As filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2025
File Nos. 333-92935 and 811-09729
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM N-1A
REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
| THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 | ☒ | |||
| Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,802 | ☒ |
and/or
REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
| THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940 | ☒ | |||
| Amendment No. 2,802 | ☒ |
(Check appropriate box or boxes)
iShares Trust
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)
c/o BlackRock Fund Advisors
400 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(Address of Principal Executive Office)(Zip Code)
Registrants Telephone Number, including Area Code: (415) 670-2000
The Corporation Trust Company
1209 Orange Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
(Name and Address of Agent for Service)
With Copies to:
| MARGERY K. NEALE, ESQ. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 SEVENTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10019-6099 |
MARISA ROLLAND, ESQ. BLACKROCK FUND ADVISORS 400 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 |
It is proposed that this filing will become effective (check appropriate box):
| ☐ | 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) |
If appropriate, check the following box:
| ☐ | This post-effective amendment designates a new effective date for a previously filed post-effective amendment. |
![]() |
________, 2025 |
| |
|
![]() |
Prospectus |
| Annual Fund
Operating Expenses (ongoing expenses that you pay each year as a
percentage of the value of your investments)1 | |||
| Management Fees |
Distribution
and Service (12b-1) Fees |
Other Expenses2,3
|
Total
Annual Fund Operating
Expenses |
| ___% |
None |
0.00% |
___% |
| |
1
Year |
3
Years |
|
| |
$___ |
$___ |
|
| Fund |
Underlying Index |
Investment Objective |
| iShares MSCI World
Small-Cap ETF |
MSCI World Small
Cap Index |
The iShares MSCI World Small-Cap ETF seeks to track the investment results of an index composed of small- capitalization developed market equities. |
| Fund |
Management Fee |
| iShares MSCI World Small-Cap ETF |
___% |
| Fund |
The Bank of
New York
Mellon |
Citibank, N.A. |
JPMorgan
Chase Bank,
N.A. |
State Street
Bank and
Trust
Company |
| iShares MSCI
World Small-Cap
ETF* |
|
|
|
✓ |
| Fund |
In-Kind |
Partial Cash |
All Cash |
| iShares MSCI World Small-Cap
ETF |
|
✓ |
|
| Call: |
1-800-iShares or 1-800-474-2737 (toll free) Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. (Eastern time) |
| Email: |
iSharesETFs@blackrock.com |
| Write: |
c/o BlackRock Investments, LLC 1 University Square Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540 |
| Fund |
Ticker |
Listing
Exchange |
| iShares MSCI World Small-Cap ETF (the “Fund”) |
____ |
____ |
| |
Page |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 8 | |
| 8 | |
| 8 | |
| 8 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 9 | |
| 9 | |
| 9 | |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| 10 | |
| 10 | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 12 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 13 | |
| 13 |
| |
Page |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 17 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 20 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 24 | |
| 27 | |
| 27 | |
| 27 | |
| 28 | |
| 29 | |
| 29 | |
| 29 | |
| 38 | |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 43 | |
| 52 | |
| 52 | |
| 53 | |
| 54 | |
| 54 | |
| 54 | |
| 55 | |
| 55 |
| |
Page |
| 56 | |
| 58 | |
| 60 | |
| 63 | |
| 63 | |
| 64 | |
| 65 | |
| 65 | |
| 65 | |
| 66 | |
| 66 | |
| 67 | |
| 67 | |
| 67 | |
| 68 | |
| 68 | |
| 68 | |
| 69 | |
| 69 | |
| 70 | |
| 71 | |
| 72 | |
| 73 | |
| 74 | |
| 74 | |
| 74 | |
| 75 | |
| 75 | |
| 75 | |
| 75 | |
| 76 | |
| 77 | |
| 77 | |
| 77 | |
| 78 | |
| 78 | |
| 78 |
| Fund |
Open-End Active and Fixed Income Index
Fund Proxy Voting Policy |
BAIS Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship
Guidelines Apply |
Index Equity Fund Proxy
Voting Policy |
BIS Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship
Guidelines Apply |
| iShares MSCI World Small-Cap ETF* |
|
|
X |
|
| Name (Year of
Birth) |
Position |
Principal
Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years |
Other
Directorships Held by Trustee |
| Robert S. Kapito1 (1957) |
Trustee (since 2009). |
President of BlackRock, Inc. (since 2006); Vice Chairman of BlackRock, Inc. and Head of BlackRock’s Portfolio Management Group (since its formation in 1998) and BlackRock, Inc.’s predecessor entities (since 1988); Trustee, University of Pennsylvania (since 2009); President of Board of Directors, Hope & Heroes Children’s Cancer Fund (since 2002). |
Director of BlackRock, Inc. (since 2006); Director of iShares, Inc. (since 2009); Trustee of iShares U.S. ETF Trust (since 2011). |
| Stephen Cohen2 (1975) |
Trustee (since 2024). |
Senior Managing Director, Head of Global Product Solutions of BlackRock, Inc. (since 2024); Senior Managing Director, Head of Europe, Middle East and Africa Regions of BlackRock, Inc. (2021-2024); Head of iShares Index and Wealth in EMEA of BlackRock, Inc. (2017-2021); Global Head of Fixed Income Indexing of BlackRock, Inc. (2016-2017); Chief Investment Strategist for International Fixed Income and iShares of BlackRock, Inc. (2011- 2015). |
Director of iShares, Inc. (since 2024); Trustee of iShares U.S. ETF Trust (since 2024). |
| Name (Year of
Birth) |
Position |
Principal
Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years |
Other
Directorships Held by Trustee |
| John E. Kerrigan
(1955) |
Trustee (since 2005); Independent Board Chair
(since 2022). |
Chief Investment Officer, Santa Clara University (since 2002). |
Director of iShares, Inc. (since 2005); Trustee of iShares U.S. ETF Trust (since 2011); Independent Board Chair of iShares, Inc. and iShares U.S. ETF Trust (since 2022). |
| Name (Year of
Birth) |
Position |
Principal
Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years |
Other
Directorships Held by Trustee |
| Jane D. Carlin
(1956) |
Trustee (since 2015); Risk Committee Co-Chair (since 2025); Securities Lending Committee Chair (since 2025). |
Consultant (since 2012); Member of the Audit Committee (2012-2018), Chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee (2017-2018) and Director of PHH Corporation (mortgage solutions) (2012-2018); Managing Director and Global Head of Financial Holding Company Governance & Assurance and the Global Head of Operational Risk Management of Morgan Stanley (2006-2012). |
Director of iShares, Inc. (since 2015); Trustee of iShares U.S. ETF Trust (since 2015); Member of the Audit Committee (since 2016), Chair of the Audit Committee (since 2020) and Director of The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. (since 2016). |
| Richard L. Fagnani
(1954) |
Trustee (since 2017); Audit Committee Co-Chair (since 2025); 15(c) Committee Chair (since 2025). |
Partner, KPMG LLP (2002-2016); Director of One Generation Away (since 2021). |
Director of iShares, Inc. (since 2017); Trustee of iShares U.S. ETF Trust (since 2017). |
| Laura F. Fergerson
(1962) |
Trustee
(since 2024); Audit
Committee Chair
(since 2025). |
President, Franklin Templeton Services, LLC (2017-2024); Director of the Board of Crocker Art Museum Association (since 2019); President, Crocker Art Museum Foundation (2022-2023). |
Director of iShares, Inc. (since 2024); Trustee of iShares U.S. ETF Trust (since 2024). |
| Cecilia H. Herbert
(1949) |
Trustee (since 2005). |
Chair of the Finance Committee (since 2019) and Trustee and Member of the Finance, Audit and Quality Committees of Stanford Health Care (since 2016); Trustee of WNET, New York's public media company (since 2011) and Member of the Audit Committee (since 2018), Investment Committee (since 2011) and Personnel Committee (since 2022); Member of the Wyoming State Investment Funds Committee (since 2022); Trustee of Forward Funds (14 portfolios) (2009-2018); Trustee of Salient MF Trust (4 portfolios) (2015-2018); Director of the Jackson Hole Center for the Arts (since 2021). |
Director of iShares, Inc. (since 2005); Trustee of iShares U.S. ETF Trust (since 2011). |
| Name (Year of
Birth) |
Position |
Principal
Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years |
Other
Directorships Held by Trustee |
| James Lam
(1961) |
Trustee
(since 2024); Risk
Committee Chair
(since 2025). |
President, James Lam & Associates, Inc. (since 2002); Director of the FAIR Institute (since 2020); adjunct professor at Carnegie Mellon University (since 2018); Member, Zicklin School of Business Dean's Council of Baruch College (since 2017); Director and Audit Committee Chair of RiskLens, Inc. (2018-2023); Director, Risk Oversight Committee Chair and Audit Committee Member of E*TRADE Financial and E*TRADE Bank (2012-2020). |
Director of iShares, Inc. (since 2024); Trustee of iShares U.S. ETF Trust (since 2024). |
| Drew E. Lawton
(1959) |
Trustee (since 2017); Fixed Income Plus Committee Chair (since 2025). |
Senior Managing Director of New York Life Insurance Company (2010- 2015). |
Director of iShares, Inc. (since 2017); Trustee of iShares U.S. ETF Trust (since 2017); Director of Jackson Financial Inc. (since 2021). |
| John E. Martinez
(1961) |
Trustee (since 2003); Equity Plus Committee Chair (since 2025). |
Director of Real Estate Equity Exchange, Inc. (since 2005); Director of Cloudera Foundation (2017-2020); and Director of Reading Partners (2012-2016). |
Director of iShares, Inc. (since 2003); Trustee of iShares U.S. ETF Trust (since 2011). |
| Madhav V. Rajan
(1964) |
Trustee (since 2011); Nominating and Governance Committee Chair (since 2025). |
Dean, and George Pratt Shultz Professor of Accounting, University of Chicago Booth School of Business (since 2017); Advisory Board Member (since 2016) and Director (since 2020) of C.M. Capital Corporation; Chair of the Board for the Center for Research in Security Prices, LLC (since 2020); Director of WellBe Senior Medical (since 2023); Robert K. Jaedicke Professor of Accounting, Stanford University Graduate School of Business (2001- 2017); Professor of Law (by courtesy), Stanford Law School (2005-2017); Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Head of MBA Program, Stanford University Graduate School of Business (2010- 2016). |
Director of iShares, Inc. (since 2011); Trustee of iShares U.S. ETF Trust (since 2011). |
| Name (Year of
Birth) |
Position |
Principal
Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years |
| Jessica Tan
(1980) |
President (since 2024). |
Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. (since 2015); Head of Global Product Solutions, Americas of BlackRock, Inc. (since 2024) and Head of Sustainable and Transition Solutions of BlackRock, Inc. (2022-2024); Global Head of Corporate Strategy of BlackRock, Inc. (2019-2022); Chief of Staff to the CEO of BlackRock, Inc. (2017-2019). |
| Trent Walker
(1974) |
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer (since 2020). |
Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. (since 2019); Chief Financial Officer of iShares Delaware Trust Sponsor LLC, BlackRock Funds, BlackRock Funds II, BlackRock Funds IV, BlackRock Funds V and BlackRock Funds VI (since 2021). |
| Aaron Wasserman
(1974) |
Chief Compliance Officer (since 2023). |
Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. (since 2018); Chief Compliance Officer of the BlackRock Multi-Asset Complex, the BlackRock Fixed- Income Complex and the iShares Complex (since 2023); Deputy Chief Compliance Officer for the BlackRock Multi-Asset Complex, the BlackRock Fixed-Income Complex and the iShares Complex (2014-2023). |
| Marisa Rolland
(1980) |
Secretary (since 2022). |
Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. (since 2023); Director of BlackRock, Inc. (2018-2022). |
| Rachel Aguirre
(1982) |
Executive Vice President (since 2022). |
Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. (since 2018); Head of U.S. iShares Product (since 2022); Head of EII U.S. Product Engineering of BlackRock, Inc. (since 2021); Co-Head of EII’s Americas Portfolio Engineering of BlackRock, Inc. (2020-2021); Head of Developed Markets Portfolio Engineering of BlackRock, Inc. (2016- 2019). |
| Jennifer Hsui
(1976) |
Executive Vice President (since 2022). |
Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. (since 2009); Co-Head of Index Equity of BlackRock, Inc. (since 2022). |
| Name (Year of
Birth) |
Position |
Principal
Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years |
| James Mauro
(1970) |
Executive Vice President (since 2021). |
Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. (since 2010); Head of Fixed Income Index Investments in the Americas and Head of San Francisco Core Portfolio Management of BlackRock, Inc. (since 2020). |
| Name
|
Fund
|
Dollar Range of
Equity Securities in Named Fund |
Aggregate Dollar
Range of Equity Securities in all Registered Investment Companies
Overseen by Trustee in Family of Investment
Companies |
| Robert S. Kapito |
None |
None |
None |
| |
|
|
|
| Stephen Cohen1 |
None |
None |
None |
| |
|
|
|
| John E. Kerrigan |
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
Over $100,000 |
| |
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares ESG Aware MSCI EAFE ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| |
iShares ESG Aware MSCI EM ETF |
$1-$10,000 |
|
| |
iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| |
iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA Small-Cap ETF |
$1-$10,000 |
|
| |
iShares Exponential Technologies ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Genomics Immunology and Healthcare ETF |
$50,001-$100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Global Infrastructure ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| Name
|
Fund
|
Dollar Range of
Equity Securities in Named Fund |
Aggregate Dollar
Range of Equity Securities in all Registered Investment Companies
Overseen by Trustee in Family of Investment
Companies |
| |
iShares MSCI EAFE Value ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| |
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF |
$1-$10,000 |
|
| |
iShares MSCI KLD 400 Social ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| |
iShares MSCI USA ESG Select ETF |
$1-$10,000 |
|
| |
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF |
$1-$10,000 |
|
| |
iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| |
iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF |
$1-$10,000 |
|
| |
iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF |
$1-$10,000 |
|
| |
iShares U.S. Technology ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Jane D. Carlin |
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF |
$50,001-$100,000 |
Over $100,000 |
| |
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF |
$50,001-$100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF |
$50,001-$100,000 |
|
| |
iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF |
$50,001-$100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Select Dividend ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Richard L. Fagnani |
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF |
$50,001-$100,000 |
Over $100,000 |
| |
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF |
$50,001-$100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core MSCI International Developed Markets ETF |
$50,001-$100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Value ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| |
iShares MSCI Intl Momentum Factor ETF |
$50,001-$100,000 |
|
| |
iShares MSCI Intl Value Factor ETF |
$50,001-$100,000 |
|
| |
iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Laura F. Fergerson2 |
iShares Preferred and Income Securities ETF |
Over $100,000 |
Over $100,000 |
| |
|
|
|
| Cecilia H. Herbert |
iShares 1-5 Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF |
Over $100,000 |
Over $100,000 |
| |
iShares 5-10 Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| Name
|
Fund
|
Dollar Range of
Equity Securities in Named Fund |
Aggregate Dollar
Range of Equity Securities in all Registered Investment Companies
Overseen by Trustee in Family of Investment
Companies |
| |
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF |
$50,001-$100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core S&P U.S. Value ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares MSCI USA Value Factor ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Preferred and Income Securities ETF |
$1-$10,000 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| James Lam2 |
iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF |
Over $100,000 |
Over $100,000 |
| |
iShares 10-20 Year Treasury Bond ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares S&P 500 Value ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Drew E. Lawton |
$50,001-$100,000 |
Over $100,000 | |
| |
iShares Biotechnology ETF |
$50,001-$100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF |
$50,001-$100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Exponential Technologies ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Global Financials ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| |
iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares U.S. Financial Services ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| |
iShares U.S. Financials ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
|
| |
iShares U.S. Healthcare ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| John E. Martinez |
iShares Core MSCI International Developed Markets ETF |
$10,001-$50,000 |
Over $100,000 |
| |
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Global Consumer Staples ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Russell 1000 ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| Name
|
Fund
|
Dollar Range of
Equity Securities in Named Fund |
Aggregate Dollar
Range of Equity Securities in all Registered Investment Companies
Overseen by Trustee in Family of Investment
Companies |
| |
iShares Russell 2000 ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
iShares Ultra Short-Term Bond Active ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Madhav V. Rajan |
iShares Core MSCI International Developed Markets ETF |
Over $100,000 |
Over $100,000 |
| |
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF |
Over $100,000 |
|
| Trustee
|
Aggregate Compensation for the Fund in this
SAI1 |
Pension
or
Retirement
Benefits Accrued as Part of
Fund
Expenses |
Estimated
Benefits Upon Retirement |
Aggregate
Compensation
for
the
iShares Complex2 |
| Interested Trustees: |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Robert S. Kapito |
None |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
None |
| Salim Ramji3 |
None |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
None |
| Stephen Cohen4 |
None |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
None |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Independent Trustees: |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Jane D. Carlin |
$__ |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
$505,000 |
| Richard L. Fagnani |
__ |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
515,000 |
| Laura F. Fergerson5 |
None |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
341,250 |
| Cecilia H. Herbert |
__ |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
525,000 |
| John E. Kerrigan |
__ |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
580,000 |
| James Lam5 |
None |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
341,250 |
| Trustee
|
Aggregate Compensation for the Fund
in this SAI1 |
Pension or
Retirement Benefits Accrued as Part of Fund
Expenses |
Estimated
Benefits Upon Retirement |
Aggregate
Compensation for the iShares Complex2 |
| Drew E. Lawton |
__ |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
500,000 |
| John E. Martinez |
__ |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
490,000 |
| Madhav V. Rajan |
__ |
Not Applicable |
Not Applicable |
490,000 |
| Jennifer Hsui |
|
|
| Types of Accounts |
Number |
Total
Assets |
| Registered Investment Companies |
___ |
$___ |
| Other Pooled Investment Vehicles |
___ |
___ |
| Other Accounts |
___ |
___ |
| Paul Whitehead |
|
|
| Types of Accounts |
Number |
Total
Assets |
| Registered Investment Companies |
___ |
$___ |
| Other Pooled Investment Vehicles |
___ |
___ |
| Other Accounts |
___ |
___ |
| Jennifer Hsui |
|
|
| Types of Accounts |
Number of Other Accounts with Performance Fees Managed by Portfolio Manager |
Aggregate of Total Assets |
| Registered Investment Companies |
___ |
$___ |
| Other Pooled Investment Vehicles |
___ |
___ |
| Other Accounts |
___ |
___ |
| Paul Whitehead |
|
|
| Types of Accounts |
Number of Other Accounts with Performance Fees Managed by Portfolio Manager |
Aggregate of Total Assets |
| Registered Investment Companies |
___ |
$___ |
| Other Pooled Investment Vehicles |
___ |
___ |
| Other Accounts |
___ |
___ |
| Shares
Per Creation Unit |
Approximate Value Per Creation
Unit (U.S.$)
|
| ___ |
$___ |
Open-End Active and Fixed Income Index Fund Proxy Voting Policy
| Open-End Active and Fixed Income Index Fund Proxy Voting Policy
|
| Procedures Governing Delegation of Proxy Voting to Fund Advisers |
Effective Date: January 1, 2025
| Applies to the following types of Funds registered under the 1940 Act: ☐ Index Equity Mutual Funds and Exchange-Traded Funds ☒ Open-End Active and Fixed Income Index Mutual Funds and Exchange-Traded Funds ☐ Money Market Funds ☐ Closed-End Funds ☐ Other |
Objective and Scope
Set forth below is the Open-End Active and Fixed Income Index Fund Proxy Voting Policy.
Policy / Document Requirements and Statements
The Boards of Trustees/Directors (Directors) of certain open-end funds (the Funds) advised by BlackRock Fund Advisors or BlackRock Advisors, LLC (BlackRock), have the responsibility for the oversight of voting proxies relating to portfolio securities of the Funds, and have determined that it is in the best interests of the Funds and their shareholders to delegate the responsibility to vote proxies to BlackRock, subject to the principles outlined in this Policy, as part of BlackRocks authority to manage, acquire and dispose of account assets, all as contemplated by the Funds respective investment management agreements.
BlackRock has adopted the BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines (as from time to time amended, the Guidelines) governing proxy voting by active and fixed income index Funds managed by BlackRock. The Guidelines include climate and decarbonization guidelines which apply to the Funds listed in Appendix A, if any.
BlackRock will cast votes on behalf of each of the Funds covered by this policy on specific proxy issues in respect of securities held by each such Fund (or may refrain from voting) in accordance with the Guidelines.
Conflicts Management
BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship (BAIS) maintains policies and procedures that seek to prevent undue influence on BlackRocks proxy voting activity and to mitigate material conflicts of interest in the exercise of proxy voting responsibilities. Potential material conflicts, and the resultant potential for undue influence, might be due to a relationship between the investee company (or any shareholder proponent or dissident shareholder) and BlackRock, BlackRocks affiliates or employees, or a Fund or a Funds affiliates. BlackRock has taken certain steps to mitigate potential conflicts, which are outlined in detail in the Guidelines. In mitigating conflicts, BAIS will adhere to the Guidelines.
In certain instances, BAIS will engage an independent third-party voting service provider to make
proxy voting recommendations as a further safeguard to avoid potential conflicts of interest, to satisfy regulatory compliance requirements, or as may be otherwise required by applicable law.
|
||||||||
| Public | Page 1 of 3 |
Open-End Active and Fixed Income Index Fund Proxy Voting Policy
With respect to the relationship between securities lending and proxy voting, shares on loan cannot be voted and BlackRock may determine to recall them for voting, as guided by BlackRocks fiduciary responsibility to act in clients financial interests. The Guidelines set forth BlackRocks approach to recalling securities on loan in connection with proxy voting.
Reports to the Board
BlackRock will report on an annual basis to the Directors on (1) a summary of the proxy voting process as applicable to the Funds covered by this policy in the preceding year together with a representation that all votes were in accordance with the Guidelines and (2) any material changes to the Guidelines, including material changes to conflicts management practices, that have not previously been reported.
|
||||||||
| Public | Page 2 of 3 |
Open-End Active and Fixed Income Index Fund Proxy Voting Policy
Appendix A
BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF
BlackRock World ex U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF
|
||||||||
| Public | Page 3 of 3 |
BlackRock
Active
Investment Stewardship
Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines
Effective as of January 2025
Contents
| 3 | ||||
| 4 | ||||
| 4 | ||||
| 4 | ||||
| 5 | ||||
| 6 | ||||
| 9 | ||||
| 10 | ||||
| 10 | ||||
| 11 | ||||
| 12 | ||||
| 13 | ||||
| 14 | ||||
| 14 | ||||
| 15 | ||||
| 15 | ||||
| 16 | ||||
| Appendix 1: How we fulfil and oversee our active investment stewardship responsibilities |
17 | |||
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 2 |
This document provides high level guidance on how BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship (BAIS) views corporate governance matters that are commonly put to a shareholder vote, or on which investors engage with issuers. BAIS works in partnership with BlackRocks investment teams, excluding index equity, providing expertise on investment stewardship, engaging with companies on behalf of those teams when appropriate, and assisting in recommending, operationalizing and reporting on voting decisions. The guidance informs BAIS voting recommendations to BlackRocks active portfolio managers. It applies to active equity holdings in BlackRocks fundamental equity, systematic equity and multi-asset solutions strategies. It also may apply to holdings in BlackRocks index and active fixed income strategies, to the extent those strategies hold voting securities or conduct issuer engagements. The guidelines are not prescriptive as active portfolio managers have discretion as to how they integrate these guidelines within their investment processes in light of their clients or funds investment objectives. There are separate, independently developed principles and voting policies that are applied to BlackRocks index equity investments by a distinct and independent function, BlackRock Investment Stewardship.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 3 |
BlackRocks purpose is to help more and more people experience financial well-being. We manage assets on behalf of institutional and individual clients, across a full spectrum of investment strategies, asset classes, and regions. Our client base includes pension plans, endowments, foundations, charities, official institutions, insurers, and other financial institutions, as well as individuals around the world.
About BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship
BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship (BAIS) is a specialist team within the Portfolio Management Group and manages BlackRocks stewardship engagement and voting on behalf of clients invested in active strategies globally. BAIS is also responsible for engagement with issuers in index fixed income strategies, where appropriate. Our activities are informed by these Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines (the Guidelines) and insights from active investment analysts and portfolio managers, with whom we work closely in engaging companies and voting at shareholder meetings.
Engagement with public companies is the foundation of our approach to stewardship within fundamental active investing. Through direct dialogue with company leadership, we seek to understand their businesses and how they manage risks and opportunities to deliver durable, risk adjusted financial returns. Generally, portfolio managers and stewardship specialists engage jointly on substantive matters. Our discussions focus on topics relevant to a companys success over time including governance and leadership, corporate strategy, capital structure and financial performance, operations and sustainability-related risks, as well as macro-economic, geopolitical and sector dynamics. We aim to be constructive investors and are generally supportive of management teams that have a track record of financial value creation. We aim to build and maintain strong relationships with company leadership based on open dialogue and mutual respect.
Different active equity strategies may implement these voting guidelines differently, as a result of the latitude the portfolio manager has to make independent voting decisions aligned with their portfolio objectives and investment strategy. For example, BAIS will generally vote the holdings in Systematic Active Equity portfolios in accordance with these guidelines. We provide voting recommendations to fundamental equity portfolio managers, who may determine to vote differently based on their portfolio investment objectives and strategy.
These guidelines discuss corporate governance topics on which we may engage with management teams and board directors1 and matters that routinely come to a shareholder vote. We recognize that accepted corporate governance norms can differ across markets, and believe these guidelines represent globally applicable elements of governance that support a companys ability to manage material risks and opportunities and deliver financial returns to investors. Generally, we believe companies should observe accepted corporate governance norms within their local markets or, particularly in markets without well-established norms, aspire to widely recognized international best practices. As one of many minority shareholders, BlackRock cannot and does not try to direct a companys strategy or its implementation. We look to companies to provide disclosures that explain how their approach to corporate governance best aligns with the financial interests of their investors.
Our approach to stewardship within active equities
As shareholders of public companies, BlackRocks clients have certain fundamental rights, including the right to vote on proposals put forth by a companys management or its shareholders. The voting rights attached to these clients holdings are an important mechanism for investors to express support for, or concern about, a companys performance. As a fiduciary, BlackRock is legally required to make proxy voting determinations, on behalf of clients who have delegated voting authority to us, in a manner that is consistent with their investment objectives.
1 References to the board, board directors or non-executive directors should be understood to include supervisory boards and their members, where relevant.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 4 |
In general, we tend to support the recommendations of the board of directors and management. As indicated below, we may vote against management recommendations when we have concerns about how companies are serving the financial interests of our clients as their shareholders. We take a globally consistent approach to voting but consider the different corporate governance regulations and norms in various markets. Votes are determined on a case-by-case basis, in the context of a companys situation and the investment mandate we have from clients. Please see page 16 for more information about how we fulfil and oversee BlackRocks non-index equity investment stewardship responsibilities.
Our approach to stewardship within fixed income
Although fixed income investors do not have the right to vote at shareholder meetings, issuer engagement is a component of fixed income investment strategies at BlackRock, particularly those with sustainability objectives in addition to financial objectives. Most corporate governance-related fixed income engagements are undertaken in conjunction with the active investment stewardship team, and often active equity investors. In addition to the topics listed below, engagement with fixed income investment teams can help inform an issuers approach to structuring specialist issuances, such as green bonds, and the standard terms and information in bond documentation.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 5 |
Roles and responsibilities
There is widespread consensus that the foundation of good corporate governance is an effective board of directors that is able to advise and supervise management in an independent and objective manner.2
We look to the board of directors (hereafter the board) to have an oversight role in the establishment and realization of a companys strategy, purpose and culture. These constructs are interdependent and, when aligned, can better position a company to be resilient in the face of a changing business environment, help reduce the risks of corporate or employee misconduct, and attract and retain the caliber of workers necessary to deliver financial performance over time.
In promoting the success of the company, the board ensures the necessary resources, policies and procedures are in place to help management meet its strategic objectives within an agreed risk tolerance.
One of the most important responsibilities of the board is to appoint, and remove as necessary, the chief executive officer (CEO). In addition, the board plays a meaningful role in monitoring the performance of the CEO and other key executives, determining executive compensation, ensuring a rigorous audit, overseeing strategy execution and risk management and engaging with shareholders, and other stakeholders, as necessary.
Composition and effectiveness
Appointment process
A formal and transparent process for identifying and appointing director candidates is critical to ensuring the board is composed of directors with the appropriate mix of skills and experience. The board or a sub-committee should determine the general criteria given the companys circumstances (e.g., sector, maturity, geographic footprint) and any additional criteria for a specific role being filled (e.g., financial expertise, industry track record). To inform the process, we encourage companies to review the skills and experience of incumbent directors to identify any gaps and whether a director candidates characteristics would be additive. We welcome disclosures that explain how the board considered different skills, backgrounds and experience to ensure the directors collectively can be effective in fulfilling their responsibilities. We assess a companys board composition against that of its peer group and local market requirements.
