UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 |
☒ |
Pre-Effective Amendment No. | ☐ |
Post-Effective Amendment No. 273 | ☒ |
UNDER
THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940 |
☒ |
Amendment No. 275 | ☒ |
Zachary
Vonnegut-Gabovitch, Esq.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 4 New York Plaza New York, NY 10004 |
Jon
S. Rand, Esq.
Dechert LLP 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 |
☐ | immediately upon filing pursuant to paragraph (b) |
☐ | on (date) pursuant to paragraph (b) |
☒ | 60 days after filing pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) |
☐ | on (date) pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) |
☐ | 75 days after filing pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) |
☐ | on (date) pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) |
☐ | The post-effective amendment designates a new effective date for a previously filed post-effective amendment. |
JPMorgan
International Bond Opportunities ETF
(formerly JPMorgan Global Bond Opportunities ETF) |
Ticker: JPGB | Listing Exchange: Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. |
Risk/Return Summary: | |
|
1 |
|
9 |
|
9 |
|
11 |
|
22 |
|
22 |
|
22 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
|
25 |
|
25 |
|
25 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
|
38 |
|
Back cover |
ANNUAL
FUND OPERATING EXPENSES1
(Expenses that you pay each year as a percentage of the value of your investment) |
|
Management Fees | 0.50% |
Other Expenses | 0.00 |
Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses | 0.50 |
1 | The Fund's management agreement provides that the adviser will pay substantially all expenses of the Fund (including expenses of the Trust relating to the Fund), except for the management fees, payments under the Fund’s 12b-1 plan (if any), interest expenses, dividend and interest expenses related to short sales, taxes, acquired fund fees and expenses (other than fees for funds advised by the adviser and/or its affiliates), costs of holding shareholder meetings, and litigation and potential litigation and other extraordinary expenses not incurred in the ordinary course of the Fund’s business. Additionally, the Fund shall be responsible for its non-operating expenses, including brokerage commissions and fees and expenses associated with that Fund’s securities lending program, if applicable. |
WHETHER OR NOT YOU SELL YOUR SHARES, YOUR COST WOULD BE: | |||||||
1 Year | 3 Years | 5 Years | 10 Years | ||||
SHARES ($) | 51 | 160 | 280 | 628 |
YEAR-BY-YEAR RETURNS |
Best Quarter | 1st quarter, 2019 | 4.69% |
Worst Quarter | 4th quarter, 2018 | -1.69% |
AVERAGE
ANNUAL TOTAL RETURNS
(For periods ended December 31, 2019) |
|||
Past
1 Year |
Life
of Fund
(since 04/05/2017) |
||
SHARES | |||
Return Before Taxes | 10.85% | 4.66% | |
Return After Taxes on Distributions | 8.78 | 2.77 | |
Return After Taxes on Distributions and Sale of Fund Shares | 6.40 | 2.75 | |
BLOOMBERG BARCLAYS MULTIVERSE INDEX | |||
(Reflects No Deduction for Fees, Expenses, or Taxes) | 7.13 | 4.06 | |
BLOOMBERG BARCLAYS MULTIVERSE INDEX ex USA (USD Hedged) | |||
(Reflects No Deduction for Fees, Expenses, or Taxes) | NA | NA |
1 | Effective x/x/20, the Fund’s benchmark changed from the Bloomberg Barclays Multiverse Index to the Bloomberg Barclays Multiverse Index ex USA (USD Hedged) because the adviser believes that the Bloomberg Barclays Multiverse Index ex USA (USD Hedged) is a more appropriate comparison in light of the Fund’s new name and investment strategies, which were also adopted x/x/20. |
Portfolio Manager |
Managed
the
Fund Since |
Primary
Title with
Investment Adviser |
Robert Michele | 2017 | Managing Director |
Iain Stealey | 2017 | Managing Director |
Lisa Coleman | 2020 | Managing Director |
Peter Aspbury | 2020 | Managing Director |
Diana Amoa | 2020 | Executive Director |
NON-FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES |
An investment objective is fundamental if it cannot be changed without the consent of a majority of the outstanding Shares of the Fund. The Fund’s investment objective is not fundamental and may be changed without the consent of a majority of the outstanding Shares of the Fund. |
International Bond Opportunities ETF | |
Asset-Backed, Mortgage-Related and Mortgage-Backed Securities Risk | • |
Authorized Participant Concentration Risk | • |
Cash Transactions Risk | • |
Convertible Securities Risk | ○ |
Covenant Lite Loan Risk | ○ |
CPI-U Strategy Risk | ○ |
Credit Risk | • |
Currency Risk | • |
Derivatives Risk | • |
ETF and Investment Company Risk | ○ |
Foreign Securities and Emerging Markets Risk | • |
General Market Risk | • |
Geographic Focus Risk | • |
Government Securities Risk | • |
High Portfolio Turnover Risk | • |
High Yield Securities Risk | • |
Industry and Sector Focus Risk | • |
Inflation-Linked and Inflation-Protected Security Risk | • |
Interest Rate Risk | • |
LIBOR Discontinuance or Unavailability Risk | • |
Market Trading Risk | • |
Mortgage Dollar Roll Risk | • |
Municipal Securities Risk | ○ |
Prepayment Risk | • |
Sovereign Debt Risk | • |
Structured Investment Risk | • |
Transactions and Liquidity Risk | ○ |
Volcker Rule Risk | ○ |
Zero-Coupon, Pay-In-Kind and Deferred Payment Securities Risk | • |
• | Main Risks |
○ | Additional Risks |
WHAT IS A DERIVATIVE? |
Derivatives are securities or contracts (for example, futures and options) that derive their value from the performance of underlying assets or securities. |
WHAT IS A CASH EQUIVALENT? |
Cash equivalents are highly liquid, high-quality instruments with maturities of three months or less on the date they are purchased. They include securities issued by the U.S. government, its agencies and instrumentalities, repurchase agreements, certificates of deposit, bankers’ acceptances, commercial paper, variable rate master demand notes, money market mutual funds, and bank deposit accounts. |
International Bond Opportunities ETF | 0.27% |
International Bond Opportunities ETF | 0.50% |
INSTRUMENT | RISK TYPE |
Commodity-Related Pooled Investment Vehicles: Ownership interests in grantor trusts and other pooled investment vehicles, including commodity pools, that hold tangible assets such as gold, silver and other commodities or invest incommodities futures. Grantor trusts are typically traded on an exchange. |
Credit
Foreign Investment Leverage Liquidity Market Valuation |
Common Stock: Shares of ownership of a company. | Market |
Convertible Securities: Bonds or preferred stock that can convert to common stock including contingent convertible securities. |
Credit
Currency Foreign Investments Interest Rate Liquidity Market Political Valuation |
Corporate Debt Securities: May include bonds and other debt securities of domestic and foreign issuers, including obligations of industrial, utility, banking and other corporate issuers. |
Credit
Currency Interest Rate Liquidity Market Political Valuation |
Credit Default Swaps (CDSs): A swap agreement between two parties pursuant to which one party pays the other a fixed periodic coupon for the specified life of the agreement. The other party makes no payment unless a credit event, relating to a predetermined reference asset, occurs. If such an event occurs, the party will then make a payment to the first party, and the swap will terminate. |
Credit
Currency Interest Rate Leverage Liquidity Management Market Political Valuation |
Custodial Receipts: The Fund may acquire securities in the form of custodial receipts that evidence ownership of future interest payments, principal payments or both on certain U.S. Treasury notes or bonds in connection with programs sponsored by banks and brokerage firms. These are not considered to be U.S. government securities. These notes and bonds are held in custody by a bank on behalf of the owners of the receipts. |
Credit
Liquidity Market |
Demand Features: Securities that are subject to puts and standby commitments to purchase the securities at a fixed price (usually with accrued interest) within a fixed period of time following demand by the Fund. |
Liquidity
Management Market |
Emerging Market Securities: Securities issued by issuers or governments in countries with emerging economies or securities markets which may be undergoing significant evolution and rapid development. | Foreign Investment |
Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs): Ownership interest in unit investment trusts, depositary receipts, and other pooled investment vehicles that hold a portfolio of securities or stocks designed to track the price performance and dividend yield of a particular broad-based, sector or international index. ETFs include a wide range of investments. |
Investment
Company
Market |
1 | All forms of borrowing (including mortgage dollar rolls) are limited in the aggregate and may not exceed 33 1⁄3% of the Fund’s total assets except as permitted by law. |
INSTRUMENT | RISK TYPE |
Trust Preferred: Securities with characteristics of both subordinated debt and preferred stock. Trust preferreds are generally long term securities that make periodic fixed or variable interest payments. |
Credit
Currency Interest Rate Liquidity Market Political Valuation |
U.S. Government Agency Securities: Securities issued or guaranteed by agencies and instrumentalities of the U.S. government. These include all types of securities issued by Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including funding notes, subordinated benchmark notes, CMOs and REMICs. |
Credit
Government Securities Interest Rate Market |
U.S. Government Obligations: May include direct obligations of the U.S. Treasury, including Treasury bills, notes and bonds, all of which are backed as to principal and interest payments by the full faith and credit of the United States, and separately traded principal and interest component parts of such obligations that are transferable through the Federal book-entry system known as Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal of Securities (STRIPS) and Coupons Under Book Entry Safekeeping (CUBES). |
Interest
Rate
Market |
Variable and Floating Rate Instruments: Obligations with interest rates which are reset daily, weekly, quarterly or some other frequency and which may be payable to the Fund on demand or at the expiration of a specified term. |
Credit
Liquidity Market Valuation |
When-Issued Securities, Delayed Delivery Securities and Forward Commitments: Purchase or contract to purchase securities at a fixed price for delivery at a future date. |
Credit
Leverage Liquidity Market Valuation |
Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Deferred Payment Securities: Zero-coupon securities are securities that are sold at a discount to par value and on which interest payments are not made during the life of the security. Pay-in-kind securities are securities that have interest payable by delivery of additional securities. Deferred payment securities are zero-coupon debt securities which convert on a specified date to interest bearing debt securities. |
Credit
Currency Interest Rate Liquidity Market Political Valuation Zero-Coupon Securities |
Per share operating performance | ||||||||
Investment Operations | Distributions | |||||||
|
Net asset value, beginning of period |
Net investment income (loss) (b) |
Net
realized
and unrealized gains (losses) on investments |
Total from investment operations |
Net investment income |
Net realized gain |
Total distributions |
|
JPMorgan International Bond Opportunities ETF (formerly known as JPMorgan Global Bond Opportunities ETF) | ||||||||
Year Ended February 29, 2020 | $ 48.75 | $ 1.71 | $ 1.86 | $ 3.57 | $(2.34) | $ — | $(2.34) | |
Year Ended February 28, 2019 | 50.54 | 1.94 | (0.97) | 0.97 | (2.56) | (0.20) | (2.76) | |
April 5, 2017 (g) through February 28, 2018 | 50.00 | 1.83 | 0.05(j) | 1.88 | (1.34) | — | (1.34) |
(a) | Annualized for periods less than one year, unless otherwise indicated. |
(b) | Calculated based upon average shares outstanding. |
(c) | Not annualized for periods less than one year. |
(d) | Includes adjustments in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and as such, the net asset values for financial reporting purposes and the returns based upon those net asset values may differ from the net asset values and returns for shareholder transactions. |
(e) | Prior to December 9, 2019, market price return was calculated assuming an initial investment made at the market price at the beginning of the reporting period, reinvestment of all dividends and distributions at market price during the period, and sale at the market price on the last day of the period. The price used to calculate the market price return was the midpoint of the bid/ask spread at the close of business on the listing exchange of the fund. Effective December 9, 2019, the closing price was used to calculate the market price return; however, any prices used in the calculation for market price return prior to December 9, 2019, would have used the midpoint of the bid/ask spread at the close of business on the exchange. |
(f) | Prior to November 1, 2019, the Fund may have waived fees if expenses exceeded the expense cap. On November 1, 2019, the Fund adopted a unitary fee structure where a management fee is accrued by the fund based on prior day net assets and other expenses are paid by the Advisor. |
(g) | Commencement of operations. |
(h) | Since the Shares of the Fund did not trade in the secondary market until the day after the Fund’s inception, for the period from the inception to the first day of secondary market trading, the NAV is used as a proxy for the secondary market trading price to calculate the market returns. |
(i) | Certain non-recurring expenses incurred by the Fund were not annualized for the period indicated. |
(j) | Calculation of the net realized and unrealized gains (losses) per share do not correlate with the Fund’s net realized and unrealized gains(losses) presented in the Statement of Operations due to the timing of capital transactions in relation to the fluctuating market values of the Fund’s investments. |
Ratios/Supplemental data | |||||||||
Ratios to average net assets (a) | |||||||||
Net asset value, end of period |
Market price, end of period |
Total return (c)(d) |
Market price total return (c)(e) |
Net assets, end of period |
Net expenses |
Net investment income (loss) |
Expenses without waivers and reimbursements (f) |
Portfolio turnover rate(c) |
|
$ 49.98 | $ 49.83 | 7.39% | 6.89% | $169,928,839 | 0.53% | 3.40% | 0.69% | 88% | |
48.75 | 48.83 | 2.09 | 2.13 | 180,357,231 | 0.54 | 3.92 | 0.82 | 73 | |
50.54 | 50.60 | 3.76 | 3.88(h) | 151,634,232 | 0.53(i) | 3.98 | 1.10(i) | 52 |
Fund Name | Ticker | Listing Exchange |
JPMorgan International Bond Opportunities ETF (formerly, JPMorgan Global Bond Opportunities ETF) (the “International Bond Opportunities ETF” or the “Fund”) | JPGB | Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
3 |
|
7 |
|
7 |
|
7 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
9 |
|
9 |
|
9 |
|
9 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
10 |
|
10 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
11 |
|
11 |
|
11 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
|
12 |
|
12 |
|
12 |
|
12 |
|
12 |
|
13 |
|
13 |
|
13 |
|
13 |
(1) | May not purchase any security which would cause the Fund to concentrate more than 25% of its investments in the securities of issuers primarily engaged in any particular industry or group of industries; |
(2) | May not issue senior securities, except as permitted under the 1940 Act or any rule, order or interpretation thereunder; |
(3) | May not borrow money, except to the extent permitted by applicable law; |
(4) | May not underwrite securities of other issuers, except to the extent that the Fund may be deemed an underwriter under certain securities laws in disposing of portfolio securities or in connection with investments in other investment companies; |
(5) | May not invest directly in real estate unless it is acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments. This restriction shall not prevent the Fund from investing in securities or other instruments (a) issued by companies that invest, deal or otherwise engage in transactions in real estate, or (b) backed or secured by real estate or interests in real estate; |
(6) | May not purchase or sell commodities or commodity contracts except as may be permitted by the 1940 Act or unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments issued by persons that purchase or sell commodities or commodities contracts; but this shall not prevent the Fund from purchasing, selling and entering into financial futures contracts (including futures |
