| JPMorgan Flexible Debt ETF |
Ticker: JFLX |
Listing Exchange: NYSE Arca, Inc. |
| ANNUAL FUND OPERATING EXPENSES (Expenses that you pay each year as a percentage of the value of your investment) | |
| Management Fees |
0.45% |
| Other Expenses1 |
0.13 |
| Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses |
0.03 |
| Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses |
0.61 |
| Fee Waivers and/or Expense Reimbursements2 |
-0.16 |
| Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses after Fee Waiv- ers and/or Expense Reimbursements2 |
0.45 |
| WHETHER OR NOT YOU SELL YOUR SHARES, YOUR COST WOULD BE: | ||||
| |
1 Year |
3 Years |
5 Years |
10 Years |
| SHARES ($) |
46 |
144 |
279 |
703 |
| YEAR-BY-YEAR RETURNS |
| Best Quarter |
4th quarter, 2023 |
5.16% |
| Worst Quarter |
2nd quarter, 2022 |
-4.06% |
| The Fund’s year-to-date total return |
through |
6/30/25 |
was |
1.35% |
. |
| Portfolio Manager |
Managed the Fund Since |
Primary Title with Investment Adviser |
| Bob Michele |
2025 |
Managing Director |
| Iain T. Stealey |
2025 |
Managing Director |
| Lisa Coleman* |
2025 |
Managing Director |
| Andrew Headley |
2025 |
Managing Director |
| Jeff Hutz |
2025 |
Managing Director |
| Andreas Michalitsianos |
2025 |
Managing Director |
| FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE |
| An investment objective is fundamental if it cannot be changed without the consent of a majority of the outstanding Shares of the Fund. The Fund’s investment objective is fundamental. |
| |
Flexible Debt ETF |
| Asset-Backed, Mortgage-Related and Mortgage-Backed Securities Risk |
• |
| Authorized Participant Concentration Risk |
• |
| Cash Transactions Risk |
• |
| Convertible Securities Risk |
• |
| Covenant Lite Loan Risk |
○ |
| CPI-U Strategy Risk |
○ |
| Credit Risk |
• |
| Currency Risk |
• |
| Cyber Security Risk |
○ |
| Derivatives Risk |
• |
| Equity Market Risk |
○ |
| European Market Risk |
○ |
| Extension Risk |
○ |
| Foreign Issuer Risk |
• |
| Foreign Securities and Emerging Markets Risk |
• |
| General Market Risk |
• |
| Geographic Focus Risk |
• |
| Government Securities Risk |
• |
| High Portfolio Turnover Risk |
• |
| High Yield Securities Risk |
• |
| Hybrid Preferred Securities Risk |
○ |
| Industry and Sector Focus Risk |
• |
| Inflation-Linked and Inflation-Protected Security Risk |
• |
| Interest Rate Risk |
• |
| Inverse Floater Risk |
○ |
| Investment Company and ETF Risk |
○ |
| Loan Risk |
• |
| Market Trading Risk |
• |
| MLP Risk |
○ |
| Mortgage Dollar Roll Risk |
• |
| Municipal Obligations and Securities Risk |
• |
| Options Risk |
• |
| Preferred Securities Risk |
• |
| Prepayment Risk |
• |
| Real Estate Securities Risk |
○ |
| |
Flexible Debt ETF |
| Regulatory and Legal Risk |
○ |
| Risk Associated with the Fund Holding Cash, Money Market Instruments and Other Short-Term Investments |
• |
| Securities Lending Risk |
○ |
| Short Selling Risk |
○ |
| Smaller Company Risk |
○ |
| Sovereign Debt Risk |
• |
| Strategy Risk |
• |
| Structured Investment Risk |
○ |
| Transactions and Liquidity Risk |
• |
| Volcker Rule Risk |
○ |
| Zero-Coupon, Pay-In-Kind and Deferred Payment Securities Risk |
• |
| WHAT IS A DERIVATIVE? |
| Derivatives are securities or contracts (for example, futures and options) that derive their value from the performance of underlying assets or securities. |
| WHAT IS A CASH EQUIVALENT? |
| Cash equivalents are highly liquid, high-quality instruments with maturities of three months or less on the date they are purchased. They include securities issued by the U.S. government, its agencies and instrumentalities, repurchase agreements, certificates of deposit, bankers’ acceptances, commercial paper, money market mutual funds and bank deposit accounts. |
| INSTRUMENT |
RISK TYPE |
| Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loans (ARMs): Loans in a mortgage pool which provide for a fixed initial mortgage interest rate for a specified period of time, after which the rate may be subject to periodic adjustments. |
Credit Interest Rate Liquidity Market Political Prepayment Valuation |
| Asset-Backed Securities: Securities secured by company receivables, home equity loans, truck and auto loans, leases and credit card receivables or other securities backed by other types of receivables or other assets. |
Credit Interest Rate Liquidity Market Political Prepayment Valuation |
| Auction Rate Securities: Auction rate municipal securities and auction rate preferred securities issued by closed-end investment companies. |
Credit Interest Rate Liquidity Market |
| Bank Obligations: Bankers’ acceptances, certificates of deposit and time deposits. Bankers’ acceptances are bills of exchange or time drafts drawn on and accepted by a commercial bank. Maturities are generally six months or less. Certificates of deposit are negotiable certificates issued by a bank for a specified period of time and earning a specified return. Time deposits are non-negotiable receipts issued by a bank in exchange for the deposit of funds. |
Credit Currency Interest Rate Liquidity Market Political |
| Borrowings: The Fund may borrow for temporary purposes and/or for investment purposes. Such a practice will result in leveraging of the Fund’s assets and may cause the Fund to liquidate portfolio positions when it would not be advantageous to do so. The Fund must maintain continuous asset coverage of 300% of the amount borrowed, with the exception for borrowings not in excess of 5% of the Fund’s total assets made for temporary administrative purposes. |
Credit Interest Rate Market |
| Brady Bonds: Securities created through the exchange of existing commercial bank loans to public and private entities in certain emerging markets for new bonds in connection with debt restructurings. |
Credit Currency Foreign Investment Interest Rate Market Political |
| Call and Put Options: A call option gives the buyer the right to buy, and obligates the seller of the option to sell a security at a specified price at a future date. A put option gives the buyer the right to sell, and obligates the seller of the option to buy a security at a specified price at a future date. |
Credit Leverage Liquidity Management Market |
| INSTRUMENT |
RISK TYPE |
| Commercial Paper: Secured and unsecured short-term promissory notes issued by corporations and other entities. Maturities generally vary from a few days to nine months. |
Credit Currency Interest Rate Liquidity Market Political Valuation |
| Commodity-Linked Derivatives: Securities whose value derives from the price of a commodity, including commodity futures and commodity options. |
Credit Interest Rate Liquidity Market |
| Common Stock: Shares of ownership of a company. |
Market |
| Common Stock Warrants and Rights: Securities, typically issued with preferred stock or bonds, that give the holder the right to buy a proportionate amount of common stock at a specified price. |
Credit Market |
| Convertible Securities: Bonds or preferred stock that can convert to common stock including contingent convertible securities. |
Credit Currency Interest Rate Liquidity Market Political Valuation |
| Corporate Debt Securities: May include bonds and other debt securities of domestic and foreign issuers, including obligations of industrial, utility, banking and other corporate issuers. |
Credit Currency Interest Rate Liquidity Market Political Prepayment Valuation |
| Credit Default Swaps (CDSs): A swap agreement between two parties pursuant to which one party pays the other a fixed periodic coupon for the specified life of the agreement. The other party makes no payment unless a credit event, relating to a predetermined reference asset, occurs. If such an event occurs, the party will then make a payment to the first party, and the swap will terminate. |
Credit Currency Interest Rate Leverage Liquidity Management Market Political Valuation |
| Custodial Receipts: The Fund may acquire securities in the form of custodial receipts that evidence ownership of future interest payments, principal payments or both on certain U.S. Treasury notes or bonds in connection with programs sponsored by banks and brokerage firms. These are not considered to be U.S. government securities. These notes and bonds are held in custody by a bank on behalf of the owners of the receipts. |
Credit Liquidity Market |
| Demand Features: Securities that are subject to puts and standby commitments to purchase the securities at a fixed price (usually with accrued interest) within a fixed period of time following demand by the Fund. |
Liquidity Management Market |
| Emerging Market Securities: Securities issued by issuers or governments in countries with emerging economies or securities markets which may be undergoing significant evolution and rapid developments. |
Foreign Investment |
| INSTRUMENT |
RISK TYPE |
| Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs): Ownership interest in unit investment trusts, depositary receipts, and other pooled investment vehicles that hold a portfolio of securities or stocks designed to track the price performance and dividend yield of a particular broad-based, sector or international index. ETFs include a wide range of investments such as iShares, Standard & Poor’s Depositary Receipts (SPDRs) and NASDAQ 100s. |
Investment Company Market |
| Foreign Currency Transactions: Strategies used to hedge against currency risks, for other risk management purposes or operational purposes or to increase income or gain to the Fund. These strategies may consist of use of any of the following: options on currencies, financial and currency futures, options on such futures, forward foreign currency transactions (including non-deliverable forwards (NDFs)), forward rate agreements and currency swaps, caps and floors. Certain Funds may engage in such transactions in both U.S. and non-U.S. markets. |
Credit Foreign Investment Leverage Liquidity Management Market Prepayment |
| Foreign Investments: Equity and debt securities (e.g., bonds and commercial paper) of foreign entities and obligations of foreign branches of U.S. banks and foreign banks. Foreign securities may also include American Depositary Receipts (ADRs), Global Depositary Receipts (GDRs), European Depositary Receipts (EDRs) and American Depositary Securities (ADSs). |
Foreign Investment Liquidity Market Political Prepayment Valuation |
| High Yield/High Risk Securities/Junk Bonds: Securities that are generally rated below investment grade by the primary rating agencies or are unrated but are deemed by the Fund’s adviser to be of comparable quality. |
Credit Currency High Yield Securities Interest Rate Liquidity Market Political Portfolio Quality Valuation |
| Inflation-Linked Debt Securities: Includes fixed and floating rate debt securities of varying maturities issued by the U.S. government as well as securities issued by other entities such as corporations, foreign governments and foreign issuers. |
Credit Currency Interest Rate Political |
| Initial Public Offerings (IPOs): A transaction in which a previously private company makes its first sale of stock to the public. |
Market |
| Interfund Lending: Involves lending money and borrowing money for temporary purposes through a credit facility. |
Credit Interest Rate Market |
| Inverse Floating Rate Instruments: Leveraged variable debt instruments with interest rates that reset in the opposite direction from the market rate of interest to which the inverse floater is indexed. |
Credit Leverage Market |
| Investment Company Securities: Shares of other investment companies, including money market funds for which the adviser and/or its affiliates serve as investment adviser or administrator. The adviser will waive certain fees when investing in funds for which it serves as investment adviser, to the extent required by law or contract. |
Investment Company Market |
| INSTRUMENT |
RISK TYPE |
| Loan Assignments and Participations: Assignments of, or participations in, all or a portion of loans to corporations or to governments, including governments of less developed countries. |
Credit Currency Extension Foreign Investment Interest Rate Liquidity Market Political Prepayment |
| Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs): Limited partnerships that are publicly traded on a securities exchange |
Market |
| Mortgages (Directly Held): Debt instruments secured by real property. |
Credit Environmental Extension Interest Rate Liquidity Market Natural Event Political Prepayment Valuation |
| Mortgage-Backed Securities: Debt obligations secured by real estate loans and pools of loans such as collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs), commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBSs) and other asset-backed structures. |
Credit Currency Extension Interest Rate Leverage Liquidity Market Political Prepayment Tax Valuation |
| Mortgage Dollar Rolls1: A transaction in which the Fund sells securities for delivery in a current month and simultaneously contracts with the same party to repurchase similar but not identical securities on a specified future date. |
Currency Extension Interest Rate Leverage Liquidity Market Political Prepayment |
| Municipal Obligations and Securities: Securities issued by a state or political subdivision to obtain funds for various public purposes. Municipal securities include, among others, private activity bonds and industrial development bonds, as well as general obligation notes, tax anticipation notes, bond anticipation notes, revenue anticipation notes, other short-term tax-exempt obligations, municipal leases, obligations of municipal housing authorities and single family revenue bonds. |
Credit Interest Rate Market Natural Event Political Prepayment Tax Valuation |
| INSTRUMENT |
RISK TYPE |
| New Financial Products: New options and futures contracts and other financial products continue to be developed and the Fund may invest in such options, contracts and products. |
Credit Liquidity Management Market |
| Obligations of Supranational Agencies: Obligations which are chartered to promote economic development and are supported by various governments and governmental agencies. |
Credit Foreign Investment Liquidity Political Valuation |
| Options and Futures Transactions: The Fund may purchase and sell (a) exchange traded and over-the-counter put and call options on securities, indexes of securities and futures contracts on securities, indexes of securities, interest rate futures contracts and interest rate swaps and (b) futures contracts on securities and indexes of securities. |
Credit Leverage Liquidity Management Market |
| Preferred Securities: A class of stock that generally pays a dividend at a specified rate and has preference over common stock in the payment of dividends and in liquidation. |
Market |
| Private Placements, Restricted Securities and Other Unregistered Securities: Securities not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, such as privately placed commercial paper and Rule 144A securities. |
Liquidity Market Valuation |
| Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs): Pooled investment vehicles which invest primarily in income producing real estate or real estate related loans or interest. |
Credit Interest Rate Liquidity Management Market Political Prepayment Tax Valuation |
| Repurchase Agreements: The purchase of a security and the simultaneous commitment to return the security to the seller at an agreed upon price on an agreed upon date. This is treated as a loan. |
Credit Liquidity Market |
| Reverse Repurchase Agreements1: The sale of a security and the simultaneous commitment to buy the security back at an agreed upon price on an agreed upon date. |
Credit Leverage Market |
| Securities Issued in Connection with Reorganization and Corporate Restructuring: In connection with reorganizing or restructuring of an issuer, an issuer may issue common stock or other securities to holders of its debt securities. |
Market |
| Securities Lending: The lending of up to 33 1∕3% of the Fund’s total assets. In return, the Fund will receive cash, other securities, and/or letters of credit as collateral. |
Credit Leverage Market |
| Short Selling: The Fund sells a security it does not own in anticipation of a decline in the market value of the security. To complete the transaction, the Fund must borrow the security to make delivery to the buyer. The Fund is obligated to replace the security borrowed by purchasing it subsequently at the market price at the time of replacement. |
Credit Liquidity Market |
| Short-Term Funding Agreements: Agreements issued by banks and highly rated U.S. insurance companies such as Guaranteed Investment Contracts (GICs) and Bank Investment Contracts (BICs). |
Credit Liquidity Market |
| INSTRUMENT |
RISK TYPE |
| Sovereign Obligations: Investments in debt obligations issued or guaranteed by a foreign sovereign government or its agencies, authorities or political subdivisions. |
Credit Foreign Investment Liquidity Political Valuation |
| Stripped Mortgage-Backed Securities: Derivative multi-class mortgage securities which are usually structured with two classes of shares that receive different proportions of the interest and principal from a pool of mortgage assets. These include Interest-Only (IO) and Principal-Only (PO) securities issued outside a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) or CMO structure. |
Credit Liquidity Market Political Prepayment Valuation |
| Structured Investments: A security having a return tied to an underlying index or other security or asset class. Structured investments generally are individually negotiated agreements and may be traded over- the-counter. Structured investments are organized and operated to restructure the investment characteristics of the underlying security. |
Credit Foreign Investment Liquidity Management Market Valuation |
| Swaps and Related Swap Products: Swaps involve an exchange of obligations by two parties. Caps and floors entitle a purchaser to a principal amount from the seller of the cap or floor to the extent that a specified index exceeds or falls below a predetermined interest rate or amount. The Fund may enter into these transactions to manage its exposure to changing interest rates and other factors. |
Credit Currency Interest Rate Leverage Liquidity Management Market Political Valuation |
| Synthetic Variable Rate Instruments: Instruments that generally involve the deposit of a long-term tax exempt bond in a custody or trust arrangement and the creation of a mechanism to adjust the long-term interest rate on the bond to a variable short-term rate and a right (subject to certain conditions) on the part of the purchaser to tender it periodically to a third party at par. |
Credit Liquidity Market |
| Temporary Defensive Positions: To respond to unusual circumstances, the Fund may invest in cash and cash equivalents for temporary defensive purposes. |
Credit Interest Rate Liquidity Market |
| Treasury Receipts: The Fund may purchase interests in separately traded interest and principal component parts of U.S. Treasury obligations that are issued by banks or brokerage firms and that are created by depositing U.S. Treasury notes and U.S. Treasury bonds into a special account at a custodian bank. Receipts include Treasury Receipts (TRs), Treasury Investment Growth Receipts (TIGRs) and Certificates of Accrual on Treasury Securities (CATS). |
Market |
| Trust Preferreds: Securities with characteristics of both subordinated debt and preferred stock. Trust preferreds are generally long term securities that make periodic fixed or variable interest payments. |
Credit Currency Interest Rate Liquidity Market Political Valuation |
| U.S. Government Agency Securities: Securities issued or guaranteed by agencies and instrumentalities of the U.S. government. These include all types of securities issued by Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including funding notes, subordinated benchmark notes, CMOs and REMICs. |
Credit Government Securities Interest Rate Market |
| INSTRUMENT |
RISK TYPE |
| U.S. Government Obligations: May include direct obligations of the U.S. Treasury, including Treasury bills, notes and bonds, all of which are backed as to principal and interest payments by the full faith and credit of the United States, and separately traded principal and interest component parts of such obligations that are transferable through the Federal book-entry system known as Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal of Securities (STRIPS) and Coupons Under Book Entry Safekeeping (CUBES). |
Interest Rate Market |
| Variable and Floating Rate Instruments: Obligations with interest rates which are reset daily, weekly, quarterly or some other frequency and which may be payable to the Fund on demand or at the expiration of a specified term. |
Credit Liquidity Market Valuation |