Shareholders periodically vote to elect, remove and nominate directors to serve on the board. We may vote against the election of the most senior independent director, or the chair of the relevant committee, where a company has not demonstrated it has an appointment process that results in a high functioning board with the appropriate complement of skills, backgrounds and experience amongst the directors to support strong financial performance over time. We may vote against newly nominated directors who do not seem to have the appropriate skills or experience to contribute to the boards effectiveness.
Independence
Director independence from management, significant shareholders or other stakeholders (e.g., government or employees) is of paramount importance to the protection of the interests of minority shareholders such as BlackRocks clients. At least half of the directors should be independent and free from conflicts of interest or undue influence.3 This ensures sufficient independent directors to have appropriately independent board committees. Companies domiciled in markets with a higher threshold for board independence should meet those requirements.
2 See the Corporate Governance Codes of Germany, Japan, and the UK, as well as the corporate governance principles of the US Business Roundtable as examples.
3 Common impediments to independence may include but are not limited to: current or recent employment at the company or a subsidiary; being, or representing, a shareholder with a substantial shareholding in the company; interlocking directorships; lengthy tenure, and having any other interest, business, or other relationship which could, or could reasonably be perceived to, materially interfere with a directors ability to act in the best interests of the company and shareholders.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 6 |
We may vote against the election of non-independent directors if the board does not have a sufficient balance of independence. We may also vote against the election of the chair of the committee responsible for board composition if this is a perennial issue.
Independent board leadership
Practices across markets differ, as do board structures, but we observe two main approaches to independent board leadership. One is a non-executive, independent chair of the board who is responsible for leading the board in the effective exercise of its duties. The other is a lead or senior independent director, who is responsible for coordinating with the other non-executive directors and working closely with the executive chair on the board agenda and other board procedures. In this case, the executive chair and the lead independent director work together to ensure the board is effectively fulfilling its responsibilities. In our view, the independent leader of the board, and/or the chair of a relevant committee, should be available to investors to discuss board governance matters such as CEO succession, executive pay, and board performance. We look to boards to explain their independent board leadership model and how it serves the interests of shareholders.
We may vote against the election of the chair of the committee responsible for board composition if there is not an identified independent leader of the board with clear responsibilities for board performance. We may vote against the most senior independent director if the board has a policy of not engaging with shareholders.
Tenure and succession
Boards should establish the length of time a director would normally be expected to serve, in line with market norms where those exist. In such markets, we find it helpful when companies disclose their approach to director tenure particularly around the contributions of directors who have served for longer periods than provided for in local practices. In our experience, long-serving directors could become less independent given their relationship with management and involvement in past board decisions.
Succession planning for board roles helps achieve the appropriate cadence of turnover that balances renewal through the regular introduction of directors with fresh perspectives and expertise with continuity through the retention of directors with long-term knowledge of the board and company.
In markets where there is not specific director tenure guidance, we may vote against the election of the chair of the committee responsible for board composition if there is not a clearly disclosed approach to director tenure and board renewal. We may vote against the election of directors who have served for longer duration than typical in markets with specific guidance, where the case for their continued service is not evident.
Capacity
To be effective and engaged, directors must commit appropriate time and energy to the role. A board should assess the ability of its members to maintain an appropriate focus on board matters and the company taking into consideration competing responsibilities. We recognize that board leadership roles vary across markets in responsibilities and required time commitment but note that they are generally more intensive than a standard directorship. We will take local norms and practices into consideration when making our voting determinations across markets.
We may vote against the election of directors who do not seem to have sufficient capacity to effectively fulfil their duties to the board and company.
Director elections
In support of director accountability to shareholders, directors should stand for election on a regular basis, ideally annually. A classified board structure may be justified by a company when it needs consistency and stability during a time of transition, or on the basis of its business model, e.g., a non-operating company such as closed-end funds.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 7 |
Shareholders should have the opportunity to evaluate nominated directors individually rather than in bundled slates. We look to companies to provide sufficient information on each director standing for election so that shareholders can assess their capabilities and suitability. We will not support the election of directors whose names and biographical details have not been disclosed sufficiently in advance of the shareholder meeting.
Each directors appointment should be dependent on receiving a simple majority of the votes cast at the shareholder meeting. Where a companys practices differ, we look to the board to provide a detailed explanation as to how its approach best serves investors interests.
We may vote for shareholder or management proposals seeking to establish annual election of directors and/or a simple majority vote standard for director elections. We may vote against all the directors standing for election as part of a single slate if we have concerns about the profile or performance of an individual director.
Committees
Many boards establish committees to focus on specific responsibilities of the board such as audit and risk, governance and human capital, and executive compensation, amongst other matters. We do not prescribe to companies what committees they should establish but we seek to understand the boards rationale for the committee structure it determines is appropriate. We note that, in some markets, regulation requires such committees. The responsibilities of each committee should be clear, and the board should ensure that all critical matters are assigned either to the full board or to one of the committees. The board should disclose to shareholders the structure, membership, proportion of independent directors, and responsibilities of each committee. The responsibilities we typically see assigned to the three most common committees include:
| · | Audit and risk oversight responsibilities for the integrity of financial reporting, risk management and compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; may also play an oversight role in relation to the internal audit function and whistleblowing mechanisms. |
| · | Nominating, governance and human capital ensures appropriate corporate governance principles and practices including the periodic review of board performance; responsible for succession planning for CEO and key board roles, as well as the director appointment process; may also have oversight responsibilities for human capital management strategies including corporate culture and purpose. |
| · | Executive compensation determines the compensation policies and programs for the CEO and other executive officers, approves annual awards and payments under the policies; may also have oversight responsibilities for firm-wide compensation policies. |
We may vote against the election of the chair of the committee or other directors serving as committee members to convey our concerns and provide feedback on how a committee has undertaken its responsibilities. We may vote against the election of the most senior non-executive director if there is not a clearly disclosed approach to board committees.
Board and director evaluation
We consider it best practice for companies to conduct an annual review of the performance of the board, the committees, the chair and individual directors. Periodically, this review could be undertaken by an independent third party able to bring objective perspectives to the board on governance and performance. We encourage companies to disclose their approach to and objectives of evaluations, including any changes made to the boards approach as a result.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 8 |
Access to independent advice
To support the directors in effectively fulfilling their duties to the company and shareholders, they should have access to independent advice. When circumstances warrant, boards should be able to retain independent third parties to advise on critical matters. These might include new industry developments such as emergent and disruptive technology, operating events with material consequences for the companys reputation and/or performance, or significant transactions. Board committees may similarly retain third parties to advise them on specialist matters such as audit, compensation and succession planning.
Boards should establish compensation arrangements that enable the company to recruit, retain and reward the caliber of executive management necessary to lead and operate the company to deliver superior financial returns over time. We focus on alignment between variable pay and a companys financial performance.
Generally, executive compensation arrangements have four components: base salary, annual bonus that rewards performance against short-term metrics, share-based incentives that reward performance against long-term metrics, and pensions and benefits. In our observation, base salary, pensions and benefits are largely set relative to market norms and benchmarks. The annual bonus and share-based incentive, or variable pay plans, tend to be tailored to the company, its sector and long-term strategy, as well as the individuals the board is seeking to recruit and motivate.
Recognizing the unique circumstances of each company, we determine whether to support a companys approach to executive compensation on a case-by-case basis. We rely on companies providing sufficient quantitative and qualitative information in their disclosures to enable shareholders to understand the compensation arrangements and assess the alignment with investors interests. Features we look for in compensation arrangements include:
| · | Fixed pay components, including base salary, benefits and prerequisites that are appropriate in the context of the companys size, sector and market. |
| · | Variable pay subject to performance metrics that are closely linked to the companys short- and long-term strategic objectives. |
| · | Long-term incentives that motivate sustained performance across a multi-year period. |
| · | A balance between fixed and variable pay, short- and long-term incentives, and specific instruments (cash and equity awards) that promotes pay program durability and seldom necessitates one-off, discretionary payments. |
| · | Outcomes that are consistent with the returns to investors over the relevant time period. |
| · | Board discretion, if allowed within the variable pay arrangements, to be used sparingly, responsibly and transparently. |
| · | A requirement, that participants in long-term share-based incentive plans build a meaningful shareholding in the company within a defined time period, as determined by the board. |
| · | Change of control provisions that appropriately balance the interests of executives and shareholders. |
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 9 |
| · | Clawback or malus provisions that allow the company to recoup or hold back variable compensation from individuals whose awards were based on fraudulent activities, misstated financial reports, or executive misconduct. |
| · | Severance arrangements that protect the companys interests but do not cost more than is contractual. |
We may vote against proposals to introduce new share-based incentives, approve existing policies or plans, or approve the compensation report where we do not see alignment between executive compensation arrangements and our clients financial interests. When there is not an alternative, or where there have been multi-year issues with compensation misaligned with performance, we may vote against the election of the chair of the responsible committee, or the most senior independent director.
Non-executive director compensation
Companies generally pay non-executive directors an annual retainer or fee in cash, shares or a combination of the two. Some companies also pay additional fees for service on board committees or in board leadership roles. We do not support non-executive directors participating in performance-based incentive plans as doing so may create a conflict of interest and undermine their independence from management, whom they oversee.
Boards are responsible for ensuring senior executive leadership has established a capital strategy that achieves appropriate capital allocation and management in support of long-term financial resilience.
Where company practices diverge from those set out below, we look for companies to disclose why they view these practices to be aligned with shareholders interests. We may vote against management proposals seeking capital-related authorities or the election of the most senior independent director if we have concerns about a companys approach. We may also support a shareholder proposal seeking conversion of shares with differentiated voting rights to a one-share, one-vote standard.
Share issuance
We assess requests for share issuance for particular transactions on a case-by-case basis. We will generally support authorities to issue shares when subject to pre-emptive rights, and up to 20% absent pre-emptive rights. Companies should seek regular approval of these authorities to allow shareholders to take into consideration how prior authorities were used, as well as the current circumstances of the company and the market environment.
Share buybacks
We assess share buyback proposals in the context of the companys disclosed capital management strategy and managements determination of the appropriate balance between investment that supports the long-term growth of the company and returning cash to investors. We also take into consideration the effect of a buyback program on the companys balance sheet and executive compensation arrangements and the price at which shares are repurchased relative to market price. Companies should seek regular approval of these authorities to allow shareholders to take into consideration how prior authorities were used, as well as the current circumstances of the company and the market environment.
We would normally expect companies to cancel repurchased shares. If a company plans to retain them as treasury shares, management should provide a detailed rationale in the context of the disclosed capital management strategy.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 10 |
Dividends
We generally defer to management and the board on dividend policy but may engage to seek further clarification where a proposed dividend appears out of line with the companys financial position.
Differentiated voting rights
We prefer companies to adopt a one-share, one-vote structure for share classes with the same economic exposure. Certain companies, particularly those new to public markets, could make the case to adopt a differentiated voting rights structure, or dual class stock. In those situations, we encourage companies to evaluate and seek approval for their capital structure on a periodic basis.
Transactions and special situations
We monitor developments in transactions and special situations closely and undertake our own detailed analyses of proposals.
Mergers and acquisitions
We evaluate proposed mergers or acquisitions by assessing the financial outcome for our clients as minority shareholders. Management should provide an assessment of the proposed transactions strategic and financial rationale, along with its execution and operational risks. We review each transaction independently based on these factors and the degree to which the transaction enhances shareholder value. The board should consider establishing an ad hoc transaction committee to undertake an independent assessment of a significant merger or acquisition, in advance of making its recommendation to shareholders.
We will vote against transactions that, in our assessment, do not advance our clients financial interests.
Anti-takeover defenses
In principle, we do not support companies using anti-takeover defenses, also known as poison pills or shareholder rights plans, as they can entrench management and boards which have not delivered long-term shareholder value. By exception, a poison pill may be supported if its purpose is to delay a takeover that is considered sub-optimal and enable management to seek an improved offer. Similarly, management could make the case to use a poison pill to block a shareholder activism campaign that may be counter to the interests of other investors. Defense mechanisms introduced in these circumstances should be limited in term and threshold, and also be closely monitored by the independent members of the board. We look for a shareholder vote for any mechanisms expected to be in place for more than 12 months.
Shareholder activism
When companies are the focus of an activism campaign, we may engage with the activist to understand their analysis and objectives, once they have gone public. We will also engage with company management and possibly board members, especially those the activist may be seeking to replace. In our assessment, we evaluate various factors, including the concerns raised by the activist and the case for change; the quality of both the activists and managements plans; and the qualifications of each partys candidates. We evaluate each contested situation by assessing the potential financial outcome for our clients as minority shareholders.
We may support board candidates nominated by a shareholder activist if the activist has demonstrated that their case for change enhances shareholder value, or if the incumbent board members do not demonstrate the relevant skills and expertise or have a poor track record of protecting shareholders interests.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 11 |
Significant shareholders and related party transactions
Boards of companies with affiliated shareholders or directors should be able to demonstrate that the interests of all shareholders are given equitable consideration.
Transactions with related parties, such as significant shareholders or companies connected with the public company, should be disclosed in detail and conducted on terms similar to what would objectively have been agreed with a non-related party. Such transactions should be reviewed and approved by the independent members of the board, and if voted on, only disinterested shareholders should vote.
Corporate reporting, risk management and audit
Investors depend on corporate reporting, both regulatory and voluntary, to understand a companys strategy, its implementation and financial performance, as well as to assess the quality of management and operations and potential for the company to create shareholder value over time. The board should oversee corporate reporting and the policies and procedures underpinning the internal audit function and external audit.
A companys financial reporting should provide decision-useful information for investors and other stakeholders on its financial performance and position. It should provide an accurate and balanced assessment of the risks and opportunities the company faces in realizing its long-term strategy. Accordingly, the assumptions made by management and reviewed by the auditor in preparing the financial statements should be reasonable and justified. Financial statements should be prepared in accordance with globally developed reporting standards and any divergence from generally accepted accounting principles should be explained in detail and justified. Accounting restatements should be explained in detail and any remedial actions, and the implications of these, disclosed.
In this context, audit committees play a vital role in a companys financial reporting system by providing independent oversight of the accounts, material financial and, where appropriate to the jurisdiction, nonfinancial information, internal control frameworks and Enterprise Risk Management systems. In our view, effective audit committee oversight strengthens the quality and reliability of a companys financial statements and provides an important level of reassurance to shareholders. Audit committees should have a procedure in place for assessing the independence of the auditor and the quality of the external audit process annually.
Similarly, material sustainability-related factors that are integral to how a company manages risks or generates revenue should be disclosed. In our view, the standards developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board, can be helpful to companies in preparing such reports. 4
Companies should establish robust risk management and internal control processes appropriate to the companys business, risk tolerance, and regulatory environment. A credible whistleblowing system for employees, and potentially other stakeholders, can be a useful mechanism for ensuring that senior management and the board are aware of potential misconduct or breaches in risk management and internal control processes.
A comprehensive audit conducted by an independent audit firm contributes to investor confidence in the quality of corporate reporting. It is helpful when the audit report gives some insight into the scope and focus of the audit, as well as any critical audit matters identified and how these were resolved. A comprehensive and effective audit is time and resource intensive, and the audit fee should be commensurate. Fees paid to the audit firm for non-audit consulting should not exceed the audit fee to a degree that may prompt concerns about the independence of the audit. The audit committee should explain its position on auditor tenure and how it confirmed that the auditor remained independent.
4 The objective of IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information is to require an entity to disclose information about its sustainability-related risks and opportunities that is useful to primary users of general-purpose financial reports in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity. The objective of IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures is to require an entity to disclose information about its climate-related risks and opportunities that is useful to primary users of general-purpose financial reports in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 12 |
We may vote against the election of the responsible directors if corporate reporting is insufficient or there are material misstatements in financial reports. In markets where relevant, we may vote against a proposal to approve the financial statements or the discharge of the board when we are concerned about the quality of the reporting or the audit. We may vote against proposals to appoint the auditor, ratify the audit report, or approve the audit fee if we are concerned about the auditors independence, the quality of the audit, or there are material misstatements in financial reports and the board has not established reasonable remediation plans.
Shareholder rights and protections
General shareholder meetings
Companies normally have an annual general meeting of shareholders at which routine and non-routine items of business are discussed and voted on by shareholders in attendance or submitting proxy votes. Companies should disclose materials relevant to the shareholder meeting sufficiently in advance so that shareholders can take them into consideration in their voting decisions. Many companies offer shareholders the option of participating in the meeting virtually which, whilst welcome, should not limit the rights of shareholders to participate as they would during an in-person meeting.
We may vote against directors when materials related to the business of the shareholder meeting are not provided in a timely manner or do not provide sufficient information for us to take an informed voting decision. We may vote against directors if the format of the shareholder meeting does not accommodate reasonable shareholder participation.
Bylaw amendments
We review bylaw amendments proposed by management on a case-by-case basis and will generally support those that are aligned with the interests of minority shareholders. Any material changes to the bylaws should be explained in detail and put to a shareholder vote.
We may vote against bylaw amendments that reduce shareholder rights and protections. We may vote against directors if material changes are made to the bylaws without shareholder approval.
If not provided for in the relevant corporate law, company bylaws should allow shareholders, individually or as a group, with a meaningful shareholding the right to call a special meeting of shareholders. The shareholding required to exercise this right should balance its utility with the cost to the company of holding special meetings.
If not provided for in the relevant corporate law, company bylaws should allow shareholders, individually or as a group, with a meaningful shareholding the right to nominate directors to the companys board. The threshold for this right should be set so that shareholders can exercise it without being unduly disruptive to the boards own nomination process.
Whilst we would not use either of these rights ourselves, we see them as important accountability mechanisms. We may vote for a shareholder proposal seeking the addition of either of these provisions to a companys bylaws.
Change of domicile
We generally defer to management on proposals to change a companys domicile as long as the rationale for doing so is consistent with the companys long-term strategy and business model and the related costs are immaterial.
We may vote against directors or a proposal to change a companys domicile where it does not seem aligned with our clients financial interests.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 13 |
Changes to a companys purpose or the nature of its business
Plans to materially change the nature of a companys business or its purpose should be disclosed and explained in the context of long-term strategy and business dynamics. Such changes may significantly alter an investors views on the suitability of a company for their investment strategy or portfolio.
Where relevant, we may vote against proposals to change a companys purpose or the nature of its business if the board has not provided a credible argument for change.
Shareholders in many markets, who meet certain eligibility criteria, have the right to submit proposals to the general shareholder meeting asking a company to take a particular course of action subject to the proposal being supported by a majority of votes cast at the meeting. The topics raised address a range of governance, social and environmental matters that may be relevant to a companys business. Shareholder proposals are considered by many investors to be an escalation tool when a company is unresponsive to their engagement.
We vote on these proposals on a case-by-case basis. We assess the relevance of the topic raised to a companys business and its current approach, whether the actions sought are consistent with shareholders interests, and what impact the proposal being acted upon might have on financial performance.
Our general approach where we have concerns about a companys governance, disclosures or performance is to engage to understand the apparent difference in perspective. If we continue to believe the company is not acting in shareholders financial interests, we may vote against the election of directors. We may support a relevant shareholder proposal if doing so reinforces the points made in our engagement or is aligned with our clients financial interests. We generally do not support shareholder proposals that are legally binding on the company, seek to alter a companys strategy or direct its operations, or are unrelated to how a company manages risk or generates financial returns.
BlackRock is subject to legal and regulatory requirements in the U.S. that place restrictions and limitations on how we can interact with the companies in which we invest on behalf of our clients, including our ability to submit shareholder proposals. We can vote on behalf of clients who authorize us to do so, on proposals put forth by others.
Corporate political activities
We seek to understand how companies ensure that their direct and indirect engagement in the policy making process is consistent with their public statements on policy matters important to the companys long-term strategy. The board should be aware of the approach taken to corporate political activities as there can be reputational risks arising from inconsistencies. Companies should, as a minimum, meet all regulatory disclosure requirements on political activities, and ideally, provide accessible and clear disclosures to shareholders on policy positions, public policy engagement activities and political donations. To mitigate the risk of inconsistencies, companies can usefully assess the alignment between their policy priorities and the policy positions of the trade associations of which they are active members and any engagements undertaken by trade associations on behalf of members.
Generally, this is an engagement matter, although we may support a relevant shareholder proposal, or vote against directors, where a companys disclosures are insufficient, or it becomes public that there is a material contradiction in a companys public policy positions and its policy engagement.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 14 |
Sustainability, or environmental and social, considerations
We seek to understand how companies manage the risks and opportunities inherent in their business operations. In our experience, sustainability-related factors5 that are relevant to a companys business or material to its financial performance, are generally operational considerations embedded into day-to-day management systems. Certain sustainability issues may also inform long-term strategic planning, for example, investing in product innovation in anticipation of changing consumer demand or adapting supply chains in response to changing regulatory requirements.
We recognize that the specific sustainability-related factors that may be financially material or business relevant will vary by company business model, sector, key markets, and time horizon, amongst other considerations. From company disclosures and our engagement, we aim to understand how management is identifying, assessing and integrating material sustainability-related risks and opportunities into their business decision-making and practices. Doing so helps us undertake a more holistic assessment of a companys potential financial performance and the likely risk-adjusted returns of an investment.
We may vote against directors or support a relevant shareholder proposal if we have concerns about how a company is managing or disclosing its approach to material sustainability-related risks that may impact financial returns.
In our view, companies should understand and take into consideration the interests of the various parties on whom they depend for their success over time. It is for each company to determine their key stakeholders based on what is material to their business and long-term financial performance. For many companies, key stakeholders include employees, business partners (such as suppliers and distributors), clients and consumers, regulators, and the communities in which they operate. Companies that appropriately balance the interests of investors and other stakeholders are, in our experience, more likely to be financially resilient over time.
5 By material sustainability-related risks and opportunities, we mean the drivers of risk and financial value creation in a companys business model that have an environmental or social dependency or impact. Examples of environmental issues include, but are not limited to, water use, land use, waste management, and climate risk. Examples of social issues include, but are not limited to, human capital management, impacts on the communities in which a company operates, customer loyalty, and relationships with regulators. It is our view that well-managed companies will effectively evaluate and manage material sustainability-related risks and opportunities relevant to their businesses. Governance is the core means by which boards can oversee the creation of durable financial value over time. Appropriate risk oversight of business-relevant and material sustainability-related considerations is a component of a sound governance framework.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 15 |
Climate and decarbonization investment objectives
Certain active BlackRock funds have climate and decarbonization objectives in addition to financial objectives. Consistent with the objectives of those investment strategies, our stewardship activity in relation to the holdings in those funds differs in some respects from BAIS benchmark guidelines, which are described above. Specifically, for those funds holdings, we look to investee companies to demonstrate that they are aligned with a decarbonization pathway that means their business model would be viable in a low-carbon economy, i.e., one in which global temperature rise is limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This approach is only taken following BlackRock receiving the explicit approval from the applicable fund board.
The decarbonization stewardship guidelines focus on companies which produce goods and services that contribute to real world decarbonization or have a carbon intensive business model and face outsized impacts from the low carbon transition, based on reported and estimated scopes 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. These companies should provide disclosures that set out their governance, strategy, risk management processes and metrics and targets relevant to decarbonization. These disclosures should include an explanation of the decarbonization scenarios a company is using in its near- and long-term planning, as well as its scope 1, scope 2 and material scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and reduction targets for scope 1 and 2 emissions. As with the BAIS benchmark policies, we consider the climate-risk reporting standard issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board, IFRS S2, a useful reference for such reporting.
Under these climate- and decarbonization-specific guidelines, BAIS may recommend a vote against directors or support for a relevant shareholder proposal if a company does not appear to be adequately addressing or disclosing material climate-related risks. We may recommend supporting shareholder proposals seeking information relevant to a companys stated low-carbon transition strategy and targets that the company does not currently provide and that would be helpful to investment decision-making. As under the BAIS benchmark approach, the active portfolio managers are ultimately responsible for voting consistent with their investment mandate and fund objectives.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 16 |
Appendix 1: How we fulfil and oversee our active investment stewardship responsibilities
Oversight
The Global Head of BAIS has primary oversight of and responsibility for the teams activities, including voting in accordance with the BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines (the Guidelines), which require the application of professional judgment and consideration of each companys unique circumstances, as well as input from active investors. BAIS is independent from BlackRock Investment Stewardship in our engagement and voting activities, reporting lines, and oversight.
The Active Investment Stewardship Oversight Committee, comprised of senior representatives of the active investment, legal and risk teams, reviews and advises on amendments to BAIS Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines. The Committee also considers developments in corporate governance, related public policy, and market norms and how these might influence BAIS policies and practices. The Committee does not determine voting decisions, which are the responsibility of BAIS and the relevant active equity investors.
In addition, there is a standing advisory group of senior active investors who counsel BAIS on complex or high-profile votes before a recommendation is finalized and escalated to the portfolio managers with holdings in the company under consideration. This group also formally reviews any revisions to the Engagement and Voting Guidelines proposed by BAIS as part of its annual review.
BAIS carries out engagement with companies in collaboration with active investment colleagues, executes proxy votes, and conducts vote operations (including maintaining records of votes cast) in a manner consistent with the Guidelines. BAIS also conducts research on corporate governance issues and participates in industry discussions to contribute to and keep abreast of important developments in the corporate governance field. BAIS may use third parties for certain of the foregoing activities and performs oversight of those third parties (see Use and oversight of third-party vote services providers below).
Voting guidelines and vote execution
BlackRock votes on proxy issues when our clients authorize us to do so. We carefully consider the voting items submitted to funds and other fiduciary account(s) (Fund or Funds) for which we have voting authority. BlackRock votes (or refrains from voting) for each Fund for which we have voting authority based on our evaluation of the alignment of the voting items with the long-term economic interests of our clients, in the exercise of our independent business judgment, and without regard to the relationship of the issuer (or any shareholder proponent or dissident shareholder) to the Fund, the Funds affiliates (if any), BlackRock or BlackRocks affiliates, or BlackRock employees (see Conflicts management policies and procedures, below).
When exercising voting rights, BAIS will normally vote on specific proxy issues in accordance with the Guidelines, although portfolio managers have the right to vote differently on their holdings if they determine doing so is more aligned with the investment objective and financial interests of clients invested in the funds they manage.
The Guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive. BAIS applies the Guidelines on a case-by-case basis, in the context of the individual circumstances of each company and the specific issue under review. As such, the Guidelines do not indicate how BAIS will vote in every instance. Rather, they reflect our view about corporate governance issues generally, and provide insight into how we typically approach issues that commonly arise on corporate ballots. The Guidelines are reviewed annually and updated as necessary to reflect changes in market practices, developments in corporate governance and feedback from companies and clients. In this way, BAIS aims to maintain policies that explain our approach to governance practices most aligned with clients long-term financial interests.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 17 |
In certain markets, proxy voting involves logistical issues which can affect BAIS ability to vote such proxies, as well as the desirability of voting such proxies. These issues include, but are not limited to: i) untimely notice of shareholder meetings; ii) restrictions on a foreigners ability to exercise votes; iii) requirements to vote proxies in person; iv) share-blocking (requirements that investors who exercise their voting rights surrender the right to dispose of their holdings for some specified period in proximity to the shareholder meeting); v) potential difficulties in translating the proxy; vi) regulatory constraints; and vii) requirements to provide local agents with unrestricted powers of attorney to facilitate voting instructions. We are not supportive of impediments to the exercise of voting rights such as share-blocking or overly burdensome administrative requirements.
BlackRock votes proxies in these situations on a best-efforts basis. In addition, BAIS may determine that it is generally in the interests of BlackRocks clients not to vote proxies (or not to vote our full allocation) if the costs (including but not limited to opportunity costs associated with share-blocking constraints) associated with exercising a vote are expected to outweigh the benefit the client would derive by voting on the proposal.
Voting Choice
BlackRock offers Voting Choice, a program that provides eligible clients with more opportunities to participate in the proxy voting process where legally and operationally viable.
Voting Choice is currently available for eligible clients invested in certain institutional pooled funds in the U.S., UK, and Canada that use systematic active equity (SAE) and multi-asset strategies. In addition, institutional clients in separately managed accounts (SMAs) are eligible for BlackRock Voting Choice regardless of their investment strategies.6
As a result, the shares attributed to BlackRock in company share registers may be voted differently depending on whether our clients have authorized BAIS to vote on their behalf, have authorized BlackRock to vote in accordance with a third-party policy, or have elected to vote shares in accordance with their own policy. Our clients have greater control over proxy voting because of Voting Choice. BlackRock does not disclose client information, including a clients selection of proxy policy, without client consent.
Use and oversight of third-party vote services providers
Third-party vote services providers or proxy research firms provide research and recommendations on proxy votes, as well as voting infrastructure. As mentioned previously, BlackRock contracts primarily with the vote services provider ISS and leverages its online platform to supply research and support voting, record keeping, and reporting processes. We also use Glass Lewis research and analysis as an input into our voting process. It is important to note that, although proxy research firms provide important data and analysis, BAIS does not rely solely on their information or follow their voting recommendations. A companys disclosures, our past engagements and voting, investment colleagues insights and our voting guidelines are important inputs into our voting decisions on behalf of clients.