contracts on indices of securities, interest rates and currencies), options on financial futures contracts (including futures contracts on indices of securities, interest rates and currencies), warrants, swaps, forward contracts, foreign currency spot and forward contracts or other derivative instruments including derivatives related to physical commodities; | |
(7) | May make loans to other persons, in accordance with the Fund’s investment objective and policies and to the extent permitted by applicable law; |
(8) | May not make any investment inconsistent with its classification as a diversified investment company under the 1940 Act. |
(1) | May not acquire the securities of registered open-end investment companies or registered unit investment trusts in reliance on Section 12(d)(1)(F) or 12(d)(1)(G) of the 1940 Act. |
Instrument |
Part
II
Section Reference |
Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loans (“ARMs”): Loans in a mortgage pool which provide for a fixed initial mortgage interest rate for a specified period of time, after which the rate may be subject to periodic adjustments. | Mortgage-Related Securities |
Asset-Backed Securities: Securities secured by company receivables, home equity loans, truck and auto loans, leases, and credit card receivables or other securities backed by other types of receivables or other assets. | Asset-Backed Securities |
Auction Rate Securities: Auction rate municipal securities and auction rate preferred securities issued by closed-end investment companies. | Auction Rate Securities |
Bank Obligations: Bankers’ acceptances, certificates of deposit and time deposits. Bankers’ acceptances are bills of exchange or time drafts drawn on and accepted by a commercial bank. Maturities are generally six months or less. Certificates of deposit are negotiable certificates issued by a bank for a specified period of time and earning a specified return. Time deposits are non-negotiable receipts issued by a bank in exchange for the deposit of funds. | Bank Obligations |
Borrowings: The Fund may borrow for temporary purposes and/or for investment purposes. Such a practice will result in leveraging of the Fund’s assets and may cause the Fund to liquidate portfolio positions when it would not be advantageous to do so. The Fund must maintain continuous asset coverage of 300% of the amount borrowed, with the exception for borrowings not in excess of 5% of the Fund’s total assets made for temporary administrative purposes. | Miscellaneous Investment Strategies and Risks |
Brady Bonds: Securities created through the exchange of existing commercial bank loans to public and private entities in certain emerging markets for new bonds in connection with debt restructurings. | Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies) |
Call and Put Options: A call option gives the buyer the right to buy, and obligates the seller of the option to sell, a security at a specified price at a future date. A put option gives the buyer the right to sell, and obligates the seller of the option to buy, a security at a specified price at a future date. | Options and Futures Transactions |
Commercial Paper: Secured and unsecured short-term promissory notes issued by corporations and other entities. Maturities generally vary from a few days to nine months. | Commercial Paper |
Instrument |
Part
II
Section Reference |
Commodity-Related Pooled Investment Vehicles: Ownership interests in grantor trusts and other pooled investment vehicles that hold tangible assets such as gold, silver and other commodities or invest in commodities futures. Grantor trusts are typically traded on an exchange. | Commodity-Related Pooled Investment Vehicles |
Common Stock: Shares of ownership of a company. | Equity Securities, Warrants and Rights |
Convertible Securities: Bonds or preferred stock that can convert to common stock. | Convertible Securities |
Corporate Debt Securities: May include bonds and other debt securities of domestic and foreign issuers, including obligations of industrial, utility, banking and other corporate issuers. | Debt Instruments |
Credit Default Swaps (“CDSs”): A swap agreement between two parties pursuant to which one party pays the other a fixed periodic coupon for the specified life of the agreement. The other party makes no payment unless a credit event, relating to a predetermined reference asset, occurs. If such an event occurs, the party will then make a payment to the first party, and the swap will terminate. | Swaps and Related Swap Products |
Custodial Receipts: The Fund may acquire securities in the form of custodial receipts that evidence ownership of future interest payments, principal payments or both on certain U.S. Treasury notes or bonds in connection with programs sponsored by banks and brokerage firms. These are not considered to be U.S. government securities. These notes and bonds are held in custody by a bank on behalf of the owners of the receipts. | Custodial Receipts |
Demand Features: Securities that are subject to puts and standby commitments to purchase the securities at a fixed price (usually with accrued interest) within a fixed period of time following demand by the Fund. | Demand Features |
Emerging Market Securities: Instruments issued by issuers or governments in countries with emerging economies or securities markets which may be undergoing significant evolution and rapid developments. | Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies) |
Exchange-Traded Funds (“ETFs”): Ownership interest in unit investment trusts, depositary receipts, and other pooled investment vehicles that hold a portfolio of securities or stocks designed to track the price performance and dividend yield of a particular broad-based, sector or international index. ETFs include a wide range of investments. | Investment Company Securities and Exchange-Traded Funds |
Foreign Currency Transactions: Strategies used to hedge against currency risks, for other risk management purposes or to increase income or gain to the Fund. These strategies may consist of use of any of the following: options on currencies, currency futures, options on such futures, forward foreign currency transactions (including non-deliverable forwards (“NDFs”)), forward rate agreements and currency swaps, caps and floors. | Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies) |
Foreign Investments: Equity and debt securities (e.g., bonds and commercial paper) of foreign entities and obligations of foreign branches of U.S. banks and foreign banks. Foreign securities may also include American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”), Global Depositary Receipts (“GDRs”), European Depositary Receipts (“EDRs”) and American Depositary Securities (“ADSs”). | Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies) |
High Yield/High Risk Securities/Junk Bonds: Securities that are generally rated below investment grade by the primary rating agencies or are unrated but are deemed by the Fund’s adviser to be of comparable quality. | Debt Instruments |
Inflation-Linked Debt Securities: Includes fixed and floating rate debt securities of varying maturities issued by the U.S. government as well as securities issued by other entities such as corporations, foreign governments and foreign issuers. | Debt Instruments |
Initial Public Offering (“IPOs”): A transaction in which a previously private company makes its first sale of stock to the public. | Equity Securities, Warrants and Rights |
Instrument |
Part
II
Section Reference |
Inverse Floating Rate Instruments: Leveraged variable debt instruments with interest rates that reset in the opposite direction from the market rate of interest to which the inverse floater is indexed. | Inverse Floaters and Interest Rate Caps |
Investment Company Securities: Shares of other investment companies, including money market funds for which the Adviser and/or its affiliates serve as investment adviser or administrator. The Adviser will waive certain fees when investing in funds for which it serves as investment adviser, to the extent required by law or by contract. | Investment Company Securities and Exchange-Traded Funds |
Loan Assignments and Participations: Assignments of, or participations in, all or a portion of loans to corporations or to governments, including governments of lesser developed countries. | Loans |
Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs): Limited partnerships that are publicly traded on a securities exchange. | Master Limited Partnerships |
Mortgages (Directly Held): Debt instruments secured by real property. | Mortgage-Related Securities |
Mortgage-Backed Securities: Debt obligations secured by real estate loans and pools of loans. | Mortgage-Related Securities |
Mortgage Dollar Rolls: A transaction in which the Fund sells securities for delivery in a current month and simultaneously contracts with the same party to repurchase similar but not identical securities on a specified future date. | Mortgage-Related Securities |
Municipal Securities: Securities issued by a state or political subdivision (including securities issued by a foreign state or subdivision) to obtain funds for various public purposes. Municipal securities include, among others, private activity bonds and industrial development bonds, as well as general obligation notes, tax anticipation notes, bond anticipation notes, revenue anticipation notes, other short-term tax-exempt obligations, municipal leases, obligations of municipal housing authorities and single family revenue bonds. | Municipal Securities |
New Financial Products: New options and futures contracts and other financial products continue to be developed and the Fund may invest in such options, contracts and products. | Miscellaneous Investment Strategies and Risks |
Obligations of Supranational Agencies: Obligations which are chartered to promote economic development and are supported by various governments and governmental agencies. | Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies) |
Options and Futures Transactions: The Fund may purchase and sell (a) exchange traded and over the counter put and call options on securities, indexes of securities and futures contracts on securities and indexes of securities, commodities, interest rate futures contracts and interest rate swaps and (b) futures contracts on securities and indexes of securities and commodities. | Options and Futures Transactions |
Preferred Stock: A class of stock that generally pays a dividend at a specified rate and has preference over common stock in the payment of dividends and in liquidation. | Equity Securities, Warrants and Rights |
Private Placements, Restricted Securities and Other Unregistered Securities: Securities not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, such as privately placed commercial paper and Rule 144A securities. | Miscellaneous Investment Strategies and Risks |
Securities Issued in Connection with Reorganizations and Corporate Restructurings: In connection with reorganizing or restructuring of an issuer, an issuer may issue common stock or other securities to holders of its debt securities. | Miscellaneous Investment Strategies and Risks |
Short-Term Funding Agreements: Agreements issued by banks and highly rated U.S. insurance companies such as Guaranteed Investment Contracts (“GICs”) and Bank Investment Contracts (“BICs”). | Short-Term Funding Agreements |
Instrument |
Part
II
Section Reference |
Short Selling: The Fund sells a security it does not own in anticipation of a decline in the market value of the security. To complete the transaction, the Fund must borrow the security to make delivery to the buyer. The Fund is obligated to replace the security borrowed by purchasing it subsequently at the market price at the time of replacement. The Fund may enter into physical short transactions or obtain the short exposure through synthetic derivative transactions. | Short Selling |
Sovereign Obligations: Investments in debt obligations issued or guaranteed by a foreign sovereign government or its agencies, authorities or political subdivisions. | Foreign Investments (including Foreign Currencies) |
Stripped Mortgage-Backed Securities: Derivative multi-class mortgage securities which are usually structured with two classes of shares that receive different proportions of the interest and principal from a pool of mortgage assets. These include Interest-Only (“IO”) and Principal-Only (“PO”) securities issued outside a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (“REMIC”) or CMO structure. | Mortgage-Related Securities |
Structured Investments: A security having a return tied to an underlying index or other security or asset class. Structured investments generally are individually negotiated agreements and may be traded over-the-counter. Structured investments are organized and operated to restructure the investment characteristics of the underlying index, currency, commodity or financial instrument. | Structured Investments |
Swaps and Related Swap Products: Swaps involve an exchange of obligations by two parties. Caps and floors entitle a purchaser to a principal amount from the seller of the cap or floor to the extent that a specified index exceeds or falls below a predetermined interest rate or amount. The Fund may enter into these transactions to manage its exposure to changing interest rates and other factors. | Swaps and Related Swap Products |
Temporary Defensive Positions: To respond to unusual circumstances the Fund may invest in cash and cash equivalents for temporary defensive purposes. | Miscellaneous Investment Strategies and Risks |
Treasury Receipts: The Fund may purchase interests in separately traded interest and principal component parts of U.S. Treasury obligations that are issued by banks or brokerage firms and that are created by depositing U.S. Treasury notes and U.S. Treasury bonds into a special account at a custodian bank. Receipts include Treasury Receipts (“TRs”), Treasury Investment Growth Receipts (“TIGRs”), and Certificates of Accrual on Treasury Securities (“CATS”). | Treasury Receipts |
Trust Preferred: Securities with characteristics of both subordinated debt and preferred stock. Trust preferreds are generally long term securities that make periodic fixed or variable interest payments. | Trust Preferred Securities |
U.S. Government Agency Securities: Securities issued or guaranteed by agencies and instrumentalities of the U.S. government. These include all types of securities issued by the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”), the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), including funding notes, subordinated benchmark notes, CMOs and REMICs. | Mortgage-Related Securities |
U.S. Government Obligations: May include direct obligations of the U.S. Treasury, including Treasury bills, notes and bonds, all of which are backed as to principal and interest payments by the full faith and credit of the United States, and separately traded principal and interest component parts of such obligations that are transferable through the Federal book-entry system known as Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal of Securities (STRIPS) and Coupons Under Book Entry Safekeeping (CUBES). | U.S. Government Obligations |
Instrument |
Part
II
Section Reference |
Variable and Floating Rate Instruments: Obligations with interest rates which are reset daily, weekly, quarterly or some other frequency and which may be payable to the Fund on demand or at the expiration of a specified term. | Debt Instruments |
When-Issued Securities, Delayed Delivery Securities and Forward Commitments: Purchase or contract to purchase securities at a fixed price for delivery at a future date. | When-Issued Securities, Delayed Delivery Securities and Forward Commitments |
Zero-Coupon, Pay-in-Kind and Deferred Payment Securities: Zero-coupon securities are securities that are sold at a discount to par value and on which interest payments are not made during the life of the security. Pay-in-kind securities are securities that have interest payable by delivery of additional securities. Deferred payment securities are zero-coupon debt securities which convert on a specified date to interest bearing debt securities. | Debt Instruments |
Fund |
Fiscal
Year Ended
February 28, 2019 |
Fiscal
Year Ended
February 29, 2020 |
||
International Bond Opportunities ETF | 73% | 88% |
Name of Trustee |
Dollar
Range
of Equity Securities in International Bond Opportunities ETF |
Aggregate
Dollar Range
of Equity Securities in all Registered Investment Companies Overseen by the Trustee in Family of Investment Companies1 |
||
Independent Trustees | ||||
Gary L. French | None | $50,001– $100,000 | ||
Robert J. Grassi | $10,001– $50,000 | Over $100,000 | ||
Thomas P. Lemke | None | Over $100,000 | ||
Lawrence R. Maffia | None | Over $100,000 | ||
Emily A. Youssouf | None | $10,001– $50,000 | ||
Interested Trustee | ||||
Robert Deutsch | None | Over $100,000 |
