about the opposing position on any proposal.
E. Recordkeeping and Disclosure.
Loomis Sayles or its Proxy Voting Service will maintain records of proxies voted pursuant to Section 204-2 of the Advisers Act. The records include: (1) a copy of its Proxy Voting Procedures and its charter; (2) proxy statements received regarding client securities; (3) a record of each vote cast; (4) a copy of any document created by Loomis Sayles that is material to making a decision how to vote proxies on behalf of a client or that memorializes the basis for that decision; and (5) each written client request for proxy voting records and Loomis Sayles’ written response to any (written or oral) lient request for such records.
Proxy voting books and records are maintained in an easily accessible place for a period of five years, the first two in an appropriate office of Loomis Sayles.
Loomis Sayles will provide disclosure of its Proxy Voting Procedures as well as its voting record as required under applicable SEC rules.
2. PROPOSALS USUALLY VOTED FOR
Proxies involving the issues set forth below generally will be voted FOR.
Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock: Vote for management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock.
Annual Election of Directors: Vote for proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors annually.
Appraisal Rights: Vote for proposals to restore, or provide shareholders with, rights of appraisal.
Authority to Issue Shares: Vote for proposals by boards to authorize issuance of shares with or without preemptive rights to the extent the size of the proposed issuance in proportion to the issuer's ordinary share capital is consistent with industry standards and the recommendations of the issuer’s board and the Proxy Voting Service are in agreement. Review on a case-by-case basis proposals that do not meet the above criteria.
Blank Check Preferred Authorization:
A. Vote for proposals to create blank check preferred stock in cases when the company expressly states that the stock will not be used as a takeover defense or carry superior voting rights, and expressly states conversion, dividend, distribution and other rights.
B. Vote for shareholder proposals to have blank check preferred stock placements, other than those shares issued for the purpose of raising capital or making acquisitions in the normal course of business, submitted for shareholder ratification.
C. Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to increase the number of authorized blank check preferred shares.
Chairman and CEO are the Same Person: Vote for proposals that would require the positions of chairman and CEO to be held by different persons.
Changing Corporate Name: Vote for changing the corporate name.
Confidential Voting: Vote for shareholder proposals that request corporations to adopt confidential voting, use independent tabulators and use independent inspectors of election as long as the proposals include clauses for proxy contests as follows: In the case of a contested election, management should be permitted to request that the dissident group honor its confidential voting policy. If the dissidents agree, the policy remains in place. If the dissidents do not agree, the confidential voting policy is waived. Vote for management proposals to adopt confidential voting.
Cumulative Voting: Vote for proposals to permit cumulative voting, except where the issuer already has in place a policy of majority voting.
Delivery of Electronic Proxy Materials: Vote for proposals to allow electronic delivery of proxy materials to shareholders.
Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections:
A. Vote for proposals involving routine matters such as election of directors, provided that two-thirds of the directors would be independent and affiliated or inside nominees do not serve on any board committee.
B. Vote against nominees that are CFOs and, generally, against nominees that the Proxy Voting Service has identified as not acting in the best interest of shareholders. Vote against nominees that have attended less than 75% of board and committee meetings, unless a reasonable cause (e.g., health or family emergency) for the absence is noted and accepted by the Proxy Voting Service and the board. Vote against affiliated or inside nominees who serve on a board committee or if two thirds of the board would not be independent. Vote against governance or nominating committee members if there is no independent lead or presiding director and if the CEO and chairman are the same person. Generally, vote against audit committee members if auditor ratification is not proposed, except in cases involving mutual fund board members, who are not required to submit auditor ratification for shareholder approval pursuant to Investment Company Act of 1940 rules. Vote against compensation committee members when the Proxy Voting Service recommends a vote against the issuer's "say on pay" advisory vote. A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed when electing directors of foreign companies.
C. Generally, vote against all members of a board committee and not just the chairman or a representative thereof in situations where the Proxy Voting Service finds that the board committee has not acted in the best interest of shareholders.
D. Vote as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service when directors are being elected as a slate and not individually.
Director Related Compensation: Vote for proposals that are required by and comply with the applicable statutory or listing requirements governing the issuer. Review on a case-by-case basis all other proposals.
Election of Mutual Fund Trustees: Vote for nominees who oversee less than 60 mutual fund portfolios. Vote against nominees who oversee 60 or more mutual fund portfolios that invest in substantially different asset classes (e.g., if the applicable portfolios include both fixed income funds and equity funds). Vote on a case-by-case basis for or against nominees who oversee 60 or more mutual fund portfolios that invest in substantially similar asset classes (e.g., if the applicable portfolios include only fixed income funds or only equity funds).
Equal Access: Vote for shareholder proposals that would allow significant company shareholders equal access to management's proxy material in order to evaluate and propose voting recommendations on proxy proposals and director nominees, and in order to nominate their own candidates to the board.
Fair Price Provisions:
A. Vote for fair price proposals, as long as the shareholder vote requirement embedded in the provision is no more than a majority of disinterested shares.
B. Vote for shareholder proposals to lower the shareholder vote requirement in existing fair price provisions.
Golden and Tin Parachutes:
A. Vote for shareholder proposals to have golden (top management) and tin (all employees) parachutes submitted for shareholder ratification.
B. Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals to ratify or cancel golden or tin parachutes.
Greenshoe Options (French issuers only): Vote for proposals by boards of French issuers in favor of greenshoe options that grant the issuer the flexibility to increase an over-subscribed securities issuance by up to 15% so long as such increase takes place on the same terms and within thirty days of the initial issuance, provided that the recommendation of the issuer’s board and the Proxy Voting Service are in agreement. Review on a case-by-case basis proposals that do not meet the above criteria.
Independent Audit, Compensation and Nominating Committees: Vote for proposals requesting that the board audit, compensation and/or nominating committees include independent directors exclusively.
Independent Board Chairman:
A. Vote for shareholder proposals that generally request the board to adopt a policy requiring its chairman to be "independent," as defined by a relevant exchange or market with respect to any issuer whose enterprise value is, according to the Proxy Voting Service, greater than or equal to $10 billion.
B. Vote such proposals on a case-by-case basis when, according to the Proxy Voting Service, the issuer's enterprise value is less than $10 billion.
Majority Voting: Vote for proposals to permit majority rather than plurality or cumulative voting for the election of directors/trustees.
OBRA (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act)-Related Compensation Proposals:
A. Vote for plans that simply amend shareholder-approved plans to include administrative features or place a cap on the annual grants any one participant may receive to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.
B. Vote for amendments to add performance goals to existing compensation plans to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.
C. Vote for cash or cash-and-stock bonus plans to exempt the compensation from taxes under the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.
D. Votes on amendments to existing plans to increase shares reserved and to qualify the plan for favorable tax treatment under the provisions of Section 162(m) should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Ratifying Auditors:
A. Generally vote for proposals to ratify auditors.
B. Vote against ratification of auditors where an auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent; or there is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion which is neither accurate nor indicative of the company's financial position. In general, if non-audit fees amount to 35% or more of total fees paid to a company's auditor we will vote against ratification and against the members of the audit committee.
C. Vote against ratification of auditors and vote against members of the audit committee where it is known that an auditor has negotiated an alternative dispute resolution procedure.
Reverse Stock Splits: Vote for management proposals to reduce the number of outstanding shares available through a reverse stock split.
Right to Adjourn: Vote for the right to adjourn in conjunction with a vote for a merger or acquisition or other proposal, and vote against the right to adjourn in conjunction with a vote against a merger or acquisition or other proposal.
Right to Call a Special Meeting: Vote for proposals that set a threshold of 10% of the outstanding voting stock as a minimum percentage allowable to call a special meeting of shareholders. Vote against proposals that increase or decrease the threshold from 10%.
Share Cancellation Programs: Vote for management proposals to reduce share capital by means of cancelling outstanding shares held in the issuer's treasury.
Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board:
A. Vote for proposals that seek to fix the size of the board.
B. Vote against proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board without shareholder approval.
Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors: Vote for proposals to restore shareholder ability to remove directors with or without cause and proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.
Share Repurchase Programs: Vote for management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms.
Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends: Generally vote for management proposals to increase common share authorization, provided that the increase in authorized shares following the split or dividend is not greater than 100 percent of existing authorized shares.
White Squire Placements: Vote for shareholder proposals to require shareholder approval of blank check preferred stock issues.
Written Consent: Vote for proposals regarding the right to act by written consent when the Proxy Voting Service recommends a vote for the proposal. Proposals regarding the right to act by written consent where the Proxy Voting Service recommends a vote against will be sent to the Proxy Committee for determination.
3. PROPOSALS USUALLY VOTED AGAINST
Proxies involving the issues set forth below generally will be voted AGAINST.
Common Stock Authorization: Vote against proposed common stock authorizations that increase the existing authorization by more than 100 percent unless a clear need for the excess shares is presented by the company. A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed.
Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection:
A. Proposals concerning director and officer indemnification and liability protection that limit or eliminate entirely director and officer liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of care, or that would expand coverage beyond just legal expenses to acts, such as gross negligence, that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligations than mere carelessness.
B. Vote for only those proposals that provide such expanded coverage in cases when a director's or officer's legal defense was unsuccessful if (i) the director was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that he reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company, and (ii) only if the director's legal expenses would be covered.
Exclusive Forum Provisions: Vote against proposals mandating an exclusive forum for any shareholder lawsuits. Vote against the members of the issuer's governance committee in the event of a proposal mandating an exclusive forum without shareholder approval.
Overboarded Executive Officer Director Nominees: Vote for an executive officer director nominee that sits on less than three company boards. Vote against an executive officer director nominee that sits on three or more boards. A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed.
Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent: Vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to take action by written consent.
Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings: Vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to call special meetings.
Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors:
A. Vote against proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.
B. Vote against proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies.
Share Retention by Executives: Generally vote against shareholder proposals requiring executives to retain shares of the issuer for fixed periods unless the board and the Proxy Voting Service recommend voting in favor of the proposal.
Staggered Director Elections: Vote against proposals to classify or stagger the board.
Stock Ownership Requirements: Generally vote against shareholder proposals requiring directors to own a minimum amount of company stock in order to qualify as a director, or to remain on the board.
Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirements: Vote against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve charter and bylaw amendments.
Term of Office: Vote against shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of outside directors.
Unequal Voting Rights:
A. Vote against dual class exchange offers and dual class recapitalizations.
B. Vote, on a case-by-case basis, proposals to eliminate an existing dual class voting structure.
4. PROPOSALS USUALLY VOTED AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PROXY VOTING SERVICE
Proxies involving compensation issues, not limited to those set forth below, generally will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service but may, in the consideration of the Proxy Committee, be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
401(k) Employee Benefit Plans: Vote for proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.
Compensation Plans: Votes with respect to compensation plans generally will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.
Employee Stock Ownership Plans (“ESOPs”): Vote for proposals that request shareholder approval in order to implement an ESOP or to increase authorized shares for existing ESOPs, except in cases when the number of shares allocated to the ESOP is "excessive" (i.e., generally greater than five percent of outstanding shares). A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed.
Executive Compensation Advisory Resolutions (“Say-on-Pay”): A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed using the following as a guide:
A. Vote for shareholder proposals to permit non-binding advisory votes on executive compensation.
B. Non-binding advisory votes on executive compensation will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.
C. Vote for an annual review of executive compensation.
Non-Material Miscellaneous Bookkeeping Proposals: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed regarding miscellaneous bookkeeping proposals of a non-material nature.
Preemptive Rights: Votes with respect to preemptive rights generally will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service subject to Common Stock Authorization requirements above.
Proxy Access: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed with regard to proposals intended to grant shareholders the right to place nominees for director on the issuer’s proxy ballot (“Proxy Access”). The nominating shareholder(s) should hold, in aggregate, at least 3% of the voting shares of the issuer for at least three years, and be allowed to nominate up to 25% of the nominees. All other proposals relating to Proxy Access will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Stock Option Plans: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed using the following as a guide:
A. Vote against plans which expressly permit repricing of underwater options.
B. Vote against proposals to make all stock options performance based.
C. Vote against stock option plans that could result in an earnings dilution above the company specific cap considered by the Proxy Voting Service.
D. Vote for proposals that request expensing of stock options.
Technical Amendments to By-Laws: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed regarding technical or housekeeping amendments to by-laws or articles designed to bring the by-laws or articles into line with current regulations and/or laws.