Given the large universe of actively held companies, BAIS employs the proxy services provider to streamline the voting process by making voting recommendations based on BAIS voting guidelines when the items on a shareholder meeting agenda are routine. Agenda items that are not routine are referred back to BAIS to assess, escalate as necessary to the relevant portfolio managers and vote. BAIS reviews and can override the recommendations of the vote services provider at any time prior to the vote deadline. Both BAIS and the vote services provider actively monitor securities filings, research reports, company announcements, and direct communications from companies to ensure awareness of supplemental disclosures and proxy materials that may require a modification of votes.
6 With Voting Choice, SMAs have the ability to select from a set of voting policies from third-party proxy advisers the policy that best aligns with their views and preferences. BlackRock can then use its proxy voting infrastructure to cast votes based on the clients selected voting policy.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 18 |
BAIS closely monitors the third-party vote services providers we contract with to ensure that they are meeting our service level expectations and have effective policies and procedures in place to manage potential conflicts of interest. Our oversight of service providers includes regular meetings with client service teams, systematic monitoring of vendor operations, as well as annual due diligence meetings in accordance with BlackRocks firmwide policies.
Conflicts management policies and procedures
BAIS maintains policies and procedures that seek to prevent undue influence on BlackRocks proxy voting activity. Such influence might stem from any relationship between the investee company (or any shareholder proponent or dissident shareholder) and BlackRock, BlackRocks affiliates, a Fund or a Funds affiliates, or BlackRock employees. The following are examples of sources of perceived or potential conflicts of interest:
| · | BlackRock clients who may be issuers of securities or proponents of shareholder resolutions |
| · | BlackRock business partners or third parties who may be issuers of securities or proponents of shareholder resolutions |
| · | BlackRock employees who may sit on the boards of public companies held in Funds managed by BlackRock |
| · | Significant BlackRock, Inc. investors who may be issuers of securities held in Funds managed by BlackRock |
| · | Securities of BlackRock, Inc. or BlackRock investment funds held in Funds managed by BlackRock |
| · | BlackRock, Inc. board members who serve as senior executives or directors of public companies held in Funds managed by BlackRock |
BlackRock has taken certain steps to mitigate perceived or potential conflicts including, but not limited to, the following:
| · | Adopted the Guidelines which are designed to advance our clients long-term economic interests in the companies in which BlackRock invests on their behalf |
| · | Established a reporting structure that separates BAIS from employees with sales, vendor management, or business partnership roles. In addition, BlackRock seeks to ensure that all engagements with corporate issuers, dissident shareholders or shareholder proponents are managed consistently and without regard to BlackRocks relationship with such parties. Clients or business partners are not given special treatment or differentiated access. BAIS prioritizes engagements based on factors including, but not limited to, our need for additional information to make a voting decision or our view on the likelihood that an engagement could lead to positive outcome(s) over time for the economic value of the company. Within the normal course of business, BAIS may engage directly with BlackRock clients, business partners and/or third parties, and/or with employees with sales, vendor management, or business partnership roles, in discussions regarding our approach to stewardship, general corporate governance matters, client reporting needs, and/or to otherwise ensure that proxy-related client service levels are met |
| · | Determined to engage, in certain instances, an independent third-party voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations as a further safeguard to avoid potential conflicts of interest, to satisfy regulatory compliance requirements, or as may be otherwise required by applicable law. In such circumstances, the independent third-party voting service provider provides BlackRock with recommendations, in accordance with the Guidelines, as to how to vote such proxies. BlackRock uses an independent third-party voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations for shares of BlackRock, Inc. and companies affiliated with BlackRock, Inc. BlackRock may also use an independent third-party voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations for: |
| ○ | public companies that include BlackRock employees on their boards of directors |
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 19 |
| ○ | public companies of which a BlackRock, Inc. board member serves as a senior executive or a member of the board of directors |
| ○ | public companies that are the subject of certain transactions involving BlackRock Funds |
| ○ | public companies that are joint venture partners with BlackRock, and |
| ○ | public companies when legal or regulatory requirements compel BlackRock to use an independent third-party voting service provider |
In selecting an independent third-party voting service provider, we assess several characteristics, including but not limited to: independence, an ability to analyze proxy issues and make recommendations in the economic interest of our clients in accordance with the Guidelines, reputation for reliability and integrity, and operational capacity to accurately deliver the assigned recommendations in a timely manner. We may engage more than one independent third-party voting service provider, in part to mitigate potential or perceived conflicts of interest at a single voting service provider. The Active Investment Stewardship Oversight Committee appoints and reviews the performance of the independent third-party voting service providers, generally on an annual basis.
Securities lending
When so authorized, BlackRock acts as a securities lending agent on behalf of Funds. Securities lending is a well-regulated practice that contributes to capital market efficiency. It also enables funds to generate additional returns while allowing fund providers to keep fund expenses lower.
With regard to the relationship between securities lending and proxy voting, BlackRock cannot vote shares on loan and may determine to recall them for voting, as guided by our fiduciary duty as an asset manager to our clients in helping them achieve their investment goals. While this has occurred in a limited number of cases, the decision to recall securities on loan as part of BlackRocks securities lending program in order to vote is based on an evaluation of various factors that include, but are not limited to, assessing potential securities lending revenue alongside the potential long-term financial value to clients of voting those securities (based on the information available at the time of recall consideration). BAIS works with active portfolio managers, as well as colleagues in the Securities Lending and Risk and Quantitative Analysis teams, to evaluate the costs and benefits to clients of recalling shares on loan.
In almost all instances, BlackRock anticipates that the potential long-term financial value to clients of voting shares would not warrant recalling securities on loan. However, in certain instances, BlackRock may determine, in our independent business judgment as a fiduciary, that the value of voting outweighs the securities lending revenue loss to clients and would therefore recall shares to be voted in those instances.
Periodically, BlackRock reviews our process for determining whether to recall securities on loan in order to vote and may modify it as necessary.
Reporting and vote transparency
BAIS is committed to transparency in the stewardship work we do on behalf of clients. We inform clients about our engagement and voting policies and activities through direct communication and disclosure on our website.
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 20 |
Want to know more?
blackrock.com/stewardship | ContactActiveStewardship@blackrock.com
The document is provided for information purposes only and is subject to change. Reliance upon this information is at the sole discretion of the reader.
Prepared by BlackRock, Inc.
United States and elsewhere. All other trademarks are those of their respective owners. ©2024 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved. BLACKROCK is a trademark of BlackRock, Inc., or its subsidiaries in the
| BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship | Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines ç 21 |
Index Equity Fund Proxy Voting Policy
| Index Equity Fund Proxy Voting Policy
|
| Procedures Governing Delegation of Proxy Voting to Fund Advisers |
|
Effective Date: January 1, 2025
|
| Applies to the following types of Funds registered under the 1940 Act: ☒ Index Equity Mutual Funds and Exchange-Traded Funds ☐ Open-End Active and Fixed Income Index Mutual Funds and Exchange-Traded Funds ☐ Money Market Funds ☐ Closed-End Funds ☐ Other |
Objective and Scope
Set forth below is the Index Equity Fund Proxy Voting Policy.
Policy / Document Requirements and Statements
The Boards of Trustees/Directors (Directors) of certain open-end funds (the Funds) advised by BlackRock Fund Advisors or BlackRock Advisors, LLC (BlackRock), have the responsibility for the oversight of voting proxies relating to portfolio securities of the Funds, and have determined that it is in the best interests of the Funds and their shareholders to delegate the responsibility to vote proxies to BlackRock, subject to the principles outlined in this Policy, as part of BlackRocks authority to manage, acquire and dispose of account assets, all as contemplated by the Funds respective investment management agreements.
BlackRock has adopted the BlackRock Investment Stewardship Global Benchmark Policy(Guidelines) (as from time to time amended, the Guidelines) governing proxy voting by index equity Funds managed by BlackRock, except for the iShares Core S&P 500 ETF. In addition, BlackRock has adopted guidelines and procedures (as from time to time amended, the BlackRock Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship Guidelines) governing proxy voting for matters covered in the BlackRock Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship Guidelines by the Funds listed in Appendix A.
BlackRock will cast votes on behalf of each of the Funds covered by this policy on specific proxy issues in respect of securities held by each such Fund (or may refrain from voting) in accordance with the Guidelines and the BlackRock Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship Guidelines, as applicable.
Conflicts Management
BlackRock Investment Stewardship (BIS) maintains policies and procedures that seek to prevent undue influence on BlackRocks proxy voting activity and to mitigate material conflicts of interest in the exercise of proxy voting responsibilities. Potential material conflicts, and the resultant potential for undue influence, might be due to a relationship between the investee company (or any shareholder proponent or dissident shareholder) and BlackRock, BlackRocks affiliates or employees, or a Fund or a Funds affiliates. BlackRock has taken certain steps to mitigate potential conflicts, which are outlined in detail in the Guidelines. In mitigating conflicts, BIS will adhere to the Guidelines.
|
||||||||
| Public | Page 1 of 3 |
Index Equity Fund Proxy Voting Policy
In certain instances, BIS will engage an independent third-party voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations as a further safeguard to avoid potential conflicts of interest, to satisfy regulatory compliance requirements, or as may be otherwise required by applicable law.
With respect to the relationship between securities lending and proxy voting, shares on loan cannot be voted and BlackRock may determine to recall them for voting, as guided by BlackRocks fiduciary responsibility to act in clients financial interests. The Guidelines set forth BlackRocks approach to recalling securities on loan in connection with proxy voting.
Reports to the Board
BlackRock will report on an annual basis to the Directors on (1) a summary of the proxy voting process as applicable to the Funds covered by this policy in the preceding year together with a representation that all votes were in accordance with the Guidelines and the BlackRock Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship Guidelines, as applicable (2) any material changes to the Guidelines and the BlackRock Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship Guidelines, including material changes to conflicts management practices, that have not previously been reported.
|
||||||||
| Public | Page 2 of 3 |
Index Equity Fund Proxy Voting Policy
Appendix A
iShares Climate Conscious & Transition MSCI USA ETF
iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EAFE ETF
iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF
iShares ESG Advanced MSCI USA ETF
iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF
iShares ESG MSCI USA Leaders ETF
iShares MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF
iShares MSCI KLD 400 Social ETF
iShares MSCI USA ESG Select ETF
iShares Paris-Aligned Climate MSCI USA ETF
iShares Paris-Aligned Climate MSCI World ex USA ETF
|
||||||||
| Public | Page 3 of 3 |
BlackRock Investment Stewardship
Global Principles for Benchmark Policies
Effective as of January 2025
Contents
| 3 | ||||
| 3 | ||||
| 3 | ||||
| 4 | ||||
| 4 | ||||
| 5 | ||||
| 7 | ||||
| Capital structure, mergers, asset sales, and other special transactions |
8 | |||
| 9 | ||||
| 10 | ||||
| Other corporate governance matters and shareholder protections |
13 | |||
| 13 | ||||
| BlackRocks oversight of its investment stewardship activities |
14 | |||
| 15 | ||||
| 15 | ||||
| 16 | ||||
| 17 | ||||
| 18 | ||||
The purpose of this document is to provide an overarching explanation of BlackRocks global approach to our responsibilities as a shareholder on behalf of our clients, the principles that guide our dialogue with companies, and our commitments to clients in terms of our own governance and transparency.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 2 |
Introduction to BlackRock Investment Stewardship
BlackRocks clients depend on us to help them meet their varied investment goals. We consider it one of our responsibilities to be an informed, engaged shareholder on their behalf, given the business decisions that companies make have a direct impact on our clients long-term investment outcomes and financial well-being. BlackRock Investment Stewardship (BIS) is a dedicated function within BlackRock, which is responsible for engaging with public companies on behalf of index strategies. Investment Stewardship is one of the ways we fulfill our fiduciary responsibilities as an asset manager to our clients. Our sole objective when conducting our stewardship program is to advance our clients long-term financial interests.1
BIS takes a long-term approach in our stewardship efforts, reflecting the investment horizons of the majority of our clients. BIS does this through:
1. Engaging with companies in a two-way dialogue to build our understanding of a companys practices and inform our voting decisions.
2. Voting at shareholder meetings on management and shareholder proposals on behalf of clients who have delegated voting authority to BlackRock.
3. Contributing to industry dialogue on stewardship to share our perspectives on matters that may impact our clients investments.
4. Reporting on our activities to inform clients about our stewardship efforts on their behalf through a range of publications and direct reporting.
Philosophy on investment stewardship
Sound governance is critical to the success of a company, the protection of investors interests, and long-term financial value creation. Research indicates that high-performing companies will effectively evaluate and address risks and opportunities relevant to their businesses, which supports durable, long-term financial value creation.2
Setting, executing, and overseeing strategy are the responsibility of management and the board. As one of many minority shareholders, BlackRock cannot and does not try to direct a companys strategy or its implementation. Our role, on behalf of BlackRocks clients as long-term investors, is to better understand how corporate leadership is managing material risks and capitalizing on opportunities to help protect and enhance the companys ability to deliver long-term financial returns. We aim to take a globally consistent approach, while recognizing the unique markets and sectors in which companies operate.
Corporate law, regulations and listing rules in most markets establish certain fundamental rights attached to shareholding. Shareholders should have the right to:
| · | Elect, remove, and nominate directors, approve the appointment of the auditor, and amend the corporate charter or by-laws. |
1 BIS Benchmark Policies, and the vote decisions made consistent with these policies, take a financial materiality-based approach and are focused solely on advancing clients financial interests. BIS Benchmark Policies comprised of the BIS Global Principles, regional voting guidelines, and engagement priorities apply to clients assets invested through index strategies and provide guidance on our position on common corporate governance matters. We take a globally consistent approach, while recognizing the unique markets and sectors in which companies operate. BlackRock offers a wide range of investment products and funds to support our clients unique and varied investment objectives. Other materials on the BIS website might also provide useful context.
2 PwC, The 3 things all high-performing companies do. Harvard Business Review, 6 Strategic Concepts That Set High-Performing Companies Apart, March 2024.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 3 |
| · | Vote on key board decisions that are material to the protection of their investment, including but not limited to, changes to the purpose of the business, dilution levels and pre-emptive rights, and the distribution of income and capital structure. |
| · | Access sufficient and timely information on material governance, strategic, and business matters to make informed decisions. |
To protect the interest of minority shareholders like BlackRocks clients, BIS holds the view that shareholder voting rights should be proportionate to economic ownershipthe principle of one share, one vote helps to achieve this balance.
The assets BlackRock manages belong to our clients, which include public and private pension plans, insurers, official institutions, endowments, universities, charities, family offices, wealth managers, and ultimately, the individual investors that they serve. Through stewardship, we assess how companies are creating long-term financial value to serve our clients, many of whom are saving for long-term goals, such as retirement.
As shareholders of public companies, our clients have the right to vote on matters proposed by a companys management or its shareholders. Voting is an important mechanism for investors to express support for, or concern about, a companys performance and most of our clients authorize BlackRock to exercise this right on their behalf. For those clients, and as a fiduciary, BlackRock is legally required to make proxy voting determinations in a manner that is consistent with their investment objectives. BIS does this by casting votes in favor of proposals that, in our assessment, will promote stronger governance and better operating practices and, in turn, potentially enhance long-term shareholder value. Our vote decisions are informed by our in-depth analysis of company disclosures, engagement with boards and management teams, third-party research, and comparisons against a companys industry peers.
BIS takes a constructive, long-term approach to our engagement with companies, reflecting the investment horizons of the majority of our clients. An engagement is a meeting between BIS and a companys board and management that helps improve our understanding of the companys business model and material risks and opportunities, to inform our voting decisions on behalf of clients who authorize us to vote on their behalf. In these two-way conversations, we listen to and learn directly from company directors and executives and ask questions relevant to their business. Either a company or BIS can request an engagement. Many of the engagements are initiated by companies to discuss their long-term strategy, risk and opportunity set, and managements plan to deliver financial returns through business cycles. The ongoing, multiyear nature of our engagements allows us to build strong relationships with company leadership and mutual understanding on key matters of corporate governance and the drivers of long-term financial performance.
Generally, we support the vote recommendations of the board of directors and management. In case of concerns, we typically raise these through dialogue with board members and management teams first. When we determine it is in our clients financial interests to convey concern to companies through voting, we do so in two forms: we might not support the election of directors or other management proposals, or we might not support managements voting recommendation on a shareholder proposal.
While accepted standards and norms of corporate governance can differ between markets, in our experience, there are certain globally applicable fundamental elements of corporate governance that contribute to a companys ability to create long-term financial value for shareholders. These global themes are set out in this overarching set of principles (the Principles), which are anchored in transparency and accountability.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 4 |
At a minimum, it is our view that companies should observe the accepted corporate governance standards in their domestic market,3 and we ask that, if they do not, they explain how their approach better supports durable, long-term financial value creation.
These Principles cover seven key subjects:
| | Boards and directors |
| | Auditors and audit-related issues |
| | Capital structure, mergers, asset sales, and other special transactions |
| | Executive compensation |
| | Material sustainability-related risks and opportunities |
| | Other corporate governance matters and shareholder protections |
| | Shareholder proposals |
Our regional and market-specific voting guidelines explain how these Principles inform our voting decisions in relation to common ballot items for shareholder meetings in those markets. Alongside the Principles and regional voting guidelines, BIS publishes our engagement priorities which reflect the five themes on which we most frequently engage companies, where they are relevant, as these can be a source of material business risk or opportunity. Collectively, these BIS policies set out the core elements of corporate governance that guide our investment stewardship program globally and within each market. The BIS policies are not prescriptive, applied on a pragmatic, case-by-case basis, taking into consideration a number of factors, including the sector, market, and business environment within which a company is operating.
Companies whose boards are comprised of appropriately qualified, engaged directors with professional characteristics relevant to a companys business enhance the ability of the board to add value and be the voice of shareholders in board discussions. A strong board gives a company a competitive advantage, providing valuable oversight and contributing to the most important management decisions that support long-term financial performance. As part of their responsibilities, board members have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to oversee the strategic direction, operations, and risk management of a company. This is why our investment stewardship efforts have always started with the performance of the board of directors, and why we see engagement with, and the election of, directors as one of our most important responsibilities. We engage, as necessary, with members of the boards nominating and/or governance committee to assess whether governance practices and board composition are appropriate given a companys business model and we take into consideration a number of factors, including the sector, market, and business environment within which a company is operating.
We view it as good practice when the board establishes and maintains a framework of robust and effective governance mechanisms to support its oversight of the companys strategy and operations consistent with the long-term economic interests of investors. There should be clear descriptions of the role of the board and the committees of the board and how directors engage with and oversee management. Disclosure of material risks that may affect a companys long-term strategy and financial value creation, including material sustainability-related factors when relevant, is helpful for investors to appropriately understand and assess how effectively management is identifying, managing, and mitigating such risks.
We seek to understand managements long-term strategy and the milestones against which investors should assess its implementation. If any strategic targets are significantly missed or materially restated,
3 Our regional voting guidelines, which we publish on the BIS website, reflect these different market standards and norms. Depending on the market, generally accepted practice is informed by corporate law, market regulation, best practices, and industry initiatives, amongst other factors.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 5 |
we find it helpful when company disclosures provide a detailed explanation of the changes and an indication of the boards role in reviewing the revised targets. We look to the board to articulate the effectiveness of these mechanisms in overseeing the management of business risks and opportunities and the fulfillment of the companys strategy.
Where a company has not adequately disclosed and demonstrated that its board has fulfilled these corporate governance and risk oversight responsibilities, we may consider voting against the election of directors who, on our assessment, have particular responsibility for the issues. We assess director performance on a case-by-case basis and in light of each companys circumstances, taking into consideration its governance, business practices that support durable, long-term financial value creation, and performance. Set out below are factors we may take into consideration.
Regular accountability through director elections
To ensure accountability for their actions on behalf of shareholders, directors should stand for election on a regular basis, ideally annually.4 Annual director elections allow shareholders to reaffirm their support for board members and/or hold them accountable for their decisions in a timely manner. When board members are not elected annually, in our experience, it is good practice for boards to have a rotation policy to ensure that, through a board cycle, all directors have had their appointment re-confirmed, with a proportion of directors being put forward for election at each annual general meeting.
Effective board composition
Regular director elections also give boards the opportunity to adjust their composition in an orderly way to reflect developments in the companys strategy and the market environment. In our view, it is beneficial for new directors to be brought onto the board periodically to refresh the groups thinking, while supporting both continuity and appropriate succession planning. We consider the average overall tenure of the board and seek a balance between the knowledge and experience of longer-serving directors and the fresh perspectives of directors who joined more recently.
We encourage companies to regularly review the effectiveness of their board (including its size), and assess directors nominated for election in the context of the composition of the board as a whole. In our view, the companys assessment should consider a number of factors, including each directors independence and time commitments, as well as the breadth and relevance of director experiences and skillsets, and how these collectively contribute to the boards effectiveness in advising and overseeing management in delivering long-term financial returns.
Director independence from management, significant shareholders, or other related parties is a central tenet of sound corporate governance across markets.5 We encourage boards to have a sufficient number of independent directors, free from conflicts of interest or undue influence, to ensure objectivity in the decision-making of the board and its ability to oversee management. We generally consider it good practice for independent directors to make a majority of the board, or in the case of controlled companies, at least one-third.
Common impediments to independence may include but are not limited to:
| | Current or recent employment at the company or a subsidiary |
| | Being, or representing, a shareholder with a substantial shareholding in the company |
| | Interlocking directorships |
| | Having any other interest, business, or other relationship which could, or could reasonably be perceived to, materially interfere with a directors ability to act in the best interests of the company and shareholders |
4 In most markets directors stand for re-election on an annual or triennial basis, as determined by corporate law, market regulation or voluntary best practice.
5 Please see: Tokyo Stock Exchange. Japans Corporate Governance Code. June 11, 2021; Financial Reporting Council. UK Corporate Governance Code. July 16, 2018; Investor Stewardship Group. Corporate Governance Principles for US Listed Companies.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 6 |
In our experience, boards are most effective at overseeing and advising management when there is a senior, independent board leader. This director may chair the board, or, where the chair is also the CEO (or is otherwise not independent), be designated as a lead independent director. The role of this director is to enhance the effectiveness of the independent members of the board through shaping the agenda, ensuring adequate information is provided to the board, and encouraging independent director participation in board deliberations. The lead independent director or another appropriate director should be available to meet with shareholders in those situations where an independent director is best placed to explain and contextualize a companys approach.
There are matters for which the board has responsibility that may involve a conflict of interest for executives or for affiliated directors or require additional focus. It is our view that objective oversight of such matters is best achieved when the board forms committees with a majority of independent directors, depending on market norms and a companys ownership structure. In many markets, these committees of the board specialize in audit, director nominations, and compensation matters. An ad hoc committee might also be formed to decide on a special transaction, particularly one involving a related party, or to investigate a significant adverse event.
When nominating directors to the board, we look to companies to provide sufficient information on the individual candidates so that shareholders can assess the capabilities and suitability of each individual nominee and their fit within overall board composition. These disclosures should give an understanding of how the collective experience and expertise of the board, as well as the particular skill sets of individual directors, aligns with the companys long-term strategy and business model. Highly qualified, engaged directors with professional characteristics relevant to a companys business and strategy enhance the ability of the board to add value and be the voice of shareholders in board discussions.
It is in this context that we are interested in a variety of experiences, perspectives, and skillsets in the board room. We see it as a means of promoting diversity of thought to avoid group think in the boards exercise of its responsibilities to advise and oversee management.
In assessing board composition, we take a case-by-case approach based on a companys board size, business model, strategy, location and market capitalization. We look for companies to explain how their approach to board composition supports the companys governance practices.
We note that in many markets, policymakers have set board gender diversity goals which we may discuss with companies, particularly if there is a risk their board composition may be misaligned. We ask boards to disclose, consistent with local laws, how diversity, including professional and personal characteristics, is considered in board composition, given the companys long-term strategy and business model.6
Sufficient capacity
As the role and expectations of a director are increasingly demanding, directors must be able to commit an appropriate amount of time to board and committee matters. It is important that directors have the capacity to meet all of their responsibilities including when there are unforeseen events and therefore, they should not take on an excessive number of roles that would impair their ability to fulfill their duties.
Auditors and audit-related issues
BlackRock recognizes the critical importance of financial statements, which should provide a true and fair picture of a companys financial condition. Accordingly, we look for the assumptions made by management and reviewed by the auditor in preparing the financial statements to be reasonable and justified.
The accuracy of financial statements, inclusive of financial and non-financial information as required or permitted under market-specific accounting rules, is of paramount importance to BlackRock. Investors increasingly recognize that a broader range of risks and opportunities have the potential to materially
6 Personal characteristics may include, but are not limited to, gender; race/ethnicity; disability; veteran status; LGBTQ+; and national, Indigenous, religious, or cultural identity.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 7 |
impact financial performance. Over time, we anticipate investors and other users of company reporting will increasingly seek to understand and scrutinize the assumptions underlying financial statements, particularly those that pertain to the impact of the transition to a low-carbon economy on a companys business model and asset mix. We recognize that this is an area of evolving practice and note that international standards setters, such as the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Board and the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB), continue to develop their guidance to companies.7
In this context, audit committees, or equivalent, play a vital role in a companys financial reporting system by providing independent oversight of the accounts, material financial and, where appropriate to the jurisdiction, non-financial information and internal control frameworks. Moreover, in the absence of a dedicated risk committee, these committees can provide oversight of Enterprise Risk Management systems.8 In our view, effective audit committee oversight strengthens the quality and reliability of a companys financial statements and provides an important level of reassurance to shareholders.
Audit committees or equivalent should have clearly articulated charters that set out their responsibilities and have a rotation plan in place that allows for a periodic refreshment of the committee membership to introduce fresh perspectives to audit oversight. We recognize that audit committees will rely on management, internal audit, and the independent auditor in fulfilling their responsibilities but look to committee members to demonstrate they have relevant expertise to monitor and oversee the audit process and related activities.
We take particular note of unexplained changes in reporting methodology, cases involving significant financial restatements, or ad hoc notifications of material financial weakness. In this respect, audit committees should provide timely disclosure on the remediation of Key and Critical Audit Matters identified either by the external auditor or internal audit function.
The integrity of financial statements depends on the auditor being free of any impediments to being an effective check on management. To that end, it is important that auditors are, and are seen to be, independent. Where an audit firm provides services to the company in addition to the audit, we look for the fees earned to be disclosed and explained. We look for Audit committees to have in place a procedure for assessing annually the independence of the auditor and the quality of the external audit process.
Comprehensive disclosure provides investors with a sense of the companys long-term operational risk management practices and, more broadly, the quality of the boards oversight. We look to the audit or risk committee to periodically review the companys risk assessment and risk management policies and the significant risks and exposures identified by management, the internal auditors or the independent auditors and managements steps to address them. In the absence of detailed disclosures, we may reasonably conclude that companies are not adequately managing risk.
Capital structure, mergers, asset sales, and other special transactions
The capital structure of a company is critical to shareholders as it impacts the value of their investment and the priority of their interest in the company relative to that of other equity or debt investors. Pre-emptive rights are a key protection for shareholders against the dilution of their interests.
Effective voting rights are basic rights of share ownership and a core principle of effective governance. Shareholders, as the residual claimants, have the strongest interest in protecting the financial value of the company, and voting rights should match economic exposure, i.e. one share, one vote.
7 IFRS, IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information, June 2023, and IAASB, IAASB Launches Public Consultation on Landmark Proposed Global Sustainability Assurance Standard, August 2023.
8 Enterprise risk management is a process, effected by the entitys board of directors, management, and other personnel, applied in strategy setting and across the enterprise, designed to identify potential events that may affect the entity, and manage risk to be within the risk appetite, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives. Please see the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), Enterprise Risk Management, 2023.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 8 |
In principle, we disagree with the creation of a share class with equivalent economic exposure and preferential, differentiated voting rights. In our view, this structure violates the fundamental corporate governance principle of proportionality and results in a concentration of power in the hands of a few shareholders, thus disenfranchising other shareholders and amplifying any potential conflicts of interest. However, we recognize that in certain markets, at least for a period of time, companies may have a valid argument for listing dual classes of shares with differentiated voting rights. In our view, such companies should review these share class structures on a regular basis or as company circumstances change. Additionally, they should seek shareholder approval of their capital structure on a periodic basis via a management proposal at the companys shareholder meeting. The proposal should give unaffiliated shareholders the opportunity to affirm the current structure or establish mechanisms to end or phase out controlling structures at the appropriate time, while minimizing costs to shareholders.
