REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
|
☒
|
Pre‑Effective Amendment No.
|
☐
|
Post‑Effective Amendment No.
348
|
☒
|
and
|
|
REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940
|
☒
|
Amendment No.
349
|
☒
|
☒
|
immediately upon filing pursuant to paragraph (b)
|
☐
|
on
pursuant to paragraph (b)
|
☐
|
60 days after filing pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)
|
☐
|
on
pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)
|
☐
|
75 days after filing pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)
|
☐
|
on
pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 485.
|
[ ] |
this post-effective amendment designates a new effective date for a previously filed post-effective amendment.
|
Fund Summary
|
2
|
Investment Objective
|
2
|
Fees and Expenses of the Fund
|
2
|
Expense Example
|
2
|
Portfolio Turnover
|
2
|
Principal Investment Strategies
|
2
|
Principal Investment Risks
|
3
|
Performance
|
4
|
Portfolio Management
|
5
|
Purchase and Sale of Shares
|
5
|
Tax Information
|
5
|
Financial Intermediary Compensation
|
5
|
Additional Information about the Fund
|
6
|
Investment Objective
|
6
|
Principal Investment Strategies
|
6
|
Principal Investment Risks
|
6
|
Portfolio Holdings Information
|
9
|
Management
|
9
|
Investment Adviser
|
9
|
Sub-Adviser
|
9
|
Portfolio Managers
|
10
|
How to Buy and Sell Shares
|
10
|
Book Entry
|
10
|
Share Trading Prices on the Exchange
|
10
|
Frequent Purchases and Redemptions of Shares
|
11
|
Determination of NAV
|
11
|
Fair Value Pricing
|
11
|
Investments by Registered Investment Companies
|
11
|
Delivery of Shareholder Documents – Householding
|
11
|
Dividends, Distributions, and Taxes
|
12
|
Distribution
|
13
|
Premium/Discount Information
|
13
|
Additional Notices
|
13
|
Financial Highlights
|
14
|
1 Year:
$81
|
3 Years:
$252
|
· |
Currency Exchange Rate Risk.
The Fund invests primarily in investments denominated in non-U.S. currencies or in securities that provide exposure to such currencies. Changes in currency exchange rates and the relative value of non-U.S. currencies will affect the value of the Fund’s investment and the value of your Shares. Currency exchange rates can be very volatile and can change quickly and unpredictably. As a result, the value of an investment in the Fund may change quickly and without warning and you may lose money.
|
· |
Depositary Receipt Risk.
Depositary receipts
involve risks similar to those associated with investments in foreign securities, such as changes in political or economic conditions of other countries and changes in the exchange rates of foreign currencies
. Depositary receipts listed on U.S. exchanges are issued by banks or trust companies, and entitle the holder to all dividends and capital gains that are paid out on the underlying foreign shares (“Underlying Shares”). When the Fund invests in depositary receipts as a substitute for an investment directly in the Underlying Shares, the Fund is exposed to the risk that the depositary receipts may not provide a return that corresponds precisely with that of the Underlying Shares.
|
· |
ETF Risks.
|
o |
Trading
.
Although Shares are listed for trading on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange”) and may be traded on U.S. exchanges other than the Exchange, there can be no assurance that Shares will trade with any volume, or at all, on any stock exchange.
In stressed market conditions, the liquidity of Shares may begin to mirror the liquidity of the Fund’s underlying portfolio holdings, which can be significantly less liquid than Shares.
|
o |
Costs of Buying or Selling Shares.
Due to the costs of buying or selling Shares, including brokerage commissions imposed by brokers and bid/ask spreads, frequent trading of Shares may significantly reduce investment results and an investment in Shares may not be advisable for investors who anticipate regularly making small investments.
|
o |
Authorized Participants, Market Makers, and Liquidity Providers Concentration Risk.
The Fund has a limited number of financial institutions that may act as APs. In addition, there may be a limited number of market makers and/or liquidity providers in the marketplace. To the extent either of the following events occur, Shares may trade at a material discount to NAV and possibly face delisting: (i) APs exit the business or otherwise become unable to process creation and/or redemption orders and no other APs step forward to perform these services, or (ii) market makers and/or liquidity providers exit the business or significantly reduce their business activities and no other entities step forward to perform their functions.
|
· |
Equity Market Risk.
The equity securities held in the Fund’s portfolio may experience sudden, unpredictable drops in value or long periods of decline in value. This may occur because of factors that affect securities markets generally or factors affecting specific issuers, industries, sectors or companies in which the Fund invests. Common stocks are generally exposed to greater risk than other types of securities, such as preferred stocks and debt obligations, because common stockholders generally have inferior rights to receive payment from issuers.
|
· |
Foreign Securities Risk.
Investments in non-U.S. securities involve certain risks that may not be present with investments in U.S. securities. For example, investments in non-U.S. securities may be subject to risk of loss due to foreign currency fluctuations or to political or economic instability. Investments in non-U.S. securities also may be subject to withholding or other taxes and may be subject to additional trading, settlement, custodial, and operational risks. These and other factors can make investments in the Fund more volatile and potentially less liquid than other types of investments.
|
· |
Geographic Investment Risk.
To the extent the Fund invests a significant portion of its assets in the securities of companies of a single country or region, it is more likely to be impacted by events or conditions affecting that country or region.
|
o |
Canada-Specific Risk
. The Canadian economy is reliant on the sale of natural resources and commodities, which can pose risks such as the fluctuation of prices and the variability of demand for exportation of such products. Changes in spending on Canadian products by the economies of other countries or changes in any of these economies may cause a significant impact on the Canadian economy.
|
· |
Management Risk.
The Fund is actively-managed and may not meet its investment objective based on the Adviser’s success or failure to implement investment strategies for the Fund. The Fund’s principal investment strategies are dependent on the Adviser’s use of AI and the EquBot Model. As a result, the Fund’s performance will be dependent on the Adviser’s skill in understanding and utilizing AI, specifically IBM’s Watson AI, to implement the Fund’s principal investment strategy. The Adviser only recently began advising ETFs, which may create additional risks for investments in the Fund.
|
· |
Market Capitalization Risks.
|
o |
Large-Capitalization Investing.
The securities of large-capitalization companies may be relatively mature compared to smaller companies and therefore subject to slower growth during times of economic expansion.
|
o |
Mid-Capitalization Investing.
The securities of mid-capitalization companies may be more vulnerable to adverse issuer, market, political, or economic developments than securities of large-capitalization companies. The securities of mid-capitalization companies generally trade in lower volumes and are subject to greater and more unpredictable price changes than large capitalization stocks or the stock market as a whole.
|
o |
Small-Capitalization Investing.
The securities of small-capitalization companies may be more vulnerable to adverse issuer, market, political, or economic developments than securities of larger-capitalization companies. The securities of small-capitalization companies generally trade in lower volumes and are subject to greater and more unpredictable price changes than larger capitalization stocks or the stock market as a whole. There is typically less publicly available information concerning smaller-capitalization companies than for larger, more established companies. Small-capitalization companies also may be particularly sensitive to changes in interest rates, government regulation, borrowing costs and earnings.
|
· |
Market Risk.
The trading prices of equity securities and other instruments fluctuate in response to a variety of factors. The Fund’s net asset value (“NAV”) and market price may fluctuate significantly in response to these and other factors. As a result, an investor could lose money over short or long periods of time.
|
· |
Models and Data Risk.
The Fund relies heavily on proprietary quantitative models as well as information and data supplied by third parties (“Models and Data”). When Models and Data prove to be incorrect or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon may lead to the inclusion or exclusion of securities that would have been excluded or included had the Models and Data been correct and complete. Specifically, the Fund relies on Watson AI and the EquBot Model to implement its principal investment strategies. As a result, to the extent either such system does not perform as designed or as intended, the Fund’s strategy may not be successfully implemented and the Fund may lose value.
|
· |
New Fund Risk.
The Fund is a recently organized, non-diversified management investment company with no operating history. As a result, prospective investors have no track record on which to base their investment decision.
|
· |
Non-Diversification Risk.
The Fund is deemed non-diversified and may invest more of its assets in the securities of a single issuer or a smaller number of issuers than if it were a diversified fund. As a result, the Fund may be more exposed to the risks associated with and developments affecting an individual issuer or a smaller number of issuers than a fund that invests more widely. This may increase the Fund’s volatility and cause the performance of a relatively smaller number of issuers to have a greater impact on the Fund’s performance.
|
· |
Portfolio Turnover Risk
.
The Fund may actively and frequently trade securities or other instruments in its portfolio to carry out its investment strategies. A high portfolio turnover rate increases transaction costs, which may increase the Fund’s expenses. Frequent trading may also cause adverse tax consequences for investors in the Fund due to an increase in short-term capital gains.
|
· |
Sector Risk.
To the extent the Fund invests more heavily in particular sectors of the economy, its performance will be especially sensitive to developments that significantly affect those sectors.
|
· |
Shares May Trade at Prices Other Than NAV.
As with all ETFs, Shares may be bought and sold in the secondary market at market prices. Although it is expected that the market price of Shares will approximate the Fund’s NAV, there may be times when the market price of Shares is more than the NAV intra-day (premium) or less than the NAV intra-day (discount) due to supply and demand of Shares or during periods of market volatility. This risk is heightened in times of market volatility, periods of steep market declines, and periods when there is limited trading activity for Shares in the secondary market, in which case such premiums or discounts may be significant. Because securities held by the Fund trade on foreign exchanges that are closed when the Fund’s primary listing exchange is open, the Fund is likely to experience premiums and discounts greater than those of domestic ETFs.
|
Adviser
|
EquBot Inc.
|
Sub-Adviser
|
Vident Investment Advisory, LLC (“VIA” or the “Sub-Adviser”)
|
Portfolio Managers |
Denise M. Krisko, CFA, President of VIA, and Rafael Zayas, CFA, Senior Portfolio Manager—International Equity of VIA, have been portfolio managers of the Fund since its inception in 2018
|
· |
Currency Exchange Rate Risk.
Changes in currency exchange rates and the relative value of non-U.S. currencies will affect the value of the Fund’s investments and the value of your Shares. Because the Fund’s NAV is determined on the basis of U.S. dollars, the U.S. dollar value of your investment in the Fund may go down if the value of the local currency of the non-U.S. markets in which the Fund invests depreciates against the U.S. dollar. This is true even if the local currency value of securities in the Fund’s holdings goes up. Conversely, the dollar value of your investment in the Fund may go up if the value of the local currency appreciates against the U.S. dollar. The value of the U.S. dollar measured against other currencies is influenced by a variety of factors. These factors include: national debt levels and trade deficits, changes in balances of payments and trade, domestic and foreign interest and inflation rates, global or regional political, economic or financial events, monetary policies of governments, actual or potential government intervention, and global energy prices. Political instability, the possibility of government intervention and restrictive or opaque business and investment policies may also reduce the value of a country’s currency. Government monetary policies and the buying or selling of currency by a country’s government may also influence exchange rates. Currency exchange rates can be very volatile and can change quickly and unpredictably. As a result, the value of an investment in the Fund may change quickly and without warning, and you may lose money.
|
· |
Depositary Receipt Risk.
The Fund may hold the securities of non-U.S. companies in the form of American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) and Global Depositary Receipts (“GDRs”). ADRs are negotiable certificates issued by a U.S. financial institution that represent a specified number of shares in a foreign stock and trade on a U.S. national securities exchange, such as the New York Stock Exchange. Sponsored ADRs are issued with the support of the issuer of the foreign stock underlying the ADRs and carry all of the rights of common shares, including voting rights. GDRs are similar to ADRs, but may be issued in bearer form and are typically offered for sale globally and held by a foreign branch of an international bank. The underlying issuers of certain depositary receipts, particularly unsponsored or unregistered depositary receipts, are under no obligation to distribute shareholder communications to the holders of such receipts, or to pass through to them any voting rights with respect to the deposited securities. Issuers of unsponsored depositary receipts are not contractually obligated to disclose material information in the U.S. and, therefore, such information may not correlate to the market value of the unsponsored depositary receipt. The underlying securities of the ADRs and GDRs in the Fund’s portfolio are usually denominated or quoted in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. As a result, changes in foreign currency exchange rates may affect the value of the Fund’s portfolio. In addition, because the underlying securities of ADRs and GDRs trade on foreign exchanges at times when the U.S. markets are not open for trading, the value of the securities underlying the ADRs and GDRs may change materially at times when the U.S. markets are not open for trading, regardless of whether there is an active U.S. market for Shares.
|
· |
ETF Risks.
|
o |
Trading.
Although Shares are listed for trading on the Exchange and may be listed or traded on U.S. and non-U.S. stock exchanges other than the Exchange, there can be no assurance that an active trading market for such Shares will develop or be maintained. Trading in Shares may be halted due to market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in Shares inadvisable. In addition, trading in Shares on the Exchange is subject to trading halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to Exchange “circuit breaker” rules, which temporarily halt trading on the Exchange when a decline in the S&P 500 Index during a single day reaches certain thresholds (e.g., 7%, 13%, and 20%). Additional rules applicable to the Exchange may halt trading in Shares when extraordinary volatility causes sudden, significant swings in the market price of Shares. There can be no assurance that Shares will trade with any volume, or at all, on any stock exchange. In stressed market conditions, the liquidity of Shares may begin to mirror the liquidity of the Fund’s underlying portfolio holdings, which can be significantly less liquid than Shares.
|
o |
Costs of Buying or Selling Shares.
Investors buying or selling Shares in the secondary market will pay brokerage commissions or other charges imposed by brokers, as determined by that broker. Brokerage commissions are often a fixed amount and may be a significant proportional cost for investors seeking to buy or sell relatively small amounts of Shares. In addition, secondary market investors will also incur the cost of the difference between the price at which an investor is willing to buy Shares (the “bid” price) and the price at which an investor is willing to sell Shares (the “ask” price). This difference in bid and ask prices is often referred to as the “spread” or “bid/ask spread.” The bid/ask spread varies over time for Shares based on trading volume and market liquidity, and is generally lower if Shares have more trading volume and market liquidity and higher if Shares have little trading volume and market liquidity. Further, a relatively small investor base in the Fund, asset swings in the Fund and/or increased market volatility may cause increased bid/ask spreads. Due to the costs of buying or selling Shares, including bid/ask spreads, frequent trading of Shares may significantly reduce investment results and an investment in Shares may not be advisable for investors who anticipate regularly making small investments.
|
o |
Authorized Participants, Market Makers, and Liquidity Providers Concentration Risk.
The Fund has a limited number of financial institutions that may act as APs. In addition, there may be a limited number of market makers and/or liquidity providers in the marketplace. To the extent either of the following events occur, Shares may trade at a material discount to NAV and possibly face delisting: (i) APs exit the business or otherwise become unable to process creation and/or redemption orders and no other APs step forward to perform these services, or (ii) market makers and/or liquidity providers exit the business or significantly reduce their business activities and no other entities step forward to perform their functions.
|
· |
Equity Market Risk.
Common stocks are susceptible to general stock market fluctuations and to volatile increases and decreases in value as market confidence in and perceptions of their issuers change. These investor perceptions are based on various and unpredictable factors including: expectations regarding government, economic, monetary and fiscal policies; inflation and interest rates; economic expansion or contraction; and global or regional political, economic and banking crises. If you held common stock, or common stock equivalents, of any given issuer, you would generally be exposed to greater risk than if you held preferred stocks and debt obligations of the issuer because common stockholders, or holders of equivalent interests, generally have inferior rights to receive payments from issuers in comparison with the rights of preferred stockholders, bondholders, and other creditors of such issuers.
|
· |
Foreign Securities Risk.
Investments in non-U.S. securities involve certain risks that may not be present with investments in U.S. securities. For example, investments in non-U.S. securities may be subject to risk of loss due to foreign currency fluctuations or to political or economic instability. There may be less information publicly available about a non-U.S. issuer than a U.S. issuer. Non-U.S. issuers may be subject to different accounting, auditing, financial reporting and investor protection standards than U.S. issuers. Investments in non-U.S. securities may be subject to withholding or other taxes and may be subject to additional trading, settlement, custodial, and operational risks. With respect to certain countries, there is the possibility of government intervention and expropriation or nationalization of assets. Because legal systems differ, there is also the possibility that it will be difficult to obtain or enforce legal judgments in certain countries. Since foreign exchanges may be open on days when the Fund does not price its Shares, the value of the securities in the Fund’s portfolio may change on days when shareholders will not be able to purchase or sell Shares. Conversely, Shares may trade on days when foreign exchanges are close. Each of these factors can make investments in the Fund more volatile and potentially less liquid than other types of investments.
|
· |
Geographic Investment Risk.
To the extent that the Fund invests a significant portion of its assets in the securities of companies of a single country or region, it is more likely to be impacted by events or conditions affecting that country or region. For example, political and economic conditions and changes in regulatory, tax, or economic policy in a country could significantly affect the market in that country and in surrounding or related countries and have a negative impact on the Fund’s performance. Currency developments or restrictions, political and social instability, and changing economic conditions have resulted in significant market volatility.
|
o |
Canada-Specific Risk.
The Canadian economy is reliant on the sale of natural resources and commodities, which can pose risks such as the fluctuation of prices and the variability of demand for exportation of such products. Changes in spending on Canadian products by the economies of other countries or changes in any of these economies may cause a significant impact on the Canadian economy.
|
· |
Management Risk.
The Fund is actively-managed and may not meet its investment objective based on the Adviser’s success or failure to implement investment strategies for the Fund.
|
· |
Market Capitalization Risks.
|
o |
Large-Capitalization Investing.
The securities of large-capitalization companies may be relatively mature compared to smaller companies and therefore subject to slower growth during times of economic expansion. Large-capitalization companies may also be unable to respond quickly to new competitive challenges, such as changes in technology and consumer tastes.
|
o |
Mid-Capitalization Investing.
The securities of mid-capitalization companies may be more vulnerable to adverse issuer, market, political, or economic developments than securities of large-capitalization companies. The securities of mid-capitalization companies generally trade in lower volumes and are subject to greater and more unpredictable price changes than large capitalization stocks or the stock market as a whole. Some medium capitalization companies have limited product lines, markets, financial resources, and management personnel and tend to concentrate on fewer geographical markets relative to large-capitalization companies.
|
o |
Small-Capitalization Investing.
The securities of small-capitalization companies may be more vulnerable to adverse issuer, market, political, or economic developments than securities of larger-capitalization companies. The securities of small-capitalization companies generally trade in lower volumes and are subject to greater and more unpredictable price changes than larger capitalization stocks or the stock market as a whole. Some small capitalization companies have limited product lines, markets, and financial and managerial resources and tend to concentrate on fewer geographical markets relative to larger capitalization companies. There is typically less publicly available information concerning smaller-capitalization companies than for larger, more established companies. Small-capitalization companies also may be particularly sensitive to changes in interest rates, government regulation, borrowing costs and earnings.
|
· |
Market Risk.
The trading prices of debt securities and other instruments fluctuate in response to a variety of factors. These factors include events impacting the entire market or specific market segments, such as political, market and economic developments, as well as events that impact specific issuers. The Fund’s NAV and market price, like security and commodity prices generally, may fluctuate significantly in response to these and other factors. As a result, an investor could lose money over short or long periods of time.
|
· |
Models and Data Risk.
When Models and Data prove to be incorrect or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon expose the Fund to potential risks. The EquBot Model is predictive in nature. The use of predictive models has inherent risks. For example, such models may incorrectly forecast future behavior, leading to potential losses. In addition, in unforeseen or certain low-probability scenarios (often involving a market disruption of some kind), such models may produce unexpected results, which can result in losses for the Fund. Furthermore, because predictive models are usually constructed based on historical data supplied by third parties, the success of relying on such models may depend heavily on the accuracy and reliability of the supplied historical data.
|
· |
New Fund Risk.
The Fund is a recently organized, non-diversified management investment company with no operating history. As a result, prospective investors have no track record on which to base their investment decision.
|
· |
Non-Diversification Risk.
The Fund is considered to be non-diversified, which means that it may invest more of its assets in the securities of a single issuer or a smaller number of issuers than if it were a diversified fund. As a result, the Fund may be more exposed to the risks associated with and developments affecting an individual issuer or a smaller number of issuers than a fund that invests more widely. This may increase the Fund’s volatility and cause the performance of a relatively smaller number of issuers to have a greater impact on the Fund’s performance.
|
· |
Portfolio Turnover Risk.
The Fund may actively and frequently trade securities or other instruments in its portfolio to carry out its investment strategies. A high portfolio turnover rate increases transaction costs, which may increase the Fund’s expenses. Frequent trading may also cause adverse tax consequences for investors in the Fund due to an increase in short-term capital gains.
|
· |
Sector Risk.
