Advisory Board Members and Officers:

Correspondence intended for a Member of the Advisory Board (if any) may be sent to Fidelity Investments, P.O. Box 55235, Boston, Massachusetts 02205-5235. Correspondence intended for an officer or Howard E. Cox, Jr. may be sent to Fidelity Investments, 245 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. Officers appear below in alphabetical order.

Name, Year of Birth; Principal Occupation

Ralph F. Cox (1932)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2020

Member of the Advisory Board

Mr. Cox also serves as a Member of the Advisory Board of other funds. Mr. Cox is President of RABAR Enterprises (management consulting for the petroleum industry). Mr. Cox is a Director of Abraxas Petroleum (exploration and production, 1999-present). Mr. Cox is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Business and Engineering Schools of Texas A&M University and the Engineering School of University of Texas at Austin. Previously, Mr. Cox served as Trustee of other funds (2006-2020), a Trustee for the Fidelity Rutland Square Trust (2005-2010) and as an Advisory Director of CH2M Hill Companies (engineering, 1981-2011). Mr. Ralph F. Cox and Mr. Howard E. Cox, Jr. are not related.

Howard E. Cox, Jr. (1944)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2009

Member of the Advisory Board

Mr. Cox also serves as a Member of the Advisory Board of other funds. Mr. Cox is a Partner of Greylock (venture capital, 1971-present) and a Director of Stryker Corporation (medical products and services, 1974-present). Previously, Mr. Cox served as an Advisory Board Member of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust (2006-2010). Mr. Cox also serves as a Member of the Secretary of Defense's Business Board of Directors (2008-present), a Director of Business Executives for National Security (1997-present), a Director of the Brookings Institution (2010-present), a Director of the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders Foundation (2009-present), and is a Member of the Harvard Medical School Board of Fellows (2002-present). Mr. Howard E. Cox, Jr. and Mr. Ralph F. Cox are not related.

Christine Marcks (1955)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2019

Member of the Advisory Board

Ms. Marcks also serves as a Member of the Advisory Board of other Funds. Prior to her retirement, Ms. Marcks served as Chief Executive Officer and President – Prudential Retirement (2007-2017) and Vice President for Rollover and Retirement Income Strategies (2005-2007), Prudential Financial, Inc. (financial services). Previously, Ms. Marcks was Senior Vice President and Head of Financial Horizons (2002-2004) and Vice President, Strategic Marketing (2000-2002) of Voya Financial (formerly ING U.S.) (financial services), held numerous positions at Aetna Financial Services (financial services, 1987-2000) and served as an International Economist for the United States Department of the Treasury (1980-1987). Ms. Marcks also serves as a member of the Board of Trustees, Audit Committee and Benefits & Operations Committee of the YMCA Retirement Fund (2018-present), a non-profit organization providing retirement plan benefits to YMCA staff members, and as a member of the Board of Trustees of Assumption College (2019-present).

Elizabeth Paige Baumann (1968)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2017

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Officer

Ms. Baumann also serves as AML Officer of other funds. She is Chief AML Officer (2012-present) and Senior Vice President (2014-present) of FMR LLC (diversified financial services company) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments. Previously, Ms. Baumann served as AML Officer of certain funds (2017-2019), as AML Officer of the funds (2012-2016), and Vice President (2007-2014) and Deputy Anti-Money Laundering Officer (2007-2012) of FMR LLC.

Craig S. Brown (1977)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2019

Assistant Treasurer

Mr. Brown also serves as Assistant Treasurer of other funds. Mr. Brown is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2013-present).

John J. Burke III (1964)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2018

Chief Financial Officer

Mr. Burke also serves as Chief Financial Officer of other funds. Mr. Burke serves as Head of Investment Operations for Fidelity Fund and Investment Operations (2018-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (1998-present). Previously Mr. Burke served as head of Asset Management Investment Operations (2012-2018).

Jonathan Davis (1968)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2010

Assistant Treasurer

Mr. Davis also serves as Assistant Treasurer of other funds. Mr. Davis serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments. Previously, Mr. Davis served as Vice President and Associate General Counsel of FMR LLC (diversified financial services company, 2003-2010).

Laura M. Del Prato (1964)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2018

Assistant Treasurer

Ms. Del Prato also serves as an officer of other funds. Ms. Del Prato is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2017-present). Prior to joining Fidelity Investments, Ms. Del Prato served as a Managing Director and Treasurer of the JPMorgan Mutual Funds (2014-2017). Prior to JPMorgan, Ms. Del Prato served as a partner at Cohen Fund Audit Services (accounting firm, 2012-2013) and KPMG LLP (accounting firm, 2004-2012).

James D. Gryglewicz (1972)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2015

Chief Compliance Officer

Mr. Gryglewicz also serves as Chief Compliance Officer of other funds. Mr. Gryglewicz serves as Compliance Officer of Strategic Advisers LLC (investment adviser firm, 2015-present), Senior Vice President of Asset Management Compliance (2009-present), and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2004-present). Previously, Mr. Gryglewicz served as Compliance Officer of Fidelity SelectCo, LLC (investment adviser firm, 2014-2019), and as Chief Compliance Officer of certain Fidelity^® funds (2014-2018).

Colm A. Hogan (1973)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2016

Assistant Treasurer

Mr. Hogan also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Hogan serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2005-present). Previously, Mr. Hogan served as Deputy Treasurer of certain Fidelity^® funds (2016-2020) and Assistant Treasurer of certain Fidelity^® funds (2016-2018). Mr. Colm A. Hogan is not related to Mr. Brian B. Hogan.

Christina H. Lee (1975)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2020

Secretary and Chief Legal Officer

Ms. Lee also serves as Secretary and CLO of other funds. Ms. Lee serves as Vice President, Associate General Counsel (2014-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2007-present). Previously, Ms. Lee served as Assistant Secretary of certain funds (2018-2019).

Cynthia Lo Bessette (1969)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2020

Assistant Secretary

Ms. Lo Bessette also serves as an officer of other funds. Ms. Lo Bessette serves as CLO, Secretary, and Senior Vice President of Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC (investment adviser firm, 2019-present); and CLO of Fidelity Management & Research (Hong Kong) Limited, FMR Investment Management (UK) Limited, and Fidelity Management & Research (Japan) Limited (investment adviser firms, 2019-present). She is a Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of FMR LLC (diversified financial services company, 2019-present), and is an employee of Fidelity Investments. Previously, Ms. Lo Bessette served as CLO, Secretary, and Senior Vice President of FMR Co., Inc. (investment adviser firm, 2019); Secretary of Fidelity SelectCo, LLC and Fidelity Investments Money Management, Inc. (investment adviser firms, 2019). Prior to joining Fidelity Investments, Ms. Lo Bessette was Executive Vice President, General Counsel (2016-2019) and Senior Vice President, Deputy General Counsel (2015-2016) of OppenheimerFunds (investment management company) and Deputy Chief Legal Officer (2013-2015) of Jennison Associates LLC (investment adviser firm).

Chris Maher (1972)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2016

Assistant Treasurer

Mr. Maher also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Maher serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present), and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2008-present). Previously, Mr. Maher served as Assistant Treasurer of certain funds (2013-2020); Vice President of Asset Management Compliance (2013), Vice President of the Program Management Group of FMR (investment adviser firm, 2010-2013), and Vice President of Valuation Oversight (2008-2010).

Stacie M. Smith (1974)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2020

President and Treasurer

Ms. Smith also serves as an officer of other funds. Ms. Smith serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present), is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2009-present), and has served in other fund officer roles. Prior to joining Fidelity Investments, Ms. Smith served as Senior Audit Manager of Ernst & Young LLP (accounting firm, 1996-2009). Previously, Ms. Smith served as Assistant Treasurer (2013-2019) and Deputy Treasurer (2013-2016) of certain Fidelity^® funds.

Marc L. Spector (1972)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2016

Assistant Treasurer

Mr. Spector also serves as an officer of other funds. Mr. Spector serves as Assistant Treasurer of FMR Capital, Inc. (2017-present) and is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2016-present). Prior to joining Fidelity Investments, Mr. Spector served as Director at the Siegfried Group (accounting firm, 2013-2016), and prior to Siegfried Group as audit senior manager at Deloitte & Touche LLP (accounting firm, 2005-2013).

Jim Wegmann (1979)

Year of Election or Appointment: 2019

Assistant Treasurer

Mr. Wegmann also serves as Assistant Treasurer of other funds. Mr. Wegmann is an employee of Fidelity Investments (2011-present).

Standing Committees of the Trustees. The Board of Trustees has established two committees to supplement the work of the Board as a whole. The members of each committee are Independent Trustees.

The Audit and Compliance Committee is composed of all of the Independent Trustees, with Ms. Steiger currently serving as Chair. All committee members must be able to read and understand fundamental financial statements, including a company's balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement. The committee determines whether at least one member of the committee is an "audit committee financial expert" as defined in rules promulgated by the SEC under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The committee normally meets in conjunction with in person meetings of the Board of Trustees, or more frequently as called by the Chair or a majority of committee members. The committee meets separately periodically with the fund's Treasurer, the fund's Chief Financial Officer, the fund's CCO, personnel responsible for the internal audit function of FMR LLC, and the fund's outside auditors. The committee has direct responsibility for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of the work of the outside auditors employed by the fund for the purpose of preparing or issuing an audit report or related work. The committee assists the Trustees in overseeing and monitoring: (i) the systems of internal accounting and financial controls of the fund and the fund's service providers, (ii) the financial reporting processes of the fund, (iii) the independence, objectivity and qualification of the auditors to the fund, (iv) the annual audits of the fund's financial statements, and (v) the accounting policies and disclosures of the fund. The committee considers and acts upon (i) the provision by any outside auditor of any non-audit services for any fund, and (ii) the provision by any outside auditor of certain non-audit services to fund service providers and their affiliates to the extent that such approval (in the case of this clause (ii)) is required under applicable regulations (auditor independence regulations) of the SEC. It is responsible for approving all audit engagement fees and terms for the fund and for resolving disagreements between the fund and any outside auditor regarding any fund's financial reporting, and has sole authority to hire and fire any auditor. Auditors of the fund report directly to the committee. The committee will obtain assurance of independence and objectivity from the outside auditors, including a formal written statement delineating all relationships between the auditor and the fund and any service providers consistent with Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) Ethics and Independence Rule 3526, Communication with Audit Committees Concerning Independence. The committee will discuss with the outside auditors any such disclosed relationships and their impact on the auditor's independence and objectivity. The committee will receive reports of compliance with provisions of the auditor independence regulations relating to the hiring of employees or former employees of the outside auditors. It oversees and receives reports on the fund's service providers' internal controls and reviews with management, internal audit personnel of FMR LLC, and outside auditors the adequacy and effectiveness of the fund's and service providers' accounting and financial controls, including: (i) any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting that are reasonably likely to adversely affect the fund's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data; (ii) any change in the fund's internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the fund's internal control over financial reporting; and (iii) any fraud, whether material or not, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the fund's or service provider's internal controls over financial reporting. The committee will review with counsel any legal matters that may have a material impact on the fund's financial statements and any material reports or inquiries received from regulators or governmental agencies. The committee reviews at least annually a report from the outside auditor describing (i) any material issues raised by the most recent internal quality control review, peer review, or PCAOB examination of the auditing firm and (ii) any material issues raised by any inquiry or investigation by governmental or professional authorities of the auditing firm since the most recent report and in each case any steps taken to deal with such issues. The committee will oversee and receive reports on the fund's financial reporting process from the fund's Treasurer and outside auditors and will receive reports from any outside auditor relating to (i) critical accounting policies and practices used by the fund, (ii) alternative accounting treatments that the auditor has discussed with Strategic Advisers, and (iii) other material written communications between the auditor and Strategic Advisers (as determined by the auditor). The committee will discuss with Strategic Advisers, the fund's Treasurer, outside auditors and, if appropriate, internal audit personnel of FMR LLC, their qualitative judgments about the appropriateness and acceptability of accounting principles and financial disclosure practices used or proposed for adoption by the fund. The committee will review with Strategic Advisers, the fund's Treasurer, outside auditors, and internal audit personnel of FMR LLC (to the extent relevant) the results of audits of the fund's financial statements. The committee will discuss regularly and oversee the review of the fund's major internal controls exposures, the steps that have been taken to monitor and control such exposures, and any risk management programs relating to the fund. The committee also oversees the administration and operation of the compliance policies and procedures of the fund and fund's service providers as required by Rule 38a-1 of the 1940 Act. The committee is responsible for the review and approval of policies and procedures relating to (i) provisions of the Code of Ethics, (ii) anti-money laundering requirements, (iii) compliance with investment restrictions and limitations, (iv) privacy, (v) recordkeeping, and (vi) other compliance policies and procedures which are not otherwise delegated to another committee of the Board of Trustees or reserved to the Board itself. The committee has responsibility for recommending to the Board the designation of a CCO of the fund. The committee serves as the primary point of contact between the CCO and the Board, it oversees the annual performance review and compensation of the CCO and, if required, makes recommendations to the Board with respect to the removal of the appointed CCO. The committee receives reports on significant correspondence with regulators or governmental agencies, employee complaints or published reports which raise concerns regarding compliance matters, and copies of significant non-routine correspondence with the SEC. The committee receives reports from the CCO including the annual report concerning the fund's compliance policies as required by Rule 38a-1 and quarterly reports in respect of any breaches of fiduciary duty or violations of federal securities laws. During the fiscal year ended May 31, 2020, the committee held four meeting(s).

The Governance and Nominating Committee is composed of all of the Independent Trustees, with Ms. Farrell currently serving as Chair. The committee meets as called by the Chair. With respect to fund governance and board administration matters, the committee periodically reviews procedures of the Board of Trustees and its committees (including committee charters) and periodically reviews compensation of Independent Trustees. The committee monitors corporate governance matters and makes recommendations to the Board of Trustees on the frequency and structure of the Board of Trustee meetings and on any other aspect of Board procedures. It reviews the performance of legal counsel employed by the funds and the Independent Trustees. On behalf of the Independent Trustees, the committee will make such findings and determinations as to the independence of counsel for the Independent Trustees as may be necessary or appropriate under applicable regulations or otherwise. The committee is also responsible for Board administrative matters applicable to Independent Trustees, such as expense reimbursement policies and compensation for attendance at meetings, conferences and other events. The committee monitors compliance with, acts as the administrator of, and makes determinations in respect of, the provisions of the code of ethics and any supplemental policies regarding personal securities transactions applicable to the Independent Trustees. The committee monitors the functioning of each Board committee and makes recommendations for any changes, including the creation or elimination of standing or ad hoc Board committees. The committee monitors regulatory and other developments to determine whether to recommend modifications to the committee's responsibilities or other Trustee policies and procedures in light of rule changes, reports concerning "best practices" in corporate governance and other developments in mutual fund governance. The committee recommends that the Board establish such special or ad hoc Board committees as may be desirable or necessary from time to time in order to address ethical, legal, or other matters that may arise. The committee also oversees the annual self-evaluation of the Board of Trustees and establishes procedures to allow it to exercise this oversight function. In conducting this oversight, the committee shall address all matters that it considers relevant to the performance of the Board of Trustees and shall report the results of its evaluation to the Board of Trustees, including any recommended amendments to the principles of governance, and any recommended changes to the fund's or the Board of Trustees' policies, procedures, and structures. The committee reviews periodically the size and composition of the Board of Trustees as a whole and recommends, if necessary, measures to be taken so that the Board of Trustees reflects the appropriate balance of knowledge, experience, skills, expertise, and diversity required for the Board as a whole and contains at least the minimum number of Independent Trustees required by law. The committee makes nominations for the election or appointment of Independent Trustees and for membership on committees. The committee shall have authority to retain and terminate any third-party advisers, including authority to approve fees and other retention terms. Such advisers may include search firms to identify Independent Trustee candidates and board compensation consultants. The committee may conduct or authorize investigations into or studies of matters within the committee's scope of responsibilities, and may retain, at the fund's expense, such independent counsel or other advisers as it deems necessary. The committee will consider nominees to the Board of Trustees recommended by shareholders based upon the criteria applied to candidates presented to the committee by a search firm or other source. Recommendations, along with appropriate background material concerning the candidate that demonstrates his or her ability to serve as an Independent Trustee of the fund, should be submitted to the Chair of the committee at the address maintained for communications with Independent Trustees. If the committee retains a search firm, the Chair will generally forward all such submissions to the search firm for evaluation. During the fiscal year ended May 31, 2020, the committee held four meeting(s).

The following table sets forth information describing the dollar range of equity securities beneficially owned by each Trustee in the fund and in all funds in the aggregate within the same fund family overseen by the Trustee for the calendar year ended December 31, 2019. (The information is as of June 30, 2020 for Mr. Morrison, Trustee as of June 4, 2020.)

The following table sets forth information describing the compensation of each Trustee and Member of the Advisory Board (if any) for his or her services for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2021, or calendar year ended December 31, 2019, as applicable.