In assessing mergers, asset sales, or other special transactions, BlackRocks primary consideration is the long-term economic interests of our clients as shareholders. Boards proposing a transaction should clearly explain the economic and strategic rationale behind it. We will review a proposed transaction to determine the degree to which it can enhance long-term shareholder value. We find long-term investors like our clients typically benefit when proposed transactions have the unanimous support of the board and have been negotiated at arms length. We may seek reassurance from the board that the financial interests of executives and/or board members in a given transaction have not adversely affected their ability to place shareholders interests before their own. Where the transaction involves related parties, the recommendation to support should come from the independent directors, a best practice in most markets, and ideally, the terms should have been assessed through an independent appraisal process. In addition, it is good practice that it be approved by a separate vote of the non-conflicted parties.
As a matter of sound governance practice, shareholders should have a right to dispose of company shares in the open market without unnecessary restriction. In our view, corporate mechanisms designed to limit shareholders ability to sell their shares are contrary to basic property rights. Such mechanisms can serve to protect and entrench interests other than those of the shareholders. In our view, shareholders are broadly capable of making decisions in their own best interests. We encourage any so-called shareholder rights plans proposed by a board to be subject to shareholder approval upon introduction and periodically thereafter.
In most markets, one of the most important roles for a companys board of directors is to put in place a compensation structure that incentivizes and rewards executives appropriately. Executive compensation is an important tool used by companies to support long-term financial value creation. In our experience, well-structured compensation policies reward the successful delivery of strategic, operational, and/or financial goals, encourage an appropriate risk appetite, and align the interests of shareholders and executives through equity ownership.
We look for there to be a clear link between variable pay and operational and financial performance. Performance metrics should be stretching and aligned with a companys strategy and business model. BIS does not have a position on whether companies should use sustainability-related criteria in compensation structures, but, where they are included, we look to companies to be as rigorous as they would be in setting other financial or operational targets. Long-term incentive plans should encompass timeframes that 1) are distinct from annual executive compensation structures and metrics, and 2) encourage the delivery of strong financial results over a period of years.
When designing, reviewing, and approving executive compensation policies, board compensation committees or board members responsible for setting executive compensation should carefully consider the companys specific circumstances, such as its risk profile, the environment in which it operates, and the individuals the board is trying to attract, retain and incentivize. We look to the compensation committees to guard against contractual arrangements that would entitle executives to material compensation for early termination of their employment. Finally, pension contributions and other
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 9 |
deferred compensation arrangements should be reasonable in light of market practices or the companys business and executive compensation strategies.
We are not supportive of one-off or special bonuses unrelated to company or individual performance. Where discretion has been used by the compensation committee or its equivalent, we appreciate disclosure relating to how and why the discretion was used, and how the adjusted outcome is aligned with the interests of shareholders. We acknowledge that the use of peer group evaluation by compensation committees can help ensure competitive pay; however, we are concerned when the rationale for increases in total compensation at a company is solely based on peer benchmarking, rather than also considering rigorous measures of outperformance. We encourage companies to clearly explain how compensation outcomes have rewarded performance.
We encourage boards to consider building clawback provisions into incentive plans such that companies could clawback compensation or require executives to forgo awards when compensation was based on faulty financial statements or deceptive business practices. We also favor recoupment from or the foregoing of the grant of any awards by any senior executive whose behavior caused material financial harm to shareholders, material reputational risk to the company, or resulted in a criminal investigation, even if such actions did not ultimately result in a material restatement of past results.
In our view, non-executive directors should be compensated in a manner that is commensurate with the time and effort expended in fulfilling their professional responsibilities. Additionally, these compensation arrangements should not risk compromising directors independence or aligning their interests too closely with those of the management, whom they are charged with overseeing.
BIS may convey concerns through not supporting managements proposals to approve compensation, where they are on the agenda. We may also vote against members of the compensation committee or equivalent board members for poor compensation practices or structures.
Material sustainability-related risks and opportunities
It is our view that well-managed companies will effectively evaluate and manage material sustainability-related risks and opportunities relevant to their businesses.9 As with all risks and opportunities in a companys business model, appropriate oversight of material sustainability considerations is a core component of having an effective governance framework that supports durable, long-term financial value creation.
Robust disclosure allows investors to effectively evaluate companies strategy and business practices related to material sustainability-related risks and opportunities. We find it helpful when companies disclosures demonstrate that they have a resilient business model that integrates material sustainability-related risks and opportunities into their strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets, including industry-specific metrics. The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards, IFRS S1 and S210 may prove helpful to companies in preparing this disclosure. The standards build on the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework and the standards and metrics developed by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), which have both converged under the ISSB. We recognize that companies may phase in reporting aligned with the ISSB standards over several years. We also recognize that some companies may report using different standards, which may be required by regulation, or one of a number of voluntary standards. In such cases, we ask that companies highlight the metrics that are industry- or company-specific.
9 By material sustainability-related risks and opportunities, we mean the drivers of risk and financial value creation in a companys business model that have an environmental or social dependency or impact. Examples of environmental issues include, but are not limited to, water use, land use, waste management, and climate risk. Examples of social issues include, but are not limited to, human capital management, impacts on the communities in which a company operates, customer loyalty, and relationships with regulators.
10 The objective of IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information is to require an entity to disclose information about its sustainability-related risks and opportunities that is useful to primary users of general-purpose financial reports in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity. The objective of IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures is to require an entity to disclose information about its climate-related risks and opportunities that is useful to primary users of general-purpose financial reports in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 10 |
We note that climate and other sustainability-related disclosures often require companies to collect and aggregate data from various internal and external sources. We recognize that the practical realities of data collection and reporting may not line up with financial reporting cycles and companies may require additional time after their fiscal year-end to accurately collect, analyze, and report this data to investors. That said, while we do not prescribe timelines regarding when companies make these disclosures, we encourage them to produce climate and other sustainability-related disclosures sufficiently in advance of their annual meeting, to the best of their abilities to provide investors with time to assess the data and make informed decisions.
Companies may also choose to adopt or refer to guidance on sustainable and responsible business conduct issued by supranational organizations such as the United Nations or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Further, industry initiatives on managing specific operational risks may provide useful guidance to companies on best practices and disclosures. While not a voting item, we find it helpful to our understanding of investment risk when companies disclose any relevant global climate and other sustainability-related standards adopted, the industry initiatives in which they participate, any peer group benchmarking undertaken, and any assurance processes to help investors understand their approach to sustainable and responsible business practices.
Climate and nature-related risk
In our view, the transition to a low-carbon economy is one of several mega forces reshaping markets.11 Our research shows that the low-carbon transition is a structural shift in the global economy that will be shaped by changes in government policies, technology, and consumer and investor preferences, which may be material for many companies.12 Yet the path to a low-carbon economy is uncertain and uneven, with different parts of the economy moving at different speeds. BIS recognizes that it can be challenging for companies to predict the impact of climate-related risk and opportunity on their businesses and operating environments. Many companies are assessing how to navigate the low-carbon transition while delivering long-term financial value to investors. At companies where these climate-related risks are material, we find it helpful when they publicly disclose, consistent with their business model and sector, how they intend to deliver long-term financial performance through the transition to a low-carbon economy, including where available, their transition plan.13
In our experience, disclosure consistent with the ISSB standards or the TCFD framework can help investors assess company-specific climate-related risks and opportunities, and inform investment decisions.14 Such disclosures also provide investors with insights into how companies are managing the risks associated with climate change by managing their own carbon emissions or emissions intensities to the extent financially practicable. Recognizing the value of these disclosures, in some jurisdictions, like the U.K, large companies must disclose such climate-related financial information on a mandatory basis, while in other jurisdictions these disclosures are viewed as best practice in the market.
11 BlackRock Investment Institute, Mega forces: An investment opportunity, 2023.
12 BlackRock Investment Institute, Tracking the low-carbon transition, July 2023.
13 We have observed that more companies are developing such plans, and public policymakers in a number of markets are signaling their intentions to require them or already have requirements in place, such as Australia, Brazil, and the European Union. We view transition plans as a method for a company to both internally assess and externally communicate its long-term strategy, ambition, objectives, and actions to create financial value through the global transition towards a low-carbon economy. Transition plans are building momentum internationally, with increased focus from policy makers and supervisors, including in the EU, UK, G7, G20, and from the financial industry. While many initiatives across jurisdictions outline a framework for transition plans, there is no consensus on the key elements these plans should contain. We view useful disclosure as one that communicates a companys approach to managing financially material business relevant risks and opportunities including climate-related risks to deliver long-term financial performance, which allows investors to make more informed decisions. While transition plans can be helpful disclosure, BIS does not make the preparation and production of transition plans a voting issue. BIS may engage companies that have chosen to publish a transition plan to understand their planned actions and resource implications.
14 BlackRock, Global perspectives on investing in the low-carbon transition, June 2023. We recognize that companies may phase in reporting aligned with the ISSB standards over several years, depending on local requirements. We also recognize and respect that some companies may report using different local standards, which may be required by regulation, or one of a number of voluntary standards. In such cases, we ask that companies disclose their rationale for reporting in line with the specific disclosure framework chosen and highlight the metrics that are industry- or company-specific.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 11 |
Consistent with the ISSB standards and the TCFD framework, we seek to understand, from company disclosures and engagement, the strategies companies have in place to manage material risks to, and opportunities for, their long-term business model associated with a range of climate-related scenarios. This includes a scenario in which global warming is limited to well below 2°C, considering ambitions to achieve a limit of 1.5°C, the temperature goal recently reaffirmed by G20 members as part of the 2024 Leaders Declaration.15
These frameworks also contemplate disclosures on how companies are setting short-, medium- and long-term targets, ideally science-based where these are available for their sector, for scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reductions and to demonstrate how their targets are consistent with the long-term financial interests of their investors.
While we recognize that regulators in some markets are moving to mandate certain disclosures, at this stage, we view scope 3 emissions differently from scopes 1 and 2, given methodological complexity, regulatory uncertainty, concerns about double-counting, and lack of direct control by companies. We welcome disclosures and commitments companies choose to make regarding material scope 3 emissions and recognize these are provided on a good-faith basis as methodology develops. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to climate-related risks and opportunities.
In addition to climate-related risks and opportunities, the management of nature-related factors is increasingly a component of some companies ability to generate durable, long-term financial returns for shareholders, particularly where a companys strategy is heavily reliant on the availability of natural capital, or whose supply chains are exposed to locations with nature-related risks. We look for such companies to disclose how they manage any reliance and impact on, as well as use of, natural capital, including appropriate risk oversight and relevant metrics and targets, to understand how these factors are integrated into strategy. We will evaluate these disclosures to inform our view of how a company is managing material nature-related risks and opportunities. We rely on company disclosures when determining how to vote on shareholder proposals addressing natural capital issues. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to natural capital.16
Companies impact on their workforce, supply chains, and communities
In order to advance long-term shareholders interests, companies should consider the interests of the various parties on whom they depend for their success over time. It is for each company to determine their key stakeholders based on what is material to their business and long-term financial performance. For many companies, key stakeholders include employees, business partners (such as suppliers and distributors), clients and consumers, regulators, and the communities in which they operate.
As a long-term shareholder on behalf of our clients, we find it helpful when companies disclose how they have identified their key stakeholders and considered their interests in business decision-making. In addition to understanding broader stakeholder relationships, BIS finds it helpful when companies discuss how they consider the needs of their workforce today, and the skills required for their future business strategy. We are also interested to understand how the board monitors and engages on these matters, given it is well positioned to ensure that the approach taken by management is informed by and aligns with the companys strategy.
Companies should articulate how they address material adverse impacts that could arise from their business practices and affect critical relationships with their stakeholders. We encourage companies to
15 In November 2024, G20 members reaffirmed the Paris Agreement temperature goal as part of the Leaders Declaration. G20 members include the worlds major economies (19 countries and two regional bodies, the European Union and African Union), representing 85% of global Gross Domestic Product, over 75% of international trade, and about two-thirds of the world population.
16 Given the growing awareness of the materiality of these issues for certain businesses, enhanced reporting on a companys natural capital dependencies and impacts would aid investors understanding. In our view, the final recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) may prove useful to some companies. We recognize that some companies may report using different standards, which may be required by regulation, or one of a number of other private sector standards. TNFD-aligned reporting is not a voting issue.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 12 |
implement, to the extent appropriate, monitoring processes (often referred to as due diligence) to identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts and grievance mechanisms to remediate any actual adverse material impacts. In our view, maintaining trust within these relationships can contribute to a companys long-term success.
Other corporate governance matters and shareholder protections
In our view, shareholders have a right to material and timely information on the financial performance and viability of the companies in which they invest. In addition, companies should publish information on the governance structures in place and the rights of shareholders to influence these structures. The reporting and disclosure provided by companies help shareholders assess the effectiveness of the boards oversight of management and whether investors economic interests have been protected. As a general principle, we believe shareholders should have the right to vote on key corporate governance matters, including changes to governance mechanisms, to submit proposals to the shareholders meeting, and to call special meetings of shareholders.
Corporate form
In our view, it is the responsibility of the board to determine the corporate form that is most appropriate given the companys purpose and business model.17 Companies proposing to change their corporate form to a public benefit corporation or similar entity should put it to a shareholder vote if not already required to do so under applicable law. We appreciate when supporting documentation from companies or shareholder proponents proposing to alter the corporate form clearly explains how the interests of shareholders and different stakeholders would be impacted as well as the accountability and voting mechanisms that would be available to shareholders. We generally support management proposals if our analysis indicates that shareholders economic interests are adequately protected. Relevant shareholder proposals are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
In most markets in which BlackRock invests on behalf of clients, shareholders have the right to submit proposals to be voted on at a companys annual or extraordinary meeting, as long as eligibility and procedural requirements are met. The matters that we see put forward by shareholders address a wide range of topics, including governance reforms, capital management, and improvements in the management or disclosure of sustainability-related risks.
BlackRock is subject to legal and regulatory requirements in the U.S. that place restrictions and limitations on how BlackRock can interact with the companies in which we invest on behalf of our clients, including our ability to submit shareholder proposals. We can vote, on behalf of clients who authorize us to do so, on proposals put forth by others.
When assessing shareholder proposals, we evaluate each proposal on its merit, considering the companys individual circumstances and maintaining a singular focus on the proposals implications for long-term financial value creation. BIS evaluation considers whether a shareholder proposal addresses a material risk that, if left unmanaged, may impact a companys long-term performance. We look for consistency between the specific request formally made in the proposal, the supporting documentation, and the proponents other communications on the issues. We also assess the companys practices and disclosures and the costs and benefits to the company of meeting the request made in the proposal. We take into consideration a companys governance practices and disclosures against those of their peers.
In our experience, it is helpful when companies disclose the names of the proponent or organization that has submitted or advised on the proposal.
We would not support proposals that we believe would result in over-reaching into the basic business decisions of the company, are unduly prescriptive or constraining on management. We take into
17 Corporate form refers to the legal structure by which a business is organized.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 13 |
consideration the legal effect of the proposal, as shareholder proposals may be advisory or legally binding depending on the jurisdiction, while others may make requests that would be deemed illegal in a given jurisdiction.
BIS is likely to support shareholder proposals that request disclosures that help us, as long-term investors on behalf of our clients, better understand the material risks and opportunities companies face and how they are managing them, especially where this information is additive given the companys existing disclosures. We may also support shareholder proposals that are focused on a material business risk that we agree needs to be addressed and the intended outcome is consistent with long-term financial value creation.
We recognize that some shareholder proposals bundle topics and/or specific requests. Further, the proponents supporting statement may refer to topics that are not directly related to the request made in the proposal. In voting on behalf of clients, we do not submit or edit proposals or the supporting statements we must vote yes or no on the proposal as phrased by the proponent. Therefore, when we vote in support of a proposal, we are not necessarily endorsing every element of the proposal or the reasoning, objectives, or supporting statement of the proponent. We may support a proposal for different reasons from those put forth by the proponent, when we believe that, overall, it can advance our clients long-term financial interests. We typically explain to the company our rationale for supporting such proposals.
Alternatively, or in addition, we may vote against the election of one or more directors if, in our assessment, the board has not responded sufficiently or with an appropriate sense of urgency to a material risk. We may also support a proposal if management is on track, but we believe that voting in favor might accelerate efforts to address a material risk.
BlackRocks oversight of its investment stewardship activities
Oversight
BlackRock maintains advisory committees (Stewardship Advisory Committees), generally consisting of senior BlackRock index investment professionals and/or senior employees with practical boardroom experience. The Stewardship Advisory Committees review and advise on amendments to BIS regional proxy voting guidelines (the Guidelines). The advisory committees do not determine voting decisions, which are the responsibility of BIS.
In addition to the Stewardship Advisory Committees, the Investment Stewardship Global Oversight Committee (Global Oversight Committee) is a risk-focused committee, comprised of the Global Head of Investment Stewardship (Global Head), and senior BlackRock executives with legal, risk and other experience relevant to team oversight. The Global Committee does not determine voting decisions, which are the responsibility of BIS.
The Global Head has primary oversight of the activities of BIS, including voting in accordance with the Guidelines, which require the application of professional judgment and consideration of each companys unique circumstances. The Global Committee reviews and approves amendments to these Principles. The Global Committee also reviews and approves amendments to the regional Guidelines.
In addition, the Global Committee receives and reviews periodic reports regarding the votes cast by BIS, as well as updates on material process issues, procedural changes, and other risk oversight considerations. The Global Committee reviews these reports in an oversight capacity as informed by the Guidelines.
BIS carries out engagement with companies, executes proxy votes, and conducts vote operations (including maintaining records of votes cast) in a manner consistent with the relevant Guidelines. BIS also conducts research on corporate governance issues and participates in industry discussions to contribute to and keep abreast of important developments in the corporate governance field. BIS may utilize third parties for certain of the foregoing activities and performs oversight of those third parties. BIS may
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 14 |
discuss complicated or particularly controversial matters with senior specialists internally, on an advisory basis, prior to making a voting decision.
Voting guidelines and vote execution
BlackRock votes on proxy issues when our clients authorize us to do so. We carefully consider proxies submitted to funds and other fiduciary account(s) (Fund or Funds) for which we have voting authority. BlackRock votes (or refrains from voting) proxies for each Fund for which we have voting authority based on our evaluation of the alignment of the voting items with the long-term economic interests of our clients, in the exercise of our independent business judgment, and without regard to the relationship of the issuer of the proxy (or any shareholder proponent or dissident shareholder) to the Fund, the Funds affiliates (if any), BlackRock or BlackRocks affiliates, or BlackRock employees (see Conflicts management policies and procedures, below).
When exercising voting rights, BIS will normally vote on specific proxy issues in accordance with the Guidelines for the relevant market, as well as the Principles. The voting guidelines published for each region/country in which we vote are intended to summarize BlackRocks general philosophy and approach to issues that may commonly arise in the proxy voting context in each market where we invest. The Guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive. BIS applies the Guidelines on a case-by-case basis, in the context of the individual circumstances of each company and the specific issue under review. As such, the Guidelines do not indicate how BIS will vote in every instance. Rather, they reflect our view about corporate governance issues generally, and provide insight into how we typically approach issues that commonly arise on corporate ballots. The Guidelines are reviewed annually and updated as necessary to reflect changes in market practices, developments in corporate governance and feedback from companies and clients. In this way, BIS aims to maintain policies that explain our approach to governance practices most aligned with clients long-term financial interests. BIS analysts may exercise their professional judgment in determining how to vote if they conclude that the Guidelines do not cover the specific matter raised by a ballot item or that an exception to the Guidelines would be in the long-term economic interests of BlackRocks clients.
In certain markets, proxy voting involves logistical issues which can affect BIS ability to vote such proxies, as well as the desirability of voting such proxies. These issues include, but are not limited to: i) untimely notice of shareholder meetings; ii) restrictions on a foreigners ability to exercise votes; iii) requirements to vote proxies in person; iv) share-blocking (requirements that investors who exercise their voting rights surrender the right to dispose of their holdings for some specified period in proximity to the shareholder meeting); v) potential difficulties in translating the proxy; vi) regulatory constraints; and vii) requirements to provide local agents with unrestricted powers of attorney to facilitate voting instructions. We are not supportive of impediments to the exercise of voting rights such as share-blocking or overly burdensome administrative requirements.
BlackRock votes proxies in these situations on a best-efforts basis. In addition, BIS may determine that it is generally in the interests of BlackRocks clients not to vote proxies (or not to vote our full allocation) if the costs (including but not limited to opportunity costs associated with share-blocking constraints) associated with exercising a vote are expected to outweigh the benefit the client would derive by voting on the proposal.
BlackRock offers Voting Choice a program that provides eligible clients with more opportunities to participate in the proxy voting process where legally and operationally viable.
Voting Choice is currently available for eligible clients invested in certain institutional pooled funds in the U.S., UK, Ireland, and Canada that utilize certain equity index investment strategies, as well as eligible clients in certain institutional pooled funds in the U.S., UK, and Canada that use systematic active equity (SAE) strategies. In addition, institutional clients in separately managed accounts (SMAs) continue to be
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 15 |
eligible for BlackRock Voting Choice regardless of their investment strategies.18 BlackRock also launched a U.S. Program to offer proxy voting to eligible shareholder accounts in a U.S. Fund. 19
As a result, the shares attributed to BlackRock in company share registers may be voted differently depending on whether our clients have authorized BIS to vote on their behalf, have authorized BIS to vote in accordance with a third-party policy, or have elected to vote shares in accordance with their own policy. Our clients have greater control over proxy voting because of Voting Choice. BlackRock does not disclose client information, including a clients selection of proxy policy, without client consent.
Conflicts management policies and procedures
BIS maintains policies and procedures that seek to prevent undue influence on BlackRocks proxy voting activity. Such influence might stem from any relationship between the investee company (or any shareholder proponent or dissident shareholder) and BlackRock, BlackRocks affiliates, a Fund or a Funds affiliates, or BlackRock employees. The following are examples of sources of perceived or potential conflicts of interest:
| | BlackRock clients who may be issuers of securities or proponents of shareholder resolutions |
| | BlackRock business partners or third parties who may be issuers of securities or proponents of shareholder resolutions |
| | BlackRock employees who may sit on the boards of public companies held in Funds managed by BlackRock |
| | Significant BlackRock, Inc. investors who may be issuers of securities held in Funds managed by BlackRock |
| | Securities of BlackRock, Inc. or BlackRock investment funds held in Funds managed by BlackRock |
| | BlackRock, Inc. board members who serve as senior executives or directors of public companies held in Funds managed by BlackRock |
BlackRock has taken certain steps to mitigate perceived or potential conflicts including, but not limited to, the following:
| | Adopted the Guidelines which are designed to advance our clients long-term economic interests in the companies in which BlackRock invests on their behalf |
| | Established a reporting structure that separates BIS from employees with sales, vendor management, or business partnership roles. In addition, BlackRock seeks to ensure that all engagements with corporate issuers, dissident shareholders or shareholder proponents are managed consistently and without regard to BlackRocks relationship with such parties. Clients or business partners are not given special treatment or differentiated access to BIS. BIS prioritizes engagements based on factors including, but not limited to, our need for additional information to make a voting decision or our view on the likelihood that an engagement could lead to positive outcome(s) over time for the economic value of the company. Within the normal course of business, BIS may engage directly with BlackRock clients, business partners and/or third parties, and/or with employees with sales, vendor management, or business partnership roles, in discussions regarding our approach to stewardship, general corporate governance matters, client reporting needs, and/or to otherwise ensure that proxy-related client service levels are met |
| | Determined to engage, in certain instances, an independent third-party voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations as a further safeguard to avoid potential conflicts of interest, to satisfy |
18 With Voting Choice, SMAs have the ability to select from a set of voting policies from third-party proxy advisers the policy that best aligns with their views and preferences. BlackRock can then use its proxy voting infrastructure to cast votes based on the clients selected voting policy.
19 Read more about BlackRock Voting Choice on our website.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 16 |
| regulatory compliance requirements, or as may be otherwise required by applicable law. In such circumstances, the independent third-party voting service provider provides BlackRock with recommendations, in accordance with the Guidelines, as to how to vote such proxies. BlackRock uses an independent third-party voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations for shares of BlackRock, Inc. and companies affiliated with BlackRock, Inc. BlackRock may also use an independent third-party voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations for: |
| ○ | public companies that include BlackRock employees on their boards of directors |
| ○ | public companies of which a BlackRock, Inc. board member serves as a senior executive or a member of the board of directors |
| ○ | public companies that are the subject of certain transactions involving BlackRock Funds |
| ○ | public companies that are joint venture partners with BlackRock, and |
| ○ | public companies when legal or regulatory requirements compel BlackRock to use an independent third-party voting service provider |
In selecting an independent third-party voting service provider, we assess several characteristics, including but not limited to: independence, an ability to analyze proxy issues and make recommendations in the economic interest of our clients in accordance with the Guidelines, reputation for reliability and integrity, and operational capacity to accurately deliver the assigned recommendations in a timely manner. We may engage more than one independent third-party voting service provider, in part to mitigate potential or perceived conflicts of interest at a single voting service provider. The Global Committee appoints and reviews the performance of the independent third-party voting service providers, generally on an annual basis.
When so authorized, BlackRock acts as a securities lending agent on behalf of Funds. Securities lending is a well-regulated practice that contributes to capital market efficiency. It also enables funds to generate additional returns while allowing fund providers to keep fund expenses lower.
With regard to the relationship between securities lending and proxy voting, BlackRock cannot vote shares on loan and may determine to recall them for voting, as guided by our fiduciary duty as an asset manager to our clients in helping them achieve their investment goals. While this has occurred in a limited number of cases, the decision to recall securities on loan as part of BlackRocks securities lending program in order to vote is based on an evaluation of various factors that include, but are not limited to, assessing potential securities lending revenue alongside the potential long-term financial value to clients of voting those securities (based on the information available at the time of recall consideration).20 BIS works with colleagues in the Securities Lending and Risk and Quantitative Analysis teams to evaluate the costs and benefits to clients of recalling shares on loan.
In almost all instances, BlackRock anticipates that the potential long-term financial value to the Fund of voting shares would be less than the potential revenue the loan may provide the Fund. However, in certain instances, BlackRock may determine, in our independent business judgment as a fiduciary, that the value of voting outweighs the securities lending revenue loss to clients and would therefore recall shares to be voted in those instances.
20 Recalling securities on loan can be impacted by the timing of record dates. In the U.S., for example, the record date of a shareholder meeting typically falls before the proxy statements are released. Accordingly, it is not practicable to evaluate a proxy statement, determine that a vote has a material impact on a fund and recall any shares on loan in advance of the record date for the annual meeting. As a result, managers must weigh independent business judgement as a fiduciary, the benefit to a funds shareholders of recalling loaned shares in advance of an estimated record date without knowing whether there will be a vote on matters which have a material impact on the fund (thereby forgoing potential securities lending revenue for the funds shareholders) or leaving shares on loan to potentially earn revenue for the fund (thereby forgoing the opportunity to vote).
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 17 |
Periodically, BlackRock reviews our process for determining whether to recall securities on loan in order to vote and may modify it as necessary.
Reporting and vote transparency
We are committed to transparency in the stewardship work we do on behalf of clients. We inform clients about our engagement and voting policies and activities through direct communication and through disclosure on our website. Additionally, we make public our regional proxy voting guidelines for the benefit of clients and the companies in which we invest on their behalf. We also publish commentaries to share our perspective on market developments and emerging key themes.
At a more granular level, on a quarterly basis, we publish our vote record for each company that held a shareholder meeting during the period, showing how BIS voted on each proposal and providing our rationale for any votes against management proposals and on shareholder proposals. For shareholder meetings where a vote might be high profile or of significant interest to clients, we may publish a vote bulletin after the meeting, disclosing and explaining our vote on key proposals. We also publish a quarterly list of all companies with which we engaged and the key topics addressed in the engagement meeting.
In this way, we help inform our clients about the work we do on their behalf in promoting the governance and business practices that support durable, long-term financial value creation by companies.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | Global Principles ç 18 |
Want to know more?
blackrock.com/stewardship | contactstewardship@blackrock.com
This document is provided for information and educational purposes only. Investing involves risk, including the loss of principal.
Prepared by BlackRock, Inc.