5. PROPOSALS REQUIRING SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
The Proxy Committee will vote proxies involving the issues set forth below generally on a case-by-case basis after review. Proposals on many of these types of matters will typically be reviewed with the analyst following the company before any vote is cast.
Asset Sales: Votes on asset sales should be made on a case-by-case basis after considering the impact on the balance sheet/working capital, value received for the asset, and potential elimination of diseconomies.
Bundled Proposals: Review on a case-by-case basis bundled or "conditioned" proxy proposals. In the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, examine the benefits and costs of the packaged items. In instances when the joint effect of the conditioned items is not in shareholders' best interests, vote against the proposals. If the combined effect is positive, support such proposals.
Charitable and Political Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures: Votes on proposals regarding charitable contributions, political contributions, and lobbying expenditures, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Votes for UK issuers concerning political contributions will be voted for if the issuer states that (a) it does not intend to make any political donations or incur any expenditures in respect to any political party in the EU; and (b) the proposal is submitted to ensure that the issuer does not inadvertently breach the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and sections 366 and 367 of the Companies Act 2006.
Compensation in the Event of a Change in Control: Votes on proposals regarding executive compensation in the event of a change in control of the issuer should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Conversion of Debt Instruments: Votes on the conversion of debt instruments should be considered on a case-by-case basis after the recommendation of the relevant Loomis Sayles equity or fixed income analyst is obtained.
Corporate Restructuring: Votes on corporate restructuring proposals, including minority squeezeouts, leveraged buyouts, spin-offs, liquidations, and asset sales should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Counting Abstentions: Votes on proposals regarding counting abstentions when calculating vote proposal outcomes should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Debt Restructurings: Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt-restructuring plan. Consider the following issues: Dilution-How much will ownership interest of existing shareholders be reduced, and how extreme will dilution to any future earnings be? Change in Control-Will the transaction result in a change in control of the company? Bankruptcy-Loomis Sayles’ Corporate Actions Department is responsible for consents related to bankruptcies and debt holder consents related to restructurings.
Delisting a Security: Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals to delist a security from an exchange.
Director Nominees in Contested Elections: Votes in a contested election of directors or vote no campaign must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors: long-term financial performance of the target company relative to its industry; management's track record; background to the proxy contest; qualifications of director nominees (both slates); evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders as well as the likelihood that the proposed objectives and goals can be met; and stock ownership positions.
Disclosure of Prior Government Service: Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals to disclose a list of employees previously employed in a governmental capacity.
Environmental and Social Issues: Proxies involving social and environmental issues, not limited to those set forth below, frequently will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service but may, in the consideration of the Proxy Committee, be reviewed on a case-by-case basis if the Proxy Committee believes that a particular proposal (i) could have a significant impact on an industry or issuer (ii) is appropriate for the issuer and the cost to implement would not be excessive, (iii) is appropriate for the issuer in light of various factors such as reputational damage or litigation risk or (iv) is otherwise appropriate for the issuer. Loomis Sayles will consider whether such proposals are likely to enhance the value of the client's investments after taking into account the costs involved, and will not subordinate the economic interests of the client to unrelated objectives, but may consider collateral goals.
Animal Rights: Proposals that deal with animal rights.
Energy and Environment: Proposals that request companies to file the CERES Principles.
Equal Employment Opportunity and Discrimination: Proposals regarding equal employment opportunities and discrimination.
Human Resources Issues: Proposals regarding human resources issues.
Maquiladora Standards and International Operations Policies: Proposals relating to the Maquiladora Standards and international operating policies.
Military Business: Proposals on defense issues.
Northern Ireland: Proposals pertaining to the MacBride Principles.
Product Integrity and Marketing: Proposals that ask companies to end their production of legal, but socially questionable, products.
Third World Debt Crisis: Proposals dealing with third world debt.
Golden Coffins: Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals relating to the obligation of an issuer to provide remuneration or awards to survivors of executives payable upon such executive's death.
Greenmail:
A. Vote for proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter of bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.
B. Review on a case-by-case basis anti-greenmail proposals when they are bundled with other charter or bylaw amendments.
Liquidations: Votes on liquidations should be made on a case-by-case basis after reviewing management's efforts to pursue other alternatives, appraisal value of assets, and the compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation.
Mergers and Acquisitions: Votes on mergers and acquisitions should be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account at least the following: anticipated financial and operating benefits; offer price (cost vs. premium); prospects of the combined companies; how the deal was negotiated; and changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights.
Mutual Fund Distribution Agreements: Votes on mutual fund distribution agreements should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Mutual Fund Fundamental Investment Restrictions: Votes on amendments to a mutual fund's fundamental investment restrictions should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Mutual Fund Investment Advisory Agreement: Votes on mutual fund investment advisory agreements should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Poison Pills:
A. Vote for shareholder proposals that ask a company to submit its poison pill for shareholder ratification.
B. Review on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals to redeem a company's poison pill.
C. Review on a case-by-case basis management proposals to ratify a poison pill.
Proxy Access: Proposals to allow shareholders to nominate their own candidates for seats on a board should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Proxy Contest Defenses: Generally, proposals concerning all proxy contest defenses should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Reimburse Proxy Solicitation Expenses: Decisions to provide full reimbursement for dissidents waging a proxy contest should be made on a case-by-case basis.
Reincorporation Proposals: Proposals to change a company's domicile should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Shareholder Advisory Committees: Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to establish a shareholder advisory committee.
Shareholder Proposals to Limit Executive and Director Pay:
A. Generally, vote for shareholder proposals that seek additional disclosure of executive and director pay information.
B. Review on a case-by-case basis (i) all shareholder proposals that seek to limit executive and director pay and (ii) all advisory resolutions on executive pay other than shareholder resolutions to permit such advisory resolutions. Vote against proposals to link all executive or director variable compensation to performance goals.
Spin-offs: Votes on spin-offs should be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the tax and regulatory advantages, planned use of sale proceeds, market focus, and managerial incentives.
State Takeover Statutes: Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including control share acquisition statutes, control share cash-out statutes, freezeout provisions, fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, antigreenmail provisions, and disgorgement provisions).
Tender Offer Defenses: Generally, proposals concerning tender offer defenses should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Transition Manager Ballots: Any ballot received by Loomis Sayles for a security that was held for a client by a Transition Manager prior to Loomis Sayles’ management of the client’s holdings will be considered on a case-by case basis by the Proxy Committee (without the input of any Loomis Sayles analyst or portfolio manager) if such security is no longer held in the client’s account with Loomis Sayles.
Proxy Voting - LSV.
LSV's standard investment management agreement expressly authorizes LSV to vote proxies on behalf of the client's account. Therefore, unless the client expressly reserves proxy voting responsibility, it is LSV's responsibility to vote proxies relating to securities held for the client's account.
ERISA Clients. With respect to ERISA plan clients, unless proxy voting responsibility has been expressly reserved, LSV, as the investment adviser for the account, must, subject to this policy, seek to vote all proxies relating to securities held for the plan's account. If LSV is responsible for voting, LSV shall make appropriate arrangements with each account custodian to have proxies forwarded, on a timely basis to the appropriate person, and shall endeavor to correct delays or other problems relating to timely delivery of proxies and proxy materials.
Fiduciary obligations of prudence and loyalty require an investment adviser with proxy voting responsibility to vote proxies on issues that affect the value of the client's investment. Proxy voting decisions must be made solely in the best interests of the client's account. In voting proxies, LSV is required to consider those factors that may affect the value of the client's investment and may not subordinate the interests of the client to unrelated objectives.
General Policies. LSV has adopted proxy voting guidelines that provide direction in determining how various types of proxy issues are to be voted. LSV has engaged an expert independent third party to design guidelines for client accounts that are updated for current corporate governance issues, helping to ensure that clients' best interests are served by voting decisions. Clients are sent a copy of their respective guidelines on an annual basis.
LSV's quantitative investment process does not provide output or analysis that would be functional in analyzing proxy issues. LSV therefore has retained an expert independent third party to assist in proxy voting, currently Glass Lewis & Co. ("GLC"). GLC implements LSV's proxy voting process, provides assistance in developing guidelines and provides analysis of proxy issues on a case-by-case basis. LSV is responsible for monitoring GLC to seek to ensure that proxies are appropriately voted. LSV will vote issues contrary to, or issues not covered by, the guidelines only when LSV believes it is in the best interest of the client. Where the client has provided proxy voting guidelines to LSV, those guidelines will be followed. In certain circumstances, clients are permitted to direct their vote in a particular solicitation. Direction from a client on a particular proxy vote will take precedence over the guidelines. LSV's use of GLC is not a delegation of LSV's fiduciary obligation to vote proxies for clients.
Should a material conflict arise between LSV's interest and that of its clients, LSV will vote the proxies in accordance with the recommendation of the independent third party proxy voting service. A written record will be maintained describing the conflict of interest, and an explanation of how the vote made was in the client's best interest.
LSV may be unable or may choose not to vote proxies in certain situations. For example, LSV may refrain from voting a proxy if (i) the cost of voting the proxy exceeds the expected benefit to the client, (ii) LSV is not given enough time to process the vote, (iii) voting the proxy requires the security to be "blocked" or frozen from trading or (iv) it is otherwise impractical or impossible to vote the proxy, such as in the case of voting a foreign security that must be cast in person.
Clients may receive a copy of this proxy voting policy and LSV's voting record for their account by request. LSV will additionally provide any mutual fund for which LSV acts as adviser or sub-adviser, a copy of LSV's voting record for the fund so that the fund may fulfill its obligation to report proxy votes to fund shareholders.
Record Keeping.
1. Copies of its proxy voting policies and procedures.
2. A copy of each proxy statement received regarding client securities (maintained by the proxy voting service and/or available on EDGAR).
3. A record of each vote cast on behalf of a client (maintained by the proxy voting service).
4. A copy of any document created that was material to the voting decision or that memorializes the basis for that decision (maintained by the proxy voting service).
5. A copy of clients' written requests for proxy voting information and a copy of LSV's written response to a client's request for proxy voting information for the client's account.
6. LSV will ensure that it may obtain access to the proxy voting service's records promptly upon LSV's request.
The above listed information is intended to, among other things, enable clients to review LSV's proxy voting procedures and actions taken in individual proxy voting situations.
LSV will maintain required materials in an easily accessible place for not less than five years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry took place, the first two years in LSV's principal office.
Consideration of Environmental, Social and Governance Factors.
LSV became a signatory to the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) in April 2014. GLC is also a signatory to the PRI. The PRI provides a framework, through its six principles, for consideration of environmental, social and governance ("ESG") factors in portfolio management and investment decision-making. The six principles ask an investment manager, to the extent consistent with its fiduciary duties, to seek to: (1) incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes; (2) be an active owner and incorporate ESG issues into its ownership policies and practices; (3) obtain appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which it invests; (4) promote acceptance and implementation of the PRI principles within the investment industry; (5) work to enhance its effectiveness in implementing the PRI principles; and (6) report on its activities and progress toward implementing the PRI principles.
For clients where LSV has proxy voting authority, certain ESG factors are built into our standard proxy voting guidelines. For example, GLC views the identification, mitigation and management of environmental and social risks as integral components when evaluating a company’s overall risk exposure. In cases where the board or management has failed to sufficiently identify and manage a material environmental or social risk that did or could negatively impact shareholder value, GLC will recommend shareholders vote against directors responsible for risk oversight in consideration of the nature of the risk and the potential effect on shareholder value. In addition, GLC generally recommends supporting shareholder proposals likely to increase and/or protect shareholder value and also those that promote the furtherance of shareholder rights. In evaluating shareholder resolutions regarding environmental and social issues, GLC examines: (1) direct environmental and social risk, (2) risk due to legislation and regulation, (3) legal and reputational risk, and (4) governance risk. Finally, through GLC, LSV is able to offer additional guidelines that provide another level of analysis for clients seeking to vote consistent with widely-accepted enhanced ESG practices. These ESG-specific guidelines are available to clients with a focus on disclosing and mitigating company risk with regard to ESG issues.
Proxy Voting - MFS.
Massachusetts Financial Services Company, MFS Institutional Advisors, Inc., MFS International (UK) Limited, MFS Heritage Trust Company, MFS Investment Management (Canada) Limited, MFS Investment Management Company (Lux) S.à r.l., MFS International Singapore Pte. Ltd., MFS Investment Management K.K., MFS International Australia Pty. Ltd.; and MFS’ other subsidiaries that perform discretionary investment management activities (collectively, “MFS”) have adopted proxy voting policies and procedures, as set forth below (“MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures”), with respect to securities owned by the clients for which MFS serves as investment adviser and has the power to vote proxies, including the pooled investment vehicles sponsored by MFS (the “MFS Funds”). References to “clients” in these policies and procedures include the MFS Funds and other clients of MFS, such as funds organized offshore, sub-advised funds and separate account clients, to the extent these clients have delegated to MFS the responsibility to vote proxies on their behalf under the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.
The MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures include:
A. Voting Guidelines;
B. Administrative Procedures;
C. Records Retention; and
D. Reports.
A. VOTING GUIDELINES
1. General Policy; Potential Conflicts of Interest
MFS’ policy is that proxy voting decisions are made in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in the interests of any other party or in MFS' corporate interests, including interests such as the distribution of MFS Fund shares and institutional client relationships.
MFS reviews corporate governance issues and proxy voting matters that are presented for shareholder vote by either management or shareholders of public companies. Based on the overall principle that all votes cast by MFS on behalf of its clients must be in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of such clients, MFS has adopted proxy voting guidelines, set forth below, that govern how MFS generally will vote on specific matters presented for shareholder vote.
As a general matter, MFS votes consistently on similar proxy proposals across all shareholder meetings. However, some proxy proposals, such as certain excessive executive compensation, environmental, social and governance matters, are analyzed on a case-by-case basis in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the proposal. Therefore, MFS may vote similar proposals differently at different shareholder meetings based on the specific facts and circumstances of the issuer or the terms of the proposal. In addition, MFS also reserves the right to override the guidelines with respect to a particular proxy proposal when such an override is, in MFS’ best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients.
MFS also generally votes consistently on the same matter when securities of an issuer are held by multiple client accounts, unless MFS has received explicit voting instructions to vote differently from a client for its own account. From time to time, MFS may also receive comments on the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures from its clients. These comments are carefully considered by MFS when it reviews these guidelines and revises them as appropriate, in MFS' sole judgment.
These policies and procedures are intended to address any potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS or its subsidiaries that are likely to arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS’ clients. If such potential material conflicts of interest do arise, MFS will analyze, document and report on such potential material conflicts of interest (see Sections B.2 and D below), and shall ultimately vote the relevant proxies in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of its clients. The MFS Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for monitoring and reporting with respect to such potential material conflicts of interest.
MFS is also a signatory to the Principles for Responsible Investment. In developing these guidelines, MFS considered environmental, social and corporate governance issues in light of MFS’ fiduciary obligation to vote proxies in the best long-term economic interest of its clients.
2.MFS’ Policy on Specific Issues
Election of Directors
MFS believes that good governance should be based on a board with at least a simple majority of directors who are “independent” of management, and whose key committees (e.g., compensation, nominating, and audit committees) consist entirely of “independent” directors. While MFS generally supports the board’s nominees in uncontested or non-contentious elections, we will not support a nominee to a board of a U.S. issuer (or issuer listed on a U.S. exchange) if, as a result of such nominee being elected to the board, the board would consist of a simple majority of members who are not “independent” or, alternatively, the compensation, nominating (including instances in which the full board serves as the compensation or nominating committee) or audit committees would include members who are not “independent.”
MFS will also not support a nominee to a board if we can determine that he or she attended less than 75% of the board and/or relevant committee meetings in the previous year without a valid reason stated in the proxy materials or other company communications. In addition, MFS may not support some or all nominees standing for re-election to a board if we can determine: (1) the board or its compensation committee has re-priced or exchanged underwater stock options since the last annual meeting of shareholders and without shareholder approval; (2) the board or relevant committee has not taken adequately responsive action to an issue that received majority support or opposition from shareholders; (3) the board has implemented a poison pill without shareholder approval since the last annual meeting and such poison pill is not on the subsequent shareholder meeting's agenda, (including those related to net-operating loss carry-forwards); (4) the board or relevant committee has failed to adequately oversee risk by allowing the hedging and/or significant pledging of company shares by executives; or (5) there are governance concerns with a director or issuer.
MFS also believes that a well-balanced board with diverse perspectives is a foundation for sound corporate governance. MFS will generally vote against the chair of the nominating & governance committee at any U.S. company whose board is comprised of less than 10% female directors. MFS may consider, among other factors, whether the company is transitioning towards increased board gender diversity in determining MFS' final voting decision.
For directors who are not a CEO of a public company, MFS will vote against a nominee who serves on more than four (4) public company boards in total, and for a director who is also a CEO of a public company, MFS will vote against a nominee who serves on more than two (2) public-company boards in total. MFS may consider exceptions to this policy if (i) the company has disclosed the director's plans to step down from the number of public company boards exceeding four (4) or two (2), as applicable, within a reasonable time; or (ii) the director exceeds the permitted number of public company board seats solely due to either his/her board service on an affiliated company (e.g., a subsidiary), or service on more than one investment company within the same investment company complex (as defined by applicable law). With respect to a director who serves as a CEO of a public company, MFS will support his or her re-election to the board of the company for which he or she serves as CEO.
MFS may not support certain board nominees of U.S. issuers under certain circumstances where MFS deems compensation to be egregious due to pay-for-performance issues and/or poor pay practices. Please see the section below titled “MFS’ Policy on Specific Issues - Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation” for further details.
MFS evaluates a contested or contentious election of directors on a case-by-case basis considering the long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry, management's track record, the qualifications of all nominees, and an evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders.
Majority Voting and Director Elections
MFS votes for reasonably crafted proposals calling for directors to be elected with an affirmative majority of votes cast and/or the elimination of the plurality standard for electing directors (including binding resolutions requesting that the board amend the company’s bylaws), provided the proposal includes a carve-out for a plurality voting standard when there are more director nominees than board seats (e.g., contested elections) (“Majority Vote Proposals”).
Classified Boards
MFS generally supports proposals to declassify a board (i.e.; a board in which only one-third of board members is elected each year) for all issuers other than for certain closed-end investment companies. MFS generally opposes proposals to classify a board for issuers other than for certain closed-end investment companies.
Proxy Access
MFS believes that the ability of qualifying shareholders to nominate a certain number of directors on the company's proxy statement ("Proxy Access") may have corporate governance benefits. However, such potential benefits must be balanced by its potential misuse by shareholders. Therefore, we support Proxy Access proposals at U.S. issuers that establish an ownership criteria of 3% of the company held continuously for a period of 3 years. In our view, such qualifying shareholders should have the ability to nominate at least 2 directors. Companies should be mindful of imposing any undue impediments within its bylaws that may render Proxy Access impractical, including re-submission thresholds for director nominees via Proxy Access.
MFS analyzes all other proposals seeking Proxy Access on a case-by-case basis. In its analysis, MFS will consider the proposed ownership criteria for qualifying shareholders (such as ownership threshold and holding period) as well as the proponent's rationale for seeking Proxy Access.
Stock Plans
MFS opposes stock option programs and restricted stock plans that provide unduly generous compensation for officers, directors or employees, or that could result in excessive dilution to other shareholders. As a general guideline, MFS votes against restricted stock, stock option, non-employee director, omnibus stock plans and any other stock plan if all such plans for a particular company involve potential dilution, in the aggregate, of more than 15%. However, MFS will also vote against stock plans that involve potential dilution, in aggregate, of more than 10% at U.S. issuers that are listed in the Standard and Poor’s 100 index as of December 31 of the previous year. In the cases where a stock plan amendment is seeking qualitative changes and not additional shares, MFS will vote its shares on a case-by-case basis.
MFS also opposes stock option programs that allow the board or the compensation committee to re-price underwater options or to automatically replenish shares without shareholder approval. MFS also votes against stock option programs for officers, employees or non-employee directors that do not require an investment by the optionee, that give “free rides” on the stock price, or that permit grants of stock options with an exercise price below fair market value on the date the options are granted. MFS will consider proposals to exchange existing options for newly issued options, restricted stock or cash on a case-by-case basis, taking into account certain factors, including, but not limited to, whether there is a reasonable value-for-value exchange and whether senior executives are excluded from participating in the exchange.
MFS supports the use of a broad-based employee stock purchase plans to increase company stock ownership by employees, provided that shares purchased under the plan are acquired for no less than 85% of their market value and do not result in excessive dilution.
Shareholder Proposals on Executive Compensation
MFS believes that competitive compensation packages are necessary to attract, motivate and retain executives. However, MFS also recognizes that certain executive compensation practices can be “excessive” and not in the best, long-term economic interest of a company’s shareholders. We believe that the election of an issuer’s board of directors (as outlined above), votes on stock plans (as outlined above) and advisory votes on pay (as outlined below) are typically the most effective mechanisms to express our view on a company’s compensation practices.
MFS generally opposes shareholder proposals that seek to set rigid restrictions on executive compensation as MFS believes that compensation committees should retain some flexibility to determine the appropriate pay package for executives. Although we support linking executive stock option grants to a company’s performance, MFS also opposes shareholder proposals that mandate a link of performance-based pay to a specific metric. MFS generally supports reasonably crafted shareholder proposals that (i) require the issuer to adopt a policy to recover the portion of performance-based bonuses and awards paid to senior executives that were not earned based upon a significant negative restatement of earnings unless the company already has adopted a satisfactory policy on the matter, (ii) expressly prohibit the backdating of stock options, and (iii) prohibit the acceleration of vesting of equity awards upon a broad definition of a "change-in-control" (e.g.; single or modified single-trigger).
Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation
MFS will analyze advisory votes on executive compensation on a case-by-case basis. MFS will vote against an issuer's executive compensation practices if MFS determines that such practices are excessive or include incentive metrics or structures that are poorly aligned with the best, long-term economic interest of a company's shareholders. MFS will vote in favor of executive compensation practices if MFS has not determined that these practices are excessive or that the practices include incentive metrics or structures that are poorly aligned with the best, long-term economic interest of a company's shareholders. Examples of excessive executive compensation practices or poorly aligned incentives may include, but are not limited to, a pay-for-performance disconnect, a set of incentive metrics or a compensation plan structure that MFS believes may lead to a future pay-for-performance disconnect, employment contract terms such as guaranteed bonus provisions, unwarranted pension payouts, backdated stock options, overly generous hiring bonuses for chief executive officers, significant perquisites, or the potential reimbursement of excise taxes to an executive in regards to a severance package. In cases where MFS (i) votes against consecutive advisory pay votes, or (ii) determines that a particularly egregious excessive executive compensation practice has occurred, then MFS may also vote against certain or all board nominees. MFS may also vote against certain or all board nominees if an advisory pay vote for a U.S. issuer is not on the agenda, or the company has not implemented the advisory vote frequency supported by a plurality/ majority of shareholders.
MFS generally supports proposals to include an advisory shareholder vote on an issuer’s executive compensation practices on an annual basis.
“Golden Parachutes”
From time to time, MFS may evaluate a separate, advisory vote on severance packages or “golden parachutes” to certain executives at the same time as a vote on a proposed merger or acquisition. MFS will support an advisory vote on a severance package on a case-by-case basis, and MFS may vote against the severance package regardless of whether MFS supports the proposed merger or acquisition.
Shareholders of companies may also submit proxy proposals that would require shareholder approval of severance packages for executive officers that exceed certain predetermined thresholds. MFS votes in favor of such shareholder proposals when they would require shareholder approval of any severance package for an executive officer that exceeds a certain multiple of such officer’s annual compensation that is not determined in MFS’ judgment to be excessive.
Anti-Takeover Measures
In general, MFS votes against any measure that inhibits capital appreciation in a stock, including proposals that protect management from action by shareholders. These types of proposals take many forms, ranging from “poison pills” and “shark repellents” to super-majority requirements.
MFS generally votes for proposals to rescind existing “poison pills” and proposals that would require shareholder approval to adopt prospective “poison pills,” unless the company already has adopted a clearly satisfactory policy on the matter. MFS may consider the adoption of a prospective “poison pill” or the continuation of an existing “poison pill” if we can determine that the following two conditions are met: (1) the “poison pill” allows MFS clients to hold an aggregate position of up to 15% of a company's total voting securities (and of any class of voting securities); and (2) either (a) the “poison pill” has a term of not longer than five years, provided that MFS will consider voting in favor of the “poison pill” if the term does not exceed seven years and the “poison pill” is linked to a business strategy or purpose that MFS believes is likely to result in greater value for shareholders; or (b) the terms of the “poison pill” allow MFS clients the opportunity to accept a fairly structured and attractively priced tender offer (e.g. a “chewable poison pill” that automatically dissolves in the event of an all cash, all shares tender offer at a premium price). MFS will also consider on a case-by-case basis proposals designed to prevent tenders which are disadvantageous to shareholders such as tenders at below market prices and tenders for substantially less than all shares of an issuer.