(1)   Charles S. Morrison, Robert A. Lawrence, and Howard E. Cox, Jr. are interested persons and are compensated by Strategic Advisers or an affiliate (including FMR).

(2)   Ralph F. Cox served as a Trustee of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II through June 3, 2020, at which time he was appointed as a Member of the Advisory Board.

(3)   Estimated for the fund's first full fiscal year.

(4)   Reflects compensation received for the calendar year ended December 31, 2019, for 14 funds of one trust. Compensation figures include cash and may include amounts elected to be deferred.

(5)   Christine Marcks serves as a Member of the Advisory Board of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II effective September 4, 2019.

As of the public offering of shares of the fund, 100% of the fund’s total outstanding shares was held by Strategic Advisers and/or another entity or entities of which FMR LLC is the ultimate parent.

FMR LLC, as successor by merger to FMR Corp., is the ultimate parent company of Strategic Advisers, FIAM, FMR Investment Management (UK) Limited (FMR UK), Fidelity Management & Research (Hong Kong) Limited (FMR H.K.), and Fidelity Management & Research (Japan) Limited (FMR Japan). The voting common shares of FMR LLC are divided into two series. Series B is held predominantly by members of the Johnson family, including Abigail P. Johnson, directly or through trusts, and is entitled to 49% of the vote on any matter acted upon by the voting common shares. Series A is held predominantly by non-Johnson family member employees of FMR LLC and its affiliates and is entitled to 51% of the vote on any such matter. The Johnson family group and all other Series B shareholders have entered into a shareholders' voting agreement under which all Series B shares will be voted in accordance with the majority vote of Series B shares. Under the 1940 Act, control of a company is presumed where one individual or group of individuals owns more than 25% of the voting securities of that company. Therefore, through their ownership of voting common shares and the execution of the shareholders' voting agreement, members of the Johnson family may be deemed, under the 1940 Act, to form a controlling group with respect to FMR LLC.

At present, the primary business activities of FMR LLC and its subsidiaries are: (i) the provision of investment advisory, management, shareholder, investment information and assistance and certain fiduciary services for individual and institutional investors; (ii) the provision of securities brokerage services; (iii) the management and development of real estate; and (iv) the investment in and operation of a number of emerging businesses.

As of December 31, 2019, Equitable Holdings, Inc. (“EQH”) owns approximately 4.1% of the issued and outstanding units representing assignments of beneficial ownership of limited partnership interests in AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. (“AB Holding Units”). AllianceBernstein Corporation (an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of EQH, “General Partner”) is the general partner of both AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. (“AB Holding”) and AB. AllianceBernstein Corporation owns 100,000 general partnership units in AB Holding and a 1% general partnership interest in AllianceBernstein.

As of December 31, 2019, the ownership structure of AllianceBernstein, including limited partnership units outstanding as well as the general partner’s 1% interest, is as follows: EQH and its subsidiaries, 63.3%; AB Holding, 36.0%; Unaffiliated holders, 0.7%.

Including both the general partnership and limited partnership interests in AB Holding and AllianceBernstein, EQH and its subsidiaries had an approximate 64.8% economic interest in AllianceBernstein as of December 31, 2019.

Aristotle Capital, a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at 11100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90025. Aristotle Capital is a limited liability company wholly owned by employees and management. Howard Gleicher, Aristotle Capital’s CEO and Chief Investment Officer and Richard S. Hollander, Aristotle Capital’s Chairman, each have 50% of the voting interest in Aristotle Capital. RCB Acquisition Company is a holding company that holds Mr. Hollander's ownership interest in Aristotle Capital Management.

Brandywine Global, a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Brandywine Global is a wholly owned, independently operated subsidiary of Legg Mason, Inc.

ClariVest is a registered investment adviser and has its principal office at 3611 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, California 92130. Eagle Asset Management, Inc., a subsidiary of Raymond James Financial, owns 100% of ClariVest.

ClearBridge is a registered investment adviser. ClearBridge, located at 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10018, is a global active equity manager with a legacy of over 50 years in the asset management business. ClearBridge is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Legg Mason ClearBridge Holdings, LLC, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Legg Mason, Inc. (Legg Mason). Legg Mason is a global asset management company.

FIAM is a registered investment adviser. FMR LLC is the ultimate parent company of FIAM. Information regarding the ownership of FMR LLC is disclosed above.

Geode, a registered investment adviser, is a subsidiary of Geode Capital Holdings LLC. Geode was founded in January 2001 to develop and manage quantitative and investment strategies and to provide advisory and sub-advisory services.

Invesco is located at 1555 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Invesco, as successor in interest to multiple investment advisers, has been a registered investment adviser since 1976 and is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Invesco Ltd., a publicly traded company that, through its subsidiaries, engages in the business of investment management on an international basis.

JPMorgan is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JP Morgan Asset Management Holdings Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan Chase), a bank holding company. JPMorgan is located at 383 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10179.

Loomis Sayles, a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Loomis Sayles is an indirect subsidiary of Natixis Investment Managers, LLC, which is an indirect subsidiary of Natixis Investment Managers, an international asset management group based in Paris, France. Natixis Investment Managers is principally owned by BPCE, France’s second largest banking group.

LSV, a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at 155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4600, Chicago, IL 60606. LSV is a Delaware general partnership between its management team and current and retired employee partners (61%) and SEI Funds, Inc. (39%), a wholly-owned subsidiary of SEI Investments Company.

PineBridge is an SEC-registered investment adviser with its principal office located at Park Avenue Tower, 65 E. 55th St, 6th Floor, New York, New York 10022. Registered as an investment adviser since May 1983, PineBridge was formerly known as AIG Global Investment Corporation. PineBridge is currently an indirect subsidiary of PineBridge Investments, L.P., a company owned by Pacific Century Group (“PCG”), an Asia-based private investment group. PCG is majority owned by Richard Li Tzar Kai. As of May 31, 2020, PineBridge and its affiliates had approximately $103.37 billion in assets under management.

Principal, a registered investment adviser, has its principal office at 801 Grand Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50392. Principal is a diversified asset management organization and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Principal Financial Group, Inc. (“PFG”). PFG is a public company listed on the NASDAQ offering a wide range of financial products and services through a diverse family of financial services companies.

T. Rowe Price is a registered investment adviser. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., a publicly-traded financial services holding company (NASDAQ: TROW), owns 100% of the stock of T. Rowe Price and all of its subsidiaries.

Strategic Advisers, AllianceBernstein, Aristotle Capital, Brandywine Global, ClariVest, ClearBridge, FIAM, FMR UK, FMR H.K., FMR Japan, Geode, Invesco, JPMorgan, Loomis Sayles, LSV, PineBridge, Principal, T. Rowe Price (the Investment Advisers), Fidelity Distributors Company LLC (FDC), and the fund have adopted codes of ethics under Rule 17j-1 of the 1940 Act that set forth employees' fiduciary responsibilities regarding the fund, establish procedures for personal investing, and restrict certain transactions. Employees subject to the codes of ethics, including the Investment Advisers' investment personnel, may invest in securities for their own investment accounts, including securities that may be purchased or held by the fund.

The fund has entered into a management contract with Strategic Advisers, pursuant to which Strategic Advisers furnishes investment advisory and other services.

The fund's initial shareholder approved a proposal permitting Strategic Advisers to enter into new or amended sub-advisory agreements with one or more unaffiliated sub-advisers without obtaining shareholder approval of such agreements, subject to conditions of an exemptive order that has been granted by the SEC (Exemptive Order). One of the conditions of the Exemptive Order requires the Board of Trustees to approve any such agreement. Subject to oversight by the Board of Trustees, Strategic Advisers has the ultimate responsibility to oversee the fund's sub-advisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement. In the event the Board of Trustees approves a sub-advisory agreement with a new unaffiliated sub-adviser, shareholders will be provided with information about the new sub-adviser and sub-advisory agreement within ninety days of appointment.

Strategic Advisers has retained AllianceBernstein, Aristotle Capital, Brandywine Global, ClariVest, ClearBridge, FIAM, Geode, Invesco, JPMorgan, Loomis Sayles, LSV, PineBridge, Principal, and T. Rowe Price to serve as sub-advisers for the fund. FIAM, in turn, has retained FMR UK, FMR H.K., and FMR Japan to serve as sub-subadvisers for the fund. The sub-advisers do not sponsor the fund.

It is not possible to predict the extent to which the fund's assets will be invested by a particular sub-adviser at any given time and one or more sub-advisers may not be managing any assets for the fund at any given time.

Management and Sub-Advisory Services. Under the terms of its management contract with the fund, Strategic Advisers acts as investment adviser and, subject to the supervision of the Board of Trustees, directs the investments of the fund in accordance with its investment objective, policies and limitations. Strategic Advisers is authorized, in its discretion, to allocate the fund's assets pursuant to its investment strategy. Strategic Advisers or its affiliates provide the fund with all necessary office facilities and personnel for servicing the fund's investments, compensate all officers of the fund and all Trustees who are interested persons of the trust or of Strategic Advisers, and compensate all personnel of the fund or Strategic Advisers performing services relating to research, statistical and investment activities.

In addition, Strategic Advisers or its affiliates, subject to the supervision of the Board of Trustees, provide the management and administrative services necessary for the operation of the fund. These services include providing facilities for maintaining the fund's organization; supervising relations with custodians, transfer and pricing agents, accountants, underwriters and other persons dealing with the fund; preparing all general shareholder communications and conducting shareholder relations; maintaining the fund's records and the registration of the fund's shares under federal securities laws and making necessary filings under state securities laws; developing management and shareholder services for the fund; and furnishing reports, evaluations and analyses on a variety of subjects to the Trustees.

Under its respective sub-advisory agreement, and subject to the supervision of the Board of Trustees, each sub-adviser directs the investment of its allocated portion of the fund's assets in accordance with the fund's investment objective, policies and limitations.

Management-Related Expenses. In addition to the management fee payable to Strategic Advisers, the fund pays all of its expenses that are not assumed by Strategic Advisers or its affiliates. Under the terms of separate agreements between Strategic Advisers and the fund’s transfer agent and service agent, Strategic Advisers or an affiliate is responsible for the payment of any fees associated with the transfer agent and service agent agreements. The fund pays for the typesetting, printing, and mailing of its proxy materials to shareholders, legal expenses, and the fees of the custodian, auditor, and Independent Trustees. The fund's management contract further provides that the fund will pay for typesetting, printing, and mailing prospectuses, statements of additional information, notices, and reports to shareholders. Other expenses paid by the fund include interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, fees and expenses associated with the fund's securities lending program, if applicable, the fund's proportionate share of insurance premiums and Investment Company Institute dues, and the costs of registering shares under federal securities laws and making necessary filings under state securities laws. The fund is also liable for such non-recurring expenses as may arise, including costs of any litigation to which the fund may be a party, and any obligation it may have to indemnify its officers and Trustees with respect to litigation.

Management Fee.

For the services of Strategic Advisers under the management contract, the fund pays Strategic Advisers a monthly management fee calculated by adding the annual rate of 0.25% of the fund's average daily net assets throughout the month plus the total fees payable monthly to the fund's sub-advisers, if any, based upon each sub-adviser's respective allocated portion of the fund's assets; provided, however, that the fund's maximum aggregate annual management fee will not exceed 0.65% of the fund's average daily net assets.

In addition, Strategic Advisers has contractually agreed to waive a portion of the fund's management fee in an amount equal to 0.25% of the average daily net assets of the fund until September 30, 2023. The fee waiver will increase returns.

Strategic Advisers may, from time to time, voluntarily reimburse all or a portion of a fund's or, in the case of a multiple class fund, a class's operating expenses. Strategic Advisers retains the ability to be repaid for these expense reimbursements in the amount that expenses fall below the limit prior to the end of the fiscal year.

Expense reimbursements will increase returns, and repayment of the reimbursement will decrease returns.

Sub-Adviser - AllianceBernstein. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with AllianceBernstein pursuant to which AllianceBernstein may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays AllianceBernstein fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by AllianceBernstein pursuant to a separately negotiated investment mandate (a "Strategy"). The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by AllianceBernstein under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by AllianceBernstein pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser - Aristotle Capital. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Aristotle Capital pursuant to which Aristotle Capital may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Aristotle Capital fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Aristotle Capital pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Aristotle Capital under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Aristotle Capital pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser - Brandywine Global. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Brandywine Global pursuant to which Brandywine Global may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Brandywine Global fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Brandywine Global pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Brandywine Global under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Brandywine Global pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser - ClariVest. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with ClariVest pursuant to which ClariVest may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays ClariVest fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by ClariVest pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by ClariVest under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by ClariVest pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser - ClearBridge. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with ClearBridge pursuant to which ClearBridge may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays ClearBridge fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by ClearBridge pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by ClearBridge under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by ClearBridge pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser - FIAM. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with FIAM pursuant to which FIAM may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays FIAM fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by FIAM pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by FIAM under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by FIAM pursuant to that Strategy.

The following fee rate schedules apply to the mandates below.

Focused Large Cap Growth: 0.35% of the first $250 million in assets; 0.30% of the next $250 million in assets; 0.25% of the next $500 million in assets; and 0.20% on any amount in excess of $1 billion in assets.

Large Cap Core: 0.40% of the first $100 million in assets and 0.30% on any amount in excess of $100 million in assets.

Quantitative Large Cap Core: 0.40% of the first $100 million in assets; 0.35% of the next $150 million in assets; 0.30% of the next $100 million in assets; and 0.25% on any amount in excess of $350 million in assets.

Sector Managed: 0.28% on all assets.

U.S. Equity: 0.275% of the first $500 million in assets and 0.225% on any amount in excess of $500 million in assets.

Large Cap Value: 0.40% of the first $100 million in assets; 0.35% of the next $150 million in assets; 0.30% of the next $100 million in assets; and 0.25% on any amount in excess of $350 million in assets.

On behalf of the fund, FIAM, in turn, has entered into sub-subadvisory agreements with FMR UK, FMR H.K., and FMR Japan. Pursuant to the sub-subadvisory agreement, FIAM may receive from the sub-subadviser investment research and advice on issuers outside the United States (non-discretionary services) and FIAM may grant the sub-subadviser investment management authority and the authority to buy and sell securities if FIAM believes it would be beneficial to the fund (discretionary services). FIAM, not the fund, pays the sub-subadvisers.

Sub-Adviser - Geode. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Geode pursuant to which Geode may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Geode fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Geode pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Geode under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Geode pursuant to that Strategy.

The following fee rate schedule applies to the mandate below.

Factor-Based: 0.125% of the first $500 million in assets; 0.10% of the next $500 million in assets; and 0.075% on any amount in excess of $1 billion in assets.

Sub-Adviser - Invesco. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Invesco pursuant to which Invesco may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Invesco fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Invesco pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Invesco under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Invesco pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser - JPMorgan. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with JPMorgan pursuant to which JPMorgan may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays JPMorgan fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by JPMorgan pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by JPMorgan under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by JPMorgan pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser - Loomis Sayles. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Loomis Sayles pursuant to which Loomis Sayles may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Loomis Sayles fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Loomis Sayles pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Loomis Sayles under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Loomis Sayles pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser - LSV. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with LSV pursuant to which LSV may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays LSV fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by LSV pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by LSV under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by LSV pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser - PineBridge. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with PineBridge pursuant to which PineBridge may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays PineBridge fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by PineBridge pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by PineBridge under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by PineBridge pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser - Principal. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with Principal pursuant to which Principal may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays Principal fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by Principal pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by Principal under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by Principal pursuant to that Strategy.

Sub-Adviser - T. Rowe Price. The fund and Strategic Advisers have entered into a sub-advisory agreement with T. Rowe Price pursuant to which T. Rowe Price may provide investment advisory services for the fund. Under the terms of the sub-advisory agreement, for providing investment management services to the fund, Strategic Advisers pays T. Rowe Price fees based on the net assets of the portion of the fund managed by T. Rowe Price pursuant to a separately negotiated Strategy. The fees are calculated using the effective rate applicable to Aggregated Assets managed by T. Rowe Price under a particular Strategy. Aggregated Assets for a particular Strategy means the assets of all registered investment companies managed by Strategic Advisers that are managed by T. Rowe Price pursuant to that Strategy.

John A. Stone, Gopalakrishnan Anantanatarajan, and Niall Devitt are employees of Strategic Advisers, a subsidiary of FMR LLC and an affiliate of FMR. Strategic Advisers is the adviser to the fund.

Mr. Stone is lead portfolio manager of the fund and Mr. Anantanatarajan and Mr. Devitt are co-managers of the fund, and each receives compensation for those services. As of May 31, 2020, portfolio manager compensation generally consists of a fixed base salary determined periodically (typically annually), a bonus, in certain cases, participation in several types of equity-based compensation plans, and, if applicable, relocation plan benefits. A portion of each portfolio manager's compensation may be deferred based on criteria established by Strategic Advisers or at the election of the portfolio manager.