| When-Issued Securities, Delayed Delivery Securities and Forward Commitments: Purchase or contract to purchase securities at a fixed price for delivery at a future date. |
Credit Leverage Liquidity Market Valuation |
| Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Deferred Payment Securities: Zero-coupon securities are securities that are sold at a discount to par value and on which interest payments are not made during the life of the security. Pay-in-kind securities are securities that have interest payable by delivery of additional securities. Deferred payment securities are zero-coupon debt securities which convert on a specified date to interest bearing debt securities. |
Credit Currency Interest Rate Liquidity Market Political Valuation Zero-Coupon Bond |
| |
Per share operating performance | ||||
| |
|
Investment operations |
Distributions | ||
| |
Net asset value, beginning of period |
Net investment income (loss)(a) |
Net realized and unrealized gains (losses) on investments |
Total from investment operations |
Net investment income |
| JPMorgan Unconstrained Debt Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
| Class R6 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Year Ended February 28, 2025 |
$9.64 |
$0.47 |
$0.16 |
$0.63 |
$(0.48) |
| Year Ended February 29, 2024 |
9.46 |
0.40 |
0.17 |
0.57 |
(0.39) |
| Year Ended February 28, 2023 |
9.71 |
0.31 |
(0.23) |
0.08 |
(0.33) |
| Year Ended February 28, 2022 |
10.09 |
0.23 |
(0.33) |
(0.10) |
(0.28) |
| Year Ended February 28, 2021 |
9.91 |
0.25 |
0.29 |
0.54 |
(0.36) |
| |
|
Ratios/Supplemental data | |||||
| |
|
|
Ratios to average net assets |
| |||
| Net asset value, end of period |
Total return (b) |
Net assets, end of period (000's) |
Net expenses(c) |
Net investment income (loss) |
Expenses without waivers and reimbursements |
Portfolio turnover rate | |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| $9.79 |
6.71% |
$225,721 |
0.48% |
4.87% |
0.59% |
217% | |
| 9.64 |
6.13 |
203,474 |
0.49 |
4.28 |
0.59 |
177 | |
| 9.46 |
0.89 |
294,312 |
0.49 |
3.30 |
0.59 |
45 | |
| 9.71 |
(1.05) |
214,004 |
0.49 |
2.30 |
0.58 |
103 | |
| 10.09 |
5.53 |
241,971 |
0.48 |
2.50 |
0.58 |
333 | |
| Fund Name |
Ticker |
Listing Exchange |
| JPMorgan Flexible Debt ETF (the “Flexible Debt ETF” or the “Fund”) |
JFLX |
NYSE Arca, Inc. |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 3 | |
| 3 | |
| 3 | |
| 8 | |
| 8 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 9 | |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 11 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 12 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 13 | |
| 13 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 14 | |
| 14 | |
| 14 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 15 | |
| 15 | |
| 15 | |
| 15 | |
| 15 | |
| 15 | |
| 15 |
| Instrument |
Part II Section Reference |
| Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loans (“ARMs”): Loans in a mortgage pool which provide for a fixed initial mortgage interest rate for a specified period of time, after which the rate may be subject to periodic adjustments. |
Mortgage-Related Securities |
| Instrument |
Part II Section Reference |
| Asset-Backed Securities: Securities secured by company receivables, home equity loans, truck and auto loans, leases, and credit card receivables or other securities backed by other types of receivables or other assets and pools of loans, such as collateralized loan obligations. |
Asset-Backed Securities |
| Auction Rate Securities: Auction rate municipal securities and auction rate preferred securities issued by closed-end investment companies. |
Auction Rate Securities |
| Bank Obligations: Bankers’ acceptances, certificates of deposit and time deposits. Bankers’ acceptances are bills of exchange or time drafts drawn on and accepted by a commercial bank. Maturities are generally six months or less. Certificates of deposit are negotiable certificates issued by a bank for a specified period of time and earning a specified return. Time deposits are non-negotiable receipts issued by a bank in exchange for the deposit of funds. |
Bank Obligations |
| Borrowings: The Fund may borrow for temporary purposes and/or for investment purposes. Such a practice will result in leveraging of the Fund’s assets and may cause the Fund to liquidate portfolio positions when it would not be advantageous to do so. The Fund must maintain continuous asset coverage of 300% of the amount borrowed, with the exception for borrowings not in excess of 5% of the Fund’s total assets made for temporary administrative purposes. |
Miscellaneous Investment Strategies and Risks |
| Brady Bonds: Securities created through the exchange of existing commercial bank loans to public and private entities in certain emerging markets for new bonds in connection with debt restructurings. |
Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies) |
| Call and Put Options: A call option gives the buyer the right to buy, and obligates the seller of the option to sell, a security at a specified price at a future date. A put option gives the buyer the right to sell, and obligates the seller of the option to buy, a security at a specified price at a future date. |
Options and Futures Transactions |
| Commercial Paper: Secured and unsecured short-term promissory notes issued by corporations and other entities. Maturities generally vary from a few days to nine months. |
Commercial Paper |
| Commodity-Linked Derivatives: Securities whose value derives from the price of a commodity, including commodity futures and commodity options. |
Miscellaneous Investment Strategies and Risk |
| Common Stock: Shares of ownership of a company. |
Equity Securities, Warrants and Rights |
| Common Stock Warrants and Rights: Securities, typically issued with preferred stock or bonds, that give the holder the right to buy a proportionate amount of common stock at a specified price. |
Equity Securities, Warrants and Rights |
| Convertible Securities: Bonds or preferred stock that can convert to common stock including contingent convertible securities. |
Convertible Securities |
| Corporate Debt Securities: May include bonds and other debt securities of domestic and foreign issuers, including obligations of industrial, utility, banking and other corporate issuers. |
Debt Instruments |
| Credit Default Swaps (“CDSs”): A swap agreement between two parties pursuant to which one party pays the other a fixed periodic coupon for the specified life of the agreement. The other party makes no payment unless a credit event, relating to a predetermined reference asset, occurs. If such an event occurs, the party will then make a payment to the first party, and the swap will terminate. |
Swaps and Related Swap Products |
| Custodial Receipts: The Fund may acquire securities in the form of custodial receipts that evidence ownership of future interest payments, principal payments or both on certain U.S. Treasury notes or bonds in connection with programs sponsored by banks and brokerage firms. These are not considered to be U.S. government securities. These notes and bonds are held in custody by a bank on behalf of the owners of the receipts. |
Custodial Receipts |
| Instrument |
Part II Section Reference |
| Demand Features: Securities that are subject to puts and standby commitments to purchase the securities at a fixed price (usually with accrued interest) within a fixed period of time following demand by the Fund. |
Demand Features |
| Emerging Market Securities: Securities issued by issuers or governments in countries with emerging economies or securities markets which may be undergoing significant evolution and rapid development. |
Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies) |
| Exchange-Traded Funds (“ETFs”): Ownership interest in unit investment trusts, depositary receipts, and other pooled investment vehicles that hold a portfolio of securities or stocks designed to track the price performance and dividend yield of a particular broad-based, sector or international index. ETFs include a wide range of investments. |
Investment Company Securities and Exchange- Traded Funds |
| Foreign Currency Transactions: Strategies used to hedge against currency risks, for other risk management purposes or operational purposes or to increase income or gain to the Fund. These strategies may consist of use of any of the following: options on currencies, currency futures, options on such futures, forward foreign currency transactions (including non- deliverable forwards (“NDFs”)), forward rate agreements and currency swaps, caps and floors. The Fund may engage in such transactions in both U.S. and non-U.S. markets. |
Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies) |
| Foreign Investments: Equity and debt securities (e.g., bonds and commercial paper) of foreign entities and obligations of foreign branches of U.S. banks and foreign banks. Foreign securities may also include American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”), Global Depositary Receipts (“GDRs”), European Depositary Receipts (“EDRs”) and American Depositary Securities (“ADSs”). |
Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies) |
| High Yield/High Risk Securities/Junk Bonds: Securities that are generally rated below investment grade by the primary rating agencies or are unrated but deemed by the Fund’s Adviser to be of comparable quality. |
Debt Instruments |
| Inflation-Linked Debt Securities: Includes fixed and floating rate debt securities of varying maturities issued by the U.S. government as well as securities issued by other entities such as corporations, foreign governments and foreign issuers. |
Debt Instruments |
| Initial Public Offerings (“IPO”): A transaction in which a previously private company makes its first sale of stock to the public. |
Equity Securities, Warrants and Rights |
| Interfund Lending: Involves lending money and borrowing money for temporary purposes through a credit facility. |
Miscellaneous Investment Strategies and Risks |
| Inverse Floating Rate Instruments: Leveraged variable debt instruments with interest rates that reset in the opposite direction from the market rate of interest to which the inverse floater is indexed. |
Inverse Floaters and Interest Rate Caps |
| Investment Company Securities: Shares of other investment companies, including money market funds for which the Adviser and/or its affiliates serve as investment adviser or administrator. The Adviser will waive certain fees when investing in funds for which it serves as investment adviser, to the extent required by law or by contract. |
Investment Company Securities and Exchange- Traded Funds |
| Loan Assignments and Participations: Assignments of, or participations in, all or a portion of loans to corporations or to governments, including governments in less developed countries. |
Loans |
| Master Limited Partnerships (“MLPs”): Limited partnerships that are publicly traded on a securities exchange. |
Master Limited Partnerships |
| Mortgages (Directly Held): Debt instruments secured by real property. |
Mortgage-Related Securities |
| Mortgage-Backed Securities: Debt obligations secured by real estate loans and pools of loans such as collateralized mortgage obligations (“CMOs”), commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”), and other asset-backed structures. |
Mortgage-Related Securities |
| Instrument |
Part II Section Reference |
| Mortgage Dollar Rolls1: A transaction in which the Fund sells securities for delivery in a current month and simultaneously contracts with the same party to repurchase similar but not identical securities on a specified future date. |
Mortgage-Related Securities |
| Municipal Obligations and Securities: Securities issued by a state or political subdivision to obtain funds for various public purposes. Municipal securities include, among others, private activity bonds and industrial development bonds, as well as general obligation notes, tax anticipation notes, bond anticipation notes, revenue anticipation notes, other short-term tax-exempt obligations, municipal leases, obligations of municipal housing authorities and single family revenue bonds. |
Municipal Securities |
| New Financial Products: New options and futures contracts and other financial products continue to be developed, and the Fund may invest in such options, contracts and products. |
Miscellaneous Investment Strategies and Risks |
| Obligations of Supranational Agencies: Obligations which are chartered to promote economic development and are supported by various governments and governmental agencies. |
Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies) |
| Options and Futures Transactions: The Fund may purchase and sell (a) exchange traded and over-the-counter put and call options on securities, indexes of securities and futures contracts on securities and indexes of securities, and interest rate futures contracts and interest rate swaps and (b) futures contracts on securities and indexes of securities. |
Options and Futures Transactions |
| Preferred Securities: A class of stock that generally pays a dividend at a specified rate and has preference over common stock in the payment of dividends and in liquidation. |
Equity Securities, Warrants and Rights |
| Private Placements, Restricted Securities and Other Unregistered Securities: Securities not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, such as privately placed commercial paper and Rule 144A securities. |
Miscellaneous Investment Strategies and Risks |
| Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”): Pooled investment vehicles which invest primarily in income producing real estate or real estate related loans or interest. |
Real Estate Investment Trusts |
| Repurchase Agreements: The purchase of a security and the simultaneous commitment to return the security to the seller at an agreed upon price on an agreed upon date. This is treated as a loan. |
Repurchase Agreements |
| Reverse Repurchase Agreements1: The sale of a security and the simultaneous commitment to buy the security back at an agreed upon price on an agreed upon date. |
Reverse Repurchase Agreements |
| Securities Issued in Connection with Reorganizations and Corporate Restructurings: In connection with reorganizing or restructuring of an issuer, an issuer may issue common stock or other securities to holders of its debt securities. |
Miscellaneous Investment Strategies and Risks |
| Securities Lending: The lending of up to 33 1∕3% of the Fund’s total assets. In return, the Fund will receive cash, other securities and/or letters of credit as collateral. |
Securities Lending |
| Short Selling: The Fund sells a security it does not own in anticipation of a decline in the market value of the security. To complete the transaction, the Fund must borrow the security to make delivery to the buyer. The Fund is obligated to replace the security borrowed by purchasing it subsequently at the market price at the time of replacement. |
Short Selling |
| Short-Term Funding Agreements: Agreements issued by banks and highly rated U.S. insurance companies such as Guaranteed Investment Contracts (“GICs”) and Bank Investment Contracts (“BICs”). |
Short-Term Funding Agreements |
| Instrument |
Part II Section Reference |
| Sovereign Obligations: Investments in debt obligations issued or guaranteed by a foreign sovereign government or its agencies, authorities or political subdivisions. |
Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies) |
| Stripped Mortgage-Backed Securities: Derivative multi-class mortgage securities which are usually structured with two classes of shares that receive different proportions of the interest and principal from a pool of mortgage assets. These include Interest-Only (“IO”) and Principal-Only (“PO”) securities issued outside a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (“REMIC”) or CMO structure. |
Mortgage-Related Securities |
| Structured Investments: A security having a return tied to an underlying index or other security or asset class. Structured investments generally are individually negotiated agreements and may be traded over-the-counter. Structured investments are organized and operated to restructure the investment characteristics of the underlying security. |
Structured Investments |
| Swaps and Related Swap Products: Swaps involve an exchange of obligations by two parties. Caps and floors entitle a purchaser to a principal amount from the seller of the cap or floor to the extent that a specified index exceeds or falls below a predetermined interest rate or amount. The Fund may enter into these transactions to manage its exposure to changing interest rates and other factors. |
Swaps and Related Swap Products |
| Synthetic Variable Rate Instruments: Instruments that generally involve the deposit of a long-term tax exempt bond in a custody or trust arrangement and the creation of a mechanism to adjust the long-term interest rate on the bond to a variable short-term rate and a right (subject to certain conditions) on the part of the purchaser to tender it periodically to a third party at par. |
Swaps and Related Swap Products |
| Temporary Defensive Positions: To respond to unusual circumstances, the Fund may invest in cash and cash equivalents for temporary defensive purposes. |
Miscellaneous Investment Strategies and Risks |
| Treasury Receipts: The Fund may purchase interests in separately traded interest and principal component parts of U.S. Treasury obligations that are issued by banks or brokerage firms and that are created by depositing U.S. Treasury notes and U.S. Treasury bonds into a special account at a custodian bank. Receipts include Treasury Receipts (“TRs”), Treasury Investment Growth Receipts (“TIGRs”), and Certificates of Accrual on Treasury Securities (“CATS”). |
Treasury Receipts |
| Trust Preferreds: Securities with characteristics of both subordinated debt and preferred stock. Trust preferreds are generally long term securities that make periodic fixed or variable interest payments. |
Trust Preferred |
| U.S. Government Agency Securities: Securities issued by agencies and instrumentalities of the U.S. government. These include all types of securities issued by the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”), the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), including funding notes, subordinated benchmark notes, CMOs and REMICs. |
Mortgage-Related Securities |
| U.S. Government Obligations: May include direct obligations of the U.S. Treasury, including Treasury bills, notes and bonds, all of which are backed as to principal and interest payments by the full faith and credit of the United States, and separately traded principal and interest component parts of such obligations that are transferable through the Federal book-entry system known as Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal of Securities (“STRIPS”) and Coupons Under Book-Entry-Safekeeping (“CUBES”). |
U.S. Government Obligations |
| Variable and Floating Rate Instruments: Obligations with interest rates which are reset daily, weekly, quarterly or some other frequency and which may be payable to the Fund on demand or at the expiration of a specified term. |
Debt Instruments |
| Instrument |
Part II Section Reference |
| When-Issued Securities, Delayed Delivery Securities and Forward Commitments: Purchase or contract to purchase securities at a fixed price for delivery at a future date. |
When-Issued Securities, Delayed Delivery Securities and Forward Commitments |
| Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Deferred Payment Securities: Zero-coupon securities are securities that are sold at a discount to par value and on which interest payments are not made during the life of the security. Pay-in-kind securities are securities that have interest payable by delivery of additional securities. Deferred payment securities are zero-coupon debt securities which convert on a specified date to interest bearing debt securities. |
Debt Instruments |
| |
Fiscal Year Ended | |
| Fund |
February 29, 2024 |
February 28, 2025 |
| Unconstrained Debt Fund |
177% |
217% |
| Committee |
Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2025 |
| Audit and Valuation Committee |
5 |
| Compliance Committee |
4 |
| Governance Committee |
5 |
| Equity Committee |
5 |
| ETF Committee |
4 |
| Fixed Income Committee |
5 |
| Money Market and Alternative Products Committee |
6 |
| Name of Trustee |
Dollar Range of Equity Securities in Flexible Debt ETF |
Aggregate Dollar Range of Equity Securities in all Registered Investment Companies Overseen by the Trustee in Family of Investment Companies1, 2 | ||
| Independent Trustees |
|
| ||
| John F. Finn |
None |
Over $100,000 | ||
| Stephen P. Fisher |
None |
Over $100,000 | ||
| Gary L. French |
None |
Over $100,000 | ||
| Kathleen M. Gallagher |
None |
Over $100,000 | ||