1 | A Family of Investment Companies means any two or more registered investment companies that share the same investment adviser or principal underwriter and hold themselves out to investors as related companies for purposes of investment and investor services. The Family of Investment Companies for which the Board of Trustees currently serves includes one registered investment company 35 Funds and one Trust. |
Name of Trustee |
International
Bond
Opportunities ETF |
Total
Compensation Paid From Fund Complex1 |
||
Independent Trustees | ||||
Gary L. French | $1,012 | $127,500 | ||
Robert J. Grassi | 952 | 120,000 | ||
Thomas P. Lemke | 1,016 | 128,000 | ||
Lawrence R. Maffia | 952 | 120,000 | ||
Emily A. Youssouf | 1,000 | 126,000 | ||
Interested Trustee | ||||
Robert Deutsch2 | None | None |
1 | A Fund Complex means two or more registered investment companies that (i) hold themselves out to investors as related companies for purposes of investment and investor services or (ii) have a common investment adviser or have an investment adviser that is an affiliated person of the investment adviser of any of the other registered investment companies. The J.P. Morgan Funds Complex for which the Board of Trustees currently serves includes 35 Funds and one Trust. |
2 | Mr. Deutsch received no compensation directly from the Trust. |
Fiscal Year Ended | ||||||||||||
February 28, 2018 | February 28, 2019 | February 29, 2020 | ||||||||||
Fund | Paid | Waived | Paid | Waived | Paid | Waived | ||||||
International Bond Opportunities ETF1 | $76,306 | $(431,837) | $611,491 | $(328,208) | $494,073 | $(201,458) |
1 | The Fund commenced operations on 4/5/2017. |
Fiscal Year Ended | ||||||
Fund | February 28, 2018 | February 28, 2019 | February 29, 2020 | |||
International Bond Opportunities ETF1 | N/A | N/A | $294,880 |
1 | The Fund commenced operations on 4/5/2017. |
Fiscal Year Ended | ||||||||||||
February 28, 2018 | February 28, 2019 | February 29, 2020 | ||||||||||
Fund | Paid | Waived | Paid | Waived | Paid | Waived | ||||||
International Bond Opportunities ETF1 | $— | $(78,532) | $— | $(142,341) | $— | $(94,845) |
1 | The Fund commenced operations on 4/5/2017. |
Non-Performance Based Fee Advisory Accounts | |||||||||||
Registered
Investment Companies |
Other
Pooled
Investment Vehicles |
Other Accounts | |||||||||
Number
of
Accounts |
Total
Assets
($thousands) |
Number
of
Accounts |
Total
Assets
($thousands) |
Number
of
Accounts |
Total
Assets
($thousands) |
||||||
International Bond Opportunities ETF | |||||||||||
Robert Michele | 2 | $4,168,430 | 7 | $ 9,052,975 | 0 | $ 0 | |||||
Iain Stealey | 3 | 2,154,149 | 14 | 11,703,696 | 14 | 10,616,496 | |||||
Lisa Coleman | 12 | 568,968 | 30 | 38,999,756 | 36 | 17,393,938 | |||||
Peter Aspbury | 1 | 98,394 | 22 | 4,711,272 | 8 | 92,281 | |||||
Diana Amoa | 0 | 0 | 6 | 2,245,935 | 5 | 2,212,765 |
Performance Based Fee Advisory Accounts | |||||||||||
Registered
Investment Companies |
Other
Pooled
Investment Vehicles |
Other Accounts | |||||||||
Number
of
Accounts |
Total
Assets
($thousands) |
Number
of
Accounts |
Total
Assets
($thousands) |
Number
of
Accounts |
Total
Assets
($thousands) |
||||||
International Bond Opportunities ETF | |||||||||||
Robert Michele | 0 | $0 | 1 | $1,531,660 | 0 | $0 | |||||
Iain Stealey | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1,806,692 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Lisa Coleman | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Peter Aspbury | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Diana Amoa | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
* | The total value and number of accounts managed by a portfolio manager may include sub-accounts of asset allocation, multi-managed and other accounts. |
Fund | Aggregate Dollar Range of Securities in the Fund | |||||||||||||
None |
$1-
$10,000 |
$10,001-
$50,000 |
$50,001-
$100,000 |
$100,001-
$500,000 |
$500,001-
$1,000,000 |
Over
$1,000,000 |
||||||||
International Bond Opportunities ETF | ||||||||||||||
Robert Michele | X | |||||||||||||
Iain Stealey | X | |||||||||||||
Lisa Coleman | X | |||||||||||||
Peter Aspbury | X | |||||||||||||
Diana Amoa | X |
Name of Fund | Benchmark | |
International Bond Opportunities ETF | Bloomberg Barclays Multiverse Index ex USA (USD Hedged) |
Fiscal Year Ended | ||||||
Fund | February 28, 2018 | February 28, 2019 | February 29, 2020 | |||
International Bond Opportunities ETF1 | $9,091 | $20,376 | $16,490 |
1 | The Fund commenced operations on 4/5/2017. |
Fiscal Period Ended | ||
Fund | February 28, 2018 | |
International Bond Opportunities ETF1 | $81,742 |
1 | The Fund commenced operations on 4/5/2017. |
Fiscal Year Ended | ||||||
Fund | February 28, 2018 | February 28, 2019 | February 29, 2020 | |||
International Bond Opportunities ETF1 | ||||||
Total Brokerage Commissions | $4,130 | $12,108 | $15,471 | |||
Brokerage Commissions to Affiliated Broker/Dealers | — | — | — |
1 | The Fund commenced operations on 4/5/2017. |
Fund Name | Amount | |
International Bond Opportunities ETF | $0 |
Fund | Name of Broker-Dealer |
Value
of Securities
Owned |
||
International Bond Opportunities ETF | ABN AMRO Bank NV | $ 447,528 | ||
Bank of America Corp. | 1,665,665 | |||
Citigroup, Inc. | 668,469 | |||
Credit Suisse Group AG | 719,156 | |||
Deutsche Bank AG | 103,188 | |||
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) | 559,121 | |||
HSBC Holdings plc | 758,732 | |||
Morgan Stanley | 684,605 | |||
Royal Bank of Scotland Group | 487,455 | |||
UBS Group AG | 930,185 |
FUND | CREATION* | REDEMPTION* | ||
International Bond Opportunities ETF | 100,000 | 100,000 |
* | May be revised at any time without notice. |
FUND | TRANSACTION FEE*, ** | |
International Bond Opportunities ETF | $1,400 |
* | From time to time, the Fund may waive all or a portion of its applicable transaction fee(s). |
** | In addition to the transaction fees listed above, the Fund may charge an additional variable fee for creations and redemptions in cash of up to 3% of the amount of a creation transaction and of up to 2% of the amount of a redemption transaction to offset brokerage and other impact expenses associated with the cash transaction. |
Capital
Loss Carryforward
Character |
||||
Fund | Short-Term | Long-Term | ||
International Bond Opportunities ETF | $959,701 | $2,182,707 |
Name of Fund | Name and Address of Shareholder |
Percentage
Held |
JPMORGAN INTERNATIONAL BOND OPPORTUNITIES ETF | ||
RAYMOND
JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
1001 S 24TH ST W BILLINGS, MT 59102 |
6.99% | |
HIGHTOWER
ADVISORS, LLC
102S TEJON ST COLORADO SPRING, CO 80903 |
5.77 | |
CLEAR
CREEK FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
1101 W RIVER ST BOISE, ID 83702 |
5.62 | |
FINANCIAL
INSIGHTS INC
3110 RUSTON WAY TACOMA, WA 98402 |
5.49 | |
U.S.
BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
425 WALNUT STREET CINCINNATI, OH 45202 |
5.29 | |
SUNFLOWER
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
1400 16TH STREET DENVER, CO 80202 |
5.23 |
* | The shareholder of record is a subsidiary or affiliate of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (a “JPMorgan Affiliate”). Certain of this ownership represents seed money held by J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc., a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. The shares may also be held for the benefit of underlying accounts for which JPMorgan Affiliates may have voting or investment power. To the extent that JPMorgan Affiliates own 25% or more of a class of a Fund, JPMorgan Chase & Co. may be deemed to be a “controlling person” of such shares under the 1940 Act. |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
5 |
|
9 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
10 |
|
19 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
|
24 |
|
29 |
|
38 |
|
42 |
|
47 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
|
51 |
|
51 |
|
51 |
|
54 |
|
54 |
|
55 |
|
55 |
|
56 |
|
56 |
|
56 |
|
57 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
|
64 |
|
65 |
|
66 |
|
67 |
|
68 |
|
70 |
|
70 |
|
70 |
|
70 |
|
71 |
|
71 |
|
73 |
|
73 |
|
75 |
|
75 |
|
79 |
|
80 |
|
80 |
|
81 |
|
82 |
|
82 |
|
82 |
|
83 |
|
83 |
|
83 |
|
85 |
|
87 |
|
87 |
|
89 |
|
89 |
|
91 |
|
91 |
|
91 |
|
92 |
|
92 |
|
97 |
|
97 |
|
98 |
|
98 |
|
98 |
|
101 |
|
102 |
|
102 |
|
102 |
|
103 |
|
104 |
|
104 |
|
105 |
|
105 |
|
106 |
|
106 |
|
106 |
|
106 |
|
108 |
|
108 |
|
109 |
|
110 |
|
113 |
|
B-1 |
|
C-1 |
1. | bridges; |
2. | highways; |
3. | roads; |
4. | schools; |
5. | waterworks and sewer systems; and |
6. | other utilities. |
1. | refunding outstanding obligations; |
2. | obtaining funds for general operating expenses; and |
3. | obtaining funds to lend to other public institutions and facilities. |
1. | water, sewage and solid waste facilities; |
2. | qualified residential rental projects; |
3. | certain local electric, gas and other heating or cooling facilities; |
4. | qualified hazardous waste facilities; |
5. | high-speed intercity rail facilities; |
6. | governmentally-owned airports, docks and wharves and mass transportation facilities; |
7. | qualified mortgages; |
8. | student loan and redevelopment bonds; and |
9. | bonds used for certain organizations exempt from Federal income taxation. |
1. | privately operated housing facilities; |
2. | sports facilities; |
3. | industrial parks; |
4. | convention or trade show facilities; |
5. | airport, mass transit, port or parking facilities; |
6. | air or water pollution control facilities; |
7. | sewage or solid waste disposal facilities; and |
8. | facilities for water supply. |
1. | Short-term tax-exempt General Obligations Notes; |
2. | Tax Anticipation Notes; |
3. | Bond Anticipation Notes; |
4. | Revenue Anticipation Notes; |
5. | Project Notes; and |
6. | Other forms of short-term tax-exempt loans. |
1. | general money market conditions; |
2. | coupon rate; |
3. | the financial condition of the issuer; |
4. | general conditions of the municipal bond market; |
5. | the size of a particular offering; |
6. | the maturity of the obligations; and |
7. | the rating of the issue. |
• | the interest on the bonds may become taxable, possibly retroactively from the date of issuance; |
• | the value of the bonds may be reduced; |
• | you and other Shareholders may be subject to unanticipated tax liabilities; |
• | a Fund may be required to sell the bonds at the reduced value; |
• | it may be an event of default under the applicable mortgage; |
• | the holder may be permitted to accelerate payment of the bond; and |
• | the issuer may be required to redeem the bond. |
• | limited financial resources; |
• | infrequent or limited trading; and |
• | more abrupt or erratic price movements than larger company securities. |
(a) | derive at least 90% of its gross income for each taxable year from (i) dividends, interest, payments with respect to certain securities loans, and gain from the sale or other disposition of stock, securities, or foreign currencies, or other income (including, but not limited to, gain from options, swaps, futures, or forward contracts) derived with respect to its business of investing in such stock, securities, or currencies and (ii) net income derived from interests in “qualified publicly traded partnerships” (“QPTPs,” defined below); |
(b) | diversify its holdings so that, at the end of each quarter of the Fund’s taxable year, (i) at least 50% of the market value of the Fund’s total assets is represented by cash and cash items, U.S. government securities, securities of other regulated investment companies, and other securities, limited in respect of any one issuer to an amount not greater than 5% of the value of the Fund’s total assets and not more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer, and (ii) not more than 25% of the value of the Fund’s total assets is invested (x) in the securities (other than cash or cash items, or securities issued by the U.S. government or other regulated investment companies) of any one issuer or of two or more issuers that the Fund controls and that are engaged in the same, similar, or related trades or businesses, or (y) in the securities of one or more QPTPs. In the case of a Fund’s investments in loan participations, the Fund shall treat both the financial intermediary and the issuer of the underlying loan as an issuer for the purposes of meeting this diversification requirement; and |
(c) | distribute with respect to each taxable year at least 90% of the sum of its investment company taxable income (as that term is defined in the Code, without regard to the deduction for dividends paid — generally, taxable ordinary income and any excess of net short-term capital gain over net long-term capital loss) and net tax-exempt interest income, for such taxable year. |
Name
(Year of Birth; Positions
with the Funds since) |
Principal
Occupation
During Past 5 Years |
Number
of Funds
in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee(1) |
Other
Directorships Held
During the Past 5 Years |
|||
Independent Trustees | ||||||
Gary
L. French
(1951); Trustee of the Trust since 2014 |
Real Estate Investor (2011–present); Consultant to the Mutual Fund Industry (2011-present); Senior Consultant for The Regulatory Fundamentals Group LLC (2011–2017). | 35 |
Independent
Trustee, The China Fund, Inc. (2013–
2019); Exchange Traded Concepts Trust II (2012– 2014); Exchange Traded Concepts Trust I (2011– 2014). |
|||
Robert
J. Grassi
(1957); Trustee of the Trust since 2014 |
Sole
Proprietor, Academy Hills Advisors LLC (2012– present); Pension Director, Corning Incorporated (2002–
2012). |
35 | None. | |||
Thomas
P. Lemke
(1954); Trustee of the Trust since 2014 |
Retired; Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Legg Mason (2005–2013). | 35 |
SEI family
of funds (Independent Trustee of Advisors’ Inner Circle Fund III (20 portfolios) (from February 2014 to present); Independent Trustee of Winton Diversified Opportunities Fund (from December 2014 to 2018); Independent Trustee of Gallery Trust
(from August 2015 to present); Independent Trustee of Schroder Series Trust (from February 2017 to present); Independent Trustee of Schroder Global Series Trust (from February 2017 to present); Independent Trustee of O’Connor EQUUS (May
2014–
April 2016); Independent Trustee of Winton Series Trust (December 2014– March 2017); Independent Trustee of AXA Premier VIP Trust (2014–June 2017); Independent Director of The Victory Funds (or their predecessor funds) (35 portfolios) (2014– March 2015); Symmetry Panoramic Trust (16 portfolios) (2018-present). |
Name
(Year of Birth; Positions
with the Funds since) |
Principal
Occupation
During Past 5 Years |
Number
of Funds
in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee(1) |
Other
Directorships Held
During the Past 5 Years |
|||
Lawrence
R. Maffia
(1950); Trustee of the Trust since 2014 |
Retired; Director and President, ICI Mutual Insurance Company (2006– 2013). | 35 | Director, ICI Mutual Insurance Company (1999–2013). | |||
Emily
A. Youssouf
(1951); Trustee of the Trust since 2014 |
Clinical
Professor, NYU Schack Institute of Real Estate (2009–
present); Board Member and Member of the Audit Committee (2013– present), Chair of Finance Committee (2019– present), Member of Related Parties Committee (2013–2018) and Member of the Enterprise Risk Committee (2015– 2018), PennyMac Financial Services, Inc.; Board Member (2005–2018), Chair of Capital Committee (2006–2016), Chair of Audit Committee (2005–2018), Member of Finance Committee (2005–2018) and Chair of IT Committee (2016–2018), NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation. |
35 | Trustee, NYC School Construction Authority (2009–present); Board Member, NYS Job Development Authority (2008–present); Trustee and Chair of the Audit Committee of the TransitCenter Foundation (2015–2019). | |||
Interested Trustee | ||||||
Robert
F. Deutsch(2)
(1957); Chairman and Trustee of the Trust since 2014 |
Retired; Head of the Global ETF Business for JPMorgan Asset Management (2013– 2017); Head of the Global Liquidity Business for JPMorgan Asset Management (2003–2013). | 35 | Board of Directors of the JUST Capital Foundation (2017–present). |
(1) | A Fund Complex means two or more registered investment companies that hold themselves out to investors as related companies for purposes of investment and investor services or have a common investment adviser or have an investment adviser that is an affiliated person of the investment adviser of any of the other registered investment companies. Thirty series of the Trust have commenced operations, but five additional series have been created and are expected to commence operations in the future. |
(2) | Mr. Deutsch is an interested trustee because he was an employee of the Adviser until August 2017. |
Name of Committee | Members | Committee Chair | ||
Audit and Valuation Committee |
Mr.