Mr. Stone's and Mr. Devitt’s base salary is determined by level of responsibility and tenure at Strategic Advisers or its affiliates. The primary components of each portfolio manager's bonus are based on (i) the pre-tax investment performance of the portfolio manager's fund(s) and account(s) measured against a benchmark index and a defined peer group assigned to each fund or account, and (ii) the investment performance of a broad range of Strategic Advisers^® funds and accounts, including the fund. Accounts may include model portfolios designed for asset allocation, retirement planning, or tax-sensitive goals. The pre-tax investment performance of each portfolio manager's fund(s) and account(s) is weighted according to the portfolio manager’s tenure on those fund(s) and account(s), and the average asset size of those fund(s) and account(s) over the portfolio manager’s tenure. Each component is calculated separately over a measurement period that initially is contemporaneous with the portfolio manager's tenure, but that eventually encompasses rolling periods of up to five years for the comparison to a benchmark index and peer group. A subjective component of the bonus is based on each portfolio manager's overall contribution to management of Strategic Advisers. The portion of each portfolio manager's bonus that is linked to the investment performance of the portfolio manager’s fund is based on the fund's pre-tax investment performance measured against the S&P 500^® Index, and the pre-tax investment performance of the fund measured against the Morningstar^® Large Blend Category. Each portfolio manager may be compensated under equity-based compensation plans linked to increases or decreases in the net asset value of the stock of FMR LLC, Strategic Advisers' parent company. FMR LLC is a diverse financial services company engaged in various activities that include fund management, brokerage, retirement, and employer administrative services. If requested to relocate their primary residence, portfolio managers also may be eligible to receive benefits, such as home sale assistance and payment of certain moving expenses, under relocation plans for most full-time employees of FMR LLC and its affiliates.

Mr. Anantanatarajan’s base salary is determined by level of responsibility and tenure at Strategic Advisers or its affiliates. The portfolio manager’s bonus is based on several components. The components of the portfolio manager's bonus are based on (i) the pre-tax investment performance of the portfolio manager's fund(s) and account(s) measured against a benchmark index and a defined peer group assigned to each fund or account, and (ii) the investment performance of a broad range of Strategic Advisers^® funds and accounts, including the fund. Accounts may include model portfolios designed for asset allocation, retirement planning, or tax-sensitive goals. The pre-tax investment performance of the portfolio manager's fund(s) and account(s) is weighted according to the portfolio manager’s tenure on those fund(s) and account(s), and the average asset size of those fund(s) and account(s) over the portfolio manager’s tenure. Each component is calculated separately over a measurement period that initially is contemporaneous with the portfolio manager's tenure, but that eventually encompasses rolling periods of up to five years for the comparison to a benchmark index and peer group. A subjective component of the bonus is based on the portfolio manager's overall contribution to management of Strategic Advisers. The portion of the portfolio manager's bonus that is linked to the investment performance of the portfolio manager’s fund is based on the fund's pre-tax investment performance measured against the S&P 500^® Index, and the pre-tax investment performance of the fund measured against the Morningstar^® Large Blend Category. The portfolio manager may be compensated under equity-based compensation plans linked to increases or decreases in the net asset value of the stock of FMR LLC, Strategic Advisers' parent company. FMR LLC is a diverse financial services company engaged in various activities that include fund management, brokerage, retirement, and employer administrative services. If requested to relocate their primary residence, portfolio managers also may be eligible to receive benefits, such as home sale assistance and payment of certain moving expenses, under relocation plans for most full-time employees of FMR LLC and its affiliates.

A portfolio manager's compensation plan may give rise to potential conflicts of interest. Although investors in the fund may invest through either tax-deferred accounts or taxable accounts, a portfolio manager's compensation is linked to the pre-tax performance of the fund, rather than its after-tax performance. A portfolio manager's base pay tends to increase with additional and more complex responsibilities that include increased assets under management and a portion of the bonus relates to marketing efforts, which together indirectly link compensation to sales. When a portfolio manager takes over a fund or an account, the time period over which performance is measured may be adjusted to provide a transition period in which to assess the portfolio. The management of multiple funds and accounts (including proprietary accounts) may give rise to potential conflicts of interest if the funds and accounts have different objectives, benchmarks, time horizons, and fees as a portfolio manager must allocate time and investment ideas across multiple funds and accounts. In addition, a fund's trade allocation policies and procedures may give rise to conflicts of interest if the fund's orders do not get fully executed due to being aggregated with those of other accounts managed by Strategic Advisers or an affiliate. A portfolio manager may execute transactions for another fund or account that may adversely impact the value of securities held by a fund. Securities selected for other funds or accounts may outperform the securities selected for the fund. Portfolio managers may be permitted to invest in the funds they manage, even if a fund is closed to new investors. Trading in personal accounts, which may give rise to potential conflicts of interest, is restricted by a fund's Code of Ethics.

The following table provides information relating to other accounts managed by Mr. Stone as of May 31, 2020:

*Does not include Strategic Advisers^® Large Cap Fund, which is expected to commence operations on or about November 2020.

As of May 31, 2020, the dollar range of shares of Strategic Advisers^® Large Cap Fund beneficially owned by Mr. Stone was none (Strategic Advisers^® Large Cap Fund is expected to commence operations on or about November 2020).

The following table provides information relating to other accounts managed by Mr. Anantanatarajan as of May 31, 2020:

*Does not include Strategic Advisers^® Large Cap Fund, which is expected to commence operations on or about November 2020.

As of May 31, 2020, the dollar range of shares of Strategic Advisers^® Large Cap Fund beneficially owned by Mr. Anantanatarajan was none (Strategic Advisers^® Large Cap Fund is expected to commence operations on or about November 2020).

The following table provides information relating to other accounts managed by Mr. Devitt as of May 31, 2020:

*Does not include Strategic Advisers^® Large Cap Fund, which is expected to commence operations on or about November 2020.

As of May 31, 2020, the dollar range of shares of Strategic Advisers^® Large Cap Fund beneficially owned by Mr. Devitt was none (Strategic Advisers^® Large Cap Fund is expected to commence operations on or about November 2020).

Proxy Voting - Strategic Advisers.

The following Proxy Voting Guidelines were established by the Board of Trustees of Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II on behalf of the fund, after consultation with Strategic Advisers. (The guidelines are reviewed periodically by Strategic Advisers and its affiliates and by the Independent Trustees of the fund, and, accordingly, are subject to change.)

I. General Principles

A. The funds in the trust generally intend to vote shares of underlying funds using echo voting procedures (that is, in the same proportion as the holders of all other shares of the particular underlying fund).

B. Any proposals not covered by paragraph A above or other special circumstances will be evaluated based on a proposal's likelihood to enhance the long-term economic returns or profitability of the company or to maximize long-term shareholder value.

Sub-Adviser(s):

Proxy voting policies and procedures are used by a sub-adviser to determine how to vote proxies relating to the securities held by its allocated portion of the fund's assets. The proxy voting policies and procedures used by a sub-adviser are described below.

Proxy Voting - AllianceBernstein.

Introduction

As an investment adviser, we are shareholder advocates and have a fiduciary duty to make investment decisions that are in our clients’ best interests by maximizing the value of their shares. Proxy voting is an integral part of this process, through which we support strong corporate governance structures, shareholder rights and transparency.

Where we have agreed to vote proxies on behalf of our client accounts, we have an obligation to vote proxies in a timely manner and we apply the principles in our Proxy Voting and Governance Policy (“Proxy Voting and Governance Policy” or “Policy”) and this policy statement to our proxy decisions. We believe a company’s environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) practices may have a significant effect on the value of the company, and we take these factors into consideration when voting. For additional information regarding our ESG policies and practices, please refer to our firm’s Statement of Policy Regarding Responsible Investment (“RI Policy”).

Our Policy, which outlines our policies for proxy voting and includes a wide range of issues that often appear on proxies, applies to all of AllianceBernstein’s investment management subsidiaries and investment services groups investing on behalf of clients globally. Both this Statement and the Policy are intended for use by those involved in the proxy voting decision-making process and those responsible for the administration of proxy voting (“members of Responsible Investment team”), in order to ensure that our proxy voting policies and procedures are implemented consistently.

We sometimes manage accounts where proxy voting is directed by clients or newly-acquired subsidiary companies. In these cases, voting decisions may deviate from the Policy.

Research Underpins Decision Making

As a research-driven firm, we approach our proxy voting responsibilities with the same commitment to rigorous research and engagement that we apply to all of our investment activities. The different investment philosophies utilized by our investment teams may occasionally result in different conclusions being drawn regarding certain proposals and, in turn, may result in the members of Responsible Investment team making different voting decisions on the same proposal. Nevertheless, the members of Responsible Investment team vote proxies with the goal of maximizing the value of the securities in client portfolios.

In addition to our firm-wide proxy voting policies, we have a Proxy Voting and Governance Committee ("Proxy Voting and Governance Committee" or "Committee"), which provides oversight and includes senior investment professionals from Equities, Legal personnel and Operations personnel. It is the responsibility of the Committee to evaluate and maintain proxy voting procedures and guidelines, to evaluate proposals and issues not covered by these guidelines, to consider changes in policy, and to review this Statement and the Policy no less frequently than annually. In addition, the Committee meets at least three times a year and as necessary to address special situations.

Research Services

We subscribe to the corporate governance and proxy research services of vendors such as Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”) and Glass Lewis at different levels, as of March 2020. All our investment professionals can access these materials via the members of Responsible Investment team and/or the Committee.

Engagement

In evaluating proxy issues and determining our votes, we welcome and seek out the points of view of various parties. Internally, members of Responsible Investment team may consult the Committee, Chief Investment Officers, Portfolio Managers, and/or Research Analysts across our equities platforms, and Portfolio Managers who manage accounts a stock is held. Externally, we may engage with companies in advance of their Annual General Meeting, and throughout the year. We believe engagement provides the opportunity to share our philosophy, our corporate governance values, and more importantly, affect positive change. Also, these meetings often are joint efforts between the investment professionals, who are best positioned to comment on company-specific details, and members of Responsible Investment team, who offer a more holistic view of governance practices and relevant trends. In addition, we engage with shareholder proposal proponents and other stakeholders to understand different viewpoints and objectives.

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Our proxy voting guidelines are both principles-based and rules-based. We adhere to a core set of principles that are described in the Policy. We assess each proxy proposal in light of these principles. Our proxy voting “litmus test” will always be what we view as most likely to maximize long-term shareholder value. We believe that authority and accountability for setting and executing corporate policies, goals and compensation generally should rest with the board of directors and senior management. In return, we support strong investor rights that allow shareholders to hold directors and management accountable if they fail to act in the best interests of shareholders.

Our proxy voting guidelines pertaining to specific issues are set forth in the Policy and include guidelines relating to board and director proposals, compensation proposals, capital changes and anti-takeover proposals, auditor proposals, shareholder access and voting proposals, and environmental, social and disclosure proposals. The following are examples of specific issues within each of these broad categories:

Board and Director Proposals: Election of Directors

The election of directors is an important vote. We expect directors to represent shareholder interests at the company and maximize shareholder value. We generally vote in favor of the management-proposed slate of directors while considering a number of factors, including local market best practice. We believe companies should have a majority of independent directors and independent key committees. However, we will incorporate local market regulation and corporate governance codes into our decision making. We may support more progressive requirements than those implemented in a local market if we believe more progressive requirements may improve corporate governance practices. We will generally regard a director as independent if the director satisfies the criteria for independence (i) espoused by the primary exchange on which the company’s shares are traded, or (ii) set forth in the code we determine to be best practice in the country where the subject company is domiciled and may take into account affiliations, related-party transactions and prior service to the company. We consider the election of directors who are “bundled” on a single slate on a case-by-case basis considering the amount of information available and an assessment of the group’s qualifications.

In addition:

• We believe that directors have a duty to respond to shareholder actions that have received significant shareholder support. We may vote against directors (or withhold votes for directors if plurality voting applies) who fail to act on key issues. We oppose directors who fail to attend at least 75% of board meetings within a given year without a reasonable excuse.

• We may abstain or vote against (depending on a company’s history of disclosure in this regard) directors of issuers where there is insufficient information about the nominees disclosed in the proxy statement.

• We may vote against directors for poor compensation, audit or governance practices including the lack of a formal key committee.

• We may vote against directors for unilateral bylaw amendments that diminish shareholder rights.

We also may consider engaging company management (by phone, in writing and in person), until any issues have been satisfactorily resolved.

Controlled Company Exemption

In certain markets, a different standard for director independence may be applicable for controlled companies, which are companies where more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, group or another company, or as otherwise defined by local market standards. We may take these local standards into consideration when determining the appropriate level of independence required for the board and key committees.

Exchanges in certain jurisdictions do not have a controlled company exemption (or something similar). In such a jurisdiction, if a company has a majority shareholder or group of related majority shareholders with a majority economic interest, we generally will not oppose that company’s directors simply because the board does not include a majority of independent members, although we may take local standards into consideration when determining the appropriate level of independence required for the board and key committees. We will, however, consider these directors in a negative light if the company has a history of violating the rights of minority shareholders.

Voting for Director Nominees in a Contested Election

Votes in a contested election of directors are evaluated on a case-by-case basis with the goal of maximizing shareholder value.

Board Capacity

We believe that incorporating an assessment of each director’s capacity into consideration for a director election is essential to promote meaningful board oversight of the management. AB currently votes against the appointment of directors who occupy, or would occupy following the vote, 4 or more board seats for non-CEOs, 3 or more board seats for the sitting CEO of the company in question and 2 or more board seats for sitting CEOs of companies other than the company under consideration. We may also exercise flexibility on occasions where the “over-boarded” director nominee’s presence on the board is critical, based on company specific contexts in absence of any notable accountability concerns.

Board Diversity

Diversity is an important element of assessing the board’s quality, as it promotes wider range of perspectives to be considered for companies to both strategize and mitigate risks. In line with this view, several European countries legally require a quota of female directors. Other European countries have a comply-or-explain policy. In the U.S., California requires corporations headquartered in the State of California to have at least one female director on board. We believe that boards should develop, as a part of their refreshment process, a framework for identifying diverse candidates for all open board positions. We believe diversity is broader than gender and should also take into consideration factors such as business experience, ethnicity, tenure and nationality. As such, we generally vote in favor of proposals that encourage the adoption of a diverse search policy (“Rooney Rule”), assuring that each director search includes at least one woman, and in the US, at least one underrepresented person of color, in the slate of nominees. In addition, AB will generally vote against the nominating/governance committee chair, or a relevant incumbent member in case of classified boards, when the board has no female members. This approach applies globally excluding Japan.

Compensation Proposals: Executive and Employee Compensation Plans, Policies, and Reports

In certain markets, (e.g., Australia, Canada, Germany and the United States), publicly traded issuers are required by law to submit their company’s remuneration report to a non-binding shareholder vote. The report contains, among other things, the nature and amount of the compensation of the directors and certain executive officers as well as a discussion of the company’s performance. In other markets, remuneration policy resolutions are binding.

We evaluate remuneration reports and policies on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the reasonableness of the company’s compensation structure and the adequacy of the disclosure. In all cases, however, we assess each proposed Compensation Plan within the framework of four guiding principles, each of which ensures a company's Compensation Plan and helps to align to the long-term interests of management with shareholders:

1. Valid measures of business performance should be tied to the firm's strategy and shareholder value creation, which should also be clearly articulated and incorporate appropriate time periods;

2. Compensation costs should be managed in the same way as any other expense;

3. Compensation should reflect management's handling, or failure to handle, any recent social, environmental, governance, ethical, or legal issue that had a significant adverse financial or reputational effect on the company; and

4. In granting compensatory awards, management should exhibit a history of integrity and decision-making based on logic and well thought out processes.

We may oppose plans which include, and directors who establish, compensation plan provisions deemed to be in poor practice such as automatic acceleration of equity, or single-triggered, in the event of a change in control.

Although votes on compensation plans are by nature only broad indications of shareholder views, they do lead to more compensation-related dialogue between management and shareholders and help ensure that management and shareholders meet their common objective: maximizing shareholder value.

In markets where votes on compensation plans are not required for all companies, we will support shareholder proposals asking the board to adopt such a vote on an advisory basis.

Capital Changes and Anti-Takeover Proposals: Authorize Share Repurchase

We generally support share repurchase proposals that are part of a well-articulated and well-conceived capital strategy. We assess proposals to give the board unlimited authorization to repurchase shares on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, we would generally support the use of derivative instruments (e.g., put options and call options) as part of a share repurchase plan absent a compelling reason to the contrary. Also, absent a specific concern at the company, we will generally support a repurchase plan that could be continued during a takeover period.

Auditor Proposals: Appointment of Auditors

We believe that the company is in the best position to choose its accounting firm, and we generally support management's recommendation.