MFS will consider any poison pills designed to protect a company’s net-operating loss carryforwards on a case-by-case basis, weighing the accounting and tax benefits of such a pill against the risk of deterring future acquisition candidates.
Proxy Contests
From time to time, a shareholder may express alternative points of view in terms of a company's strategy, capital allocation, or other issues. Such shareholder may also propose a slate of director nominees different than the slate of director nominees proposed by the company (a "Proxy Contest"). MFS will analyze Proxy Contests on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the track record and current recommended initiatives of both company management and the dissident shareholder(s). Like all of our proxy votes, MFS will support the slate of director nominees that we believe is in the best, long-term economic interest of our clients.
Reincorporation and Reorganization Proposals
When presented with a proposal to reincorporate a company under the laws of a different state, or to effect some other type of corporate reorganization, MFS considers the underlying purpose and ultimate effect of such a proposal in determining whether or not to support such a measure. MFS generally votes with management in regards to these types of proposals, however, if MFS believes the proposal is in the best long-term economic interests of its clients, then MFS may vote against management (e.g. the intent or effect would be to create additional inappropriate impediments to possible acquisitions or takeovers).
Issuance of Stock
There are many legitimate reasons for the issuance of stock. Nevertheless, as noted above under “Stock Plans,” when a stock option plan (either individually or when aggregated with other plans of the same company) would substantially dilute the existing equity (e.g. by approximately 10-15% as described above), MFS generally votes against the plan. In addition, MFS typically votes against proposals where management is asking for authorization to issue common or preferred stock with no reason stated (a “blank check”) because the unexplained authorization could work as a potential anti-takeover device. MFS may also vote against the authorization or issuance of common or preferred stock if MFS determines that the requested authorization is excessive or not warranted.
Repurchase Programs
MFS supports proposals to institute share repurchase plans in which all shareholders have the opportunity to participate on an equal basis. Such plans may include a company acquiring its own shares on the open market, or a company making a tender offer to its own shareholders.
Cumulative Voting
MFS opposes proposals that seek to introduce cumulative voting and for proposals that seek to eliminate cumulative voting. In either case, MFS will consider whether cumulative voting is likely to enhance the interests of MFS’ clients as minority shareholders.
Written Consent and Special Meetings
The right to call a special meeting or act by written consent can be a powerful tool for shareholders. As such, MFS supports proposals requesting the right for shareholders who hold at least 10% of the issuer’s outstanding stock to call a special meeting. MFS also supports proposals requesting the right for shareholders to act by written consent.
Independent Auditors
MFS believes that the appointment of auditors for U.S. issuers is best left to the board of directors of the company and therefore supports the ratification of the board’s selection of an auditor for the company. Some shareholder groups have submitted proposals to limit the non-audit activities of a company’s audit firm or prohibit any non-audit services by a company’s auditors to that company. MFS opposes proposals recommending the prohibition or limitation of the performance of non-audit services by an auditor, and proposals recommending the removal of a company’s auditor due to the performance of non-audit work for the company by its auditor. MFS believes that the board, or its audit committee, should have the discretion to hire the company’s auditor for specific pieces of non-audit work in the limited situations permitted under current law.
Other Business
MFS generally votes against "other business" proposals as the content of any such matter is not known at the time of our vote.
Adjourn Shareholder Meeting
MFS generally supports proposals to adjourn a shareholder meeting if we support the other ballot items on the meeting's agenda. MFS generally votes against proposals to adjourn a meeting if we do not support the other ballot items on the meeting's agenda.
Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) Issues
MFS believes that a company’s ESG practices may have an impact on the company’s long-term economic financial performance and will generally support proposals relating to ESG issues that MFS believes are in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders. For those ESG proposals for which a specific policy has not been adopted, MFS considers such ESG proposals on a case-by-case basis. As a result, it may vote similar proposals differently at various shareholder meetings based on the specific facts and circumstances of such proposal.
MFS generally supports proposals that seek to remove governance structures that insulate management from shareholders (i.e., anti-takeover measures) or that seek to enhance shareholder rights. Many of these governance-related issues, including compensation issues, are outlined within the context of the above guidelines. In addition, MFS typically supports proposals that require an issuer to reimburse successful dissident shareholders (who are not seeking control of the company) for reasonable expenses that such dissident incurred in soliciting an alternative slate of director candidates. MFS also generally supports reasonably crafted shareholder proposals requesting increased disclosure around the company’s use of collateral in derivatives trading. MFS typically supports proposals for an independent board chairperson. However, we may not support such proposals if we determine there to be an appropriate and effective counter-balancing leadership structure in place (e.g.; a strong, independent lead director with an appropriate level of powers and duties). For any governance-related proposal for which an explicit guideline is not provided above, MFS will consider such proposals on a case-by-case basis and will support such proposals if MFS believes that it is in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders.
MFS generally supports proposals that request disclosure on the impact of environmental issues on the company’s operations, sales, and capital investments. However, MFS may not support such proposals based on the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific proposal, including, but not limited to, whether (i) the proposal is unduly costly, restrictive, or burdensome, (ii) the company already provides publicly-available information that is sufficient to enable shareholders to evaluate the potential opportunities and risks that environmental matters pose to the company’s operations, sales and capital investments, or (iii) the proposal seeks a level of disclosure that exceeds that provided by the company’s industry peers. MFS will analyze all other environmental proposals on a case-by-case basis and will support such proposals if MFS believes such proposal is in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders.
MFS will analyze social proposals on a case-by-case basis. MFS will support such proposals if MFS believes that such proposal is in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders. Generally, MFS will support shareholder proposals that (i) seek to amend a company’s equal employment opportunity policy to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; and (ii) request additional disclosure regarding a company’s political contributions (including trade organizations and lobbying activity) (unless the company already provides publicly-available information that is sufficient to enable shareholders to evaluate the potential opportunities and risks that such contributions pose to the company’s operations, sales and capital investments).
The laws of various states or countries may regulate how the interests of certain clients subject to those laws (e.g. state pension plans) are voted with respect to social issues. Thus, it may be necessary to cast ballots differently for certain clients than MFS might normally do for other clients.
Foreign Issuers
MFS generally supports the election of a director nominee standing for re-election in uncontested or non-contentious elections unless it can be determined that (1) he or she failed to attend at least 75% of the board and/or relevant committee meetings in the previous year without a valid reason given in the proxy materials; (2) since the last annual meeting of shareholders and without shareholder approval, the board or its compensation committee has re-priced underwater stock options; or (3) since the last annual meeting, the board has either implemented a poison pill without shareholder approval or has not taken responsive action to a majority shareholder approved resolution recommending that the “poison pill” be rescinded. In such circumstances, we will vote against director nominee(s). Also, certain markets outside of the U.S. have adopted best practice guidelines relating to corporate governance matters (e.g. the United Kingdom’s and Japan Corporate Governance Codes). Many of these guidelines operate on a “comply or explain” basis. As such, MFS will evaluate any explanations by companies relating to their compliance with a particular corporate governance guideline on a case-by-case basis and may vote against the board nominees or other relevant ballot item if such explanation is not satisfactory. In some circumstances, MFS may submit a vote to abstain from certain director nominees or the relevant ballot items if we have concerns with the nominee or ballot item, but do not believe these concerns rise to the level where a vote against is warranted.
MFS generally supports the election of auditors, but may determine to vote against the election of a statutory auditor in certain markets if MFS reasonably believes that the statutory auditor is not truly independent.
Some international markets have also adopted mandatory requirements for all companies to hold shareholder votes on executive compensation. MFS will vote against such proposals if MFS determines that a company’s executive compensation practices are excessive, considering such factors as the specific market’s best practices that seek to maintain appropriate pay-for-performance alignment and to create long-term shareholder value. We may alternatively submit an abstention vote on such proposals in circumstances where our executive compensation concerns are not as severe.
Many other items on foreign proxies involve repetitive, non-controversial matters that are mandated by local law. Accordingly, the items that are generally deemed routine and which do not require the exercise of judgment under these guidelines (and therefore voted with management) for foreign issuers include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) receiving financial statements or other reports from the board; (ii) approval of declarations of dividends; (iii) appointment of shareholders to sign board meeting minutes; (iv) discharge of management and supervisory boards; and (v) approval of share repurchase programs (absent any anti-takeover or other concerns). MFS will evaluate all other items on proxies for foreign companies in the context of the guidelines described above, but will generally vote against an item if there is not sufficient information disclosed in order to make an informed voting decision. For any ballot item where MFS wishes to express a more moderate level of concern than a vote of against, we will cast a vote to abstain.
In accordance with local law or business practices, some foreign companies or custodians prevent the sale of shares that have been voted for a certain period beginning prior to the shareholder meeting and ending on the day following the meeting (“share blocking”). Depending on the country in which a company is domiciled, the blocking period may begin a stated number of days prior or subsequent to the meeting (e.g. one, three or five days) or on a date established by the company. While practices vary, in many countries the block period can be continued for a longer period if the shareholder meeting is adjourned and postponed to a later date. Similarly, practices vary widely as to the ability of a shareholder to have the “block” restriction lifted early (e.g. in some countries shares generally can be “unblocked” up to two days prior to the meeting whereas in other countries the removal of the block appears to be discretionary with the issuer’s transfer agent). Due to these restrictions, MFS must balance the benefits to its clients of voting proxies against the potentially serious portfolio management consequences of a reduced flexibility to sell the underlying shares at the most advantageous time. For companies in countries with share blocking periods or in markets where some custodians may block shares, the disadvantage of being unable to sell the stock regardless of changing conditions generally outweighs the advantages of voting at the shareholder meeting for routine items. Accordingly, MFS will not vote those proxies in the absence of an unusual, significant vote that outweighs the disadvantage of being unable to sell the stock.
From time to time, governments may impose economic sanctions which may prohibit us from transacting business with certain companies or individuals. These sanctions may also prohibit the voting of proxies at certain companies or on certain individuals. In such instances, MFS will not vote at certain companies or on certain individuals if it determines that doing so is in violation of the sanctions.
In limited circumstances, other market specific impediments to voting shares may limit our ability to cast votes, including, but not limited to, late delivery of proxy materials, untimely vote cut-off dates, power of attorney and share re-registration requirements, or any other unusual voting requirements. In these limited instances, MFS votes securities on a best efforts basis in the context of the guidelines described above.
B. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
1. MFS Proxy Voting Committee
The administration of these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures is overseen by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, which includes senior personnel from the MFS Legal and Global Investment and Client Support Departments, as well as members of the investment team. The Proxy Voting Committee does not include individuals whose primary duties relate to client relationship management, marketing, or sales. The MFS Proxy Voting Committee:
a. Reviews these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures at least annually and recommends any amendments considered to be necessary or advisable;
b. Determines whether any potential material conflict of interest exists with respect to instances in which MFS (i) seeks to override these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures; (ii) votes on ballot items not governed by these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures; (iii) evaluates an excessive executive compensation issue in relation to the election of directors; or (iv) requests a vote recommendation from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst (e.g. mergers and acquisitions);
c. Considers special proxy issues as they may arise from time to time; and
d. Determines engagement priorities and strategies with respect to MFS' proxy voting activities
2. Potential Conflicts of Interest
The MFS Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for monitoring potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS or its subsidiaries that could arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS’ clients. Due to the client focus of our investment management business, we believe that the potential for actual material conflict of interest issues is small. Nonetheless, we have developed precautions to assure that all proxy votes are cast in the best long-term economic interest of shareholders1. Other MFS internal policies require all MFS employees to avoid actual and potential conflicts of interests between personal activities and MFS’ client activities. If an employee (including investment professionals) identifies an actual or potential conflict of interest with respect to any voting decision (including the ownership of securities in their individual portfolio), then that employee must recuse himself/herself from participating in the voting process. Any significant attempt by an employee of MFS or its subsidiaries to unduly influence MFS’ voting on a particular proxy matter should also be reported to the MFS Proxy Voting Committee.