| Robert J. Grassi |
None |
Over $100,000 | ||
| Frankie D. Hughes |
None |
Over $100,000 | ||
| Raymond Kanner |
None |
Over $100,000 | ||
| Thomas P. Lemke |
None |
Over $100,000 | ||
| Lawrence R. Maffia |
None |
Over $100,000 | ||
| Mary E. Martinez |
None |
Over $100,000 | ||
| Marilyn McCoy |
None |
Over $100,000 | ||
| Emily A. Youssouf |
None |
Over $100,000 | ||
| Interested Trustees |
|
| ||
| Robert Deutsch |
None |
Over $100,000 | ||
| Nina O. Shenker |
None |
Over $100,000 | ||
| Name of Trustee |
Unconstrained Debt Fund |
Total Compensation Paid From Fund Complex1 |
| Independent Trustees |
|
|
| John F. Finn |
$1,891 |
$676,800 |
| Stephen P. Fisher |
1,755 |
501,800 |
| Gary L. French |
1,704 |
436,8002 |
| Kathleen M. Gallagher |
1,755 |
501,8003 |
| Robert J. Grassi |
1,704 |
436,8004 |
| Frankie D. Hughes |
1,704 |
436,800 |
| Raymond Kanner |
1,755 |
501,8005 |
| Thomas P. Lemke |
1,704 |
436,8006 |
| Lawrence R. Maffia |
1,704 |
436,800 |
| Mary E. Martinez |
1,813 |
576,800 |
| Marilyn McCoy |
1,704 |
436,8007 |
| Dr. Robert A. Oden, Jr.8 |
1,755 |
501,800 |
| Marian U. Pardo8 |
1,755 |
501,800 |
| Emily A. Youssouf |
1,704 |
436,8002 |
| Interested Trustees |
|
|
| Robert Deutsch |
1,755 |
501,8009 |
| Nina O. Shenker |
1,704 |
436,8007 |
| |
Fiscal Year Ended | |||||
| |
February 28, 2023 |
February 29, 2024 |
February 28, 2025 | |||
| Fund |
Paid |
Waived |
Paid |
Waived |
Paid |
Waived |
| Unconstrained Debt Fund |
$3,949 |
$(632) |
$4,159 |
$(708) |
$4,145 |
$(764) |
| |
Non-Performance Based Fee Advisory Accounts | |||||
| |
Registered Investment Companies |
Other Pooled Investment Vehicles |
Other Accounts | |||
| |
Number of Accounts |
Total Assets ($thousands) |
Number of Accounts |
Total Assets ($thousands) |
Number of Accounts |
Total Assets ($thousands) |
| Flexible Debt ETF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bob Michele |
2 |
$4,115,529 |
11 |
$7,591,436 |
5 |
$2,965,577 |
| Iain Stealey |
3 |
4,287,507 |
33 |
25,850,313 |
13 |
17,682,021 |
| Lisa Coleman** |
8 |
37,943,771 |
22 |
23,524,590 |
24 |
16,321,003 |
| |
Non-Performance Based Fee Advisory Accounts | |||||
| |
Registered Investment Companies |
Other Pooled Investment Vehicles |
Other Accounts | |||
| |
Number of Accounts |
Total Assets ($thousands) |
Number of Accounts |
Total Assets ($thousands) |
Number of Accounts |
Total Assets ($thousands) |
| Andrew Headley |
10 |
$19,903,246 |
34 |
$21,533,897 |
3 |
$826,455 |
| Jeff Hutz |
1 |
3,526,272 |
14 |
7,502,923 |
2 |
403,250 |
| Andreas Michalitsianos |
1 |
1,228,121 |
23 |
17,796,101 |
22 |
9,103,548 |
| |
Performance Based Fee Advisory Accounts | ||||||||
| Registered Investment Companies |
Other Pooled Investment Vehicles |
Other Accounts | |||||||
| Number of Accounts |
Total Assets ($thousands) |
Number of Accounts |
Total Assets ($thousands) |
Number of Accounts |
Total Assets ($thousands) | ||||
| Flexible Debt ETF |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Bob Michele |
0 |
$0 |
0 |
$0 |
0 |
$0 | |||
| Iain Stealey |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
155,466 | |||
| Lisa Coleman** |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
290,542 | |||
| Andrew Headley |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
48 | |||
| Jeff Hutz |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | |||
| Andreas Michalitsianos |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | |||
| Name of Fund |
Benchmark |
| Flexible Debt ETF |
Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Index |
| |
Fiscal Year Ended | |||||
| |
February 28, 2023 |
February 29, 2024 |
February 28, 2025 | |||
| Fund |
Paid |
Waived |
Paid |
Waived |
Paid |
Waived |
| Unconstrained Debt Fund |
$403 |
$(361) |
$457 |
$(352) |
$444 |
$(376) |
| |
Fiscal Year Ended | ||
| Fund |
February 28, 2023 |
February 29, 2024 |
February 28, 2025 |
| Unconstrained Debt Fund |
$26 |
$27 |
$27 |
| |
Fiscal Year Ended | ||
| Fund |
February 28, 2023 |
February 29, 2024 |
February 28, 2025 |
| Unconstrained Debt Fund | |||
| Total Brokerage Commissions |
$88,925 |
$102,282 |
$95,419 |
| Brokerage Commissions to Affiliated Broker/ Dealers |
— |
— |
— |
| Fund |
Name of Broker-Dealer |
Value of Securities Owned (000's) |
| Unconstrained Debt Fund |
Bank of America Corp. |
$10,424 |
| |
BNP Paribas SA |
5,881 |
| |
Citigroup, Inc. |
16,900 |
| |
Deutsche Bank AG |
2,989 |
| |
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) |
17,307 |
| |
HSBC Holdings plc |
12,323 |
| |
Morgan Stanley |
18,218 |
| |
UBS Group AG |
5,442 |
| |
Wells Fargo & Co. |
9,887 |
| |
Capital Loss Carryforward Character | |
| Fund |
Short-Term |
Long-Term |
| Unconstrained Debt Fund |
$62,263 |
$57,413 |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 3 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 5 | |
| 9 | |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| 10 | |
| 20 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 33 | |
| 41 | |
| 45 | |
| 50 | |
| 50 | |
| 51 | |
| 52 | |
| 53 | |
| 54 | |
| 55 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 56 | |
| 59 | |
| 61 | |
| 62 | |
| 62 | |
| 62 | |
| 63 | |
| 63 | |
| 63 | |
| 64 | |
| 64 | |
| 65 | |
| 66 | |
| 75 | |
| 77 | |
| 77 | |
| 79 | |
| 80 | |
| 82 | |
| 82 | |
| 82 | |
| 83 |
| 83 | |
| 83 | |
| 85 | |
| 85 | |
| 87 | |
| 87 | |
| 91 | |
| 92 | |
| 92 | |
| 94 | |
| 94 | |
| 95 | |
| 95 | |
| 95 | |
| 95 | |
| 96 | |
| 100 | |
| 103 | |
| 104 | |
| 106 | |
| 106 | |
| 107 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 109 | |
| 109 | |
| 110 | |
| 115 | |
| 116 | |
| 117 | |
| 117 | |
| 117 | |
| 120 | |
| 122 | |
| 122 | |
| 122 | |
| 122 | |
| 123 | |
| 123 | |
| 124 | |
| 124 | |
| 125 | |
| 125 | |
| 125 | |
| 125 | |
| 127 | |
| 127 | |
| 129 | |
| 129 | |
| 129 | |
| 130 | |
| 138 |
| Name (Year of Birth; Term of Office, and Length of Time Served)(1) |
Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years (or longer) |
Number of Funds in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee(2) |
Other Trusteeships/ Directorships Held During the Past 5 Years (or longer)(3) |
| Independent Trustees |
|
|
|
| John F. Finn (1947); Chair, since 2020; Trustee, since 1998. |
Chairman, Gardner, Inc. (supply chain management company serving industrial and consumer markets) (serving in various roles 1974–present). |
170 |
Director, Greif, Inc. (GEF) (industrial package products and services) (2007–2023); Trustee, Columbus Association for the Performing Arts (1988- present). |
| Stephen P. Fisher (1959); Trustee, since 2018. |
Retired; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, NYLIFE Distributors LLC (registered broker- dealer) (serving in various roles 2008- 2013); Chairman, NYLIM Service Company LLC (transfer agent) (2008- 2017); New York Life Investment Management LLC (registered investment adviser) (serving in various roles 2005- 2017); Chairman, IndexIQ Advisors LLC (registered investment adviser for ETFs) (2014-2017); President, MainStay VP Funds Trust (2007-2017), MainStay DefinedTerm Municipal Opportunities Fund (2011-2017) and Main- Stay Funds Trust (2007-2017) (registered investment companies). |
170 |
None. |
| Name (Year of Birth; Term of Office, and Length of Time Served)(1) |
Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years (or longer) |
Number of Funds in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee(2) |
Other Trusteeships/ Directorships Held During the Past 5 Years (or longer)(3) |
| Gary L. French (1951); Trustee, since 2014. |
Real Estate Investor (2011-2020); Investment management industry Consultant and Expert Witness (2011-present); Senior Consultant for The Regulatory Fundamentals Group LLC (2011-2017). |
170 |
Independent Trustee, The China Fund, Inc. (2013- 2019); Exchange Traded Concepts Trust II (2012- 2014); Exchange Traded Concepts Trust I (2011- 2014). |
| Kathleen M. Gallagher (1958); Trustee, since 2018. |
Retired; Chief Investment Officer – Benefit Plans, Ford Motor Company (serving in various roles 1985-2016). |
170 |
Non-Executive Director, Legal & General Investment Management (Holdings) (2018- present); Non-Executive Director, Legal & General Investment Management America (U.S. Holdings) (financial services and insurance) (2017- present); Advisory Board Member, State Street Global Advisors Total Portfolio Solutions (2017-present); Member, Client Advisory Council, Financial Engines, LLC (registered investment adviser) (2011-2016); Director, Ford Pension Funds Investment Management Ltd. (2007- 2016). |
| Robert J. Grassi (1957); Trustee, since 2014. |
Sole Proprietor, Academy Hills Advisors LLC (2012- 2024); Pension Director, Corning Incorporated (2002- 2012). |
170 |
None. |
| Frankie D. Hughes (1952); Trustee, since 2008. |
President, Ashland Hughes Properties (property management) (2014–present); President and Chief Investment Officer, Hughes Capital Management, Inc. (fixed income asset management) (1993– 2014). |
170 |
None. |
| Name (Year of Birth; Term of Office, and Length of Time Served)(1) |
Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years (or longer) |
Number of Funds in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee(2) |
Other Trusteeships/ Directorships Held During the Past 5 Years (or longer)(3) |
| Raymond Kanner (1953); Trustee, since 2017. |
Retired; Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer, IBM Retirement Funds (2007–2016). |
170 |
Advisory Board Member, Penso Advisors, LLC (2020- 2024); Advisory Board Member, Los Angeles Capital (2018-present); Advisory Board Member, State Street Global Advisors Total Portfolio Solutions (2017-present); Acting Executive Director, Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets (CIEBA) (2016-2017); Advisory Board Member, Betterment for Business (robo advisor) (2016– 2017); Advisory Board Member, BlueStar Indexes (index creator) (2013–2017); Director, Emerging Markets Growth Fund (registered investment company) (1997-2016); Member, Russell Index Client Advisory Board (2001- 2015). |
| Thomas P. Lemke (1954); Trustee, since 2014. |
Retired since 2013. |
170 |
Independent Trustee of Advisors’ Inner Circle III fund platform, consisting of the following: (i) the Advisors’ Inner Circle Fund III, (ii) the Gallery Trust, (iii) the Schroder Series Trust, (iv) the Delaware Wilshire Private Markets Fund (since 2020), (v) Chiron Capital Allocation Fund Ltd., (vi) formerly the Winton Diversified Opportunities Fund (2014-2018), and (vii) Symmetry Panoramic Trust (since 2018). |
| Lawrence R. Maffia (1950); Trustee, since 2014. |
Retired; Director and President, ICI Mutual Insurance Company (2006-2013). |
170 |
Director, ICI Mutual Insurance Company (1999-2013). |
| Name (Year of Birth; Term of Office, and Length of Time Served)(1) |
Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years (or longer) |
Number of Funds in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee(2) |
Other Trusteeships/ Directorships Held During the Past 5 Years (or longer)(3) |
| Mary E. Martinez (1960); Vice Chair, since 2021; Trustee, since 2013. |
Real Estate Investor/ Adviser (2010– present); Managing Director, Bank of America (asset management) (2007– 2008); Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Trust Asset Management, U.S. Trust Company (asset management) (2003–2007); President, Excelsior Funds (registered investment companies) (2004–2005). |
170 |
None. |
| Marilyn McCoy (1948); Trustee, since 1999. |
Retired; Vice President of Administration and Planning, Northwestern University (1985– 2023). |
170 |
None. |
| Emily A. Youssouf (1951); Trustee, since 2014. |
Adjunct Professor (2011-present) and Clinical Professor (2009-2011), NYU Schack Institute of Real Estate; Board Member and Member of the Audit Committee (2013-present), Chair of Finance Committee (2019-present), Member of Related Parties Committee (2013-2018) and Member of the Enterprise Risk Committee (2015- 2018), PennyMac Financial Services, Inc.; Board Member (2005-2018), Chair of Capital Committee (2006-2016), Chair of Audit Committee (2005-2018), Member of Finance Committee (2005-2018) and Chair of IT Committee (2016-2018), NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation. |
170 |
Trustee, NYC School Construction Authority (2009-present); Board Member, NYS Job Development Authority (2008-present); Trustee and Chair of the Audit Committee of the Transit Center Foundation (2015-2019). |
| Interested Trustees |
|
|
|
| Name (Year of Birth; Term of Office, and Length of Time Served)(1) |
Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years (or longer) |
Number of Funds in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee(2) |
Other Trusteeships/ Directorships Held During the Past 5 Years (or longer)(3) |
| Robert F. Deutsch(4) (1957); Trustee, since 2014. |
Retired; Head of ETF Business for JPMorgan Asset Management (2013-2017); Head of Global Liquidity Business for JPMorgan Asset Management (2003-2013). |
170 |
Treasurer and Director of the JUST Capital Foundation (2017- present); Advisory Board Chair, Lerner Business School at the University of Delaware (2018- present). |
| Nina O. Shenker(4) (1957); Trustee, since 2022. |
Vice Chair (2017- 2021), General Counsel and Managing Director (2008-2016), Associate General Counsel and Managing Director (2004-2008), J.P. Morgan Asset & Wealth Management. |
170 |
Director and Member of Executive, Legal and Human Resources Committees; American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (2018-present). |
| Name of Committee |
Members |
Committee Chair |
| Audit and Valuation Committee |
Ms. Gallagher Mr. Maffia Mr. French Mr. Kanner |
Ms. Gallagher |
| Compliance Committee |
Mr. Lemke Mr. Fisher Mr. Grassi Ms. Hughes |
Mr. Lemke |
| Name of Committee |
Members |
Committee Chair |
| Governance Committee |
Ms. Martinez Mr. Finn Mr. Fisher Ms. McCoy |
Ms. Martinez |
| ETF Committee |
Mr. Deutsch Ms. Gallagher Ms. Hughes Mr. Kanner Ms. Shenker Ms. Youssouf |
Mr. Deutsch |
| Equity Committee |
Mr. Kanner Mr. French Mr. Maffia Ms. McCoy |
Mr. Kanner |
| Fixed Income Committee |
Mr. Grassi Ms. Hughes Ms. Shenker Ms. Youssouf |
Mr. Grassi |
| Money Market and Alternative Products Committee |
Mr. Fisher Mr. Deutsch Ms. Gallagher Mr. Lemke |
Mr. Fisher |
| Name (Year of Birth), Positions Held with the Trust (Since) |
Principal Occupations During Past 5 Years |
| Erika K. Messbarger (1987), Assistant Secretary (2025)* |
Assistant Vice President and Senior Counsel, JPMorgan Chase; Ms. Messbarger has been with JPMorgan Chase since October 2011. |
| Henry F. Pickell (1980), Assistant Secretary (2025)* |
Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase; Mr. Pickell has been with JPMorgan Chase since July 2018. |
| Max Vogel (1990), Assistant Secretary (2021) |
Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase since June 2021; Associate, Proskauer Rose LLP (law firm) from March 2017 to June 2021. |
| Zachary E. Vonnegut-Gabovitch (1986), Assistant Secretary (2017) |
Executive Director and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase. Mr. Vonnegut-Gabovitch has been with JPMorgan Chase since September 2016. |
| Frederick J. Cavaliere (1978), Assistant Treasurer (2015)** |
Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Mr. Cavaliere has been with JPMorgan since May 2006. |
| Michael M. D’Ambrosio (1969), Assistant Treasurer (2014) |
Managing Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Mr. D’Ambrosio has been with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since 2012. |
| Aleksandr Fleytekh (1972), Assistant Treasurer (2023) |
Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Mr. Fleytekh has been with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since February 2012. |
| Shannon Gaines (1977), Assistant Treasurer (2019)* |
Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Mr. Gaines has been with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since January 2014. |
| Jeffrey D. House (1972), Assistant Treasurer (2023)* |
Vice President, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Mr. House has been with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since July 2006. |
| Nektarios E. Manolakakis (1972), Assistant Treasurer (2020) |
Managing Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since 2025, formerly Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since February 2021, formerly Vice President, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since 2014; Vice President, J.P. Morgan Corporate & Investment Bank 2010-2014. |
| Joseph Parascondola (1963), Assistant Treasurer (2023)** |
Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Mr. Parascondola has been with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since 2006. |
| Gillian I. Sands (1969), Assistant Treasurer (2023) |
Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. Ms. Sands has been with J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since September 2012. |
| Tier One |
Up to $15 billion |
0.0030% |
| Tier Two |
Next $85 billion |
0.0025% |
| Tier Three |
Over $100 billion |
0.0015% |
| |
|
|
| Other Fees: |
|
|
| Minimum |
|
$20,000 per Fund per year |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Receive annual report and accounts |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the financial statements give a true and fair view of the financial position of the Company for the recent fiscal year, and of its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with the law. |
| Accept financial statements/statutory report |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the financial statements give a true and fair view of the financial position of the Company for the recent fiscal year, and of its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with the law. |
| Accept accounting irregularity |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the financial statements give a true and fair view of the financial position of the Company for the recent fiscal year, and of its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with the law. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Ratify auditor appointment and remuneration |
We generally recommend FOR the auditor when the following conditions are met: 1) non-audit fees do not make up a substantial proportion of all fees the auditor is charging the company; 2) auditor tenure ˂ 20 years; 3) total auditor fees (universe percentile) ˂75th percentile; and 4) total auditor sanctions, last 10 years ˂ 10. The purpose is to maintain some independence for the auditor. |
| Remove auditor |
We generally recommend a vote FOR the removal of the auditors whenever the Company may deem it necessary to ensure auditor independence and integrity. |
| Ratify auditor appointment |
We generally recommend FOR the auditor when the following conditions are met: 1) non-audit fees do not make up a substantial proportion of all fees the auditor is charging the company; 2) auditor tenure ˂ 20 years; 3) total auditor fees (universe percentile) ˂75th percentile; and 4) total auditor sanctions, last 10 years ˂ 10. The purpose is to maintain some independence for the auditor. |
| Ratify auditor or director remuneration |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the proposed director and auditor emoluments are commensurate with their efforts, services rendered, and contribution to the Company. |
| Approve discharge of auditors |
We generally recommend FOR because after reviewing the auditor acts for the fiscal year that has ended, we find it advisable to grant discharge from liability to the auditors. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Approve share repurchase plan |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Stock exchange listing |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, approval of the stock exchange listing would create investment opportunities for the Company and provide greater liquidity while diversifying the risks associated with it. |
| Increase authorized shares |
We generally recommend FOR except when one of the following conditions is met: 1) The new proposed stock is ˃50% of total authorized shares of common stock; 2) The increase is NOT tied to a specific transaction or financing proposal; and 3) The Share pool was NOT used up due to equity plans. |
| Exchange debt for equity |
We generally recommend FOR if the transaction is the best available option for current equity holders. |
| Re-price options |
We generally recommend FOR when the company's current share price is below the original strike price and when the new option strike price divided by the current option strike price is less than 1.2. |
| Approve dividends |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the proposed dividend payout will not put the companýs liquidity at risk. |