The Fund’s investing approach may result in an emphasis on certain sectors or sub-sectors of the market at any given time. To the extent the Fund invests more heavily in one sector or sub-sector of the market, it thereby presents a more concentrated risk and its performance will be especially sensitive to developments that significantly affect those sectors or sub-sectors. In addition, the value of Shares may change at different rates compared to the value of Shares with investments in a more diversified mix of sectors and industries. An individual sector or sub-sector of the market may have above-average performance during particular periods, but may also move up and down more than the broader market. The several industries that constitute a sector may all react in the same way to economic, political or regulatory events. The Fund’s performance could also be affected if the sectors or sub-sectors do not perform as expected. Alternatively, the lack of exposure to one or more sectors or sub-sectors may adversely affect performance.
|
· |
Shares May Trade at Prices Other Than NAV.
As with all ETFs, Shares may be bought and sold in the secondary market at market prices. Although it is expected that the market price of the Shares will approximate the Fund’s NAV, there may be times when the market price of Shares is more than the NAV intra-day (premium) or less than the NAV intra-day (discount) due to supply and demand of the Shares or during periods of market volatility. This risk is heightened in times of market volatility or periods of steep market declines. The market price of Shares during the trading day, like the price of any exchange-traded security, includes a “bid/ask” spread charged by the exchange specialist, market makers or other participants that trade the Shares. In times of severe market disruption, the bid/ask spread can increase significantly. At those times, Shares are most likely to be traded at a discount to NAV, and the discount is likely to be greatest when the price of Shares is falling fastest, which may be the time that you most want to sell your Shares. The Adviser believes that, under normal market conditions, large market price discounts or premiums to NAV will not be sustained because of arbitrage opportunities.
|
Adviser
|
EquBot Inc.
450 Townsend Street
San Francisco, California 94107 |
Sub-Adviser
|
Vident Investment Advisory, LLC
300 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 330
Roswell, Georgia 30076
|
Transfer Agent
|
U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC
615 East Michigan Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
|
Administrator
and Fund
Accountant
|
U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC
615 East Michigan Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
|
Custodian
|
U.S. Bank National Association
1555 N. Rivercenter Dr.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53212
|
Distributor
|
Quasar Distributors, LLC
777 E. Wisconsin Avenue, 6
th
Floor
Milwaukee, WI 53202
|
Independent
Registered Public
Accounting Firm
|
Cohen & Company, Ltd.
342 North Water Street, Suite 830
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
|
Legal Counsel
|
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
|
· |
Free of charge from the SEC’s EDGAR database on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov; or
|
· |
Free of charge from the Fund’s Internet web site at www.aiiqetf
.com
; or
|
· |
For a fee, by writing to the Public Reference Room of the Commission, Washington, DC 20549-1520; or
|
· |
For a fee, by e-mail request to publicinfo@sec.gov.
|
General Information about the Trust
|
1
|
Additional Information about Investment Objectives, Policies, and Related Risks
|
2
|
Investment Restrictions
|
11
|
Exchange Listing and Trading
|
12
|
Management of the Trust
|
12
|
Principal Shareholders, Control Persons, and Management Ownership
|
16
|
Codes of Ethics
|
17
|
Proxy Voting Policies
|
17
|
Investment Adviser and Sub-Adviser
|
17
|
Portfolio Managers
|
18
|
The Distributor
|
19
|
The Administrator, Custodian, and Transfer Agent
|
20
|
Legal Counsel
|
20
|
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
20
|
Portfolio Holdings Disclosure Policies and Procedures
|
20
|
Description of Shares
|
20
|
Limitation of Trustees' Liability
|
21
|
Brokerage Transactions
|
21
|
Portfolio Turnover Rate
|
22
|
Book Entry Only System
|
22
|
Purchase and Redemption of Shares in Creation Units
|
23
|
Determination of NAV
|
28
|
Dividends and Distributions
|
28
|
Federal Income Taxes
|
29
|
Financial Statements
|
34
|
Appendix A
|
A-1
|
Appendix B
|
B-1
|
1. |
Concentrate its investments (
i.e.
, hold more than 25% of its total assets) in any industry or group of related industries. For purposes of this limitation, securities of the U.S. government (including its agencies and instrumentalities), repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. government securities and securities of state or municipal governments and their political subdivisions are not considered to be issued by members of any industry.
|
2. |
Borrow money or issue senior securities (as defined under the 1940 Act), except to the extent permitted under the 1940 Act.
|
3. |
Make loans, except to the extent permitted under the 1940 Act.
|
4. |
Purchase or sell real estate unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments, except to the extent permitted under the 1940 Act. This shall not prevent the Fund from investing in securities or other instruments backed by real estate, real estate investment trusts or securities of companies engaged in the real estate business.
|
5. |
Purchase or sell physical commodities unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments, except to the extent permitted under the 1940 Act. This shall not prevent the Fund from purchasing or selling options and futures contracts or from investing in securities or other instruments backed by physical commodities.
|
6. |
Underwrite securities issued by other persons, except to the extent permitted under the 1940 Act.
|
1. |
The Fund will not hold illiquid assets in excess of 15% of its net assets. An illiquid asset is any asset which may not be sold or disposed of in the ordinary course of business within seven days at approximately the value at which the Fund has valued the investment.
|
2. |
Under normal circumstances, at least 80% of the Fund’s net assets, plus borrowings for investment purposes, will be invested in equity securities.
|
Name and
Year of Birth |
Position Held
with the Trust
|
Term of
Office and
Length of
Time Served
|
Principal Occupation(s) During
Past 5 Years
|
Number of
Portfolios in
Fund Complex
Overseen by
Trustee
|
Other Directorships
Held by Trustee
During Past 5 Years
|
Independent Trustees
|
|||||
Leonard M. Rush, CPA
Born: 1946
|
Lead
Independent
Trustee
and
Audit
Committee
Chairman
|
Indefinite term; since 2012
|
Retired; formerly Chief Financial Officer, Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated (wealth management firm) (2000–2011).
|
35
|
Independent Trustee, Managed Portfolio Series (36 portfolios); Director, Anchor Bancorp Wisconsin, Inc. (2011–2013).
|
David A. Massart
Born: 1967
|
Trustee
|
Indefinite term; since 2012
|
Co-Founder, President, and Chief Investment Strategist, Next Generation Wealth Management, Inc. (since 2005).
|
35
|
Independent Trustee, Managed Portfolio Series
(36 portfolios).
|
Janet D. Olsen
Born: 1956
|
Trustee
|
Indefinite term; since 2018
|
Retired; formerly Managing Director and General Counsel, Artisan Partners Limited Partnership (investment adviser) (2000–2013); Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. (2012–2013); Vice President and General Counsel, Artisan Funds, Inc. (investment company) (2001–2012).
|
35
|
Independent Trustee, PPM Funds (since 2018).
|
Interested Trustee
|
|||||
Michael A. Castino
Born: 1967
|
Trustee and Chairman
|
Indefinite term;
Trustee since 2014; Chairman since 2013
|
Senior Vice President, USBFS (since 2013); Managing Director of Index Services, Zacks Investment Management (2011–2013).
|
35
|
None
|
Name and
Year of Birth |
Position(s) Held with the
Trust
|
Term of Office and
Length of Time Served
|
Principal Occupation(s)
During Past 5 Years |
Paul R. Fearday, CPA
Born: 1979
|
President and Assistant
Treasurer
|
Indefinite term;
President and Assistant
Treasurer since 2014
(other roles since 2013)
|
Senior Vice President, U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC (since 2008); Manager, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (accounting firm) (2002–2008).
|
Michael D. Barolsky, Esq.
Born: 1981
|
Vice President and
Secretary
|
Indefinite term; since
2014 (other roles since
2013)
|
Vice President, USBFS (since 2012); Associate, Thompson Hine LLP (law firm) (2008–2012).
|
James R. Butz
Born: 1982
|
Chief Compliance Officer
|
Indefinite term; since
2015
|
Senior Vice President, USBFS (since 2015); Vice President, USBFS (2014–2015); Assistant Vice President, USBFS (2011–2014).
|
Kristen M. Weitzel, CPA
Born: 1977
|
Treasurer
|
Indefinite term; since
2014 (other roles since
2013)
|
Vice President, USBFS (since 2015); Assistant Vice President, USBFS (2011–2015); Manager, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (accounting firm) (2005– 2011).
|
Brett M. Wickmann
Born: 1982
|
Assistant Treasurer
|
Indefinite term; since
2017
|
Vice President, USBFS (since 2017); Assistant Vice President, USBFS (2012–2017).
|
Elizabeth A. Winske
Born: 1983
|
Assistant Treasurer
|
Indefinite term; since
2017
|
Assistant Vice President (since 2016); Officer, USBFS (2012–2016).
|
Name
|
Aggregate Compensation From
Fund
|
Total Compensation From Fund Complex
Paid to Trustees
|
Interested Trustee
|
||
Michael A. Castino
|
$0
|
$0
|
Independent Trustees
|
||
Leonard M. Rush, CPA
|
$0
|
$117,500
|
David A. Massart
|
$0
|
$104,000
|
Janet D. Olsen
|
$0
|
$104,000
|
Portfolio Manager
|
Type of Accounts
|
Total
Number of
Accounts
|
Total Assets
of Accounts
|
Total Number of
Accounts with
Performance Based
Fees
|
Total Assets of
Accounts with Performance Based
Fees
|
Denise M. Krisko, CFA
|
Registered Investment
Companies
|
35
|
$5,431,000,000
|
0
|
$0
|
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
|
1
|
$16,100,000
|
0
|
$0
|
|
Other Accounts
|
0
|
$0
|
0
|
$0
|
Rafael Zayas, CFA
|
Registered Investment
Companies
|
4
|
$811,700,000
|
0
|
$0
|
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles
|
0
|
$0
|
0
|
$0
|
|
Other Accounts
|
0
|
$0
|
0
|
$0
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
8
|
||
1.
|
9
|
|
9
|
||
9
|
||
10
|
||
12
|
||
12
|
||
13
|
||
16
|
||
16
|
||
16
|
||
17
|
||
17
|
||
17
|
||
17
|
||
17
|
||
17
|
||
17
|
||
18
|
||
18
|
||
18
|
||
19
|
||
19
|
||
19
|
||
20
|
||
20
|
||
20
|
||
20
|
||
|
||
2.
|
21
|
|
21
|
||
21
|
||
21
|
||
22
|
||
|
||
3.
|
23
|
|
23
|
||
23
|
||
23
|
||
23
|
||
24
|
||
24
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
2 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
24
|
||
24
|
||
24
|
||
25
|
||
25
|
||
25
|
||
26
|
||
26
|
||
26
|
||
27
|
||
27
|
||
27
|
||
28
|
||
28
|
||
28
|
||
28
|
||
|
||
4.
|
29
|
|
29
|
||
29
|
||
29
|
||
30
|
||
30
|
||
30
|
||
30
|
||
31
|
||
31
|
||
31
|
||
31
|
||
31
|
||
32
|
||
32
|
||
32
|
||
32
|
||
32
|
||
32
|
||
33
|
||
33
|
||
33
|
||
34
|
||
34
|
||
34
|
||
|
||
35
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
3 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
36
|
||
36
|
||
37
|
||
37
|
||
37
|
||
|
||
5.
|
38
|
|
38
|
||
38
|
||
39
|
||
39
|
||
41
|
||
41
|
||
41
|
||
42
|
||
43
|
||
43
|
||
43
|
||
43
|
||
43
|
||
44
|
||
44
|
||
45
|
||
45
|
||
45
|
||
45
|
||
45
|
||
45
|
||
45
|
||
45
|
||
46
|
||
46
|
||
47
|
||
47
|
||
47
|
||
48
|
||
48
|
||
48
|
||
48
|
||
48
|
||
49
|
||
49
|
||
|
||
49
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
4 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
49
|
||
49
|
||
50
|
||
50
|
||
51
|
||
51
|
||
51
|
||
51
|
||
52
|
||
52
|
||
52
|
||
52
|
||
|
||
6.
|
53
|
|
53
|
||
53
|
||
53
|
||
53
|
||
53
|
||
53
|
||
|
||
7.
|
54
|
|
54
|
||
54
|
||
54
|
||
54
|
||
55
|
||
55
|
||
55
|
||
55
|
||
55
|
||
56
|
||
56
|
||
56
|
||
57
|
||
57
|
||
58
|
||
58
|
||
58
|
||
58
|
||
59
|
||
59
|
||
59
|
||
|
||
59
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
5 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
59
|
||
60
|
||
60
|
||
60
|
||
60
|
||
60
|
||
61
|
||
61
|
||
61
|
||
61
|
||
61
|
||
62
|
||
62
|
||
62
|
||
63
|
||
63
|
||
63
|
||
63
|
||
63
|
||
64
|
||
|
||
8.
|
65
|
|
65
|
||
65
|
||
65
|
||
65
|
||
65
|
||
65
|
||
66
|
||
66
|
||
66
|
||
66
|
||
66
|
||
66
|
||
67
|
||
67
|
||
67
|
||
67
|
||
68
|
||
68
|
||
68
|
||
|
||
68
|
||
68
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
6 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
7 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
› |
U.S. Domestic Issuers – which have a majority of outstanding shares held in the U.S. and meet other criteria, as determined by the SEC, and are subject to the same disclosure and listing standards as U.S. incorporated companies – are generally covered under standard U.S. policy guidelines.
|
› |
Foreign Private Issuers (FPIs) – which do not meet the Domestic Issuer criteria and are exempt from most disclosure requirements (e.g., they do not file DEF14A reports) and listing standards (e.g., for required levels of board and committee independence) – are covered under a combination of policy guidelines:
|
› |
FPI Guidelines (see the Americas Regional Proxy Voting Guidelines), which apply certain minimum independence and disclosure standards in the evaluation of key proxy ballot items, such as the election of directors and approval of financial reports; and
|
›
|
For other issues, guidelines for the market that is responsible for, or most relevant to, the item on the ballot.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
8 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
Ge
neral Recommendation
:
Generally vote for director nominees, except under the following circumstances:
|
›
|
Independent directors comprise 50 percent or less of the board;
|
›
|
The non-independent director serves on the audit, compensation, or nominating committee;
|
› |
The company lacks an audit, compensation, or nominating committee so that the full board functions as that committee; or
|
› |
The company lacks a formal nominating committee, even if the board attests that the independent directors fulfill the functions of such a committee.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
9 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
1.
Executive Director
1.1.
Current employee or current officer
1
of the company or one of its affiliates
2
.
2.
Non-Independent Non-Executive Director
Board Identification
2.1.
Director identified as not independent by the board.
Controlling/Significant Shareholder
2.2.
Beneficial owner of more than 50 percent of the company's voting power (this may be aggregated if voting power is distributed among more than one member of a group).
Former CEO/Interim Officer
2.3.
Former CEO of the company.
3, 4
2.4.
Former CEO of an acquired company within the past five years.
4
2.5.
Former interim officer if the service was longer than 18 months. If the service was between 12 and 18 months an assessment of the interim officer’s employment agreement will be made.
5
Non-CEO Executives
2.6.
Former officer
1
of the company, an affiliate
2
, or an acquired firm within the past five years.
2.7.
Officer
1
of a former parent or predecessor firm at the time the company was sold or split off from the parent/predecessor within the past five years.
2.8.
Officer
1
, former officer, or general or limited partner of a joint venture or partnership with the company.
Family Members
2.9.
Immediate family member
6
of a current or former officer
1
of the company or its affiliates
2
within the last five years.
2.10.
Immediate family member
6
of a current employee of company or its affiliates
2
where additional factors raise concern (which may include, but are not limited to, the following: a director related to numerous employees; the company or its affiliates employ relatives of numerous board members; or a non- Section 16 officer in a key strategic role).
Transactional, Professional, Financial, and Charitable Relationships
2.11.
Currently provides (or an immediate family member
6
provides) professional services
7
to the company, to an affiliate
2
of the company or an individual officer of the company or one of its affiliates in excess of
$10,000 per year.
2.12.
Is (or an immediate family member
6
is) a partner in, or a controlling shareholder or an employee of, an organization which provides professional services
7
to the company, to an affiliate
2
of the company, or an individual officer of the company or one of its affiliates in excess of $10,000 per year.
2.13.
Has (or an immediate family member
6
has) any material transactional relationship
8
with the company or its affiliates
2
(excluding investments in the company through a private placement).
2.14.
Is (or an immediate family member
6
is) a partner in, or a controlling shareholder or an executive officer of, an organization which has any material transactional relationship
8
with the company or its affiliates
2
(excluding investments in the company through a private placement).
2.15.
Is (or an immediate family member
6
is) a trustee, director, or employee of a charitable or non-profit organization that receives material grants or endowments
8
from the company or its affiliates
2
.
Other Relationships
2.16.
Party to a voting agreement
9
to vote in line with management on proposals being brought to shareholder vote.
2.17.
Has (or an immediate family member
6
has) an interlocking relationship as defined by the SEC involving members of the board of directors or its Compensation Committee.
10
2.18.
Founder
11
of the company but not currently an employee.
2.19.
Any material
12
relationship with the company.
3.
Independent Director
3.1.
No material
12
connection to the company other than a board seat.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
10 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
Footnotes:
1.
The definition of officer will generally follow that of a “Section 16 officer” (officers subject to Section 16 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934) and includes the chief executive, operating, financial, legal, technology, and accounting officers of a company (including the president, treasurer, secretary, controller, or any vice president in charge of a principal business unit, division, or policy function). Current interim officers are included in this category. For private companies, the equivalent positions are applicable. A non-employee director serving as an officer due to statutory requirements (e.g. corporate secretary) will generally be classified as a Non-Independent Non-Executive Director under 2.19: “Any material relationship with the company.” However, if the company provides explicit disclosure that the director is not receiving additional compensation exceeding $10,000 per year for serving in that capacity, then the director will be classified as an Independent Director.
2.
“Affiliate” includes a subsidiary, sibling company, or parent company. ISS uses 50 percent control ownership by the parent company as the standard for applying its affiliate designation.
3.
Includes any former CEO of the company prior to the company’s initial public offering (IPO).
4.
When there is a former CEO of a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) serving on the board of an acquired company, ISS will generally classify such directors as independent unless determined otherwise taking into account the following factors: the applicable listing standards determination of such director’s independence; any operating ties to the firm; and the existence of any other conflicting relationships or related party transactions.
5.
ISS will look at the terms of the interim officer’s employment contract to determine if it contains severance pay, long-term health and pension benefits, or other such standard provisions typically contained in contracts of permanent, non-temporary CEOs. ISS will also consider if a formal search process was under way for a full-time officer at the time.
6.
“Immediate family member” follows the SEC’s definition of such and covers spouses, parents, children, step-parents, step- children, siblings, in-laws, and any person (other than a tenant or employee) sharing the household of any director, nominee for director, executive officer, or significant shareholder of the company.
7.
Professional services can be characterized as advisory in nature, generally involve access to sensitive company information or to strategic decision-making, and typically have a commission- or fee-based payment structure. Professional services generally include, but are not limited to the following: investment banking/financial advisory services, commercial banking (beyond deposit services), investment services, insurance services, accounting/audit services, consulting services, marketing services, legal services, property management services, realtor services, lobbying services, executive search services, and IT consulting services. The following would generally be considered transactional relationships and not professional services: deposit services, IT tech support services, educational services, and construction services. The case of participation in a banking syndicate by a non-lead bank should be considered a transactional (and hence subject to the associated materiality test) rather than a professional relationship. “Of Counsel” relationships are only considered immaterial if the individual does not receive any form of compensation (in excess of $10,000 per year) from, or is a retired partner of, the firm providing the professional service. The case of a company providing a professional service to one of its directors or to an entity with which one of its directors is affiliated, will be considered a transactional rather than a professional relationship. Insurance services and marketing services are assumed to be professional services unless the company explains why such services are not advisory.
8.
A material transactional relationship, including grants to non-profit organizations, exists if the company makes annual payments to, or receives annual payments from, another entity, exceeding the greater of: $200,000 or 5 percent of the recipient’s gross revenues, for a company that follows NASDAQ listing standards; or the greater of $1,000,000 or 2 percent of the recipient’s gross revenues, for a company that follows NYSE listing standards. For a company that follows neither of the preceding standards, ISS will apply the NASDAQ-based materiality test. (The recipient is the party receiving the financial proceeds from the transaction).
9.
Dissident directors who are parties to a voting agreement pursuant to a settlement or similar arrangement may be classified as Independent Directors if an analysis of the following factors indicates that the voting agreement does not compromise their alignment with all shareholders’ interests: the terms of the agreement; the duration of the standstill provision in the agreement; the limitations and requirements of actions that are agreed upon; if the dissident director nominee(s) is subject to the standstill; and if there any conflicting relationships or related party transactions.