In cases where proxies are voted in accordance with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, no material conflict of interest will be deemed to exist. In cases where (i) MFS is considering overriding these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, (ii) matters presented for vote are not governed by these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, (iii) MFS evaluates a potentially excessive executive compensation issue in relation to the election of directors or advisory pay or severance package vote, or (iv) a vote recommendation is requested from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst (e.g. mergers and acquisitions); (collectively, “Non-Standard Votes”); the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will follow these procedures:
a. Compare the name of the issuer of such proxy against a list of significant current (i) distributors of MFS Fund shares, and (ii) MFS institutional clients (the “MFS Significant Distributor and Client List”);
b. If the name of the issuer does not appear on the MFS Significant Distributor and Client List, then no material conflict of interest will be deemed to exist, and the proxy will be voted as otherwise determined by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee;
c. If the name of the issuer appears on the MFS Significant Distributor and Client List, then the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will be apprised of that fact and each member of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will carefully evaluate the proposed vote in order to ensure that the proxy ultimately is voted in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in MFS' corporate interests; and
d. For all potential material conflicts of interest identified under clause (c) above, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will document: the name of the issuer, the issuer’s relationship to MFS, the analysis of the matters submitted for proxy vote, the votes as to be cast and the reasons why the MFS Proxy Voting Committee determined that the votes were cast in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in MFS' corporate interests. A copy of the foregoing documentation will be provided to MFS’ Conflicts Officer.
The members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee are responsible for creating and maintaining the MFS Significant Distributor and Client List, in consultation with MFS’ distribution and institutional business units. The MFS Significant Distributor and Client List will be reviewed and updated periodically, as appropriate.
For instances where MFS is evaluating a director nominee who also serves as a director of the MFS Funds, then the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will adhere to the procedures described in section (d) above regardless of whether the portfolio company appears on our Significant Distributor and Client List.
If an MFS client has the right to vote on a matter submitted to shareholders by Sun Life Financial, Inc. or any of its affiliates (collectively "Sun Life"), MFS will cast a vote on behalf of such MFS client pursuant to the recommendations of Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc.'s ("ISS") benchmark policy, or as required by law.
Except as described in the MFS Fund's Prospectus, from time to time, certain MFS Funds (the “top tier fund”) may own shares of other MFS Funds (the “underlying fund”). If an underlying fund submits a matter to a shareholder vote, the top tier fund will generally vote its shares in the same proportion as the other shareholders of the underlying fund. If there are no other shareholders in the underlying fund, the top tier fund will vote in what MFS believes to be in the top tier fund’s best long-term economic interest. If an MFS client has the right to vote on a matter submitted to shareholders by a pooled investment vehicle advised by MFS, MFS will cast a vote on behalf of such MFS client in the same proportion as the other shareholders of the pooled investment vehicle.
3. Gathering Proxies
Most proxies received by MFS and its clients originate at Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”). Broadridge and other service providers, on behalf of custodians, send proxy related material to the record holders of the shares beneficially owned by MFS’ clients, usually to the client’s proxy voting administrator or, less commonly, to the client itself. This material will include proxy ballots reflecting the shareholdings of Funds and of clients on the record dates for such shareholder meetings, as well as proxy materials with the issuer’s explanation of the items to be voted upon.
MFS, on behalf of itself and certain of its clients (including the MFS Funds) has entered into an agreement with an independent proxy administration firm pursuant to which the proxy administration firm performs various proxy vote related administrative services such as vote processing and recordkeeping functions. Except as noted below, the proxy administration firm for MFS and its clients, including the MFS Funds, is ISS. The proxy administration firm for MFS Development Funds, LLC is Glass, Lewis & Co., Inc. (“Glass Lewis”; Glass Lewis and ISS are each hereinafter referred to as the “Proxy Administrator”).
The Proxy Administrator receives proxy statements and proxy ballots directly or indirectly from various custodians, logs these materials into its database and matches upcoming meetings with MFS Fund and client portfolio holdings, which are input into the Proxy Administrator’s system by an MFS holdings data-feed. Through the use of the Proxy Administrator system, ballots and proxy material summaries for all upcoming shareholders’ meetings are available on-line to certain MFS employees and members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee.
It is the responsibility of the Proxy Administrator and MFS to monitor the receipt of ballots. When proxy ballots and materials for clients are received by the Proxy Administrator, they are input into the Proxy Administrator’s on-line system. The Proxy Administrator then reconciles a list of all MFS accounts that hold shares of a company’s stock and the number of shares held on the record date by these accounts with the Proxy Administrator’s list of any upcoming shareholder’s meeting of that company. If a proxy ballot has not been received, the Proxy Administrator contacts the custodian requesting the reason as to why a ballot has not been received.
4. Analyzing Proxies
Proxies are voted in accordance with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures. The Proxy Administrator, at the prior direction of MFS, automatically votes all proxy matters that do not require the particular exercise of discretion or judgment with respect to these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures as determined by MFS. With respect to proxy matters that require the particular exercise of discretion or judgment, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee or its representatives considers and votes on those proxy matters. MFS also receives research and recommendations from the Proxy Administrator which it may take into account in deciding how to vote. MFS uses its own internal research, the research of Proxy Administrators and/or other 3rd party research tools and vendors to identify (i) circumstances in which a board may have approved an executive compensation plan that is excessive or poorly aligned with the portfolio company's business or its shareholders, (ii) environmental and social proposals that warrant further consideration or (iii) circumstances in which a non-U.S. company is not in compliance with local governance or compensation best practices. In those situations where the only MFS fund that is eligible to vote at a shareholder meeting has Glass Lewis as its Proxy Administrator, then we will utilize research from Glass Lewis to identify such issues. MFS analyzes such issues independently and does not necessarily vote with the ISS or Glass Lewis recommendations on these issues. Representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee review, as appropriate, votes cast to ensure conformity with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.
For votes that require a case-by-case analysis per the MFS Proxy Policies (e.g. proxy contests, potentially excessive executive compensation issues, or certain shareholder proposals), a member of the proxy voting team will consult with or seek recommendations from MFS investment analysts and/or portfolio managers2. However, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will ultimately determine the manner in which such proxies are voted.
As noted above, MFS reserves the right to override the guidelines when such an override is, in MFS’ best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients. Any such override of the guidelines shall be analyzed, documented and reported in accordance with the procedures set forth in these policies.
5. Voting Proxies
In accordance with its contract with MFS, the Proxy Administrator also generates a variety of reports for the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, and makes available on-line various other types of information so that the MFS Proxy Voting Committee or proxy voting team may review and monitor the votes cast by the Proxy Administrator on behalf of MFS’ clients.
For those markets that utilize a "record date" to determine which shareholders are eligible to vote, MFS generally will vote all eligible shares pursuant to these guidelines regardless of whether all (or a portion of) the shares held by our clients have been sold prior to the meeting date.
6. Securities Lending
From time to time, the MFS Funds or other pooled investment vehicles sponsored by MFS may participate in a securities lending program. In the event MFS or its agent receives timely notice of a shareholder meeting for a U.S. security, MFS and its agent will attempt to recall any securities on loan before the meeting’s record date so that MFS will be entitled to vote these shares. However, there may be instances in which MFS is unable to timely recall securities on loan for a U.S. security, in which cases MFS will not be able to vote these shares. MFS will report to the appropriate board of the MFS Funds those instances in which MFS is not able to timely recall the loaned securities. MFS generally does not recall non-U.S. securities on loan because there may be insufficient advance notice of proxy materials, record dates, or vote cut-off dates to allow MFS to timely recall the shares in certain markets on an automated basis. As a result, non-U.S. securities that are on loan will not generally be voted. If MFS receives timely notice of what MFS determines to be an unusual, significant vote for a non-U.S. security whereas MFS shares are on loan, and determines that voting is in the best long-term economic interest of shareholders, then MFS will attempt to timely recall the loaned shares.
7. Engagement
The MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures are available on www.mfs.com and may be accessed by both MFS' clients and the companies in which MFS' clients invest. From time to time, MFS may determine that it is appropriate and beneficial for members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee or proxy voting team to engage in a dialogue or written communication with a company or other shareholders regarding certain matters on the company’s proxy statement that are of concern to shareholders, including environmental, social and governance matters. A company or shareholder may also seek to engage with members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee or proxy voting team in advance of the company’s formal proxy solicitation to review issues more generally or gauge support for certain contemplated proposals. The MFS Proxy Voting Committee, in consultation with members of the investment team, establish proxy voting engagement goals and priorities for the year. For further information on requesting engagement with MFS on proxy voting issues or information about MFS' engagement priorities, please visit www.mfs.com and refer to our most recent proxy season preview and engagement priorities report.
C. RECORDS RETENTION
MFS will retain copies of these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures in effect from time to time and will retain all proxy voting reports submitted to the Board of Trustees of the MFS Funds for the period required by applicable law. Proxy solicitation materials, including electronic versions of the proxy ballots completed by representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, together with their respective notes and comments, are maintained in an electronic format by the Proxy Administrator and are accessible on-line by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee. All proxy voting materials and supporting documentation, including records generated by the Proxy Administrator’s system as to proxies processed, including the dates when proxy ballots were received and submitted, and the votes on each company’s proxy issues, are retained as required by applicable law.
D. REPORTS
U.S. Registered MFS Funds
MFS publicly discloses the proxy voting records of the U.S. registered MFS Funds on a quarterly basis. MFS will also report the results of its voting to the Board of Trustees of the U.S. registered MFS Funds. These reports will include: (i) a summary of how votes were cast (including advisory votes on pay and “golden parachutes”); (ii) a summary of votes against management’s recommendation; (iii) a review of situations where MFS did not vote in accordance with the guidelines and the rationale therefore; (iv) a review of the procedures used by MFS to identify material conflicts of interest and any matters identified as a material conflict of interest; (v) a review of these policies and the guidelines; (vi) a review of our proxy engagement activity; (vii) a report and impact assessment of instances in which the recall of loaned securities of a U.S. issuer was unsuccessful; and (viii) as necessary or appropriate, any proposed modifications thereto to reflect new developments in corporate governance and other issues. Based on these reviews, the Trustees of the U.S. registered MFS Funds will consider possible modifications to these policies to the extent necessary or advisable.
Other MFS Clients
MFS may publicly disclose the proxy voting records of certain other clients (including certain MFS Funds) or the votes it casts with respect to certain matters as required by law. A report can also be printed by MFS for each client who has requested that MFS furnish a record of votes cast. The report specifies the proxy issues which have been voted for the client during the year and the position taken with respect to each issue and, upon request, may identify situations where MFS did not vote in accordance with the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.
Except as described above, MFS generally will not divulge actual voting practices to any party other than the client or its representatives because we consider that information to be confidential and proprietary to the client. However, as noted above, MFS may determine that it is appropriate and beneficial to engage in a dialogue with a company regarding certain matters. During such dialogue with the company, MFS may disclose the vote it intends to cast in order to potentially effect positive change at a company in regards to environmental, social or governance issues.
1 For clarification purposes, note that MFS votes in what we believe to be the best, long-term economic interest of our clients entitled to vote at the shareholder meeting, regardless of whether other MFS clients hold “short” positions in the same issuer.
2 From time to time, due to travel schedules and other commitments, an appropriate portfolio manager or research analyst may not be available to provide a vote recommendation. If such a recommendation cannot be obtained within a reasonable time prior to the cut-off date of the shareholder meeting, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee may determine to abstain from voting.
Proxy Voting - PineBridge Investments.
I. Introduction
Proxy voting is an important right of shareholders, such as PineBridge Investments Clients, for which PineBridge Investments must take reasonable care and diligence to ensure such rights are properly and timely exercised. PineBridge Investments, as a fiduciary for its Clients, must vote proxies in each Client’s best interest.
II. Policy Statement
Proxy Procedures
As a registered investment adviser that votes (or delegates the voting of) securities held in Client portfolios, PineBridge Investments has implemented proxy voting procedures that are reasonably designed to help ensure that a) PineBridge Investments votes proxies in the best interest of its Clients; b) describes its proxy voting procedures to its Clients, and c) discloses to Clients how they may obtain information on how PineBridge Investments voted their proxies. These procedures are designed to help enable PineBridge Investments to manage material conflicts of interest. While PineBridge Investments must disclose its votes upon request to Clients, no public disclosure is required. (Note that disclosure is required for any mutual funds advised by PineBridge Investments, on Form N-PX.)
Record-Keeping
PineBridge Investments must retain (i) these proxy voting policies and procedures; (ii) proxy statements received regarding Client securities; (iii) records of votes it casts on behalf of Clients; (iv) records of Client requests for proxy voting information, and; (v) any documents prepared by PineBridge Investments that were material to making a decision how to vote, or that memorialized the basis for the decision. PineBridge Investments may rely on proxy statements filed on EDGAR instead of keeping its own copies, and rely on proxy statements and records of proxy votes cast by PineBridge Investments that are maintained by contract with a third party proxy voting service or other third party.