We recognize that there may be inherent conflicts when a company’s independent auditors perform substantial non-audit related services for the company. Therefore, in reviewing a proposed auditor, we will consider the amount of fees paid for non-audit related services performed compared to the total audit fees paid by the company to the auditing firm, and whether there are any other reasons for us to question the independence or performance of the firm’s auditor such as, for example, tenure. We generally will deem as excessive the non-audit fees paid by a company to its auditor if those fees account for 50% or more of total fees paid. In the UK market, which utilizes a different standard, we adhere to a non-audit fee cap of 100% of audit fees. Under these circumstances, we generally vote against the auditor and the directors, in particular the members of the company’s audit committee. In addition, we generally vote against authorizing the audit committee to set the remuneration of such auditors. We exclude from this analysis non-audit fees related to IPOs, bankruptcy emergence, and spin-offs and other extraordinary events. We may vote against or abstain due to a lack of disclosure of the name of the auditor while taking into account local market practice.

Shareholder Access and Voting Proposals: Proxy Access for Annual Meetings

These proposals allow “qualified shareholders” to nominate directors. We generally vote in favor of management and shareholder proposals for proxy access that employ guidelines reflecting the SEC framework for proxy access (adopted by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in 2010, but vacated by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011), which would have allowed a single shareholder, or group of shareholders, who hold at least 3% of the voting power for at least three years continuously to nominate up to 25% of the current board seats, or two directors, for inclusion in the subject company’s annual proxy statement alongside management nominees.

We may vote against proposals that use requirements that are stricter than the SEC’s framework, including implementation restrictions, and against individual board members, or entire boards, who exclude from their ballot properly submitted shareholder proxy access proposals or include their own competing, and stricter, proposals on the same ballot.

We will evaluate on a case-by-case basis proposals with less stringent requirements than the vacated SEC framework.

From time to time we may receive requests to join with other shareholders to support a shareholder action. We may, for example, receive requests to join a voting block for purposes of influencing management. If the third parties requesting our participation are not affiliated with us and have no business relationships with us, we will consider the request on a case-by-case basis. However, where the requesting party has a business relationship with us (e.g., the requesting party is a client or a significant service provider), agreeing to such a request may pose a potential conflict of interest. As a fiduciary we have an obligation to vote proxies in the best interest of our clients (without regard to our own interests in generating and maintaining business with our other clients) and given our desire to avoid even the appearance of a conflict, we will generally decline such a request.

Environmental, Social and Disclosure Proposals: Lobbying and Political Spending

We generally vote in favor of proposals requesting increased disclosure of political contributions and lobbying expenses, including those paid to trade organizations and political action committees, whether at the federal, state, or local level. These proposals may increase transparency.

We generally vote proposals in accordance with these guidelines but, consistent with our “principles-based” approach to proxy voting, we may deviate from the guidelines if warranted by the specific facts and circumstances of the situation (i.e., if, under the circumstances, we believe that deviating from our stated policy is necessary to help maximize long-term shareholder value). In addition, these guidelines are not intended to address all issues that may appear on all proxy ballots. Proposals not specifically addressed by these guidelines, whether submitted by management or shareholders, will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, always keeping in mind our fiduciary duty to make voting decisions that, by maximizing long-term shareholder value, are in our clients’ best interests.

Conflicts of Interest

As a fiduciary, we always must act in our clients’ best interests. We strive to avoid even the appearance of a conflict that may compromise the trust our clients have placed in us, and we insist on strict adherence to fiduciary standards and compliance with all applicable federal and state securities laws. We have adopted a comprehensive Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (“Code”) to help us meet these obligations. As part of this responsibility and as expressed throughout the Code, we place the interests of our clients first and attempt to avoid any perceived or actual conflicts of interest.

We recognize that there may be a potential material conflict of interest when we vote a proxy solicited by an issuer that sponsors a retirement plan we manage (or administer), that distributes AllianceBernstein-sponsored mutual funds, or with which we or one or more of our employees have another business or personal relationship that may affect how we vote on the issuer’s proxy. Similarly, we may have a potential material conflict of interest when deciding how to vote on a proposal sponsored or supported by a shareholder group that is a client. In order to avoid any perceived or actual conflict of interest, we have established procedures for use when we encounter a potential conflict to ensure that our voting decisions are based on maximizing shareholder value and are not the product of a conflict. These procedures include compiling a list of companies and organizations whose proxies may pose potential conflicts of interest (e.g., if such company is our client) and reviewing our proposed votes for these companies and organizations in light of the Policy and ISS’s recommendations. If our proposed vote is contrary to, or not contemplated in, the Policy, is consistent with a client’s position and is contrary to ISS's recommendation, we refer to proposed vote to our Independent Compliance Officer for his determination.

In addition, our Proxy Voting and Governance Committee takes reasonable steps to verify that ISS continues to be independent, including an annual review of ISS’s conflict management procedures. When reviewing these conflict management procedures, we consider, among other things, whether ISS (i) has the capacity and competency to adequately analyze proxy issues; and (ii) can offer research in an impartial manner and in the best interests of our clients.

Voting Transparency

Many clients have requested that we provide them with periodic reports on how we voted their proxies. Clients may obtain information about how we voted proxies on their behalf by contacting their Advisor.

Recordkeeping

All of the records referenced below will be kept in an easily accessible place for at least the length of time required by local regulation and custom, and, if such local regulation requires that records are kept for less than five years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry was made on such record, we will follow the US rule of five years. If the local regulation requires that records are kept for more than five years, we will comply with the local regulation. We maintain the vast majority of these records electronically.

Proxy Voting - Aristotle Capital.

Aristotle Capital's policy is to vote proxies on behalf of client accounts. Aristotle Capital has adopted Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures. Where Aristotle Capital has proxy voting authority for securities of its advisory clients, Aristotle Capital will vote such securities for the exclusive benefit, and in the best economic interest, of those clients and their beneficiaries, as determined by Aristotle Capital in good faith, subject to any restrictions or directions from the client. Aristotle Capital will not have the ability to accept direction from clients on a particular solicitation.

Aristotle Capital has written proxy voting policies and procedures ("Proxy Procedures") as required by Rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act. Such voting responsibilities are exercised in accordance with the general antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act, as well as with Aristotle Capital's fiduciary duties under federal and state law to act in the best interests of its clients.

Aristotle Capital has contracted with Institutional Shareholder Services ("ISS") and will use their proxy platform for proxy administration. Aristotle Capital will direct each custodian to forward proxy ballots to ISS for processing. Aristotle Capital has access to the ballots through the ISS website and may provide ISS with instructions on how to vote the ballots or Aristotle Capital may vote the ballots through the website. ISS records the votes and provides proxy voting accounting and reporting. Case-by-case proxy voting decisions are generally made by the Chief Investment Officer or his designee. All voting records are maintained by ISS, except that Aristotle Capital will maintain copies of any document created by Aristotle Capital that was material in making a determination of how to vote "case-by-case" proxy or that memorializes the basis for that decision.

Aristotle Capital acknowledges its responsibility for identifying material conflicts of interest related to voting proxies. In order to ensure that Aristotle Capital is aware of the facts necessary to identify conflicts, senior management of Aristotle Capital must disclose to the CCO any personal conflicts such as officer or director positions held by them, their spouses or close relatives, in any portfolio company. Conflicts based on business relationships with Aristotle Capital or any affiliate of Aristotle Capital will be considered only to the extent that Aristotle Capital has actual knowledge of such relationships. If a conflict may exist which cannot be otherwise addressed by the CIO, Aristotle Capital may choose one of several options including: (1) "echo" or "mirror" voting the proxies in the same proportion as the votes of other proxy holders that are not Aristotle Capital clients; (2) if possible, erecting information barriers around the person or persons making the voting decision sufficient to insulate the decision from the conflict; or (3) if agreed upon in writing with the client, forwarding the proxies to affected clients and allowing them to vote their own proxies.

Clients may choose to vote their own proxies for securities held in their account or designate a third party to vote proxies. If this is the case, the Client must notify Aristotle Capital and proxy solicitations will be sent directly to clients or the third party designee who will then assume responsibility for voting them. If Aristotle Capital does not have the authority to vote proxies on behalf of the client, the client may contact Aristotle Capital with questions about a particular solicitation.

Aristotle Capital will neither advise nor act on behalf of the client in legal proceedings involving companies whose securities are held in the client's account(s), including, but not limited to, the filing of "Proofs of Claim" in class action settlements. If desired, clients may direct Aristotle Capital to transmit copies of class action notices to the client or a third party. Upon such direction, Aristotle Capital will make commercially reasonable efforts to forward such notices in a timely manner. On an exception basis, clients can instruct Aristotle Capital to vote proxies according to particular criteria (for example, to vote for or against a proposal to allow a so-called "poison pill" defense against a possible takeover). These requests must be made in writing and with sufficient advance notice so Aristotle Capital is able to meet the voting deadline.

Proxy Voting - Brandywine Global.

Policy. Brandywine Global has a responsibility to its clients for voting proxies for portfolio securities consistent with the best economic interests of its clients. Brandywine Global maintains written policies and procedures as to the handling, research, voting and reporting of proxy voting and makes appropriate disclosures about our firm's proxy policies and practices. The policy and practice includes the fact that the firm has a responsibility to monitor corporate actions, receive and vote client proxies and disclose any potential conflicts of interest as well as making information available to clients about the voting of proxies for their portfolio securities and maintaining relevant and required records.

Background. Proxy voting is an important right of shareholders and reasonable care and diligence must be undertaken to ensure that such rights are properly and timely exercised.

Investment advisers registered with the SEC, and which exercise voting authority with respect to client securities, are required by Rule 206(4)-6 of the Advisers Act to (a) adopt and implement written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that client securities are voted in the best interests of clients, which must include how an adviser addresses material conflicts that may arise between an adviser's interests and those of its clients; (b) to disclose to clients how they may obtain information from the adviser with respect to the voting of proxies for their securities; (c) to describe to clients a summary of its proxy voting policies and procedures and, upon request, furnish a copy to its clients; and (d) maintain certain records relating to the adviser's proxy voting activities when the adviser does have proxy voting authority.

Responsibility. Compliance has the responsibility for the implementation and monitoring of the firm's proxy voting policy, practices, disclosures and record keeping, including outlining voting guidelines in the procedures.

Procedures. Brandywine Global has implemented policies and procedures that we believe are reasonably designed to ensure that proxies are voted in the best interest of clients, in accordance with our fiduciary duties and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"). Our authority to vote the proxies of our clients is established through investment management agreements or comparable documents.

In exercising its voting authority, Brandywine Global will not consult or enter into agreements with officers, directors or employees of its parent, Legg Mason Inc., or any of its affiliates, regarding the voting of any securities owned by its clients.

While the guidelines included in the procedures are intended to provide a benchmark for voting standards, each vote is ultimately cast on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration Brandywine Global's contractual obligations to our clients and all other relevant facts and circumstances at the time of the vote (such that these guidelines may be overridden to the extent Brandywine Global believes appropriate).

Voting Authority

• Brandywine Global shall assume the responsibility and authority with respect to the voting of proxies for all client accounts, unless such responsibility and authority expressly have been delegated to others or reserved to the trustee or other named fiduciary of a client account. In no event will Brandywine Global's authority to vote proxies obligate it to undertake any shareholder activism on behalf of any client.

• Brandywine Global's clients shall be responsible for notifying their custodians of the name and address of the person or entity with voting authority.

• Brandywine Global's Compliance Department, on a random basis, reviews the proxy voting process. The gathering and voting of proxies is coordinated through the Administrative Department and Brandywine Global maintains internal procedures to govern the processing of proxies, including handling client requests and monitoring for potential material conflicts. Research analysts, corporate action specialists and portfolio managers, otherwise referred to as voting persons, and are responsible for determining appropriate voting positions on each proxy utilizing any applicable guidelines contained in these procedures.

• Brandywine Global will not decline to vote proxies except in extraordinary circumstances, nor will Brandywine Global accept direction from others with regard to the voting of proxies. Brandywine Global will take the investment guidelines of an account into consideration in deciding how to vote on a particular issue.

• Brandywine Global may vote proxies related to the same security differently for each client.

• Brandywine Global seeks to identify any material conflicts that may arise between the interests of Brandywine Global and its clients in accordance with the following procedures. Except for extraordinary circumstances, in any such instance, the material conflict will be resolved by either excluding any conflicted person from the voting process or by voting in accordance with the recommendation of Glass Lewis, an independent third party.

• All relevant proxies are reviewed by the Legal and Compliance Department for potential material conflicts of interest. Issues to be reviewed may include whether Brandywine Global manages assets for the issuer, a shareholder proponent or an employee group of the issuer or otherwise has a current or potential business relationship with the issuer; whether Brandywine Global, one of its officers or directors or any voting person is a close relative of or has any personal or business relationship with the issuer (excluding normal commercial transactions and investment relationships where there is no special treatment), with an officer, director or other executive person at the issuer, with a candidate for election to the board of the issuer or with a shareholder proponent; whether there is any other material business or personal relationship which may create an interest in the outcome of the matter on the part of a voting person; or whether an affiliate of Brandywine Global's has a conflict as described above which is known to Brandywine Global's voting persons. Conflicts of this nature will be considered material. If the conflict pertains to an individual voting person that person will exclude him- or herself from the vote determination process in order to shield the Brandywine Global and other voting persons from the conflict, provided the compliance department believes that the other voting persons can determine a vote completely separate from the conflicted voting person. If the conflict cannot be contained, the proxy is voted according to the recommendation of Glass Lewis. Any time a material conflict is encountered, Brandywine Global will keep records on the nature of the conflict, the actual vote and the basis for the vote determination.

Voting Guidelines

• Proxies will not be voted without an analysis of the underlying issues involved.

• Brandywine Global's proxy voting policy at all times shall be directed toward maximizing the value of the assets of managed accounts, for the benefit of the accounts' ultimate owners/beneficiaries.

• Any item on a proxy, which would tend to inhibit the realization of maximum value, may receive a negative vote from Brandywine Global. Examples of such items would be staggered terms for directors, restrictions against cumulative voting, and establishment of different classes of stock, excessive compensation, poor stewardship, or any activity, which could be viewed as a "poison pill" maneuver.

• On other matters specific to a company, such as the election of directors, the appointment of auditors, granting of options, repricing of options, mergers and other material issues, a decision shall be made in conjunction with the primary analyst responsible for overseeing that company, consistent with the policy of maximizing value.

Voting Records & Client Notification

• A complete record and file of all votes cast shall be maintained by Brandywine Global for the period prescribed by the Securities Exchange Commission. Brandywine Global will similarly maintain copies of policies and procedures, proxy booklets, copies of any documents created by Brandywine Global that were material to making a decision how to vote proxies and a log of proxy requests and responses.

A proxy log shall be maintained by Brandywine Global that includes the issuer name, exchange ticker symbol, CUSIP number, shareholder meeting date, brief identification of the matter voted on, whether the matter was proposed by the issuer or by a shareholder of the issuer, whether a vote was cast on the matter, record of how the vote was cast, and whether the vote was cast for or against the recommendation of the issuer's management team.

Administration of Proxies

• At the inception of a new account over which Brandywine Global has domestic proxy voting authority:

• New client information is entered onto the "Proxy System" Broadridge Proxy Edge.

• Custodians are notified by the Client that proxies should be forwarded to Brandywine Global.

• Those proxies that arrive in the Mail Room are sorted and forwarded to a Proxy Administrator.

• Proxies are placed in date order into pending vote proxy files by a Proxy Administrator.

• Proxies are cross-referenced against the Alert List (discussed under Identifying Potential Conflicts).

• Proxies are then distributed to either the appropriate investment team or, in those instances where a proxy matches an Alert List entry, to the Legal and Compliance Department.

• In the event that no material conflict exists, the following procedures apply:

• The voting person's initials are entered onto the Proxy System's tickler file in the analyst block.

• Ballots are voted by a voting person and are returned to a Proxy Administrator for processing on the Proxy System.

• If a material conflict exists, a Proxy Administrator will obtain a copy of the Glass Lewis recommendation, which will be attached to the ballot.

• The voting person will then either (i) complete the Proxy System ballot in accordance with the attached recommendation; or (ii) exclude themselves in writing from voting the proxy.

• A Proxy Administrator will redirect the proxy to another voting person in instances where an exclusion has occurred.

• Where applicable, a Proxy Administrator will verify that the ballot was in fact voted in accordance with the Glass Lewis recommendation before entering it onto the Proxy System.

• The proxy booklets and Proxy System ballots are subjected to an approval process by a Proxy Administrator.

• During the approval process, ballot shares are matched against holdings shares.

• Discrepancies are researched through Brandywine Global's internal data warehouse and custodian banks are contacted where necessary to reconcile share amounts.

• Brandywine Global personnel act in such a manner to ensure that, absent special circumstances, the proxy gathering and proxy voting steps noted above could be completed before the applicable deadline for returning proxy votes.

• Any pending unvoted meetings are reviewed and monitored on a daily basis by Proxy Administrators.

• All voting records are maintained within the Proxy Systems.