©2024 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved. BLACKROCK is a trademark of BlackRock, Inc., or its subsidiaries in the United States and elsewhere. All other trademarks are those of their respective owners.
| BlackRock
Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship
Published July 2024
|
BlackRock climate and decarbonization
stewardship guidelines1
Introduction to BlackRock Investment Stewardship
BlackRocks clients depend on us to help them meet their varied investment goals. We consider it one of our responsibilities to be an informed, engaged shareholder on their behalf, given the business decisions that companies make have a direct impact on our clients long-term investment outcomes and financial well-being. BlackRock Investment Stewardship (BIS) is a dedicated function within BlackRock, which serves as a link between BlackRocks clients and the companies we invest in on their behalf. BIS takes a long-term approach in our stewardship efforts, reflecting the investment horizons of the majority of our clients. BIS does this through:
| 1. | Engaging with companies in a two-way dialogue to build our understanding of a companys practices and inform our voting decisions. |
| 2. | Voting at shareholder meetings on management and shareholder proposals on behalf of clients who have delegated voting authority to BlackRock. |
| 3. | Contributing to industry dialogue on stewardship to share our perspectives on matters that may impact our clients investments. |
| 4. | Reporting on our activities to inform clients about our stewardship efforts on their behalf through a range of publications and direct reporting. |
Stewardship for clients with investment objectives
relating to the low-carbon transition2
BlackRock offers a wide range of investment products and funds to support our clients unique and varied investment objectives, and in February 2024, BlackRock announced it would be launching a new decarbonization stewardship option for those clients who explicitly direct BlackRock to invest their assets with decarbonization investment objectives. An increasing number of clients are seeking to minimize the financial risk, and maximize the financial opportunities, associated with the transition to a low-carbon economy, and thus are interested in sustainable and transition investing, with some including decarbonization as an investment objective in their mandates with BlackRock. In Europe for example, all of our largest, strategic relationship clients have net zero commitments for their organizations, and globally a growing number have made similar commitments, which those clients believe, will shape financial opportunities in the transition to a low-carbon economy. A survey of 200 institutional investors globally, representing nearly $9tn in assets under management, indicated that 98% of them have set some kind of transition investment objective for their portfolios.3
These guidelines set out BIS approach to voting at companies shareholder meetings on behalf of funds with explicit decarbonization or climate-related investment objectives,4 and, when appropriate, engagement with corporate leadership to support our voting on clients behalf. In addition, clients in separately managed accounts may instruct BlackRock to apply these guidelines to their holdings. Both in the case of funds and separately managed accounts, these guidelines are only implemented upon explicit selection and approval by the applicable fund board or client.
1 We have heard from a growing number of clients globally that they have made, or are planning to make, commitments to align their investment strategies with the transition to a low-carbon economy. This stewardship option helps those clients meet their climate and decarbonization investment objectives and is part of BlackRocks commitment to offer clients choice.
2 Key climate, decarbonization and low-carbon transition related terms used in these guidelines are explained in appendix 1.
3 To help inform the choices BlackRock offers our clients, in June 2023 we commissioned iResearch Services, an independent third-party research consultancy, to conduct a market survey on our behalf. The survey sought to better understand institutions needs and preferences related to investing in the low-carbon transition.
4 A list of approved funds is on BlackRocks website here.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | BlackRock Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship Guidelines | 2 |
These guidelines should be read in conjunction with BIS benchmark policies5 and are focused on matters related to climate risks and the transition to a low-carbon economy at companies that are held by funds and clients who have selected these guidelines. These guidelines differ from the benchmark policies in that they consider, in addition to financial considerations and consistent with the investment objective of each fund or account that has selected these guidelines, the alignment of companies business model and strategies with the financial opportunities presented by the transition to a low-carbon economy and the more ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement,6 namely to limit average temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
These guidelines will apply to companies which produce goods and services that contribute to real world decarbonization or have a carbon intensive business model and face outsized impacts from the low-carbon transition, based on reported and estimated scopes 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions.7 We estimate these companies represent the vast majority of the value chain emissions of the companies held by funds and clients that have selected these guidelines. For all other companies held by these funds and clients, BIS benchmark voting guidelines apply.
On other matters not related to climate risks and the transition to a low-carbon economy, BIS will apply our benchmark policies.
For clients who have not directed BlackRock to prioritize climate risks and decarbonization as an investment objective, BIS will continue to undertake our stewardship responsibilities in line with our benchmark policies, with a sole focus on advancing those clients long-term economic interests. This will include consideration of climate-related risks and opportunities in a companys business model, where material to the companys ability to deliver long-term financial returns.
Please see appendix 2, which sets out the key differences between the BIS benchmark and decarbonization policies on items related to climate risk and the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Understanding the investment implications of the transition to a low-carbon economy
Research from the BlackRock Investment Institute (BII) highlights that changing government policy, technology, and consumer and investor preferences are driving the transition to a low-carbon economy, but these forces are moving at uneven speeds across sectors and regions. For examplesome technologies like renewable power are already being deployed at scale in some regions, while in other sectors and regions less cost-effective low-carbon alternatives exist. We have heard from certain clients that they see the low-carbon transition as a series of shifts over decades that will reshape production and consumption, spur significant capital investment and create risks, opportunities and a wider range of financial and competitive outcomes for companies.
For clients interested in investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy and understanding its corresponding risks and opportunities, we have developed the BlackRock Investment Institute Transition Scenario (BIITS), powered by Aladdin® technology. BIITS is a research-based, analytical forecast of how the low-carbon transition is most likely to play out based on what we know and expect today. It can help inform a top-down assessment of a companys business risk arising from the transition. BII based its key assumptions on rigorous research, and the input of BlackRocks portfolio managers and other experts.
5 BIS benchmark policies set out the core elements of corporate governance that guide our investment stewardship efforts globally and within each market, including when engaging with companies and voting at shareholder meetings. They are anchored in our Global Principles, which set out certain globally applicable fundamental elements of governance that contribute to a companys ability to create long-term financial value, anchored in transparency and accountability. They also include our regional and market-specific voting guidelines, which explain how the Principles inform our voting decisions in relation to common ballot items for shareholder meetings in those markets. We publish our engagement priorities which reflect the five themes on which we most frequently engage companies, where they are relevant, as these can be a source of material business risk or opportunity. The BIS policies are applied on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the context within which a company is operating. They are reviewed annually and updated as necessary to reflect market developments and feedback from clients and companies.
6 The Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, December 12, 2015.
7 These companies may already be low-carbon operators, or be demonstrating momentum in reducing emissions in their operations, providing key inputs or goods and services that support real world decarbonization, or pivoting their current business model to contribute to the transition to the low-carbon economy.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | BlackRock Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship Guidelines | 3 |
For client assets with explicit investment objectives related to the transition to a low-carbon economy, BIS will draw on the insights generated by BIITS and Aladdin® Climate,8 as well as our own analysis and engagement, in applying these guidelines. In doing so, we will take into consideration the fact that the necessary data to assess individual companies currently has limitations, but is improving as a result of disclosure requirements in an increasing number of jurisdictions.
Decarbonization stewardship guidelines design principles
The framework of these guidelines is designed to:
| · | Prioritize sectors and companies that are critical to the transition to a low-carbon economy: This includes companies which produce goods and services that contribute to real world decarbonization or have a carbon intensive business model and face outsized impacts from the low-carbon transition. |
| · | Apply a sectoral approach to our analysis that acknowledges the unevenness of the low-carbon transition across sectors and markets: We take into consideration the varying speeds at which sectors and markets can decarbonize based on technological feasibility, consumer demand, government policy, regulatory frameworks and other factors. Further, we recognize that these factors are uncertain and dynamic, which will require that we evolve our approach as necessary. |
| · | Take a long-term, pragmatic approach that favors a transition that minimizes disruption to companies and their key stakeholders: Our approach recognizes the challenges that many companies face in adapting their business models. It is premised on the views of interested clients that a transition where companies adapt and continue to deliver financial returns throughout, is a better long-term investment outcome for them, and less disruptive to a companys other key stakeholders, than a transition that is uneven. Further, we consider the differences between the actions and outcomes over which company management has influence, and those it does not. |
| · | Focus on useful, contextualized disclosures that help inform investors views, while recognizing data limitations: The policy will seek disclosures that outline key milestones and dependencies underpinning the companys low-carbon transition strategy; explain the trade-offs required to adapt the business model; and include relevant data and narrative. |
| · | Be consistent with our position as a minority investor on behalf of our clients: The boards and executive leadership of companies determine a companys strategy and its implementation. We make decisions on how to engage companies and vote proxies independently, based on our professional judgment of the priorities and outcomes most aligned with clients investment objectives. |
Voting guidelines9
Consistent with the investment objective of each fund or client that has selected these guidelines, BIS will look to companies to demonstrate the following:
Corporate Disclosures10
In the context of these guidelines, we look for companies to provide sufficient corporate disclosure to allow us to determine the extent to which decarbonization and the low-carbon transition are strategic priorities. As a general point, we would expect companies that have disclosed their aim to participate in the transition to a low-carbon
8 Aladdin® Climate is a suite of climate analytics including forward-looking scenario analysis and net zero alignment analytics. Aladdin® is a proprietary investment and risk management platform.
9 These guidelines are not intended to limit the analysis of individual issues at specific companies or provide a guide as to how BIS will engage and/or vote in every instance. The guidelines are applied by BIS analysts with discretion, on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the range of issues and facts specific to the company, as well as individual ballot items at shareholder meetings..
10 Given data and measurement limitations, companies may need to provide estimated GHG emissions where reporting methodologies are nascent. In addition, certain disclosures related to a companys plans for adapting their business models through the low-carbon transition may require forward-looking statements.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | BlackRock Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship Guidelines | 4 |
economy to make disclosures that help explain the strategy and governance systems they have determined most appropriate, which may include:
| (1) | a low-carbon transition strategy to demonstrate their alignment with the ambition to limit global average temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This would normally mean that they have a long-term strategy to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, with appropriate near- and medium-term milestones to assess their progress. |
| (2) | low-carbon transition-related reporting consistent with the standards developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).11 IFRS S1 addresses the general requirements of sustainability reporting and IFRS S2 sets out the disclosures that would provide investors with decision-useful information about a companys most significant climate- and low-carbon transition-related risks and opportunities. As audit and assurance standards are developed, it would be helpful to investors confidence in such disclosures for companies to seek independent, third-party assurance. |
| (3) | scope 1 and scope 2, and material scope 3 GHG emissions. 12 13 In addition, we look to companies to disclose their reduction targets for scope 1 and 2 emissions, science-based where possible. We welcome disclosure of targets or indicative goals, where companies have set them, for scope 3 emissions reductions, recognizing that these would be provided on a best efforts basis given the methodological challenges these currently present for reporters. Scope 3 information, including how a company is working with its value chain to accelerate reductions in GHG intensity, provides useful insight to investors focused on investing in the low-carbon transition and understanding the impact of their investments on their decarbonization goals.14 However, we recognize that companies have varying ability to influence the emissions across the different parts of their value chain and it is helpful when disclosures explain the implications for the achievement of their decarbonization targets. |
| Transition | plans |
Some companies have published a transition plan that explains how the company intends to implement its low-carbon transition strategy by, as defined by the ISSB, lay[ing] out the entitys targets, actions or resources for its transition towards a lower-carbon economy, including actions such as reducing its greenhouse gas emissions (see appendix 1).
We note the work being undertaken in a number of jurisdictions on establishing a common approach in a market to corporate transition plans. Given this work continues, for the near-term, BIS will not make preparation and production of transition plans a voting issue. BIS may engage companies that have chosen to publish a transition plan to understand their planned actions and resource implications in accordance with anticipated requirements.
11 The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) was formed by the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation in 2021. It aims to develop global standards for sustainability reporting for corporates and investors to support more efficient capital markets. The goal is standards that will provide a high-quality, comprehensive, and cost-effective global baseline of sustainability disclosures, while enabling interoperability with jurisdiction-specific disclosure, and broader stakeholder, requirements. IFRS S1 and S2 were based on the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, which many companies have used in their reporting to date. A number of jurisdictions are consulting on adopting the standards issued to date or have already committed to doing so.
12 FTSE Russell address the materiality of different categories of Scope 3 GHG emissions by sector in a January 2024 paper Scope for improvement: Solving the Scope 3 conundrum.
13 Under this policy, we look for GHG emissions disclosures to be aligned with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol). The Protocol Standards and Guidance are currently being updated to ensure they continue to provide a rigorous and credible accounting foundation for businesses to measure, plan and track progress toward science-based and net-zero targets in line with the global 1.5°C goal.
14 We do not believe the purpose of Scope 3 disclosure requirements should be to push publicly traded companies into the role of enforcing emission reduction targets outside of their control. Given methodological complexity for Scope 3 emissions and the lack of direct control by companies over the requisite data, we find it most useful when companies focus their disclosures on those of the fifteen Scope 3 GHG Protocol categories that are material to their business models.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | BlackRock Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship Guidelines | 5 |
Boards and directors
An effective and well-functioning board that has appropriate governance structures to facilitate oversight of a companys management and strategic initiatives is critical to the companys ability to deliver on its low-carbon transition strategy.
In assessing the role and effectiveness of the board in this regard, we seek to understand whether:
| · | The board has clear oversight responsibilities for climate and low-carbon transition-related risks and opportunities in the companys business model. We consider the whole board to have responsibility for oversight of the companys long-term strategy, including those aspects related to the transition to a low-carbon economy. |
| · | Management has established a robust low-carbon transition framework and long-term strategy, with clear accountability for delivery by senior executives. |
| · | The capital management strategy explains how the company allocates investments to (traditional and next generation) business lines and innovation, and returns cash to shareholders, consistent with the low-carbon transition strategy. |
| · | The climate and low-carbon transition risks most likely to significantly impact the business are integrated into the companys enterprise risk management processes and reporting. |
| · | The company has set scope 1 & 2 GHG emissions reduction targets, science-based and independently verified where possible, against a baseline, that are consistent with the ambition to limit average temperature rise to no more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. |
| · | There is a clear link between the companys scope 1 & 2 GHG emissions reduction targets over time and its long-term low-carbon transition strategy. |
| · | The company is monitoring its material scope 3 emissions15 and disclosing these where it is confident in the data. Given forthcoming regulatory requirements in certain jurisdictions, some companies are voluntarily disclosing scope 3 emissions reductions targets and plans, setting out how they are working on decarbonization with the different constituents in their value chain. |
| · | The board oversees, and management has a formalized approach to, the companys lobbying activities, including trade association memberships. Policy engagement should be consistent with a companys stated strategic policy objectives, including those related to the low-carbon transition. |
Voting against directors over concerns about climate risk
In implementing these guidelines, BIS will generally support non-executive directors standing for election where, in BIS assessment based on company disclosures and engagement, a company is executing on its commitment to align with the transition to a low-carbon economy, as defined above. Where BIS determines this is not the case, we may vote against the election of one or more directors who have responsibility for the issue. The directors most likely to be in focus are the chair of the board sub-committee with low-carbon transition, climate or sustainability risk oversight responsibilities, other members of the relevant committee, the lead independent director or the non-executive chair of the board. In certain markets, we may withhold support for the discharge of the supervisory board or equivalent.
15 As discussed in the FTSE Russell publication mentioned above, their research indicates that there are 2-3 material scope 3 GHG emissions categories by sector. The research uses a definition of materiality from the GHG Protocol, which encourages companies to maintain a representative inventory of the most significant GHG emissions, [that] offer the most significant GHG reduction opportunities and are most relevant to the companys business goals.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | BlackRock Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship Guidelines | 6 |
Where we have not supported director elections over climate concerns in a prior year, and the company has not subsequently made progress towards aligning with the transition to a low-carbon economy, we may escalate16 by voting against the re-election of additional responsible directors to signal our heightened concerns.
Management proposals to approve a climate strategy or progress report
In certain markets, company management may submit proposals asking shareholders to approve their climate action plans or progress reports, sometimes known as Say on Climate. BIS will generally support managements climate strategy proposal if, in our assessment based on these guidelines, the strategy is aligned with the low-carbon transition. Similarly, we will generally support managements proposal on a progress report if the company has clearly explained its progress against, and any deviations from or changes to, its stated transition plan and targets.
Shareholder proposals on climate and low-carbon transition matters
Shareholder proposals on a companys approach to the low-carbon transition or climate risk will be considered on their merit. Our assessment will take into consideration the implications for, and the relevance to, the companys stated low-carbon transition strategy and targets. We may support shareholder proposals that, for example, ask a company to:
| ○ | Publish a business plan, and related disclosures, consistent with the ambition to limit average temperature rise to no more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels |
| ○ | Align their scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions reduction targets to, and/or discuss how their targets align with, a long-term goal of the company achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050 |
| ○ | Disclose the categories of scope 3 GHG emissions most material to a companys business model |
| ○ | Improve disclosures on how a companys climate-related lobbying (including trade association memberships and other indirect lobbying) is aligned with its strategic policy positions. |
We would not support shareholder proposals that seek to constrain board or management decision-making or direct specific business or strategic decisions. This includes proposals that seek to change a companys articles of association or charter to require commitments or actions related to climate risk or the low-carbon transition.
Related matters
There are other business items not covered above that may be put to a shareholder vote that could address matters relevant to the transition to a low-carbon economy. Under these guidelines, BIS is most likely to engage, where appropriate, if we seek to enhance our understanding of a companys approach. Generally, our voting on these matters would be covered by BIS benchmark guidelines.
Executive compensation
We look to company boards to put in place a compensation structure that incentivizes and rewards executives appropriately. Some companies, in light of their long-term strategy, may decide to include relevant GHG emissions reduction targets or low-carbon transition-related metrics in their incentive plans. In such cases, BIS would engage to understand the alignment between those metrics and the companys stated climate strategy.
16 While BIS may escalate voting by not supporting additional management proposals, principally director elections, we do not consider filing shareholder proposals, preannouncing our voting intentions or using the media to amplify our concerns appropriate courses of action. We will continue to take a constructive, long-term focused approach, to our engagement and voting on behalf of clients under these guidelines.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | BlackRock Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship Guidelines | 7 |
Auditors and audit-related issues
For companies with material climate or transition risks or opportunities in their business models, BIS is interested to understand whether the company considers and, if relevant, quantifies, and accounts for material climate-related risks in its financial statements, including if the company explains such risks within the context of its audit report. We note that work is being undertaken to develop audit and assurance standards in relation to climate and transition reporting, which may impact the future reporting requirements of companies. We note that assurance of corporate disclosures related to climate risk and the transition to a low-carbon economy is still nascent.
Mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and other special situations
Special situations will be considered on their financial merits, but BIS may engage on climate-related factors under these guidelines where a transaction may significantly alter a companys climate strategy or a shareholder activist has proposed governance, strategic or operational changes that may impact its climate strategy. BIS does not promote changes in corporate control, nor does it invoke formal governance mechanisms that rise to the level of shareholder activism.
Other business relevant sustainability-related risks and opportunities
Climate risk and the transition to a low-carbon economy are interconnected with a number of other sustainability-related risks and opportunities that may be relevant to a companys business model and long-term performance. These include a companys impacts or dependencies on natural capital and key stakeholders.17 In the context of these guidelines, we may engage companies to better understand how they are managing the impact on people (e.g., employees, suppliers, customers and communities) of any strategic or operational changes they are making in relation to their transition to a low-carbon economy. Similarly, we may engage companies that face risks and opportunities related to land use and deforestation, access to fresh water, or the ability to secure scarce resources critical to the transition to a low-carbon economy.
17 BIS engagement with companies on these issues is informed by our commentaries on natural capital, human capital management and human rights.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | BlackRock Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship Guidelines | 8 |
Appendix 1
Terminology
We understand the key concepts referred to within these guidelines as follows:
Climate risk: Includes physical risk, the increased risk to companies assets and activities caused by the direct impact of changing weather patterns and natural catastrophes, and transition risk, the impact of the transition to a low-carbon economy on a companys long-term profitability.
Transition to a low-carbon economy (low-carbon transition): The global economic shift toward lower emissions across many sectors and business models. The economic transformation is being driven by changes in government policy, technology, and consumer and investor preferences, as well as the physical effects of climate change (e.g., extreme weather), and can potentially have a material impact on clients investments and portfolios.
Decarbonization: the process of reducing or eliminating emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from human activity and removing carbon currently in the atmosphere. This can be carried out by countries, companies and even individual consumers. Sometimes the concept is understood to include the reduction and elimination of other GHG, e.g., methane.
Climate-related risks and opportunities: The investment opportunities and risks associated with the transition to a low-carbon economy, including transition risks and opportunities and physical risks and opportunities in adapting to physical climate change.
Climate-related transition plan: An aspect of an entitys overall strategy that lays out the entitys targets, actions or resources for its transition towards a lower-carbon economy, including actions such as reducing its greenhouse gas emissions.18
Science-based GHG emissions reduction targets: Targets that are in line with what the latest climate science deems necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Science-based targets give companies a clearly defined path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. They define how much and how quickly a business must reduce its emissions to be in line with the Paris Agreement goals.19
18 As defined by the International Sustainability Standards Boards IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures. Several jurisdictions are basing their own transition plan disclosure frameworks on the IFRS S2 definition. We anticipate transition plan disclosure becoming mandatory in an increasing number of jurisdictions over the near term.
19 As defined by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). SBTi is a corporate climate action organization that enables companies and financial institutions worldwide to play their part in combating the climate crisis. We develop standards, tools and guidance which allow companies to set greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions targets in line with what is needed to keep global heating below catastrophic levels and reach net-zero by 2050 at latest.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | BlackRock Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship Guidelines | 9 |
Appendix 2
Comparison of key differences between how the BIS benchmark considers climate-related risks, where appropriate, and the decarbonization guidelines20
| BIS Benchmark Policy | Decarbonization Policy | |||
| Key concepts |
Focuses on financial performance and engages companies on climate and transition topics when material to their business
Prioritizes the disclosure of how a company is managing material climate and transition-related risks and opportunities |
Considers both financial performance and decarbonization objectives consistent with funds and clients investment objectives
Assesses the alignment of a companys business model with the ambition to limit global average temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels | ||
| Prioritized companies for climate-related engagement |
Largest Scope 1 and 2 GHG emitters | Largest total value chain GHG emitters (Scope 1, 2, & 3) | ||
| Emissions reporting |
Seeks reporting of Scope 1 & 2 | Seeks reporting of Scope 1, 2 and material 3 | ||
| Emissions targets & decarbonization efforts | Seeks the disclosure of Scope 1 & 2 targets | Seeks Scope 1 & 2 targets and assesses decarbonization efforts | ||
| Temperature & scenario alignment / pathways |
Seeks disclosure from companies that identifies and discusses the most plausible decarbonization pathway | Assesses temperature and scenario alignment/ pathways to 1.5°C degrees | ||
| Science-based targets commitments & |
Engagement topic but not vote escalation criteria | Seeks science-based targets and verifications where possible; may take voting action where absent | ||
| Companys role in the transition | Engagement topic but not vote escalation criteria | Assesses activities benefitting from and/or contributing to the transition to a low-carbon economy | ||
| Shareholder proposals |
Case-by-case approach with focus on implications for long-term financial value creation
No support for shareholder proposals that seek to direct management strategy |
Case-by-case approach with further consideration given to decarbonization objectives in addition to financial performance
No support for shareholder proposals that seek to direct management strategy |
20 There may be some regional variations in voting under the decarbonization policy in light of company circumstances, policy requirements in a particular market or a countrys Nationally Defined Contributions, amongst other things.
| BlackRock Investment Stewardship | BlackRock Climate and Decarbonization Stewardship Guidelines | 10 |
Want to know more?
blackrock.com/stewardship | contactstewardship@blackrock.com
This document is provided for information and educational purposes only. Investing involves risk, including the loss of principal.
Prepared by BlackRock, Inc.
©2024 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved. BLACKROCK is a trademark of BlackRock, Inc., or its subsidiaries in the United States and elsewhere. All other trademarks are those of their respective owners.
iShares Trust
File Nos. 333-92935 and 811-09729
Part C
Other Information
Item 28. Exhibits:
PEA # 2,802
- 2 -
- 3 -
- 4 -
| AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund, Inc. |
| AllianceBernstein National Municipal Income Fund, Inc. |
| AB Multi-Manager Alternative Fund |
| AB Bond Fund, Inc. |
| AB Cap Fund, Inc. |
| AB Core Opportunities Fund, Inc. |
| AB Corporate Shares |
| AB Discovery Growth Fund, Inc. |
| AB Equity Income Fund, Inc. |
| AB Fixed-Income Shares, Inc. |
| AB Global Bond Fund, Inc. |
| AB Global Real Estate Investment Fund, Inc. |
| AB Global Risk Allocation Fund, Inc. |
| AB High Income Fund, Inc. |
| AB Institutional Funds, Inc. |
| AB Large Cap Growth Fund, Inc. |
| AB Municipal Income Fund, Inc. |
| AB Municipal Income Fund II |
| AB Relative Value Fund, Inc. |
| AB Sustainable Global Thematic Fund, Inc. |
| AB Sustainable International Thematic Fund, Inc. |
| AB Trust |
| AB Variable Products Series Fund, Inc. |
| Sanford C. Bernstein Fund, Inc. |
| Sanford C. Bernstein Fund II, Inc. |
| Bernstein Fund, Inc. |
| The AB Portfolios |
| Allspring Funds Trust |
| Alpha Architect ETF Trust |
| American Century Strategic Asset Allocations, Inc. |
| AMG Funds |
| AMG Funds I |
| AMG Funds II |
| AMG Funds III |
| AMG Funds IV Series |
| Franklin Fund Allocator Series |
| Franklin Templeton ETF Trust |
| Franklin Templeton Variable Insurance Products Trust |
| Legg Mason Partners Variable Equity Trust |
| FundX Investment Trust |
| The Glenmede Fund, Inc. |
| GMO Trust |
| GMO Benchmark-Free Fund |
| GMO Emerging Domestic Opportunities Fund |
| GMO Climate Change Fund |
| GMO Tax-Managed International Equities Fund |
| GMO Strategic Opportunities Allocation Fund |
| GPS Funds I |
| GPS Funds II |
| Savos Investments Trust |
| Goldman Sachs Trust |
| Goldman Sachs Variable Insurance Trust |
| Goldman Sachs Trust II |
| Goldman Sachs ETF Trust |
| Goldman Sachs ETF Trust II |
| Goldman Sachs MLP and Energy Renaissance Fund |
| Rydex Dynamic Funds |
| Rydex Series Funds |
| Rydex Variable Trust |
| Guggenheim Funds Trust |
| Guggenheim Variable Funds Trust |
| Guggenheim Strategy Funds Trust |
| Transparent Value Trust |
| Guggenheim Active Allocation Fund |
| Guggenheim Energy & Income Fund |
| Guggenheim Strategic Opportunities Fund |
| Guggenheim Taxable Municipal Bond & Investment Grade |
| Debt Trust |
| Guggenheim Unit Investment Trusts (Guggenheim Defined Portfolios) |
- 5 -
| ETF Series Solutions |
| Aspiriant Trust |
| Old Westbury Funds, Inc. |
| BlackRock Allocation Target Shares |
| BlackRock Balanced Capital Fund, Inc. |
| BlackRock Funds II |
| BlackRock Funds III |
| BlackRock Variable Series Funds, Inc. |
| BNY Mellon Absolute Insight Funds, Inc. |
| Brighthouse Funds Trust I |
| Calamos Investment Trust |
| Calamos Long/Short Equity & Dynamic Income Trust |
| Calvert Variable Products, Inc. |
| Calvert Social Investment Fund |
| Cambria ETF Trust |
| AdvisorOne Funds |
| Columbia Funds Series Trust |
| Columbia Funds Series Trust I |
| Columbia Funds Series Trust II |
| Columbia Funds Variable Series Trust II |
| Columbia Funds Variable Insurance Trust |
| Direxion Shares ETF Trus |
| Direxion Funds |
| Eaton Vance Growth Trust |
| Eaton Vance Mutual Funds Trust |
| EQ ADVISORS TRUST
1290 FUNDS |
| Exchange Listed Funds Trust |
| ETF Series Solutions |
| E-Valuator Funds Trust |
| Fidelity Advisor Series |
| Fidelity Advisor Series VI |
| Fidelity Advisor Series VII |
| Fidelity Beacon Street Trust |
| Fidelity Capital Trust |
| Fidelity Central Investment Portfolios LLC |
| Fidelity Concord Street Trust |
| Fidelity Congress Street Fund |
| Fidelity Contrafund |
| Horizon Funds |
| INDEXIQ ETF TRUST |
| Innealta Capital, LLC on behalf of Northern Lights Fund |
| Trust II |
| Invesco Growth Series |
| Invesco Investment Funds |
| Invesco Unit Trusts |
| JNL Series Trust |
| James Advantage Funds |
| Janus Henderson Clayton Street Trust |
| Janus Investment Fund |
| John Hancock Variable Insurance Trust |
| John Hancock Funds II |
| JPMorgan Trust I |
| JPMorgan Trust II |
| J.P. Morgan Fleming Mutual Fund Group, Inc. |
| JPMorgan Institutional Trust |
| JPMorgan Insurance Trust |
| J.P. Morgan Mutual Fund Investment Trust |
| Undiscovered Managers Funds |
| J.P. Morgan Exchange-Traded Fund Trust |
| JPMorgan Trust IV |
| The Lazard Funds, Inc. |
| Lincoln Variable Insurance Products Trust |
| Litman Gregory Funds Trust |
| Delaware Group Equity Funds IV |
| Delaware Group Equity Funds V |
| Delaware Group Foundation Funds |
| Delaware Pooled Trust |
| Delaware VIP Trust |
| Ivy Variable Insurance Portfolio |
| InvestEd Portfolios |
| Ivy Funds |
| Madison Funds |
| Ultra Series Fund |
| Northern Lights Fund Trust II |
| MML Series Investment Fund II |
| Morningstar Funds Trust |
| Milliman Variable Insurance Trust |
- 6 -
| Fidelity Commonwealth Trust |
| Fidelity Commonwealth Trust I |
| Fidelity Covington Trust |
| Fidelity Destiny Portfolios |
| Fidelity Devonshire Trust |
| Fidelity Exchange Fund |
| Fidelity Financial Trust |
| Fidelity Hanover Street Trust |
| Fidelity Hastings Street Trust |
| Fidelity Investment Trust |
| Fidelity Magellan Fund |
| Fidelity Mt. Vernon Street Trust |
| Fidelity Puritan Trust |
| Fidelity Securities Fund |
| Fidelity Select Portfolios |
| Fidelity Summer Street Trust |
| Fidelity Trend Fund |
| Variable Insurance Products Fund |
| Variable Insurance Products Fund II |
| Variable Insurance Products Fund III |
| Variable Insurance Products Fund IV |
| Fidelity Aberdeen Street Trust |
| Fidelity Advisor Series II |
| Fidelity Advisor Series IV |
| Fidelity Boylston Street Trust |
| Fidelity California Municipal Trust |
| Fidelity California Municipal Trust II |
| Fidelity Central Investment Portfolios II LLC |
| Fidelity Charles Street Trust |
| Fidelity Colchester Street Trust |
| Fidelity Court Street Trust |
| Fidelity Court Street Trust II |
| Fidelity Garrison Street Trust |
| Fidelity Hereford Street Trust |
| Fidelity Income Fund |
| Fidelity Massachusetts Municipal Trust |
| Fidelity Merrimack Street Trust |
| Fidelity Money Market Trust |
| Fidelity Municipal Trust |
| Nationwide Mutual Funds |
| Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust |
| Natixis Funds Trust IV |
| Natixis Funds Trust II |
| Neuberger Berman Alternative Funds |
| Neuberger Berman Equity Funds |
| Neuberger Berman Income Funds |
| Neuberger Berman Advisers Management Trust |
| Neuberger Berman ETF Trust |
| North Square Funds |
| Northern Lights Fund Trust III |
| Northwestern Mutual Series Fund, Inc. |
| FlexShares Trust |
| Northern Funds |
| MainStay Funds Trust |
| MainStay VP Funds Trust |
| Ohio National Fund, Inc. |
| Pax World Funds Series Trust I and Pax World Funds Series |
| Trust III |
| PFM Multi-Manager Series Trust |
| PIMCO Equity Series |
| PIMCO Funds |
| PIMCO Variable Insurance Trust |
| Principal Variable Contracts Funds, Inc. |
| Principal Funds, Inc. |
| ProFunds |
| ProShares Trust |
| Prudential Investment Portfolios 3 |
| Prudential Investment Portfolios 16 |
| Advanced Series Trust |
| Salient MF Trust |
| Forward Funds |
| Salient Midstream & MLP Fund |
| Schwab Capital Trust |
| Schwab Annuity Portfolios |
| Securian Funds Trust |
| SEI Institutional Managed Trust |
| SEI Institutional Investments Trust |
| SEI Institutional International Trust |
- 7 -
| Fidelity Municipal Trust II |
| Fidelity Newbury Street Trust |
| Fidelity New York Municipal Trust |
| Fidelity New York Municipal Trust II |
| Fidelity Oxford Street Trust |
| Fidelity Oxford Street Trust II |
| Fidelity Phillips Street Trust |
| Fidelity Revere Street Trust |
| Fidelity Salem Street Trust |
| Fidelity School Street Trust |
| Fidelity Union Street Trust |
| Fidelity Union Street Trust II |
| Variable Insurance Products Fund V |
| Federated Hermes Fixed Income Securities, Inc. |
| Federated Hermes MDT Series |
| Federated Hermes Global Allocation Fund |
| Federated Hermes Insurance Series |
| Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II |
| FT Series |
| First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund |
| First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund II |
| First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund III |
| First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund IV |
| First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund V |
| First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund VI |
| First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund VII |
| First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund VIII |
| First Trust Series Fund |
| First Trust Variable Insurance Trust |
| Adviser Managed Trust |
| SSGA Active Trust |
| Sterling Capital Funds |
| SunAmerica Series Trust |
| Symmetry Panoramic Trust |
| Thrivent Mutual Funds |
| Thrivent Series Fund, Inc. |
| Thrivent Core Funds |
| Transamerica Funds |
| Transamerica Series Trust |
| Transamerica ETF Trust |
| Northern Lights Fund Trust |
| Northern Lights Variable Trust |
| VanEck ETF Trust |
| Victory Portfolios |
| Victory Portfolios II |
| Victory Variable Insurance Funds |
| USAA Mutual Funds Trust |
| Virtus Strategy Trust |
| Voya Balanced Portfolio, Inc. |
| Voya Equity Trust |
| Voya Investors Trust |
| Voya Mutual Funds |
| Voya Partners, Inc. |
| Voya Separate Portfolios Trust |
| Voya Strategic Allocation Portfolios, Inc. |
| The Arbitrage Funds |
| AltShares Trust |
| Absolute Shares Trust |
| WesMark Funds |
| William Blair Funds |
| Wilmington Funds |
- 8 -
- 9 -
- 10 -
Item 29. Persons Controlled By or Under Common Control with Registrant:
None.