10.
Interlocks include: executive officers serving as directors on each other’s compensation or similar committees (or, in the absence of such a committee, on the board); or executive officers sitting on each other’s boards and at least one serves on the other’s compensation or similar committees (or, in the absence of such a committee, on the board).
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
11 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
11.
The operating involvement of the founder with the company will be considered; if the founder was never employed by the company, ISS may deem him or her an Independent Director.
12.
For purposes of ISS’s director independence classification, “material” will be defined as a standard of relationship (financial, personal or otherwise) that a reasonable person might conclude could potentially influence one’s objectivity in the boardroom in a manner that would have a meaningful impact on an individual's ability to satisfy requisite fiduciary standards on behalf of shareholders.
|
›
|
Medical issues/illness;
|
›
|
Family emergencies; and
|
›
|
Missing only one meeting (when the total of all meetings is three or fewer).
|
›
|
Sit on more than five public company boards; or
|
› |
Are CEOs of public companies who sit on the boards of more than two public companies besides their own— withhold only at their outside boards
3
.
|
› |
The board failed to act on a shareholder proposal that received the support of a majority of the shares cast in the previous year. Factors that will be considered are:
|
›
|
Disclosed outreach efforts by the board to shareholders in the wake of the vote;
|
›
|
Rationale provided in the proxy statement for the level of implementation;
|
›
|
The subject matter of the proposal;
|
›
|
The level of support for and opposition to the resolution in past meetings;
|
›
|
Actions taken by the board in response to the majority vote and its engagement with shareholders;
|
› |
The continuation of the underlying issue as a voting item on the ballot (as either shareholder or management proposals); and
|
›
|
Other factors as appropriate.
|
›
|
The board failed to act on takeover offers where the majority of shares are tendered;
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
12 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
› |
At the previous board election, any director received more than 50 percent withhold/against votes of the shares cast and the company has failed to address the issue(s) that caused the high withhold/against vote.
|
› |
The company’s previous say-on-pay received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast. Factors that will be considered are:
|
›
|
The company's response, including:
|
› |
Disclosure of engagement efforts with major institutional investors, including the frequency and timing of engagements and the company participants (including whether independent directors participated);
|
› |
Disclosure of the specific concerns voiced by dissenting shareholders that led to the say-on-pay opposition;
|
›
|
Disclosure of specific and meaningful actions taken to address shareholders' concerns;
|
›
|
Other recent compensation actions taken by the company;
|
›
|
Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated;
|
›
|
The company's ownership structure; and
|
› |
Whether the support level was less than 50 percent, which would warrant the highest degree of responsiveness.
|
› |
The board implements an advisory vote on executive compensation on a less frequent basis than the frequency that received the plurality of votes cast.
|
› |
The company has a poison pill that was not approved by shareholders
5
.
However, vote case-by-case on nominees if the board adopts an initial pill with a term of one year or less, depending on the disclosed rationale for the adoption, and other factors as relevant (such as a commitment to put any renewal to a shareholder vote).
|
› |
The board makes a material adverse modification to an existing pill, including, but not limited to, extension, renewal, or lowering the trigger, without shareholder approval.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
13 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
›
|
A classified board structure;
|
›
|
A supermajority vote requirement;
|
› |
Either a plurality vote standard in uncontested director elections, or a majority vote standard in contested elections;
|
›
|
The inability of shareholders to call special meetings;
|
›
|
The inability of shareholders to act by written consent;
|
›
|
A multi-class capital structure; and/or
|
›
|
A non-shareholder-approved poison pill.
|
›
|
The board's rationale for adopting the bylaw/charter amendment without shareholder ratification;
|
›
|
Disclosure by the company of any significant engagement with shareholders regarding the amendment;
|
›
|
The level of impairment of shareholders' rights caused by the board's unilateral amendment to the bylaws/charter;
|
› |
The board's track record with regard to unilateral board action on bylaw/charter amendments or other entrenchment provisions;
|
›
|
The company's ownership structure;
|
›
|
The company's existing governance provisions;
|
› |
The timing of the board's amendment to the bylaws/charter in connection with a significant business development; and
|
› |
Other factors, as deemed appropriate, that may be relevant to determine the impact of the amendment on shareholders.
|
›
|
Classified the board;
|
›
|
Adopted supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter; or
|
›
|
Eliminated shareholders' ability to amend bylaws.
|
›
|
The level of impairment of shareholders' rights;
|
›
|
The disclosed rationale;
|
›
|
The ability to change the governance structure (e.g., limitations on shareholders’ right to amend the bylaws or charter, or supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter);
|
› |
The ability of shareholders to hold directors accountable through annual director elections, or whether the company has a classified board structure;
|
›
|
Any reasonable sunset provision; and
|
›
|
Other relevant factors.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
14 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
› |
The company’s governing documents impose undue restrictions on shareholders’ ability to amend the bylaws. Such restrictions include, but are not limited to: outright prohibition on the submission of binding shareholder proposals, or share ownership requirements or time holding requirements in excess of SEC Rule 14a-8. Vote against on an ongoing basis.
|
›
|
The non-audit fees paid to the auditor are
excessive
;
|
›
|
The company receives an adverse opinion on the company’s financial statements from its auditor; or
|
› |
There is persuasive evidence that the Audit Committee entered into an inappropriate indemnification agreement with its auditor that limits the ability of the company, or its shareholders, to pursue legitimate legal recourse against the audit firm.
|
› |
Poor accounting practices are identified that rise to a level of serious concern, such as: fraud; misapplication of GAAP; and material weaknesses identified in Section 404 disclosures. Examine the severity, breadth, chronological sequence, and duration, as well as the company’s efforts at remediation or corrective actions, in determining whether withhold/against votes are warranted.
|
›
|
There is a significant misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (
pay for performance
);
|
›
|
The company maintains significant
problematic pay practices
;
or
|
›
|
The board exhibits a significant level of
poor communication and responsiveness
to shareholders.
|
› |
The company fails to include a Say on Pay ballot item when required under SEC provisions, or under the company’s declared frequency of say on pay; or
|
›
|
The company fails to include a Frequency of Say on Pay ballot item when required under SEC provisions.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
15 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
›
|
The presence of an anti-pledging policy, disclosed in the proxy statement, that prohibits future pledging activity;
|
› |
The magnitude of aggregate pledged shares in terms of total common shares outstanding, market value, and trading volume;
|
›
|
Disclosure of progress or lack thereof in reducing the magnitude of aggregate pledged shares over time;
|
› |
Disclosure in the proxy statement that shares subject to stock ownership and holding requirements do not include pledged company stock; and
|
›
|
Any other relevant factors.
|
›
|
Material failures of governance, stewardship, risk oversight
6
,
or fiduciary responsibilities at the company;
|
›
|
Failure to replace management as appropriate; or
|
›
|
Egregious actions related to a director’s service on other boards that raise substantial doubt about his or her ability to effectively oversee management and serve the best interests of shareholders at any company.
|
General Recommendation
:
In cases where companies are targeted in connection with public “vote-no” campaigns,
evaluate director nominees under the existing governance policies for voting on director nominees in uncontested elections. Take into consideration the arguments submitted by shareholders and other publicly available information.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on the election of directors in contested elections, considering the
following factors:
|
›
|
Long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry;
|
›
|
Management’s track record;
|
›
|
Background to the contested election;
|
›
|
Nominee qualifications and any compensatory arrangements;
|
›
|
Strategic plan of dissident slate and quality of the critique against management;
|
›
|
Likelihood that the proposed goals and objectives can be achieved (both slates); and
|
›
|
Stock ownership positions.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
16 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for proposals seeking a policy that prohibits named executive officers from engaging in derivative or speculative transactions involving company stock, including hedging, holding stock in a margin account, or pledging stock as collateral for a loan. However, the company’s existing policies regarding responsible use of company stock will be considered.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against management and shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of outside
directors through mandatory retirement ages.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for proposals seeking to fix the board size or designate a range for the board size.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against proposals to classify (stagger) the board.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for proposals seeking disclosure on a CEO succession planning policy, considering, at a minimum, the following factors:
|
›
|
The reasonableness/scope of the request; and
|
›
|
The company’s existing disclosure on its current CEO succession planning process.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote against management proposals to eliminate cumulate voting, and for
shareholder proposals to restore or provide for cumulative voting, unless:
|
›
|
The company has proxy access
7
,
thereby allowing shareholders to nominate directors to the company’s ballot; and
|
› |
The company has adopted a majority vote standard, with a carve-out for plurality voting in situations where there are more nominees than seats, and a director resignation policy to address failed elections.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
17 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals on director and officer indemnification and liability
protection.
|
›
|
Eliminate entirely directors' and officers' liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of care.
|
› |
Expand coverage beyond just legal expenses to liability for acts that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligation than mere carelessness.
|
› |
Expand the scope of indemnification to provide for mandatory indemnification of company officials in connection with acts that previously the company was permitted to provide indemnification for, at the discretion of the company's board (
i.e.
, "permissive indemnification"), but that previously the company was not required to indemnify.
|
› |
If the director was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that s/he reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company; and
|
›
|
If only the director’s legal expenses would be covered.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals that establish or amend director qualifications. Votes
should be based on the reasonableness of the criteria and the degree to which they may preclude dissident nominees from joining the board.
|
› |
The company’s board committee structure, existing subject matter expertise, and board nomination provisions relative to that of its peers;
|
›
|
The company’s existing board and management oversight mechanisms regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought;
|
› |
The company’s disclosure and performance relating to the issue for which board oversight is sought and any significant related controversies; and
|
›
|
The scope and structure of the proposal.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote against shareholder proposals to establish a new board committee, as
such proposals seek a specific oversight mechanism/structure that potentially limits a company’s flexibility to determine an appropriate oversight mechanism for itself. However, the following factors will be considered:
|
› |
Existing oversight mechanisms (including current committee structure) regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought;
|
›
|
Level of disclosure regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought;
|
›
|
Company performance related to the issue for which board oversight is sought;
|
›
|
Board committee structure compared to that of other companies in its industry sector; and
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
18 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
›
|
The scope and structure of the proposal.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for shareholder proposals requiring that the chairman’s position be filled
by an independent director, taking into consideration the following:
|
›
|
The scope of the proposal;
|
›
|
The company's current board leadership structure;
|
›
|
The company's governance structure and practices;
|
›
|
Company performance; and
|
›
|
Any other relevant factors that may be applicable.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for shareholder proposals asking that a majority or more of directors be
independent unless the board composition already meets the proposed threshold by ISS’ definition of Independent Director (See
Categorization of Directors
).
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
19 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for management proposals to adopt a majority of votes cast standard for directors in uncontested elections. Vote against if no carve-out for a plurality vote standard in contested elections is included.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for management and shareholder proposals for proxy access with the following provisions:
|
›
|
Ownership threshold:
maximum requirement not more than three percent (3%) of the voting power;
|
› |
Ownership duration:
maximum requirement not longer than three (3) years of continuous ownership for each member of the nominating group;
|
›
|
Aggregation:
minimal or no limits on the number of shareholders permitted to form a nominating group;
|
›
|
Cap:
cap on nominees of generally twenty-five percent (25%) of the board.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against shareholder proposals that would require a company to nominate more candidates than the number of open board seats.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting that the board establish an internal mechanism/process, which may include a committee, in order to improve communications between directors and shareholders, unless the company has the following features, as appropriate:
|
› |
Established a communication structure that goes beyond the exchange requirements to facilitate the exchange of information between shareholders and members of the board;
|
›
|
Effectively disclosed information with respect to this structure to its shareholders;
|
› |
Company has not ignored majority-supported shareholder proposals or a majority withhold vote on a director nominee; and
|
› |
The company has an independent chairman or a lead director, according to ISS’ definition. This individual must be made available for periodic consultation and direct communication with major shareholders.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
20 of 69
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on the issue of auditor indemnification and limitation of liability. Factors to be assessed include, but are not limited to:
|
›
|
The terms of the auditor agreement—the degree to which these agreements impact shareholders’ rights;
|
›
|
The motivation and rationale for establishing the agreements;
|
›
|
The quality of the company’s disclosure; and
|
›
|
The company’s historical practices in the audit area.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for proposals to ratify auditors unless any of the following apply:
|
›
|
An auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent;
|
›
|
There is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion that is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position;
|
› |
Poor accounting practices are identified that rise to a serious level of concern, such as fraud or misapplication of GAAP; or
|
›
|
Fees for non-audit services (“Other” fees) are excessive.
|
›
|
Non-audit (“other”) fees > audit fees + audit-related fees + tax compliance/preparation fees
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals asking companies to prohibit or limit their auditors from engaging in non-audit services.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
21 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals asking for audit firm rotation, taking into account:
|
›
|
The tenure of the audit firm;
|
›
|
The length of rotation specified in the proposal;
|
›
|
Any significant audit-related issues at the company;
|
›
|
The number of Audit Committee meetings held each year;
|
›
|
The number of financial experts serving on the committee; and
|
› |
Whether the company has a periodic renewal process where the auditor is evaluated for both audit quality and competitive price.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
22 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on advance notice proposals, giving support to those proposals which allow shareholders to submit proposals/nominations as close to the meeting date as reasonably possible and within the broadest window possible, recognizing the need to allow sufficient notice for company, regulatory, and shareholder review.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against proposals giving the board exclusive authority to amend the bylaws.
|
›
|
Any impediments to shareholders’ ability to amend the bylaws (i.e. supermajority voting requirements);
|
›
|
The company’s ownership structure and historical voting turnout;
|
›
|
Whether the board could amend bylaws adopted by shareholders; and
|
›
|
Whether shareholders would retain the ability to ratify any board-initiated amendments.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for proposals to opt out of control share acquisition statutes unless doing so would enable the completion of a takeover that would be detrimental to shareholders.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
23 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for proposals to opt out of control share cash-out statutes.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for proposals to opt out of state disgorgement provisions.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals to adopt fair price provisions (provisions that stipulate that an acquirer must pay the same price to acquire all shares as it paid to acquire the control shares), evaluating factors such as the vote required to approve the proposed acquisition, the vote required to repeal the fair price provision, and the mechanism for determining the fair price.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for proposals to opt out of state freeze-out provisions. Freeze-out provisions force an investor who surpasses a certain ownership threshold in a company to wait a specified period of time before gaining control of the company.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on bylaws which impact shareholders’ litigation rights, taking into account factors such as:
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
24 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
›
|
The company’s stated rationale for adopting such a provision;
|
› |
Disclosure of past harm from shareholder lawsuits in which plaintiffs were unsuccessful or shareholder lawsuits outside the jurisdiction of incorporation;
|
› |
The breadth of application of the bylaw, including the types of lawsuits to which it would apply and the definition of key terms; and
|
› |
Governance features such as shareholders’ ability to repeal the provision at a later date (including the vote standard applied when shareholders attempt to amend the bylaws) and their ability to hold directors accountable through annual director elections and a majority vote standard in uncontested elections.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against proposals to adopt a protective amendment for the stated purpose of protecting a company’s net operating losses (NOL) if the effective term of the protective amendment would exceed the shorter of three years and the exhaustion of the NOL.
|
› |
The ownership threshold (NOL protective amendments generally prohibit stock ownership transfers that would result in a new 5-percent holder or increase the stock ownership percentage of an existing 5-percent holder);
|
›
|
The value of the NOLs;
|
› |
Shareholder protection mechanisms (sunset provision or commitment to cause expiration of the protective amendment upon exhaustion or expiration of the NOL);
|
› |
The company’s existing governance structure including: board independence, existing takeover defenses, track record of responsiveness to shareholders, and any other problematic governance concerns; and
|
›
|
Any other factors that may be applicable.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for shareholder proposals requesting that the company submit its poison pill to a shareholder vote or redeem it unless the company has: (1) A shareholder approved poison pill in place; or (2) The company has adopted a policy concerning the adoption of a pill in the future specifying that the board will only adopt a shareholder rights plan if either:
|
›
|
Shareholders have approved the adoption of the plan; or
|
› |
The board, in its exercise of its fiduciary responsibilities, determines that it is in the best interest of shareholders under the circumstances to adopt a pill without the delay in adoption that would result from seeking stockholder approval (i.e., the “fiduciary out” provision). A poison pill adopted under this fiduciary out will be put to a shareholder ratification vote within 12 months of adoption or expire. If the pill is not approved by a majority of the votes cast on this issue, the plan will immediately terminate.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
25 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on management proposals on poison pill ratification, focusing on the features of the shareholder rights plan. Rights plans should contain the following attributes:
|
›
|
No lower than a 20 percent trigger, flip-in or flip-over;
|
›
|
A term of no more than three years;
|
›
|
No dead-hand, slow-hand, no-hand, or similar feature that limits the ability of a future board to redeem the pill;
|
› |
Shareholder redemption feature (qualifying offer clause); if the board refuses to redeem the pill 90 days after a qualifying offer is announced, 10 percent of the shares may call a special meeting or seek a written consent to vote on rescinding the pill.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against proposals to adopt a poison pill for the stated purpose of protecting a company’s net operating losses (NOL) if the term of the pill would exceed the shorter of three years and the exhaustion of the NOL.
|
›
|
The ownership threshold to transfer (NOL pills generally have a trigger slightly below 5 percent);
|
›
|
The value of the NOLs;
|
› |
Shareholder protection mechanisms (sunset provision, or commitment to cause expiration of the pill upon exhaustion or expiration of NOLs);
|
› |
The company’s existing governance structure including: board independence, existing takeover defenses, track record of responsiveness to shareholders, and any other problematic governance concerns; and
|
›
|
Any other factors that may be applicable.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding proxy voting mechanics, taking into consideration whether implementation of the proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder rights. Specific issues covered under the policy include, but are not limited to, confidential voting of individual proxies and ballots, confidentiality of running vote tallies, and the treatment of abstentions and/or broker non-votes in the company’s vote-counting methodology.
|
›
|
The scope and structure of the proposal;
|
› |
The company’s stated confidential voting policy (or other relevant policies) and whether it ensures a “level playing field” by providing shareholder proponents with equal access to vote information prior to the annual meeting;
|
› |
The company’s vote standard for management and shareholder proposals and whether it ensures consistency and fairness in the proxy voting process and maintains the integrity of vote results;
|
› |
Whether the company’s disclosure regarding its vote counting method and other relevant voting policies with respect to management and shareholder proposals are consistent and clear;
|
›
|
Any recent controversies or concerns related to the company’s proxy voting mechanics;
|
›
|
Any unintended consequences resulting from implementation of the proposal; and
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
26 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
›
|
Any other factors that may be relevant.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses.
|
›
|
The election of fewer than 50 percent of the directors to be elected is contested in the election;
|
›
|
One or more of the dissident’s candidates is elected;
|
›
|
Shareholders are not permitted to cumulate their votes for directors; and
|
›
|
The election occurred, and the expenses were incurred, after the adoption of this bylaw.
|
General Recommendation
:
Management or shareholder proposals to change a company’s state of incorporation should be evaluated case-by-case, giving consideration to both financial and corporate governance concerns including the following:
|
›
|
Reasons for reincorporation;
|
›
|
Comparison of company’s governance practices and provisions prior to and following the reincorporation; and
|
›
|
Comparison of corporation laws of original state and destination state.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote against management and shareholder proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholders’ ability to act by written consent.
|
›
|
Shareholders’ current right to act by written consent;
|
›
|
The consent threshold;
|
›
|
The inclusion of exclusionary or prohibitive language;
|
›
|
Investor ownership structure; and
|
›
|
Shareholder support of, and management’s response to, previous shareholder proposals.
|
›
|
An unfettered
8
right for shareholders to call special meetings at a 10 percent threshold;
|
›
|
A majority vote standard in uncontested director elections;
|
›
|
No non-shareholder-approved pill; and
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
27 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
›
|
An annually elected board.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against management or shareholder proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholders’ ability to call special meetings.
|
›
|
Shareholders’ current right to call special meetings;
|
›
|
Minimum ownership threshold necessary to call special meetings (10 percent preferred);
|
›
|
The inclusion of exclusionary or prohibitive language;
|
›
|
Investor ownership structure; and
|
›
|
Shareholder support of, and management’s response to, previous shareholder proposals.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against proposals that ask the board to consider non-shareholder constituencies or other non-financial effects when evaluating a merger or business combination.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, and anti- greenmail provisions).