| Allot securities |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the allotment of shares or securities will enable the Company to capitalize on future business opportunities. This flexibility provides the Company with the ability to act promptly and strategically to business decisions, ensuring it remains competitive and well-positioned for long-term success. |
| Issue bonds |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, approval of this proposal will give the Company greater flexibility in considering and planning for future corporate needs, including, but not limited to, stock dividends, grants under equity compensation plans, stock splits, financings, potential strategic transactions, including mergers, acquisitions, and business combinations, as well as other general corporate transactions. |
| Change share par value |
We generally recommend FOR when the new par value is less than or equal to old par value. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Split stock / reverse split |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the proposed reverse stock split would make the Company’s common stock a more attractive and cost-effective investment for many investors, thereby enhancing the liquidity of current stockholders and potentially broadening the investor base. |
| Reclassify shares |
We generally recommend FOR unless the new shares will have superior voting rights to outstanding shares. |
| Issue shares upon exercise of warrants |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the proposed issuance of shares will provide the Company with a source of capital to fund its corporate endeavors and activities. |
| Repurchase bonds |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Decrease authorized shares |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the proposed decrease in authorized shares will provide the Company with greater strategic flexibility in managing dilution and its capital structure. |
| Issue shares below NAV |
We generally recommend FOR if the shares to be issued below NAV are 25% or less of the outstanding shares. |
| Approve stock terms revision |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Issue shares |
We generally recommend FOR except when one of the following conditions is met: 1) The new proposed stock is ˃50% of total authorized shares of common stock; 2) The increase is NOT tied to a specific transaction or financing proposal; and 3) The Share pool was NOT used up due to equity plans. |
| Convert shares |
We generally recommend FOR if the conversion would provide equal rights to shareholders. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Approve sustainability auditor |
We generally recommend FOR the auditor when the following conditions are met: 1) non-audit fees do not make up a substantial proportion of all fees the auditor is charging the company; 2) auditor tenure ˂ 20 years; 3) total auditor fees (universe percentile) ˂75th percentile; and 4) total auditor sanctions, last 10 years ˂ 10. The purpose is to maintain some independence for the auditor. |
| Approve sustainability report |
We generally recommend a vote FOR because according to our policy, the proposed report demonstrates the Company’s commitment to sustainability and provides valuable information about its ongoing initiatives. This transparency enables shareholders to better understand the Company’s sustainability efforts and progress, aligning with best practices in corporate responsibility and long-term value creation. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Approve employment/management/ severance/partnership agreement |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Distribute profit/dividend/etc according to plan |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the proposed distribution plan will not put the companýs liquidity at risk. |
| Approve executive/director/related party transactions |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the related party transaction is advisable, substantively and procedurally fair to, and in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. |
| Approve employee stock purchase plan |
We generally recommend FOR if the following conditions are met: 1) option exercise price / current fair market value of the stock is reasonable and 2) the plan qualifies under section 423(c). |
| Approve incentive stock option plan (non- SPAC) |
We generally recommend FOR when the plan results in dilution of less than 10%. |
| Approve retirement plan / allowance |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Approve incentive stock option plan (SPAC) |
We generally recommend FOR if the plan is for the newly formed entity arising from the business combination with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) and the authorized share pool doesn’t exceed 3% of the new entity’s authorized share capital. |
| Approve other compensation |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Approve bonuses |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Authorize board to fill vacancies |
We generally recommend FOR if the appointees will face a shareholder vote at the next annual meeting. |
| Approve director liability insurance |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, approval of director liability insurance would enable the Company to provide a greater scope of protection to directors in cases of litigations. Further, such a provision would also help the Company to attract, retain and motivate its directors whose efforts are essential to the Company's success. |
| Approve spill resolution |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Remove director without cause |
We generally recommend a vote FOR because according to our policy, allowing shareholders to remove a director without cause enhances accountability and strengthens shareholder rights. This provision empowers shareholders to take action if they believe a director is not acting in the best interests of the company, ensuring greater transparency and governance. |
| Remove director only with cause |
We generally recommend AGAINST the proposal because according to our policy, directors should be removed with or without cause. This level of flexibility allows the Company to make necessary changes to its leadership when deemed appropriate. Allowing for the removal of directors with or without cause ensures that the Board can effectively address issues such as performance concerns and maintain the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. |
| Adopt/amend board nomination procedure |
We generally recommend FOR if the following conditions are met: the candidate nominations can be submitted within 90 days of the annual meeting and the director information disclosure is required. |
| Approve director indemnification |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, approval of director indemnification would enable the Company to provide a greater scope of protection to directors in cases of litigations. Further, such a provision would also help the Company to attract, retain and motivate its directors whose efforts are essential to the Company's success. |
| Change number of directors |
We generally recommend FOR if the board size is between 5 and 15. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Authorize exculpation of officers (DGCL) |
We generally recommend a vote FOR because according to our policy, implementation of the exculpation provision pursuant to Delaware Law will enable the Company to attract, retain and motivate its officers whose efforts are essential to the Company's success. Additionally, Delaware's exculpation law strikes a balanced approach, offering protection to directors while ensuring accountability for significant breaches of their fiduciary duties. |
| This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. | |
| Eliminate retirement age requirement |
We generally recommend FOR this proposal because, in accordance with our policy, the Company and its shareholders are in the best position to determine the approach to corporate governance, particularly board composition. Imposing inflexible rules, such as age limits for outside directors, does not necessarily correlate with returns or benefits for shareholders. Similar to arbitrary term limits, age limits could force valuable directors off the board solely based on their age, potentially undermining the effectiveness of the board. |
| Declassify the board |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, staggered terms for directors increase the difficulty for shareholders to make fundamental changes to the composition and behavior of a board. We prefer that the entire board of a company be elected annually to provide appropriate responsiveness to shareholders. |
| Classify the board |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, staggered terms for directors increase the difficulty for shareholders to make fundamental changes to the composition and behavior of a board. We prefer that the entire board of a company be elected annually to provide appropriate responsiveness to shareholders. |
| Change size of board of directors |
We generally recommend FOR if the board size is between 5 and 15. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Change domicile / jurisdiction of incorporation |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, changing the Company’s legal domicile is necessary to align the legal structure of the Company in a manner that is more consistent with their business objectives. |
| Approve joint venture agreement |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Approve recapitalization plan |
We generally recommend FOR unless the new shares will have superior voting rights to outstanding shares. |
| Approve restructuring |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Advise on merger related compensation |
We generally recommend FOR if any of the following conditions are met: 1) The payout to the executive is reasonable (less than 3x severance package), 2) the payout is triggered after the transaction closes, 3) Payouts do not accelerate vesting of equity awards or 4) payouts only occur given the executive's termination. |
| Approve liquidation plan |
We generally recommend FOR if the following conditions are met: the transaction is the best strategic alternative for the company and the appraisal value is fair. |
| Approve M&A agreement (sale or purchase) |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Adopt greenmail provision |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, the adoption of greenmail provision will pave the way for a potential hostile takeover which could be detrimental to the shareholders’ interests. |
| Approve M&A share issuance |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Approve anti-takeover measures |
We generally recommend FOR if the following conditions are met: it is a family controlled entity, there is a change in ownership, and if the meeting is not contested. |
| Proceed with bankruptcy |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, approval of the bankruptcy plan is the best available alternative in order for the Company to provide a reasonable value for its shareholders. |
| Approve opt-out plan |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Remove antitakeover provision |
We generally recommend FOR if the following conditions are met: it is a family controlled entity, there is a change in ownership, and if the meeting is not contested. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Ratify poison pill |
We generally recommend a vote FOR because according to our policy, approval of the proposal will acknowledge both the advantages and inherent risks of implementing a shareholder rights plan, or poison pill. While these plans can deter hostile takeovers, they also carry the risk of management entrenchment in some cases. Ensuring that shareholders are given a voice on the advisability of such a plan is crucial to safeguarding the Company from these risks, promoting transparency, and maintaining a balance between protecting shareholder interests and preventing potential misuse of the plan. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Allow virtual-only shareholder meetings |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, virtual meetings will increase the likelihood of an improved attendance rate in meetings, not to mention the benefits of flexibility, reducing costs and improved accessibility. |
| Adopt notice and access provisions |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, approval of the notice and access provision would provide shareholders with sufficient disclosure and ample time to make informed decisions regarding the election of directors at shareholder meetings. This provision ensures that shareholders have the opportunity to review relevant information regarding the nominees, the Company's performance, and other important matters, therefore enabling the shareholders to participate meaningfully in the governance process. |
| Expand right to act by written consent |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the right to act on written consent allows an increased participation of shareholders in the voting process, thereby democratizing voting and giving shareholders the right to act independently from the management. |
| Approve previous meeting minutes |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, approval of this proposal is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. |
| Elect chairman of the meeting |
We generally recommend FOR because electing a presiding person would allow the Company to facilitate the meeting in an organized manner. |
| Adjourn meeting |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, approval of the adjournment will enable the Company to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient votes at the time of the meeting to approve a certain proposal. |
| Change fiscal year end |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the proposal would enable the Company to optimize its financial reporting, improve the timeliness of business operations and strategic planning, and better align its fiscal year-end with that of its peers. This alignment will enhance comparability, improve operational efficiency, and support more effective decision- making. |
| Restrict right to act by written consent |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, the right to act on written consent allows an increased participation of shareholders in the voting process, thereby democratizing voting and giving the shareholders the right to act independently from the management. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Restrict right to call a special meeting |
We generally recommend AGAINST the proposal because according to our policy, the ability of shareholders to call special meetings is widely regarded as an important aspect of good corporate governance. We believe the Company’s current threshold appropriately balances the rights of shareholders to call a special meeting with the broader interests of the Company and its shareholders. |
| Create notice period of general meeting |
We generally recommend voting FOR this proposal because, in accordance with our policy, there may be situations where it is crucial for the Company to call meetings on short notice. This proposal would authorize the Company to convene general meetings (other than the annual general meeting) with a minimum of 14 clear days' notice, enabling timely action on matters that are urgent or time-sensitive for the Company. |
| Appoint independent proxy |
We generally recommend a vote FOR because according to our policy, appointment of the independent proxy is necessary to convene the shareholders meeting. |
| Change location / date / time |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the proposed change will increase the likelihood of increased attendance rate in meetings, not to mention the benefits of flexibility and improved accessibility to shareholders. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Approve sub-investment advisory agreement |
We generally recommend FOR if the following conditions are met: the investment fees are reasonable and the investment strategy is cogent. |
| Adopt investment policy |
We generally recommend FOR if the investment strategy is cogent. |
| Convert to open-end fund |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the conversion to an open-end fund would provide for portfolio diversification hence reducing the Company's risk exposure, and at the same time providing greater liquidity to its shareholders. |
| Approve investment advisory agreement |
We generally recommend FOR if the following conditions are met: the investment fees are reasonable and the investment strategy is cogent. |
| Approve non-fundamental investment objective |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, a fundamental investment objective for funds will ensure that any revision or matter related to the fund’s activities will be brought up for shareholder approval, thereby protecting their interests as shareowners. |
| Approve management agreement |
We generally recommend FOR if the following conditions are met: the investment fees are reasonable and the investment strategy is cogent. |
| Issue/approve 12b-1 plan (distribution of funds through intermediaries) |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, approval of the 12b-1 plan would enable the Fund to facilitate its distribution and sale through various intermediaries, which would be beneficial in improving its asset position. |
| Change fundamental restriction to non- fundamental |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of the proposal would increase the Fund’s exposure to significant losses arising from investment in high-risk assets. Moreover, contrary to a fundamental investment restriction, non-fundamental investment restrictions are often focused on short-term investing which is subject to market volatility and fluctuations. |
| Approve company as investment trust |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Approve fundamental investment objective |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, a fundamental investment objective for funds will ensure that any revision or matter related to the fund’s activities will be brought up for shareholder approval, thereby protecting their interests as shareowners. By involving shareholders in key decisions, the Company reinforces transparency, accountability, and the protection of shareholder value. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Appropriate profits/surplus |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the proposed allocation of profits or earnings is commensurate with the Company’s current financial position. |
| Advise on executive compensation (SAY-ON- PAY) |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Decide frequency of executive compensation |
We generally recommend an annual frequency for the say-on- pay vote. |
| Approve directors' compensation |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the proposed director emoluments are commensurate with the directors’ efforts and contributions, and approval of the proposal would enable the Company to attract, retain and motivate its directors who are essential to the Company's success. |
| Approve named executive officers' compensation |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Reduce of legal reserve |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the proposed reduction of legal reserves is commensurate with the Company’s current financial position and would strengthen its cashflow. |
| Appropriate profits/surplus |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the proposed allocation of profits or earnings is commensurate with the Company’s current financial position. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Approve discharge of supervisory board |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, we find no breach of fiduciary duty that compromised the Company and shareholders’ interests for the fiscal year that has ended. |
| Receive directors' report |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the financial statements give a true and fair view of the financial position of the Company for the recent fiscal year, and of its financial performance and its cash flows for the year that has ended. |
| Approve discharge of management board |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, we find no breach of fiduciary duty that compromised the Company and shareholders’ interests for the fiscal year that has ended. |
| Approve discharge of board and president |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, we find no breach of fiduciary duty that compromised the Company and shareholders’ interests for the fiscal year that has ended. |
| Elect company clerk/secretary |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the nominee appears qualified. |