Item 30. Indemnification:
The Trust (also referred to in this section as the Fund) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and is operated pursuant to an Amended and Restated Agreement and Declaration of Trust (the Declaration of Trust) that permits the Trust to indemnify its trustees and officers under certain circumstances. Such indemnification, however, is subject to the limitations imposed by the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the 1933 Act), and the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the 1940 Act).
Section 10.2 of the Declaration of Trust:
The Declaration of Trust provides that every person who is, or has been, a trustee or officer of the Trust (a Covered Person) shall be indemnified by the Trust to the fullest extent permitted by law against liability and against all expenses reasonably incurred or paid in connection with any claim, action, suit, proceeding in which he or she becomes involved as a party or otherwise by virtue of being or having been a trustee or officer and against amounts paid as incurred in the settlement thereof. However, no indemnification shall be provided to a Covered Person:
(i) who shall have been adjudicated by a court or body before which the proceeding was brought (a) to be liable to the Trust or its shareholders by reason of willful misfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of his office or (b) not to have acted in good faith in the reasonable belief that his action was in the best interest of the Trust; or
(ii) in the event of a settlement, unless there has been a determination that such trustee or officer did not engage in willful misfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of his office: (a) by the court or other body approving the settlement; (b) by at least a majority of those trustees who neither are interested persons (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Trust nor are parties to the matter based upon a review of readily-available facts (as opposed to a full trial-type inquiry); or (c) by written opinion of independent legal counsel based upon a review of readily-available facts (as opposed to a full trial-type inquiry); provided, however, that any shareholder, by appropriate legal proceedings, may challenge any such determination by the trustees or by independent counsel.
Article IX of the Registrants Amended and Restated By-Laws:
The Amended and Restated By-Laws provides that the Trust may purchase and maintain insurance on behalf of any Covered Person or employee of the Trust, including any Covered Person or employee of the Trust who is or was serving at the request of the Trust as a trustee, officer, or employee of a corporation, partnership, association, joint venture, trust, or other enterprise, against any liability asserted against and incurred by such Covered Person or employee in any such capacity or arising out of his or her status as such, whether or not the trustees would have the power to indemnify him or her against such liability. The Trust may not acquire or obtain a contract for insurance that protects or purports to protect any trustee or officer of the Trust against any liability to the Trust or its Shareholders to which such trustee or officer otherwise would be subject by reason of willful misfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of his or her office.
1933 Act:
Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under the 1933 Act may be permitted to directors, officers and controlling persons of the Fund pursuant to the foregoing provisions, or otherwise, the Fund has been advised that in the opinion of the SEC such indemnification is against public policy as expressed in the 1933 Act and is, therefore, unenforceable. In the event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities (other than the payment by the Fund of expenses incurred or paid by a director, officer or controlling person of the Fund in the successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such director, officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, the Fund will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in the 1933 Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issue.
- 11 -
For each Fund that has State Street as its administrator, custodian and transfer agent:
Section 17 of the Master Services Agreement between Registrant and State Street:
The Master Services Agreement provides that State Street will indemnify, defend and hold harmless the applicable Fund, its Affiliates, and its respective officers, directors, employees, agents and permitted successors and assigns from any and all damages, fines, penalties, deficiencies, losses, liabilities (including judgments and amounts reasonably paid in settlement) and expenses (including interest, court costs, reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys, accountants and other experts or other reasonable fees and expenses of litigation or other proceedings or of any claim, default or assessment) (Losses) arising from or in connection with any third party claim or threatened third party claim to the extent that such Losses are based on or arising out of any of the following: (a) breach by State Street or any State Street Personnel of any of its data protection, information security or confidentiality obligations hereunder or under a Service Module to which such Fund is a signatory; (b) any claim of infringement or misappropriation of any Intellectual Property Right alleged to have occurred because of systems or other Intellectual Property provided by or on behalf of State Street or based upon the performance of the Services (collectively, the State Street Infringement Items), except to the extent that such infringement or misappropriation relates to or results from; (i) changes made by any Fund or by a third party at the direction of a Fund to the State Street Infringement Items; (ii) changes to the State Street Infringement Items recommended by State Street and not made due to a request from any Fund, provided that State Street has notified such Fund that failure to implement such recommendation would result in infringement within a reasonable amount of time for such Fund to so implement following such notification; (iii) any Funds combination of the State Street Infringement Items with products or services not provided or approved in writing by State Street, except to the extent such combination arises out of any Funds use of the State Street Infringement Items in a manner consistent with the applicable business requirements documentation; (iv) designs or specifications that in themselves infringe and that are provided by or at the direction of any Fund (except in the event of a knowing infringement by State Street); or (v) use by a Fund of any of the State Street Infringement Items in a manner that is not consistent with the applicable business requirements documentation or otherwise not permitted under the Master Services Agreement or any Service Module; (c) any claim or action by, on behalf of, or related to, any prospective, then-current or former employees of State Street, arising from or in connection with a Service Module to which a Fund is a signatory, including: (i) any claim arising under occupational health and safety, workers compensation, ERISA or other applicable Law; (ii) any claim arising from the interview or hiring practices, actions or omissions of employees of State Street; (iii) any claim relating to any violation by employees of State Street, or its respective officers, directors, employees, representatives or agents, of any Law or any common law protecting persons or members of protected classes or categories, such laws or regulations prohibiting discrimination or harassment on the basis of a protected characteristic; and (iv) any claim based on a theory that such Fund is an employer or joint employer of any such prospective, then-current or former employees of State Street; (d) the failure by State Street to obtain, maintain, or comply with any governmental approvals as required under the Master Services Agreement and/or a Service Module to which such Fund is a signatory or such other failures as otherwise agreed by the Parties from time to time; (e) claims by third parties arising from claims by governmental authorities against such Customer for fines, penalties, sanctions, late fees or other remedies to the extent arising from or in connection with State Streets failure to perform its responsibilities under the Master Services Agreement or any Service Module (except to the extent a Fund is not permitted as a matter of public policy to have such an indemnity for financial penalties arising from criminal actions); (f) claims by clients of State Street relating to services, products or systems provided by State Street or a Subcontractor to such client(s) in a shared or leveraged environment; (g) any claim initiated by an Affiliate or potential or actual Subcontractor of State Street asserting rights in connection with a Service Module to which such Fund is a signatory; or (h) other claims as otherwise agreed by the Parties from time to time.
Each Party will indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other Party and their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns from any and all Losses arising from or in connection with any of the following, including Losses arising from or in connection with any third party claim or threatened third party claim: (a) the death or bodily injury of an agent, employee, customer, business invitee or business visitor or other person caused by the tortious or criminal conduct of the other Party; or (b) the damage, loss or destruction of real or tangible personal property caused by the tortious or criminal conduct of the other Party.
For each Fund that has Citibank, N.A. as its administrator, custodian and transfer agent:
Section 21 of the Master Services Agreement between Registrant and Citibank, N.A.:
The Master Services Agreement provides that, subject to Article 21 and Article 22 of the Master Services Agreement, Citibank, N.A. will indemnify, defend and hold harmless BFA and the Funds and their respective Affiliates, and their Affiliates respective officers, directors, employees, agents and permitted successors and assigns from any and all damages, fines, penalties, deficiencies, losses, liabilities (including judgments and amounts reasonably paid in settlement) and expenses (including interest, court costs, reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys, accountants and other experts or other reasonable fees and expenses of litigation or other proceedings or of any claim, default or assessment) (Losses) arising from or in connection with any third party claim or threatened third party claim to the extent that such Losses are based on or arising out of any of the following: (a) material breach by Citibank, N.A. (in its capacity as Citibank, N.A., Foreign Custody Manager or any other capacity under this Agreement), any Citibank, N.A. Personnel or any Subcontractor of any of its obligations hereunder (including data protection, information security or confidentiality obligations), under any Sub-Custodian Agreement or under the Standard of Care; (b) other than as provided in Section 3.7(b) any action or omission to act by (i) a Sub-Custodian that is an Affiliate of Citibank, N.A. or (ii) a Sub-Custodian that is not an Affiliate of Citibank, N.A. and was selected, retained, monitored or used by Citibank, N.A. with the failure to exercise the required Standard of Care; (c) any third party claim of infringement or misappropriation of any Intellectual Property Rights (including any Independent Work) resulting from or alleged to have occurred because of the use or other exploitation of any deliverables provided by or on behalf of Citibank, N.A. (including by any of its Affiliates or Subcontractors), including any Citibank, N.A. Technology (including any
- 12 -
derivatives thereof), Work Product, Independent Work (including any derivatives thereof) or other developments created by any Citibank, N.A. Personnel or based upon the performance of the Services (collectively, the Citibank, N.A. Infringement Items), except to the extent that such infringement or misappropriation relates to or results from: (i) changes made by any Fund or by a third party at the direction of a Fund to the Citibank, N.A. Infringement Items; (ii) changes to the Citibank, N.A. Infringement Items recommended by Citibank, N.A. and not made due to a request from any Fund, provided that Citibank, N.A. has notified such Fund that failure to implement such recommendation would result in infringement within a reasonable amount of time for such Fund to so implement following such notification; (iii) any Funds combination of the Citibank, N.A. Infringement Items with products or services not provided or approved in writing by Citibank, N.A., except to the extent such combination arises out of any Funds use of the Citibank, N.A. Infringement Items in a manner consistent with the applicable business requirements documentation; (iv) designs or specifications that in themselves infringe and that are provided by or at the direction of any Fund (except in the event that Citibank, N.A., at the time of receiving such direction, knows or reasonably should know that an infringement or misappropriation would occur if such designs or specifications are implemented); or (v) use or distribution by a Fund of any of the Citibank, N.A. Infringement Items in a manner that is not consistent with the applicable business requirements documentation or otherwise not permitted under the Master Services Agreement; (d) any employment-related claim or action by, on behalf of, or related to, any prospective, then-current or former Citibank, N.A. Personnel, arising from or in connection herewith, including: (i) any claim arising under occupational health and safety, workers compensation or other similar applicable Law; (ii) any claim arising from the interview or hiring practices, actions or omissions of employees of Citibank, N.A.; (iii) any claim relating to any violation by Citibank, N.A., its Affiliates, or their respective officers, directors, employees, representatives or agents of any Law or any common law protecting persons or members of protected classes or categories, such laws or regulations prohibiting discrimination or harassment on the basis of a protected characteristic; and (iv) any claim based on a theory that such Fund is an employer or joint employer of any such prospective, then current or former employee of Citibank, N.A.; (e) the failure by Citibank, N.A. to obtain, maintain, or comply with any governmental approvals as required under this Agreement or Citibank, N.A. Laws; (f) such other failures as otherwise agreed by the Parties from time to time; (g) claims by any Governmental Authority against a Fund or a shareholder for fines, penalties, sanctions, late fees or other remedies to the extent arising from or in connection with Citibank, N.A.s failure to perform its responsibilities under this Agreement, or claims by third parties arising from such claims by Governmental Authorities (except to the extent a Fund is not permitted as a matter of public policy to have such an indemnity for financial penalties arising from criminal actions); (h) claims by clients of Citibank, N.A. relating to services, products or systems provided by Citibank, N.A. or a Subcontractor to such client(s) in a shared or leveraged environment; (i) any claim relating to the handling and processing of any and all immigration and employment related issues and requirements arising in connection with the Citibank, N.A. Personnel (whether located in the United States or elsewhere); (j) any third party claim based on or arising out of negligence, fraud or willful acts or omissions of or by Citibank, N.A. or Citibank, N.A. Personnel with respect to the performance of the Services; (k) any claim initiated by an Affiliate or potential or actual Subcontractor of Citibank, N.A. asserting rights in connection herewith; or (l) other claims as otherwise agreed by the Parties from time to time.
Each Party will indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other Party and its respective officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns from any and all Losses arising from or in connection with any of the following, including Losses arising from or in connection with any third party claim or threatened third party claim: (a) the death or bodily injury of an agent, employee, customer, business invitee or business visitor or other person caused by the tortious or criminal conduct of the other Party; or (b) the damage, loss or destruction of real or tangible personal property caused by the tortious or criminal conduct of the other Party.
For each Fund that has JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as its administrator, custodian and transfer agent:
Section 21 of the Master Services Agreement between Registrant and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A:
The Master Services Agreement provides that, subject to Article 21 and Article 22 of the Master Services Agreement, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. will indemnify, defend and hold harmless BFA and the Funds and their respective Affiliates, and their Affiliates respective officers, directors, employees, agents and permitted successors and assigns from any and all damages, fines, penalties, deficiencies, losses, liabilities (including judgments and amounts reasonably paid in settlement) and expenses (including interest, court costs, reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys, accountants and other experts or other reasonable fees and expenses of litigation or other proceedings or of any claim, default or assessment) (Losses) arising from or in connection with any third party claim or threatened third party claim to the extent that such Losses are based on or arising out of any of the following: (a) material breach by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (in its capacity as JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Foreign Custody Manager or any other capacity under this Agreement), any JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Personnel or any Subcontractor of any of its obligations hereunder (including data protection, information security or confidentiality obligations), under any Sub-Custodian Agreement or under the Standard of Care; (b) other than as provided in Section 3.7(b) any action or omission to act by (i) a Sub-Custodian that is an Affiliate of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. or (ii) a Sub-Custodian that is not an Affiliate of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and was selected, retained, monitored or used by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. with the failure to exercise the required Standard of Care; (c) any third party claim of infringement or misappropriation of any Intellectual Property Rights (including any Independent Work) resulting from or alleged to have occurred because of the use or other exploitation of any deliverables provided by or on behalf of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (including by any of its Affiliates or Subcontractors), including any JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Technology (including any
- 13 -
derivatives thereof), Work Product, Independent Work (including any derivatives thereof) or other developments created by any JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Personnel or based upon the performance of the Services (collectively, the JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Infringement Items), except to the extent that such infringement or misappropriation relates to or results from: (i) changes made by any Fund or by a third party at the direction of a Fund to the JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Infringement Items; (ii) changes to the JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Infringement Items recommended by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and not made due to a request from any Fund, provided that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has notified such Fund that failure to implement such recommendation would result in infringement within a reasonable amount of time for such Fund to so implement following such notification; (iii) any Funds combination of the JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Infringement Items with products or services not provided or approved in writing by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., except to the extent such combination arises out of any Funds use of the JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Infringement Items in a manner consistent with the applicable business requirements documentation; (iv) designs or specifications that in themselves infringe and that are provided by or at the direction of any Fund (except in the event that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., at the time of receiving such direction, knows or reasonably should know that an infringement or misappropriation would occur if such designs or specifications are implemented); or (v) use or distribution by a Fund of any of the JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Infringement Items in a manner that is not consistent with the applicable business requirements documentation or otherwise not permitted under the Master Services Agreement; (d) any employment-related claim or action by, on behalf of, or related to, any prospective, then-current or former JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Personnel, arising from or in connection herewith, including: (i) any claim arising under occupational health and safety, workers compensation or other similar applicable Law; (ii) any claim arising from the interview or hiring practices, actions or omissions of employees of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; (iii) any claim relating to any violation by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., its Affiliates, or their respective officers, directors, employees, representatives or agents of any Law or any common law protecting persons or members of protected classes or categories, such laws or regulations prohibiting discrimination or harassment on the basis of a protected characteristic; and (iv) any claim based on a theory that such Fund is an employer or joint employer of any such prospective, then current or former employee of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; (e) the failure by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to obtain, maintain, or comply with any governmental approvals as required under this Agreement or JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Laws; (f) such other failures as otherwise agreed by the Parties from time to time; (g) claims by any Governmental Authority against a Fund or a shareholder for fines, penalties, sanctions, late fees or other remedies to the extent arising from or in connection with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.s failure to perform its responsibilities under this Agreement, or claims by third parties arising from such claims by Governmental Authorities (except to the extent a Fund is not permitted as a matter of public policy to have such an indemnity for financial penalties arising from criminal actions); (h) claims by clients of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. relating to services, products or systems provided by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. or a Subcontractor to such client(s) in a shared or leveraged environment; (i) any claim relating to the handling and processing of any and all immigration and employment related issues and requirements arising in connection with the JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Personnel (whether located in the United States or elsewhere); (j) any third party claim based on or arising out of negligence, fraud or willful acts or omissions of or by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. or JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Personnel with respect to the performance of the Services; (k) any claim initiated by an Affiliate or potential or actual Subcontractor of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. asserting rights in connection herewith; or (l) other claims as otherwise agreed by the Parties from time to time.
Each Party will indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other Party and its respective officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns from any and all Losses arising from or in connection with any of the following, including Losses arising from or in connection with any third party claim or threatened third party claim: (a) the death or bodily injury of an agent, employee, customer, business invitee or business visitor or other person caused by the tortious or criminal conduct of the other Party; or (b) the damage, loss or destruction of real or tangible personal property caused by the tortious or criminal conduct of the other Party.
For each Fund that has The Bank of New York Mellon as its administrator, custodian and transfer agent:
Section 21 of the Master Services Agreement between Registrant and The Bank of New York Mellon:
The Master Services Agreement provides that, subject to Article 21 and Article 22 of the Master Services Agreement, The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. will indemnify, defend and hold harmless BFA and the Funds and their respective Affiliates, and their Affiliates respective officers, directors, employees, agents and permitted successors and assigns from any and all damages, fines, penalties, deficiencies, losses, liabilities (including judgments and amounts reasonably paid in settlement) and expenses (including interest, court costs, reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys, accountants and other experts or other reasonable fees and expenses of litigation or other proceedings or of any claim, default or assessment) (Losses) arising from or in connection with any third party claim or threatened third party claim to the extent that such Losses are based on or arising out of any of the following: (a) material breach by The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. (in its capacity as The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A., Foreign Custody Manager or any other capacity under this Agreement), any The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. Personnel or any Subcontractor of any of its obligations hereunder (including data protection, information security or confidentiality obligations), under any Sub-Custodian Agreement or under the Standard of Care; (b) other than as provided in Section 3.7(b) any action or omission to act by (i) a Sub-Custodian that is an Affiliate of The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. or (ii) a Sub-Custodian that is not an Affiliate of The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. and was selected, retained, monitored or used by The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. with the failure to
- 14 -
exercise the required Standard of Care; (c) any third party claim of infringement or misappropriation of any Intellectual Property Rights (including any Independent Work) resulting from or alleged to have occurred because of the use or other exploitation of any deliverables provided by or on behalf of The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. (including by any of its Affiliates or Subcontractors), including any The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. Technology (including any derivatives thereof), Work Product, Independent Work (including any derivatives thereof) or other developments created by any The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. Personnel or based upon the performance of the Services (collectively, the The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. Infringement Items), except to the extent that such infringement or misappropriation relates to or results from: (i) changes made by any Fund or by a third party at the direction of a Fund to The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. Infringement Items; (ii) changes to The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. Infringement Items recommended by The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. and not made due to a request from any Fund, provided that The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. has notified such Fund that failure to implement such recommendation would result in infringement within a reasonable amount of time for such Fund to so implement following such notification; (iii) any Funds combination of The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. Infringement Items with products or services not provided or approved in writing by The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A., except to the extent such combination arises out of any Funds use of The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. Infringement Items in a manner consistent with the applicable business requirements documentation; (iv) designs or specifications that in themselves infringe and that are provided by or at the direction of any Fund (except in the event that The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A., at the time of receiving such direction, knows or reasonably should know that an infringement or misappropriation would occur if such designs or specifications are implemented); or (v) use or distribution by a Fund of any of The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. Infringement Items in a manner that is not consistent with the applicable business requirements documentation or otherwise not permitted under the Master Services Agreement; (d) any employment-related claim or action by, on behalf of, or related to, any prospective, then-current or former The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. Personnel, arising from or in connection herewith, including: (i) any claim arising under occupational health and safety, workers compensation or other similar applicable Law; (ii) any claim arising from the interview or hiring practices, actions or omissions of employees of The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A.; (iii) any claim relating to any violation by The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A., its Affiliates, or their respective officers, directors, employees, representatives or agents of any Law or any common law protecting persons or members of protected classes or categories, such laws or regulations prohibiting discrimination or harassment on the basis of a protected characteristic; and (iv) any claim based on a theory that such Fund is an employer or joint employer of any such prospective, then current or former employee of The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A.; (e) the failure by The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. to obtain, maintain, or comply with any governmental approvals as required under this Agreement or The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. Laws; (f) such other failures as otherwise agreed by the Parties from time to time; (g) claims by any Governmental Authority against a Fund or a shareholder for fines, penalties, sanctions, late fees or other remedies to the extent arising from or in connection with The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A.s failure to perform its responsibilities under this Agreement, or claims by third parties arising from such claims by Governmental Authorities (except to the extent a Fund is not permitted as a matter of public policy to have such an indemnity for financial penalties arising from criminal actions); (h) claims by clients of The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. relating to services, products or systems provided by The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. or a Subcontractor to such client(s) in a shared or leveraged environment; (i) any claim relating to the handling and processing of any and all immigration and employment related issues and requirements arising in connection with The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. Personnel (whether located in the United States or elsewhere); (j) any third party claim based on or arising out of negligence, fraud or willful acts or omissions of or by The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. or The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. Personnel with respect to the performance of the Services; (k) any claim initiated by an Affiliate or potential or actual Subcontractor of The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. asserting rights in connection herewith; or (l) other claims as otherwise agreed by the Parties from time to time.
Each Party will indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other Party and its respective officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns from any and all Losses arising from or in connection with any of the following, including Losses arising from or in connection with any third party claim or threatened third party claim: (a) the death or bodily injury of an agent, employee, customer, business invitee or business visitor or other person caused by the tortious or criminal conduct of the other Party; or (b) the damage, loss or destruction of real or tangible personal property caused by the tortious or criminal conduct of the other Party.
Section 8.02 of the Distribution Agreement between Registrant and BRIL:
The Distribution Agreement provides that the Trust agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, BRIL, each of its directors, officers, principals, representatives, employees and each person, if any, who controls BRIL within the meaning of Section 15 of the 1933 Act (collectively, the BRIL Indemnified Parties) on an as-incurred basis from and against any and all losses, claims, damages or liabilities whatsoever (including any investigation, legal or other expenses incurred in connection with, and any amount paid in settlement of, any action, suit or proceeding or any claim asserted) (collectively, Losses) to which the BRIL Indemnified Parties become subject, arising out of or based upon (i) any untrue statement or alleged untrue statement of a material fact contained in any Prospectus or the omission or alleged omission therefrom of a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading and (ii) any breach of any representation, warranty or covenant made by the Trust in this Agreement; provided, however, that the Trust shall not be liable in any such case to the extent that any Loss arises out of or is based upon (A) an untrue statement or alleged untrue statement or omission or alleged omission made in the Prospectus about BRIL in
- 15 -
reliance upon and in conformity with written information furnished to the Trust by BRIL expressly for use therein; (B) BRILs own willful misfeasance, willful misconduct or gross negligence or BRILs reckless disregard of its obligations under this Agreement or arising out of the failure of BRIL to deliver a current Prospectus; or (C) BRILs material breach of this Agreement.
The Distribution Agreement also provides that BRIL agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Trust, each of its trustees, officers, employees and each person, if any, who controls the Trust within the meaning of Section 15 of the 1933 Act (collectively, the Trust Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all losses to which the Trust Indemnified Parties become subject, arising out of or based upon (i) any untrue statement or alleged untrue statement of a material fact contained in the Prospectus or the omission or alleged omission therefrom of a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, in reliance upon and in conformity with written information furnished to the Trust by BRIL about BRIL expressly for use therein; (ii) any breach of any representation, warranty or covenant made by BRIL in the Distribution Agreement; and (iii) the actions or omissions of any person acting under the supervision of BRIL in providing services under the Distribution Agreement; provided, however, that BRIL shall not be liable in any such case to the extent that any loss arises out of or is based upon (A) the Trusts own willful misfeasance, willful misconduct or gross negligence or the Trusts reckless disregard of its obligations under the Distribution Agreement or (B) the Trusts material breach of the Distribution Agreement.