French
Mr. Lemke Mr. Grassi Mr. Maffia Ms. Youssouf |
Mr. French | ||
Governance and Nominating Committee |
Ms.
Youssouf
Mr. French Mr. Grassi Mr. Lemke Mr. Maffia |
Ms. Youssouf |
Name
(Year of Birth),
Positions Held with the Trusts (Since) |
Principal Occupations During Past 5 Years | |
Joanna
Gallegos (1975),
President and Principal Executive Officer (2017) |
Managing Director, Global Head of ETF Strategy. Previously, Head of J.P. Morgan Asset Management’s U.S. Exchange Traded Funds business July 2017 to December 2019 and Head of J.P. Morgan Asset Management’s ETF Product Development team from August 2013 to July 2017. | |
Lauren
Paino (1973),
Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer (2016)* |
Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (formerly JPMorgan Funds Management, Inc.) since August 2013. |
Name
(Year of Birth),
Positions Held with the Trusts (Since) |
Principal Occupations During Past 5 Years | |
Brian
S. Shlissel (1964),
Vice President (2016) |
Managing Director and Chief Administrative Officer for J.P. Morgan pooled vehicles, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (formerly JPMorgan Funds Management, Inc.) (from 2014 to present); Managing Director and Head of Mutual Fund Services, Allianz Global Investors; President and Chief Executive Officer, Allianz Global Investors Mutual Funds and PIMCO Closed-End Funds (from 1999 to 2014). | |
Paul
Shield (1960),
Vice President and Assistant Treasurer (2016) |
Managing Director and head of Business Management for JPMorgan Asset Management’s Exchange Traded Fund platform since 2013. | |
Elizabeth
A. Davin (1964),
Secretary (2018)** |
Executive Director and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase. Ms. Davin has been with JPMorgan Chase (formerly Bank One Corporation) since 2004. | |
Stephen
M. Ungerman (1953),
Chief Compliance Officer (2014) |
Managing Director, JPMorgan Chase & Co.; Mr. Ungerman has been with JPMorgan Chase & Co. since 2000. | |
Jessica
K. Ditullio (1962),
Assistant Secretary (2014)** |
Executive Director and Assistant General Counsel. Ms. Ditullio has been with JPMorgan Chase (formerly Bank One Corporation) since 1990. | |
Anthony
Geron (1971),
Assistant Secretary (2019)* |
Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase since September 2018; Lead Director and Counsel, AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company from 2015 to 2018 and Senior Director and Counsel, AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company from 2014 to 2015; Associate, Willkie Farr & Gallagher (law firm) from 2007 to 2014. | |
Carmine
Lekstutis (1980),
Assistant Secretary (2014)* |
Executive Director and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase since February 2015; formerly Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase from 2011 to February 2015. | |
Keri
E. Riemer (1976),
Assistant Secretary (2019)* |
Executive Director and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase since February 2019; Counsel, Seward & Kissel LLP (2016-2019); Associate, Seward & Kissel LLP (2011-2016). | |
Gregory
S. Samuels (1980),
Assistant Secretary (2014)* |
Executive Director and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase since February 2014; formerly Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase from 2010. | |
Zachary
E. Vonnegut-Gabovitch (1986),
Assistant Secretary (2017)* |
Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase since September 2016; Associate, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (law firm) from 2012 to 2016. | |
Frederick
J. Cavaliere (1978),
Assistant Treasurer (2015)* |
Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. since February 2016; formerly, Vice President, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (formerly JPMorgan Funds Management, Inc.) since September 2010 to February 2016. Mr. Cavaliere has been with JPMorgan since May 2006. | |
Timothy
J. Clemens (1975),
Assistant Treasurer (2018) |
Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (formerly JPMorgan Funds Management, Inc.) since February 2016; Vice President, JPMorgan Funds Management, Inc. from October 2013 to January 2016. | |
Michael
M. D’Ambrosio (1969),
Assistant Treasurer (2014) |
Managing Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (formerly JPMorgan Funds Management, Inc.) since May 2014; formerly Executive Director, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (formerly JPMorgan Funds Management, Inc.) from 2012 to May 2014. | |
Shannon
Gaines (1977),
Assistant Treasurer (2019)** |
Vice President, J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (formerly JPMorgan Funds Management, Inc.) since January 2014. |
Name
(Year of Birth),
Positions Held with the Trusts (Since) |
Principal Occupations During Past 5 Years | |
Jason
Ronca (1978),
Assistant Treasurer (2014)*** |
Executive Director, Assistant Treasurer and ETF Platform Manager for J.P. Morgan Asset Management since February 2017; formerly Vice President, Assistant Treasurer and ETF Platform Manager for J.P. Morgan Asset Management from May 2014 to February 2017. ETF Product Manager for Corporate Investment Bank responsible for setting the strategy and control agenda for the ETF servicing business from 2010 to May 2014; Prior to 2010, a Vice President in Fund Accounting within J.P. Morgan Investor Services, supporting a series of U.S. registered mutual funds. |
* | The contact address for the officer is 4 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004. |
** | The contact address for the officer is 1111 Polaris Parkway, Columbus, OH 43240. |
*** | The contact address for the officer is 50 Rowes Wharf, Floor 03, Boston, MA 02110. |
1 | JPMorgan Funds Management, Inc., the former Administrator, was merged with and into JPMIM effective April 1, 2016. |
Tier One | First $75 billion | 0.0025% |
Tier Two | Next $25 billion | 0.0020% |
Tier Three | Over $100 billion | 0.0015% |
Other Fees: | ||
Annual Base Fee (in addition to asset based fee) | $20,000 per Fund |
• | $15 or $45 per proxy (depending on the country where the issuer is located) for its service which helps facilitate the voting of proxies throughout the world. For securities in the U.S. market, this fee is waived if the Adviser votes the proxies directly; |
• | $2,000 per year for account maintenance for each custody collateral control account; |
• | $2.25 or $15 for income or redemption processing (depending on whether the security is held book entry or physically); and |
• | $2.50 to $53.50 for each cash payment or receipt transaction. |
Tier One | Up to $50 billion | 0.0030% |
Tier Two | Next $75 billion | 0.0025% |
Tier Three | Over $125 billion | 0.0015% |
Other Fees: | ||
Minimum | $22,500 per Fund per year |
• | Corporate governance procedures differ among the countries. Because of time constraints and local customs, it is not always possible for the Adviser to receive and review all proxy materials in connection with each item submitted for a vote. Many proxy statements are in foreign languages. Proxy materials are generally mailed by the issuer to the sub-custodian which holds the securities for the client in the country where the portfolio company is organized, and there may not be sufficient time for such materials to be transmitted to the Adviser in time for a vote to be cast. In some countries, proxy statements are not mailed at all, and in some locations, the deadline for voting is two to four days after the initial announcement that a vote is to be solicited and it may not always be possible to obtain sufficient information to make an informed decision in good time to vote. |
• | Certain markets require that shares being tendered for voting purposes are temporarily immobilized from trading until after the shareholder meeting has taken place. Elsewhere, notably emerging markets, it may not always be possible to obtain sufficient information to make an informed decision in good time to vote. Some markets require a local representative to be hired in order to attend the meeting and vote in person on our behalf, which can result in considerable cost. The Adviser also considers the cost of voting in light of the expected benefit of the vote. In certain instances, it may sometimes be in the Fund’s best interests to intentionally refrain from voting in certain overseas markets from time to time. |
• | Where proxy issues concern corporate governance, takeover defense measures, compensation plans, capital structure changes and so forth, the Adviser pays particular attention to management’s arguments for promoting the prospective change. The Adviser’s sole criterion in determining its voting stance is whether such changes will be to the economic benefit of the beneficial owners of the shares. |
• | The Adviser is in favor of a unitary board structure of the type found in the United Kingdom as opposed to tiered board structures. Thus, the Adviser will generally vote to encourage the gradual phasing out of tiered board structures, in favor of unitary boards. However, since tiered boards are still very prevalent in markets outside of the United Kingdom, local market practice will always be taken into account. |
• | The Adviser will use its voting powers to encourage appropriate levels of board independence, taking into account local market practice. |
• | The Adviser will usually vote against discharging the board from responsibility in cases of pending litigation, or if there is evidence of wrongdoing for which the board must be held accountable. |
• | The Adviser will vote in favor of increases in capital which enhance a company’s long-term prospects. The Adviser will also vote in favor of the partial suspension of preemptive rights if they are for purely technical reasons (e.g., rights offers which may not be legally offered to shareholders in certain jurisdictions). However, the Adviser will vote against increases in capital which would allow the company to adopt “poison pill” takeover defense tactics, or where the increase in authorized capital would dilute shareholder value in the long term. |
• | The Adviser will vote in favor of proposals which will enhance a company’s long-term prospects. The Adviser will vote against an increase in bank borrowing powers which would result in the company reaching an unacceptable level of financial leverage, where such borrowing is expressly intended as part of a takeover defense, or where there is a material reduction in shareholder value. |
• | The Adviser will generally vote against anti-takeover devices. |
• | The Adviser considers social or environmental issues on a case-by-case basis, keeping in mind at all times the best long-term/economic interests of its clients. |
• | The Adviser considers votes on director nominees on a case-by-case basis. Votes generally will be withheld from directors who: (a) attend less than 75% of board and committee meetings without a valid excuse; (b) adopt or renew a poison pill without shareholder approval; (c) are affiliated directors who serve on audit, compensation or nominating committees or are affiliated directors and the full board serves on such committees or the company does not have such committees; (d) ignore a shareholder proposal that is approved by a majority of either the shares outstanding or the votes cast based on a review over a consecutive two year time frame; (e) are insiders and affiliated outsiders on boards that are not at least majority independent; or (f) are CEOs of publicly-traded companies who serve on more than three public boards or serve on more than four public company boards. In addition, votes are generally withheld for directors who serve on committees in certain cases. For example, the Adviser generally withholds votes from audit committee members in circumstances in which there is evidence that there exists material weaknesses in the company’s internal controls. Votes generally are also withheld from directors when there is a demonstrated history of poor performance or inadequate risk oversight or when the board adopts changes to the company’s governing documents without shareholder approval if the changes materially diminish shareholder rights. Votes generally will be withheld from Board chair, lead independent directors, or government committee chairs of publicly traded companies where employees have departed for significant violation of code of conduct without claw back of compensation. |
• | The Adviser votes proposals to classify boards on a case-by-case basis, but normally will vote in favor of such proposal if the issuer’s governing documents contain each of eight enumerated safeguards (for example, a majority of the board is composed of independent directors and the nominating committee is composed solely of such directors). |
• | The Adviser also considers management poison pill proposals on a case-by-case basis, looking for shareholder-friendly provisions before voting in favor. |
• | The Adviser votes against proposals for a super-majority vote to approve a merger. |
• | The Adviser considers proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt restructuring plan on a case-by-case basis, taking into account such factors as the extent of dilution and whether the transaction will result in a change in control. |
• | The Adviser considers vote proposals with respect to compensation plans on a case-by-case basis. The analysis of compensation plans focuses primarily on the transfer of shareholder wealth (the dollar cost of pay plans to shareholders) and includes an analysis of the structure of the plan and pay practices of other companies in the relevant industry and peer companies. Other matters included in the analysis are the amount of the company’s outstanding stock to be reserved for the award of stock options, whether the exercise price of an option is less than the stock’s fair market value at the date of the grant of the options, and whether the plan provides for the exchange of outstanding options for new ones at lower exercise prices. |
• | The Adviser also considers on a case-by-case basis proposals to change an issuer’s state of incorporation, mergers and acquisitions and other corporate restructuring proposals and certain social issue proposals. |
• | The Adviser generally votes for management proposals which seek shareholder approval to make the state of incorporation the exclusive forum for disputes if the company is a Delaware corporation; otherwise, the Adviser votes on a case by case basis. |
• | The Adviser supports board refreshment, independence, and a diverse skill set for directors. As a matter of principle, we expect our investee companies to be committed to diversity and inclusiveness in their general recruitment policies as we believe such diversity contributes to the effectiveness of boards. The Adviser will utilize its voting power to bring about change where Boards are lagging in gender and racial and/or ethnic diversity. |
• | The Adviser generally encourages a level of reporting on environmental matters that is not unduly costly or burdensome and which does not place the company at a competitive disadvantage, but which provides meaningful information to enable shareholders to evaluate the impact of the |
company’s environmental policies and practices on its financial performance. In general, the Adviser supports management disclosure practices that are overall consistent with the goals and objective expressed above. Proposals with respect to companies that have been involved in controversies, fines or litigation are expected to be subject to heightened review and consideration. | |
• | In evaluating how to vote environmental proposals, key considerations may include, but are not limited to, issuer considerations such as asset profile of the company, including whether it is exposed to potentially secularly potentially declining demand for the company’s products or services due to environmental considerations; cash deployments; cost structure of the company, including its position on the cost curve, expected impact of future carbon tax and exposure to high fixed operating costs; corporate behavior of the company; demonstrated capabilities of the company, its strategic planning process, and past performance; current level of disclosure of the company and consistency of disclosure across its industry; and whether the company incorporates environmental or social issues in a risk assessment or risk reporting framework. The Adviser may also consider whether peers have received similar proposals and if so, were the responses transparent and insightful; would adoption of the proposal inform and educate shareholders; and have companies that adopted the proposal provided insightful and meaningful information that would allow shareholders to evaluate the long-term risks and performance of the company; does the proposal require disclosure that is already addressed by existing and proposed mandated regulatory requirements or formal guidance at the local, state, or national level or the company’s existing disclosure practices; and does the proposal create the potential for unintended consequences such as a competitive disadvantage. |