Proxies of Shares of Non-U.S. Corporations
PineBridge Investments has implemented general voting policies with respect to non-U.S. shares owned by Clients. However, although U.S. companies must give shareholders at least 20 days’ advance notice to vote proxies, some non-U.S. companies may provide considerably shorter notice or none at all. PineBridge Investments is not required to “rush” voting decisions in order to meet an impractical deadline, and as a result, PineBridge Investments or PineBridge Investments affiliates’ regional designees under certain circumstances may not vote certain proxies. In addition, certain non-U.S. regulations impose additional costs to a Portfolio that votes proxies, and PineBridge Investments will take that into consideration when determining whether or not to vote.
Policy on Monitoring Class Action Suits
In the event that PineBridge Investments has purchased the same security for a Client’s portfolio alongside its investments on behalf of itself or an affiliate, PineBridge Investments generally will seek to inform a Client that such Client may also have a cause of action whenever such issuer is subject to class action litigation. PineBridge Investments as a general matter will also make available to the Client such rights, if any, as that PineBridge Investments may have against any such issuer in its capacity as the Client’s agent, and PineBridge Investments will, where possible, give the Client such assistance as it may reasonably require to exercise its rights in any such action.
PineBridge Investments generally does not, however, search out potential legal claims or monitor class action lawsuits against issuers arising from investments held in a Client portfolio, nor may PineBridge Investments institute a lawsuit on a Client’s behalf arising from investments held in the Client portfolio.
In addition, given the size and breadth of PineBridge Investments’ business, it is possible that there may be situations in which PineBridge Investments or an affiliate might become aware of a potential lawsuit with respect to a security, one of which may also be held within a Client portfolio. In these situations, there is the possibility, due to confidentiality requirements or conflicts of interest, that PineBridge Investments would be restricted from informing a Client of potential legal actions and activities.
In the case of a material conflict between the interests of PineBridge Investments and those of its Clients, PineBridge Investments will take steps to address such conflicts (which may include consulting with counsel), and will attempt to resolve all conflicts in the Client’s best interest.
III. Procedures
PineBridge Investments will vote proxies in the best interests of its Clients, which may result in different voting results for proxies for the same issuer.
• Compliance is responsible for ensuring that the PineBridge Investments ADV includes the appropriate language summarizing PineBridge Investments’ proxy voting procedures and for updating the summary in the ADV whenever the procedures are updated. Compliance is also responsible for consulting with Legal to ensure that PineBridge Investments’ proxy voting policy is kept up to date and in a form appropriate for transmission to Clients.
• If a Client or potential Client requests a copy of the Proxy Voting Policy from Client Relations or Sales, Compliance should be contacted for the most recent version, or it may be obtained from the intranet. Client Relations will send to such Client a copy of the current version of the voting procedures within 7 days and will ensure that Compliance receives a log of each Client’s request and the action taken.
• If a Client requests access to the records of how PineBridge Investments voted its proxies, the Client should be assured that this will be provided, and Compliance should be consulted. Compliance has access to these proxy voting records.
• PineBridge Investments has established a Proxy Committee (the “Committee”). The PineBridge Investments Proxy Committee is comprises members of Compliance, the Investment Department, and senior management.
• The Committee conducts an annual review of the proxy voting guidelines for domestic and non-U.S. Portfolios. Guidelines are reviewed to ensure that the interests of PineBridge Investments’ Clients are best served.
• Issues not addressed in the voting guidelines are determined on a case-by-case basis with input from the Committee and portfolio managers.
• PineBridge Investments has engaged a third party vendor to administer proxy voting on its behalf. The vendor receives, in a majority of cases, proxies directly from the Client’s custodian and votes them based on PineBridge Investments’ general voting guidelines.
• In circumstances where PineBridge Investments receives proxies directly, these proxies must be sent to the vendor promptly. The vendor then votes them in accordance with PineBridge Investments’ general voting guidelines. The vendor maintains a listing of all votes cast on behalf of PineBridge Investments Clients.
Proxy Voting - T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. and its Investment Adviser Affiliates.
RESPONSIBILITY TO VOTE PROXIES
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price International Ltd, T. Rowe Price (Canada), Inc., T. Rowe Price Hong Kong Limited, and T. Rowe Price Singapore Private Ltd. (collectively, “T. Rowe Price”) recognize and adhere to the principle that one of the privileges of owning stock in a company is the right to vote in the election of the company’s directors and on matters affecting certain important aspects of the company’s structure and operations that are submitted to shareholder vote. As an investment adviser with a fiduciary responsibility to its clients, T. Rowe Price analyzes the proxy statements of issuers whose stock is owned by the U.S.-registered investment companies which it sponsors and serves as investment adviser (“Price Funds”) and by common trust funds, offshore funds, institutional and private counsel clients who have requested that T. Rowe Price be involved in the proxy process. T. Rowe Price has assumed the responsibility for voting proxies on behalf of the T. Rowe Price Funds and certain counsel clients who have delegated such responsibility to T. Rowe Price. In addition, T. Rowe Price makes recommendations regarding proxy voting to counsel clients who have not delegated the voting responsibility but who have requested voting advice. T. Rowe Price reserves the right to decline to vote proxies in accordance with client-specific voting guidelines.
T. Rowe Price has adopted these Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures (“Policies and Procedures”) for the purpose of establishing formal policies and procedures for performing and documenting its fiduciary duty with regard to the voting of client proxies. This document is updated annually.
Fiduciary Considerations. It is the policy of T. Rowe Price that decisions with respect to proxy issues will be made in light of the anticipated impact of the issue on the desirability of investing in the portfolio company from the viewpoint of the particular client or Price Fund. Proxies are voted solely in the interests of the client, Price Fund shareholders or, where employee benefit plan assets are involved, in the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries. Our intent has always been to vote proxies, where possible to do so, in a manner consistent with our fiduciary obligations and responsibilities. Practicalities and costs involved with international investing may make it impossible at times, and at other times disadvantageous, to vote proxies in every instance.
Other Considerations. One of the primary factors T. Rowe Price considers when determining the desirability of investing in a particular company is the quality and depth of its management. We recognize that a company’s management is entrusted with the day-to-day operations of the company, as well as its long-term direction and strategic planning, subject to the oversight of the company’s board of directors. Accordingly, our proxy voting guidelines are not intended to substitute our judgment for management’s with respect to the company’s day-to-day operations. Rather, our proxy voting guidelines are designed to promote accountability of a company's management and board of directors to its shareholders; to align the interests of management with those of shareholders; and to encourage companies to adopt best practices in terms of their corporate governance. In addition to our proxy voting guidelines, we rely on a company’s disclosures, its board’s recommendations, a company’s track record, country-specific best practices codes, our research providers and, most importantly, our investment professionals’ views, in making voting decisions.
ADMINISTRATION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Proxy Committee. T. Rowe Price’s Proxy Committee (“Proxy Committee”) is responsible for establishing positions with respect to corporate governance and other proxy issues, including those involving corporate social responsibility issues. Certain delegated members of the Proxy Committee also review questions and respond to inquiries from clients and mutual fund shareholders pertaining to proxy issues. While the Proxy Committee sets voting guidelines and serves as a resource for T. Rowe Price portfolio management, it does not have proxy voting authority for any Price Fund or counsel client. Rather, this responsibility is held by the Chairperson of the Price Fund’s Investment Advisory Committee or counsel client’s portfolio manager.
Proxy Services Group. The Proxy Services Group is responsible for administering the proxy voting process as set forth in the Policies and Procedures.
Head of Corporate Governance. Our Head of Corporate Governance is responsible for reviewing the proxy agendas for all upcoming meetings and making company-specific recommendations to our global industry analysts and portfolio managers with regard to the voting decisions in their portfolios.
HOW PROXIES ARE REVIEWED, PROCESSED AND VOTED
In order to facilitate the proxy voting process, T. Rowe Price has retained Institutional Shareholder Services ("ISS") as an expert in the proxy voting and corporate governance area. ISS specializes in providing a variety of fiduciary-level proxy advisory and voting services. These services include voting recommendations as well as vote execution and reporting for the handling of proxy voting responsibility. In order to reflect T. Rowe Price’s issue-by-issue voting guidelines as approved each year by the Proxy Committee, ISS maintains and implements a custom voting policy for the Price Funds and other client accounts.
Meeting Notification
T. Rowe Price utilizes ISS' voting agent services to notify us of upcoming shareholder meetings for portfolio companies held in client accounts and to transmit votes to the various custodian banks of our clients. ISS tracks and reconciles T. Rowe Price holdings against incoming proxy ballots. If ballots do not arrive on time, ISS procures them from the appropriate custodian or proxy distribution agent. Meeting and record date information is updated daily, and transmitted to T. Rowe Price through ProxyExchange, ISS' web-based application.
Vote Determination
Each day, ISS delivers into T. Rowe Price’s proprietary proxy research platform a comprehensive summary of upcoming meetings, proxy proposals, publications discussing key proxy voting issues, and custom vote recommendations to assist us with proxy research and processing. The final authority and responsibility for proxy voting decisions remains with T. Rowe Price. Decisions with respect to proxy matters are made primarily in light of the anticipated impact of the issue on the desirability of investing in the company from the perspective of our clients.
Portfolio managers may decide to vote their proxies consistent with the guidelines, as set by the Proxy Committee, and instruct the Proxy Services Group to vote all proxies accordingly. Alternatively, portfolio managers may request to review the vote recommendations and sign off on all proxies before the votes are cast, or they may choose only to sign off on those votes cast against management. The portfolio managers are also given the option of reviewing and determining the votes on all proxies without utilizing the vote guidelines of the Proxy Committee. In all cases, the portfolio managers may elect to receive current reports summarizing all proxy votes in their client accounts. Portfolio managers who vote their proxies inconsistent with T. Rowe Price guidelines are required to document the rationale for their votes. The Proxy Services Group is responsible for maintaining this documentation and assuring that it adequately reflects the basis for any vote which is cast contrary to our proxy voting guidelines.
T. Rowe Price Voting Policies
Specific proxy voting guidelines have been adopted by the Proxy Committee for all regularly occurring categories of management and shareholder proposals. A detailed set of proxy voting guidelines is available on the T. Rowe Price website, www.troweprice.com. The following is a summary of our guidelines on the most significant proxy voting topics:
Election of Directors - For U.S. companies, T. Rowe Price generally supports slates with a majority of independent directors. However, T. Rowe Price may vote against outside directors who do not meet our criteria relating to their independence, particularly when they serve on key board committees, such as compensation and nominating committees, for which we believe that all directors should be independent. Outside of the U.S., we expect companies to adhere to the minimum independence standard established by regional corporate governance codes. At a minimum, however, we believe boards in all regions should include a blend of executive and non-executive members, and we are likely to vote against senior executives at companies with insufficient representation by independent directors. We also vote against directors who are unable to dedicate sufficient time to their board duties due to their commitments to other boards. We may vote against certain directors who have served on company boards where we believe there has been a gross failure in governance or oversight. Additionally, we may vote against compensation committee members who approve excessive executive compensation or severance arrangements. We support efforts to elect all board members annually because boards with staggered terms lessen directors’ accountability to shareholders and act as deterrents to takeover proposals. To strengthen boards’ accountability, T. Rowe Price supports proposals calling for a majority vote threshold for the election of directors and we may withhold votes from an entire board if they fail to implement shareholder proposals that receive majority support.
Anti-Takeover, Capital Structure and Corporate Governance Issues - T. Rowe Price generally opposes anti-takeover measures since they adversely impact shareholder rights and limit the ability of shareholders to act on potential value-enhancing transactions. Such anti-takeover mechanisms include classified boards, supermajority voting requirements, dual share classes, and poison pills. When voting on capital structure proposals, T. Rowe Price will consider the dilutive impact to shareholders and the effect on shareholder rights. We may support shareholder proposals that call for the separation of the Chairman and CEO positions if we determine that insufficient governance safeguards are in place at the company.