• Proxy booklets and all additional information (including copies of any documents created by Brandywine Global that were material to making a decision how to vote proxies) are filed.

Administration of Client Requests

• All client requests for proxy information (both written and oral), including but not limited to voting records and requests for detailed Policies and Procedures, are referred to a Proxy Administrator.

• All requests are entered onto a Proxy Request Log maintained by a Proxy Administrator. Information on the log includes the date of the request, the content of the request and the date of the response by Brandywine Global.

• The Proxy Administrator works in conjunction with the Client Service Department to respond to all requests in writing.

• Copies of all written requests and responses thereto, including voting record reports, are maintained in a separate Proxy Request file.

Identifying Potential Conflict of interest

Personal Conflicts

• Each voting person must certify in writing at the beginning of each proxy season that he or she will notify the Legal and Compliance Department of:

1. any potential personal conflict with regard to a specific proxy; and

2. any potential conflict of which they become aware relating to another voting person.

• Potential conflicts should be interpreted broadly in order to capture instances where a conflict of interest could be perceived to exist by a third party. An objective `reasonableness' standard should be applied as opposed to a subjective determination that the individual is not in fact conflicted.

• The following are examples of potential personal conflicts which are extracted from the SEC's Final Rule (17 CFR Part 275 [Release No. IA-2106; File No. S7-38-02], RIN 3235-AI65):

• The adviser may also have business or personal relationships with participants in proxy contests, corporate directors or candidates for directorships. For example, an executive of the adviser may have a spouse or other close relative that serves as a director or executive of a company.

• Any Board positions held on a publicly traded company by a voting person (as evidenced by their most recent Code of Ethics Certification) will be examined on a case-by-case basis as proxy votes arise in that security.

• A list of potentially conflicted securities ("Alert List") will be provided to the Proxy Administrators, who will cross-reference proxy votes as they arise.

• Any proxies matching securities on the Alert List will be referred to the Legal and Compliance Department for an assessment of the materiality of the conflict.

Professional Conflicts

• In order to identify instances where a professional association could be perceived as a conflict of interest between Brandywine Global and a client for purposes of proxy voting, the following procedures will be followed:

• The names of all clients who are directly connected to a publicly traded security, through a significant ownership interest, which was held by a Brandywine Global account during the relevant proxy period, will be added to the Alert List.

• The names of all significant prospects that are directly connected to a publicly traded security, through a significant ownership interest, which was held by a Brandywine Global account during the relevant proxy period, will be added to the Alert List.

• The Alert List will be cross-referenced by the Proxy Administrators against proxies on a day-to-day basis.

Proxy Voting - ClariVest.

It is ClariVest’s policy to vote proxies in the interest of maximizing value for ClariVest’s Clients. ClariVest’s full policy regarding proxy voting is contained in its Compliance Manual.

ClariVest utilizes ISS to vote proxies. As a default, proxies are generally voted by ISS in accordance with ISS recommendations. This default minimizes potential conflicts of interest in proxy voting, as we rely on a third party vendor. However, ClariVest retains ultimate decision making authority with respect to the voting of Client proxies and reserves the right to override ISS recommendations. If there is a vote for which ISS does not provide a recommendation, the Operations Manager, Portfolio Manager(s) and CCO discuss the vote to determine which option is in the interest of maximizing value for ClariVest’s Clients.

ClariVest is not required to vote every Client proxy and refraining from voting should not necessarily be construed as a violation of ClariVest’s fiduciary obligations. There may be times when refraining from voting is in the Client’s best interest, such as when an adviser’s analysis of a particular Client proxy reveals that the cost of voting the proxy may exceed the expected benefit to the Client (i.e., casting a vote on a foreign security may require that the adviser engage a translator or travel to a foreign country to vote in person).

Proxy Voting - ClearBridge.

ClearBridge is subject to the Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures that it has adopted to seek to ensure that it votes proxies relating to equity securities in the best interest of client accounts. The following is a brief overview of the policies.

ClearBridge votes proxies for each client account with respect to which it has been authorized or is required by law to vote proxies. In voting proxies, ClearBridge is guided by general fiduciary principles and seeks to act prudently and solely in the best interest of the beneficial owners of the accounts it manages. ClearBridge attempts to consider all factors that could affect the value of the investment and will vote proxies in the manner that it believes will be consistent with efforts to maximize shareholder values. ClearBridge may utilize an external service provider to provide it with information and/or a recommendation with regard to proxy votes. However, such recommendations do not relieve ClearBridge of its responsibility for the proxy vote.

In the case of a proxy issue for which there is a stated position in the policies, ClearBridge generally votes in accordance with such stated position. In the case of a proxy issue for which there is a list of factors set forth in the policies that ClearBridge considers in voting on such issue, ClearBridge considers those factors and votes on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the general principles set forth above. In the case of a proxy issue for which there is no stated position or list of factors that ClearBridge considers in voting on such issue, ClearBridge votes on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the general principles set forth above. Issues for which there is a stated position set forth in the policies or for which there is a list of factors set forth in the policies that ClearBridge considers in voting on such issues fall into a variety of categories, including election of directors, ratification of auditors, proxy and tender offer defenses, capital structure issues, executive and director compensation, mergers and corporate restructuring, and social and environmental issues. The stated position on an issue set forth in the policies can always be superseded, subject to the duty to act solely in the best interest of the beneficial owners of accounts, by the investment management professionals responsible for the account whose shares are being voted. There may be occasions when different investment teams vote differently on the same issue. In addition, in the case of Taft-Hartley clients, ClearBridge will comply with a client direction to vote proxies in accordance with Institutional Shareholder Services' (ISS) PVS Voting guidelines, which ISS represents to be fully consistent with AFL-CIO guidelines.

In furtherance of ClearBridge's goal to vote proxies in the best interest of clients, ClearBridge follows procedures designed to identify and address material conflicts that may arise between ClearBridge's interests and those of its clients before voting proxies on behalf of such clients. To seek to identify conflicts of interest, ClearBridge periodically notifies ClearBridge employees in writing that they are under an obligation (i) to be aware of the potential for conflicts of interest on the part of ClearBridge with respect to voting proxies on behalf of client accounts both as a result of their personal relationships or ClearBridge's business relationships and (ii) to bring conflicts of interest of which they become aware to the attention of ClearBridge's General Counsel/Chief Compliance Officer.

ClearBridge also maintains and considers a list of significant ClearBridge relationships that could present a conflict of interest for ClearBridge in voting proxies. ClearBridge generally takes the position that non-ClearBridge relationships between a Legg Mason affiliate and an issuer do not present a conflict of interest for ClearBridge in voting proxies with respect to such issuer. Such position is based on the fact that ClearBridge is operated as an independent business unit from other Legg Mason business units as well as on the existence of information barriers between ClearBridge and certain other Legg Mason business units.

ClearBridge's Proxy Committee reviews and addresses conflicts of interest. A proxy issue that will be voted in accordance with a stated ClearBridge position on such issue or in accordance with the recommendation of an independent third party is not brought to the attention of the Proxy Committee for a conflict of interest review because ClearBridge's position is that to the extent a conflict of interest issue exists, it is resolved by voting in accordance with a pre-determined policy or in accordance with the recommendation of an independent third party. With respect to a conflict of interest brought to its attention, the Proxy Committee first determines whether such conflict of interest is material. A conflict of interest is considered material to the extent that it is determined that such conflict is likely to influence, or appear to influence, ClearBridge's decision-making in voting proxies. If it is determined by the Proxy Committee that a conflict of interest is not material, ClearBridge may vote proxies notwithstanding the existence of the conflict.

If it is determined by the Proxy Committee that a conflict of interest is material, the Proxy Committee is responsible for determining an appropriate method to resolve such conflict of interest before the proxy affected by the conflict of interest is voted. Such determination is based on the particular facts and circumstances, including the importance of the proxy issue and the nature of the conflict of interest.

Proxy Voting - FIAM.

I. Introduction

These guidelines are intended to help Fidelity’s customers and the companies in which Fidelity invests understand how Fidelity votes proxies to further the values that have sustained Fidelity for over 70 years. In particular, these guidelines are animated by two fundamental principles: 1) putting first the long-term interests of our customers and fund shareholders; and 2) investing in companies that share our approach to creating value over the long-term. Fidelity generally adheres to these guidelines in voting proxies and our Stewardship Principles serve as the foundation for these guidelines. Our evaluation of proxies reflects information from many sources, including management or shareholders of a company presenting a proposal and proxy voting advisory firms. Fidelity maintains the flexibility to vote individual proxies based on our assessment of each situation.

In evaluating proxies, we recognize that companies can conduct themselves in ways that have important environmental and social consequences. While Fidelity always remains focused on maximizing long-term shareholder value, we also consider potential environmental, social and governance (ESG) impacts that we believe are material to individual companies and investing funds' investment objectives and strategies.

Fidelity will vote on proposals not specifically addressed by these guidelines based on an evaluation of a proposal's likelihood to enhance the long-term economic returns or profitability of the company or to maximize long-term shareholder value. Fidelity will not be influenced by business relationships or outside perspectives that may conflict with the interests of the funds and their shareholders.

II. Board of Directors and Corporate Governance

Directors of public companies play a critical role in ensuring that a company and its management team serve the interests of its shareholders. Fidelity believes that through proxy voting, it can help ensure accountability of management teams and boards of directors, align management and shareholder interests, and monitor and assess the degree of transparency and disclosure with respect to executive compensation and board actions affecting shareholders’ rights. The following general guidelines are intended to reflect these proxy voting principles.

A. Election of Directors

Fidelity will generally support director nominees in elections where all directors are unopposed (uncontested elections), except where a director clearly appears to have failed to exercise reasonable judgment or otherwise failed to sufficiently protect the interests of shareholders.

Fidelity generally will oppose the election of directors if, by way of example:

1. The director attended fewer than 75% of the total number of meetings of the board and its committees on which the director served during the company's prior fiscal year, absent extenuating circumstances.

2. Inside or affiliated directors serve on boards that are not composed of a majority of independent directors.

3. The company made a commitment to modify a proposal or practice to conform to these guidelines, and failed to act on that commitment.

4. For reasons described below under the sections entitled Compensation and Anti-Takeover Provisions and Director Elections.

B. Contested Director Elections

On occasion, directors are forced to compete for election against outside director nominees (contested elections). Fidelity believes that strong management creates long-term shareholder value. As a result, Fidelity generally will vote in support of management of companies in which the funds’ assets are invested. Fidelity will vote its proxy on a case-by-case basis in a contested election, taking into consideration a number of factors, amongst others:

1. Management’s track record and strategic plan for enhancing shareholder value;

2. The long-term performance of the company compared to its industry peers; and

3. The qualifications of the shareholder’s and management’s nominees.

Fidelity will vote for the outcome it believes has the best prospects for maximizing shareholder value over the long-term.

C. Cumulative Voting Rights

Under cumulative voting, each shareholder may exercise the number of votes equal to the number of shares owned multiplied by the number of directors up for election. Shareholders may cast all of their votes for a single nominee (or multiple nominees in varying amounts). With regular (non-cumulative) voting, by contrast, shareholders cannot allocate more than one vote per share to any one director nominee. Fidelity believes that cumulative voting can be detrimental to the overall strength of a board. Generally, therefore, Fidelity will oppose the introduction of, and support the elimination of, cumulative voting rights.

D. Classified Boards

A classified board is one that elects only a percentage of its members each year (usually one-third of directors are elected to serve a three-year term). This means that at each annual meeting only a subset of directors is up for re-election. Fidelity believes that, in general, classified boards are not as accountable to shareholders as declassified boards. For this and other reasons, Fidelity generally will oppose a board’s adoption of a classified board structure and support declassification of existing boards.

E. Independent Chairperson

In general, Fidelity believes that boards should have a process and criteria for selecting the board chair, and will oppose shareholder proposals calling for, or recommending the appointment of, a non-executive or independent chairperson. If, however, based on particular facts and circumstances, Fidelity believes that appointment of a non-executive or independent chairperson appears likely to further the interests of shareholders and promote effective oversight of management by the board of directors, Fidelity will consider voting to support a proposal for an independent chairperson under such circumstances.

F. Majority Voting in Director Elections

In general, Fidelity supports proposals calling for directors to be elected by a majority of votes cast if the proposal permits election by a plurality in the case of contested elections (where, for example, there are more nominees than board seats). Fidelity may oppose a majority voting shareholder proposal where a company’s board has adopted a policy requiring the resignation of an incumbent director who fails to receive the support of a majority of the votes cast in an uncontested election.

G. Proxy Access

Proxy access proposals generally require a company to amend its by-laws to allow a qualifying shareholder or group of shareholders to nominate directors on a company’s proxy ballot. Fidelity believes that certain safeguards as to ownership threshold and duration of ownership are important to assure that proxy access is not misused by those without a significant economic interest in the company or those driven by short term goals. Fidelity will evaluate proxy access proposals on a case-by-case basis, but generally will support proposals that include ownership of at least 3% (5% in the case of small-cap companies) of the company’s shares outstanding for at least three years; limit the number of directors that eligible shareholders may nominate to 20% of the board; and limit to 20 the number of shareholders that may form a nominating group.

H. Indemnification of Directors and Officers

In many instances there are sound reasons to indemnify officers and directors, so that they may perform their duties without the distraction of unwarranted litigation or other legal process. Fidelity generally supports charter and by-law amendments expanding the indemnification of officers or directors, or limiting their liability for breaches of care unless Fidelity is dissatisfied with their performance or the proposal is accompanied by anti-takeover provisions (see Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights Plans below).

III. Compensation

Incentive compensation plans can be complicated and many factors are considered when evaluating such plans. Fidelity evaluates such plans based on protecting shareholder interests and our historical knowledge of the company and its management.

A. Equity Compensation Plans

Fidelity encourages the use of reasonably designed equity compensation plans that align the interest of management with those of shareholders by providing officers and employees with incentives to increase long-term shareholder value. Fidelity considers whether such plans are too dilutive to existing shareholders because dilution reduces the voting power or economic interest of existing shareholders as a result of an increase in shares available for distribution to employees in lieu of cash compensation. Fidelity will generally oppose equity compensation plans or amendments to authorize additional shares under such plans if:

1. The company grants stock options and equity awards in a given year at a rate higher than a benchmark rate (“burn rate”) considered appropriate by Fidelity and there were no circumstances specific to the company or the compensation plans that leads Fidelity to conclude that the rate of awards is otherwise acceptable.

2. The plan includes an evergreen provision, which is a feature that provides for an automatic increase in the shares available for grant under an equity compensation plan on a regular basis.

3. The plan provides for the acceleration of vesting of equity compensation even though an actual change in control may not occur.

As to stock option plans, considerations include the following:

1. Pricing: We believe that options should be priced at 100% of fair market value on the date they are granted. We generally oppose options priced at a discount to the market, although the price may be as low as 85% of fair market value if the discount is expressly granted in lieu of salary or cash bonus.

2. Re-pricing: An “out-of-the-money” (or underwater) option has an exercise price that is higher than the current price of the stock. We generally oppose the re-pricing of underwater options because it is not consistent with a policy of offering options as a form of long-term compensation. Fidelity also generally opposes a stock option plan if the board or compensation committee has re-priced options outstanding in the past two years without shareholder approval.

Fidelity generally will support a management proposal to exchange, re-price or tender for cash, outstanding options if the proposed exchange, re-pricing, or tender offer is consistent with the interests of shareholders, taking into account a variety of factors such as:

1. Whether the proposal excludes senior management and directors;

2. Whether the exchange or re-pricing proposal is value neutral to shareholders based upon an acceptable pricing model;

3. The company's relative performance compared to other companies within the relevant industry or industries;

4. Economic and other conditions affecting the relevant industry or industries in which the company competes; and

5. Any other facts or circumstances relevant to determining whether an exchange or re-pricing proposal is consistent with the interests of shareholders.

B. Employee Stock Purchase Plans

These plans are designed to allow employees to purchase company stock at a discounted price and receive favorable tax treatment when the stock is sold. Fidelity generally will support employee stock purchase plans if the minimum stock purchase price is equal to or greater than 85% (or at least 75% in the case of non-U.S. companies where a lower minimum stock purchase price is equal to the prevailing “best practices” in that market) of the stock's fair market value and the plan constitutes a reasonable effort to encourage broad based participation in the company's stock.

IV. Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) and Frequency of Say on Pay Vote

Current law requires companies to allow shareholders to cast non-binding votes on the compensation for named executive officers, as well as the frequency of such votes. Fidelity generally will support proposals to ratify executive compensation unless the compensation appears misaligned with shareholder interests or is otherwise problematic, taking into account:

- The actions taken by the board or compensation committee in the previous year, including whether the company re-priced or exchanged outstanding stock options without shareholder approval; adopted or extended a golden parachute without shareholder approval; or adequately addressed concerns communicated by Fidelity in the process of discussing executive compensation;

- The alignment of executive compensation and company performance relative to peers; and

- The structure of the compensation program, including factors such as whether incentive plan metrics are appropriate, rigorous and transparent; whether the long-term element of the compensation program is evaluated over at least a three-year period; the sensitivity of pay to below median performance; the amount and nature of non-performance-based compensation; the justification and rationale behind paying discretionary bonuses; the use of stock ownership guidelines and amount of executive stock ownership; and how well elements of compensation are disclosed.