• | The Adviser votes against the chair of the committee responsible for providing oversight of environmental matters and/or risk where the Adviser believes the company is lagging peers in terms of disclosure, business practices or targets. The Adviser also votes against committee members, lead independent director and/or board chair for companies that have lagged over several years. |
• | With regard to social issues, among other factors, the Adviser considers the company’s labor practices, supply chain, how the company supports and monitors those issues, what types of disclosure the company and its peers currently provide, and whether the proposal would result in a competitive disadvantage for the company. |
• | The Adviser reviews Say on Pay proposals on a case by case basis with additional review of proposals where the issuer’s previous year’s proposal received a low level of support. |
(a) | trading on the Exchange is broadly restricted by the applicable rules and regulations of the SEC; |
(b) | the Exchange is closed for other than customary weekend and holiday closing; |
(c) | the SEC has by order permitted such suspension; or |
(d) | the SEC has declared a market emergency. |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
8 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
|
12 |
|
16 |
|
16 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
|
17 |
|
17 |
|
17 |
|
17 |
|
17 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
|
19 |
|
19 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
|
20 |
|
20 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
|
21 |
|
21 |
|
21 |
|
21 |
|
23 |
|
23 |
|
23 |
|
23 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
|
24 |
|
24 |
|
24 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 2 of 72 |
|
25 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
|
26 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
|
27 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
|
28 |
|
28 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
|
30 |
|
30 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
|
31 |
|
31 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
|
32 |
|
32 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
|
33 |
|
33 |
|
33 |
|
33 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
|
34 |
|
34 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
|
35 |
|
35 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 3 of 72 |
|
40 |
|
40 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
|
43 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
|
45 |
|
45 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
|
46 |
|
47 |
|
47 |
|
47 |
|
47 |
|
47 |
|
47 |
|
47 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
|
49 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
|
50 |
|
50 |
|
50 |
|
50 |
|
51 |
|
51 |
|
51 |
|
51 |
|
52 |
|
52 |
|
53 |
|
53 |
|
53 |
|
53 |
|
54 |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 4 of 72 |
|
54 |
|
54 |
|
54 |
|
56 |
|
56 |
|
56 |
|
56 |
|
56 |
|
56 |
|
56 |
|
57 |
|
57 |
|
57 |
|
57 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
|
58 |
|
58 |
|
58 |
|
58 |
|
59 |
|
59 |
|
60 |
|
60 |
|
60 |
|
61 |
|
61 |
|
61 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
|
62 |
|
62 |
|
63 |
|
63 |
|
63 |
|
63 |
|
64 |
|
64 |
|
64 |
|
64 |
|
65 |
|
65 |
|
65 |
|
65 |
|
65 |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 5 of 72 |
|
65 |
|
66 |
|
66 |
|
66 |
|
67 |
|
67 |
|
67 |
|
67 |
|
68 |
|
68 |
|
68 |
|
68 |
|
68 |
|
68 |
|
69 |
|
69 |
|
69 |
|
69 |
|
69 |
|
69 |
|
70 |
|
70 |
|
70 |
|
70 |
|
71 |
|
71 |
|
71 |
|
71 |
|
71 |
|
71 |
|
71 |
|
71 |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 6 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 7 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 8 of 72 |
1. | Executive Director |
1.1. | Current employee or current officer1 of the company or one of its affiliates2. |
2. | Non-Independent Non-Executive Director |
Board Identification |
2.1. | Director identified as not independent by the board. |
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). |
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 |
2.6. | Former officer1 of the company, an affiliate2, or an acquired firm within the past five years. |
2.7. | Officer1 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. | Officer1, former officer, or general or limited partner of a joint venture or partnership with the company. |
2.9. | Immediate family member6 of a current or former officer1 of the company or its affiliates2 within the last five years. |
2.10. | Immediate family member6 of a current employee of company or its affiliates2 where additional factors raise concern (which may include, but are not limited to, the following: a director related to numerous employees; the company or its affiliates employ relatives of numerous board members; or a non- Section 16 officer in a key strategic role). |
2.11. | Currently provides (or an immediate family member6 provides) professional services7 to the company, to an affiliate2 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 member6 is) a partner in, or a controlling shareholder or an employee of, an organization which provides professional services7 to the company, to an affiliate2 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 member6 has) any material transactional relationship8 with the company or its affiliates2 (excluding investments in the company through a private placement). |
2.14. | Is (or an immediate family member6 is) a partner in, or a controlling shareholder or an executive officer of, an organization which has any material transactional relationship8 with the company or its affiliates2 (excluding investments in the company through a private placement). |
2.15. | Is (or an immediate family member6 is) a trustee, director, or employee of a charitable or non-profit organization that receives material grants or endowments8 from the company or its affiliates2. |
2.16. | Party to a voting agreement9 to vote in line with management on proposals being brought to shareholder vote. |
2.17. | Has (or an immediate family member6 has) an interlocking relationship as defined by the SEC involving members of the board of directors or its Compensation Committee.10 |
2.18. | Founder11 of the company but not currently an employee. |
2.19. | Any material12 relationship with the company. |
3. | Independent Director |
3.1. | No material12 connection to the company other than a board seat. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 9 of 72 |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 10 of 72 |
〉 | 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 boards4. |
〉 | Until Feb. 1, 2021, a firm commitment, as stated in the proxy statement, to appoint at least one woman to the board within a year; |
〉 | The presence of a woman on the board at the preceding annual meeting and a firm commitment to appoint at least one woman to the board with a year; or |
〉 | Other relevant factors as applicable. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 11 of 72 |
〉 | The board failed to act on a shareholder proposal that received the support of a majority of the shares cast in the previous year or failed to act on a management proposal seeking to ratify an existing charter/bylaw provision that received opposition of a majority of the shares cast in the previous year. Factors that will be considered are: |
〉 | Disclosed outreach efforts by the board to shareholders in the wake of the vote; |
〉 | Rationale provided in the proxy statement for the level of implementation; |
〉 | The subject matter of the proposal; |
〉 | The level of support for and opposition to the resolution in past meetings; |
〉 | Actions taken by the board in response to the majority vote and its engagement with shareholders; |
〉 | The continuation of the underlying issue as a voting item on the ballot (as either shareholder or management proposals); and |
〉 | Other factors as appropriate. |
〉 | The board failed to act on takeover offers where the majority of shares are tendered; |
〉 | 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 shareholders5. 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 |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 12 of 72 |
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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 13 of 72 |
〉 | Classified the board; |
〉 | Adopted supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter; or |
〉 | Eliminated shareholders’ ability to amend bylaws. |
〉 | Supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter; |
〉 | A classified board structure; or |
〉 | Other egregious provisions. |
〉 | The presence of a shareholder proposal addressing the same issue on the same ballot; |
〉 | The board’s rationale for seeking ratification; |
〉 | Disclosure of actions to be taken by the board should the ratification proposal fail; |
〉 | Disclosure of shareholder engagement regarding the board’s ratification request; |
〉 | The level of impairment to shareholders’ rights caused by the existing provision; |
〉 | The history of management and shareholder proposals on the provision at the company’s past meetings; |
〉 | Whether the current provision was adopted in response to the shareholder proposal; |
〉 | The company’s ownership structure; and |
〉 | Previous use of ratification proposals to exclude shareholder proposals. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 14 of 72 |
〉 | The company’s governing documents impose undue restrictions on shareholders’ ability to amend the bylaws. Such restrictions include but are not limited to: outright prohibition on the submission of binding shareholder proposals or share ownership requirements, subject matter restrictions, or time holding requirements in excess of SEC Rule 14a-8. Vote against or withhold on an ongoing basis. |
〉 | 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 an unmitigated misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (pay for performance); |
〉 | The company maintains significant problematic pay practices; or |
〉 | The board exhibits a significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 15 of 72 |
〉 | 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 oversight6, 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 16 of 72 |
〉 | The reasonableness/scope of the request; and |
〉 | The company’s existing disclosure on its current CEO succession planning process. |
〉 | The company has proxy access8, thereby allowing shareholders to nominate directors to the company’s ballot; and |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 17 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 18 of 72 |
〉 | Existing oversight mechanisms (including current committee structure) regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought; |
〉 | Level of disclosure regarding the issue for which board oversight is sought; |
〉 | Company performance related to the issue for which board oversight is sought; |
〉 | Board committee structure compared to that of other companies in its industry sector; and |
〉 | The scope and structure of the proposal. |
〉 | The scope and rationale of the proposal; |
〉 | The company’s current board leadership structure; |
〉 | The company’s governance structure and practices; |
〉 | Company performance; and |
〉 | Any other relevant factors that may be applicable. |
〉 | A majority non-independent board and/or the presence of non-independent directors on key board committees; |
〉 | A weak or poorly-defined lead independent director role that fails to serve as an appropriate counterbalance to a combined CEO/chair role; |
〉 | The presence of an executive or non-independent chair in addition to the CEO, a recent recombination of the role of CEO and chair, and/or departure from a structure with an independent chair; |
〉 | Evidence that the board has failed to oversee and address material risks facing the company; |
〉 | A material governance failure, particularly if the board has failed to adequately respond to shareholder concerns or if the board has materially diminished shareholder rights; or |
〉 | Evidence that the board has failed to intervene when management’s interests are contrary to shareholders' interests. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 19 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | Established a communication structure that goes beyond the exchange requirements to facilitate the exchange of information between shareholders and members of the board; |
〉 | Effectively disclosed information with respect to this structure to its shareholders; |
〉 | Company has not ignored majority-supported shareholder proposals or a majority withhold vote on a director nominee; and |
〉 | The company has an independent chair or a lead director, according to ISS’ definition. This individual must be made available for periodic consultation and direct communication with major shareholders. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 20 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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 |
〉 | The tenure of the audit firm; |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 21 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 22 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 23 of 72 |
〉 | 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 |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 24 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 25 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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; |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 26 of 72 |
〉 | Whether the company’s disclosure regarding its vote counting method and other relevant voting policies with respect to management and shareholder proposals are consistent and clear; |
〉 | Any recent controversies or concerns related to the company’s proxy voting mechanics; |
〉 | Any unintended consequences resulting from implementation of the proposal; and |
〉 | Any other factors that may be relevant. |
〉 | The presence of a shareholder proposal addressing the same issue on the same ballot; |
〉 | The board’s rationale for seeking ratification; |
〉 | Disclosure of actions to be taken by the board should the ratification proposal fail; |
〉 | Disclosure of shareholder engagement regarding the board’s ratification request; |
〉 | The level of impairment to shareholders’ rights caused by the existing provision; |
〉 | The history of management and shareholder proposals on the provision at the company’s past meetings; |
〉 | Whether the current provision was adopted in response to the shareholder proposal; |
〉 | The company’s ownership structure; and |
〉 | Previous use of ratification proposals to exclude shareholder proposals. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 27 of 72 |
〉 | 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 unfettered9 right for shareholders to call special meetings at a 10 percent threshold; |
〉 | A majority vote standard in uncontested director elections; |
〉 | No non-shareholder-approved pill; and |
〉 | An annually elected board. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 28 of 72 |
〉 | Ownership structure; |
〉 | Quorum requirements; and |
〉 | Vote requirements. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 29 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 30 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | The size of the company; |
〉 | The shareholder base; and |
〉 | The liquidity of the stock. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 31 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | The number of authorized shares will be proportionately reduced; or |
〉 | The effective increase in authorized shares is equal to or less than the allowable increase calculated in accordance with ISS’ Common Stock Authorization policy. |
〉 | Stock exchange notification to the company of a potential delisting; |
〉 | Disclosure of substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern without additional financing; |
〉 | The company’s rationale; or |
〉 | Other factors as applicable. |
〉 | Greenmail, |
〉 | The use of buybacks to inappropriately manipulate incentive compensation metrics, |
〉 | Threats to the company's long-term viability, or |
〉 | Other company-specific factors as warranted. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 32 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | Purchase price; |
〉 | Fairness opinion; |
〉 | Financial and strategic benefits; |
〉 | How the deal was negotiated; |
〉 | Conflicts of interest; |
〉 | Other alternatives for the business; |
〉 | Non-completion risk. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 33 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 34 of 72 |
〉 | 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); |
〉 | 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? |
〉 | Percentage of assets/business contributed; |
〉 | Percentage ownership; |
〉 | Financial and strategic benefits; |
〉 | Governance structure; |
〉 | Conflicts of interest; |
〉 | Other alternatives; and |