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote.
|
›
|
Ownership structure;
|
›
|
Quorum requirements; and
|
›
|
Vote requirements.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
28 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock unless the action is being taken to facilitate an anti-takeover device or some other negative corporate governance action.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for proposals to increase the number of authorized common shares where the primary purpose of the increase is to issue shares in connection with a transaction on the same ballot that warrants support.
|
›
|
Past Board Performance
:
|
›
|
The company’s use of authorized shares during the last three years;
|
›
|
The Current Request:
|
›
|
Disclosure in the proxy statement of the specific purposes of the proposed increase;
|
› |
Disclosure in the proxy statement of specific and severe risks to shareholders of not approving the request; and
|
›
|
The dilutive impact of the request as determined relative to an allowable increase calculated by ISS (typically 100 percent of existing authorized shares) that reflects the company’s need for shares and total shareholder returns.
|
A.
|
Most companies:
100 percent
of existing authorized shares.
|
B.
|
Companies with less than 50 percent of existing authorized shares either outstanding or reserved for issuance:
50 percent
of existing authorized shares.
|
C.
|
Companies with one- and three-year total shareholder returns (TSRs) in the bottom 10 percent of the U.S. market as of the end of the calendar quarter that is closest to their most recent fiscal year end:
50 percent
of existing authorized shares.
|
D.
|
Companies at which both conditions (B and C) above are both present:
25 percent
of existing authorized shares.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
29 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote against proposals to create a new class of common stock unless:
|
›
|
The company discloses a compelling rationale for the dual-class capital structure, such as:
|
› |
The company’s auditor has concluded that there is substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern; or
|
›
|
The new class of shares will be transitory;
|
› |
The new class is intended for financing purposes with minimal or no dilution to current shareholders in both the short term and long term; and
|
›
|
The new class is not designed to preserve or increase the voting power of an insider or significant shareholder.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against proposals that increase authorized common stock for the explicit purpose of implementing a non-shareholder-approved shareholder rights plan (poison pill).
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals that seek preemptive rights, taking into consideration:
|
›
|
The size of the company;
|
›
|
The shareholder base; and
|
›
|
The liquidity of the stock.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for proposals to increase the number of authorized preferred shares where the primary purpose of the increase is to issue shares in connection with a transaction on the same ballot that warrants support.
|
›
|
Past Board Performance:
|
›
|
The company’s use of authorized preferred shares during the last three years;
|
›
|
The Current Request:
|
›
|
Disclosure in the proxy statement of the specific purposes for the proposed increase;
|
›
|
Disclosure in the proxy statement of specific and severe risks to shareholders of not approving the request;
|
› |
In cases where the company has existing authorized preferred stock, the dilutive impact of the request as determined by an allowable increase calculated by ISS (typically 100 percent of existing authorized shares) that reflects the company’s need for shares and total shareholder returns; and
|
›
|
Whether the shares requested are blank check preferred shares that can be used for antitakeover purposes.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
30 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation:
Vote case-by-case on recapitalizations (reclassifications of securities), taking into account the following:
|
›
|
More simplified capital structure;
|
›
|
Enhanced liquidity;
|
›
|
Fairness of conversion terms;
|
›
|
Impact on voting power and dividends;
|
›
|
Reasons for the reclassification;
|
›
|
Conflicts of interest; and
|
›
|
Other alternatives considered.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for management proposals to implement a reverse stock split when the number of authorized shares will be proportionately reduced.
|
›
|
A stock exchange has provided notice to the company of a potential delisting; or
|
› |
The effective increase in authorized shares is equal to or less than the allowable increase calculated in accordance with ISS’ Common Stock Authorization policy.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for management proposals to increase the common share authorization for stock split or stock dividend, provided that the effective increase in authorized shares is equal to or is less than the allowable increase calculated in accordance with ISS’ Common Stock Authorization policy.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on the creation of tracking stock, weighing the strategic value of the transaction against such factors as:
|
›
|
Adverse governance changes;
|
›
|
Excessive increases in authorized capital stock;
|
›
|
Unfair method of distribution;
|
›
|
Diminution of voting rights;
|
›
|
Adverse conversion features;
|
›
|
Negative impact on stock option plans; and
|
›
|
Alternatives such as spin-off.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
31 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for proposals to restore or provide shareholders with rights of appraisal.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on asset purchase proposals, considering the following factors:
|
›
|
Purchase price;
|
›
|
Fairness opinion;
|
›
|
Financial and strategic benefits;
|
›
|
How the deal was negotiated;
|
›
|
Conflicts of interest;
|
›
|
Other alternatives for the business;
|
›
|
Non-completion risk.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on asset sales, considering the following factors:
|
›
|
Impact on the balance sheet/working capital;
|
›
|
Potential elimination of diseconomies;
|
›
|
Anticipated financial and operating benefits;
|
›
|
Anticipated use of funds;
|
›
|
Value received for the asset;
|
›
|
Fairness opinion;
|
›
|
How the deal was negotiated;
|
›
|
Conflicts of interest.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on bundled or “conditional” proxy proposals. In the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, examine the benefits and costs of the packaged items. In instances when the joint effect of the conditioned items is not in shareholders’ best interests, vote against the proposals. If the combined effect is positive, support such proposals.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding conversion of securities. When evaluating these proposals the investor should review the dilution to existing shareholders, the conversion price relative to market value, financial issues, control issues, termination penalties, and conflicts of interest.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
32 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan, after evaluating:
|
›
|
Dilution to existing shareholders’ positions;
|
› |
Terms of the offer
-
discount/premium in purchase price to investor, including any fairness opinion; termination penalties; exit strategy;
|
› |
Financial issues - company’s financial situation; degree of need for capital; use of proceeds; effect of the financing on the company’s cost of capital;
|
›
|
Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives;
|
› |
Control issues
-
change in management; change in control, guaranteed board and committee seats; standstill provisions; voting agreements; veto power over certain corporate actions; and
|
›
|
Conflict of interest - arm’s length transaction, managerial incentives.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding the formation of a holding company, taking into consideration the following:
|
›
|
The reasons for the change;
|
›
|
Any financial or tax benefits;
|
›
|
Regulatory benefits;
|
›
|
Increases in capital structure; and
|
›
|
Changes to the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the company.
|
›
|
Increases in common or preferred stock in excess of the allowable maximum (see discussion under “Capital”); or
|
›
|
Adverse changes in shareholder rights.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on going private transactions, taking into account the following:
|
›
|
Offer price/premium;
|
›
|
Fairness opinion;
|
›
|
How the deal was negotiated;
|
›
|
Conflicts of interest;
|
›
|
Other alternatives/offers considered; and
|
›
|
Non-completion risk.
|
› |
Whether the company has attained benefits from being publicly-traded (examination of trading volume, liquidity, and market research of the stock);
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
33 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voti
ng Guidelines
|
›
|
Balanced interests of continuing vs. cashed-out shareholders, taking into account the following:
|
›
|
Are all shareholders able to participate in the transaction?
|
›
|
Will there be a liquid market for remaining shareholders following the transaction?
|
›
|
Does the company have strong corporate governance?
|
›
|
Will insiders reap the gains of control following the proposed transaction?
|
›
|
Does the state of incorporation have laws requiring continued reporting that may benefit shareholders?
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals to form joint ventures, taking into account the following:
|
›
|
Percentage of assets/business contributed;
|
›
|
Percentage ownership;
|
›
|
Financial and strategic benefits;
|
›
|
Governance structure;
|
›
|
Conflicts of interest;
|
›
|
Other alternatives; and
|
›
|
Non-completion risk.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on liquidations, taking into account the following:
|
›
|
Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives;
|
›
|
Appraisal value of assets; and
|
›
|
The compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on mergers and acquisitions. Review and evaluate the merits and drawbacks of the proposed transaction, balancing various and sometimes countervailing factors including:
|
› |
Valuation
-
Is the value to be received by the target shareholders (or paid by the acquirer) reasonable? While the fairness opinion may provide an initial starting point for assessing valuation reasonableness, emphasis is placed on the offer premium, market reaction, and strategic rationale.
|
› |
Market reaction
-
How has the market responded to the proposed deal? A negative market reaction should cause closer scrutiny of a deal.
|
› |
Strategic rationale
-
Does the deal make sense strategically? From where is the value derived? Cost and revenue synergies should not be overly aggressive or optimistic, but reasonably achievable. Management should also have a favorable track record of successful integration of historical acquisitions.
|
› |
Negotiations and process
-
Were the terms of the transaction negotiated at arm's-length? Was the process fair and equitable? A fair process helps to ensure the best price for shareholders. Significant negotiation "wins" can also signify the deal makers' competency. The comprehensiveness of the sales process (e.g., full auction, partial auction, no auction) can also affect shareholder value.
|
› |
Conflicts of interest
-
Are insiders benefiting from the transaction disproportionately and inappropriately as compared to non-insider shareholders? As the result of potential conflicts, the directors and officers of the company may be more likely to vote to approve a merger than if they did not hold these interests. Consider whether these interests may have influenced these directors and officers to support or recommend the merger. The CIC figure presented in the "ISS Transaction Summary" section of this report is an aggregate figure that can in certain cases be a misleading indicator of the true value transfer from shareholders to insiders. Where such figure appears to be excessive, analyze the underlying assumptions to determine whether a potential conflict exists.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
34 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
› |
Governance
-
Will the combined company have a better or worse governance profile than the current governance profiles of the respective parties to the transaction? If the governance profile is to change for the worse, the burden is on the company to prove that other issues (such as valuation) outweigh any deterioration in governance.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding private placements, warrants, and convertible debentures taking into consideration:
|
› |
Dilution to existing shareholders' position: The amount and timing of shareholder ownership dilution should be weighed against the needs and proposed shareholder benefits of the capital infusion. Although newly issued common stock, absent preemptive rights, is typically dilutive to existing shareholders, share price appreciation is often the necessary event to trigger the exercise of "out of the money" warrants and convertible debt. In these instances from a value standpoint, the negative impact of dilution is mitigated by the increase in the company's stock price that must occur to trigger the dilutive event.
|
› |
Terms of the offer (discount/premium in purchase price to investor, including any fairness opinion, conversion features, termination penalties, exit strategy):
|
› |
The terms of the offer should be weighed against the alternatives of the company and in light of company's financial condition. Ideally, the conversion price for convertible debt and the exercise price for warrants should be at a premium to the then prevailing stock price at the time of private placement.
|
› |
When evaluating the magnitude of a private placement discount or premium, consider factors that influence the discount or premium, such as, liquidity, due diligence costs, control and monitoring costs, capital scarcity, information asymmetry, and anticipation of future performance.
|
›
|
Financial issues:
|
›
|
The company's financial condition;
|
›
|
Degree of need for capital;
|
›
|
Use of proceeds;
|
›
|
Effect of the financing on the company's cost of capital;
|
›
|
Current and proposed cash burn rate;
|
›
|
Going concern viability and the state of the capital and credit markets.
|
› |
Management's efforts to pursue alternatives and whether the company engaged in a process to evaluate alternatives: A fair, unconstrained process helps to ensure the best price for shareholders. Financing alternatives can include joint ventures, partnership, merger, or sale of part or all of the company.
|
›
|
Control issues:
|
›
|
Change in management;
|
›
|
Change in control;
|
›
|
Guaranteed board and committee seats;
|
›
|
Standstill provisions;
|
›
|
Voting agreements;
|
›
|
Veto power over certain corporate actions; and
|
›
|
Minority versus majority ownership and corresponding minority discount or majority control premium.
|
›
|
Conflicts of interest:
|
›
|
Conflicts of interest should be viewed from the perspective of the company and the investor.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
35 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
› |
Were the terms of the transaction negotiated at arm's length? Are managerial incentives aligned with shareholder interests?
|
›
|
Market reaction:
|
› |
The market's response to the proposed deal. A negative market reaction is a cause for concern. Market reaction may be addressed by analyzing the one day impact on the unaffected stock price.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals to common shareholders on bankruptcy plans of reorganization, considering the following factors including, but not limited to:
|
› |
Estimated value and financial prospects of the reorganized company;
|
› |
Percentage ownership of current shareholders in the reorganized company;
|
› |
Whether shareholders are adequately represented in the reorganization process (particularly through the existence of an Official Equity Committee);
|
› |
The cause(s) of the bankruptcy filing, and the extent to which the plan of reorganization addresses the cause(s);
|
› |
Existence of a superior alternative to the plan of reorganization; and
|
› |
Governance of the reorganized company.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on SPAC mergers and acquisitions taking into account the following:
|
› |
Valuation
- Is the value being paid by the SPAC reasonable? SPACs generally lack an independent fairness opinion and the financials on the target may be limited. Compare the conversion price with the intrinsic value of the target company provided in the fairness opinion. Also, evaluate the proportionate value of the combined entity attributable to the SPAC IPO shareholders versus the pre-merger value of SPAC. Additionally, a private company discount may be applied to the target, if it is a private entity.
|
› |
Market reaction
- How has the market responded to the proposed deal? A negative market reaction may be a cause for concern. Market reaction may be addressed by analyzing the one-day impact on the unaffected stock price.
|
› |
Deal timing
- A main driver for most transactions is that the SPAC charter typically requires the deal to be complete within 18 to 24 months, or the SPAC is to be liquidated. Evaluate the valuation, market reaction, and potential conflicts of interest for deals that are announced close to the liquidation date.
|
› |
Negotiations and process
- What was the process undertaken to identify potential target companies within specified industry or location specified in charter? Consider the background of the sponsors.
|
› |
Conflicts of interest
- How are sponsors benefiting from the transaction compared to IPO shareholders? Potential conflicts could arise if a fairness opinion is issued by the insiders to qualify the deal rather than a third party or if management is encouraged to pay a higher price for the target because of an 80 percent rule (the charter requires that the fair market value of the target is at least equal to 80 perecnt of net assets of the SPAC). Also, there may be sense of urgency by the management team of the SPAC to close the deal since its charter typically requires a transaction to be completed within the 18-24 month timeframe.
|
› |
Voting agreements
- Are the sponsors entering into enter into any voting agreements/tender offers with shareholders who are likely to vote against the proposed merger or exercise conversion rights?
|
› |
Governance
- What is the impact of having the SPAC CEO or founder on key committees following the proposed merger?
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
36 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on SPAC extension proposals taking into account the length of the requested extension, the status of any pending transaction(s) or progression of the acquisition process, any added incentive for non-redeeming shareholders, and any prior extension requests.
|
› |
Length of request
: Typically, extension requests range from two to six months, depending on the progression of the SPAC's acquistion process.
|
› |
Pending transaction(s)
or
progression of the acquisition process:
Sometimes an intial business combination was already put to a shareholder vote, but, for varying reasons, the transaction could not be consummated by the termination date and the SPAC is requesting an extension. Other times, the SPAC has entered into a definitive transaction agreement, but needs additional time to consummate or hold the shareholder meeting.
|
› |
Added incentive for non-redeeming shareholders
: Sometimes the SPAC sponsor (or other insiders) will contribute, typically as a loan to the company, additional funds that will be added to the redemption value of each public share as long as such shares are not redeemed in connection with the extension request. The purpose of the "equity kicker" is to incentivize shareholders to hold their shares through the end of the requested extension or until the time the transaction is put to a shareholder vote, rather than electing redeemption at the extension proposal meeting.
|
› |
Prior extension requests
: Some SPACs request additional time beyond the extension period sought in prior extension requests.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on spin-offs, considering:
|
› |
Tax and regulatory advantages;
|
› |
Planned use of the sale proceeds;
|
› |
Valuation of spinoff;
|
› |
Fairness opinion;
|
› |
Benefits to the parent company;
|
› |
Conflicts of interest;
|
› |
Managerial incentives;
|
› |
Corporate governance changes;
|
› |
Changes in the capital structure.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals seeking to maximize shareholder value by:
|
› |
Hiring a financial advisor to explore strategic alternatives;
|
› |
Selling the company; or
|
› |
Liquidating the company and distributing the proceeds to shareholders.
|
› |
Prolonged poor performance with no turnaround in sight;
|
› |
Signs of entrenched board and management (such as the adoption of takeover defenses);
|
› |
Strategic plan in place for improving value;
|
› |
Likelihood of receiving reasonable value in a sale or dissolution; and
|
› |
The company actively exploring its strategic options, including retaining a financial advisor.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
37 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
1.
|
Maintain appropriate pay-for-performance alignment, with emphasis on long-term shareholder value: This principle encompasses overall executive pay practices, which must be designed to attract, retain, and appropriately motivate the key employees who drive shareholder value creation over the long term. It will take into consideration, among other factors, the link between pay and performance; the mix between fixed and variable pay; performance goals; and equity-based plan costs;
|
2.
|
Avoid arrangements that risk “pay for failure”: This principle addresses the appropriateness of long or indefinite contracts, excessive severance packages, and guaranteed compensation;
|
3.
|
Maintain an independent and effective compensation committee: This principle promotes oversight of executive pay programs by directors with appropriate skills, knowledge, experience, and a sound process for compensation decision-making (
e.g.
, including access to independent expertise and advice when needed);
|
4.
|
Provide shareholders with clear, comprehensive compensation disclosures: This principle underscores the importance of informative and timely disclosures that enable shareholders to evaluate executive pay practices fully and fairly;
|
5.
|
Avoid inappropriate pay to non-executive directors: This principle recognizes the interests of shareholders in ensuring that compensation to outside directors is reasonable and does not compromise their independence and ability to make appropriate judgments in overseeing managers’ pay and performance. At the market level, it may incorporate a variety of generally accepted best practices.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on ballot items related to executive pay and practices, as well as certain aspects of outside director compensation.
|
› |
There is a significant misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (
pay for performance
);
|
› |
The company maintains significant
problematic pay practices
;
|
› |
The board exhibits a significant level of
poor communication and responsiveness
to shareholders.
|
› |
There is no SOP on the ballot, and an against vote on an SOP would otherwise be warranted due to pay-for- performance misalignment, problematic pay practices, or the lack of adequate responsiveness on compensation issues raised previously, or a combination thereof;
|
› |
The board fails to respond adequately to a previous SOP proposal that received less than 70 percent support of votes cast;
|
› |
The company has recently practiced or approved problematic pay practices, including option repricing or option backdating; or
|
› |
The situation is egregious.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
38 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
1.
|
Peer Group
10
Alignment:
|
› |
The degree of alignment between the company's annualized TSR rank and the CEO's annualized total pay rank within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period.
|
› |
The rankings of CEO total pay and company financial performance within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period.
|
› |
The multiple of the CEO's total pay relative to the peer group median in the most recent fiscal year.
|
2.
|
Absolute Alignment
11
– the absolute alignment between the trend in CEO pay and company TSR over the prior five fiscal years – i.e., the difference between the trend in annual pay changes and the trend in annualized TSR during the period.
|
› |
The ratio of performance- to time-based equity awards;
|
› |
The overall ratio of performance-based compensation;
|
› |
The completeness of disclosure and rigor of performance goals;
|
› |
The company's peer group benchmarking practices;
|
› |
Actual results of financial/operational metrics, such as growth in revenue, profit, cash flow, etc., both absolute and relative to peers;
|
› |
Special circumstances related to, for example, a new CEO in the prior FY or anomalous equity grant practices (e.g., bi-annual awards);
|
› |
Realizable pay
12
compared to grant pay; and
|
› |
Any other factors deemed relevant.
|
› |
Problematic practices related to non-performance-based compensation elements;
|
› |
Incentives that may motivate excessive risk-taking; and
|
› |
Options backdating.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
39 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
› |
Repricing or replacing of underwater stock options/SARS without prior shareholder approval (including cash buyouts and voluntary surrender of underwater options);
|
› |
Extraordinary perquisites or tax gross-ups, including any gross-up related to a secular trust or restricted stock vesting, or lifetime perquisites;
|
› |
New or extended agreements that provide for:
|
› |
Excessive CIC payments (generally exceeding 3 times base salary and average/target/most recent bonus);
|
› |
CIC severance payments without involuntary job loss or substantial diminution of duties ("single" or "modified single" triggers);
|
› |
CIC payments with excise tax gross-ups (including "modified" gross-ups);
|
› |
Multi-year guaranteed awards that are not at risk due to rigorous performance conditions;
|
› |
Liberal CIC definition combined with any single-trigger CIC benefits;
|
› |
Insufficient executive compensation disclosure by externally-managed issuers (EMIs) such that a reasonable assessment of pay programs and practices applicable to the EMI's executives is not possible;
|
› |
Any other provision or practice deemed to be egregious and present a significant risk to investors.
|
› |
Multi-year guaranteed awards;
|
› |
A single or common performance metric used for short- and long-term incentives;
|
› |
Lucrative severance packages;
|
› |
High pay opportunities relative to industry peers;
|
› |
Disproportionate supplemental pensions; or
|
› |
Mega equity grants that provide overly large upside opportunity.