When presented with a frequency of Say on Pay vote, Fidelity generally will support holding an annual advisory vote on Say on Pay.

A. Compensation Committee

Directors serving on the compensation committee of the Board have a special responsibility to ensure that management is appropriately compensated and that compensation, among other things, fairly reflects the performance of the company. Fidelity believes that compensation should align with company performance as measured by key business metrics. Compensation policies should align the interests of executives with those of shareholders. Further, the compensation program should be disclosed in a transparent and timely manner.

Fidelity will oppose the election of directors on the compensation committees if:

1. The company has not adequately addressed concerns communicated by Fidelity in the process of discussing executive compensation.

2. Within the last year, and without shareholder approval, a company's board of directors or compensation committee has either:

a) Re-priced outstanding options, exchanged outstanding options for equity, or tendered cash for outstanding options; or

b) Adopted or extended a golden parachute.

B. Executive Severance Agreements

Executive severance compensation and benefit arrangements resulting from a termination following a change in control are known as “golden parachutes.” Fidelity generally will oppose proposals to ratify golden parachutes where the arrangement includes an excise tax gross-up provision; single trigger for cash incentives; or may result in a lump sum payment of cash and acceleration of equity that may total more than three times annual compensation (salary and bonus) in the event of a termination following a change in control.

V. Environmental and Social Issues

Grounded in our Stewardship Principles, these guidelines outline our views on corporate governance. As part of our efforts to maximize long-term shareholder value, we incorporate environmental and social issues into our evaluation of a company, particularly if we believe an issue is material to that company and the investing fund's investment objective and strategies.

Fidelity generally considers management’s recommendation and current practice when voting on shareholder proposals concerning environmental or social issues because it generally believes that management and the board are in the best position to determine how to address these matters. Fidelity, however, also believes that transparency is critical to sound corporate governance. Therefore, Fidelity may support shareholder proposals that request additional disclosures from companies regarding environmental or social issues, including where it believes that the proposed disclosures could provide meaningful information to the investment management process without unduly burdening the company. This means that Fidelity may support shareholder proposals calling for reports on sustainability, renewable energy, and environmental impact issues. Fidelity also may support proposals on issues in other areas, including but not limited to equal employment, board diversity and workforce diversity.

VI. Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights Plans

Fidelity generally will oppose a proposal to adopt an anti-takeover provision.

Anti-takeover provisions include:

- classified boards;

- “blank check” preferred stock (whose terms and conditions may be expressly determined by the company’s board, for example, with differential voting rights);

- golden parachutes;

- supermajority provisions (that require a large majority (generally between 67-90%) of shareholders to approve corporate changes as compared to a majority provision that simply requires more than 50% of shareholders to approve those changes);

- poison pills;

- restricting the right to call special meetings;

- provisions restricting the right of shareholders to set board size; and

- any other provision that eliminates or limits shareholder rights.

A. Shareholders Rights Plans (“poison pills”)

Poison pills allow shareholders opposed to a takeover offer to purchase stock at discounted prices under certain circumstances and effectively give boards veto power over any takeover offer. While there are advantages and disadvantages to poison pills, they can be detrimental to the creation of shareholder value and can help entrench management by deterring acquisition offers not favored by the board, but that may, in fact, be beneficial to shareholders.

Fidelity generally will support a proposal to adopt or extend a poison pill if the proposal:

1. Includes a condition in the charter or plan that specifies an expiration date (sunset provision) of no greater than five years;

2. Is integral to a business strategy that is expected to result in greater value for the shareholders;

3. Requires shareholder approval to be reinstated upon expiration or if amended;

4. Contains a mechanism to allow shareholders to consider a bona fide takeover offer for all outstanding shares without triggering the poison pill; and

5. Allows the Fidelity funds to hold an aggregate position of up to 20% of a company's total voting securities, where permissible.

Fidelity generally also will support a proposal that is crafted only for the purpose of protecting a specific tax benefit if it also believes the proposal is likely to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.

B. Shareholder Ability to Call a Special Meeting

Fidelity generally will support shareholder proposals regarding shareholders' right to call special meetings if the threshold required to call the special meeting is no less than 25% of the outstanding stock.

C. Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent

Fidelity generally will support proposals regarding shareholders' right to act by written consent if the proposals include appropriate mechanisms for implementation. This means that proposals must include record date requests from at least 25% of the outstanding stockholders and consents must be solicited from all shareholders.

D. Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement

Fidelity generally will support proposals regarding supermajority provisions if Fidelity believes that the provisions protect minority shareholder interests in companies where there is a substantial or dominant shareholder.

VII. Anti-Takeover Provisions and Director Elections

Fidelity will oppose the election of all directors or directors on responsible committees if the board adopted or extended an anti-takeover provision without shareholder approval.

Fidelity will consider supporting the election of directors with respect to poison pills if:

- All of the poison pill’s features outlined under the Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights section above are met when a poison pill is adopted or extended.

- A board is willing to consider seeking shareholder ratification of, or adding the features outlined under the Anti-Takeover Provisions and Shareholders Rights Plans section above to, an existing poison pill. If, however, the company does not take appropriate action prior to the next annual shareholder meeting, Fidelity will oppose the election of all directors at that meeting.

- It determines that the poison pill was narrowly tailored to protect a specific tax benefit, and subject to an evaluation of its likelihood to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.

VIII. Capital Structure and Incorporation

These guidelines are designed to protect shareholders’ value in the companies in which the Fidelity funds invest. To the extent a company’s management is committed and incentivized to maximize shareholder value, Fidelity generally votes in favor of management proposals; Fidelity may vote contrary to management where a proposal is overly dilutive to shareholders and/or compromises shareholder value or other interests. The guidelines that follow are meant to protect shareholders in these respects.

A. Increases in Common Stock

Fidelity may support reasonable increases in authorized shares for a specific purpose (a stock split or re-capitalization, for example). Fidelity generally will oppose a provision to increase a company's authorized common stock if such increase will result in a total number of authorized shares greater than three times the current number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares, including stock options.

In the case of REITs, however, Fidelity will oppose a provision to increase the REIT’s authorized common stock if the increase will result in a total number of authorized shares greater than five times the current number of outstanding and scheduled to be issued shares.

B. Multi-Class Share Structures

Fidelity generally will support proposals to recapitalize multi-class share structures into structures that provide equal voting rights for all shareholders, and generally will oppose proposals to introduce or increase classes of stock with differential voting rights. However, Fidelity will evaluate all such proposals in the context of their likelihood to enhance long-term economic returns or maximize long-term shareholder value.

C. Incorporation or Reincorporation in another State or Country

Fidelity generally will support management proposals calling for, or recommending that, a company reincorporate in another state or country if, on balance, the economic and corporate governance factors in the proposed jurisdiction appear reasonably likely to be better aligned with shareholder interests, taking into account the corporate laws of the current and proposed jurisdictions and any changes to the company's current and proposed governing documents. Fidelity will consider supporting these shareholder proposals in limited cases if, based upon particular facts and circumstances, remaining incorporated in the current jurisdiction appears misaligned with shareholder interests.

IX. Shares of Fidelity Funds, ETFs, or other non-Fidelity Mutual Funds and ETFs

When a Fidelity fund invests in an underlying Fidelity fund with public shareholders, an exchange traded fund (ETF), or fund that is not affiliated, Fidelity will vote in the same proportion as all other voting shareholders of the underlying fund (this is known as “echo voting”). Fidelity may not vote if "echo voting" is not operationally practical or not permitted under applicable laws and regulations. For Fidelity fund investments in a Fidelity Series Fund, Fidelity generally will vote in a manner consistent with the recommendation of the Fidelity Series Fund's Board of Trustees on all proposals.

X. Foreign Markets

Many Fidelity funds invest in voting securities issued by companies that are domiciled outside the United States and are not listed on a U.S. securities exchange. Corporate governance standards, legal or regulatory requirements and disclosure practices in foreign countries can differ from those in the United States. When voting proxies relating to non-U.S. securities, Fidelity generally will evaluate proposals under these guidelines and where applicable and feasible, take into consideration differing laws, regulations and practices in the relevant foreign market in determining how to vote shares.

In certain non-U.S. jurisdictions, shareholders voting shares of a company may be restricted from trading the shares for a period of time around the shareholder meeting date. Because these trading restrictions can hinder portfolio management and could result in a loss of liquidity for a fund, Fidelity generally will not vote proxies in circumstances where such restrictions apply. In addition, certain non-U.S. jurisdictions require voting shareholders to disclose current share ownership on a fund-by-fund basis. When such disclosure requirements apply, Fidelity generally will not vote proxies in order to safeguard fund holdings information.

XI. Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

Voting of shares is conducted in a manner consistent with the best interests of the Fidelity funds. In other words, securities of a company generally will be voted in a manner consistent with these guidelines and without regard to any other Fidelity companies' business relationships.

Fidelity takes its responsibility to vote shares in the best interests of the funds seriously and has implemented policies and procedures to address actual and potential conflicts of interest.

XII. Conclusion

Since its founding more than 70 years ago, Fidelity has been driven by two fundamental values: 1) putting the long-term interests of our customers and fund shareholders first; and 2) investing in companies that share our approach to creating value over the long-term. With these fundamental principles as guideposts, the funds are managed to provide the greatest possible return to shareholders consistent with governing laws and the investment guidelines and objectives of each fund.

Fidelity believes that there is a strong correlation between sound corporate governance and enhancing shareholder value. Fidelity, through the implementation of these guidelines, puts this belief into action through consistent engagement with portfolio companies on matters contained in these guidelines, and, ultimately, through the exercise of voting rights by the funds.

Glossary

• Burn rate means the total number of stock option and full value equity awards granted as compensation in a given year divided by the weighted average common stock outstanding for that same year.

- For a large-capitalization company, burn rate higher than 1.5%.

- For a small-capitalization company, burn rate higher than 2.5%.

- For a micro-capitalization company, burn rate higher than 3.5%.

• Golden parachute means employment contracts, agreements, or policies that include an excise tax gross-up provision; single trigger for cash incentives; or may result in a lump sum payment of cash and acceleration of equity that may total more than three times annual compensation (salary and bonus) in the event of a termination following a change in control.

• Large-capitalization company means a company included in the Russell 1000^® Index or the Russell Global ex-U.S. Large Cap Index.

• Micro-capitalization company means a company with market capitalization under US $300 million.

• Poison pill refers to a strategy employed by a potential takeover / target company to make its stock less attractive to an acquirer. Poison pills are generally designed to dilute the acquirer's ownership and value in the event of a takeover.

• Small-capitalization company means a company not included in the Russell 1000^® Index or the Russell Global ex-U.S. Large Cap Index that is not a Micro-Capitalization Company.

Geode Proxy Voting Policies.

As an investment adviser, Geode holds voting authority for securities in many of the client accounts that it manages. Geode takes seriously its responsibility to monitor corporate events affecting securities in those client accounts and to exercise its voting authority with respect to those securities in the best interests of its clients (including shareholders of mutual funds for which it serves as advisor or sub-advisor). The purposes of these proxy voting policies are to (1) establish a framework for Geode’s analysis and decision-making with respect to proxy voting and to (2) set forth operational procedures for Geode’s exercise of proxy voting authority.

Overview

Geode applies the same voting decision for all accounts in which it exercises voting authority, and seeks in all cases to vote in a manner that Geode believes represents the best interests of its clients (including shareholders of mutual funds for which it serves as advisor or sub-advisor). Geode anticipates that, based on its current business model, it will manage the vast majority of assets under its management using passive investment management techniques, such as indexing. Geode also manages private funds and separate accounts using active investment management techniques, primarily employing quantitative investment strategies.

Members of the Operations Committee oversee the exercise of voting authority under these proxy voting policies, consulting with Geode’s legal counsel with respect to controversial matters and for interpretive and other guidance. Geode will engage an established commercial proxy advisory service (the “Agent”) for comprehensive analysis, research and voting recommendations, particularly for matters that may be controversial, present potential conflicts of interest or require additional analysis under these guidelines.

Geode may determine to accept or reject any recommendation based on the research and analysis provided by the Agent or on any independent research and analysis obtained or generated by Geode. However, because the recommended votes are determined solely based on the customized policies established by Geode, Geode expects that the recommendations will be followed in most cases. The Agent also acts as a proxy voting agent to effect the votes and maintain records of all of Geode’s proxy votes. In all cases, the ultimate voting decision and responsibility rests with the members of the Operations Committee, which are accountable to Geode’s clients (including shareholders of mutual funds for which it serves as advisor or sub-advisor).

Due to its focused business model and the number of investments that Geode will make for its clients (particularly pursuant to its indexing strategy), Geode does not anticipate that actual or potential conflicts of interest are likely to occur in the ordinary course of its business. However, Geode believes it is essential to avoid having conflicts of interest affect its objective of voting in the best interests of its clients. Therefore, in the event that members of the Operations Committee, the Agent or any other person involved in the analysis or voting of proxies has knowledge of, or has reason to believe there may exist, any potential relationship, business or otherwise, between the portfolio company subject to the proxy vote and Geode (and any subsidiary of Geode) or their respective directors, officers, employees or agents, such person shall notify other members of the Operations Committee and may consult with outside counsel to Geode to analyze and address such potential conflict of interest. In the case of an actual conflict of interest, on the advice of counsel, Geode expects that the independent directors of Geode will consider the matter and may (1) determine that there is no conflict of interest (or that reasonable measures have been taken to remedy or avoid any conflict of interest) that would prevent Geode from voting the applicable proxy, (2) using such information as is available from the Agent, vote the applicable proxy, or (3) cause authority to be delegated to the Agent or a similar special fiduciary to vote the applicable proxy.

Geode has established the specific proxy voting policies that are summarized below to maximize the value of investments in its clients’ accounts, which it believes will be furthered through (1) accountability of a company’s management and directors to its shareholders, (2) alignment of the interests of management with those of shareholders (including through compensation, benefit and equity ownership programs), and (3) increased disclosure of a company’s business and operations. Geode reserves the right to override any of its proxy voting policies with respect to a particular shareholder vote when such an override is, in Geode’s best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of Geode’s clients.

Policies

All proxy votes shall be considered and made in a manner consistent with the best interests of Geode’s clients (including shareholders of mutual fund clients) without regard to any other relationship, business or otherwise, between the portfolio company subject to the proxy vote and Geode or its affiliates. As a general matter, (1) proxies will be voted FOR incumbent members of a board of directors and FOR routine management proposals, except as otherwise addressed under these policies;(2) shareholder and non-routine management proposals addressed by these policies will be voted as provided in these policies; and (3) shareholder and non-routine management proposals not addressed by these policies will be evaluated by members of Geode’s Operations Committee based on fundamental analysis and/or research and recommendations provided by the Agent, other third-party service providers, and the members of the Operations Committee, shall make the voting decision.

When voting the securities of non-US issuers, Geode will evaluate proposals in accordance with these policies but will also take local market standards and best practices into consideration. Geode may also limit or modify its voting at certain non-US meetings (e.g., if shares are required to be blocked or reregistered in connection with voting).

Geode’s specific policies are as follows:

I. Election of Directors

Geode will generally vote FOR incumbent members of a board of directors except:

• Attendance. The incumbent board member failed to attend at least 75% of meetings in the previous year and does not provide a reasonable explanation.

• Independent Directors. Nominee is not independent and full board comprises less than a majority of independents. Nominee is not independent and sits on the audit, compensation or nominating committee.

• Director Responsiveness. The board failed to act on shareholder proposals that received approval by Geode and a majority of the votes cast in the previous year. The board failed to act on takeover offers where the majority of shareholders tendered their shares. At the previous board election, directors received more than 50 percent withhold/against votes of the shares cast, and the company failed to address the issue(s) that caused the high withhold/against vote.

• Golden Parachutes. Incumbent members of the compensation committee adopted or renewed an excessive golden parachute within the past year.

• In Other Circumstances where a member of the board has acted in a manner inconsistent with the interests of shareholders of a company whose securities are held in client accounts.

II. Majority Election. Unless a company has a policy achieving a similar result, Geode will generally vote in favor of a proposal calling for directors to be elected by a majority of votes cast in a board election provided that the plurality vote applies when there are more nominees than board seats.

III. Say on Pay (non-binding).

• Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation. Geode will generally vote AGAINST advisory vote when: (1) there is a significant misalignment between executive pay and company performance, (2) the company maintains significant problematic pay practices; or (3) the board exhibits a significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders.

• Frequency Vote. Geode will generally vote FOR having an advisory vote on executive compensation every year.

• Advisory Vote on Golden Parachute. Geode will vote AGAINST excessive change-in-control severance payments.