The Authorized Participant Agreement:
The Authorized Participant Agreement provides that the Authorized Participant (the Participant) agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Fund and its respective subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees and agents, and each person, if any, who controls such persons within the meaning of Section 15 of the 1933 Act (each an Indemnified Party) from and against any loss, liability, cost and expense (including attorneys fees) incurred by such Indemnified Party as a result of (i) any breach by the Participant of any provision of the Authorized Participant Agreement that relates to the Participant; (ii) any failure on the part of the Participant to perform any of its obligations set forth in the Authorized Participant Agreement; (iii) any failure by the Participant to comply with applicable laws, including rules and regulations of self-regulatory organizations; or (iv) actions of such Indemnified Party in reliance upon any instructions issued in accordance with Annex II, III or IV (as each may be amended from time to time) of the Authorized Participant Agreement reasonably believed by the distributor and/or the transfer agent to be genuine and to have been given by the Participant.
Section 5.1 of the Sixth Amended and Restated Securities Lending Agency Agreement:
The Sixth Amended and Restated Securities Lending Agency Agreement provides that the Trust on behalf of each Fund agrees to indemnify BTC and to hold it harmless from and against any and all costs, expenses, damages, liabilities or claims (including reasonable fees and expenses of counsel) which BTC may sustain or incur or which may be asserted against BTC by reason of or as a result of any action taken or omitted by BTC in connection with or arising out of BTCs operating under and in compliance with this Agreement, except those costs, expenses, damages, liabilities or claims arising out of BTCs negligence, bad faith, willful misconduct, or reckless disregard of its obligations and duties hereunder. Actions taken or omitted in reasonable reliance upon Oral Instructions or Written Instructions, any Certificate, or upon any information, order, indenture, stock certificate, power of attorney, assignment, affidavit or other instrument reasonably believed by BTC to be genuine or bearing the signature of a person or persons reasonably believed by BTC to be genuine or bearing the signature of a person or persons reasonably believed to be authorized to sign, countersign or execute the same, shall be presumed to have been taken or omitted in good faith.
The Sixth Amended and Restated Securities Lending Agency Agreement also provides that BTC shall indemnify and hold harmless the Trust and each Fund, its Board of Trustees and its agents, BFA and any investment adviser for the Funds from any and all loss, liability, costs, damages, actions, and claims (Loss) to the extent that any such Loss arises out of the material breach of this Agreement by or negligent acts or omissions, bad faith or willful misconduct of BTC, its officers, directors or employees or any of its agents or subcustodians in connection with the securities lending activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, provided that BTCs indemnification obligation with respect to the acts or omissions of its subcustodians shall not exceed the indemnification provided by the applicable subcustodian to BTC.
The Participation Agreement:
The Form of Participation Agreement generally provides that each Investing Fund agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the iShares Funds, including any of their principals, directors or trustees, officers, employees and agents, against and from any and all losses, expenses or liabilities incurred by or claims or actions (Claims) asserted against the iShares Funds, including any of their principals, directors or trustees, officers, employees and agents, to the extent such Claims result from (i) a violation or alleged violation by such Investing Fund of any provision of this Agreement or (ii) a violation or alleged violation by such Investing Fund of the terms and conditions of the iShares Order, such indemnification to include any reasonable counsel fees and expenses incurred in connection with investigating and/or defending such Claims.
- 16 -
The iShares Funds agree to hold harmless and indemnify an Investing Fund, including any of its directors or trustees, officers, employees and agents, against and from any Claims asserted against the Investing Fund, including any of its directors or trustees, officers, employees and agents, to the extent such Claims result from (i) a violation or alleged violation by the iShares Fund of any provision of this Agreement or (ii) a violation or alleged violation by the iShares Fund of the terms and conditions of the iShares Order, such indemnification to include any reasonable counsel fees and expenses incurred in connection with investigating and/or defending such Claims; provided that no iShares Fund shall be liable for indemnifying any Investing Fund for any Claims resulting from violations that occur as a result of incomplete or inaccurate information provided by the Investing Fund to such iShares Fund pursuant to terms and conditions of the iShares Order or this Agreement.
Sublicense Agreements between the Registrant and BFA:
The Sublicense Agreements generally provide that the Trust shall indemnify and hold harmless BFA, its officers, employees, agents, successors, and assigns against all judgments, damages, costs or losses of any kind (including reasonable attorneys and experts fees) resulting from any claim, action or proceeding (collectively claims) that arises out of or relates to (a) the creation, marketing, advertising, selling, and operation of the Trust or interests therein, (b) any breach by BFA of its covenants, representations, and warranties under the License Agreement caused by the actions or inactions of the Trust, or (c) any violation of applicable laws (including, but not limited to, banking, commodities, and securities laws) arising out of the offer, sale, operation, or trading of the Trust or interests therein, except to the extent such claims result from the negligence, gross negligence or willful misconduct of BFA or an affiliate of BFA. The provisions of this section shall survive termination of this Sublicense Agreement.
Item 31. Business and Other Connections of the Investment Adviser:
The Trust is advised by BFA, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BlackRock, Inc., 400 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. BFAs business is that of a registered investment adviser to certain open-end, management investment companies and various other institutional investors.
The directors and officers of BFA consist primarily of persons who during the past two years have been active in the investment management business. To the knowledge of the Registrant, except as set forth below, none of the directors or executive officers of BFA is or has been at any time during the past two fiscal years engaged in any other business, profession, vocation or employment of a substantial nature.
| Director or Officer | Capacity with BFA | Principal Business(es) During Last Two Fiscal Years | ||
| DICKSON III, R. ANDREW | SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR | Managing Director and Corporate Secretary of BlackRock, Inc. | ||
| GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT LAWRENCE | CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND DIRECTOR | Senior Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer of BlackRock, Inc. | ||
| MATSUMOTO, PHILIPPE | TREASURER | Managing Director, Global Treasurer and Head of Corporate Insurance of BlackRock, Inc. | ||
| PARK, CHARLES CHOON SIK | CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER | Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. and Chief Compliance Officer of BlackRocks registered investment companies | ||
| SMALL, MARTIN S. | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND DIRECTOR | Senior Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer of BlackRock, Inc. | ||
BIL acts as sub-adviser for a number of affiliated registered investment companies advised by BFA. The address of each of these registered investment companies is 400 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. The address of BIL is Exchange Place One, 1 Semple Street, Edinburgh, EH3 8BL, United Kingdom. To the knowledge of the Registrant, except as set forth below, none of the directors or executive officers of BIL is or has been at any time during the past two fiscal years engaged in any other business, profession, vocation or employment of a substantial nature.
- 17 -
| Director or Officer | Capacity with BIL | Principal Business(es) During Last Two Fiscal Years | ||
| ANDERSON, JUSTINE CLAIR | DIRECTOR | Managing Director of BlackRock International Limited | ||
| CHARRINGTON, NICHOLAS JAMES |
DIRECTOR | Senior Adviser and Non-Executive Chairman of EMEA of BlackRock, Inc., Non-Executive Director of BlackRock Group Limited BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited, BlackRock Advisors (UK) Limited and BlackRock International Limited (collectively, the Joint Boards) | ||
| CLARKE, DEBORAH | DIRECTOR | Non-Executive Director of EMEA BlackRock Group Limited, BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited, BlackRock Advisors (UK) Limited and BlackRock International Limited (collectively, the Joint Boards) | ||
| DE FREITAS, ELEANOR JUDITH | DIRECTOR | Non-Executive Director of EMEA BlackRock Group Limited, BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited, BlackRock Advisors (UK) Limited and BlackRock International Limited (collectively, the Joint Boards) | ||
| FLYNN, RICHARD | CHIEF RISK OFFICER | Managing Director of BlackRock International Limited | ||
| LORD, RACHEL | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DIRECTOR | Senior Managing Director of BlackRock International Limited | ||
| GIBSON, NICHOLAS, JOHN | CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER | Managing Director of BlackRock International Limited | ||
| MATTHIEU, DUNCAN | DIRECTOR | Non-Executive Director of BlackRock Group Limited, BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited, BlackRock Advisors (UK) Limited and BlackRock International Limited (collectively, the Joint Boards) | ||
| MCDONALD, COLIN, ALISTAIR | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER | Managing Director of BlackRock International Limited, Director of BlackRock International Limited | ||
| REVELL, SUSAN | GENERAL COUNSEL | Managing Director of BlackRock International Limited | ||
| WEERASEKERA, RUWAN | DIRECTOR | Non-Executive Director of EMEA BlackRock Group Limited, BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited, BlackRock Advisors (UK) Limited and BlackRock International Limited (collectively, the Joint Boards) | ||
| YOUNG, MARGARET ANNE | DIRECTOR | Non-Executive Director of the Joint Boards | ||
Item 32. Principal Underwriters:
| (a) | Furnish the name of each investment company (other than the Registrant) for which each principal underwriter currently distributing the securities of the Registrant also acts as a principal underwriter, distributor or investment adviser. |
BRIL, the distributor of certain funds, acts as the principal underwriter or placement agent, as applicable, for each of the following open-end registered investment companies including certain funds of the Registrant:
| BlackRock Advantage Global Fund, Inc. | BlackRock Liquidity Funds | |||
| BlackRock Advantage SMID Cap Fund, Inc. | BlackRock Mid-Cap Value Series, Inc. | |||
| BlackRock Allocation Target Shares | BlackRock Multi-State Municipal Series Trust |
- 18 -
| BlackRock Bond Fund, Inc. | BlackRock Municipal Bond Fund, Inc. | |||
| BlackRock California Municipal Series Trust | BlackRock Municipal Series Trust | |||
| BlackRock Capital Appreciation Fund, Inc. | BlackRock Natural Resources Trust | |||
| BlackRock Emerging Markets Fund, Inc. | BlackRock Series Fund, Inc. | |||
| BlackRock Equity Dividend Fund | BlackRock Series Fund II, Inc. | |||
| BlackRock ETF Trust | BlackRock Series, Inc. | |||
| BlackRock ETF Trust II | BlackRock Strategic Global Bond Fund, Inc. | |||
| BlackRock EuroFund | BlackRock Sustainable Balanced Fund, Inc. | |||
| BlackRock Financial Institutions Series Trust | BlackRock Unconstrained Equity Fund | |||
| BlackRock FundsSM | BlackRock Variable Series Funds, Inc. | |||
| BlackRock Funds II | BlackRock Variable Series Funds II, Inc. | |||
| BlackRock Funds III | iShares, Inc. | |||
| BlackRock Funds IV | iShares U.S. ETF Trust | |||
| BlackRock Funds V | Managed Account Series | |||
| BlackRock Funds VI | Managed Account Series II | |||
| BlackRock Funds VII, Inc. | Master Investment Portfolio | |||
| BlackRock Global Allocation Fund, Inc. | Master Investment Portfolio II | |||
| BlackRock Index Funds, Inc. | Quantitative Master Series LLC | |||
| BlackRock Large Cap Focus Growth Fund, Inc. | ||||
| BlackRock Large Cap Focus Value Fund, Inc. | ||||
| BlackRock Large Cap Series Funds, Inc. |
BRIL also acts as the distributor or placement agent for the following closed-end registered investment companies:
|
|
BlackRock Alpha Strategies Fund | |
| BlackRock Core Bond Trust | ||
| BlackRock Corporate High Yield Fund, Inc. | ||
| BlackRock Credit Strategies Fund | ||
| BlackRock Debt Strategies Fund, Inc. | ||
| BlackRock Enhanced Equity Dividend Trust | ||
| BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust | ||
| BlackRock Health Sciences Trust | ||
| BlackRock Income Trust, Inc. | ||
| BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. | ||
| BlackRock Limited Duration Income Trust | ||
| BlackRock Multi-Sector Income Trust | ||
| BlackRock Municipal Income Trust | ||
| BlackRock Private Investments Fund | ||
| BlackRock Science and Technology Trust | ||
| BlackRock Utilities, Infrastructure & Power Opportunities Trust |
BRIL provides numerous financial services to BlackRock-advised funds and is the distributor of BlackRocks open-end funds. These services include coordinating and executing Authorized Participation Agreements, preparing, reviewing and providing advice with respect to all sales literature and responding to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority comments on marketing materials.
| (b) | Set forth below is information concerning each director and officer of BRIL. The principal business address for each such person is 50 Hudson Yards, New York, New York 10001. |
| Name |
Position(s) and Office(s) |
Position(s) and Office(s) | ||
| Jon Maro | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Board of Managers | None | ||
| Christopher J. Meade | Chief Legal Officer, General Counsel and Senior Managing Director | None | ||
| Zachary Marcus | Chief Financial Officer | None | ||
| Gregory Rosta | Chief Compliance Officer and Director | None |
- 19 -
| Cynthia Rzomp | Chief Operating Officer | None | ||
| Andrew Dickson | Secretary and Managing Director | None | ||
| Martin Small | Senior Managing Director | None | ||
| Michael Bishopp | Managing Director | None | ||
| Samara Cohen | Managing Director | None | ||
| Jonathan Diorio | Managing Director | None | ||
| Lisa Hill | Managing Director | None | ||
| Brendan Kyne | Managing Director | None | ||
| Stuart Murray | Managing Director | None | ||
| Jonathan Steel | Managing Director | None | ||
| Ariana Brown | Director | None | ||
| Chris Nugent | Director | None | ||
| Angelica Neto-Nolan | Vice President | None | ||
| Lourdes Sanchez | Vice President | None | ||
| Lisa Belle | Anti-Money Laundering Officer | Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer | ||
| Joseph Devico | Board of Managers | None | ||
| Meredith Herold | Board of Managers | None | ||
| Dominik Rohe | Board of Managers | None | ||
| Roland Villacorta | Board of Managers | None |
| (c) | Not applicable. |
Item 33. Location of Accounts and Records:
| (a) | The Trust maintains accounts, books and other documents required by Section 31(a) of the 1940 Act and the rules thereunder (collectively, the Records) at the offices of BlackRock, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109. |
| (b) | BFA and/or its affiliates maintains all Records relating to its services as investment adviser at 400 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. |
| (c) | BRIL maintains all Records relating to its services as distributor of certain Funds at 1 University Square Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540. |
| (d) | State Street maintains all Records relating to its services as transfer agent at 1 Heritage Drive, North Quincy, MA 02171. State Street maintains all Records relating to its services as fund accountant and custodian at 1 Congress Street, Suite 1, Boston, MA 02114-2016. Citibank, N.A. maintains all Records relating to its services as fund accountant and custodian at 388 Greenwich Street, New York, NY 10013. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. maintains all Records relating to its services as fund accountant and custodian at 383 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10179. The Bank of New York Mellon maintains all Records relating to its services as fund accountant and custodian at 240 Greenwich Street, New York, NY 10286. |
| (e) | BlackRock International Limited maintains all Records relating to its functions as current or former sub-adviser at Exchange Place One, 1 Semple Street, Edinburgh, EH3 8BL, United Kingdom. |
Item 34. Management Services:
Not applicable.
Item 35. Undertakings:
Not applicable.
- 20 -
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, the Registrant has duly caused this Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,802 to the Registration Statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, duly authorized, in the City of San Francisco and the State of California on the 10th day of January, 2025.
| iSHARES TRUST | ||
| By: | ||
| Jessica Tan* | ||
| President | ||
| Date: | January 10, 2025 | |
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, this Post-Effective Amendment No. 2,802 to the Registration Statement has been signed below by the following persons in the capacities and on the date indicated.
| Stephen Cohen* | ||
| Trustee | ||
| Date: | January 10, 2025 |
| John E. Martinez* | ||
| Trustee | ||
| Date: | January 10, 2025 |
| Cecilia H. Herbert* | ||
| Trustee | ||
| Date: | January 10, 2025 |
| John E. Kerrigan* | ||
| Trustee | ||
| Date: | January 10, 2025 |
| Robert S. Kapito* | ||
| Trustee | ||
| Date: | January 10, 2025 |
| Madhav V. Rajan* | ||
| Trustee | ||
| Date: | January 10, 2025 |
- 21 -
| Jane D. Carlin* | ||
| Trustee | ||
| Date: | January 10, 2025 |
| Drew E. Lawton* | ||
| Trustee | ||
| Date: | January 10, 2025 | |
| Richard L. Fagnani* | ||
| Trustee | ||
| Date: | January 10, 2025 | |
| James Lam** | ||
| Trustee | ||
| Date: | January 10, 2025 | |
| Laura F. Fergerson** | ||
| Trustee | ||
| Date: | January 10, 2025 | |
| /s/ Trent W. Walker | ||
| Trent W. Walker* | ||
| Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer | ||
| Date: | January 10, 2025 | |
| /s/ Trent W. Walker | ||
| * | By: Trent W. Walker | |
|
Attorney-in-fact | ||
| Date: |
January 10, 2025 |
| * |
| ** |
- 22 -
Exhibit Index
| (h.5) | Sixth Amended and Restated Securities Lending Agency Agreement, dated January 1, 2025, among the Trust, iShares, Inc., iShares U.S. ETF Trust and BTC. |
- 23 -
EXECUTION VERSION
SIXTH AMENDED AND RESTATED
SECURITIES LENDING AGENCY AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT, dated as of January 1, 2025, between iShares, Inc., a Maryland corporation, iShares U.S. ETF Trust, a Delaware statutory trust, and iShares Trust, a Delaware statutory trust (each singly and together, the Company), each acting on behalf of the funds listed on Schedule A hereto and any future series or portfolio of the Company (each, a Fund and collectively, the Funds), and BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., a national banking association (BTC) and its successors.
WHEREAS, the Company is registered as an open-end investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the 1940 Act);
WHEREAS, BTC acts as the agent for the Company and its corresponding Funds for the purpose of lending Securities (as defined below) in the Accounts (as defined below) pursuant to a Fifth Amended and Restated Securities Lending Agency Agreement dated as of January 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement desire to amend and restate such agreement on the terms set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Definitions.
Whenever used in this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, the following words shall have the meanings set forth below. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to them in the applicable Securities Lending Agreement.
1.1 Account shall mean an account maintained under the supervision of the applicable Funds custodian or any sub-custodian on behalf of such Fund.
1.2 Approved Investment shall mean any type of investment permitted for Cash Collateral under the Securities Lending Guidelines.
1.3 Authorized Person shall mean any officer of the Company and any other person, whether or not any such person is an officer or employee of the Company, duly authorized by resolutions of the Company to give Oral Instructions and/or Written Instructions on behalf of the Company, such persons to be designated in a Certificate which contains a specimen signature of such person.
1.4 Book-Entry System shall mean the Federal Reserve/Treasury book-entry system for receiving and delivering Government Securities (as defined herein), its successors or equivalent and nominees.
1.5 Borrower shall mean any entity which is permitted to borrow Securities from the Company pursuant to then applicable law, regulation, and/or interpretation and pursuant to the Securities Lending Guidelines, and which has a valid Securities Lending Agreement in place with BTC.
1.6 Business Day shall mean, with respect to a Fund for which Securities loans are outstanding pursuant to this Agreement, a day on which both such Fund and BTC are open for business.
1.7 Cash Collateral shall mean either Fed funds or New York Clearing House funds or their equivalent if denominated in U.S. dollars, or the equivalent if the Cash Collateral is denominated in a currency other than U.S. dollars, as applicable for a particular loan of Securities.
1.8 Cash Management Costs shall mean the expenses incurred in connection with the management and investment of a Funds Cash Collateral, including fees and expenses payable to BTC, BlackRock Fund Advisors (BFA) or any other affiliate of BTC (or its successors) as a result of the investment of Cash Collateral in any joint account, fund or similar vehicle.
1.9 Certificate shall mean any notice, instruction, schedule or other instrument in writing, authorized or required by this Agreement to be given to BTC, which is actually received by BTC and signed on behalf of the Company by an Authorized Person or a person reasonably believed by BTC to be an Authorized Person.
1.10 Collateral shall mean Cash Collateral and Non-Cash Collateral, as applicable.
1.11 Collateral Account shall mean an account established and maintained by the Custodian for the purpose of holding Collateral, which in the case of Non-Cash Collateral may be an Account or other account established for the purpose of holding Non-Cash Collateral. A Collateral Account may include a joint account as permitted by the Securities Lending Guidelines.
1.12 Custodian shall mean State Street Bank and Trust Company, a trust company organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or such other company that may from time to time be retained as custodian by the Company with respect to one or more Funds.
1.13 Depository shall mean the Depository Trust Company, Euroclear, and any other securities depository, sub-depository or clearing agency (and their respective successors and nominees) authorized under applicable law or regulation to act as a securities depository, sub-depository or clearing agency, including any foreign securities depository or sub-depository for the Company.
1.14 Distributions means interest, dividends and other payments and distributions, including non-cash distributions, received with respect to Collateral and Approved Investments.
- 2 -
1.15 Government Security shall mean book-entry Treasury securities (as defined in Subpart 0 of Treasury Department Circular No. 300, 31 C.F.R. 306) and any other securities issued or guaranteed by the United States government or any agency or instrumentality of the United States government.
1.16 Lending Complex shall mean the Funds as defined in the preamble to this Agreement.
1.17 Lending Income, iShares Complex Non-US Equity Breakpoint and iShares Complex US Equity Breakpoint have the meanings set forth in Section 5.6 of this Agreement.
1.18 Letter of Credit shall mean an unconditional and irrevocable letter of credit in favor of BTC as agent for a Fund issued by a bank other than the Borrower, the creditworthiness of which has been deemed to be acceptable by BTC and which meets any applicable requirements in the Securities Lending Guidelines.
1.19 Non-Cash Collateral means Government Securities and Letters of Credit, plus such other non-cash collateral as may be then permitted by applicable law, regulation and/or interpretation, and the Securities Lending Guidelines.
1.20 Oral Instructions shall mean verbal instructions actually received by BTC from an Authorized Person or from a person reasonably believed by BTC to be an Authorized Person.
1.21 Rebate shall mean the amount payable by a Fund to a Borrower in connection with Securities loans at any time collateralized by Cash Collateral.
1.22 Securities Lending Agreement shall mean with respect to any Borrower, the agreement pursuant to which BTC lends securities on behalf of its customers (including the Funds) to such Borrower, as amended from time to time, which agreement shall meet any applicable requirements in the Securities Lending Guidelines. The Securities Lending Agreement may be in the form of a master agreement covering a series of Securities lending transactions from multiple lenders, including the Company.
1.23 Securities Lending Guidelines shall mean guidelines governing the Companys Securities lending program adopted by the Company and provided to BTC from time to time. The Securities Lending Guidelines may address any aspect of the Companys Securities lending program, including without limitation the kinds of Securities that may be lent, permissible forms of Collateral, permissible Approved Investments, the selection of Borrowers, and regular reporting to the Company.
1.24 Securities Loan Fee shall mean the amount payable by a Borrower to BTC, as agent for the Funds, pursuant to the applicable Securities Lending Agreement in connection with Securities loans, if any, collateralized by Non-Cash Collateral.
1.25 Security shall mean any Government Securities, non-U.S. securities, U.S. common stock and other equity securities, bonds, debentures, corporate debt securities, notes, mortgages, other obligations and financial assets, and any certificates, warrants or other instruments representing rights to receive, purchase, or subscribe for the same, or evidencing or representing any other rights or interests therein, which are available for lending pursuant to Section 2.2 of this Agreement.
- 3 -
1.26 Written Instructions shall mean written communications actually received by BTC from an Authorized Person or from a person reasonably believed by BTC to be an Authorized Person by letter, memorandum, telecopy facsimile, computer, video (CRT) terminal or other on-line system, or any other method whereby BTC is able to verify with a reasonable degree of certainty the identity of the sender.
2. Appointment; Scope of Agency Authority.
2.1 Appointment. The Company, on behalf of each Fund, hereby appoints BTC as its agent to lend Securities in the Accounts to Borrowers from time to time as hereinafter set forth, and BTC hereby accepts appointment as such agent and agrees to so act.
2.2 Securities Subject to Lending. Unless the Company provides BTC with Written Instructions to the contrary or otherwise agreed by the Company and BTC, all Securities maintained in the Accounts shall be available for lending pursuant to this Agreement.
2.3 Securities Lending Agreement.
(a) Attached hereto as Exhibit A are the standard forms of Securities Lending Agreements in effect between BTC and the Borrowers as of the date hereof. BTC shall provide the Company with any proposed material amendments or changes, and notify the Company of any such amendments or changes, to any form of Securities Lending Agreement to be used prior to their effectiveness. The Company may elect, without penalty, to terminate any Borrower if it opposes the change.
(b) BTC is hereby authorized to lend Securities in the Accounts to Borrowers pursuant to the Securities Lending Agreements, this Agreement and the Securities Lending Guidelines.
2.4 Loan Opportunities. The Company on behalf of each Fund acknowledges and agrees that BTC shall have the right to decline to make any loans of Securities under any Securities Lending Agreement, to discontinue lending or to terminate any loans of Securities under any Securities Lending Agreement in its sole discretion. The Company on behalf of each Fund agrees that it shall have no claim against BTC based on, or relating to, loans made for other customers, or loan opportunities refused hereunder, whether or not BTC has made fewer or more loans for any other customer than for a Fund, and whether or not any loan for another customer, or the opportunity refused, could have resulted in loans made hereunder.
2.5 Use of Book-Entry System and Depositories. The Company on behalf of each Fund hereby authorizes BTC on a continuous and on-going basis, to deposit in the Book-Entry System and any Depositories all Securities eligible for deposit therein and to utilize the Book-Entry System and Depositories to the extent possible in connection with its receipt and delivery of Securities, Collateral, Approved Investments and monies under this Agreement. Where Securities, Non-Cash Collateral and Approved Investments eligible for deposit in the Book-Entry System or a Depository are transferred to the applicable Account or Collateral Account, BTC
- 4 -
shall identify or cause to be identified as belonging to the applicable Fund a quantity of Securities in a fungible bulk of Securities shown on BTCs account on the books of the Book-Entry System or the applicable Depository. Securities, Collateral and Approved Investments deposited in the Book-Entry System or a Depository will be commingled in accounts which include assets held by BTC for customers, including but not limited to accounts in which BTC acts in a fiduciary or agency capacity, as well as assets held by or on behalf of other clients or participants of the Book-Entry System or Depository.
2.6 Use of Third-Party Service Providers. The Company on behalf of each Fund hereby acknowledges and agrees that BTC may utilize third-party service providers to perform or analyze the functions described herein, including service providers in which BTC may have an ownership interest. As permitted by Section 5.8 below, these services may require the transmission, use or sharing of data created in Securities lending transactions involving the Funds. BTC shall bear the cost of any such service providers out of its portion of the proceeds from Securities lending.
2.7 Further Action. The Company authorizes and empowers BTC to execute in the Companys name all agreements and documents as may be necessary or appropriate in BTCs judgment to carry out the purposes of this Agreement.
3. Representations and Warranties.
3.1 Companys Representations. The Company hereby represents and warrants to BTC, which representations and warranties shall be deemed to be continuing and to be reaffirmed on any day that a Securities loan hereunder is outstanding, that:
(a) this Agreement and the Securities Lending Guidelines have been approved by the Board of Trustees or Board of Directors of the Company (as applicable); this Agreement is, and, if properly entered into under the terms of this Agreement and the Securities Lending Guidelines, each Securities loan and Approved Investment will be, legally and validly entered into by the Company on behalf of each Fund, does not, and will not, violate any statute, regulation, rule, order or judgment binding on the Fund, or any provision of the Companys charter or by-laws, or any agreement binding on the Company or affecting its property, and is enforceable against the Company and each Fund in accordance with its terms, except as may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or similar laws, or by equitable principles relating to or limiting creditors rights generally;
(b) the person executing this Agreement and all Authorized Persons acting on behalf of the Company or any Fund has and have been duly and properly authorized to do so;
(c) each Fund is lending Securities as principal for its own account and it will not transfer, assign or encumber its interest in, or rights with respect to, any Securities loans; and
(d) all Securities available for lending pursuant to this Agreement are free and clear of all liens, claims, security interests and encumbrances that would preclude their being lent as contemplated by this Agreement. The Company shall promptly notify BTC in the manner agreed between the parties from time to time when any Securities are no longer subject to the representations contained in this sub-paragraph (d).
- 5 -
3.2 BTCs Representations. BTC hereby represents and warrants to the Company, which representations and warranties shall be deemed to be continuing and to be reaffirmed on any day that a Securities loan hereunder is outstanding, that:
(a) this Agreement is legally and validly entered into by BTC, does not and will not, violate any statute, regulation, rule, order or, judgment binding on BTC, or any provision of BTCs charter or by-laws, or any agreement binding on BTC or affecting its property, and is enforceable against BTC in accordance with its terms, except as may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or similar laws, or by equitable principles relating to or limiting creditors rights generally;
(b) both the person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of BTC and all persons acting on BTCs behalf pursuant to this Agreement have been duly and properly authorized to do so; and
(c) it will comply with all laws, rules and regulations, including without limitation the conditions of any exemptive orders granted to the Company by the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to securities lending transactions, if required, applicable to the Securities lending transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
4. Securities Lending Transactions.
4.1 Compliance with Securities Lending Guidelines. BTC hereby acknowledges receipt of the current Securities Lending Guidelines. The Company shall promptly notify BTC of any changes to the Securities Lending Guidelines. BTC acknowledges and agrees that it shall only lend Securities on behalf of the Funds in accordance with the conditions of the Securities Lending Guidelines applicable to the Funds lending agent.