〉 | Non-completion risk. |
〉 | Management’s efforts to pursue other alternatives; |
〉 | Appraisal value of assets; and |
〉 | The compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation. |
〉 | Valuation - Is the value to be received by the target shareholders (or paid by the acquirer) reasonable? While |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 35 of 72 |
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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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; |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 36 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 37 of 72 |
〉 | 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? |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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; |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 38 of 72 |
〉 | Corporate governance changes; |
〉 | Changes in the capital structure. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 39 of 72 |
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. |
〉 | There is an unmitigated 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, such as option repricing or option backdating; or |
〉 | The situation is egregious. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 40 of 72 |
1. | Peer Group11 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 Alignment12 – 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 incentive awards; |
〉 | The overall ratio of performance-based compensation to fixed or discretionary pay; |
〉 | The rigor of performance goals; |
〉 | The complexity and risks around pay program design; |
〉 | The transparency and clarity of disclosure; |
〉 | The company’s peer group benchmarking practices; |
〉 | Financial/operational results, both absolute and relative to peers; |
〉 | Special circumstances related to, for example, a new CEO in the prior FY or anomalous equity grant practices (e.g., bi-annual awards); |
〉 | Realizable pay13 compared to grant pay; and |
〉 | Any other factors deemed relevant. |
〉 | Problematic practices related to non-performance-based compensation elements; |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 41 of 72 |
〉 | Incentives that may motivate excessive risk-taking or present a windfall risk; and |
〉 | Pay decisions that circumvent pay-for-performance, such as options backdating or waiving performance requirements. |
〉 | Repricing or replacing of underwater stock options/SARS without prior shareholder approval (including cash buyouts and voluntary surrender of underwater options); |
〉 | Extraordinary perquisites or tax gross-ups; |
〉 | New or materially amended agreements that provide for: |
〉 | Excessive termination or CIC severance payments (generally exceeding 3 times base salary and average/ target/most recent bonus); |
〉 | CIC severance payments without involuntary job loss or substantial diminution of duties (“single” or “modified single” triggers) or in connection with a problematic Good Reason definition; |
〉 | CIC excise tax gross-up entitlements (including “modified” gross-ups); |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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: |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 42 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | Single- or modified-single-trigger cash severance; |
〉 | Single-trigger acceleration of unvested equity awards; |
〉 | Full acceleration of equity awards granted shortly before the change in control; |
〉 | Acceleration of performance awards above the target level of performance without compelling rationale; |
〉 | Excessive cash severance (generally >3x base salary and bonus); |
〉 | Excise tax gross-ups triggered and payable; |
〉 | Excessive golden parachute payments (on an absolute basis or as a percentage of transaction equity value); or |
〉 | Recent amendments that incorporate any problematic features (such as those above) or recent actions (such as extraordinary equity grants) that may make packages so attractive as to influence merger agreements that may not be in the best interests of shareholders; or |
〉 | The company’s assertion that a proposed transaction is conditioned on shareholder approval of the golden parachute advisory vote. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 43 of 72 |
〉 | Plan Cost: The total estimated cost of the company’s equity plans relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company’s estimated Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) in relation to peers and considering both: |
〉 | SVT based on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants, plus outstanding unvested/ unexercised grants; and |
〉 | SVT based only on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants. |
〉 | Plan Features: |
〉 | Quality of disclosure around vesting upon a change in control (CIC); |
〉 | Discretionary vesting authority; |
〉 | Liberal share recycling on various award types; |
〉 | Lack of minimum vesting period for grants made under the plan; |
〉 | Dividends payable prior to award vesting. |
〉 | Grant Practices: |
〉 | The company’s three-year burn rate relative to its industry/market cap peers; |
〉 | Vesting requirements in CEO’s recent equity grants (3-year look-back); |
〉 | The estimated duration of the plan (based on the sum of shares remaining available and the new shares requested, divided by the average annual shares granted in the prior three years); |
〉 | The proportion of the CEO’s most recent equity grants/awards subject to performance conditions; |
〉 | Whether the company maintains a sufficient claw-back policy; |
〉 | Whether the company maintains sufficient 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; |
〉 | The plan is excessively dilutive to shareholders’ holdings; |
〉 | The plan contains an evergreen (automatic share replenishment) feature; or |
〉 | Any other plan features are determined to have a significant negative impact on shareholder interests. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 44 of 72 |
〉 | Amend the terms of outstanding options or SARs to reduce the exercise price of such outstanding options or SARs; |
〉 | Cancel outstanding options or SARs in exchange for options or SARs with an exercise price that is less than the exercise price of the original options or SARs; |
〉 | Cancel underwater options in exchange for stock awards; or |
〉 | Provide cash buyouts of underwater options. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 45 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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’ Classification of Directors. Note that if the company is presenting the plan to shareholders for the first time for any reason (including after the company’s initial public offering), or if the proposal is bundled with other material plan amendments, then the recommendation will be case-by-case (see below). |
〉 | Seeks approval for Section 162(m) purposes only, and the plan administering committee does not consist entirely of independent directors, per ISS’ Classification of Directors. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 46 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | Broad-based participation; |
〉 | Limits on employee contribution, which may be a fixed dollar amount or expressed as a percent of base salary; |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 47 of 72 |
〉 | Company matching contribution up to 25 percent of employee’s contribution, which is effectively a discount of 20 percent from market value; and |
〉 | No discount on the stock price on the date of purchase when there is a company matching contribution. |
〉 | Historic trading patterns--the stock price should not be so volatile that the options are likely to be back “in-the-money” over the near term; |
〉 | Rationale for the re-pricing--was the stock price decline beyond management’s control?; |
〉 | Is this a value-for-value exchange?; |
〉 | Are surrendered stock options added back to the plan reserve?; |
〉 | Timing—repricing should occur at least one year out from any precipitous drop in company’s stock price; |
〉 | Option vesting—does the new option vest immediately or is there a black-out period?; |
〉 | Term of the option--the term should remain the same as that of the replaced option; |
〉 | Exercise price—should be set at fair market or a premium to market; |
〉 | Participants—executive officers and directors must be excluded. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 48 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | If the equity plan under which non-employee director grants are made is on the ballot, whether or not it warrants support; and |
〉 | An assessment of the following qualitative factors: |
〉 | The relative magnitude of director compensation as compared to companies of a similar profile; |
〉 | The presence of problematic pay practices relating to director compensation; |
〉 | Director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements; |
〉 | Equity award vesting schedules; |
〉 | The mix of cash and equity-based compensation; |
〉 | Meaningful limits on director compensation; |
〉 | The availability of retirement benefits or perquisites; and |
〉 | The quality of disclosure surrounding director compensation. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 49 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 50 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | The company’s current level of disclosure of its executive compensation setting process, including how the company considers pay disparity; |
〉 | If any problematic pay practices or pay-for-performance concerns have been identified at the company; and |
〉 | The level of shareholder support for the company’s pay programs. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 51 of 72 |
〉 | First, vote for shareholder proposals advocating the use of performance-based equity awards, such as performance contingent options or restricted stock, indexed options or premium-priced options, unless the proposal is overly restrictive or if the company has demonstrated that it is using a “substantial” portion of performance-based awards for its top executives. Standard stock options and performance-accelerated awards do not meet the criteria to be considered as performance-based awards. Further, premium-priced options should have a meaningful premium to be considered performance-based awards. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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? |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 52 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 53 of 72 |
〉 | The triggering mechanism should be beyond the control of management; |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | The frequency and timing of the company’s share buybacks; |
〉 | The use of per-share metrics in incentive plans; |
〉 | The effect of recent buybacks on incentive metric results and payouts; and |
〉 | Whether there is any indication of metric result manipulation. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 54 of 72 |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 55 of 72 |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 56 of 72 |
〉 | 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; |
〉 | Whether there are significant controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company’s environmental or social practices; |
〉 | If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether reasonable and sufficient information is currently available to shareholders from the company or from other publicly available sources; and |
〉 | If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether implementation would reveal proprietary or confidential information that could place the company at a competitive disadvantage. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 57 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 58 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 59 of 72 |
〉 | Recent related fines, controversies, or significant litigation; |
〉 | Whether the company complies with relevant laws and regulations on the marketing of tobacco; |
〉 | Whether the company’s advertising restrictions deviate from those of industry peers; |
〉 | Whether the company entered into the Master Settlement Agreement, which restricts marketing of tobacco to youth; and |
〉 | Whether restrictions on marketing to youth extend to foreign countries. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 60 of 72 |
〉 | 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 |
〉 | Whether the company has been the subject of recent, significant violations, fines, litigation, or controversy related to GHG emissions. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 61 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | The company’s current policies and disclosure related to both its diversity and inclusion policies and practices and its compensation philosophy on fair and equitable compensation practices; |
〉 | Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to gender, race, or ethnicity pay gap issues; and |
〉 | Whether the company’s reporting regarding gender, race, or ethnicity pay gap policies or initiatives is lagging its peers. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 62 of 72 |
〉 | 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; |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 63 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 64 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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; |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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; |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 65 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 66 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 67 of 72 |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | 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). |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 68 of 72 |
〉 | Stated specific financing purpose; |
〉 | Possible dilution for common shares; |
〉 | Whether the shares can be used for antitakeover purposes. |
〉 | Potential competitiveness; |
〉 | Regulatory developments; |
〉 | Current and potential returns; and |
〉 | Current and potential risk. |
〉 | The fund’s target investments; |
〉 | The reasons given by the fund for the change; and |
〉 | The projected impact of the change on the portfolio. |
〉 | Political/economic changes in the target market; |
〉 | Consolidation in the target market; and |
〉 | Current asset composition. |
〉 | Potential competitiveness; |
〉 | Current and potential returns; |
〉 | Risk of concentration; |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 69 of 72 |
〉 | Consolidation in target industry. |
〉 | The proposal to allow share issuances below NAV has an expiration date no more than one year from the date shareholders approve the underlying proposal, as required under the Investment Company Act of 1940; |
〉 | The sale is deemed to be in the best interests of shareholders by (1) a majority of the company’s independent directors and (2) a majority of the company’s directors who have no financial interest in the issuance; and |
〉 | The company has demonstrated responsible past use of share issuances by either: |
〉 | Outperforming peers in its 8-digit GICS group as measured by one- and three-year median TSRs; or |
〉 | Providing disclosure that its past share issuances were priced at levels that resulted in only small or moderate discounts to NAV and economic dilution to existing non-participating shareholders. |
〉 | Strategies employed to salvage the company; |
〉 | The fund’s past performance; |
〉 | The terms of the liquidation. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | Regulations of both states; |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 70 of 72 |
〉 | Required fundamental policies of both states; |
〉 | The increased flexibility available. |
〉 | 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. |
〉 | Resulting fee structure; |
〉 | Performance of both funds; |
〉 | Continuity of management personnel; |
〉 | Changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights. |
〉 | 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. |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 71 of 72 |
ISSGOVERNANCE.COM | 72 of 72 |
A-1 | A short-term obligation rated ‘A-1’ is rated in the highest category by S&P Global Ratings. The obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is strong. Within this category, certain obligations are designated with a plus sign (+). This indicates that the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on these obligations is extremely strong. |
A-2 | A short-term obligation rated ‘A-2’ is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligations in higher rating categories. However, the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is satisfactory. |
A-3 | A short-term obligation rated ‘A-3’ exhibits adequate protection parameters. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to weaken an obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