|
› |
Reason and motive for the options backdating issue, such as inadvertent vs. deliberate grant date changes;
|
› |
Duration of options backdating;
|
› |
Size of restatement due to options backdating;
|
› |
Corrective actions taken by the board or compensation committee, such as canceling or re-pricing backdated options, the recouping of option gains on backdated grants; and
|
› |
Adoption of a grant policy that prohibits backdating, and creates a fixed grant schedule or window period for equity grants in the future.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
40 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
› |
Failure to respond to majority-supported shareholder proposals on executive pay topics; or
|
› |
Failure to adequately respond to the company's previous say-on-pay proposal that received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast, taking into account:
|
› |
The company's response, including:
|
› |
Disclosure of engagement efforts with major institutional investors, including the frequency and timing of engagements and the company participants (including whether independent directors participated);
|
› |
Disclosure of the specific concerns voiced by dissenting shareholders that led to the say-on-pay opposition;
|
› |
Disclosure of specific and meaningful actions taken to address shareholders' concerns;
|
› |
Other recent compensation actions taken by the company;
|
› |
Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated;
|
› |
The company's ownership structure; and
|
› |
Whether the support level was less than 50 percent, which would warrant the highest degree of responsiveness.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for annual advisory votes on compensation, which provide the most consistent and clear communication channel for shareholder concerns about companies' executive pay programs.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on say on Golden Parachute proposals, including consideration of existing change-in-control arrangements maintained with named executive officers rather than focusing primarily on new or extended arrangements.
|
› |
Single- or modified-single-trigger cash severance;
|
› |
Single-trigger acceleration of unvested equity awards;
|
› |
Full acceleration of equity awards granted shortly before the change in control;
|
› |
Excessive cash severance (generally >3x base salary and bonus);
|
› |
Excise tax gross-ups triggered and payable (as opposed to a provision to provide excise tax gross-ups);
|
› |
Excessive golden parachute payments (on an absolute basis or as a percentage of transaction equity value); or
|
›
|
Recent amendments that incorporate any problematic features (such as those above) or recent actions (such as extraordinary equity grants) that may make packages so attractive as to influence merger agreements that may not be in the best interests of shareholders; or
|
› |
The company's assertion that a proposed transaction is conditioned on shareholder approval of the golden parachute advisory vote.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
41 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on certain equity-based compensation plans
13
depending on a combination of certain plan features and equity grant practices, where positive factors may counterbalance negative factors, and vice versa, as evaluated using an "equity plan scorecard" (EPSC) approach with three pillars:
|
› |
Plan Cost:
The total estimated cost of the company’s equity plans relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company's estimated Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) in relation to peers and considering both:
|
› |
SVT based on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants, plus outstanding unvested/unexercised grants; and
|
› |
SVT based only on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants.
|
› |
Plan Features:
|
› |
Discretionary or automatic single-triggered award vesting upon a change in control (CIC);
|
› |
Discretionary vesting authority;
|
› |
Liberal share recycling on various award types;
|
› |
Lack of minimum vesting period for grants made under the plan;
|
› |
Dividends payable prior to award vesting.
|
› |
Grant Practices:
|
› |
The company’s three-year burn rate relative to its industry/market cap peers;
|
› |
Vesting requirements in most recent CEO equity grants (3-year look-back);
|
› |
The estimated duration of the plan (based on the sum of shares remaining available and the new shares requested, divided by the average annual shares granted in the prior three years);
|
› |
The proportion of the CEO's most recent equity grants/awards subject to performance conditions;
|
› |
Whether the company maintains a claw-back policy;
|
› |
Whether the company has established post-exercise/vesting share-holding requirements.
|
› |
Awards may vest in connection with a liberal change-of-control definition;
|
› |
The plan would permit repricing or cash buyout of underwater options without shareholder approval (either by expressly permitting it – for NYSE and Nasdaq listed companies – or by not prohibiting it when the company has a history of repricing – for non-listed companies);
|
› |
The plan is a vehicle for problematic pay practices or a significant pay-for-performance disconnect under certain circumstances; or
|
› |
Any other plan features are determined to have a significant negative impact on shareholder interests.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
42 of 69
|
› |
Amend the terms of outstanding options or SARs to reduce the exercise price of such outstanding options or SARs;
|
› |
Cancel outstanding options or SARs in exchange for options or SARs with an exercise price that is less than the exercise price of the original options or SARs;
|
› |
The cancellation of underwater options in exchange for stock awards; or
|
› |
Cash buyouts of underwater options.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
43 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
› |
Severity of the pay-for-performance misalignment;
|
› |
Whether problematic equity grant practices are driving the misalignment; and/or
|
› |
Whether equity plan awards have been heavily concentrated to the CEO and/or the other NEOs.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on amendments to cash and equity incentive plans.
|
› |
Addresses administrative features only; or
|
› |
Seeks approval for Section 162(m) purposes
only
, and the plan administering committee consists entirely of independent directors, per
ISS’ Categorization of Directors
.
Note that if the company is presenting the plan to shareholders for the first time for any reason (including after the company’s initial public offering), or if the proposal is bundled with other material plan amendments, then the recommendation will be case-by-case (see below).
|
› |
Seeks approval for Section 162(m) purposes only, and the plan administering committee does not consist entirely of independent directors, per
ISS’ Categorization of Directors
.
|
› |
If the proposal requests additional shares and/or the amendments include a term extension or addition of full value awards as an award type, the recommendation will be based on the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation as well as an analysis of the overall impact of the amendments.
|
›
|
If the plan is being presented to shareholders for the first time (including after the company's IPO), whether or not additional shares are being requested, the recommendation will be based on the Equity Plan Scorecard evaluation as well as an analysis of the overall impact of any amendments.
|
› |
If there is no request for additional shares and the amendments do not include a term extension or addition of full value awards as an award type, then the recommendation will be based entirely on an analysis of the overall impact of the amendments, and the EPSC evaluation will be shown only for informational purposes.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
44 of 69
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for proposals to implement an ESOP or increase authorized shares for existing
ESOPs, unless the number of shares allocated to the ESOP is excessive (more than five percent of outstanding shares).
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on qualified employee stock purchase plans. Vote for employee stock
purchase plans where all of the following apply:
|
›
|
Purchase price is at least 85 percent of fair market value;
|
›
|
Offering period is 27 months or less; and
|
›
|
The number of shares allocated to the plan is 10 percent or less of the outstanding shares.
|
›
|
Purchase price is less than 85 percent of fair market value; or
|
›
|
Offering period is greater than 27 months; or
|
›
|
The number of shares allocated to the plan is more than ten percent of the outstanding shares.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on nonqualified employee stock purchase plans. Vote for
nonqualified employee stock purchase plans with all the following features:
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
45 of 69
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
› |
Broad-based participation (
i.e.
,
all employees of the company with the exclusion of individuals with 5 percent or more of beneficial ownership of the company);
|
›
|
Limits on employee contribution, which may be a fixed dollar amount or expressed as a percent of base salary;
|
› |
Company matching contribution up to 25 percent of employee’s contribution, which is effectively a discount of 20 percent from market value; and
|
›
|
No discount on the stock price on the date of purchase since there is a company matching contribution.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on management proposals seeking approval to exchange/reprice
options taking into consideration:
|
›
|
Historic trading patterns--the stock price should not be so volatile that the options are likely to be back “in-the- money” over the near term;
|
›
|
Rationale for the re-pricing--was the stock price decline beyond management's control?;
|
›
|
Is this a value-for-value exchange?;
|
›
|
Are surrendered stock options added back to the plan reserve?;
|
›
|
Option vesting--does the new option vest immediately or is there a black-out period?;
|
›
|
Term of the option--the term should remain the same as that of the replaced option;
|
›
|
Exercise price--should be set at fair market or a premium to market;
|
›
|
Participants--executive officers and directors should be excluded.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on plans that provide participants with the option of taking all or a
portion of their cash compensation in the form of stock.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
46 of 69
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
One-time Transfers: Vote against or withhold from compensation committee members
if they fail to submit one-time transfers to shareholders for approval.
|
›
|
Executive officers and non-employee directors are excluded from participating;
|
› |
Stock options are purchased by third-party financial institutions at a discount to their fair value using option pricing models such as Black-Scholes or a Binomial Option Valuation or other appropriate financial models; and
|
›
|
There is a two-year minimum holding period for sale proceeds (cash or stock) for all participants.
|
›
|
Eligibility;
|
›
|
Vesting;
|
›
|
Bid-price;
|
›
|
Term of options;
|
›
|
Cost of the program and impact of the TSOs on company’s total option expense; and
|
›
|
Option repricing policy.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on management proposals seeking ratification of non-employee
director compensation, based on the following factors:
|
› |
If the equity plan under which non-employee director grants are made is on the ballot, whether or not it warrants support; and
|
›
|
An assessment of the following qualitative factors:
|
›
|
The relative magnitude of director compensation as compared to companies of a similar profile;
|
›
|
The presence of problematic pay practices relating to director compensation;
|
›
|
Director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements;
|
›
|
Equity award vesting schedules;
|
›
|
The mix of cash and equity-based compensation;
|
›
|
Meaningful limits on director compensation;
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
47 of 69
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
›
|
The availability of retirement benefits or perquisites; and
|
›
|
The quality of disclosure surrounding director compensation.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on compensation plans for non-employee directors, based on:
|
› |
The total estimated cost of the company’s equity plans relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company’s estimated Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) based on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants, plus outstanding unvested/unexercised grants;
|
›
|
The company’s three-year burn rate relative to its industry/market cap peers (in certain circumstances); and
|
›
|
The presence of any egregious plan features (such as an option repricing provision or liberal CIC vesting risk).
|
›
|
The relative magnitude of director compensation as compared to companies of a similar profile;
|
›
|
The presence of problematic pay practices relating to director compensation;
|
›
|
Director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements;
|
›
|
Equity award vesting schedules;
|
›
|
The mix of cash and equity-based compensation;
|
›
|
Meaningful limits on director compensation;
|
›
|
The availability of retirement benefits or perquisites; and
|
›
|
The quality of disclosure surrounding director compensation.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against retirement plans for non-employee directors.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals seeking deferral of a portion of annual bonus pay, with
ultimate payout linked to sustained results for the performance metrics on which the bonus was earned (whether for the named executive officers or a wider group of employees), taking into account the following factors:
|
›
|
The company’s past practices regarding equity and cash compensation;
|
› |
Whether the company has a holding period or stock ownership requirements in place, such as a meaningful retention ratio (at least 50 percent for full tenure); and
|
›
|
Whether the company has a rigorous claw-back policy in place.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for shareholder proposals seeking disclosure regarding the Company,
Board, or Compensation Committee’s use of compensation consultants, such as company name, business relationship(s), and fees paid.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
48 of 69
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for shareholder proposals seeking additional disclosure of executive and
director pay information, provided the information requested is relevant to shareholders' needs, would not put the company at a competitive disadvantage relative to its industry, and is not unduly burdensome to the company.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for proposals calling companies to adopt a policy of obtaining
shareholder approval for any future agreements and corporate policies that could oblige the company to make payments or awards following the death of a senior executive in the form of unearned salary or bonuses, accelerated vesting or the continuation in force of unvested equity grants, perquisites and other payments or awards made in lieu of compensation. This would not apply to any benefit programs or equity plan proposals that the broad-based employee population is eligible.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals asking companies to adopt policies
requiring senior executive officers to retain a portion of net shares acquired through compensation plans. The following factors will be taken into account:
|
›
|
The percentage/ratio of net shares required to be retained;
|
›
|
The time period required to retain the shares;
|
› |
Whether the company has equity retention, holding period, and/or stock ownership requirements in place and the robustness of such requirements;
|
›
|
Whether the company has any other policies aimed at mitigating risk taking by executives;
|
› |
Executives' actual stock ownership and the degree to which it meets or exceeds the proponent’s suggested holding period/retention ratio or the company’s existing requirements; and
|
›
|
Problematic pay practices, current and past, which may demonstrate a short-term versus long-term focus.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for proposals seeking disclosure of the extent to which the company paid non-deductible compensation to senior executives due to Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m), while considering the company’s existing disclosure practices.
|
General Recommendation:
Vote case-by-case on proposals calling for an analysis of the
pay disparity between
corporate executives and other non-executive employees
. The following factors will be considered:
|
›
|
The company’s current level of disclosure of its executive compensation setting process, including how the company considers pay disparity;
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
49 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
›
|
If any problematic pay practices or pay-for-performance concerns have been identified at the company; and
|
›
|
The level of shareholder support for the company's pay programs.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals requesting that a significant amount of
future long-term incentive compensation awarded to senior executives shall be performance-based and requesting that the board adopt and disclose challenging performance metrics to shareholders, based on the following analytical steps:
|
› |
First, vote for shareholder proposals advocating the use of performance-based equity awards, such as performance contingent options or restricted stock, indexed options or premium-priced options, unless the proposal is overly restrictive or if the company has demonstrated that it is using a “substantial” portion of performance-based awards for its top executives. Standard stock options and performance-accelerated awards do not meet the criteria to be considered as performance-based awards. Further, premium-priced options should have a premium of at least 25 percent and higher to be considered performance-based awards.
|
› |
Second, assess the rigor of the company’s performance-based equity program. If the bar set for the performance- based program is too low based on the company’s historical or peer group comparison, generally vote for the proposal. Furthermore, if target performance results in an above target payout, vote for the shareholder proposal due to program’s poor design. If the company does not disclose the performance metric of the performance-based equity program, vote for the shareholder proposal regardless of the outcome of the first step to the test.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals that request the board establish a pay-for-
superior performance standard in the company's executive compensation plan for senior executives. These proposals generally include the following principles:
|
› |
Set compensation targets for the plan’s annual and long-term incentive pay components at or below the peer group median;
|
› |
Deliver a majority of the plan’s target long-term compensation through performance-vested, not simply time- vested, equity awards;
|
› |
Provide the strategic rationale and relative weightings of the financial and non-financial performance metrics or criteria used in the annual and performance-vested long-term incentive components of the plan;
|
›
|
Establish performance targets for each plan financial metric relative to the performance of the company’s peer companies;
|
›
|
Limit payment under the annual and performance-vested long-term incentive components of the plan to when the company’s performance on its selected financial performance metrics exceeds peer group median performance.
|
›
|
What aspects of the company’s annual and long-term equity incentive programs are performance driven?
|
› |
If the annual and long-term equity incentive programs are performance driven, are the performance criteria and hurdle rates disclosed to shareholders or are they benchmarked against a disclosed peer group?
|
›
|
Can shareholders assess the correlation between pay and performance based on the current disclosure?
|
›
|
What type of industry and stage of business cycle does the company belong to?
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
50 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for shareholder proposals calling for certain principles regarding the use
of prearranged trading plans (10b5-1 plans) for executives. These principles include:
|
›
|
Adoption, amendment, or termination of a 10b5-1 Plan must be disclosed within two business days in a Form 8-K;
|
› |
Amendment or early termination of a 10b5-1 Plan is allowed only under extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the board;
|
›
|
Ninety days must elapse between adoption or amendment of a 10b5-1 Plan and initial trading under the plan;
|
›
|
Reports on Form 4 must identify transactions made pursuant to a 10b5-1 Plan;
|
›
|
An executive may not trade in company stock outside the 10b5-1 Plan;
|
› |
Trades under a 10b5-1 Plan must be handled by a broker who does not handle other securities transactions for the executive.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote against proposals seeking a policy to prohibit any outside CEO from serving on a company’s compensation committee, unless the company has demonstrated problematic pay practices that raise concerns about the performance and composition of the committee.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals to recoup incentive cash or stock compensation made
to senior executives if it is later determined that the figures upon which incentive compensation is earned turn out to have been in error, or if the senior executive has breached company policy or has engaged in misconduct that may be significantly detrimental to the company's financial position or reputation, or if the senior executive failed to manage or monitor risks that subsequently led to significant financial or reputational harm to the company. Many companies have adopted policies that permit recoupment in cases where an executive's fraud, misconduct, or negligence significantly contributed to a restatement of financial results that led to the awarding of unearned incentive compensation. However, such policies may be narrow given that not all misconduct or negligence may result in significant financial restatements. Misconduct, negligence or lack of sufficient oversight by senior executives may lead to significant financial loss or reputational damage that may have long-lasting impact.
|
›
|
If the company has adopted a formal recoupment policy;
|
› |
The rigor of the recoupment policy focusing on how and under what circumstances the company may recoup incentive or stock compensation;
|
›
|
Whether the company has chronic restatement history or material financial problems;
|
›
|
Whether the company’s policy substantially addresses the concerns raised by the proponent;
|
›
|
Disclosure of recoupment of incentive or stock compensation from senior executives or lack thereof; or
|
›
|
Any other relevant factors.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for shareholder proposals requiring that golden parachutes or executive severance
agreements be submitted for shareholder ratification, unless the proposal requires shareholder approval
prior
to entering into employment contracts.
|
›
|
The triggering mechanism should be beyond the control of management;
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
51 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
› |
The amount should not exceed three times base amount (defined as the average annual taxable W-2 compensation during the five years prior to the year in which the change of control occurs);
|
› |
Change-in-control payments should be double-triggered, i.e., (1) after a change in control has taken place, and (2) termination of the executive as a result of the change in control. Change in control is defined as a change in the company ownership structure.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote against shareholder proposals prohibiting executives from selling shares
of company stock during periods in which the company has announced that it may or will be repurchasing shares of its stock. Vote for the proposal when there is a pattern of abuse by executives exercising options or selling shares during periods of share buybacks.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting to put extraordinary benefits
contained in SERP agreements to a shareholder vote unless the company’s executive pension plans do not contain excessive benefits beyond what is offered under employee-wide plans.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for proposals calling for companies to adopt a policy of not providing tax
gross-up payments to executives, except in situations where gross-ups are provided pursuant to a plan, policy, or arrangement applicable to management employees of the company, such as a relocation or expatriate tax equalization policy.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals seeking a policy requiring termination of
employment prior to severance payment and/or eliminating accelerated vesting of unvested equity.
The following factors will be considered:
|
›
|
The company's current treatment of equity upon employment termination and/or in change-in-control situations (i.e., vesting is double triggered and/or pro rata, does it allow for the assumption of equity by acquiring company, the treatment of performance shares, etc.);
|
› |
Current employment agreements, including potential poor pay practices such as gross-ups embedded in those agreements.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
52 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote against proposals to provide management with the authority to adjourn an annual or special meeting absent compelling reasons to support the proposal.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against proposals to reduce quorum requirements for shareholder meetings below
a majority of the shares outstanding unless there are compelling reasons to support the proposal.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for bylaw or charter changes that are of a housekeeping nature (updates or
corrections).