Executive Compensation Issues - T. Rowe Price’s goal is to assure that a company’s equity-based compensation plan is aligned with shareholders’ long-term interests. We evaluate plans on a case-by-case basis, using a number of factors, including dilution to shareholders, problematic plan features, burn rate, and the equity compensation mix. Plans that are constructed to effectively and fairly align executives’ and shareholders’ incentives generally earn our approval. Conversely, we oppose compensation packages that provide what we view as excessive awards to few senior executives or contain the potential for excessive dilution relative to the company’s peers. We also may oppose equity plans at any company where we deem the overall compensation practices to be problematic. We generally oppose efforts to reprice options in the event of a decline in value of the underlying stock unless such plans appropriately balance shareholder and employee interests. For companies with particularly egregious pay practices such as excessive severance packages, executives with outsized pledged/hedged stock positions, executive perks, and bonuses that are not adequately linked to performance, we may vote against compensation committee members. We analyze management proposals requesting ratification of a company’s executive compensation practices (“Say-on-Pay” proposals) on a case-by-case basis, using a screen that assesses the long-term linkage between executive compensation and company performance as well as the presence of objectionable structural features in compensation plans. With respect to the frequency in which companies should seek advisory votes on compensation, in most cases we believe shareholders should be offered the opportunity to vote annually. Finally, we may oppose compensation committee members or even the entire board if we have cast votes against a company’s “Say-on-Pay” vote in consecutive years.
Mergers and Acquisitions - T. Rowe Price considers takeover offers, mergers, and other extraordinary corporate transactions on a case-by-case basis to determine if they are beneficial to shareholders’ current and future earnings stream and to ensure that our Price Funds and clients are receiving fair consideration for their securities. We oppose a high proportion of proposals for the ratification of executive severance packages (“Say on Golden Parachute” proposals) in conjunction with merger transactions if we conclude these arrangements reduce the alignment of executives’ incentives with shareholders’ interests.
Corporate Social Responsibility Issues - Vote recommendations for corporate responsibility issues are generated by the Head of Corporate Governance using ISS' proxy research and company reports. T. Rowe Price generally votes with a company’s management on social, environmental and corporate responsibility issues unless the issue has substantial investment implications for the company’s business or operations which have not been adequately addressed by management. T. Rowe Price supports well-targeted shareholder proposals on environmental and other public policy issues that are particularly relevant to a company’s businesses.
Global Portfolio Companies - ISS applies a two-tier approach to determining and applying global proxy voting policies. The first tier establishes baseline policy guidelines for the most fundamental issues, which span the corporate governance spectrum without regard to a company’s domicile. The second tier takes into account various idiosyncrasies of different countries, making allowances for standard market practices, as long as they do not violate the fundamental goals of good corporate governance. The goal is to enhance shareholder value through effective use of the shareholder franchise, recognizing that application of policies developed for U.S. corporate governance issues are not appropriate for all markets. The Proxy Committee has reviewed ISS' general global policies and has developed custom international proxy voting guidelines based on those recommendations and our own views as investors in these markets.
Fixed Income, Index and Passively Managed Accounts - Proxy voting for fixed income, index and other passively-managed portfolios is administered by the Proxy Services Group using T. Rowe Price’s guidelines as set by the Proxy Committee. If a portfolio company is held in both an actively managed account and an index account, the index account will default to the vote as determined by the actively managed proxy voting process. In addition, fixed income accounts will generally follow the proxy vote determinations on security holdings held by our equity accounts unless the matter is specific to a particular fixed income security (i.e., consents, restructurings, reorganization proposals).
Divided Votes - In situations where a decision is made which is contrary to the policies established by the Proxy Committee, or differs from the vote for any other client or Price Fund, the Proxy Services Group advises the portfolio managers involved of the divided vote. The persons representing opposing views often confer to discuss their positions because in most cases our votes reflect consensus across the Price Funds and other accounts.
Shareblocking - Shareblocking is the practice in certain foreign countries of “freezing” shares for trading purposes in order to vote proxies relating to those shares. In markets where shareblocking applies, the custodian or sub-custodian automatically freezes shares prior to a shareholder meeting once a proxy has been voted. Shareblocking typically takes place between one and fifteen (15) days before the shareholder meeting, depending on the market. In markets where shareblocking applies, there is a potential for a pending trade to fail if trade settlement takes place during the blocking period. T. Rowe Price’s policy is generally to refrain from voting shares in shareblocking countries unless the matter has compelling economic consequences that outweigh the loss of liquidity in the blocked shares.
Securities on Loan - The Price Funds and our institutional clients may participate in securities lending programs to generate income. Generally, the voting rights pass with the securities on loan; however, lending agreements give the lender the right to terminate the loan and pull back the loaned shares provided sufficient notice is given to the custodian bank in advance of the applicable deadline. T. Rowe Price’s policy is generally not to vote securities on loan unless we determine there is a material voting event that could affect the value of the loaned securities. In this event, we have the discretion to pull back the loaned securities in order to cast a vote at an upcoming shareholder meeting.
Monitoring and Resolving Conflicts of Interest
The Proxy Committee is also responsible for monitoring and resolving potential material conflicts between the interests of T. Rowe Price and those of its clients with respect to proxy voting. We have adopted safeguards to ensure that our proxy voting is not influenced by interests other than those of our fund shareholders. While membership on the Proxy Committee is diverse, it does not include individuals whose primary duties relate to client relationship management, marketing, or sales. Since T. Rowe Price’s voting guidelines are predetermined by the Proxy Committee, application of the guidelines by fund portfolio managers to vote fund proxies should in most instances adequately address any potential conflicts of interest. However, consistent with the terms of the Policies and Procedures, which allow portfolio managers to vote proxies opposite our general voting guidelines, the Proxy Committee regularly reviews all such proxy votes that are inconsistent with the proxy voting guidelines to determine whether the portfolio manager’s voting rationale appears reasonable. The Proxy Committee also assesses whether any business or other material relationships between T. Rowe Price and a portfolio company (unrelated to the ownership of the portfolio company’s securities) could have influenced an inconsistent vote on that company’s proxy.
Issues raising potential conflicts of interest are referred to designated members of the Proxy Committee for immediate resolution prior to the time T. Rowe Price casts its vote. With respect to personal conflicts of interest, T. Rowe Price’s Code of Ethics and Conduct requires all employees to avoid placing themselves in a “compromising position” in which their interests may conflict with those of our clients and restrict their ability to engage in certain outside business activities. Portfolio managers or Proxy Committee members with a personal conflict of interest regarding a particular proxy vote must recuse themselves and not participate in the voting decisions with respect to that proxy.
Specific Conflict of Interest Situations - Voting of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. common stock (sym: TROW) by certain T. Rowe Price Index Funds will be done in all instances in accordance with T. Rowe Price policy, and votes inconsistent with policy will not be permitted. In the event that there is no previously established guideline for a specific voting issue appearing on the T. Rowe Price Group proxy, the Price Funds will abstain on that voting item. In addition, T. Rowe Price has voting authority for proxies of the holdings of certain Price Funds that invest in other Price Funds. In cases where the underlying fund of an investing Price Fund, including a fund-of-funds, holds a proxy vote, T. Rowe Price will mirror vote the fund shares held by the upper-tier fund in the same proportion as the votes cast by the shareholders of the underlying funds (other than the T. Rowe Price Reserve Investment Funds).
Limitations on Voting Proxies of Banks
T. Rowe Price has obtained relief from the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (the “FRB Relief”) which permits, subject to a number of conditions, T. Rowe Price to acquire in the aggregate on behalf of its clients, 10% or more of the total voting stock of a bank, bank holding company, savings and loan holding company or savings association (each a “Bank”), not to exceed a 15% aggregate beneficial ownership maximum in such Bank. One such condition affects the manner in which T. Rowe Price will vote its clients’ shares of a Bank in excess of 10% of the Bank’s total voting stock (“Excess Shares”). The FRB Relief requires that T. Rowe Price use its best efforts to vote the Excess Shares in the same proportion as all other shares voted, a practice generally referred to as “mirror voting,” or in the event that such efforts to mirror vote are unsuccessful, Excess Shares will not be voted. With respect to a shareholder vote for a Bank of which T. Rowe Price has aggregate beneficial ownership of greater than 10% on behalf of its clients, T. Rowe Price will determine which of its clients’ shares are Excess Shares on a pro rata basis across all of its clients’ portfolios for which T. Rowe Price has the power to vote proxies.
REPORTING, RECORD RETENTION AND OVERSIGHT
The Proxy Committee, and certain personnel under the direction of the Proxy Committee, perform the following oversight and assurance functions, among others, over T. Rowe Price’s proxy voting: (1) periodically samples proxy votes to ensure that they were cast in compliance with T. Rowe Price’s proxy voting guidelines; (2) reviews, no less frequently than annually, the adequacy of the Policies and Procedures to make sure that they have been implemented effectively, including whether they continue to be reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interests of our clients; (3) performs due diligence on whether a retained proxy advisory firm has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues, including the adequacy and quality of the proxy advisory firm’s staffing and personnel and its policies; and (4) oversees any retained proxy advisory firms and their procedures regarding their capabilities to (i) produce proxy research that is based on current and accurate information and (ii) identify and address any conflicts of interest and any other considerations that we believe would be appropriate in considering the nature and quality of the services provided by the proxy advisory firm.
Vote Summary Reports will be generated for each client that requests T. Rowe Price to furnish proxy voting records. The report specifies the portfolio companies, meeting dates, proxy proposals, and votes which have been cast for the client during the period and the position taken with respect to each issue. Reports normally cover quarterly or annual periods and are provided to clients upon request.
T. Rowe Price retains proxy solicitation materials, memoranda regarding votes cast in opposition to the position of a company’s management, and documentation on shares voted differently. In addition, any document which is material to a proxy voting decision such as the T. Rowe Price proxy voting guidelines, Proxy Committee meeting materials, and other internal research relating to voting decisions will be kept. All proxy voting materials and supporting documentation are retained for six years (except for proxy statements available on the SEC’s EDGAR database).
To view a fund's proxy voting record for the most recent 12-month period ended June 30, visit www.fidelity.com/proxyvotingresults or visit the SEC's web site at www.sec.gov.
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES
The fund has entered into a distribution agreement with FDC, an affiliate of Strategic Advisers. The principal business address of FDC is 900 Salem Street, Smithfield, Rhode Island 02917. FDC is a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. The distribution agreement calls for FDC to use all reasonable efforts, consistent with its other business, to secure purchasers for shares of the fund, which are continuously offered at NAV. Promotional and administrative expenses in connection with the offer and sale of shares are paid by Strategic Advisers.
The Trustees have approved a Distribution and Service Plan with respect to shares of the fund (the Plan) pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act (the Rule). The Rule provides in substance that a fund may not engage directly or indirectly in financing any activity that is primarily intended to result in the sale of shares of the fund except pursuant to a plan approved on behalf of the fund under the Rule. The Plan, as approved by the Trustees, allows shares of the fund and/or Strategic Advisers to incur certain expenses that might be considered to constitute indirect payment by the fund of distribution expenses.
The Plan adopted for the fund is described in the prospectus.
Under the Plan, if the payment of management fees by the fund to Strategic Advisers is deemed to be indirect financing by the fund of the distribution of its shares, such payment is authorized by the Plan. The Plan specifically recognizes that Strategic Advisers may use its management fee revenue, as well as its past profits or its other resources, to pay FDC for expenses incurred in connection with providing services intended to result in the sale of shares of the fund and/or shareholder support services. In addition, the Plan provides that Strategic Advisers, directly or through FDC, may pay significant amounts to intermediaries that provide those services. Currently, the Board of Trustees has authorized such payments for shares of the fund.
Prior to approving the Plan, the Trustees carefully considered all pertinent factors relating to the implementation of the Plan, and determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the Plan will benefit the fund and its shareholders. In particular, the Trustees noted that the Plan does not authorize payments by shares of the fund other than those made to Strategic Advisers under its management contract with the fund. To the extent that the Plan gives Strategic Advisers and FDC greater flexibility in connection with the distribution of shares, additional sales of shares or stabilization of cash flows may result. Furthermore, certain shareholder support services may be provided more effectively under the Plan by local entities with whom shareholders have other relationships.
TRANSFER AND SERVICE AGENT AGREEMENTS
The fund has entered into a transfer agent agreement with Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Company, Inc. (FIIOC), an affiliate of Strategic Advisers, which is located at 245 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. Under the terms of the agreement, FIIOC (or an agent, including an affiliate) performs transfer agency services.
For providing transfer agency services, FIIOC receives no fees from the fund; however, each underlying Fidelity® fund pays its respective transfer agent (either FIIOC or an affiliate of FIIOC) fees based, in part, on the number of positions in and/or assets of the fund invested in such underlying Fidelity® fund. Strategic Advisers or an affiliate of Strategic Advisers will bear the costs of the transfer agency services with respect to assets managed by one or more sub-advisers and assets invested in non-affiliated ETFs under the terms of an agreement between Strategic Advisers and FIIOC.