| Authorization to the board to execute legal formalities |
We generally recommend FOR because approval of the proposal is necessary in order to carry out the legal formalities related to the meeting. |
| Approve previous board's actions |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, we find no breach of fiduciary duty that compromised the Company and shareholders’ interests for the fiscal year that has ended. |
| Approve directors' report |
We generally recommend FOR because approval of the directors' report is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. |
| Approve financial statements and discharge directors |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the financial statements give a true and fair view of the financial position of the Company for the recent fiscal year, and of its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with the law. |
| Fix number of directors |
We generally recommend FOR if the board size is between 5 and 15. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Elect director to committee |
We generally recommend FOR when the change in adj stock price over the director's tenure is poor (given that the director tenure is at least three years) and when the following governance requirements are met: 1) the candidate attended at least 75% of all board and committee meetings, 2) the candidate is not affiliated and a member of the audit, compensation, or nominating committees, 3) the candidate is not over-boarded, and 4) the Company did not earn a poor cybersecurity risk score while the candidate served as the chair of the board. |
| Elect directors and fix the number of directors |
We generally recommend FOR when the change in adj stock price over the director's tenure is poor (given that the director tenure is at least three years) and when the following governance requirements are met: 1) the candidate attended at least 75% of all board and committee meetings, 2) the candidate is not affiliated and a member of the audit, compensation, or nominating committees, 3) the candidate is not over-boarded, and 4) the Company did not earn a poor cybersecurity risk score while the candidate served as the chair of the board. |
| Delegate authority to a committee |
We generally recommend FOR because the delegation of authority to the committee is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. |
| Elect director to board |
We generally recommend FOR when the change in adj stock price over the director's tenure is poor (given that the director tenure is at least three years) and when the following governance requirements are met: 1) the candidate attended at least 75% of all board and committee meetings, 2) the candidate is not affiliated and a member of the audit, compensation, or nominating committees, 3) the candidate is not over-boarded, and 4) the Company did not earn a poor cybersecurity risk score while the candidate served as the chair of the board. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Appoint censor |
We generally recommend FOR because appointment of the censor would ensure the integrity of the voting process at the shareholders' meeting. |
| Appoint rating agency |
We generally recommend FOR because the appointment of the proposed rating agency is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. |
| Corporate assembly |
We generally recommend FOR because approval of the convening of the corporate assembly or shareholders' meeting is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. |
| Approve acts - ratify the decisions made in the prior fiscal year (e.g., distribution of initial dividend, discharge of liability) |
We generally recommend a vote FOR the approval of acts carried out as of the fiscal year that has ended because according to our policy, we believe that the decisions made by the directors on the Company’s behalf is in the best interests of shareholders. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Adopt, renew, or amend shareholder rights plan |
We generally recommend FOR if the proposed plan expands rights for shareholders. |
| Redeem shareholder rights plan |
We generally recommend FOR when the additional shares for the beneficiaries of the poison pill are more attractive than takeover by a hostile party. |
| Approve preemptive rights |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, pre-emptive rights allow shareholders to maintain their proportional ownership in the Company in the event of new share issuance, protecting their interests and ensuring they are not diluted by future equity offerings. |
| Eliminate preemptive rights |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the elimination of pre-emptive rights would provide the Company with greater flexibility to finance business opportunities and conduct a rights issue without being restricted by the stringent requirements of statutory pre-emption provisions. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Adopt advanced notice requirement |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, advance notice requirement would protect the Company and its shareholders from ambush proxy solicitations thereby facilitating the nomination of individuals for election in an orderly process. |
| Adopt confidential voting |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, approval of the proposal will preserve the confidentiality and integrity of vote outcomes. |
| Adopt exclusive forum for disputes |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, having an exclusive forum will allow the Company to address disputes and litigations in an exclusive jurisdiction, with familiarity of the law, and reduce the administrative cost and burden related to settlement. |
| Approve cumulative voting |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy cumulative voting could make it possible for an individual shareholder or group of shareholders with special interests to elect one or more directors to the Company’s Board of directors to represent their particular interests. Such a shareholder or group of shareholders could have goals that are inconsistent, and could conflict with, the interests and goals of the majority of the Company’s shareholders. |
| Eliminate unequal voting rights |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, companies should ensure that all shareholders are provided with equal voting rights, promoting fairness, accountability, and alignment between economic ownership and control. By adopting a one-share, one-vote structure, the Company can better uphold shareholder democracy and support long-term value creation for all investors. |
| Eliminate cumulative voting |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy cumulative voting could make it possible for an individual shareholder or group of shareholders with special interests to elect one or more directors to the Company’s Board of directors to represent their particular interests. Such a shareholder or group of shareholders could have goals that are inconsistent, and could conflict with, the interests and goals of the majority of the Company’s shareholders. |
| Adopt unequal voting rights |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, in order to provide equal voting rights to all shareholders, companies should not utilize dual class capital structures. |
| Eliminate confidential voting |
We generally recommend AGAINST because approval of the proposal will compromise confidentiality and integrity of vote outcomes. |
| Reimburse proxy contest expenses |
We generally recommend FOR when Egan-Jones recommends in favor of the dissidents. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Amend quorum/voting requirement |
We generally recommend FOR when the proposed quorum is at least 33% of shares entitled to vote. |
| Adopt majority vote for director elections |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, a simple majority vote in director elections will strengthen the Company’s corporate governance practice. Contrary to plurality voting, a simple majority standard will give the shareholders a meaningful way of electing directors by limiting the power of shareholders to elect poorly performing directors. |
| Approve/increase supermajority voting |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, a simple majority vote will strengthen the Company’s corporate governance practice. Contrary to supermajority voting, a simple majority standard will give the shareholders equal and fair representation in the Company by limiting the power of shareholders who own a large stake in the entity, therefore, paving the way for a more meaningful voting outcome. |
| Establish right to call a special meeting |
We generally recommend FOR if at least 10% of voting shares are required to call a special meeting. |
| Eliminate/reduce supermajority voting |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, a simple majority vote will strengthen the Company’s corporate governance practice. Contrary to supermajority voting, a simple majority standard will give the shareholders equal and fair representation in the Company by limiting the power of shareholders who own a large stake in the entity and paving the way for a more meaningful voting outcome. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Amend other articles/bylaws/charter |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Approve continuance of company |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, approval of this proposal is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. |
| Attend to other business |
We generally recommend FOR when the company is domiciled in the US or Canada. |
| Approve company name change |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the proposed name change supports strategic changes that enhance the Company’s business objectives. Furthermore, the proposed name change will more effectively reflect the Company's mission and vision, thereby strengthening its marketing and branding efforts and improving its overall market positioning. |
| Approve political & charitable contributions |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, it is necessary to allow the Company to fund charitable and political activities, which is in the best interests of shareholders. Such contributions can enhance the Company’s reputation, strengthen stakeholder relationships, and support its broader social and corporate responsibility goals, ultimately benefiting long-term shareholder value. |
| Establish power to execute legal formalities |
|
| Adopt MacBride Principles, Sullivan Principles, or similar |
We generally recommend AGAINST because adoption of this proposal would be duplicative and would make the Company unnecessarily accountable to different sets of overlapping fair employment guidelines that are already covered in its policies. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Appoint auditor |
We generally recommend a vote AGAINST because according to our policy, the appointment of auditors is a responsibility entrusted to the board of directors, specifically the Audit Committee. In our view, the procedures governing the selection of auditors adhere to standard corporate governance and accounting practices. Unless there are significant concerns that could jeopardize the integrity and independence of the auditors, we believe that approving this proposal is neither necessary nor justified at this time. |
| Limit auditor non-audit services |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, auditors should not provide non-audit services. This practice ensures the independence and integrity of the audit process, maintaining objectivity and minimizing any potential conflicts of interest that could undermine the reliability of the Company's financial reporting. |
| Rotate auditor |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, we have seen no evidence that the auditor's integrity, professionalism, or independence is in question |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Report on proxy voting review |
We generally recommend FOR this proposal when at least 40% of 13 specific board governance criteria are being met. These criteria include items such as: say-on-pay is on the agenda, the CEO and chairman positions are held by different people, and all classes of stock have equal voting rights. |
| Report on board oversight |
We generally recommend FOR this proposal when at least 40% of 13 specific board governance criteria are being met. These criteria include items such as: say-on-pay is on the agenda, the CEO and chairman positions are held by different people, and all classes of stock have equal voting rights. |
| Report on board member information |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, the information being requested in the shareholder proposal is unnecessary and will not result in any additional benefit to the shareholders. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Require shareholder approval to reclassify shares or conversion rights |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, companies should ensure that all shareholders are provided with equal voting rights, promoting fairness, accountability, and alignment between economic ownership and control. By adopting a one-share, one-vote structure, the Company can better uphold shareholder democracy and support long-term value creation for all investors. |
| Repurchase shares |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, while share repurchases can be beneficial for companies in many cases, the repurchase suggested in this proposal is unnecessary and misaligned with the current needs of the Company. At this time, the Company's resources are better utilized elsewhere, and the proposed repurchase does not support the long-term strategy or financial objectives that would maximize value for shareholders. |
| Issue shares |
We generally recommend a vote AGAINST this proposal because according to our policy, the approval could cause potential excessive dilution in the interests of the shareholders and could potentially overvalue the Company’s stock price with such an excessive issuance that is disproportionate to its needs. |
| Issue dividend |
We recommend a vote AGAINST this proposal because according to our policy, the Company’s dividend payout plan should be governed by the board of directors after taking into account relevant factors such as the Company’s liquidity and financial position. |
| Require shareholder approval to authorize issuance of bonds/debentures |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Convert shares |
We generally recommend FOR if the conversion would provide equal rights to shareholders. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Report on costs and risks associated with climate plan or similar |
We generally recommend FOR unless one of the following is true: 1) the report is clearly and fully redundant with other reporting required of the Company or 2) the disclosure is an audit. |
| Adopt climate action plan / emissions reduction / resource restriction |
We generally recommend AGAINST the proposal, because, according to our policy, its approval would not provide additional benefits or value to shareholders, given the Company’s existing robust policy and strategy on climate change. |
| Report on climate plan / emissions / resource use |
We generally recommend FOR unless one of the following is true: 1) the report is clearly and fully redundant with other reporting required of the Company or 2) the disclosure is an audit. |
| Report on animal welfare |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of this proposal would result in the Company incurring unnecessary costs and expenses by duplicating efforts that are already underway and providing additional reports with information that is already available to shareholders. |
| Adopt animal welfare standards |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, the matters raised in the proposal have already been addressed by the Company. Moreover, the proposal advocates for impractical and imprudent actions that could negatively impact the business and its results. |
| Reduce fossil fuel financing |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, the Company is already committed to meeting its climate action goals related to sustainable financing. As businesses move to achieving their net zero goals, we believe that the Company’s current policies in financing will bridge the transition to a low carbon economy. |
| Report on GMO |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, preparing a report regarding GMOs would provide no incremental and meaningful information to the Company’s shareholders. Moreover, given the Company’s current compliance with SEC reporting requirements and other government regulators of GMOs, we believe that approval of this proposal will accrue unnecessary costs and administrative burden to the Company. |
| Adopt GMO policy |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of the proposal would impose unnecessary burdens on the Company's operations. |
| Approve annual advisory vote on climate change |
We generally recommend FOR unless one of the following is true: 1) the report is clearly and fully redundant with other reporting required of the Company or 2) the disclosure is an audit. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Report on executive compensation |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Include performance metrics in compensation |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Use deferral period for compensation |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Implement double triggered vesting |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, vesting of equity awards over a period of time is intended to promote long-term improvements in performance. The link between pay and long-term performance can be severed if awards pay out on an accelerated schedule. More importantly, a double trigger vesting provision would provide protection to the Company’s employees in the event of transition or change of control. |
| Adopt advisory vote on executive compensation |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Discontinue stock option and bonus programs |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Use GAAP metrics for compensation |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Cap executive gross pay |
We generally recommend AGAINST this proposal because according to our policy, implementing a cap on executive compensation gross pay, could negatively impact the hiring and retention of the Company's key executives and employees. Such a restriction would limit the Company’s ability to fully capitalize on the skills, expertise, and experience that individual leaders bring to the organization. |
| Amend clawback provision |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Deduct stock buybacks from pay |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Exclude legal/compliance costs in adjustments |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Discontinue professional services allowance |
We generally recommend FOR the proposal because according to our policy, approval of the proposal would limit the use of corporate funds for the personal benefit of executives. Moreover, we believe that the current compensation package for the Named Executive Officers (NEOs) already adequately covers such expenses through base salary, bonuses, and stock awards, rendering the proposed use of additional corporate funds unnecessary. |
| Expense stock options |
We generally recommend FOR when the total compensation is reasonable considering the company's performance as measured by change in adjusted stock price, and considering the following governance requirements: 1) the company did not have an unjustified performance metric change without shareholder approval, 2) the company does not have a 'pay-for-failure' severance provisions and 3) the company has a no-trigger or single-trigger change-in-control provision. |
| Require executives retain shares |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, requiring senior executives to hold a significant portion of stock obtained through executive pay plans aligns the interests of executives with the long-term success of the Company, encouraging decisions that drive sustained value for shareholders and promoting a focus on long-term growth. |
| Approve retirement plan |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Prohibit equity vesting for government service |
We generally recommend AGAINST the proposal, as, according to our policy, its implementation could hinder the Company’s ability to attract key employees. Additionally, it could inadvertently penalize individuals who may wish to enter or return to governmental service. |