4.2 Loan Initiation. From time to time BTC may lend Securities to Borrowers and deliver such Securities against receipt of Collateral in accordance with the applicable Securities Lending Agreement and the Securities Lending Guidelines. If instructed by the Company in writing, BTC shall refrain from lending a particular Security or from making loans to a particular Borrower.
4.3 Receipt of Collateral; Approved Investments.
(a) With respect to any Securities loan entered into on behalf of a Fund, BTC shall require that the Borrower deliver and maintain Collateral that is equal at all times during the term of the loan to at least the market value of the Securities loaned and any accrued interest thereon. If Cash Collateral is received, BTC is hereby authorized and directed, without obtaining any further approval from the Fund, to invest and reinvest all or substantially all of the Cash Collateral received in any Approved Investments, including in the name of and on behalf of the Fund to redeem, withdraw or sell the same, and to receive distributions in the name of and on behalf of the Fund in accordance with the Securities Lending Guidelines. The Company hereby agrees to execute all necessary documents and take all necessary actions reasonably requested by BTC in order to permit BTC to so act with regard to Approved Investments. BTC shall instruct the Custodian to credit all Collateral, Approved Investments and Distributions received with respect to Collateral and Approved Investments to the applicable Collateral Account or Account, as the case may be, and mark its books and records to identify the Funds ownership thereof as appropriate.
- 6 -
(b) All Approved Investments shall be for the account and risk of the Fund. To the extent any loss arising out of Approved Investments results in a deficiency in the amount of Collateral available for return to a Borrower pursuant to the Securities Lending Agreement, the Fund agrees to pay BTC on demand cash in an amount equal to such deficiency.
(c) Except as otherwise provided herein, all Collateral, Approved Investments and Distributions credited to the applicable Collateral Account or Account, as the case may be, shall be controlled by, and subject only to the instructions of, BTC, and BTC shall not be required to comply with any instructions of the Company with respect to the same. BTC acknowledges that it has control of the Cash Collateral and the security entitlements relating to the Non-Cash Collateral on behalf of the Fund. The Fund has a perfected security interest in the Cash Collateral pursuant to UCC Section 9-104(a)(5) and the security entitlements relating to the Non-Cash Collateral pursuant to UCC Section 8-106(d)(3). UCC means the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect from time to time in the State of New York; provided, however, that, at any time, if by reason of mandatory provisions of law any or all of the perfection or priority of BTCs security interest in any item or portion of the Collateral is governed by the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect in a jurisdiction other than the State of New York, the term UCC shall mean the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect, at such time, in such other jurisdiction for purposes of the provisions relating to such perfection or priority and for purposes of definitions relating to such provisions.
4.4 Distributions on Loaned Securities. Except as provided in the next sentence, all amounts received from the Borrower equivalent to all interest, dividends, and other distributions which the owner of the loaned Securities is entitled to receive shall be credited to the Funds Account on the date such amounts are delivered by the Borrower to the Custodian. Any non-cash distribution on loaned Securities which is in the nature of a stock split or a stock dividend shall be added to the applicable loan (and shall be considered to constitute loaned Securities) as of the date such non-cash distribution is declared payable whether or not it has been received by the Borrower, provided that any such addition shall be conditional upon the actual receipt of such non-cash distribution and may be reversed by the Custodian to the extent that such non-cash distribution is not received.
4.5 Mark to Market. BTC shall on each Business Day mark to market in U.S. dollars the value of all Collateral (other than Cash Collateral) and Securities loaned hereunder and accordingly receive and release Collateral in accordance with the applicable Securities Lending Agreement.
4.6 Collateral Substitutions. BTC may accept substitutions of Collateral in accordance with the applicable Securities Lending Agreement and the Securities Lending Guidelines and shall credit all such substitutions to the Collateral Account; provided, however, that unless other Collateral has been mutually agreed upon in writing by BTC and the Fund (including by means of the Securities Lending Guidelines), no other Collateral may be substituted for Cash Collateral.
- 7 -
4.7 Termination of Loans. In addition to BTCs authority to terminate a loan of Securities pursuant to the terms of the applicable Securities Lending Agreement as described in Section 2.4 above, BTC shall terminate any Securities loan to a Borrower in accordance with the applicable Securities Lending Agreement promptly:
(a) upon receipt by BTC of Oral Instructions or Written Instructions instructing it to terminate a Securities loan; provided that the Company may require that each Security must be returned to the Fund by no later than the date which is the standard settlement date for trades of such Security entered into on the date such Oral Instruction or Written Instruction is received by BTC;
(b) upon receipt by BTC of Oral Instructions or Written Instructions pursuant to the Securities Lending Guidelines to no longer lend to a particular Borrower;
(c) upon receipt of written notice from the Company terminating this Agreement with respect to one or more Funds in accordance with Section 6; or
(d) as contemplated by the Securities Lending Guidelines.
4.8 Securities Loan Fee. BTC shall receive, hold and administer any applicable Securities Loan Fee paid by any Borrower pursuant to a Securities Lending Agreement and credit all such amounts received to the applicable Account of the lending Fund.
4.9 Borrowers Financial Condition. BTC has delivered to BFA, the investment adviser to the Funds, each Borrowers most recent statements required to be furnished to customers by Rule 17a-5(c) of the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or such other documents as may be required, as have been made available to BTC pursuant to the Securities Lending Agreements. BTC shall promptly deliver to any investment adviser for the Funds all statements and financial information subsequently delivered to BTC and required to be furnished to BTC under the Securities Lending Agreements.
4.10 Transfer Taxes and Necessary Costs. All transfer taxes and necessary costs with respect to the transfer of the loaned Securities by the Fund to the Borrower and the Borrower to the Fund upon the termination of the loan shall be paid by the Borrower in accordance with the applicable Securities Lending Agreement.
4.11 BTCs Obligation. Except as specifically set forth herein, or in any applicable Securities Lending Agreement, BTC shall have no duty or obligation to take action to effect payment by a Borrower of any amounts owed by such Borrower pursuant to the Securities Lending Agreement.
4.12 Loans to Affiliated Borrowers. The Company and BTC have obtained an exemptive order from the Securities and Exchange Commission that permits BTC to lend Securities on behalf of the Funds to Affiliated Borrowers, provided that such loans are made in accordance with the conditions and procedures outlined in the exemptive order. BTC shall only make loans to Affiliated Borrowers in accordance with such conditions and procedures, as they may be amended from time to time, and only so long as they remain applicable, and in accordance with the Securities Lending Guidelines.
- 8 -
5. Concerning BTC.
5.1 Standard of Care: Indemnification.
(a) It is expressly understood and agreed that in exercising its rights and performing its obligations hereunder, BTC owes no fiduciary duty to the Fund. BTC shall not be liable for any costs, expenses, damages, liabilities or claims (including reasonable attorneys and accountants fees) incurred by the Fund, except to the extent those costs, expenses, damages, liabilities or claims result from BTCs material breach of this Agreement or BTCs negligence, willful misconduct, bad faith, or reckless disregard of its obligations and duties hereunder.
Neither the Company nor BTC shall have any obligation hereunder for costs, expenses, damages, liabilities or claims (including reasonable attorneys and accountants fees), which are sustained or incurred by reason of any action or inaction by the Book-Entry System or any Depository or their respective successors or nominees. In no event shall either party be liable to the other for special, punitive or consequential damages, arising under or in connection with this Agreement, even if previously informed of the possibility of such damages.
(b) The Company on behalf of each Fund agrees to indemnify BTC and to hold it harmless from and against any and all costs, expenses, damages, liabilities or claims (including reasonable fees and expenses of counsel) which BTC may sustain or incur or which may be asserted against BTC by reason of or as a result of any action taken or omitted by BTC in connection with or arising out of BTCs operating under and in compliance with this Agreement, except those costs, expenses, damages, liabilities or claims arising out of BTCs negligence, bad faith, willful misconduct, or reckless disregard of its obligations and duties hereunder. Actions taken or omitted in reasonable reliance upon Oral Instructions or Written Instructions, any Certificate, or upon any information, order, indenture, stock certificate, power of attorney, assignment, affidavit or other instrument reasonably believed by BTC to be genuine or bearing the signature of a person or persons reasonably believed by BTC to be genuine or bearing the signature of a person or persons reasonably believed to be authorized to sign, countersign or execute the same, shall be presumed to have been taken or omitted in good faith.
(c) BTC shall indemnify and hold harmless the Company and each Fund, its Board of Trustees or Board of Directors (as applicable) and its agents, BFA and any investment adviser for the Funds from any and all loss, liability, costs, damages, actions, and claims (Loss) to the extent that any such Loss arises out of the material breach of this Agreement by or negligent acts or omissions, bad faith or willful misconduct of BTC, its officers, directors or employees or any of its agents or subcustodians in connection with the Securities lending activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, provided that BTCs indemnification obligation with respect to the acts or omissions of its subcustodians shall not exceed the indemnification provided by the applicable subcustodian to BTC.
(d) Prior to lending on behalf of any Fund, BTC shall have obtained a Guaranty and Indemnity from BlackRock Finance, Inc. (formerly, BlackRock, Inc.) or another entity, the creditworthiness of which is reasonably satisfactory to the Board of Trustees or Board of Directors (as applicable) of the Company, in favor of such Fund or Funds. Upon the termination of that guaranty, BTC shall obtain, and bear the costs of obtaining, a guaranty from BlackRock
- 9 -
Finance, Inc. or another entity, the creditworthiness of which is reasonably satisfactory to the Board of Trustees or Board of Directors (as applicable) of the Company, pursuant to which the guarantor will indemnify the Funds for losses due to a Borrower default on terms that are consistent in all material respects with the existing Guaranty and Indemnity by BlackRock Finance, Inc. The Funds and/or Company, at their expense, may obtain further indemnification against losses due to a Borrower default from a third party to which BTC is not a party.
5.2 No Obligation to Inquire. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, BTC shall be under no obligation to inquire into, and shall not be liable for, the validity of the issue of any Securities or Approved Investments credited to any Account or Collateral Account.
5.3 Advice of Counsel. BTC may, with respect to questions of law, apply for and obtain the advice and opinion of counsel which may be counsel to the Company, provided that the foregoing shall not be deemed to be a waiver by the Company of any conflict of such counsel.
5.4 No Collection Obligations. BTC shall be under no obligation or duty to take action to effect collection from the issuer of any amounts payable in respect of Securities or Approved Investments if the issuer of such Securities or Approved Investments is in default, or if payment is refused after due demand and presentation.
5.5 Pricing Methods. BTC is authorized to utilize any recognized pricing information service or any other means of valuation specified in the applicable Securities Lending Agreement (Pricing Methods) in order to perform its valuation responsibilities with respect to loaned Securities, Collateral and Approved Investments, and the Fund agrees to hold BTC harmless from and against any loss or damage suffered or incurred as a result of errors or omissions of any such Pricing Methods.
5.6 BTCs Fee as Securities Lending Agent, etc.
(a) (i) In the case of a Fund identified as a Fund of Funds in accordance with the methodology agreed between BTC and the Company, in connection with each Securities loan hereunder, the Fund shall, subject to Section 5.6(a)(ii) and 5.6(f), pay to BTC a percentage (the BTC Fund of Funds Fee Percentage) of Lending Income (as defined herein). As used herein, Lending Income means (A) amounts earned from securities lending activities (for the avoidance of doubt, prior to payment of compensation to BTC), consisting of income earned on the investment and reinvestment of Cash Collateral plus any Securities Loan Fees paid by the Borrowers after deducting (B) the sum of (x) any Rebate due to the Borrowers under the applicable Securities Lending Agreement with the Borrowers and (y) applicable Cash Management Costs, if any. BTC has agreed to cap Cash Management Costs on an annualized basis to 0.04% of the daily value of the Cash Collateral; such cap, which may be raised or reduced upon mutual agreement between BTC and the Board of the Company, may be effected through caps of expenses incurred by a joint account, fund or similar vehicle in which Cash Collateral is invested or, to the extent such cap does not reduce Cash Management Costs to the agreed-upon percentage, through a waiver of fees received by BTC pursuant to this Agreement. The BTC Fund of Funds Fee Percentage shall be such percentage as may from time to time be agreed upon by the Board of the Company and BTC and shall be set forth in writing. Effective
- 10 -
as of January 1, 2025, the BTC Fund of Funds Fee Percentage is eighteen percent (18%); provided, however, that if at any point during a calendar year, the sum of the (A) Lending Income earned by a Fund and the other Funds in the Lending Complex from the lending of their securities plus (B) aggregate Cash Management Costs paid by the Fund and the other Funds in the Lending Complex (collectively, the Aggregate Lending Income and Cash Management Costs), exceeds $540,000,000 (the iShares Complex Non-US Equity Breakpoint), from the next Business Day after the date that the Aggregate Lending Income and Cash Management Costs exceeds the iShares Complex Non-US Equity Breakpoint until December 31 of such calendar year, the BTC Fund of Funds Fee Percentage shall be reduced to fifteen percent (15%).
(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.6(a)(i), for any Fund that has been identified as a Fund of Funds, if the fee calculated pursuant to such Section 5.6(a)(i) would result in an effective fee split for the Fund of less than seventy percent (70%) of the sum of the relevant Funds Lending Income and the applicable Cash Management Costs for any day (the Fund of Funds Effective Fee Split Floor), then BTCs fees for such day shall be reduced to the extent necessary to provide the relevant Fund with the Fund of Funds Effective Fee Split Floor.
(b) (i) In the case of a Fund identified as a US Equity Fund in accordance with the methodology agreed between BTC and the Company, in connection with each Securities loan hereunder, the Fund shall, subject to Section 5.6(b)(ii) and 5.6(f), pay to BTC a percentage (the BTC US Equity Fee Percentage) of the Lending Income. BTC has agreed to cap Cash Management Costs on an annualized basis to 0.04% of the daily value of the Cash Collateral; such cap, which may be raised or reduced upon mutual agreement between BTC and the Board of the Company, may be effected through caps of expenses incurred by a joint account, fund or similar vehicle in which Cash Collateral is invested or, to the extent such cap does not reduce Cash Management Costs to the agreed-upon percentage, through a waiver of fees received by BTC pursuant to this Agreement. The BTC US Equity Fee Percentage shall be such percentage as may from time to time be agreed upon by the Board of the Company and BTC and shall be set forth in writing. Effective as of January 1, 2025, the BTC US Equity Fee Percentage is nineteen percent (19%); provided, however, if at any point during a calendar year, the Aggregate Lending Income and Cash Management Costs exceeds $570,000,000 (the iShares Complex US Equity Breakpoint), from the next Business Day after the date that the Aggregate Lending Income and Cash Management Costs exceeds the iShares Complex US Equity Breakpoint until December 31 of such calendar year, the BTC US Equity Fee Percentage shall remain equal to sixteen percent (16%).
(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.6(b)(i), for any Fund that has been identified as a US Equity Fund, if the fee calculated pursuant to such Section 5.6(b)(i) would result in an effective fee split for the Fund of less than seventy percent (70%) of the sum of the relevant Funds Lending Income and the applicable Cash Management Costs for any day (the US Equity Effective Fee Split Floor), then BTCs fees for such day shall be reduced to the extent necessary to provide the relevant Fund with the US Equity Effective Fee Split Floor.
(c) (i) In the case of a Fund identified as an International Equity Fund in accordance with the methodology agreed between BTC and the Company, in connection with each Securities loan hereunder, the Fund shall, subject to Section 5.6(c)(ii) and 5.6(f), pay to BTC a percentage (the BTC International Equity Fee Percentage) of the Lending Income.
- 11 -
BTC has agreed to cap Cash Management Costs on an annualized basis to 0.04% of the daily value of the Cash Collateral; such cap, which may be raised or reduced upon mutual agreement between BTC and the Board of the Trust, may be effected through caps of expenses incurred by a joint account, fund or similar vehicle in which Cash Collateral is invested or, to the extent such cap does not reduce Cash Management Costs to the agreed-upon percentage, through a waiver of fees received by BTC pursuant to this Agreement. The BTC International Equity Fee Percentage shall be such percentage as may from time to time be agreed upon by the Board of the Company and BTC and shall be set forth in writing. Effective as of January 1, 2025, the BTC International Equity Fee Percentage is eighteen percent (18%); provided, however, if at any point during a calendar year, the Aggregate Lending Income and Cash Management Costs exceeds the iShares Complex Non-US Equity Breakpoint, from the next Business Day after the date that the Aggregate Lending Income and Cash Management Costs exceeds the iShares Complex Non-US Equity Breakpoint until December 31 of such calendar year, the BTC International Equity Fee Percentage shall be reduced to fifteen percent (15%).
(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.6(c)(i), for any Fund that has been identified as an International Equity Fund, if the fee calculated pursuant to such Section 5.6(c)(i) would result in an effective fee split for the Fund of less than seventy percent (70%) of the sum of the relevant Funds Lending Income and the applicable Cash Management Costs for any day (the International Equity Effective Fee Split Floor), then BTCs fees for such day shall be reduced to the extent necessary to provide the relevant Fund with the International Equity Effective Fee Split Floor.
(d) (i) In the case of a Fund identified as a Fixed Income Fund in accordance with the methodology agreed between BTC and the Company, in connection with each Securities loan hereunder, the Fund shall, subject to Section 5.6(d)(ii) and 5.6(f), pay to BTC a percentage (the BTC Fixed Income Fee Percentage) of the Lending Income. BTC has agreed to cap Cash Management Costs on an annualized basis to 0.04% of the daily value of the Cash Collateral; such cap, which may be raised or reduced upon mutual agreement between BTC and the Board of the Trust, may be effected through caps of expenses incurred by a joint account, fund or similar vehicle in which Cash Collateral is invested or, to the extent such cap does not reduce Cash Management Costs to the agreed-upon percentage, through a waiver of fees received by BTC pursuant to this Agreement. The BTC Fixed Income Fee Percentage shall be such percentage as may from time to time be agreed upon by the Board of the Company and BTC and shall be set forth in writing. Effective as of January 1, 2025, the BTC Fixed Income Fee Percentage is eighteen (18%); provided, however, that if at any point during a calendar year, the Aggregate Lending Income and Cash Management Costs exceeds the iShares Complex Non-US Equity Breakpoint, from the next Business Day after the date that the Aggregate Lending Income and Cash Management Costs exceeds the iShares Complex Non-US Equity Breakpoint until December 31 of such calendar year, the BTC Fixed Income Fee Percentage shall be reduced to fifteen percent (15%).
(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.6(d)(i), for any Fund that has been identified as a Fixed Income Fund, if the fee calculated pursuant to such Section 5.6(d)(i) would result in an effective fee split for the Fund of less than seventy percent (70%) of the sum of the relevant Funds Lending Income and the applicable Cash Management Costs for any day (Fixed Income Effective Fee Split Floor), then BTCs fees for such day shall be reduced to the extent necessary to provide the relevant Fund with the Fixed Income Effective Fee Split Floor.
- 12 -
(e) BTC is authorized on a monthly basis to charge the fee owed to it by a Fund under this Section 5.6 against the applicable Account. Such fee shall be charged and paid at the end of each month. Subject to Section 5.6(f), BTC shall simultaneously therewith direct the Custodian to pay to the applicable Fund the net amount earned from Securities lending activities, as described in Sections 5.6(a)(i) through 5.6(d)(ii), that is not paid to BTC as its fee.
(f) BTC shall be responsible for all transaction fees and all other operational costs relating to Securities lending activities, other than Cash Management Costs to the extent borne by the Fund as provided in Sections 5.6(a), 5.6(b), 5.6(c) and 5.6(d) above, as applicable, and extraordinary expenses (e.g., litigation and indemnification expenses), each to be borne by the respective Fund.
5.7 Reliance on Certificates and Instructions. The Company agrees to furnish to BTC a new Certificate whenever any then Authorized Person ceases to be an Authorized Person or additional Authorized Persons are appointed and authorized. BTC shall be entitled to rely, and shall be fully protected in acting, upon any Certificate, any information contained on any schedule hereto as may be amended in accordance with the terms hereof, and any Written or Oral Instruction actually received by BTC and reasonably believed by BTC to be duly authorized and delivered. The Company agrees to forward to BTC Written Instructions confirming Oral Instructions in such manner so that such Written Instructions are received by BTC by the close of business of the same day that such Oral Instructions are given to BTC. The Company agrees that the fact that such confirming Written Instructions are not received on a timely basis or that contrary instructions are received by BTC shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of the transactions authorized by the Company. BTC shall use reasonable efforts to report any subsequently received contrary instructions. In this regard, the records of BTC shall be presumed to reflect accurately any Oral Instructions given by an Authorized Person or a person reasonably believed by BTC to be an Authorized Person.
5.8 Disclosure of Information. BTC may not disclose or supply any information regarding the Company or Fund unless required by any law or governmental regulation now or hereafter in effect or requested to do so by Company; provided that BTC may disclose or supply information regarding the Company and/or Fund and any transactions authorized by this Agreement as necessary in the sole discretion of BTC in order to facilitate, effect or continue any Securities loans hereunder or to assist in the analysis of the performance of the Securities lending program.
5.9 Reports. BTC shall furnish the Company and the Fund with reports relating to loans hereunder and other information requested by the Company and shall provide such reports to the Companys Board of Trustees or Board of Directors (as applicable) upon request or as may be required by the Securities Lending Guidelines.
5.10 Force Majeure. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, in no event shall a party to this Agreement be liable to the other party or any third party for losses resulting from (i) any acts of God, fires, floods, or other disturbances of nature, epidemics,
- 13 -
strikes, riots, nationalization, expropriation, currency restrictions, terrorist activity, or insurrection, or (ii) other happenings or events beyond the reasonable control or anticipation of the party affected, provided that (A) the affected party has in place appropriate business continuity procedures, systems and facilities and (B) the affected party uses its best efforts to avoid or remove the cause of such losses.
5.11 No Implied Duties.
(a) BTC shall have no duties or responsibilities whatsoever except such duties and responsibilities as are specifically set forth in this Agreement and in the applicable Securities Lending Agreement, and no covenant or obligation shall be implied against BTC in connection with this Agreement.
(b) Neither the Company nor any Fund shall have any duties or responsibilities whatsoever except such duties and responsibilities as are specifically set forth in this Agreement, and no covenant or obligation shall be implied against the Company or any Fund in connection with this Agreement.
(c) Nothing in this Agreement shall be understood to imply that in performing the functions described herein, BTC is acting in the capacity of an investment adviser or is providing advice as to the value of Securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling Securities.
6. Termination.
6.1 Termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time with respect to one or more Funds by either party upon delivery to the other party of a written notice specifying the date of such termination, which shall be not less than 60 days after the date of receipt of such notice.
6.2 Cooperation. Both parties shall take all commercially reasonable steps to cooperate to provide a smooth transition in the event of a termination.
6.3 Termination of Loans, etc. upon Termination of Agreement. Notwithstanding any such notice, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect with respect to any loans of Securities that remain outstanding as of the date of termination; provided, however, that BTC shall promptly terminate all loans of Securities made pursuant to this Agreement and shall not make any further loans of Securities pursuant to this Agreement.
7. Miscellaneous.
7.1 Exclusivity. During the term of this Agreement, the Company agrees that it shall not enter into any other agreement with any third party whereby such third party is permitted to make loans on behalf of any Fund of any Securities held by BTC in an Account from time to time; provided, however, that nothing in this provision shall prevent the Company from terminating this Agreement and/or hiring a securities lending agent other than BTC. The parties agree that this provision does not prohibit the Company from maintaining this Agreement during any transition period to another securities lending agent.
- 14 -
7.2 Notices.
(a) Any notice or other instrument in writing, authorized or required by this Agreement to be given to BTC, shall be sufficiently given if addressed to BTC and received by it at its offices at 400 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Attention: Securities Lending Department, with a copy to the General Counsel or at such other place as BTC may from time to time designate in writing.
(b) Any notice or other instrument in writing, authorized or required by this Agreement to be given to the Company shall be sufficiently given if addressed to the Fund and/or Company and received by - Mutual Fund Administration, c/o BlackRock Fund Advisors, 400 Howard Street, San Francisco, California 94105, with a copy to: Legal Department, or at such other place as the Company may from time to time designate in writing.
7.3 Cumulative Rights and No Waiver. Each and every right granted to a party hereunder or under any other document delivered hereunder or in connection herewith, or allowed it by law or equity, shall be cumulative and may be exercised from time to time. No failure on the part of a party to exercise, and no delay in exercising, any right shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise by a party of any right preclude any other or future exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right.
7.4 Severability. In case any provision in or obligation under this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions or obligations shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby, and if any provision is inapplicable to any person or circumstances, it shall nevertheless remain applicable to all other persons and circumstances.
7.5 Amendments. This Agreement may not be amended or modified in any manner except by a written agreement executed by all parties.
7.6 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall extend to and shall be binding upon the parties hereto, and their respective successors and assigns; provided, however, that this Agreement shall not be assignable by either party without the written consent of the other.
7.7 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to conflict of laws principles thereof.
7.8 No Third Party Beneficiaries. In performing hereunder, BTC is acting solely on behalf of the Company and, except as specifically provided herein, no contractual or service relationship shall be deemed to be established hereby between BTC and any other person.
7.9 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but such counterparts shall, together, constitute only one instrument.
7.10 SIPA Notice. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT OF 1970 (SIPA) OR THE DODD-FRANK ACT OF 2010 (DFA) MAY NOT PROTECT THE FUND WITH RESPECT TO
- 15 -
THE SECURITIES LOAN TRANSACTION AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE COLLATERAL DELIVERED BY AN APPROVED BORROWER TO THE FUND MAY CONSTITUTE THE ONLY SOURCE OF SATISFACTION OF THE OBLIGATION OF THE APPROVED BORROWER IN THE EVENT THE APPROVED BORROWER (OR ITS AGENT) FAILS TO RETURN THE SECURITIES. BTC SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSSES INCURRED OR LIABILITIES WHICH ARISE SOLELY DUE TO THE APPLICATION OF SIPA OR DFA TO THE SECURITIES LENDING TRANSACTIONS DESCRIBED HEREIN.
7.11 Survival of Indemnification. The indemnifications provided by a party hereunder shall be a continuing obligation of such party, its successors and assigns, notwithstanding the termination of any loans hereunder or of this Agreement.
7.12 No Personal Liability. It is understood and agreed that none of the shareholders, officers, agents, Directors or Trustees (as applicable) of the Company or any Fund shall be personally liable hereunder. All persons contracting with or having a claim against the Company with respect to a Fund shall look solely to the assets of such Fund for payment of such contract or claim, and no Fund shall be liable for the obligations of any other Fund.
7.13 Separate Agreement. Execution of this Agreement by more than one Company or on behalf of more than one Fund shall not create any contractual or other obligation between or among such Companies or Funds, and this Agreement shall constitute a separate agreement and between BTC and each Company on behalf of each respective Fund. Every reference to a Company or Fund shall be construed to be a reference solely to the particular Company or Fund that is a party to the relevant transaction. Each of the parties agrees that under no circumstances shall any rights, obligations, remedies or liabilities of a particular Company or Fund, or with respect to transactions to which a particular Company or Fund is a party, be deemed to constitute rights, obligations, remedies or liabilities applicable to any other Company or Fund or to transactions to which other Companies or Funds are parties, and BTC shall have no right to set off claims of any Company or Fund against property or liabilities of any other Company or Fund. All transactions are entered into in reliance on the fact that this Agreement constitutes a separate agreement between BTC and the Company or Fund.
[End of Text]
- 16 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers, thereunto duly authorized, as of the day and year first above written.
| iSHARES, INC. | ||
| By: | ||
| Name: Trent Walker | ||
| Title: Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer | ||
| iSHARES TRUST | ||
| By: | ||
| Name: Trent Walker | ||
| Title: Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer | ||
| iSHARES U.S. ETF TRUST | ||
| By: | ||
| Name: Trent Walker | ||
| Title: Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer | ||
| BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL TRUST COMPANY, N.A. | ||
| By: | ||
| Name: Gene Meshechek | ||
| Title: Managing Director | ||
Approved by the Board of Trustees of iShares Trust, the Board of Directors of iShares, Inc. and the Board of Trustees of iShares U.S. ETF Trust as of January 1, 2025.
[Signature page to Securities Lending Agency Agreement]
Schedule A
[List of Funds on File with BFA]
Exhibit A
[Forms of Securities Lending Agreements]