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for proposals to change the corporate name unless there is compelling evidence that the change would adversely impact shareholder value.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for management proposals to change the date, time, or location of the annual meeting unless the proposed change is unreasonable.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against proposals to approve other business when it appears as a voting item.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
53 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote case-by-case, taking into consideration whether implementation of the proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder value, and in addition the following will also be considered:
|
› |
If the issues presented in the proposal are more appropriately or effectively dealt with through legislation or government regulation;
|
› |
If the company has already responded in an appropriate and sufficient manner to the issue(s) raised in the proposal;
|
›
|
Whether the proposal's request is unduly burdensome (scope or timeframe) or overly prescriptive;
|
› |
The company's approach compared with any industry standard practices for addressing the issue(s) raised by the proposal;
|
› |
If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether or not reasonable and sufficient information is currently available to shareholders from the company or from other publicly available sources; and
|
› |
If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether or not implementation would reveal proprietary or confidential information that could place the company at a competitive disadvantage.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote against proposals seeking a company's endorsement of principles that support a particular public policy position. Endorsing a set of principles may require a company to take a stand on an issue that is beyond its own control and may limit its flexibility with respect to future developments. Management and the board should be afforded the flexibility to make decisions on specific public policy positions based on their own assessment of the most beneficial strategies for the company.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for proposals seeking a report on a company’s animal welfare standards, or animal welfare-related risks, unless:
|
›
|
The company has already published a set of animal welfare standards and monitors compliance;
|
›
|
The company’s standards are comparable to industry peers; and
|
› |
There are no recent significant fines,
litigation, or controversies related to
the company’s and/or its suppliers' treatment of animals.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
54 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote against proposals to phase out the use of animals in product testing, unless:
|
›
|
The company is conducting animal testing programs that are unnecessary or not required by regulation;
|
› |
The company is conducting animal testing when suitable alternatives are commonly accepted and used by industry peers; or
|
›
|
There are recent, significant fines or litigation related to the company’s treatment of animals.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote against proposals requesting the implementation of Controlled Atmosphere Killing (CAK) methods at company and/or supplier operations unless such methods are required by legislation or generally accepted as the industry standard.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote against proposals requesting that a company voluntarily label genetically engineered (GE) ingredients in its products. The labeling of products with GE ingredients is best left to the appropriate regulatory authorities.
|
›
|
The potential impact of such labeling on the company's business;
|
›
|
The quality of the company’s disclosure on GE product labeling, related voluntary initiatives, and how this disclosure compares with industry peer disclosure; and
|
›
|
Company’s current disclosure on the feasibility of GE product labeling.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on requests for reports on a company’s potentially controversial business or financial practices or products, taking into account:
|
›
|
Whether the company has adequately disclosed mechanisms in place to prevent abuses;
|
›
|
Whether the company has adequately disclosed the financial risks of the products/practices in question;
|
›
|
Whether the company has been subject to violations of related laws or serious controversies; and
|
›
|
Peer companies’ policies/practices in this area.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
55 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote against proposals requesting that companies implement specific price restraints on pharmaceutical products unless the company fails to adhere to legislative guidelines or industry norms in its product pricing practices.
|
›
|
The potential for reputational, market, and regulatory risk exposure;
|
›
|
Existing disclosure of relevant policies;
|
›
|
Deviation from established industry norms;
|
›
|
Relevant company initiatives to provide research and/or products to disadvantaged consumers;
|
›
|
Whether the proposal focuses on specific products or geographic regions;
|
›
|
The potential burden and scope of the requested report;
|
›
|
Recent significant controversies, litigation, or fines at the company.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company report on its policies,
initiatives/procedures, and oversight mechanisms related to toxic/hazardous materials or product safety in its supply chain, unless:
|
› |
The company already discloses similar information through existing reports such as a supplier code of conduct and/or a sustainability report;
|
› |
The company has formally committed to the implementation of a toxic/hazardous materials and/or product safety and supply chain reporting and monitoring program based on industry norms or similar standards within a specified time frame; and
|
›
|
The company has not been recently involved in relevant significant controversies, fines, or litigation.
|
› |
The company’s current level of disclosure regarding its product safety policies, initiatives, and oversight mechanisms;
|
›
|
Current regulations in the markets in which the company operates; and
|
›
|
Recent significant controversies, litigation, or fines stemming from toxic/hazardous materials at the company.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on resolutions regarding the advertisement of tobacco products, considering:
|
›
|
Recent related fines, controversies, or significant litigation;
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
56 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
›
|
Whether the company complies with relevant laws and regulations on the marketing of tobacco;
|
›
|
Whether the company’s advertising restrictions deviate from those of industry peers;
|
› |
Whether the company entered into the Master Settlement Agreement, which restricts marketing of tobacco to youth; and
|
›
|
Whether restrictions on marketing to youth extend to foreign countries.
|
›
|
Whether the company complies with all laws and regulations;
|
› |
The degree that voluntary restrictions beyond those mandated by law might hurt the company’s competitiveness; and
|
›
|
The risk of any health-related liabilities.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for resolutions requesting that a company disclose information on the financial, physical, or regulatory risks it faces related to climate change on its operations and investments or on how the company identifies, measures, and manages such risks, considering:
|
›
|
Whether the company already provides current, publicly-available information on the impact that climate change may have on the company as well as associated company policies and procedures to address related risks and/or opportunities;
|
›
|
The company's level of disclosure compared to industry peers; and
|
› |
Whether there are significant controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company's climate change-related performance.
|
› |
The company already discloses current, publicly-available information on the impacts that GHG emissions may have on the company as well as associated company
policies and procedures to address related risks and/or opportunities;
|
›
|
The company's level of disclosure is comparable to that of industry peers; and
|
›
|
There are no significant, controversies
,
fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company's GHG emissions.
|
›
|
Whether the company provides disclosure of year-over-year GHG emissions performance data;
|
›
|
Whether company disclosure lags behind industry peers;
|
›
|
The company's actual GHG emissions performance;
|
›
|
The company's current GHG emission policies, oversight mechanisms, and related initiatives; and
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
57 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
› |
Whether the company has been the subject of recent, significant violations, fines, litigation, or controversy related to GHG emissions.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company report on its energy efficiency policies, unless:
|
› |
The company complies with applicable energy efficiency regulations and laws, and discloses its participation in energy efficiency policies and programs, including disclosure of benchmark data, targets, and performance measures; or
|
›
|
The proponent requests adoption of specific energy efficiency goals within specific timelines.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for requests for reports on the feasibility of developing renewable energy resources unless the report would be duplicative of existing disclosure or irrelevant to the company’s line of business.
|
›
|
The scope and structure of the proposal;
|
›
|
The company's current level of disclosure on renewable energy use and GHG emissions; and
|
› |
The company's disclosure of policies, practices, and oversight implemented to manage GHG emissions and mitigate climate change risks.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for requests for reports on a company's efforts to diversify the board, unless:
|
› |
The gender and racial minority representation of the company’s board is reasonably inclusive in relation to companies of similar size and business; and
|
› |
The board already reports on its nominating procedures and gender and racial minority initiatives on the board and within the company.
|
›
|
The degree of existing gender and racial minority diversity on the company’s board and among its executive officers;
|
›
|
The level of gender and racial minority representation that exists at the company’s industry peers;
|
›
|
The company’s established process for addressing gender and racial minority board representation;
|
›
|
Whether the proposal includes an overly prescriptive request to amend nominating committee charter language;
|
›
|
The independence of the company’s nominating committee;
|
›
|
Whether the company uses an outside search firm to identify potential director nominees; and
|
›
|
Whether the company has had recent controversies, fines, or litigation regarding equal employment practices.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
58 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for proposals requesting a company disclose its diversity policies or initiatives, or proposals requesting disclosure of a company’s comprehensive workforce diversity data, including requests for EEO-1 data, unless:
|
›
|
The company publicly discloses equal opportunity policies and initiatives in a comprehensive manner;
|
›
|
The company already publicly discloses comprehensive workforce diversity data; and
|
›
|
The company has no recent significant EEO-related violations or litigation.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for proposals seeking to amend a company’s EEO statement or diversity policies to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, unless the change would be unduly burdensome.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote case-by-case on requests for reports on a company's pay data by gender, or a report on a company’s policies and goals to reduce any gender pay gap, taking into account:
|
› |
The company's current policies and disclosure related to both its diversity and inclusion policies and practices and its compensation philosophy and fair and equitable compensation practices;
|
› |
Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to gender pay gap issues; and
|
›
|
Whether the company's reporting regarding gender pay gap policies or initiatives is lagging its peers.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on requests for workplace safety reports, including reports on accident risk reduction efforts, taking into account:
|
› |
The company’s current level of disclosure of its workplace health and safety performance data, health and safety management policies, initiatives, and oversight mechanisms;
|
›
|
The nature of the company’s business, specifically regarding company and employee exposure to health and safety risks;
|
›
|
Recent significant controversies, fines, or violations related to workplace health and safety; and
|
›
|
The company's workplace health and safety performance relative to industry peers.
|
›
|
The company’s compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines;
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
59 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
› |
The company’s current level of disclosure regarding its security and safety policies, procedures, and compliance monitoring; and
|
›
|
The existence of recent, significant violations, fines, or controversy regarding the safety and security of the company’s operations and/or facilities.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on requests for reports on policies and/or the potential (community) social and/or environmental impact of company operations, considering:
|
›
|
Current disclosure of applicable policies and risk assessment report(s) and risk management procedures;
|
› |
The impact of regulatory non-compliance, litigation, remediation, or reputational loss that may be associated with failure to manage the company’s operations in question, including the management of relevant community and stakeholder relations;
|
›
|
The nature, purpose, and scope of the company’s operations in the specific region(s);
|
›
|
The degree to which company policies and procedures are consistent with industry norms; and
|
›
|
The scope of the resolution.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for proposals requesting greater disclosure of a company's (natural gas) hydraulic fracturing operations, including measures the company has taken to manage and mitigate the potential community and environmental impacts of those operations, considering:
|
›
|
The company's current level of disclosure of relevant policies and oversight mechanisms;
|
›
|
The company's current level of such disclosure relative to its industry peers;
|
›
|
Potential relevant local, state, or national regulatory developments; and
|
›
|
Controversies, fines, or litigation related to the company's hydraulic fracturing operations.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for requests for reports on potential environmental damage as a result of company operations in protected regions, unless:
|
›
|
Operations in the specified regions are not permitted by current laws or regulations;
|
›
|
The company does not currently have operations or plans to develop operations in these protected regions; or
|
› |
The company’s disclosure of its operations and environmental policies in these regions is comparable to industry peers.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals to report on an existing recycling program, or adopt a
new recycling program, taking into account:
|
›
|
The nature of the company’s business;
|
›
|
The current level of disclosure of the company's existing related programs;
|
›
|
The timetable and methods of program implementation prescribed by the proposal;
|
›
|
The company’s ability to address the issues raised in the proposal; and
|
›
|
How the company's recycling programs compare to similar programs of its industry peers.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company report on its policies, initiatives, and oversight mechanisms related to social, economic, and environmental sustainability, unless:
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
60 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
› |
The company already discloses similar information through existing reports or policies such as an environment, health, and safety (EHS) report; a comprehensive code of corporate conduct; and/or a diversity report; or
|
› |
The company has formally committed to the implementation of a reporting program based on Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines or a similar standard within a specified time frame.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting a company report on, or adopt a new policy on, water-related risks and concerns, taking into account:
|
›
|
The company's current disclosure of relevant policies, initiatives, oversight mechanisms, and water usage metrics;
|
› |
Whether or not the company's existing water-related policies and practices are consistent with relevant internationally recognized standards and national/local regulations;
|
›
|
The potential financial impact or risk to the company associated with water-related concerns or issues; and
|
› |
Recent, significant company controversies, fines, or litigation regarding water use by the company and its suppliers.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against proposals restricting a company from making charitable contributions. Charitable contributions are generally useful for assisting worthwhile causes and for creating goodwill in the community. In the absence of bad faith, self-dealing, or gross negligence, management should determine which, and if, contributions are in the best interests of the company.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting the disclosure or implementation of data security, privacy, or information access and management policies and procedures, considering:
|
› |
The level of disclosure of company policies and procedures relating to data security, privacy, freedom of speech, information access and management, and Internet censorship;
|
› |
Engagement in dialogue with governments or relevant groups with respect to data security, privacy, or the free flow of information on the Internet;
|
› |
The scope of business involvement and of investment in countries whose governments censor or monitor the Internet and other telecommunications;
|
›
|
Applicable market-specific laws or regulations that may be imposed on the company; and
|
›
|
Controversies, fines, or litigation related to data security, privacy, freedom of speech, or Internet censorship.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals to link, or report on linking, executive compensation to sustainability (environmental and social) criteria, considering:
|
›
|
The scope and prescriptive nature of the proposal;
|
› |
Whether the company has significant and/or persistent controversies or regulatory violations regarding social and/or environmental issues;
|
› |
Whether the company has management systems and oversight mechanisms in place regarding its social and environmental performance;
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
61 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
› |
The degree to which industry peers have incorporated similar non-financial performance criteria in their executive compensation practices; and
|
›
|
The company's current level of disclosure regarding its environmental and social performance.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for proposals requesting a report on company or company supplier labor and/or human rights standards and policies unless such information is already publicly disclosed.
|
›
|
The degree to which existing relevant policies and practices are disclosed;
|
›
|
Whether or not existing relevant policies are consistent with internationally recognized standards;
|
›
|
Whether company facilities and those of its suppliers are monitored and how;
|
›
|
Company participation in fair labor organizations or other internationally recognized human rights initiatives;
|
› |
Scope and nature of business conducted in markets known to have higher risk of workplace labor/human rights abuse;
|
› |
Recent, significant company controversies, fines, or litigation regarding human rights at the company or its suppliers;
|
›
|
The scope of the request; and
|
›
|
Deviation from industry sector peer company standards and practices.
|
› |
The degree to which existing relevant policies and practices are disclosed, including information on the implementation of these policies and any related oversight mechanisms;
|
›
|
The company’s industry and whether the company or its suppliers operate in countries or areas where there is a history of human rights concerns;
|
› |
Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation regarding human rights involving the company or its suppliers, and whether the company has taken remedial steps; and
|
›
|
Whether the proposal is unduly burdensome or overly prescriptive.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on requests for a report on a company’s potential financial and reputational risks associated with operations in “high-risk” markets, such as a terrorism-sponsoring state or politically/socially unstable region, taking into account:
|
› |
The nature, purpose, and scope of the operations and business involved that could be affected by social or political disruption;
|
›
|
Current disclosure of applicable risk assessment(s) and risk management procedures;
|
›
|
Compliance with U.S. sanctions and laws;
|
›
|
Consideration of other international policies, standards, and laws; and
|
› |
Whether the company has been recently involved in recent, significant controversies, fines, or litigation related to its operations in "high-risk" markets.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
62 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals calling for companies to report on the risks associated with outsourcing/plant closures, considering:
|
›
|
Controversies surrounding operations in the relevant market(s);
|
›
|
The value of the requested report to shareholders;
|
›
|
The company’s current level of disclosure of relevant information on outsourcing and plant closure procedures; and
|
›
|
The company’s existing human rights standards relative to industry peers.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against reports on foreign military sales or offsets. Such disclosures may involve sensitive and confidential information. Moreover, companies must comply with government controls and reporting on foreign military sales.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting information on a company’s lobbying (including direct, indirect, and grassroots lobbying) activities, policies, or procedures, considering:
|
›
|
The company’s current disclosure of relevant lobbying policies, and management and board oversight;
|
›
|
The company’s disclosure regarding trade associations or other groups that it supports, or is a member of, that engage in lobbying activities; and
|
›
|
Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation regarding the company’s lobbying-related activities.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote for proposals requesting greater disclosure of a company's political contributions and trade association spending policies and activities, considering:
|
› |
The company's policies, and management and board oversight related to its direct political contributions and payments to trade associations or other groups that may be used for political purposes;
|
› |
The company's disclosure regarding its support of, and participation in, trade associations or other groups that may make political contributions; and
|
› |
Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation related to the company's political contributions or political activities.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
63 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote against proposals asking a company to affirm political nonpartisanship in the workplace, so long as:
|
› |
There are no recent, significant controversies, fines, or litigation regarding the company’s political contributions or trade association spending; and
|
› |
The company has procedures in place to ensure that employee contributions to company-sponsored political action committees (PACs) are strictly voluntary and prohibit coercion.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
64 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on the election of directors and trustees, following the same
guidelines for uncontested directors for public company shareholder meetings. However, mutual fund boards do not usually have compensation committees, so do not withhold for the lack of this committee.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on conversion proposals, considering the following factors:
|
›
|
Past performance as a closed-end fund;
|
›
|
Market in which the fund invests;
|
›
|
Measures taken by the board to address the discount; and
|
›
|
Past shareholder activism, board activity, and votes on related proposals.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proxy contests, considering the following factors:
|
›
|
Past performance relative to its peers;
|
›
|
Market in which the fund invests;
|
›
|
Measures taken by the board to address the issues;
|
›
|
Past shareholder activism, board activity, and votes on related proposals;
|
›
|
Strategy of the incumbents versus the dissidents;
|
›
|
Independence of directors;
|
›
|
Experience and skills of director candidates;
|
›
|
Governance profile of the company;
|
›
|
Evidence of management entrenchment.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on investment advisory agreements, considering the following
factors:
|
›
|
Proposed and current fee schedules;
|
›
|
Fund category/investment objective;
|
›
|
Performance benchmarks;
|
›
|
Share price performance as compared with peers;
|
›
|
Resulting fees relative to peers;
|
›
|
Assignments (where the advisor undergoes a change of control).
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for the establishment of new classes or series of shares.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on the authorization for or increase in preferred shares, considering
the following factors:
|
›
|
Stated specific financing purpose;
|
›
|
Possible dilution for common shares;
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
65 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
›
|
Whether the shares can be used for antitakeover purposes.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on policies under the Investment Advisor Act of 1940, considering the
following factors:
|
›
|
Potential competitiveness;
|
›
|
Regulatory developments;
|
›
|
Current and potential returns; and
|
›
|
Current and potential risk.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals to change a fundamental restriction to a non-
fundamental restriction, considering the following factors:
|
›
|
The fund's target investments;
|
›
|
The reasons given by the fund for the change; and
|
›
|
The projected impact of the change on the portfolio.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against proposals to change a fund’s fundamental investment objective to non-
fundamental.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on name change proposals, considering the following factors:
|
›
|
Political/economic changes in the target market;
|
›
|
Consolidation in the target market; and
|
›
|
Current asset composition.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on changes in a fund's sub-classification, considering the following
factors:
|
›
|
Potential competitiveness;
|
›
|
Current and potential returns;
|
›
|
Risk of concentration;
|
›
|
Consolidation in target industry.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for proposals authorizing the board to issue shares below Net Asset Value (NAV) if:
|
›
|
The proposal to allow share issuances below NAV has an expiration date no more than one year from the date shareholders approve the underlying proposal, as required under the Investment Company Act of 1940;
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
66 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
› |
The sale is deemed to be in the best interests of shareholders by (1) a majority of the company's independent directors and (2) a majority of the company's directors who have no financial interest in the issuance; and
|
›
|
The company has demonstrated responsible past use of share issuances by either:
|
›
|
Outperforming peers in its 8-digit GICS group as measured by one- and three-year median TSRs; or
|
› |
Providing disclosure that its past share issuances were priced at levels that resulted in only small or moderate discounts to NAV and economic dilution to existing non-participating shareholders.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals to dispose of assets, to terminate or liquidate,
considering the following factors:
|
›
|
Strategies employed to salvage the company;
|
›
|
The fund’s past performance;
|
›
|
The terms of the liquidation.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on changes to the charter document, considering the following
factors:
|
›
|
The degree of change implied by the proposal;
|
›
|
The efficiencies that could result;
|
›
|
The state of incorporation;
|
›
|
Regulatory standards and implications.
|
›
|
Removal of shareholder approval requirement to reorganize or terminate the trust or any of its series;
|
›
|
Removal of shareholder approval requirement for amendments to the new declaration of trust;
|
› |
Removal of shareholder approval requirement to amend the fund's management contract, allowing the contract to be modified by the investment manager and the trust management, as permitted by the 1940 Act;
|
› |
Allow the trustees to impose other fees in addition to sales charges on investment in a fund, such as deferred sales charges and redemption fees that may be imposed upon redemption of a fund's shares;
|
›
|
Removal of shareholder approval requirement to engage in and terminate subadvisory arrangements;
|
›
|
Removal of shareholder approval requirement to change the domicile of the fund.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on re-incorporations, considering the following factors:
|
›
|
Regulations of both states;
|
›
|
Required fundamental policies of both states;
|
›
|
The increased flexibility available.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote against proposals authorizing the board to hire or terminate subadvisers without
shareholder approval if the investment adviser currently employs only one subadviser.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
67 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on distribution agreement proposals, considering the following
factors:
|
›
|
Fees charged to comparably sized funds with similar objectives;
|
›
|
The proposed distributor’s reputation and past performance;
|
›
|
The competitiveness of the fund in the industry;
|
›
|
The terms of the agreement.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote for the establishment of a master-feeder structure.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on merger proposals, considering the following factors:
|
›
|
Resulting fee structure;
|
›
|
Performance of both funds;
|
›
|
Continuity of management personnel;
|
›
|
Changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights.
|
General Recommendation
:
Generally vote against shareholder proposals that mandate a specific minimum amount
of stock that directors must own in order to qualify as a director or to remain on the board.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals to reimburse proxy solicitation expenses.
When supporting the dissidents, vote for the reimbursement of the proxy solicitation expenses.
|
General Recommendation
:
Vote case-by-case on proposals to terminate the investment advisor, considering the
following factors:
|
›
|
Performance of the fund’s Net Asset Value (NAV);
|
›
|
The fund’s history of shareholder relations;
|
›
|
The performance of other funds under the advisor’s management.
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
68 of 69
|
|
U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
|
|
The Global Leader In Corporate Governance
|
Enabling the financial community to manage governance risk for the benefit of shareholders.