B | A short-term obligation rated 'B' is regarded as vulnerable and has significant speculative characteristics. The obligor currently has the capacity to meet its financial commitments; however, it faces major ongoing uncertainties that could lead to the obligor's inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitments. |
C | A short-term obligation rated ‘C’ is currently vulnerable to nonpayment and is dependent upon favorable business, financial, and economic conditions for the obligor to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
D | A short-term obligation rated ‘D’ is in default or in breach of an imputed promise. For non-hybrid capital instruments, the ‘D’ rating category is used when payments on an obligation are not made on the due date, unless S&P Global Ratings believes that such payments will be made within any stated grace period. However, any stated grace period longer than five business days will be treated as five business days. The ‘D’ rating also will be used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of a similar action and where default on an obligation is a virtual certainty, for example due to automatic stay provisions. A rating on an obligation is lowered to ‘D’ if it is subject to a distressed exchange offer. |
• | Preliminary ratings may be assigned to obligations, most commonly structured and project finance issues, pending receipt of final documentation and legal opinions. |
• | Preliminary ratings may be assigned to obligations that will likely be issued upon the obligor’s emergence from bankruptcy or similar reorganization, based on late-stage reorganization plans, documentation and discussions with the obligor. Preliminary ratings may also be assigned to the obligors. These ratings consider the anticipated general credit quality of the reorganized or post-bankruptcy issuer as well as attributes of the anticipated obligation(s). |
• | Preliminary ratings may be assigned to entities that are being formed or that are in the process of being independently established when, in S&P’s opinion, documentation is close to final. Preliminary ratings may also be assigned to the obligations of these entities. |
• | Preliminary ratings may be assigned when a previously unrated entity is undergoing a well-formulated restructuring, recapitalization, significant financing or other transformative event, generally at the point that investor or lender commitments are invited. The preliminary rating may be assigned to the entity and to its proposed obligation(s). These preliminary ratings consider the anticipated general credit quality of the obligor, as well as attributes of the anticipated obligation(s), assuming successful completion of the transformative event. Should the transformative event not occur, S&P would likely withdraw these preliminary ratings. |
• | A preliminary recovery rating may be assigned to an obligation that has a preliminary issue credit rating. |
F1 | HIGHEST SHORT-TERM CREDIT QUALITY. Indicates the strongest intrinsic capacity for timely payment of financial commitments; may have an added “+” to denote any exceptionally strong credit feature. |
F2 | GOOD SHORT-TERM CREDIT QUALITY. Good intrinsic capacity for timely payment of financial commitments. |
F3 | FAIR SHORT-TERM CREDIT QUALITY. The intrinsic capacity for timely payment of financial commitments is adequate. |
B | SPECULATIVE SHORT-TERM CREDIT QUALITY. Minimal capacity for timely payment of financial commitments, plus heightened vulnerability to near term adverse changes in financial and economic conditions. |
C | HIGH SHORT-TERM DEFAULT RISK. Default is a real possibility. |
RD | RESTRICTED DEFAULT. Indicates an entity that has defaulted on one or more of its financial commitments, although it continues to meet other financial obligations. Typically applicable to entity ratings only. |
D | DEFAULT. Indicates a broad-based default event for an entity, or the default of a short-term obligation. |
• | The ratings do not predict a specific percentage of default likelihood or failure likelihood over any given time period. |
• | The ratings do not opine on the market value of any issuer’s securities or stock, or the likelihood that this value may change. |
• | The ratings do not opine on the liquidity of the issuer’s securities or stock. |
• | The ratings do not opine on the possible loss severity on an obligation should an issuer (or an obligation with respect to structured finance transactions) default, except in the following two cases: |
• | Ratings assigned to individual obligations of issuers in corporate finance, banks, non-bank financial institutions, insurance and covered bonds. |
• | In limited circumstances for U.S. public finance obligations where Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code provides reliably superior prospects for ultimate recovery to local government obligations that benefit from a statutory lien on revenues or during the pendency of a bankruptcy proceeding under the Code if there is sufficient visibility on potential recovery prospects. |
• | The ratings do not opine on the suitability of an issuer as a counterparty to trade credit. |
P-1 | Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Prime-1 have a superior ability to repay short-term debt obligations. |
P-2 | Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Prime-2 have a strong ability to repay short-term debt obligations. |
P-3 | Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Prime-3 have an acceptable ability to repay short-term obligations. |
NP | Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Not Prime do not fall within any of the Prime rating categories. |
• | The likelihood of payment — the capacity and willingness of the obligor to meet its financial commitments on an obligation in accordance with the terms of the obligation; |
• | The nature of and provisions of the obligation, and the promise we impute; and |
• | The protection afforded by, and relative position of, the financial obligation in the event of a bankruptcy, reorganization, or other arrangement under the laws of bankruptcy and other laws affecting creditors’ rights. |
AAA | An obligation rated ‘AAA’ has the highest rating assigned by S&P Global Ratings. The obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is extremely strong. |
AA | An obligation rated ‘AA’ differs from the highest-rated obligations only to a small degree. The obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation is very strong. |
A | An obligation rated ‘A’ is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligations in higher-rated categories. However, the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation is still strong. |
BBB | An obligation rated ‘BBB’ exhibits adequate protection parameters. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to weaken the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
BB | An obligation rated ‘BB’ is less vulnerable to nonpayment than other speculative issues. However, it faces major ongoing uncertainties or exposure to adverse business, financial, or economic conditions which could lead to the obligor’s inadequate capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
B | An obligation rated ‘B’ is more vulnerable to nonpayment than obligations rated ‘BB’, but the obligor currently has the capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. Adverse business, financial, or economic conditions will likely impair the obligor’s capacity or willingness to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
CCC | An obligation rated ‘CCC’ is currently vulnerable to nonpayment, and is dependent upon favorable business, financial, and economic conditions for the obligor to meet its financial commitment on the obligation. In the event of adverse business, financial, or economic conditions, the obligor is not likely to have the capacity to meet its financial commitments on the obligation. |
CC | An obligation rated ‘CC’ is currently highly vulnerable to nonpayment. The ‘CC’ rating is used when a default has not yet occurred but S&P expects default to be a virtual certainty, regardless of the anticipated time to default. |
C | An obligation rated ‘C; is currently highly vulnerable to nonpayment, and the obligation is expected to have lower relative seniority or lower ultimate recovery compared with obligations that are rated higher. |
D | An obligation rated ‘D’ is in default or in breach of an imputed promise. For non-hybrid capital instruments, the ‘D’ rating category is used when payments on an obligation are not made on the due date, unless S&P Global Ratings believes that such payments will be made within five business days in the absence of a stated grace period or within the earlier of the stated grace period or 30 calendar days. The ‘D” rating also will be used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of similar action and where default on an obligation is a virtual certainty, for example due to automatic stay provisions. A rating on an obligation is lowered to ‘D’ if it is subject to a distressed exchange offer. |
AAA | HIGHEST CREDIT QUALITY. ‘AAA’ ratings denote the lowest expectation of default risk. They are assigned only in case of exceptionally strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is highly unlikely to be adversely affected by foreseeable events. |
AA | VERY HIGH CREDIT QUALITY. ‘AA’ ratings denote expectations of very low default risk. They indicate very strong capacity for payment of financial commitments. This capacity is not significantly vulnerable to foreseeable events. |
A | HIGH CREDIT QUALITY. ‘A’ ratings denote expectations of low default risk. The capacity for payment of financial commitments is considered strong. This capacity may, nevertheless, be more vulnerable to adverse business economic conditions than is the case for higher ratings. |
BBB | GOOD CREDIT QUALITY. ‘BBB’ ratings indicate that expectations of default risk are currently low. The capacity for payment of financial commitments is considered adequate, but adverse business or economic conditions are more likely to impair this capacity. |
BB | SPECULATIVE. ‘BB’ ratings indicate an elevated vulnerability to default risk, particularly in the event of adverse changes in business or economic conditions over time; however, business or financial flexibility exists that supports the servicing of financial commitments. |
B | HIGHLY SPECULATIVE. ‘B’ ratings indicate that material default risk is present, but a limited margin of safety remains. Financial commitments are currently being met; however, capacity for continued payment is vulnerable to deterioration in the business and economic environment. |
CCC | SUBSTANTIAL CREDIT RISK. Default is a real possibility. |
CC | VERY HIGH LEVELS OF CREDIT RISK. Default of some kind appears probable. |
C | NEAR DEFAULT. A default or default-like process has begun, or the issuer is in standstill, or for a closed funding vehicle, payment capacity is irrevocably impaired. Conditions that are indicative of a ‘C’ category rating for an issuer include: |
•
the issuer has entered into a grace or cure period following non-payment of a material financial obligation;
• the issuer has entered into a temporary negotiated waiver or standstill agreement following a payment default on a material financial obligation; or • the formal announcement by the issuer or their agent of a distressed debt exchange; • a closed financing vehicle where payment capacity is irrevocably impaired such that it is not expected to pay interest and/or principal in full during the life of the transaction, but where no payment default is imminent. |
|
RD | RESTRICTED DEFAULT. ‘RD’ ratings indicate an issuer that in Fitch’s opinion has experienced: |
•
an uncured payment default or distressed debt exchange on a bond, loan or other material financial obligation, but
• has not entered into bankruptcy filings, administration, receivership, liquidation or other formal winding-up procedure, and • has not otherwise ceased operating. This would include: • the selective payment default on a specific class or currency of debt; • the uncured expiry of any applicable grace period, cure period or default forbearance period following a payment default on a bank loan, capital markets security or other material financial obligation; • the extension of multiple waivers or forbearance periods upon a payment default on one or more material financial obligations, either in series or in parallel; ordinary execution of a distressed debt exchange on one or more material financial obligations. |
D | DEFAULT. ‘D’ ratings indicate an issuer that in Fitch Ratings’ opinion has entered into bankruptcy filings, administration, receivership, liquidation or other formal winding-up procedure, or which has otherwise ceased business. |
Aaa | Obligations rated Aaa are judged to be of the highest quality, subject to the lowest level of credit risk. |
Aa | Obligations rated Aa are judged to be of high quality and are subject to very low credit risk. |
A | Obligations rated A are considered upper-medium grade and are subject to low credit risk. |
Baa | Obligations rated Baa are judged to be medium-grade and subject to moderate credit risk and as such may possess certain speculative characteristics. |
Ba | Obligations rated Ba are judged to be speculative and are subject to substantial credit risk. |
B | Obligations rated B are considered speculative and are subject to high credit risk. |
Caa | Obligations rated Caa are judged to be speculative of poor standing and are subject to very high credit risk. |
Ca | Obligations rated Ca are highly speculative and are likely in, or very near, default, with some prospect of recovery of principal and interest. |
C | Obligations rated C are the lowest rated and are typically in default, with little prospect for recovery of principal or interest. |
AAA | Highest credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is exceptionally high and unlikely to be adversely affected by future events. |
AA | Superior credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is considered high. Credit quality differs from AAA only to a small degree. Unlikely to be significantly vulnerable to future events. |
A | Good credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is substantial, but of lesser credit quality than AA. May be vulnerable to future events, but qualifying negative factors are considered manageable. |
BBB | Adequate credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is considered acceptable. May be vulnerable to future events. |
BB | Speculative, non-investment grade credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is uncertain. Vulnerable to future events. |
B | Highly speculative credit quality. There is a high level of uncertainty as to the capacity to meet financial obligations. |
CCC/CC/C | Very highly speculative credit quality. In danger of defaulting on financial obligations. There is little difference between these three categories, although CC and C ratings are normally applied to obligations that are seen as highly likely to default, or subordinated to obligations rated in the CCC to B range. Obligations in respect of which default has not technically taken place but is considered inevitable may be rated in the C category. |
D | When the issuer has filed under any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or winding up statute or there is a failure to satisfy an obligation after the exhaustion of grace periods, a downgrade to D may occur. DBRS may also use SD (Selective Default) in cases where only some securities are impacted, such as the case of a “distressed exchange.” |
AAA | An insurer rated ‘AAA’ has extremely strong financial security characteristics. ‘AAA’ is the highest insurer financial strength rating assigned by S&P. |
AA | An insurer rated ‘AA’ has very strong financial security characteristics, differing only slightly from those rated higher. |
A | An insurer rated ‘A’ has strong financial security characteristics, but is somewhat more likely to be affected by adverse business conditions than are insurers with higher ratings. |
BBB | An insurer rated ‘BBB’ has good financial security characteristics, but is more likely to be affected by adverse business conditions than are higher-rated insurers. |
BB | An insurer rated ‘BB’ has marginal financial security characteristics. Positive attributes exist, but adverse business conditions could lead to insufficient ability to meet financial commitments. |
B | An insurer rated ‘B’ has weak financial security characteristics. Adverse business conditions will likely impair its ability to meet financial commitments. |
CCC | An insurer rated ‘CCC’ has very weak financial security characteristics, and is dependent on favorable business conditions to meet financial commitments. |
CC | An insurer rated ‘CC’ has extremely weak financial security characteristics and is likely not to meet some of its financial commitments. |
SD and D |
An
insurer rated ‘SD’ (selective default) or ‘D” is in default on one or more of its insurance policy obligations.