| Require shareholder vote to ratify executive or director severance pay |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, excessive executive compensation packages has been an ongoing cause of concern among shareholders and investors. While the Company argues that its severance and termination payments are reasonable, we believe that it is in the best interests of the stockholders if they ratify executive compensation in such form. We believe that approval of this proposal will enable the stockholders to voice their views and opinions regarding the Company’s executive severance payments and will ensure decisions are in their best interests. |
| Remove tax gross-ups |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, tax gross-ups payments can lead to unclear compensation packages and do not align with performance-based incentives. Additionally, tax gross-ups can represent a significant cost to companies without providing meaningful benefits to recipients. By eliminating such payments, the Company can promote more transparent, performance-driven compensation structures. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Eliminate term limits |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, elimination of term limits will help the Company to attract, retain and motivate directors who can contribute valuable insights and long-term strategic guidance. This will also ensure continuity and strengthen the Company's governance by retaining knowledgeable and capable leadership of experienced directors. |
| Decrease required director experience / expertise / diversity |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, the director requirement has already been addressed with current composition and qualifications of the board. | |
| Introduce retirement age requirement |
We generally recommend AGAINST this proposal because, in accordance with our policy, the Company and its shareholders are in the best position to determine the approach to corporate governance, particularly board composition. Imposing inflexible rules, such as age limits for outside directors, does not necessarily correlate with returns or benefits for shareholders. Similar to arbitrary term limits, age limits could force valuable directors off the board solely based on their age, potentially undermining the effectiveness of the board. |
| Require stock ownership for directors |
We generally recommend FOR if the following conditions are met: 1) The cash value of required ownership does not exceed the one-year salary of the lowest-paid director and 2) the director has at least 3 years from their start date to meet the requirement. |
| Declassify the board |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, staggered terms for directors increase the difficulty for shareholders to make fundamental changes to the composition and behavior of a board. We prefer that the entire board of a company be elected annually to provide appropriate responsiveness to shareholders. |
| Create key committee |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the board of directors should establish key Board committees— namely Audit, Compensation, and Nominating committees— composed solely of independent outside directors. This structure ensures sound corporate governance practices, enhances objectivity, and strengthens the oversight of critical areas within the Company. |
| Separate Chairman and CEO positions |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy we believe that there is an inherent potential conflict, in having an inside director serve as the Chairman of the board. Consequently, we prefer that companies separate the roles of the Chairman and CEO and that the Chairman be independent to further ensure board independence and accountability. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Change size of board of directors |
We generally recommend FOR if the board size is between 5 and 15. |
| Eliminate retirement age requirement |
We generally recommend FOR this proposal because, in accordance with our policy, the Company and its shareholders are in the best position to determine the approach to corporate governance, particularly board composition. Imposing inflexible rules, such as age limits for outside directors, does not necessarily correlate with returns or benefits for shareholders. Similar to arbitrary term limits, age limits could force valuable directors off the board solely based on their age, potentially undermining the effectiveness of the board. |
| Introduce term limits |
We generally recommend against this proposal because, in accordance with our policy, it would not serve a useful purpose. Having experienced directors on the board is crucial for the Company’s long-term success and the enhancement of shareholder value. |
| Amend indemnification/liability provisions |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, approval of the indemnification and liability provisions will enable the Company to attract, retain, and motivate its directors, whose efforts are crucial to its long-term success. By providing directors with appropriate protection against personal liability, the Company ensures that directors can make decisions in the best interests of the Company without undue concern about personal financial risks. |
| Ensure compensation advisor independence |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, approval of the proposal would recognize the valuable role of a compensation advisor in ensuring that the Company’s compensation decisions are made based on independent and impartial advice. This helps to ensure fairness and objectivity in setting executive compensation, aligning it with the Company’s long-term goals and best interests of its shareholders. |
| Designate independent chairman |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, there is an inherent potential conflict in having a non- independent director serve as Chairman of the Board. To further ensure independence and accountability in the board room, we believe it is crucial for the Chairman to be independent. This structure enhances effective governance and strengthens the oversight of management, ultimately benefiting the Company and its shareholders. |
| Plan CEO succession |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, a CEO succession plan would safeguard a smooth transition and alignment into a new leadership whenever the need arises, thereby ensuring continuity and shareholder confidence in the Company. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Allow for removal of directors without cause |
We generally recommend FOR the proposal because according to our policy, allowing to remove directors without cause provides flexibility to the Company to make necessary changes to its leadership when deemed appropriate. Allowing for the removal of directors without cause ensures that the Board can effectively address issues such as performance concerns and maintain the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. |
| Classify the board |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, staggered terms for directors increase the difficulty for shareholders to make fundamental changes to the composition and behavior of a board. We prefer that the entire board of a company be elected annually to provide appropriate responsiveness to shareholders. |
| Create non-key committee |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Establish stakeholder position to board |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, the current selection process, composition and skillset of the board of directors already captures stakeholder representation in the board room. As such, approval of the proposal would be redundant and duplicative. |
| Allow for removal of directors only with cause |
We generally recommend AGAINST the proposal because according to our policy, directors should be able to be removed with or without cause. This level of flexibility allows the Company to make necessary changes to its leadership when deemed appropriate. Allowing for the removal of directors with or without cause ensures that the Board can effectively address issues such as performance concerns and maintain the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Reduce sales/marketing of tobacco/vape products/services |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of the proposal is unnecessary as the Company already complies with the applicable federal laws and regulations and given the Company’s nature of business, we believe that approval of the proposal would significantly impact its operations. |
| Reduce sales/marketing of alcohol products/ services |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of the proposal is unnecessary as the Company already complies with the applicable federal laws and regulations and given the Company’s nature of business, we believe that approval of the proposal would significantly impact its operations. |
| Reduce sales/marketing of pornography products/services |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of the proposal would significantly impact the Company’s business operations. |
| Report on data privacy |
We generally recommend FOR unless one of the following is true: 1) the report is clearly and fully redundant with other reporting required of the Company; or 2) The proposal relates to abortion or reproductive rights. |
| Reduce sales/marketing of weapon products/ services |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, the Company has in place extensive procedures to ensure that weapon sales are made in strict compliance with all applicable United States laws and regulations. |
| Report on suppliers / partners / customers / sales |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of this proposal would result in the Company incurring unnecessary costs and expenses by duplicating efforts that are already underway and providing additional reports with information that is already available to shareholders. |
| Report on product pricing/distribution |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of this proposal would result in the Company incurring unnecessary costs and expenses by duplicating efforts that are already underway and providing additional reports with information that is already available to shareholders. |
| Reduce sales/marketing of unhealthy foods/ beverages |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, the Company is already addressing the issues related to the consumption of its products through its sustainability and current marketing initiatives. |
| Report on product information / production |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of this proposal would result in the Company incurring unnecessary costs and expenses by duplicating efforts that are already underway and providing additional reports with information that is already available to shareholders. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Reduce sales/marketing of drug products/ services |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of the proposal is unnecessary as the Company already complies with the applicable federal laws and regulations and given the Company’s nature of business, we believe that approval of the proposal would significantly impact its operations. |
| Reduce sales/marketing of gambling products/services |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of the proposal is unnecessary as the Company already complies with the applicable federal laws and regulations and given the Company’s nature of business, we believe that approval of the proposal would significantly impact its operations. |
| Report on high-risk country operations |
We generally recommend FOR unless one of the following is true: 1) the report is clearly and fully redundant with other reporting required of the Company or 2) the disclosure is an audit. |
| Modify business operations with high-risk country, entity, region, etc. |
We generally recommend AGAINST if the country has a score of 4 from the U.S. Department of State travel advisories. |
| Report on public health risks |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of this proposal would result in the Company incurring unnecessary costs and expenses by duplicating efforts that are already underway and providing additional reports with information that is already available to shareholders. |
| Report on cybersecurity |
We generally recommend FOR unless the Company receives a failing grade on their cybersecurity risk score. |
| Report on content management |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of this proposal would result in the Company incurring unnecessary costs and expenses by duplicating efforts that are already underway and providing additional reports with information that is already available to shareholders. |
| Report on intellectual property transfers |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of this proposal would result in the Company incurring unnecessary costs and expenses by duplicating efforts that are already underway and providing additional reports with information that is already available to shareholders. |
| We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of the proposal is unnecessary as the Company already complies with the applicable federal laws and regulations and given the Company’s nature of business, we believe that approval of the proposal would significantly impact its operations. | |
| Report on artificial intelligence |
We generally recommend a vote AGAINST because according to our policy, the proposed report on artificial intelligence would be duplicative of the Company’s existing efforts in AI reporting. Also, approval of the proposal would pose significant administrative costs and financial burden to the Company. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Adopt paid sick leave policy |
We generally recommend a vote AGAINST because according to our policy, approving this proposal would lead to unnecessary costs and expenses by duplicating efforts that are already in progress. Additionally, this policy is not universally applicable, as it would only affect the Company's non-unionized employees who already receive similar benefits. In contrast, unionized employees are typically governed by collective bargaining agreements, which already address such matters. |
| Report on maternal health outcomes |
We generally recommend a vote AGAINST because, according to our policy, approval of this proposal would result in the Company incurring unnecessary costs and expenses by duplicating efforts that are already underway. |
| Report on plant closure impacts on communities |
We generally recommend a vote AGAINST because, according to our policy, approval of this proposal would result in the Company incurring unnecessary costs and expenses by duplicating efforts that are already underway. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Report on collective bargaining/union relations |
We generally recommend AGAINST this proposal because, in line with our policy and given the Company's compliance with applicable laws regarding freedom of association, we believe its approval would not provide additional benefits to employees or create further value for shareholders. |
| Report on prison/slave/child labor |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of this proposal would result in the Company incurring unnecessary costs and expenses by duplicating efforts that are already underway and providing additional reports with information that is already available to shareholders. |
| Adopt diversity-based hiring |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, this could put the Company in an uncompetitive position in terms of hiring prospective talents due to the rigid requirements of the proposal. |
| Report on sexual harassment complaints |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Report to promote DEI practices |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Report on fetal tissue use |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of this proposal would result in the Company incurring unnecessary costs and expenses by duplicating efforts that are already underway and providing additional reports with information that is already available to shareholders. |
| Become public benefit corporation |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, the proposal is not necessary and is not in the best long- term interest of the Company and its shareholders. |
| Adopt merit-based hiring |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, this could put the Company in an uncompetitive position in terms of hiring prospective talents due to the rigid requirements of the proposal. |
| Address labor disputes |
We generally recommend AGAINST this proposal because, in accordance with our policy, the Company has already addressed the labor concerns raised in the proposal. As such, approval of the requested report is unnecessary and would result in significant administrative costs, diverting Company resources from more relevant and meaningful priorities. |
| Report on human trafficking |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy and given the Company’s current policies which effectively articulate their long-standing support for, and continued commitment to, human rights, the proposal would be duplicative and unnecessary. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Address income inequality |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, the Company’s existing compensation processes are guided by the fundamental principle that decisions are made on the basis of the individual's personal capabilities, qualifications and contributions to the Company's needs and not on gender. Moreover, given the Company’s current efforts to equal employment opportunity, we believe that approval of this proposal will accrue unnecessary costs and administrative burden to the Company. |
| Report to discourage DEI practices (costs/ risks) |
We generally recommend AGAINST this proposal because, in accordance with our policy, conducting a cost/benefit report or a stand-alone DEI audit by the Company or a group acting on its behalf could potentially uncover violations of regulations or laws, which could pose both legal and reputational risks. Additionally, we are concerned that such report could, in our highly litigious society, serve as a roadmap for lawsuits against the Company, potentially leading to significant costs for shareholders in the long term. |
| Report on worker misclassification |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, the Company already provides the industry standard approach in classifying its employees. As such, approval of the proposal would not create additional benefits to the employees or value for the shareholders. |
| Address fair lending |
We generally recommend AGAINST the proposal because, according to our policy, it would not meaningfully improve the Company’s existing robust policies and risk oversight structure, nor enhance the current disclosures that already provide shareholders with meaningful information on how the Company addresses and oversees risks related to discrimination. Additionally, we are concerned that such an evaluation could, in today’s highly litigious environment, inadvertently provide a roadmap for lawsuits against the Company, potentially leading to significant legal costs for shareholders in the long term. |
| Report on abortion policy |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, providing a report on a highly sensitive topic could cause divisiveness among the Company, its employees, customers and shareholders. The complexity of views drawn from reporting the policies on abortion or something similar could pose significant reputational and legal risks for the Company which could subsequently affect its operations and performance. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Report on in vitro fertilization |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, providing a report on a highly sensitive topic could cause divisiveness among the Company, its employees, customers and shareholders. The complexity of views drawn from reporting the policies on abortion or something similar could pose significant reputational and legal risks for the Company which could subsequently affect its operations and performance. |
| Address sexual harassment complaints |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Adopt anti-discrimination policy |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, this could put the Company in an uncompetitive position in terms of hiring prospective talents due to the rigid requirements of the proposal. |
| Rescind the racial equity audit |