© 2018 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
|
69 of 69
|
Beginning of
Settlement
Period
|
End of
Settlement
Period
|
Number of Days
in Settlement
Period
|
||||
Norway
|
3/26/2018
|
4/3/2018
|
8
|
|||
3/27/2018
|
4/4/2018
|
8
|
||||
3/28/2018
|
4/5/2018
|
8
|
||||
(a)
|
(i)
|
Certificate of Trust dated February 9, 2012 of ETF Series Solutions (the “Trust” or the “Registrant”) is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (a)(i) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on February 17, 2012.
|
|
(ii)
|
Registrant’s Agreement and Declaration of Trust dated February 17, 2012 is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (a)(ii) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on February 17, 2012.
|
||
(b)
|
Registrant’s Amended and Restated Bylaws dated August 18, 2014, are incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (b) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on September 8, 2014.
|
||
(c)
|
Not applicable.
|
||
(d)
|
(i)
|
Investment Advisory Agreement between the Trust and EquBot Inc. — Filed Herewith.
|
|
(ii)
|
Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between EquBot Inc. and Vident Investment Advisory, LLC — Filed Herewith.
|
||
(e)
|
(i)
|
Distribution Agreement between the Trust and Quasar Distributors, LLC (EquBot) — Filed Herewith.
|
|
(ii)
|
Form of Authorized Participant Agreement for Quasar Distributors, LLC is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (e)(iii) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on May 23, 2012.
|
||
(f)
|
Not applicable.
|
||
(g)
|
(i)
|
(A)
|
Custody Agreement between the Trust and U.S. Bank National Association dated May 16, 2012 is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (g) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on May 23, 2012.
|
(B)
|
Exhibit AA to Custody Agreement (EquBot) — Filed Herewith.
|
||
(h)
|
(i)
|
(A)
|
Fund Administration Servicing Agreement between the Trust and U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC dated May 16, 2012 is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (h)(i) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on May 23, 2012.
|
(B)
|
Exhibit AA to Fund Administration Servicing Agreement (EquBot) — Filed Herewith.
|
||
(ii)
|
(A)
|
Fund Accounting Servicing Agreement between the Trust and U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC dated May 16, 2012 is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (h)(ii) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on May 23, 2012.
|
|
(B)
|
Exhibit AA to Fund Accounting Servicing Agreement (EquBot) — Filed Herewith.
|
||
(iii)
|
(A)
|
Transfer Agent Agreement between the Trust and U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC dated May 16, 2012 is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(ii) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on May 23, 2012.
|
|
(B)
|
Exhibit to AA Transfer Agent Agreement (EquBot) — Filed Herewith.
|
||
(iv)
|
(A)
|
Powers of Attorney dated September 15, 2017 are incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (h)(iv)(C) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on December 8, 2017.
|
|
(B)
|
Power of Attorney dated February 8, 2018 is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (h)(iv)(B) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on February 16, 2018.
|
||
(v)
|
(A)
|
Compliance Services Agreement between the Trust and U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC dated August 17, 2015 is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (h)(v)(A) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on September 18, 2015.
|
|
(B)
|
Amended Exhibit A to Compliance Services Agreement dated May 3, 2018 is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (h)(v)(B) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on May 9, 2018.
|
||
(vi)
|
Certificate of Secretary dated September 15, 2017 with respect to powers of attorney is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (h)(vi) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on February 16, 2018.
|
||
(i)
|
Opinion and Consent of Counsel — Filed Herewith.
|
||
(j)
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm — Filed Herewith.
|
||
(k)
|
Not applicable.
|
||
(l)
|
(i)
|
Initial Capital Agreement between the Trust and U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC dated April 23, 2012 is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (l)(i) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on May 23, 2012.
|
|
(ii)
|
Letter of Representations between the Trust and Depository Trust Company dated May 21, 2012 is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (l)(ii) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on May 23, 2012.
|
||
(m)
|
(i)
|
(A)
|
Rule 12b-1 Plan is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (m) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on May 23, 2012.
|
(B)
|
Amended Schedule A to Rule 12b-1 Plan — Filed Herewith.
|
||
(n)
|
Not applicable.
|
(o)
|
Reserved.
|
||
(p)
|
(i)
|
Code of Ethics for the Trust is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (p)(i) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on March 15, 2018.
|
|
(ii)
|
Code of Ethics for Quasar Distributors, LLC dated March 17, 2014 is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (p)(iv) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on May 23, 2014.
|
||
(iii)
|
Code of Ethics for EquBot Inc. is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (p)(iii) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on March 21, 2018.
|
||
(iv)
|
Code of Ethics for Vident Investment Advisory, LLC is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (p)(viii) to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as filed on July 25, 2017.
|
Investment Adviser
|
SEC File No.
|
EquBot Inc.
|
801-110987
|
Vident Investment Advisory, LLC
|
801-80534
|
Advisors Series Trust
|
LKCM Funds
|
Aegis Funds
|
LoCorr Investment Trust
|
Allied Asset Advisors Funds
|
Lord Asset Management Trust
|
Alpha Architect ETF Trust
|
MainGate Trust
|
Alpine Equity Trust
|
Managed Portfolio Series
|
Alpine Income Trust
|
Manager Directed Portfolios
|
Alpine Series Trust
|
Matrix Advisors Fund Trust
|
Amplify ETF Trust
|
Matrix Advisors Value Fund, Inc.
|
Angel Oak Funds Trust
|
Merger Fund
|
Barrett Opportunity Fund, Inc.
|
Monetta Trust
|
Bridge Builder Trust
|
Nicholas Equity Income Fund, Inc.
|
Bridges Investment Fund, Inc.
|
Nicholas Family of Funds, Inc.
|
Brookfield Investment Funds
|
Oaktree Funds
|
Brown Advisory Funds
|
Permanent Portfolio Family of Funds
|
Buffalo Funds
|
Perritt Funds, Inc.
|
CG Funds Trust
|
PRIMECAP Odyssey Funds
|
DoubleLine Funds Trust
|
Professionally Managed Portfolios
|
ETF Series Solutions
|
Prospector Funds, Inc.
|
Evermore Funds Trust
|
Provident Mutual Funds, Inc.
|
First American Funds, Inc.
|
Rainier Investment Management Mutual Funds
|
FundX Investment Trust
|
RBB Fund, Inc.
|
Glenmede Fund, Inc.
|
RBC Funds Trust
|
Glenmede Portfolios
|
Series Portfolio Trust
|
GoodHaven Funds Trust
|
Sims Total Return Fund, Inc.
|
Greenspring Fund, Inc.
|
Stone Ridge Trust
|
Harding Loevner Funds, Inc.
|
Thompson IM Funds, Inc.
|
Hennessy Funds Trust
|
TrimTabs ETF Trust
|
Horizon Funds
|
Trust for Professional Managers
|
Hotchkis & Wiley Funds
|
Trust for Advised Portfolios
|
Intrepid Capital Management Funds Trust
|
USA Mutuals
|
IronBridge Funds, Inc.
|
Wall Street EWM Funds Trust
|
Jacob Funds, Inc.
|
Westchester Capital Funds
|
Jensen Portfolio, Inc.
|
Wisconsin Capital Funds, Inc.
|
Kirr Marbach Partners Funds, Inc.
|
YCG Funds
|
ETF Series Solutions
|
By:
/s/ Michael D. Barolsky
|
Michael D. Barolsky, Esq.
|
Vice President and Assistant Secretary
|
Signature
|
Title
|
*
/s/ David A. Massart
|
Trustee
|
David A. Massart
|
|
*
/s/ Janet D. Olsen
|
Trustee
|
Janet D. Olsen
|
|
*
/s/ Leonard M. Rush
|
Trustee
|
Leonard M. Rush
|
|
*
/s/ Michael A. Castino
|
Trustee
|
Michael A. Castino
|
|
*/s/ Paul R. Fearday
|
President
|
Paul R. Fearday
|
|
*/s/ Kristen M. Weitzel
|
Treasurer
|
Kristen M. Weitzel
|
|
*By:
/s/ Michael D. Barolsky
Michael D. Barolsky, Attorney-in-Fact
pursuant to Powers of Attorney
|
Exhibit
Number
|
|
Description
|
(d)(i)
|
Investment Advisory Agreement between the Trust and EquBot Inc.
|
|
(d)(ii)
|
Investment Sub-Advisory Agreement between EquBot Inc. and Vident Investment Advisory, LLC
|
|
(e)(i)
|
Distribution Agreement between the Trust and Quasar Distributors, LLC (EquBot)
|
|
(g)(i)(B)
|
Exhibit AA to Custody Agreement (EquBot)
|
|
(h)(i)(B)
|
Exhibit AA to Fund Administration Servicing Agreement (EquBot)
|
|
(h)(ii)(B)
|
Exhibit AA to Fund Accounting Servicing Agreement (EquBot)
|
|
(h)(iii)(B)
|
Exhibit AA to Transfer Agent Agreement (EquBot)
|
|
(i)
|
Opinion and Consent of Counsel
|
|
(j)
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
|
(m)(i)(B)
|
Amended Schedule A to Rule 12b-1 Plan
|
1. |
The Adviser’s Services
.
|
4. |
Brokerage
.
|
7. |
Representations, Warranties and Covenants
.
|
14. |
Certain Definitions
. For the purposes of this Agreement:
|
ETF SERIES SOLUTIONS
on behalf of the series listed on Schedule A
|
Equbot Inc.
|
|
By:
/s/ Michael D. Barolsky
|
By:
/s/ Chidananda Khatua
|
|
Name:
Michael D. Barolsky
|
Name:
Chidananda Khatua
|
|
Title:
Vice President and Secretary
|
Title:
CEO
|
|
Fund
|
Rate
|
AI Powered International Equity ETF
|
0.79%
|
To the Sub-Adviser at:
|
Vident Investment Advisory, LLC
300 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 330
Roswell, Georgia, 30076
Attention: Denise Krisko
Email: dkrisko@videntinvestmentadvisory.com
|
EQUBOT INC.
By:
/s/ Chidananda Khatua
For Art, Chidananda Khatua, CEO, EQUBOT INC
Name: Arthur Amador
Title: Chief Operating Officer
|
VIDENT INVESTMENT ADVISORY, LLC
By:
/s/ Denise Krisfo
Name: Denise Krisko
Title: President
|
ETF SERIES SOLUTIONS
By:
/s/ Michael D. Barolsky
Name: Michael D. Barolsky
Title: Vice President and Secretary
|
Fund
|
Minimum Fee
|
Rate
|
AI Powered International Equity ETF
|
$25,000
|
0.05% on the first $500 million;
0.04% on the next $500 million; and
0.03% on net assets in excess of $1 billion
|
(a)
|
The Distributor shall be entitled to no compensation or reimbursement of expenses from the Trust for the services provided by the Distributor pursuant to this Agreement. However, the Trust may, with respect to any Fund, pay to the Distributor compensation pursuant to the terms of any Distribution and Service Plan in effect at the time in respect to that Fund. The Distributor may receive compensation from the Adviser related to its services hereunder or for additional services as may be agreed to between the Adviser and Distributor in writing. The Distributor shall be compensated for providing the services set forth in this Agreement in accordance with the fee schedule set forth on
Schedule B
hereto (as amended from time to time).
|
(b)
|
The Adviser shall bear the cost and expenses of: the registration of the Creation Units of the Funds listed in Schedule A hereto for sale under the 1933 Act.
|
(c)
|
The Distributor shall pay (i) all expenses relating to Distributor’s broker-dealer qualification and registration under the 1934 Act; (ii) the expenses incurred by the Distributor in connection with routine FINRA filing fees (other than those filing fees for which the Adviser reimburses the Distributor); and (iii) all other expenses incurred in connection with the distribution services provided under this Agreement that are not reimbursed by the Adviser, including office space, equipment, and personnel as may be necessary or convenient to provide the services.
|
(d)
|
Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the Distributor and its affiliates may receive compensation or reimbursement from the Adviser with respect to any services not included under this Agreement, as may be agreed upon by the parties from time to time.
|
(a)
|
If the indemnification provided for in
Sections 6 and 7
is insufficient or unavailable to any indemnified party under such sections in respect of any losses, claims, damages, liabilities or expenses referred to therein as a result of a court of competent jurisdiction’s decision not to enforce such agreement of the parties, then the indemnifying party, in lieu of indemnifying such indemnified party hereunder, shall contribute to the amount paid or payable by damages, liabilities or expenses in such proportion as is appropriate to reflect the relative benefits received by the Trust on the one hand and the Distributor on the other from the offering of the Shares. If, however, the allocation based upon relative benefit to each party provided by the immediately preceding sentence is not permitted by applicable law, then each indemnifying party shall contribute to such amount paid or payable by such indemnified party in such proportion as is appropriate to reflect the relative fault of the Trust on the one hand and the Distributor on the other in connection with the statements or omissions which resulted in such losses, claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respect thereof), as well as any other relevant equitable considerations. Further, if the indemnified party failed to give the indemnifying party notice of the claim and the indemnifying party was prejudiced by such failure, then each indemnifying party shall contribute to such amount paid or payable by such indemnified party in such proportion as is appropriate to reflect not only such relative benefits but also the relative fault of the Trust on the one hand and the Distributor on the other in connection with the statements or omissions which resulted in such losses, claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respect thereof), as well as any other relevant equitable considerations. The relative benefits received by the Trust on the one hand and the Distributor on the other shall be deemed to be in the same proportion as the amount of gross proceeds received by the Trust from the offering of the Shares under this Agreement (expressed in dollars) bears to the net profits received by the Distributor under this Agreement. The relative fault shall be determined by reference to, among other things, whether the untrue or alleged untrue statement of a material fact or the omission or alleged omission to state a material fact relates to information supplied by the Trust on the one hand or the Distributor on the other and the parties’ relative intent, knowledge, access to information and opportunity to correct or prevent such statement or omission. The Trust and the Distributor agree that it would not be just and equitable if contributions pursuant to this section were determined by pro rata allocation or by any other method of allocation which does not take account of the equitable considerations referred to herein. The amount paid or payable by an indemnified party as a result of the losses, claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respect thereof) referred to above shall be deemed to include any legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by such indemnified party in connection with investigating or defending any such action or claim. No person guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation (within the meaning of Section 11(f) of the 1933 Act) shall be entitled to contribution from any person who was not guilty of such fraudulent misrepresentation.
|
(b)
|
In no event and under no circumstances shall either party to this Agreement be liable to anyone, including, without limitation, the other party, for consequential damages for any act or failure to act under any provision of this Agreement.
|
(a)
|
The Distributor and the Trust (in such capacity, the “
Receiving Party
”) acknowledge and agree to maintain the confidentiality of Proprietary and Confidential Information (as hereinafter defined) provided by the Distributor and the Trust (in such capacity, the “
Disclosing Party
”) in connection with this Agreement. The Receiving Party shall not disclose or disseminate the Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information to any Person other than (a) those employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors and licensees of the Receiving Party, or (b) with respect to the Distributor as a Receiving Party, to those employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors and licensees of any agent or affiliate, who have a need to know it in order to assist the Receiving Party in performing its obligations, or to permit the Receiving Party to exercise its rights under this Agreement. In addition, the Receiving Party (a) shall take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized access to the Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information, and (b) shall not use the Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information, or authorize other Persons to use the Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information, for any purposes other than in connection with performing its obligations or exercising its rights hereunder. As used herein, “reasonable steps” means steps that a party takes to protect its own, similarly confidential or proprietary information of a similar nature, which steps shall in no event be less than a reasonable standard of care.
|
(b)
|
The term “
Confidential Information
,” as used herein, shall mean all business strategies, plans and procedures, proprietary information, methodologies, data and trade secrets, and other confidential information and materials (including, without limitation, any non-public personal information as defined in Regulation S-P) of the Disclosing Party, its affiliates, their respective clients or suppliers, or other Persons with whom they do business, that may be obtained by the Receiving Party from any source or that may be developed as a result of this Agreement.
|
(c)
|
The provisions of this
Article 18
respecting Confidential Information shall not apply to the extent, but only to the extent, that such Confidential Information: (a) is already known to the Receiving Party free of any restriction at the time it is obtained from the Disclosing Party, (b) is subsequently learned from an independent third party free of any restriction and without breach of this Agreement; (c) is or becomes publicly available through no wrongful act of the Receiving Party or any third party; (d) is independently developed by or for the Receiving Party without reference to or use of any Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party; or (e) is required to be disclosed pursuant to an applicable law, rule, regulation, government requirement or court order, or the rules of any stock exchange (provided, however, that the Receiving Party shall advise the Disclosing Party of such required disclosure promptly upon learning thereof in order to afford the Disclosing Party a reasonable opportunity to contest, limit and/or assist the Receiving Party in crafting such disclosure).
|
(d)
|
The Receiving Party shall advise its employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors and licensees, and shall require its agents and affiliates to advise their employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors and licensees, of the Receiving Party’s obligations of confidentiality and non-use under this
Article 18
, and shall be responsible for ensuring compliance by its and its affiliates’ employees, agents, consultants, contractors, subcontractors and licensees with such obligations. In addition, the Receiving Party shall require all persons that are provided access to the Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information, other than the Receiving Party’s accountants and legal counsel, to execute confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements containing provisions substantially similar to those set forth in this
Article 18
. The Receiving Party shall promptly notify the Disclosing Party in writing upon learning of any unauthorized disclosure or use of the Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information by such persons.
|
(e)
|
Upon the Disclosing Party’s written request following the termination of this Agreement, the Receiving Party promptly shall return to the Disclosing Party, or destroy, all Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party provided under or in connection with this Agreement, including all copies, portions and summaries thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, (a) the Receiving Party may retain one copy of each item of the Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information for purposes of identifying and establishing its rights and obligations under this Agreement, for archival or audit purposes and/or to the extent required by applicable law, and (b) the Distributor shall have no obligation to return or destroy Confidential Information of the Trust that resides in save tapes of Distributor; provided, however, that in either case all such Confidential Information retained by the Receiving Party shall remain subject to the provisions of
Article 18
for so long as it is so retained. If requested by the Disclosing Party, the Receiving Party shall certify in writing its compliance with the provisions of this paragraph.
|
(a)
|
The Trust shall not use the name of the Distributor, or any of its affiliates, in any prospectus or statement of additional information, sales literature, and other material relating to the Trust in any manner without the prior written consent of the Distributor (which shall not be unreasonably withheld);
provided
,
however
, that the Distributor hereby approves all lawful uses of the names of the Distributor and its affiliates in the prospectus and statement of additional information of the Trust and in all other materials which merely refer in accurate terms to their appointment hereunder or which are required by applicable law, regulations or otherwise by the SEC, FINRA, or any state securities authority.
|
(b)
|
Neither the Distributor nor any of its affiliates shall use the name of the Trust in any publicly disseminated materials, including sales literature, in any manner without the prior written consent of the Trust (which shall not be unreasonably withheld);
provided
,
however
, that the Trust hereby approves all lawful uses of its name in any required regulatory filings of the Distributor which merely refer in accurate terms to the appointment of the Distributor hereunder, or which are required by applicable law, regulations or otherwise
by
the SEC, FINRA, or any state securities authority.
|
(a)
|
The Distributor agrees to maintain liability insurance coverage which is, in scope and amount, consistent with coverage customary in the industry for distribution activities similar to the distribution activities provided to the Trust hereunder. The Distributor shall notify the Trust upon receipt of any notice of material, adverse change in the terms or provisions of its insurance coverage that may materially and adversely affect the Trust’s rights hereunder. Such notification shall include the date of change and the reason or reasons therefore. The Distributor shall notify the Trust of any material claims against it, whether or not covered by insurance that may materially and adversely affect the Trust’s rights hereunder.
|
(b)
|
The Trust hereby represents that it maintains adequate insurance coverage with respect to its responsibilities pursuant to this Agreement, including commercially reasonable fidelity bond(s), errors and omissions, directors and officers, professional liability insurance. The Distributor shall be included as an additional insured on the Trust’s commercial liability policies and shall be named as a loss payee on the Trust’s fidelity bond(s). All of the foregoing policies shall be issued by insurance companies having an “A minus” rating or better by A.M. Best Company or an equivalent Standard & Poor’s rating. The Trust shall furnish Certificates of Insurance evidencing all of the foregoing insurance coverages upon execution of this Agreement, and annually upon the written request of the Distributor. Annually upon the written request of the Distributor, the Trust shall provide insurance policy documentation evidencing the Trust’s “additional insured” status with respect to the Trust’s Commercial General Liability and “loss payee” status with respect to the Trust’s Fidelity Bond. The Trust shall promptly inform the Distributor of any material changes to its policies, endorsements or coverages.
|
(a)
|
The Trust represents, warrants and covenants that:
|
i.
|
it is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the state of its formation, and has all requisite power under the laws of such state and applicable federal law to conduct its business as now being conducted and to perform its obligations as contemplated by this Agreement;
|
|
|
ii.
|
this Agreement has been duly authorized by the board of trustees of the Trust, including by unanimous affirmative vote of all of the independent directors of the Trust and, when executed and delivered by the Trust, will constitute a legal, valid and binding obligation of the Trust, enforceable against the Trust in accordance with its terms;
|
iii.
|
it shall timely perform all obligations identified in this Agreement as obligations of the Trust, including, without limitation, providing the Distributor with all marketing materials reasonably requested by the Distributor and giving all necessary consents or approvals in good faith and within a timely manner;
|
iv.