FIIOC may collect fees charged in connection with providing certain types of services such as exchanges, closing out fund balances, maintaining fund positions with low balances, checkwriting, wire transactions, and providing historical account research, as applicable.
FIIOC bears the expense of typesetting, printing, and mailing prospectuses, statements of additional information, and all other reports, notices, and statements to existing shareholders, with the exception of proxy statements.
The fund has entered into a service agent agreement with Fidelity Service Company, Inc. (FSC), an affiliate of Strategic Advisers (or an agent, including an affiliate). The fund has also entered into a securities lending administration agreement with FSC. Under the terms of the agreements, FSC calculates the NAV and dividends for shares, maintains the fund's portfolio and general accounting records, and administers the fund's securities lending program.
For providing pricing and bookkeeping services, FSC receives a monthly fee based on the fund's average daily net assets throughout the month.
For administering the fund's securities lending program, FSC is paid based on the number and duration of individual securities loans.
Strategic Advisers bears the cost of pricing and bookkeeping services and administration of the securities lending program under the terms of its management contract with the fund.
SECURITIES LENDING
During the fiscal year, the securities lending agent, or the investment adviser (where the fund does not use a securities lending agent) monitors loan opportunities for the fund, negotiates the terms of the loans with borrowers, monitors the value of securities on loan and the value of the corresponding collateral, communicates with borrowers and the fund's custodian regarding marking to market the collateral, selects securities to be loaned and allocates those loan opportunities among lenders, and arranges for the return of the loaned securities upon the termination of the loan. Income and fees from securities lending activities for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2018, are shown in the following table:
| Fees and/or compensation for securities lending activities and related services: | ||||||
| Fund | Gross income from securities lending activities | Fees paid to securities lending agent from a revenue split | Administrative fees(1) | Rebate (paid to borrower) | Aggregate fees/compensation for securities lending activities | Net income from securities lending activities |
| Strategic Advisers® Core Fund | $2,532,296 | $144,534 | $0 | $1,086,806 | $1,231,340 | $1,300,956 |
(1) Values shown as $0 reflect that the adviser or an affiliate paid the administrative fee.
A fund does not pay cash collateral management fees, separate indemnification fees, or other fees not reflected above.
DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST
Trust Organization. Strategic Advisers® Core Fund is a fund of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II, an open-end management investment company created under an initial trust instrument dated March 8, 2006. The Trustees are permitted to create additional funds in the trust and to create additional classes of the fund.
The assets of the trust received for the issue or sale of shares of each of its funds and all income, earnings, profits, and proceeds thereof, subject to the rights of creditors, are allocated to such fund, and constitute the underlying assets of such fund. The underlying assets of each fund in the trust shall be charged with the liabilities and expenses attributable to such fund. Any general expenses of the trust shall be allocated between or among any one or more of the funds.
Shareholder Liability. The trust is a statutory trust organized under Delaware law. Delaware law provides that, except to the extent otherwise provided in the Trust Instrument, shareholders shall be entitled to the same limitations of personal liability extended to stockholders of private corporations for profit organized under the general corporation law of Delaware. The courts of some states, however, may decline to apply Delaware law on this point. The Trust Instrument contains an express disclaimer of shareholder liability for the debts, liabilities, obligations, and expenses of the trust. The Trust Instrument provides that the trust shall not have any claim against shareholders except for the payment of the purchase price of shares and requires that each agreement, obligation, or instrument entered into or executed by the trust or the Trustees relating to the trust or to a fund shall include a provision limiting the obligations created thereby to the trust or to one or more funds and its or their assets. The Trust Instrument further provides that shareholders of a fund shall not have a claim on or right to any assets belonging to any other fund.
The Trust Instrument provides for indemnification out of each fund's property of any shareholder or former shareholder held personally liable for the obligations of the fund solely by reason of his or her being or having been a shareholder and not because of his or her acts or omissions or for some other reason. The Trust Instrument also provides that each fund shall, upon request, assume the defense of any claim made against any shareholder for any act or obligation of the fund and satisfy any judgment thereon. Thus, the risk of a shareholder incurring financial loss on account of shareholder liability is limited to circumstances in which Delaware law does not apply, no contractual limitation of liability was in effect, and a fund is unable to meet its obligations. Strategic Advisers believes that, in view of the above, the risk of personal liability to shareholders is extremely remote.
Voting Rights. Each fund's capital consists of shares of beneficial interest. Shareholders are entitled to one vote for each dollar of net asset value they own. The voting rights of shareholders can be changed only by a shareholder vote. Shares may be voted in the aggregate, by fund, and by class.
The shares have no preemptive or conversion rights. Shares are fully paid and nonassessable, except as set forth under the heading "Shareholder Liability" above.
The trust or a fund or a class may be terminated upon the sale of its assets to, or merger with, another open-end management investment company, series, or class thereof, or upon liquidation and distribution of its assets. The Trustees may reorganize, terminate, merge, or sell all or a portion of the assets of the trust or a fund or a class without prior shareholder approval. In the event of the dissolution or liquidation of the trust, shareholders of each of its funds are entitled to receive the underlying assets of such fund available for distribution. In the event of the dissolution or liquidation of a fund or a class, shareholders of that fund or that class are entitled to receive the underlying assets of the fund or class available for distribution.
Custodians. The Bank of New York Mellon, 1 Wall Street, New York, New York, is custodian of the assets of the fund. The custodian is responsible for the safekeeping of the fund's assets and the appointment of any subcustodian banks and clearing agencies. JPMorgan Chase Bank, headquartered in New York, also may serve as a special purpose custodian of certain assets in connection with repurchase agreement transactions.
Strategic Advisers, its officers and directors, its affiliated companies, Members of the Advisory Board (if any), and Members of the Board of Trustees may, from time to time, conduct transactions with various banks, including banks serving as custodians for certain funds advised by Strategic Advisers. Transactions that have occurred to date include mortgages and personal and general business loans. In the judgment of the fund's adviser, the terms and conditions of those transactions were not influenced by existing or potential custodial or other fund relationships.
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 101 Seaport Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts, independent registered public accounting firm, audits financial statements for the fund and provides other audit, tax, and related services.
FUND HOLDINGS INFORMATION
The fund views holdings information as sensitive and limits its dissemination. The Board authorized Strategic Advisers, in consultation with FMR, to establish and administer guidelines for the dissemination of fund holdings information, which may be amended at any time without prior notice. FMR's Disclosure Policy Committee (comprising executive officers of FMR) evaluates disclosure policy with the goal of serving the fund's best interests by striking an appropriate balance between providing information about the fund's portfolio and protecting the fund from potentially harmful disclosure. The Board reviews the administration and modification of these guidelines and receives reports from the fund's chief compliance officer periodically.
Other registered investment companies that are advised or sub-advised by Strategic Advisers or a sub-adviser may be subject to different portfolio holdings disclosure policies, and neither Strategic Advisers nor the Board exercises control over such policies or disclosure. In addition, separate account clients of Strategic Advisers and the sub-advisers have access to their portfolio holdings and are not subject to the fund's portfolio holdings disclosure policies. Some of the funds that are advised or sub-advised by Strategic Advisers or a sub-adviser and some of the separate accounts managed by Strategic Advisers or a sub-adviser have investment objectives and strategies that are substantially similar or identical to the fund's and, therefore, potentially substantially similar, and in certain cases nearly identical, portfolio holdings as the fund.
The fund will provide a full list of holdings, including its top mutual fund positions (if any), monthly on www.fidelity.com 30 days after the month-end (excluding high income security holdings, which generally will be presented collectively monthly and included in a list of full holdings 60 days after its fiscal quarter-end).
The fund will provide its top mutual fund positions (if any) as of the end of the calendar quarter on Fidelity's web site 15 or more days after the calendar quarter-end.
Unless otherwise indicated, this information will be available on the web site until updated for the next applicable period.
The fund may also from time to time provide or make available to the Board or third parties upon request specific fund level performance attribution information and statistics. Third parties may include fund shareholders or prospective fund shareholders, members of the press, consultants, and ratings and ranking organizations.
The Use of Holdings In Connection With Fund Operations. Material non-public holdings information may be provided as part of the activities associated with managing Fidelity® funds to: entities which, by explicit agreement or by virtue of their respective duties to the fund, are required to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed; other parties if legally required; or persons Strategic Advisers believes will not misuse the disclosed information. These entities, parties, and persons include, but are not limited to: the fund's trustees; the fund's manager, its sub-advisers, if any, and their affiliates whose access persons are subject to a code of ethics (including portfolio managers of affiliated funds of funds); contractors who are subject to a confidentiality agreement; the fund's auditors; the fund's custodians; proxy voting service providers; financial printers; pricing service vendors; broker-dealers in connection with the purchase or sale of securities or requests for price quotations or bids on one or more securities; securities lending agents; counsel to the fund or its Independent Trustees; regulatory authorities; stock exchanges and other listing organizations; parties to litigation; third parties in connection with a bankruptcy proceeding relating to a fund holding; and third parties who have submitted a standing request to a money market fund for daily holdings information. Non-public holdings information may also be provided to an issuer regarding the number or percentage of its shares that are owned by the fund and in connection with redemptions in kind.
Other Uses Of Holdings Information. In addition, the fund may provide material non-public holdings information to (i) third parties that calculate information derived from holdings for use by Strategic Advisers or its affiliates, (ii) ratings and rankings organizations, and (iii) an investment adviser, trustee, or their agents to whom holdings are disclosed for due diligence purposes or in anticipation of a merger involving the fund. Each individual request is reviewed by the Disclosure Policy Committee which must find, in its sole discretion that, based on the specific facts and circumstances, the disclosure appears unlikely to be harmful to the fund. Entities receiving this information must have in place control mechanisms to reasonably ensure or otherwise agree that, (a) the holdings information will be kept confidential, (b) no employee shall use the information to effect trading or for their personal benefit, and (c) the nature and type of information that they, in turn, may disclose to third parties is limited. Strategic Advisers relies primarily on the existence of non-disclosure agreements and/or control mechanisms when determining that disclosure is not likely to be harmful to the fund.
At this time, the entities receiving information described in the preceding paragraph are: Factset Research Systems Inc. (full or partial holdings daily, on the next business day) and MSCI Inc. and certain affiliates (full or partial fund holdings daily, on the next business day).
Strategic Advisers, its affiliates, or the fund will not enter into any arrangements with third parties from which they derive consideration for the disclosure of material non-public holdings information. If, in the future, such an arrangement is desired, prior Board approval would be sought and any such arrangements would be disclosed in the fund's SAI.
There can be no assurance that the fund's policies and procedures with respect to disclosure of fund portfolio holdings will prevent the misuse of such information by individuals and firms that receive such information.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The fund's financial statements and financial highlights for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2018, and report of the independent registered public accounting firm, are included in the fund's annual report and are incorporated herein by reference. Total annual operating expenses as shown in the prospectus fee table may differ from the ratios of expenses to average net assets in the financial highlights because total annual operating expenses as shown in the prospectus fee table include any acquired fund fees and expenses, whereas the ratios of expenses in the financial highlights do not, except to the extent any acquired fund fees and expenses relate to an entity, such as a wholly-owned subsidiary, with which a fund's financial statements are consolidated. Acquired funds include other investment companies in which the fund has invested, if and to the extent it is permitted to do so. Total annual operating expenses in the prospectus fee table and the financial highlights do not include any expenses associated with investments in certain structured or synthetic products that may rely on the exception from the definition of "investment company" provided by section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act.
APPENDIX
Strategic Advisers, Fidelity Investments & Pyramid Design, and Fidelity are registered service marks of FMR LLC. © 2019 FMR LLC. All rights reserved.
Any third-party marks that may appear above are the marks of their respective owners.
Serious News for Serious Traders! Try StreetInsider.com Premium Free!
You May Also Be Interested In
- Woodside Energy Group Ltd Annual General Meeting Address by Chair Richard Goyder and CEO Meg O'Neill
- Nicox: Second notice of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Shareholders' Meeting on May 6, 2024 and appointment of an ad hoc agent
- Heineken Holding N.V. reports on 2024 first-quarter trading
Create E-mail Alert Related Categories
SEC FilingsSign up for StreetInsider Free!
Receive full access to all new and archived articles, unlimited portfolio tracking, e-mail alerts, custom newswires and RSS feeds - and more!