The ‘D’ rating also will be used upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of similar action if payments on a policy obligation are at risk. A ‘D’ rating is assigned when S&P Global Ratings believes that the default will be a general default and that the obligor will fail to pay substantially all of its obligations in full in accordance with the policy terms. An ‘SD’ rating is assigned when S&P Global Ratings believes that the insurer has selectively defaulted on a specific class of policies but it will continue to meet its payment obligations on other classes of obligations. An ‘SD’ includes the completion of a distressed exchange offer. Claim denials due to lack of coverage or other legally permitted defenses are not considered defaults. |
AAA | EXCEPTIONALLY STRONG. ‘AAA’ IFS Ratings denote the lowest expectation of ceased or interrupted payments. They are assigned only in the case of exceptionally strong capacity to meet policyholder and contract obligations. This capacity is highly unlikely to be adversely affected by foreseeable events. |
AA | VERY STRONG. ‘AA’ IFS Ratings denote a very low expectation of ceased or interrupted payments. They indicate very strong capacity to meet policyholder and contract obligations. This capacity is not significantly vulnerable to foreseeable events. |
A | STRONG. ‘A’ IFS Ratings denote a low expectation of ceased or interrupted payments. They indicate strong capacity to meet policyholder and contract obligations. This capacity may, nonetheless, be more vulnerable to changes in circumstances or in economic conditions than is the case for higher ratings. |
BBB | GOOD. ‘BBB’ IFS Ratings indicate that there is currently a low expectation of ceased or interrupted payments. The capacity to meet policyholder and contract obligations on a timely basis is considered adequate, but adverse changes in circumstances and economic conditions are more likely to impact this capacity. |
BB | MODERATELY WEAK. ‘BB’ IFS Ratings indicate that there is an elevated vulnerability to ceased or interrupted payments, particularly as the result of adverse economic or market changes over time. However, business or financial alternatives may be available to allow for policyholder and contract obligations to be met in a timely manner. |
B | WEAK. ‘B’ IFS Ratings indicate two possible conditions. If obligations are still being met on a timely basis, there is significant risk that ceased or interrupted payments could occur in the future, but a limited margin of safety remains. Capacity for continued timely payments is contingent upon a sustained, favorable business and economic environment, and favorable market conditions. Alternatively, a ‘B’ IFS Rating is assigned to obligations that have experienced ceased or interrupted payments, but with the potential for extremely high recoveries. Such obligations would possess a recovery assessment of ‘RR1’ (Outstanding). |
CCC | VERY WEAK. ‘CCC’ IFS Ratings indicate two possible conditions. If obligations are still being met on a timely basis, there is a real possibility that ceased or interrupted payments could occur in the future. Capacity for continued timely payments is solely reliant upon a sustained, favorable business and economic environment, and favorable market conditions. Alternatively, a ‘CCC’ IFS Rating is assigned to obligations that have experienced ceased or interrupted payments, and with the potential for average to superior recoveries. Such obligations would possess a recovery assessment of ‘RR2’ (Superior), ‘RR3’ (Good), and ‘RR4’ (Average). |
CC | EXTREMELY WEAK. ‘CC’ IFS Ratings indicate two possible conditions. If obligations are still being met on a timely basis, it is probable that ceased or interrupted payments will occur in the future. Alternatively, a ‘CC’ IFS Rating is assigned to obligations that have experienced ceased or interrupted payments, with the potential for average to below-average recoveries. Such obligations would possess a recovery assessment of ‘RR4’ (Average) or ‘RR5’ (Below Average). |
C | DISTRESSED. ‘C’ IFS Ratings indicate two possible conditions. If obligations are still being met on a timely basis, ceased or interrupted payments are imminent. Alternatively, a ‘C’ IFS Rating is assigned to obligations that have experienced ceased or interrupted payments, and with the potential for below average to poor recoveries. Such obligations would possess a recovery assessment of ‘RR5’ (Below Average) or ‘RR6’ (Poor). |
F1 | Insurers are viewed as having a strong capacity to meet their near-term obligations. When an insurer rated in this rating category is designated with a (+) sign, it is viewed as having a very strong capacity to meet near-term obligations. |
F2 | Insurers are viewed as having a good capacity to meet their near-term obligations. |
F3 | Insurers are viewed as having an adequate capacity to meet their near-term obligations. |
B | Insurers are viewed as having a weak capacity to meet their near-term obligations. |
C | Insurers are viewed as having a very weak capacity to meet their near-term obligations. |
RR1 | OUTSTANDING RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR1’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 91%–100% of current principal and related interest. |
RR2 | SUPERIOR RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR2’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 71%–90% of current principal and related interest. |
RR3 | GOOD RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR3’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 51%–70% of current principal and related interest. |
RR4 | AVERAGE RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR4’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 31%–50% of current principal and related interest. |
RR5 |
BELOW
AVERAGE RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR5’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 11%–
30% of current principal and related interest. |
RR6 | POOR RECOVERY PROSPECTS GIVEN DEFAULT. ‘RR6’ rated securities have characteristics consistent with securities historically recovering 0%–10% of current principal and related interest. |
• | The ratings do not predict a specific percentage of recovery should a default occur. |
• | The ratings do not opine on the market value of any issuer’s securities or stock, or the likelihood that this value may change. |
• | The ratings do not opine on the liquidity of the issuer’s securities or stock. |
• | The ratings do not opine on any quality related to an issuer or transaction’s profile other than the agency’s opinion on the relative loss severity of the rated obligation should the obligation default. |
• | Recovery Ratings, in particular, reflect a fundamental analysis of the underlying relationship between financial claims on an entity or transaction and potential sources to meet those claims. The size of such sources and claims is subject to a wide variety of dynamic factors outside the agency’s analysis that will influence actual recovery rates. |
• | Out-of-court settlements are not contemplated by Fitch’s Recovery Ratings, other than in broad concession payments for some classes of junior-ranking bonds in some specific scenarios. In reality, out-of-court settlements will be influenced heavily by creditor composition and local political and economic imperatives, and Fitch does not attempt to factor these into its Recovery Ratings. |
• | Creditor composition is outside the scope of Recovery Ratings. Concentration of creditors at a certain level of the capital structure, common ownership of claims at different levels in a capital structure or even differing entry prices of investors within a creditor class can have a profound effect on actual recovery rates. |
• | Information flows for companies close to default can become erratic, which may reduce Fitch’s visibility on its Recovery Ratings. |
• | Enterprise valuations play a key role in the allocation of recoveries across credit classes. Recovery Ratings assume cash-flow multiples or advance rates, which are driven by subjective forecasts of Fitch analysts of post-restructuring cash flow, achievable exit multiples and appropriate advance rates. All these parameters are subject to volatility before and during the restructuring process. |
• | Recovery rates are strongly influenced by legal decisions. Potential legal decisions are not factored into Fitch’s Recovery Ratings. |
Aaa | Insurance companies rated Aaa are judged to be of the highest quality, subject to the lowest level of credit risk. |
Aa | Insurance companies rated Aa are judged to be of high quality and are subject to very low credit risk. |
A | Insurance companies rated A are judged to be of upper-medium grade and are subject to low credit risk. |
Baa | Insurance companies rated Baa are judged to be medium-grade and subject to moderate credit risk and as such may possess certain speculative characteristics. |
Ba | Insurance companies rated Ba are judged to be speculative and are subject to substantial credit risk. |
B | Insurance companies rated B are considered speculative and are subject to high credit risk. |
Caa | Insurance companies rated Caa are judged to be speculative of poor standing and are subject to very high credit risk. |
Ca | Insurance companies rated Ca are highly speculative and are likely in, or very near, default, with some prospect of recovery of principal and interest. |
C | Insurance companies rated C are the lowest rated and are typically in default, with little prospect for recovery of principal or interest. |
P-1 | Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Prime-1 have a superior ability to repay short-term debt obligations. |
P-2 | Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Prime-2 have a strong ability to repay short-term debt obligations. |
P-3 | Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Prim-3 have an acceptable ability to repay short-term obligations. |
P-4 | Issuers (or supporting institutions) rated Not Prime do not fall within any of the Prime rating categories. |
• | Amortization schedule — the larger the final maturity relative to other maturities, the more likely it will be treated as a note; and |
• | Source of payment — the more dependent the issue is on the market for its refinancing, the more likely it will be treated as a note. |
SP-1 | Strong capacity to pay principal and interest. An issue determined to possess a very strong capacity to pay debt service is given a plus (+) designation. |
SP-2 | Satisfactory capacity to pay principal and interest, with some vulnerability to adverse financial and economic changes over the term of the notes. |
SP-3 | Speculative capacity to pay principal and interest. |
D | ‘D’ is assigned upon failure to pay the note when due, completion of a distressed exchange offer, or the filing of a bankruptcy petition or the taking of similar action and where default on an obligation is a virtual certainty, for example, due to automatic stay provisions. |
MIG 1 | This designation denotes superior credit quality. Excellent protection is afforded by established cash flows, highly reliable liquidity support or demonstrated broad-based access to the market for refinancing. |
MIG 2 | This designation denotes strong credit quality. Margins of protection are ample although not so large as in the preceding group. |
MIG 3 | This designation denotes acceptable credit quality. Liquidity and cash-flow protection may be narrow, and market access for refinancing is likely to be less well-established. |
SG | This designation denotes speculative-grade credit quality. Debt instruments in this category may lack sufficient margins of protection. |
VMIG 1 | This designation denotes superior credit quality. Excellent protection is afforded by the superior short-term credit strength of the liquidity provider and structural and legal protections that ensure the timely payment of purchase price upon demand. |
VMIG 2 | This designation denotes strong credit quality. Good protection is afforded by the strong short-term credit strength of the liquidity provider and structural and legal protections that ensure the timely payment of purchase price upon demand. |
VMIG 3 | This designation denotes acceptable credit quality. Adequate protection is afforded by the satisfactory short-term credit strength of the liquidity provider and structural and legal protections that ensure the timely payment of purchase price upon demand. |
SG | This designation denotes speculative-grade credit quality. Demand features rated in this category may be supported by a liquidity provider that does not have an investment grade short-term rating or may lack the structural and/or legal protections necessary to ensure the timely payment of purchase price upon demand. |
Pfd-1 | Preferred shares rated Pfd-1 are of superior credit quality, and are supported by entities with strong earnings and balance sheet characteristics. Pfd-1 ratings generally correspond with issuers with a AAA or AA category reference point1. |
Pfd-2 | Preferred shares rated Pfd-2 are generally of good credit quality. Protection of dividends and principal is still substantial, but earnings, the balance sheet and coverage ratios are not as strong as Pfd-1 rated companies. Generally, Pfd-2 ratings correspond with issuers with an A category or higher reference point. |
Pfd-3 | Preferred shares rated Pfd-3 are generally of adequate credit quality. While protection of dividends and principal is still considered acceptable, the issuing entity is more susceptible to adverse changes in financial and economic conditions, and there may be other adverse conditions present which detract from debt protection. Pfd-3 ratings generally correspond with issuers with a BBB category or higher reference point. |
Pfd-4 | Preferred shares rated Pfd-4 are generally speculative, where the degree of protection afforded to dividends and principal is uncertain, particularly during periods of economic adversity. Issuers with preferred shares rated Pfd-4 generally correspond with issuers with a BB category or higher reference point. |
Pfd-5 | Preferred shares rated Pfd-5 are generally highly speculative and the ability of the entity to maintain timely dividend and principal payments in the future is highly uncertain. Entities with a Pfd-5 rating generally correspond with issuers with a B category or higher reference point. Preferred shares rated Pfd5 often have characteristics that, if not remedied, may lead to default. |
D | When the issuer has filed under any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or winding up or the issuer is in default per the legal documents, a downgrade to D may occur. Because preferred share dividends are only payable when approved, the non-payment of a preferred share dividend does not necessarily result in a D. DBRS may also use SD (Selective Default) in cases where only some securities are impacted, such as the case of a “distressed exchange”. See the Default Definition document posted on the website for more information. |
1 | The reference point is a credit rating or intrinsic assessment on the relevant issuer expressed using the long-term obligations scale. For instance, it could be the issuer rating (for a corporate issuer), the intrinsic assessment (for a bank or a non-bank finance company), or the financial strength rating (for an insurance company). |
Item 28. | Exhibits |
Item 29. | Persons Controlled by or Under Common Control with the Fund |
Item 30. | Indemnification |
Item 31. | Business and Other Connections of the Investment Adviser |
Item 32. | Principal Underwriters |
Name with Registrant | Positions and Office with JPMorgan Distribution Services, Inc. | Positions and Offices with the Funds | ||
Brian Bergere | Director, Managing Director & President | None | ||
Andrea Lisher | Director & Managing Director | None | ||
Joseph F. Sanzone | Director & Managing Director | None | ||
Wendy Barta | Director & Executive Director | None | ||
Omar F. Altahawi | Managing Director & Treasurer | None |
Name with Registrant | Positions and Office with JPMorgan Distribution Services, Inc. | Positions and Offices with the Funds | ||
Gary C. Krivo | Managing Director & Chief Risk Officer | None | ||
Michael R. Machulski | Director & Managing Director | None | ||
Brian S. Shlissel | Managing Director | Vice President | ||
James A. Hoffman | Executive Director | None | ||
Carmine Lekstutis | Executive Director & Chief Legal Officer | Assistant Secretary | ||
Jessica K. Ditullio | Executive Director & Assistant Secretary | Assistant Secretary | ||
Kevin Kloza | Executive Director and Chief Compliance Officer | None | ||
Andrea Lang | Vice President & Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer | None | ||
Frank J. Drozek | Executive Director & Assistant Treasurer | None | ||
Christopher J. Mohr | Executive Director & Assistant Treasurer | None | ||
Joanna Corey | Executive Director & Assistant Secretary | None | ||
Marcela Castro | Executive Director & Assistant Secretary | None | ||
Afiya M. Jordan | Vice President & Secretary | None | ||
Amee Kantesaria | Vice President & Assistant Secretary | None | ||
Amy Hsu | Vice President & Assistant Secretary | None | ||
Andris Alexander | Vice President & Assistant Secretary | None | ||
Theodore Weisman | Vice President & Assistant Secretary | None |
Item 33. | Location of Accounts and Records |
Item 34. | Management Services |
Item 35. | Undertakings |
J.P. Morgan Exchange-Traded Fund Trust | |
By: |
Joanna
Gallegos*
|
Name: Joanna Gallegos | |
Title: President and Principal Executive Officer |
Gary
L. French*
|
Gary L. French |
Trustee |
Thomas
P. Lemke*
|
Thomas P. Lemke |
Trustee |
Emily
Youssouf*
|
Emily Youssouf |
Trustee |
Lauren
A. Paino*
|
Lauren A. Paino |
Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer |
*By: |
/s/
Zachary Vonnegut-Gabovitch
|
Zachary Vonnegut-Gabovitch | |
Attorney-in-fact |
Robert
J. Grassi*
|
Robert J. Grassi |
Trustee |
Lawrence
Maffia*
|
Lawrence Maffia |
Trustee |
Robert
Deutsch*
|
Robert Deutsch |
Trustee |
Joanna
Gallegos*
|
Joanna Gallegos |
President and Principal Executive Officer |