We generally recommend a vote AGAINST because, according to our policy, the proposed rescinding of the racial audit undermines efforts to assess the impacts of the Company’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. Racial audits are essential in identifying and addressing disparities, and reversing this initiative would limit shareholders' ability to evaluate the materiality and effectiveness of the Company’s DEI efforts. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Report on patent process |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy the proposal would not meaningfully improve the Company’s disclosure and reporting policies in place but is rather duplicative of its current efforts in addressing issues with product access and pricing. |
| Report on concealment clauses |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy and given the Company’s existing anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, we do not believe that the requested report would add meaningful value to the policies, processes, practices, and resources that are already in place. |
| Report on whistleblowers |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, approval of this proposal would result in the Company incurring unnecessary costs and expenses by duplicating efforts that are already underway and providing additional reports with information that is already available to shareholders. |
| Relinquish intellectual property |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy the proposal would not meaningfully improve the Company’s disclosure and reporting policies in place but is rather duplicative of its current efforts in addressing issues with product access and pricing. |
| Report on arbitration claims |
We generally recommend AGAINST this proposal because, in accordance with our policy, it presents a one-size-fits-all approach that could adversely impact the Company's ability to effectively use arbitration. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Request M&A / restructure |
We generally recommend AGAINST because given the current circumstances of the Company, we believe that the requested restructuring is unwarranted and unnecessary. |
| Make self-tender offer |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, the proposal is not necessary and is not in the best long- term interest of the Company and its shareholders. |
| Remove antitakeover provision |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, removal of the Company's antitakeover provisions may leave the Company vulnerable to a hostile takeover. Additionally, the current antitakeover provisions provide more time for management to consider offers and negotiate better terms. |
| Ratify poison pill |
We generally recommend a vote FOR because according to our policy, approval of the proposal will acknowledge both the advantages and inherent risks of implementing a shareholder rights plan, or poison pill. While these plans can deter hostile takeovers, they also carry the risk of management entrenchment in some cases. Ensuring that shareholders are given a voice on the advisability of such a plan is crucial to safeguarding the Company from these risks, promoting transparency, and maintaining a balance between protecting shareholder interests and preventing potential misuse of the plan. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Change location / date / time |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the proposed change will increase the likelihood of increased attendance rate in meetings, not to mention the benefits of flexibility and improved accessibility to shareholders. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Convert close-end fund to open-end fund |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the conversion to an open-end fund would provide for portfolio diversification hence reducing the Company's risk exposure, and at the same time providing greater liquidity to its shareholders. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Report on lobbying expenditures |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy and given the Company’s policies and oversight mechanisms related to its lobbying expenditures and activities, we believe that the shareholder proposal is unnecessary and will not result in any additional benefit to the shareholders. Rather, the proposal promotes impractical and imprudent actions that would negatively affect the business and results. |
| Support public policy endorsement |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, although regulations are already in place as required by federal, state, and local campaign finance and lobbying regulations, we believe that political endorsements, often in the form of contributions, increases the possibility of misalignment with corporate values which in turn could lead to reputational risks. |
| Report on government financial support |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy and given the Company’s policies and oversight mechanisms related to its political contributions and activities, we believe that the shareholder proposal is unnecessary and will not result in any additional benefit to the shareholders. Rather, the proposal promotes impractical and imprudent actions that would negatively affect the business and results. |
| Revoke public policy endorsement |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, political endorsement and spending is an integral part of a business, as Companies should have a voice on policies affecting them. As such, approval of this proposal will strictly limit the Company’s flexibility in supporting the advocacies that are congruent with its business. |
| Report on charitable contributions |
We generally recommend AGAINST this proposal because, in accordance with our policy, the Company already carefully evaluates and reviews its charitable activities, and makes information about its corporate giving publicly available. We do not believe that implementing the proposal would justify the administrative costs and efforts, nor would it provide a meaningful benefit to the Company’s shareholders. |
| Report on public policy advocacy |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy and given the Company’s policies and oversight mechanisms related to its political contributions and activities, we believe that the shareholder proposal is unnecessary and will not result in any additional benefit to the shareholders. Rather, the proposal promotes impractical and imprudent actions that would negatively affect the business and results. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Report on political contributions |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy and given the Company’s policies and oversight mechanisms related to its political contributions and activities, we believe that the shareholder proposal is unnecessary and will not result in any additional benefit to the shareholders. Rather, the proposal promotes impractical and imprudent actions that would negatively affect the business and results. |
| Report on partnerships with political (or globalist) organizations |
We generally recommend a vote AGAINST because, according to our policy, approval of this proposal would result in the Company incurring unnecessary costs and expenses by duplicating efforts that are already underway. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Elect director to board |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, allowing a shareholder to elect a director to a board is not in the best interests of the Company. Instead, the board should continue to nominate directors for shareholder approval, as they possess the expertise and resources to find the most qualified candidates. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Require shareholder approval for bylaws |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, approval of the proposal will ensure that shareholders have a voice in revising or adopting the bylaws which could compromise their interests. |
| Ensure transparent voting on executive pay |
We generally recommend FOR the proposal because according to our policy, increased pay transparency is material to shareholders. Providing greater visibility into executive compensation practices allows shareholders to make more informed decisions when evaluating and voting on executive pay and Say-on-Pay proxy proposals. This level of transparency is crucial for aligning executive compensation with long-term company performance, ensuring that pay structures are both fair and tied to shareholder value. |
| Require non-cumulative voting |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy cumulative voting could make it possible for an individual shareholder or group of shareholders with special interests to elect one or more directors to the Company’s Board of directors to represent their particular interests. Such a shareholder or group of shareholders could have goals that are inconsistent, and could conflict with, the interests and goals of the majority of the Company’s shareholders. |
| Promote equal voting rights |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, a differential in voting power may have the effect of denying shareholders the opportunity to vote on matters of critical economic importance to them. In order to provide equal voting right to all shareholders, we prefer that companies do not utilize multiple class capital structures. |
| Eliminate/reduce supermajority voting |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, a simple majority vote will strengthen the Company’s corporate governance practice. Contrary to supermajority voting, a simple majority standard will give the shareholders equal and fair representation in the Company by limiting the power of shareholders who own a large stake in the entity and paving the way for a more meaningful voting outcome. |
| Introduce right to act by written consent |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the right to act on written consent allows an increased participation of shareholders in the voting process, thereby democratizing voting and giving shareholders the right to act independently from the management. |
| Oppose right to act by written consent |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, the right to act on written consent allows an increased participation of shareholders in the voting process, thereby democratizing voting and giving the shareholders the right to act independently from the management. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Tabulate proxy voting |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, adoption of proxy tabulation simplifies the voting process without compromising transparency or shareholder participation. This streamlined approach ensures that shareholder votes are accurately counted and reported, making it easier for investors to engage in the decision-making process. At the same time, it preserves the integrity and transparency of the voting process, ensuring that all shareholders have an equal opportunity to influence key decisions while promoting efficient governance practices. |
| Ensure confidential voting on executive pay |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, approval of the proposal will preserve the confidentiality and integrity of vote outcomes regarding executive pay, which will ensure that the Company’s executive compensation policies and procedures are aligned with the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. |
| Implement cumulative voting |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy cumulative voting could make it possible for an individual shareholder or group of shareholders with special interests to elect one or more directors to the Company’s Board of directors to represent their particular interests. Such a shareholder or group of shareholders could have goals that are inconsistent, and could conflict with, the interests and goals of the majority of the Company’s shareholders. |
| Adopt fair elections/advance notice bylaw |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, adopting a fair elections/advance notice bylaw will ensure that shareholders have the opportunity to vote on any proposal that could impose inequitable restrictions, protecting their rights and promoting transparency in the governance process. By implementing such a bylaw, the Company reinforces its commitment to fair shareholder participation and accountability. |
| Establish right to call a special meeting |
We generally recommend FOR if at least 10% of voting shares are required to call a special meeting. |
| Approve/increase supermajority voting |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, a simple majority vote will strengthen the Company’s corporate governance practice. Contrary to supermajority voting, a simple majority standard will give the shareholders equal and fair representation in the Company by limiting the power of shareholders who own a large stake in the entity, therefore, paving the way for a more meaningful voting outcome. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Increase proxy access |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, increasing proxy access would allow shareholders to submit proposals at shareholder meetings and nominate directors to the Board, empowering them to have a more direct influence on the Company’s governance. By enabling greater shareholder participation, proxy access enhances transparency and accountability, ensuring that the Board is more responsive to shareholder concerns. |
| Adopt exclusive forum bylaws |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, having an exclusive forum will allow the Company to address disputes and litigations in an exclusive jurisdiction, with familiarity of the law, and reduce the administrative cost and burden related to settlement. |
| Restrict nomination of directors |
We generally recommend a vote FOR because, according to our policy, a simple majority requirement in director elections, combined with a mandatory resignation policy and prohibition on the renomination of directors, ensures that the election results accurately reflect shareholder sentiment. Specifically, this approach addresses situations where a director receives less than a majority of votes, aligning the election outcome with shareholder expectations and maintaining effective governance. |
| Adopt majority vote for director election |
We generally recommend a vote FOR because according to our policy, a majority vote requirement in boardroom elections enhance director accountability to shareholders. This standard ensures that shareholder dissatisfaction with director performance has tangible consequences, transforming the election process from a mere formality into one that truly reflects shareholders' voices. |
| Adopt proxy access |
We generally recommend a vote FOR because according to our policy, shareholders should have the right to nominate their own representatives to the board. Proxy access would enhance the Company's governance by empowering shareholders with greater influence over the direction of the company, fostering more accountability and alignment with shareholder interests. |
| Proposal |
Vote Recommendation |
| Report on key-person risk |
We generally recommend FOR because according to our policy, the requested report would be beneficial to the Company in mitigating risks associated with key persons whose services and contributions are crucial to its success. Additionally, the proposal would enable the Company to develop effective succession plans, ensuring continuity and minimizing disruption in the event of the departure of these key individuals. |
| Report on other |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Adopt MacBride Principles, Sullivan Principles, or similar |
We generally recommend AGAINST because adoption of this proposal would be duplicative and would make the Company unnecessarily accountable to different sets of overlapping fair employment guidelines that are already covered in its policies. |
| Issue other policy |
This proposal is considered on a case-by-case basis by the guidelines committee. |
| Disassociate from industry associations |
We generally recommend AGAINST because according to our policy, companies benefit from industry associations, especially when it comes to influential policies that can directly affect businesses. As such, disassociation from such groups could potentially pose potential reputational and systemic risks that could be detrimental to the Company’s business in the long-run. |
| Prepare an independent third-party audit |
We generally recommend AGAINST this proposal because, in accordance with our policy, conducting a stand-alone audit by the Company or a group acting on its behalf could potentially reveal violations of regulations and laws, which could be legally and reputationally problematic. Additionally, we are concerned that such an audit could, in our highly litigious society, provide a roadmap for lawsuits against the Company, which could result in significant costs for shareholders over the long term. |
| A-1 |
A short-term obligation rated ‘A-1’ is rated in the highest category by S&P Global Ratings. The obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is strong. Within this category, certain obligations are designated with a plus sign (+). This indicates that the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on these obligations is extremely strong. |
| A-2 |
A short-term obligation rated ‘A-2’ is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligations in higher rating categories. However, the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is satisfactory. |
| A-3 |
A short-term obligation rated ‘A-3’ exhibits adequate protection parameters. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to weaken an obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
| B |
A short-term obligation rated ‘B' is regarded as vulnerable and has significant speculative characteristics. The obligor currently has the capacity to meet its financial commitments; however, it faces major ongoing uncertainties that could lead to the obligor's inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitments. |
| C |
A short-term obligation rated ‘C’ is currently vulnerable to nonpayment and is dependent upon favorable business, financial, and economic conditions for the obligor to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
| D |
A short-term obligation rated ‘D’ is in default or in breach of an imputed promise. For non-hybrid capital instruments, the ‘D’ rating category is used when payments on an obligation are not made on the date due, unless S&P Global Ratings believes that such payments will be made within any stated grace period. However, any stated grace period longer than five business days will be treated as five business days. The ‘D’ rating also will be used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of a similar action and where default on an obligation is a virtual certainty, for example due to automatic stay provisions. A rating on an obligation is lowered to ‘D’ if it is subject to a distressed debt restructuring. |
| F1 |
HIGHEST SHORT-TERM CREDIT QUALITY. Indicates the strongest intrinsic capacity for timely payment of financial commitments; may have an added “+” to denote any exceptionally strong credit feature. |
| F2 |
GOOD SHORT-TERM CREDIT QUALITY. Good intrinsic capacity for timely payment of financial commitments. |
| F3 |
FAIR SHORT-TERM CREDIT QUALITY. The intrinsic capacity for timely payment of financial commitments is adequate. |
| B |
SPECULATIVE SHORT-TERM CREDIT QUALITY. Minimal capacity for timely payment of financial commitments, plus heightened vulnerability to near term adverse changes in financial and economic conditions. |
| C |
HIGH SHORT-TERM DEFAULT RISK. Default is a real possibility. |
| RD |
RESTRICTED DEFAULT. Indicates an entity that has defaulted on one or more of its financial commitments, although it continues to meet other financial obligations. Typically applicable to entity ratings only. |
| D |
DEFAULT. Indicates a broad-based default event for an entity, or the default of a short- term obligation. |
| P-1 |
Ratings of Prime-1 reflect a superior ability to repay short-term debt obligations. |
| P-2 |
Ratings of Prime-2 reflect a strong ability to repay short-term debt obligations. |
| P-3 |
Ratings of Prime-3 reflect an acceptable ability to repay short-term obligations. |
| NP |
Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Not Prime do not fall within any of the Prime rating categories. |
| R-1 (high) |
Highest credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is exceptionally high. Unlikely to be adversely affected by future events. |
| R-1 (middle) |
|
| R-1 (low) |
Good credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is substantial. Overall strength is not as favorable as higher rating categories. May be vulnerable to future events, but qualifying negative factors are considered manageable. |
| R-2 (high) |