IV. Vote AGAINST Anti-Takeover Proposals, including:

• Addition of Special Interest Directors to the board.

• Authorization of "Blank Check" Preferred Stock. Geode will vote FOR proposals to require shareholder approval for the distribution of preferred stock except for acquisitions and raising capital in the ordinary course of business.

• Classification of Boards. Geode will vote FOR proposals to de-classify boards.

• Fair Price Amendments, other than those that consider only a two-year price history and are not accompanied by other anti-takeover measures.

• Golden Parachutes, that Geode deems to be excessive in the event of change-in-control.

• Poison Pills. Adoption or extension of a Poison Pill without shareholder approval will result in our voting AGAINST the election of incumbents or a management slate in the concurrent or next following vote on the election of directors, provided the matter will be considered if (a) the board has adopted a Poison Pill with a sunset provision; (b) the Pill is linked to a business strategy that will result in greater value for the shareholders; (c) the term is less than three years; (d) the Pill includes a qualifying offer clause; and (e) shareholder approval is required to reinstate the expired Pill. Geode will vote FOR shareholder proposals requiring or recommending that shareholders be given an opportunity to vote on the adoption of poison pills.

• Reduction or Limitation of Shareholder Rights (e.g., action by written consent, ability to call meetings, or remove directors).

• Reincorporation in another state (when accompanied by Anti-Takeover Provisions, including increased statutory anti-takeover provisions). Geode will vote FOR reincorporation in another state when not accompanied by such anti-takeover provisions.

• Requirements that the Board Consider Non-Financial Effects of merger and acquisition proposals.

• Requirements regarding Size, Selection and Removal of the Board that are likely to have an anti-takeover effect (although changes with legitimate business purposes will be evaluated).

• Supermajority Voting Requirements (i.e., typically 2/3 or greater) for boards and shareholders. Geode will vote FOR proposals to eliminate supermajority voting requirements.

• Transfer of Authority from Shareholders to Directors.

V. Vote FOR proposed amendments to a company's certificate of incorporation or by-laws that enable the company to Opt Out of the Control Shares Acquisition Statutes.

VI. Vote AGAINST the introduction of new classes of Stock with Differential Voting Rights.

VII. Vote AGAINST introduction and FOR elimination of Cumulative Voting Rights, except in certain instances where it is determined not to enhance shareholders' interests.

VIII. Vote FOR elimination of Preemptive Rights.

IX. Vote FOR Anti-Greenmail proposals so long as they are not part of anti-takeover provisions (in which case the vote will be AGAINST).

X. Vote FOR charter and by-law amendments expanding the Indemnification of Directors to the maximum extent permitted under Delaware law (regardless of the state of incorporation) and vote AGAINST charter and by-law amendments completely Eliminating Directors' Liability for Breaches of Care.

XI. Vote FOR proposals to adopt Confidential Voting and Independent Vote Tabulation practices.

XII. Vote FOR Open-Market Stock Repurchase Programs, unless there is clear evidence of past abuse of the authority; the plan contains no safeguards against selective buybacks, or the authority can be used as an anti-takeover mechanism.

XIII. Vote FOR management proposals to implement a Reverse Stock Split when the number of authorized shares will be proportionately reduced or the Reverse Stock Split is necessary to avoid de-listing.

XIV. Vote FOR management proposals to Reduce the Par Value of common stock unless the proposal may facilitate an anti-takeover device or other negative corporate governance action.

XV. Vote FOR the Issuance of Large Blocks of Stock if such proposals have a legitimate business purpose and do not result in dilution of greater than 20%. However, a company's specific circumstances and market practices may be considered in determining whether the proposal is consistent with shareholder interests.

XVI. Vote AGAINST Excessive Increases in Common Stock. Vote AGAINST increases in authorized common stock that would result in authorized capital in excess of three times the company's shares outstanding and reserved for legitimate purposes. For non-U.S. securities with conditional capital requests, vote AGAINST issuances of shares with preemptive rights in excess of 100% of the company's current shares outstanding. Special requests will be evaluated, taking company-specific circumstances into account.

XVII. Vote AGAINST the adoption of or amendment to authorize additional shares under a Stock Option Plan if:

• The stock option plan includes evergreen provisions, which provides for an automatic allotment of equity compensation every year.

• The dilution effect of the shares authorized under the plan (including by virtue of any "evergreen" or replenishment provision), plus the shares reserved for issuance pursuant to all other option or restricted stock plans, is greater than 10%. However, dilution may be increased to 15% for small capitalization companies, and 20% for micro capitalization companies, respectively. If the plan fails this test, the dilution effect may be evaluated relative to any unusual factor involving the company.

• The offering price of options is less than 100% of fair market value on the date of grant, except that the offering price may be as low as 85% of fair market value if the discount is expressly granted in lieu of salary or cash bonus, except that a modest number of shares (limited to 5% for a large capitalization company and 10% for small and micro capitalization companies) may be available for grant to employees and directors under the plan if the grant is made by a compensation committee composed entirely of independent directors (the "De Minimis Exception").

• The plan is administered by (1) a compensation committee not comprised entirely of independent directors or (2) a board of directors not comprised of a majority of independent directors, provided that a plan is acceptable if it satisfies the De Minimis Exception.

• The plan's terms allow repricing of underwater options, or the board/committee has repriced options outstanding under the plan in the past two years without shareholder approval, unless by the express terms of the plan or a board resolution such repricing is rarely used (and then only to maintain option value due to extreme circumstances beyond management's control) and is within the limits of the De Minimis Exception.

• Liberal Definition of Change in Control: the plan provides that the vesting of equity awards may accelerate even though an actual change in control may not occur.

XVIII. Vote AGAINST the election of incumbent members of the compensation committee or a management slate in the concurrent or next following vote on the election of directors if, within the last year and without shareholder approval, the company's board of directors or compensation committee has repriced outstanding options.

XIX. Evaluate proposals to Reprice Outstanding Stock Options, taking into account such factors as: (1) whether the repricing proposal excludes senior management and directors; (2) whether the options proposed to be repriced exceeded the dilution thresholds described in these current proxy voting policies when initially granted; (3) whether the repricing proposal is value neutral to shareholders based upon an acceptable options pricing model; (4) the company's relative performance compared to other companies within the relevant industry or industries; (5) economic and other conditions affecting the relevant industry or industries in which the company competes; and (6) other facts or circumstances relevant to determining whether a repricing proposal is consistent with the interests of shareholders.

XX. Vote AGAINST adoption of or amendments to authorize additional shares for Restricted Stock Awards ("RSA") if:

• The dilution effect of the shares authorized under the plan, plus the shares reserved for issuance pursuant to all other option or restricted stock plans, is greater than 10%. However, dilution may be increased to 15% for small capitalization companies, and 20% for micro capitalization companies, respectively. If the plan fails this test, the dilution effect may be evaluated relative to any unusual factor involving the company.

XXI. Vote AGAINST Omnibus Stock Plans if one or more component violates any of the criteria applicable to Stock Option Plans or RSAs under these proxy voting policies, unless such component is de minimis. In the case of an omnibus stock plan, the dilution limits applicable to Stock Option Plans or RSAs under these proxy voting policies will be measured against the total number of shares under all components of such plan.

XXII. Vote AGAINST Employee Stock Purchase Plans if the plan violates any of the relevant criteria applicable to Stock Option Plans or RSAs under these proxy voting policies, except that (1) the minimum stock purchase price may be equal to or greater than 85% of the stock's fair market value if the plan constitutes a reasonable effort to encourage broad based participation in the company's equity, and (2) in the case of non-U.S. company stock purchase plans, the minimum stock purchase price may be equal to the prevailing "best practices," as articulated by the Agent, provided that the minimum stock purchase price must be at least 75% of the stock's fair market value.

XXIII. Vote AGAINST Stock Awards (other than stock options and RSAs) unless it is determined they are identified as being granted to officers/directors in lieu of salary or cash bonus, subject to number of shares being reasonable.

XXIV. Vote AGAINST equity vesting acceleration programs or amendments to authorize additional shares under such programs if the program provides for the acceleration of vesting of equity awards even though an actual change in control may not occur.

XXV. Vote FOR Employee Stock Ownership Plans ("ESOPs") of nonleveraged ESOPs, and in the case of leveraged ESOPs, giving consideration to the company's state of incorporation, existence of supermajority vote rules in the charter, number of shares authorized for the ESOP, and number of shares held by insiders. Geode may also examine where the ESOP shares are purchased and the dilution effect of the purchase. Geode will vote AGAINST a leveraged ESOP if all outstanding loans are due immediately upon a change in control.

XXVI. Vote AGAINST management or shareholder proposals on other Compensation Plans or Practices if such plans or practices are Inconsistent with the Interests of Shareholders. In addition, Geode may vote AGAINST the election of incumbents or a management slate in the concurrent or next following vote on the election of directors if Geode believes a board has approved executive compensation arrangements inconsistent with the interests of shareholders.

XXVII. Environmental and Social Proposals. Evaluate each proposal related to environmental and social issues (including political contributions). Generally, Geode expects to vote with management’s recommendation on shareholder proposals concerning environmental or social issues, as Geode believes management and the board are ordinarily in the best position to address these matters. Geode may support certain shareholder environmental and social proposals that request additional disclosures from companies which may provide material information to the investment management process, or where Geode otherwise believes support will help maximize shareholder value. Geode may take action against the re-election of board members if there are serious concerns over ESG practices or the board failed to act on related shareholder proposals that received approval by Geode and a majority of the votes cast in the previous year.

XXVIII. Geode will generally vote AGAINST shareholder proposals seeking to establish proxy access. Geode will evaluate management proposals on proxy access.

XXIX. Shares of Investment Companies.

• For institutional accounts, Geode will generally vote in favor of proposals recommended by the underlying funds' Board of Trustees.

• For retail managed accounts, Geode will employ echo voting when voting shares. To avoid certain potential conflicts of interest, if an investment company has a shareholder meeting, Geode would vote their shares in the investment company in the same proportion as the votes of other shareholders of the investment company.

Proxy Voting - Invesco.

I. Guiding Principles and Philosophy

Public companies hold shareholder meetings, attended by the company's executives, directors, and shareholders, during which important issues, such as appointments to the company’s board of directors, executive compensation, and auditors, are addressed and where applicable, voted on. Proxy voting gives shareholders the opportunity to vote on issues that impact the company’s operations and policies without being present at the meetings.

Invesco views proxy voting as an integral part of its investment management responsibilities and believes that the right to vote proxies should be managed with the same high standards of care and fiduciary duty to its clients as all other elements of the investment process. Invesco’s proxy voting philosophy, governance structure and process are designed to ensure that proxy votes are cast in accordance with clients’ best interests, which Invesco interprets to mean clients’ best economic interests, this Policy and the operating guidelines and procedures of Invesco's regional investment centers.

Invesco investment teams vote proxies on behalf of Invesco-sponsored funds and both fund and non-fund advisory clients that have explicitly granted Invesco authority in writing to vote proxies on their behalf.

The proxy voting process at Invesco, which is driven by investment professionals, focuses on maximizing long-term value for our clients, protecting clients’ rights and promoting governance structures and practices that reinforce the accountability of corporate management and boards of directors to shareholders. Invesco takes a nuanced approach to voting and, therefore, many matters to be voted upon are reviewed on a case by case basis.

Votes in favor of board or management proposals should not be interpreted as an indication of insufficient consideration by Invesco fund managers. Such votes may reflect the outcome of past or ongoing engagement and active ownership by Invesco with representatives of the companies in which we invest.

II. Applicability of this Policy

This Policy sets forth the framework of Invesco’s corporate governance approach, broad philosophy and guiding principles that inform the proxy voting practices of Invesco’s investment teams around the world. Given the different nature of these teams and their respective investment processes, as well as the significant differences in regulatory regimes and market practices across jurisdictions, not all aspects of this Policy may apply to all Invesco investment teams at all times. In the case of a conflict between this Policy and the operating guidelines and procedures of a regional investment center the latter will control.

III. Proxy Voting for Certain Fixed Income, Money Market and Index Strategies

For proxies held by certain client accounts managed in accordance with fixed income, money market and index strategies (including exchange traded funds), Invesco will typically vote in line with the majority holder of the active-equity shares held by Invesco outside of those strategies (“Majority Voting”). In this manner Invesco seeks to leverage the active-equity expertise and comprehensive proxy voting reviews conducted by teams employing active-equity strategies, which typically incorporate analysis of proxy issues as a core component of the investment process. Portfolio managers for accounts employing Majority Voting still retain full discretion to override Majority Voting and to vote the shares as they determine to be in the best interest of those accounts, absent certain types of conflicts of interest, which are discussed elsewhere in this Policy. When there are no corresponding active-equity shares held by Invesco, the proxies for those strategies will be voted in the following manner: (i) for U.S. issuers, in line with Invesco custom voting guidelines derived from the guidelines set forth below; and (ii) for non-U.S. issuers, in line with the recommendations of a third-party proxy advisory service.

IV. Conflicts of Interest

There may be occasions where voting proxies may present a real or perceived conflict of interest between Invesco, as investment manager, and one or more of Invesco’s clients or vendors. Under Invesco’s Code of Conduct, Invesco entities and individuals are strictly prohibited from putting personal benefit, whether tangible or intangible, before the interests of clients. “Personal benefit” includes any intended benefit for Invesco, oneself or any other individual, company, group or organization of any kind whatsoever, except a benefit for the relevant Invesco client.

Firm-level Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest may exist if Invesco has a material business relationship with, or is actively soliciting business from, either the company soliciting a proxy or a third party that has a material interest in the outcome of a proxy vote or that is actively lobbying for a particular outcome of a proxy vote (e.g., issuers that are distributors of Invesco’s products, or issuers that employ Invesco to manage portions of their retirement plans or treasury accounts). Invesco’s proxy governance team maintains a list of all such issuers for which a conflict of interest exists.

If the proposal that gives rise to the potential conflict is specifically addressed by this Policy or the operating guidelines and procedures of the relevant regional investment center, Invesco generally will vote the proxy in accordance therewith. Otherwise, based on a majority vote of its members, the Global IPAC (as described below) will vote the proxy.

Because this Policy and the operating guidelines and procedures of each regional investment center are pre-determined and crafted to be in the best interest of clients, applying them to vote client proxies should, in most instances, resolve any potential conflict of interest. As an additional safeguard, persons from Invesco’s marketing, distribution and other customer-facing functions may not serve on the Global IPAC. For the avoidance of doubt, Invesco may not consider Invesco Ltd.’s pecuniary interest when voting proxies on behalf of clients.

Personal Conflicts of Interest

A conflict also may exist where an Invesco employee has a known personal relationship with other proponents of proxy proposals, participants in proxy contests, corporate directors, or candidates for directorships.

All Invesco personnel with proxy voting responsibilities are required to report any known personal conflicts of interest regarding proxy issues with which they are involved. In such instances, the individual(s) with the conflict will be excluded from the decision-making process relating to such issues.

Other Conflicts of Interest

To avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, Invesco will not vote proxies issued by, or related to matters involving, Invesco Ltd. that may be held in client accounts from time to time.¹ Shares of an Invesco-sponsored fund held by other Invesco funds will be voted in the same proportion as the votes of external shareholders of the underlying fund. Shares of an unaffiliated registered fund held by one or more Invesco funds will be voted in the same proportion as the votes of external shareholders of the underlying fund as required by federal securities law or any exemption therefrom. Additionally, Invesco or its Funds may vote proportionally in other cases where required by law.

V. Use of Third-Party Proxy Advisory Services

Invesco may supplement its internal research with information from third-parties, such as proxy advisory firms. However, Invesco generally retains full and independent discretion with respect to proxy voting decisions.

As part of its fiduciary obligation to clients, Invesco performs extensive initial and ongoing due diligence on the proxy advisory firms it engages. This includes reviews of information regarding the capabilities of their research staffs, methodologies for formulating voting recommendations, the adequacy and quality of staffing, personnel and technology, as applicable, and internal controls, policies and procedures, including those relating to possible conflicts of interest. In addition, Invesco regularly monitors and communicates with these firms and monitors their compliance with Invesco’s performance and policy standards.

VI. Global Proxy Voting Platform and Administration

Guided by its philosophy that investment teams should manage proxy voting, Invesco has created the Global Invesco Proxy Advisory Committee (“Global IPAC”). The Global IPAC is a global investments-driven committee comprised of representatives from various investment management teams and Invesco’s Global Head of ESG. The Global IPAC provides a forum for investment teams to monitor, understand and discuss key proxy issues and voting trends within the Invesco complex. Absent a conflict of interest, the Global IPAC representatives, in consultation with the respective investment team, are responsible for voting proxies for the securities the team manages (unless such responsibility is explicitly delegated to the portfolio managers of the securities in question). In addition to the Global IPAC, for some clients, third parties (e.g., U.S. fund boards) provide oversight of the proxy process. The Global IPAC and Invesco’s proxy administration and governance team, compliance and legal teams annually communicate and review this Policy and the operating guidelines and procedures of each regional investment center to ensure that they remain consistent with clients’ best interests, regulatory requirements, governance trends and industry best practices.