|
it is not a party to any, and there are no, pending or threatened legal, administrative, arbitral or other proceedings, claims, actions or governmental or regulatory investigations or inquiries (collectively, “
Actions
”) of any nature against it, its advisor or its properties or assets which could, individually or in the aggregate, have a material effect upon its business or financial condition, and there is no injunction, order, judgment, decree, or regulatory restriction imposed upon it or any of its properties or assets;
|
v.
|
it is an investment company that is duly registered under all applicable laws and regulations, including, without limitation the 1940 Act, and each Fund is a separate series of the Trust;
|
vi.
|
it is and will continue to be in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations aimed at the prevention and detection of money laundering and/or the financing of terrorism activities including Bank Secrecy Act, as amended by USA PATRIOT Act, U.S. Treasury Department, including the Office of Foreign Asset Control (“
OFAC
”), Financial Crimes and Enforcement Network (“
FinCEN
”) and the SEC
|
vii.
|
it has an anti-money laundering program (“
AML Program
”), that at minimum includes, (i) an AML compliance officer designated to administer and oversee the AML Program, (ii) ongoing training for appropriate personnel, (iii) internal controls and procedures reasonably designed to prevent and detect suspicious activity monitoring and terrorist financing activities; (iv) procedures to comply with know your customer requirements and to verify the identity of all customers; and (v) appropriate record keeping procedures;
|
viii.
|
each Prospectus has been prepared in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and, at the time such Prospectus was filed with the SEC and became effective, no Prospectus will include an untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact that is required to be stated therein so as to make the statements contained in such Prospectus not misleading. As used in this Agreement, the term, “
Prospectus
” means any prospectus, registration statement, statement of additional information, proxy solicitation and tender offer materials, annual or other periodic report of the Trust or any Fund of the Trust or any advertising, marketing, shareholder communication, or promotional material generated by the Trust or an Adviser from time to time, as appropriate, including all amendments or supplements thereto and applicable law;
|
ix.
|
it will notify the Distributor as soon as reasonably practical in advance of any matter which could materially affect the Distributor’s performance of its duties and obligations under this Agreement, including any amendment to the Prospectus;
|
x.
|
it will provide Distributor with a copy of each Prospectus as soon as reasonably possible prior to or contemporaneously with filing the same with an applicable regulatory body;
|
xi.
|
it shall fully cooperate with requests from government regulators and the Distributor for information relating to customers and/or transactions involving the Creation Units, as permitted by law, in order for the Distributor to comply with its regulatory obligations; and
|
xii.
|
in the event it determines that it is in the interest of the Trust to suspend or terminate the sale of any Creation Units, the Trust shall promptly notify the Distributor of such fact in advance and in writing prior to the date on which the Trust desires to cease offering the Creation Units.
|
(b)
|
Distributor hereby represents, warrants and covenants as follows:
|
i.
|
it has full power, right and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby; the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby have been duly and validly approved by all requisite actions on its part, and no other proceedings on its part are necessary to approve this Agreement or to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby; this Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by it; this Agreement constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation, enforceable against it in accordance with its terms;
|
ii.
|
it is not a party to any, and there are no, pending or threatened Actions of any nature against it or its properties or assets which could, individually or in the aggregate, have a material effect upon its business or financial condition, and there is no injunction, order, judgment, decree, or regulatory restriction imposed specifically upon it or any of its properties or assets;
|
iii.
|
it is registered as a broker-dealer with the SEC under the 1934 Act and a member of FINRA in good standing;
|
iv.
|
it shall not give any information or to make any representations other than those contained in the current Prospectus of the Trust filed with the SEC or contained in shareholder reports or other material that may be prepared by or on behalf of the Trust for the Distributor’s use; and
|
v.
|
it may prepare and distribute sales literature and other material as it may deem appropriate, provided that such literature and materials have been prepared in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.
|
ETF SERIES SOLUTIONS
|
QUASAR DISTRIBUTORS, LLC
|
By: /
s/ Michael D. Barolsky
|
By:
/s/ James R. Schoenike
|
Name:
Michael D. Barolsky
|
Name:
James R. Schoenike
|
Title:
Vice President and Secretary
|
Title:
President
|
Date:
May 27, 2018
|
Date:
May 31, 2018
|
EquBot, Inc.,
with respect to Article 5
|
|
By:
/s/ Chidananda Khatua
|
|
Name:
Chidananda Khatua
|
|
Title:
CEO
|
|
Date:
May 29
th
, 2018
|
Annual Minimum per Fund
|
Basis Points on Trust AUM
|
||
Funds 1-5
|
$[ ]
|
First $500m
|
[ ] bp
|
Funds 6-10
|
$[ ]
|
Next $500m
|
[ ] bp
|
Funds 11+
|
$[ ]
|
Balance
|
[ ] bp
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per communication piece for the first 10 pages (minutes if audio or video); $[ ] per page (minute if audio or video) thereafter.
|
§ |
$
[ ]
FINRA filing fee per communication piece for the first 10 pages (minutes if audio or video); $[ ] per page (minute if audio or video) thereafter. FINRA filing fee subject to change. (FINRA filing fee may not apply to all communication pieces.)
|
§ |
$
[ ]
for the first 10 pages (minutes if audio or video); $[ ] per page (minute if audio or video) thereafter, 24 hour initial turnaround.
|
§ |
$
[ ]
FINRA filing fee per communication piece for the first 10 pages (minutes if audio or video); $[ ] per page (minute if audio or video) thereafter. FINRA filing fee subject to change. (FINRA filing fee may not apply to all communication pieces.)
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per year per registered representative
|
§ |
Quasar sponsors the following licenses: Series 6, 7, 24, 26, 27, 63, 66
|
§ |
All associated FINRA and state fees for registered representatives, including license and renewal fees
|
§ |
Fund Fact Sheets
|
− |
Design – $[ ] per fact sheet, includes first production
|
− |
Production – $[ ] per fact sheet per each production period
|
§ |
Web sites, third-party data provider costs, brochures, and other sales support materials – Project priced via Quasar proposal
|
§ |
Production, printing, distribution, and placement of advertising, sales literature, and materials
|
§ |
Engagement of designers, free-lance writers, and public relations firms
|
§ |
Postage, overnight delivery charges
|
§ |
FINRA registration fees and other costs to fulfill regulatory requirements
|
§ |
Travel, lodging, and meals
|
ETF SERIES SOLUTIONS
|
U.S. BANK N.A.
|
By:
/s/ Michael D. Barolsky
|
By:
/s/ Anita M. Zagrodnik
|
Name:
Michael D. Barolsky
|
Name:
Anita M. Zagrodnik
|
Title:
Vice President and Secretary
|
Title:
Senior VP
|
Date:
May 27, 2018
|
Date:
5/31/18
|
Annual Minimum per Fund
|
Basis Points on Trust AUM
|
||
Funds 1-10
|
$[ ]
|
First $500m
|
[ ] bp
|
Funds 11-20
|
$[ ]
|
Next $500m
|
[ ] bp
|
Funds 21+
|
$[ ]
|
Balance
|
[ ] bp
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Book entry DTC transaction, Federal Reserve transaction, principal paydown
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Repurchase agreement, reverse repurchase agreement, time deposit/CD or other non-depository transaction
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Option/SWAPS/future contract written, exercised or expired
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Mutual fund trade, Margin Variation Wire and outbound Fed wire
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Physical security transaction
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Check disbursement (waived if U.S. Bancorp is Administrator)
|
§ |
Additional fees apply for global servicing. Fund of Fund expenses quoted separately.
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– per Sub Advisor
|
§ |
$
[ ]
-- Segregated custody account
|
§ |
No charge for the initial conversion free receipt.
|
§ |
Overdrafts – charged to the account at prime interest rate plus 2%, unless a line of credit is in place
|
§ |
1-25 foreign securities: $
[ ]
|
§ |
26-50 foreign securities: $
[ ]
|
§ |
Over 50 foreign securities: $
[ ]
|
§ |
Euroclear – Eurobonds only. Eurobonds are held in Euroclear at a standard rate, but other types of securities (including but not limited to equities, domestic market debt and mutual funds) will be subject to a surcharge. In addition, certain transactions that are delivered within Euroclear or from a Euroclear account to a third party depository or settlement system, will be subject to a surcharge.
|
§ |
For all other markets specified above, surcharges may apply if a security is held outside of the local market.
|
§ |
A transaction is defined as any purchase/sale, free receipt / free delivery, maturity, tender or exchange of a security.
|
§ |
Tax reclaims that have been outstanding for more than 6 (six) months with the client will be charged $
[ ]
per claim.
|
§ |
Charges incurred by U.S. Bank N.A. directly or through sub-custodians for account opening fees, local taxes, stamp duties or other local duties and assessments, stock exchange fees, foreign exchange transactions, postage and insurance for shipping, facsimile reporting, extraordinary telecommunications fees, proxy services and other shareholder communications, recurring administration fees, negative interest charges, overdraft charges or other expenses which are unique to a country in which the client or its clients is investing will be passed along as incurred.
|
§ |
A surcharge may be added to certain miscellaneous expenses listed herein to cover handling, servicing and other administrative costs associated with the activities giving rise to such expenses. Also, certain expenses are charged at a predetermined flat rate.
|
§ |
SWIFT reporting and message fees.
|
Country
|
Instrument
|
Safekeeping
(BPS)
|
Transaction
Fee
|
Country
|
Instrument
|
Safekeeping
(BPS)
|
Transaction
Fee
|
|
Argentina
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Lebanon
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Australia
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Lithuania
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Austria
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Luxembourg
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Bahrain
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Malaysia
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Bangladesh
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Mali
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Belgium
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Malta
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Benin
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Mauritius
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Bermuda
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Mexico
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Botswana
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Morocco
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Brazil
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Namibia
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Bulgaria
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Netherlands
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Burkina Faso
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
New Zealand
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Canada
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Niger
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Cayman Islands*
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Nigeria
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Channel Islands*
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Norway
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Chile
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Oman
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
China
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Pakistan
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Columbia
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Peru
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Costa Rica
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Phillipines
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Croatia
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Poland
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Cyprus
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Portugal
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Czech Republic
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Qatar
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Denmark
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Romania
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Ecuador
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Russia
|
Equities
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Egypt
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Senegal
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Estonia
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Singapore
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Euromarkets**
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Slovak Republic
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Finland
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Slovenia
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
France
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
South Africa
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Germany
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
South Korea
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Ghana
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Spain
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Greece
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Sri Lanka
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Guinea Bissau
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Swaziland
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Hong Kong
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Sweden
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Hungary
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Switzerland
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Iceland
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Taiwan
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
India
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Thailand
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Indonesia
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Togo
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Ireland
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Tunisia
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Israel
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Turkey
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Italy
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
UAE
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Ivory Coast
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
United Kingdom
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Japan
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Ukraine
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Jordan
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Uruguay
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Kazakhstan
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Venezuela
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Kenya
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Vietnam
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Kuwait
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
Zambia
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
|
Latvia
|
Equities
|
____
|
$____
|
Zimbabwe
|
All
|
____
|
$____
|
EquBot, Inc.
|
|
By:
/s/ Chidananda Khatua
|
|
Printed Name:
Chidananda Khatua
|
|
Title:
CEO
|
Date:
May 29
th
, 2018
|
ETF SERIES SOLUTIONS
|
U.S. BANCORP FUND SERVICES, LLC
|
By:
/s/ Michael D. Barolsky
|
By:
/s/ Anita M. Zagrodnik
|
Name:
Michael D. Barolsky
|
Name:
Anita M. Zagrodnik
|
Title:
Vice President and Secretary
|
Title:
Senior VP
|
Date:
May 27, 2018
|
Date:
5/31/18
|
§ |
Subsequent new fund launch – $
[ ]
per fund or as negotiated
|
§ |
Actively Managed ETF Relief $
[ ]
|
§ |
Passively Managed ETF Relief $
[ ]
|
§ |
$
[ ]
first fund
|
§ |
$
[ ]
each additional fund up to 5 funds
|
§ |
Fees negotiated for funds 6+
|
§ |
Postage, if necessary
|
§ |
Federal and state regulatory filing fees
|
§ |
Expenses from Board of Trustee meetings
|
§ |
Third party auditing
|
§ |
EDGAR/XBRL filing
|
§ |
All other Miscellaneous expenses
|
Annual Minimum per Fund
|
Basis Points on Trust AUM
|
||
Funds 1-5
|
$[ ]
|
First $250m
|
[ ] bps
|
Funds 6-10
|
$[ ]
|
Next $250m
|
[ ] bps
|
Funds 11-15
|
$[ ]
|
Next $500m
|
[ ] bps
|
Funds 16+
|
$[ ]
|
Balance
|
[ ] bps
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Domestic Equities, Options, ADRs, Foreign Equities, Futures, Forwards, Currency Rates, Mutual Funds, ETFs
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Domestic Corporates, Domestic Convertibles, Domestic Governments, Domestic Agencies, Mortgage Backed, Municipal Bonds
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– CMOs, Money Market Instruments, Foreign Corporates, Foreign Convertibles, Foreign Governments, Foreign Agencies, Asset Backed, High Yield
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Interest Rate Swaps, Foreign Currency Swaps, Total Return Swaps, Total Return Bullet Swaps
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Bank Loans
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Swaptions
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Intraday money market funds pricing, up to 3 times per day
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Credit Default Swaps
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per Month Manual Security Pricing (>25per day)
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per Foreign Equity Security per Month
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per Domestic Equity Security per Month
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per CMOs, Asset Backed, Mortgage Backed Security per Month
|
§ |
$
[ ]
for the first fund
|
§ |
$
[ ]
for each additional fund
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per sub-advisor per fund
|
§ |
Additional $
[ ]
per distributor other than Quasar Distributors, LLC
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per security per month for fund administrative
|
§ |
$[ ] per fund per standard reporting package*
|
§ |
Additional 15c reporting is subject to additional charges
|
- |
Expense reporting package: 2 peer comparison reports (adviser fee) and (net expense ratio w classes on one report) OR Full 15(c) report
|
-
|
Performance reporting package: Peer Comparison Report
|
EquBot, Inc.
|
|
By:
/s/ Chidananda Khatua
|
|
Printed Name:
Chidananda Khatua
|
|
Title:
CEO
|
Date:
May 29
th
, 2018
|
ETF SERIES SOLUTIONS
|
U.S. BANCORP FUND SERVICES, LLC
|
By:
/s/ Michael D. Barolsky
|
By:
/s/ Anita M. Zagrodnik
|
Name:
Michael D. Barolsky
|
Name:
Anita M. Zagrodnik
|
Title:
Vice President and Secretary
|
Title:
Senior VP
|
Date:
May 27, 2018
|
Date:
5/31/18
|
Annual Minimum per Fund
|
Basis Points on Trust AUM
|
||
Funds 1-5
|
$[ ]
|
First $250m
|
[ ] bps
|
Funds 6-10
|
$[ ]
|
Next $250m
|
[ ] bps
|
Funds 11-15
|
$[ ]
|
Next $500m
|
[ ] bps
|
Funds 16+
|
$[ ]
|
Balance
|
[ ] bps
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Domestic Equities, Options, ADRs, Foreign Equities, Futures, Forwards, Currency Rates, Mutual Funds, ETFs
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Domestic Corporates, Domestic Convertibles, Domestic Governments, Domestic Agencies, Mortgage Backed, Municipal Bonds
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– CMOs, Money Market Instruments, Foreign Corporates, Foreign Convertibles, Foreign Governments, Foreign Agencies, Asset Backed, High Yield
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Interest Rate Swaps, Foreign Currency Swaps, Total Return Swaps, Total Return Bullet Swaps
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Bank Loans
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Swaptions
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Intraday money market funds pricing, up to 3 times per day
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Credit Default Swaps
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per Month Manual Security Pricing (>25per day)
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per Foreign Equity Security per Month
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per Domestic Equity Security per Month
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per CMOs, Asset Backed, Mortgage Backed Security per Month
|
§ |
$
[ ]
for the first fund
|
§ |
$
[ ]
for each additional fund
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per sub-advisor per fund
|
§ |
Additional $
[ ]
per distributor other than Quasar Distributors, LLC
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per security per month for fund administrative
|
§ |
$[ ] per fund per standard reporting package*
|
§ |
Additional 15c reporting is subject to additional charges
|
- |
Expense reporting package: 2 peer comparison reports (adviser fee) and (net expense ratio w classes on one report) OR Full 15(c) report
|
-
|
Performance reporting package: Peer Comparison Report
|
EquBot, Inc.
|
|
By:
/s/ Chidananda Khatua
|
|
Printed Name:
Chidananda Khatua
|
|
Title:
CEO
|
Date:
May 29
th
, 2018
|
ETF SERIES SOLUTIONS
|
U.S. BANCORP FUND SERVICES, LLC
|
By:
/s/ Michael D. Barolsky
|
By:
/s/ Anita M. Zagrodnik
|
Name:
Michael D. Barolsky
|
Name:
Anita M. Zagrodnik
|
Title:
Vice President and Secretary
|
Title:
Senior VP
|
Date:
May 27, 2018
|
Date:
5/31/18
|
Annual Minimum per Fund
|
Basis Points on Trust AUM
|
||
Funds 1-5
|
$[ ]
|
First $250m
|
[ ] bps
|
Funds 6-10
|
$[ ]
|
Next $250m
|
[ ] bps
|
Funds 11-15
|
$[ ]
|
Next $500m
|
[ ] bps
|
Funds 16+
|
$[ ]
|
Balance
|
[ ] bps
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Domestic Equities, Options, ADRs, Foreign Equities, Futures, Forwards, Currency Rates, Mutual Funds, ETFs
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Domestic Corporates, Domestic Convertibles, Domestic Governments, Domestic Agencies, Mortgage Backed, Municipal Bonds
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– CMOs, Money Market Instruments, Foreign Corporates, Foreign Convertibles, Foreign Governments, Foreign Agencies, Asset Backed, High Yield
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Interest Rate Swaps, Foreign Currency Swaps, Total Return Swaps, Total Return Bullet Swaps
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Bank Loans
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Swaptions
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Intraday money market funds pricing, up to 3 times per day
|
§ |
$
[ ]
– Credit Default Swaps
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per Month Manual Security Pricing (>25per day)
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per Foreign Equity Security per Month
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per Domestic Equity Security per Month
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per CMOs, Asset Backed, Mortgage Backed Security per Month
|
§ |
$
[ ]
for the first fund
|
§ |
$
[ ]
for each additional fund
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per sub-advisor per fund
|
§ |
Additional $
[ ]
per distributor other than Quasar Distributors, LLC
|
§ |
$
[ ]
per security per month for fund administrative
|
§ |
$[ ] per fund per standard reporting package*
|
§ |
Additional 15c reporting is subject to additional charges
|
- |
Expense reporting package: 2 peer comparison reports (adviser fee) and (net expense ratio w classes on one report) OR Full 15(c) report
|
-
|
Performance reporting package: Peer Comparison Report
|
EquBot, Inc.
|
|
By:
/s/ Chidananda Khatua
|
|
Printed Name:
Chidananda Khatua
|
|
Title:
CEO
|
Date:
May 29
th
, 2018
|
Re:
|
ETF Series Solutions
|
(a) |
A certificate of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware, dated as of a recent date, as to the existence of the Trust;
|
(b) |
A copy, certified by the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware, of the Trust’s Certificate of Trust dated February 9, 2012, as filed with the Secretary of State (the “Certificate of Trust”);
|
(c) |
Copies of the Trust’s Agreement and Declaration of Trust dated February 17, 2012 (the “Declaration”), the Trust’s Amended and Restated Bylaws dated August 18, 2014 (the “Bylaws”), and resolutions adopted by the Trustees of the Trust authorizing the issuance of the Shares of the Fund (the “Resolutions”), each certified by an authorized officer of the Trust; and
|
(d) |
A printer’s proof of the Registration Statement.
|
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
|
|
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
|
|
Washington, DC 20004
|
+1.202.739.3000
|
United States
|
+1.202.739.3001
|
Series of ETF Series Solutions
|
Rule 12b-1 Fee
|
Cboe Vest S&P 500 Enhanced Growth (August) ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
Cboe Vest S&P 500 Enhanced Growth (September) ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
Cboe Vest S&P 500 Enhanced Growth (October) ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
Cboe Vest S&P 500 Enhanced Growth (November) ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
Cboe Vest S&P 500 Enhanced Growth (December) ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
LHA Market State U.S. Tactical ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
Salt truBeta
TM
High Exposure ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
PPTY – U.S. Diversified Real Estate ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
AI Powered International Equity ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
Opus Small Cap Value Plus ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
Opus International Small/Mid Cap ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
ClearShares Ultra-Short Maturity ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
Defiance Augmented & Virtual Experience ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
Defiance Quantum ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
Defiance Vehicle & Technology Innovators ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
Aptus Defined Risk ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|
Loncar China BioPharma ETF
|
0.25% of average daily net assets
|