Upper end of adequate credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is acceptable. May be vulnerable to future events. |
| R-2 (middle) |
Adequate credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is acceptable. May be vulnerable to future events or may be exposed to other factors that could reduce credit quality. |
| R-2 (low) |
|
| R-3 |
Lowest end of adequate credit quality. There is a capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due. May be vulnerable to future events and the certainty of meeting such obligations could be impacted by a variety of developments. |
| R-4 |
Speculative credit quality. The capacity for the payment of short-term financial obligations as they fall due is uncertain. |
| R-5 |
Highly speculative credit quality. There is a high level of uncertainty as to the capacity to meet short-term financial obligations as they fall due. |
| D |
When the issuer has filed under any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or winding up statute or there is a failure to satisfy an obligation after the exhaustion of grace periods, a downgrade to D may occur. DBRS Morningstar may also use SD (Selective Default) in cases where only some securities are impacted, such as the case of a “distressed exchange.” |
| BB |
An obligation rated ‘BB’ is less vulnerable to nonpayment than other speculative issues. However, it faces major ongoing uncertainties or exposure to adverse business, financial, or economic conditions that could lead to the obligor’s inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
| B |
An obligation rated ‘B’ is more vulnerable to nonpayment than obligations rated ‘BB’, but the obligor currently has the capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. Adverse business, financial, or economic conditions will likely impair the obligor’s capacity or willingness to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
| CCC |
An obligation rated ‘CCC’ is currently vulnerable to nonpayment, and is dependent upon favorable business, financial, and economic conditions for the obligor to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. In the event of adverse business, financial, or economic conditions, the obligor is not likely to have the capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
| CC |
An obligation rated ‘CC’ is currently highly vulnerable to nonpayment. The ‘CC’ rating is used when a default has not yet occurred but S&P Global Ratings expects default to be a virtual certainty, regardless of the anticipated time to default. |
| C |
An obligation rated ‘C’ is currently highly vulnerable to nonpayment, and the obligation is expected to have lower relative seniority or lower ultimate recovery compared with obligations that are rated higher. |
| D |
An obligation rated ‘D’ is in default or in breach of an imputed promise. For non-hybrid capital instruments, the ‘D’ rating category is used when payments on an obligation are not made on the date due, unless S&P Global Ratings believes that such payments will be made within five business days in the absence of a stated grace period or within the earlier of the stated grace period or 30 calendar days. The ‘D’ rating also will be used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of similar action and where default on an obligation is a virtual certainty, for example due to automatic stay provisions. A rating on an obligation is lowered to ‘D’ if it is subject to a distressed debt restructuring. |
| AAA |
HIGHEST CREDIT QUALITY. ‘AAA’ ratings denote the lowest expectation of default risk. They are assigned only in cases of exceptionally strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is highly unlikely to be adversely affected by foreseeable events. |
| AA |
VERY HIGH CREDIT QUALITY. ‘AA’ ratings denote expectations of very low default risk. They indicate very strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is not significantly vulnerable to foreseeable events. |
| A |
HIGH CREDIT QUALITY. ‘A’ ratings denote expectations of low default risk. The capacity for payment of financial commitments is considered strong. This capacity may, nevertheless, be more vulnerable to adverse business or economic conditions than is the case for higher ratings. |
| BBB |
GOOD CREDIT QUALITY. ‘BBB’ ratings indicate that expectations of default risk are currently low. The capacity for payment of financial commitments is considered adequate, but adverse business or economic conditions are more likely to impair this capacity. |
| BB |
SPECULATIVE. ‘BB’ ratings indicate an elevated vulnerability to default risk, particularly in the event of adverse changes in business or economic conditions over time; however, business or financial flexibility exists that supports the servicing of financial commitments. |
| B |
HIGHLY SPECULATIVE. ‘B’ ratings indicate that material default risk is present, but a limited margin of safety remains. Financial commitments are currently being met; however, capacity for continued payment is vulnerable to deterioration in the business and economic environment. |
| CCC |
SUBSTANTIAL CREDIT RISK. Default is a real possibility. |
| CC |
VERY HIGH LEVELS OF CREDIT RISK. Default of some kind appears probable. |
| C |
NEAR DEFAULT. A default or default-like process has begun, or the issuer is in standstill, or for a closed funding vehicle, payment capacity is irrevocably impaired. Conditions that are indicative of a ‘C’ category rating for an issuer include: |
| |
●the issuer has entered into a grace or cure period following non-payment of a material financial obligation; ●the issuer has entered into a temporary negotiated waiver or standstill agreement following a payment default on a material financial obligation; ●the formal announcement by the issuer or their agent of a distressed debt exchange; ●a closed financing vehicle where payment capacity is irrevocably impaired such that it is not expected to pay interest and/or principal in full during the life of the transaction, but where no payment default is imminent. |
| RD |
RESTRICTED DEFAULT. ‘RD’ ratings indicate an issuer that in Fitch’s opinion has experienced: |
| |
●an uncured payment default or distressed debt exchange on a bond, loan or other material financial obligation, but ●has not entered into bankruptcy filings, administration, receivership, liquidation or other formal winding-up procedure, and ●has not otherwise ceased operating. This would include: ●the selective payment default on a specific class or currency of debt; ●the uncured expiry of any applicable grace period, cure period or default forbearance period following a payment default on a bank loan, capital markets security or other material financial obligation; ●the extension of multiple waivers or forbearance periods upon a payment default on one or more material financial obligations, either in series or in parallel; ordinary execution of a distressed debt exchange on one or more material financial obligations. |
| D |
DEFAULT. ‘D’ ratings indicate an issuer that in Fitch Ratings’ opinion has entered into bankruptcy filings, administration, receivership, liquidation or other formal winding-up procedure or that has otherwise ceased business. |
| Aaa |
Obligations rated Aaa are judged to be of the highest quality, with minimal risk. |
| Aa |
Obligations rated Aa are judged to be of high quality and are subject to very low credit risk. |
| A |
Obligations rated A are judged to be upper-medium-grade and are subject to low credit risk. |
| Baa |
Obligations rated Baa are subject to moderate credit risk. They are considered medium- grade and as such may possess certain speculative characteristics. |
| Ba |
Obligations rated Ba are judged to have speculative elements and are subject to substantial credit risk. |
| B |
Obligations rated B are considered speculative and are subject to high credit risk. |
| Caa |
Obligations rated Caa are judged to be of poor standing and are subject to very high credit risk. |
| Ca |
Obligations rated Ca are highly speculative and are likely in, or very near, default, with some prospect of recovery in principal and interest. |
| C |
Obligations rated C are the lowest-rated class of bonds and are typically in default, with little prospect for recovery of principal or interest. |
| AAA |
An insurer rated ‘AAA’ has extremely strong financial security characteristics. ‘AAA’ is the highest insurer financial strength rating assigned by S&P Global Ratings. |
| AA |
An insurer rated ‘AA’ has very strong financial security characteristics, differing only slightly from those rated higher. |
| A |
An insurer rated ‘A’ has strong financial security characteristics, but is somewhat more likely to be affected by adverse business conditions than are insurers with higher ratings. |
| BBB |
An insurer rated ‘BBB’ has good financial security characteristics, but is more likely to be affected by adverse business conditions than are higher-rated insurers. |
| BB, B, CCC, and CC |
An insurer rated ‘BB’ or lower is regarded as having vulnerable characteristics that may outweigh its strengths, ‘BB’ indicates the least degree of vulnerability within the range and ‘CC’ the highest. |
| AAA |
EXCEPTIONALLY STRONG. ‘AAA’ IFS Ratings denote the lowest expectation of ceased or interrupted payments. They are assigned only in the case of exceptionally strong capacity to meet policyholder and contract obligations. This capacity is highly unlikely to be adversely affected by foreseeable events. |
| AA |
VERY STRONG. ‘AA’ IFS Ratings denote a very low expectation of ceased or interrupted payments. They indicate very strong capacity to meet policyholder and contract obligations. This capacity is not significantly vulnerable to foreseeable events. |
| A |
STRONG. ‘A’ IFS Ratings denote a low expectation of ceased or interrupted payments. They indicate strong capacity to meet policyholder and contract obligations. This capacity may, nonetheless, be more vulnerable to changes in circumstances or in economic conditions than is the case for higher ratings. |
| BBB |
GOOD. ‘BBB’ IFS Ratings indicate that there is currently a low expectation of ceased or interrupted payments. The capacity to meet policyholder and contract obligations on a timely basis is considered adequate, but adverse changes in circumstances and economic conditions are more likely to impact this capacity. |
| BB |
MODERATELY WEAK. ‘BB’ IFS Ratings indicate that there is an elevated vulnerability to ceased or interrupted payments, particularly as the result of adverse economic or market changes over time. However, business or financial alternatives may be available to allow for policyholder and contract obligations to be met in a timely manner. |
| B |
WEAK. ‘B’ IFS Ratings indicate two possible conditions. If obligations are still being met on a timely basis, there is significant risk that ceased or interrupted payments could occur in the future, but a limited margin of safety remains. Capacity for continued timely payments is contingent upon a sustained, favorable business and economic environment, and favorable market conditions. Alternatively, a ‘B’ IFS Rating is assigned to obligations that have experienced ceased or interrupted payments, but with the potential for extremely high recoveries. Such obligations would possess a recovery assessment of ‘RR1’ (Outstanding). |
| CCC |
VERY WEAK. ‘CCC’ IFS Ratings indicate two possible conditions. If obligations are still being met on a timely basis, there is a real possibility that ceased or interrupted payments could occur in the future. Capacity for continued timely payments is solely reliant upon a sustained, favorable business and economic environment, and favorable market conditions. Alternatively, a ‘CCC’ IFS Rating is assigned to obligations that have experienced ceased or interrupted payments, and with the potential for average to superior recoveries. Such obligations would possess a recovery assessment of ‘RR2’ (Superior), ‘RR3’ (Good), and ‘RR4’ (Average). |
| CC |
EXTREMELY WEAK. ‘CC’ IFS Ratings indicate two possible conditions. If obligations are still being met on a timely basis, it is probable that ceased or interrupted payments will occur in the future. Alternatively, a ‘CC’ IFS Rating is assigned to obligations that have experienced ceased or interrupted payments, with the potential for average to below-average recoveries. Such obligations would possess a recovery assessment of ‘RR4’ (Average) or ‘RR5’ (Below Average). |
| C |
DISTRESSED. ‘C’ IFS Ratings indicate two possible conditions. If obligations are still being met on a timely basis, ceased or interrupted payments are imminent. Alternatively, a ‘C’ IFS Rating is assigned to obligations that have experienced ceased or interrupted payments, and with the potential for below average to poor recoveries. Such obligations would possess a recovery assessment of ‘RR5’ (Below Average) or ‘RR6’ (Poor). |
| F1 |
Insurers are viewed as having a strong capacity to meet their near-term obligations. When an insurer rated in this rating category is designated with a (+) sign, it is viewed as having a very strong capacity to meet near-term obligations. |
| F2 |
Insurers are viewed as having a good capacity to meet their near-term obligations. |
| F3 |
Insurers are viewed as having an adequate capacity to meet their near-term obligations. |
| B |
Insurers are viewed as having a weak capacity to meet their near-term obligations. |
| C |
Insurers are viewed as having a very weak capacity to meet their near-term obligations. |
| RR1 |
OUTSTANDING RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR1’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 91%–100% of current principal and related interest. |
| RR2 |
SUPERIOR RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR2’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 71%–90% of current principal and related interest. |
| RR3 |
GOOD RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR3’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 51%–70% of current principal and related interest. |
| RR4 |
AVERAGE RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR4’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 31%–50% of current principal and related interest. |
| RR5 |
BELOW AVERAGE RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR5’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 11%– 30% of current principal and related interest. |
| RR6 |
POOR RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR6’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 0%–10% of current principal and related interest. |
| Aaa |
Insurance companies rated Aaa are judged to be of the highest quality, subject to the lowest level of credit risk. |
| Aa |
Insurance companies rated Aa are judged to be of high quality and are subject to very low credit risk. |
| A |
Insurance companies rated A are judged to be upper-medium grade and are subject to low credit risk. |
| Baa |
Insurance companies rated Baa are judged to be medium-grade and subject to moderate credit risk and as such may possess certain speculative characteristics. |
| Ba |
Insurance companies rated Ba are judged to be speculative and are subject to substantial credit risk. |
| B |
Insurance companies rated B are considered speculative and are subject to high credit risk. |
| Caa |
Insurance companies rated Caa are judged to be speculative of poor standing and are subject to very high credit risk. |
| Ca |
Insurance companies rated Ca are highly speculative and are likely in, or very near, default, with some prospect of recovery of principal and interest. |
| C |
Insurance companies rated C are the lowest rated and are typically in default, with little prospect for recovery of principal or interest. |
| P-1 |
Ratings of Prime-1 reflect a superior ability to repay short-term debt obligations. |
| P-2 |
Ratings of Prime-2 reflect a strong ability to repay short-term debt obligations. |
| P-3 |
Ratings of Prime-3 reflect an acceptable ability to repay short-term obligations. |
| P-4 |
Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Not Prime do not fall within any of the Prime rating categories. |
| SP-1 |
Strong capacity to pay principal and interest. An issue determined to possess a very strong capacity to pay debt service is given a plus (+) designation. |
| SP-2 |
Satisfactory capacity to pay principal and interest, with some vulnerability to adverse financial and economic changes over the term of the notes. |
| SP-3 |
Speculative capacity to pay principal and interest. |
| D |
‘D’ is assigned upon failure to pay the note when due, completion of a distressed debt restructuring, or the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of similar action and where default on an obligation is a virtual certainty, for example, due to automatic stay provisions. |
| MIG 1 |
This designation denotes superior credit quality. Excellent protection is afforded by established cash flows, highly reliable liquidity support or demonstrated broad-based access to the market for refinancing. |
| MIG 2 |
This designation denotes strong credit quality. Margins of protection are ample, although not as large as in the preceding group. |
| MIG 3 |
This designation denotes acceptable credit quality. Liquidity and cash-flow protection may be narrow, and market access for refinancing is likely to be less well-established. |
| SG |
This designation denotes speculative-grade credit quality. Debt instruments in this category may lack sufficient margins of protection. |
| VMIG 1 |
This designation denotes superior credit quality. Excellent protection is afforded by the superior short-term credit strength of the liquidity provider and structural and legal protections that ensure the timely payment of purchase price upon demand. |
| VMIG 2 |
This designation denotes strong credit quality. Good protection is afforded by the strong short-term credit strength of the liquidity provider and structural and legal protections that ensure the timely payment of purchase price upon demand. |
| VMIG 3 |
This designation denotes acceptable credit quality. Adequate protection is afforded by the satisfactory short-term credit strength of the liquidity provider and structural and legal protections that ensure the timely payment of purchase price upon demand. |
| SG |
This designation denotes speculative-grade credit quality. Demand features rated in this category may be supported by a liquidity provider that does not have a sufficiently strong short-term rating or may lack the structural or legal protections necessary to ensure the timely payment of purchase price upon demand. |
| Pfd-1 |
Preferred shares rated Pfd-1 are generally of superior credit quality, and are supported by entities with strong earnings and balance sheet characteristics. Pfd-1 ratings generally correspond with issuers with a AAA or AA category reference point1. |
| Pfd-2 |
Preferred shares rated Pfd-2 are generally of good credit quality. Protection of dividends and principal is still substantial, but earnings, the balance sheet and coverage ratios are not as strong as Pfd-1 rated companies. Generally, Pfd-2 ratings correspond with issuers with an A category or higher reference point. |
| Pfd-3 |
Preferred shares rated Pfd-3 are generally of adequate credit quality. While protection of dividends and principal is still considered acceptable, the issuing entity is more susceptible to adverse changes in financial and economic conditions, and there may be other adverse conditions present which detract from debt protection. Pfd-3 ratings generally correspond with issuers with a BBB category or higher reference point. |
| Pfd-4 |
Preferred shares rated Pfd-4 are generally speculative, where the degree of protection afforded to dividends and principal is uncertain, particularly during periods of economic adversity. Issuers with preferred shares rated Pfd-4 generally correspond with issuers with a BB category or higher reference point. |
| Pfd-5 |
Preferred shares rated Pfd-5 are generally highly speculative and the ability of the entity to maintain timely dividend and principal payments in the future is highly uncertain. Entities with a Pfd-5 rating generally correspond with issuers with a B category or higher reference point. Preferred shares rated Pfd-5 often have characteristics that, if not remedied, may lead to default. |
| D |
When the issuer has filed under any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or winding up or the issuer is in default per the legal documents, a downgrade to D may occur. Because preferred share dividends are only payable when approved, the non-payment of a preferred share dividend does not necessarily result in a D. DBRS Morningstar may also use SD (Selective Default) in cases where only some securities are impacted, such as the case of a “distressed exchange”. See the Default Definition document posted on the website for more information. |