Invesco maintains a proprietary global proxy administration platform, known as the “fund manager portal” and supported by the Global Head of ESG and a dedicated team of internal proxy specialists. The platform streamlines the proxy voting and ballot reconciliation processes, as well as related functions, such as share blocking and managing conflicts of interest issuers. Managing these processes internally, as opposed to relying on third parties, gives Invesco greater quality control, oversight and independence in the proxy administration process.

The platform also includes advanced global reporting and record-keeping capabilities regarding proxy matters that enable Invesco to satisfy client, regulatory and management requirements. Historical proxy voting information, including commentary by investment professionals regarding the votes they cast, where applicable, is stored to build institutional knowledge across the Invesco complex with respect to individual companies and proxy issues. Certain investment teams also use the platform to access third-party proxy research.

VII. Non-Votes

In the great majority of instances, Invesco will vote proxies. However, in certain circumstances, Invesco may refrain from voting where the economic or other opportunity costs of voting exceeds any benefit to clients. Such circumstances could include, for example:

• If the security in question is on loan as part of a securities lending program, Invesco may determine that the benefit to the client of voting a particular proxy is outweighed by the revenue that would be lost by terminating the loan and recalling the securities;

• In some countries the exercise of voting rights imposes temporary transfer restrictions on the related securities (“share blocking”). Invesco generally refrains from voting proxies in share-blocking countries unless Invesco determines that the benefit to the client(s) of voting a specific proxy outweighs the client’s temporary inability to sell the security; or

• Some companies require a representative to attend meetings in person to vote a proxy. Invesco may determine that the costs of sending a representative or signing a power-of-attorney outweigh the benefit of voting a particular proxy.

In addition, there may be instances in which Invesco is unable to vote all of its clients' proxies despite using commercially reasonable efforts to do so. For example, Invesco may not receive proxy materials from the relevant fund or client custodian with sufficient time and information to make an informed independent voting decision. In other cases, voting may not be practicable due to operational limitations. In such cases, Invesco may choose not to vote, to abstain from voting, to vote in line with management or to vote in accordance with proxy advisor recommendations. These matters are left to the discretion of the relevant portfolio manager.

VIII. Proxy Voting Guidelines

The following guidelines describe Invesco’s general positions on various proxy voting issues. The guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive or prescriptive. As noted above, Invesco’s proxy process is investor-driven, and each portfolio manager retains ultimate discretion to vote proxies in the manner he or she deems most appropriate, consistent with Invesco’s proxy voting principles and philosophy discussed in Sections I. through IV. Individual proxy votes therefore will differ from these guidelines from time to time.

Invesco generally affords management discretion with respect to the operation of a company’s business and will generally support a board’s discretion on proposals relating to ordinary business practices and routine matters, unless there is insufficient information to decide about the nature of the proposal.

Invesco generally abstains from voting on or opposes proposals that are “bundled” or made contingent on each other (e.g., proposals to elect directors and approve compensation plans) where there is insufficient information to decide about the nature of the proposals.

A. Shareholder Access and Treatment of Shareholder Proposals - General

Invesco reviews on a case by case basis but generally votes in favor of proposals that would increase shareholders’ opportunities to express their views to boards of directors, proposals that would lower barriers to shareholder action, and proposals to promote the adoption of generally accepted best practices in corporate governance, provided that such proposals would not require a disproportionate amount of management attention or corporate resources or otherwise that may inappropriately disrupt the company’s business and main purpose, usually set out in their reporting disclosures and business model. Likewise, Invesco reviews on a case by case basis but generally votes for shareholder proposals that are designed to protect shareholder rights if a company’s corporate governance standards indicate that such additional protections are warranted (for example, where minority shareholders’ rights are not adequately protected).

B. Environmental, Social and Corporate Responsibility Issues

Invesco believes that a company’s long-term response to environmental, social and corporate responsibility issues can significantly affect long-term shareholder value. We recognize that to manage a corporation effectively, directors and management may consider not only the interests of shareholders, but also the interests of employees, customers, suppliers, creditors and the local community, among others. While Invesco generally affords management discretion with respect to the operation of a company’s business, Invesco generally will evaluate proposals relating to environmental, social and corporate responsibility issues on a case by case basis and will vote on those proposals in a manner intended to maximize long-term shareholder value. Invesco may choose, however, to abstain on voting on proposals relating to environmental, social and corporate responsibility issues.

Invesco reviews on a case by case basis but generally supports the following proposals relating to these issues:

• Gender pay gap proposals

• Political contributions disclosure/political lobbying disclosure/political activities and action

• Data security, privacy, and internet issues

• Report on climate change/climate change action

• Gender diversity on boards

C. Capitalization Structure Issues

i. Stock Issuances

Invesco generally supports a board’s proposal to issue additional capital stock to meet ongoing corporate needs, except where the request could adversely affect Invesco clients’ ownership stakes or voting rights. Some capitalization proposals, such as those to authorize common or preferred stock with special voting rights or to issue additional stock in connection with an acquisition, may require additional analysis. Invesco generally opposes proposals to issue additional stock without preemptive rights, as those issuances do not permit shareholders to share proportionately in any new issues of stock of the same class. Invesco generally opposes proposals to authorize classes of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend or other rights (“blank check” stock) when they appear to be intended as an anti-takeover mechanism; such issuances may be supported when used for general financing purposes.

ii. Stock Splits

Invesco generally supports a board’s proposal to increase common share authorization for a stock split, provided that the increase in authorized shares would not result in excessive dilution given the company’s industry and performance in terms of shareholder returns.

iii. Share Repurchases

Invesco generally supports a board’s proposal to institute open-market share repurchase plans only if all shareholders participate on an equal basis.

D. Corporate Governance Issues

i. General

Invesco reviews on a case by case basis but generally supports the following proposals related to governance matters:

• Adopt proxy access right

• Require independent board chairperson

• Provide right to shareholders to call special meetings

• Provide right to act by written consent

• Submit shareholder rights plan (poison pill) to shareholder vote

• Reduce supermajority vote requirement

• Remove antitakeover provisions

• Declassify the board of directors

• Require a majority vote for election of directors

• Require majority of independent directors on the board

• Approve executive appointment

• Adopt exclusive forum provision

Invesco generally supports a board’s discretion to amend a company’s articles concerning routine matters, such as formalities relating to shareholder meetings. Invesco generally opposes non-routine amendments to a company’s articles if any of the proposed amendments would limit shareholders’ rights or there is insufficient information to decide about the nature of the proposal.

ii. Board of Directors

1. Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections

Subject to the other considerations described below, in an uncontested director election for a company without a controlling shareholder, Invesco generally votes in favor of the director slate if it is comprised of at least a majority of independent directors and if the board’s key committees are fully independent, effective and balanced. Key committees include the audit, compensation/remuneration and governance/nominating committees. Invesco’s standard of independence excludes directors who, in addition to the directorship, have any material business or family relationships with the companies they serve.

2. Director Nominees in Contested Elections

Invesco recognizes that short-term investment sentiments influence the corporate governance landscape and may influence companies in Invesco clients’ portfolios and more broadly across the market. Invesco recognizes that short-term investment sentiment may conflict with long-term value creation and as such looks at each proxy contest matter on a case by case basis, considering factors such as:

• Long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry

• Management’s track record

• Background to the proxy contest

• Qualifications of director nominees (both slates)

• Evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders as well as the likelihood that the proposed objectives and goals can be met

• Stock ownership positions in the company

3. Director Accountability

Invesco generally withholds votes from directors who exhibit a lack of accountability to shareholders. Examples include, without limitation, poor attendance (less than 75%, absent extenuating circumstances) at meetings, director "overboarding" (as described below), failing to implement shareholder proposals that have received a majority of votes and/or by adopting or approving egregious corporate-governance or other policies. In cases of material financial restatements, accounting fraud, habitually late filings, adopting shareholder rights plan (“poison pills”) without shareholder approval, or other areas of poor performance, Invesco may withhold votes from some or all of a company’s directors. Invesco generally supports shareholder proposals relating to the competence of directors that are in the best interest of the company’s performance and the interest of its shareholders. In situations where directors’ performance is a concern, Invesco may also support shareholder proposals to take corrective actions such as so-called “clawback” provisions.

Invesco generally withholds votes from directors who serve on an excessive number of boards of directors (“overboarding”). Examples of overboarding may include when (i) a non-executive director is sitting on more than six public company boards, and (ii) a CEO is sitting on the board of more than two public companies besides the CEO’s own company, excluding the boards of majority-owned subsidiaries of the parent company.

4. Director Independence

Invesco generally supports proposals to require a majority of directors to be independent unless particular circumstances make this not feasible or in the best interests of shareholders. We generally vote for proposals that would require the board’s audit, compensation/remuneration, and/or governance/nominating committees to be composed exclusively of independent directors because this minimizes the potential for conflicts of interest.

5. Director Indemnification

Invesco recognizes that individuals may be reluctant to serve as corporate directors if they are personally liable for all related lawsuits and legal costs. As a result, reasonable limitations on directors’ liability can benefit a company and its shareholders by helping to attract and retain qualified directors while preserving recourse for shareholders in the event of misconduct by directors. Accordingly, unless there is insufficient information to make a decision about the nature of the proposal, Invesco will generally support a board’s discretion regarding proposals to limit directors’ liability and provide indemnification and/or exculpation, provided that the arrangements are limited to the director acting honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the company and, in criminal matters, are limited to the director having reasonable grounds for believing the conduct was lawful.

6. Separate Chairperson and CEO

Invesco evaluates these proposals on a case by case basis, recognizing that good governance requires either an independent chair or a qualified, proactive, and lead independent director.

Voting decisions may consider, among other factors, the presence or absence of:

• a designated lead director, appointed from the ranks of the independent board members, with an established term of office and clearly delineated powers and duties

• a majority of independent directors

• completely independent key committees

• committee chairpersons nominated by the independent directors

• CEO performance reviewed annually by a committee of independent directors

• established governance guidelines

7. Majority/Supermajority/Cumulative Voting for Directors

The right to elect directors is the single most important mechanism shareholders have to promote accountability. Invesco generally votes in favor of proposals to elect directors by a majority vote. Except in cases where required by law in the jurisdiction of incorporation or when a company has adopted formal governance principles that present a meaningful alternative to the majority voting standard, Invesco generally votes against actions that would impose any supermajority voting requirement, and generally supports actions to dismantle existing supermajority requirements.

The practice of cumulative voting can enable minority shareholders to have representation on a company’s board. Invesco generally opposes such proposals as unnecessary where the company has adopted a majority voting standard. However, Invesco generally supports proposals to institute the practice of cumulative voting at companies whose overall corporate-governance standards indicate a particular need to protect the interests of minority shareholders.

8. Staggered Boards/Annual Election of Directors

Invesco generally supports proposals to elect each director annually rather than electing directors to staggered multi-year terms because annual elections increase a board’s level of accountability to its shareholders.

9. Board Size

Invesco believes that the number of directors is an important factor to consider when evaluating the board’s ability to maximize long-term shareholder value. Invesco approaches proxies relating to board size on a case by case basis but generally will defer to the board with respect to determining the optimal number of board members, provided that the proposed board size is sufficiently large to represent shareholder interests and sufficiently limited to remain effective.

10. Director Term Limits and Retirement Age

Invesco believes it is important for a board of directors to examine its membership regularly with a view to ensuring that the company continues to benefit from a diversity of director viewpoints and experience. We generally believe that an individual board’s nominating committee is best positioned to determine whether director term limits would be an appropriate measure to help achieve these goals and, if so, the nature of such limits. Invesco generally opposes proposals to limit the tenure of outside directors through mandatory retirement ages.

iii. Audit Committees and Auditors

1. Qualifications of Audit Committee and Auditors

Invesco believes a company’s Audit Committee has a high degree of responsibility to shareholders in matters of financial disclosure, integrity of the financial statements and effectiveness of a company’s internal controls. Independence, experience and financial expertise are critical elements of a well-functioning Audit Committee. When electing directors who are members of a company’s Audit Committee, or when ratifying a company’s auditors, Invesco considers the past performance of the Audit Committee and holds its members accountable for the quality of the company’s financial statements and reports.

2. Auditor Indemnifications

A company’s independent auditors play a critical role in ensuring and attesting to the integrity of the company’s financial statements. It is therefore essential that they perform their work in accordance with the highest standards. Invesco generally opposes proposals that would limit the liability of or indemnify auditors because doing so could serve to undermine this obligation.

3. Adequate Disclosure of Auditor Fees

Understanding the fees earned by the auditors is important for assessing auditor independence. Invesco’s support for the re-appointment of the auditors will take into consideration the availability of adequate disclosure concerning the amount and nature of audit versus non-audit fees. Invesco generally will support proposals that call for this disclosure if it is not already being made.

E. Remuneration and Incentives

Invesco believes properly constructed compensation plans that include equity ownership are effective in creating incentives that induce management and employees of portfolio companies to create greater shareholder wealth. Invesco generally supports equity compensation plans that promote the proper alignment of incentives with shareholders’ long-term interests, and generally votes against plans that are overly dilutive to existing shareholders, plans that contain objectionable structural features, and plans that appear likely to reduce the value of the client’s investment.

i. Independent Compensation/Remuneration Committee

Invesco believes that an independent, experienced and well-informed compensation/remuneration committee is critical to ensuring that a company’s remuneration practices align with shareholders’ interests and, therefore, generally supports proposals calling for a compensation/remuneration committee to be comprised solely of independent directors.

ii. Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation

Invesco believes that an independent compensation/remuneration committee of the board, with input from management, is generally best positioned to determine the appropriate components and levels of executive compensation, as well as the appropriate frequency of related shareholder advisory votes. This is particularly the case where shareholders can express their views on remuneration matters through annual votes for or against the election of the individual directors who comprise the compensation/remuneration committee. Invesco, therefore, generally will support management’s recommendations regarding the components and levels of executive compensation and the frequency of shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation. However, Invesco will vote against such recommendations where Invesco determines that a company’s executive remuneration policies are not properly aligned with shareholder interests or may create inappropriate incentives for management.

iii. Equity Based Compensation Plans

Invesco generally votes against plans that contain structural features that would impair the alignment of incentives between shareholders and management. Such features include, without limitation, the ability to reprice or reload options without shareholder approval, the ability to issue options below the stock’s current market price, or the ability to replenish shares automatically without shareholder approval.

iv. Severance Arrangements

Invesco considers proposed severance arrangements (sometimes known as “golden parachute” arrangements) on a case by case basis due to the wide variety among their terms. Invesco acknowledges that in some cases such arrangements, if reasonable, may be in shareholders’ best interests as a method of attracting and retaining high quality executive talent. Invesco generally votes in favor of proposals requiring advisory shareholder ratification of senior executives’ severance agreements while generally opposing proposals that require such agreements to be ratified by shareholders in advance of their adoption.

v. “Claw Back” Provisions

Invesco generally supports so called “claw back” policies intended to recoup remuneration paid to senior executives based upon materially inaccurate financial reporting (as evidenced by later restatements) or fraudulent accounting or business practices.

vi. Employee Stock Purchase Plans

Invesco generally supports employee stock purchase plans that are reasonably designed to provide proper incentives to a broad base of employees, provided that the price at which employees may acquire stock represents a reasonable discount from the market price.

F. Anti-Takeover Defenses

Measures designed to protect a company from unsolicited bids can adversely affect shareholder value and voting rights, and they have the potential to create conflicts of interests among directors, management and shareholders. Such measures include adopting or renewing shareholder rights plans (“poison pills”), requiring supermajority voting on certain corporate actions, classifying the election of directors instead of electing each director to an annual term, or creating separate classes of common or preferred stock with special voting rights. In determining whether to support a proposal to add, eliminate or restrict anti-takeover measures, Invesco will examine the elements of the proposal to assess the degree to which it would adversely affect shareholder rights of adopted. Invesco generally supports shareholder proposals directing companies to subject their anti-takeover provisions to a shareholder vote, as well as the following proposals:

• Provide right to act by written consent

• Provide right to call special meetings

• Adopt fair price provision

• Approve control share acquisition

Invesco generally opposes payments by companies to minority shareholders intended to dissuade such shareholders from pursuing a takeover or another change (sometimes known as “greenmail”) because these payments result in preferential treatment of some shareholders over others.

Companies occasionally require shareholder approval to engage in certain corporate actions or transactions such as mergers, acquisitions, name changes, dissolutions, reorganizations, divestitures and reincorporations. Invesco generally determines its votes for these types of corporate actions after a careful evaluation of the proposal. Generally, Invesco will support proposals to approve different types of restructurings that provide the necessary financing to save the company from involuntary bankruptcy. However, Invesco will generally oppose proposals to change a company’s corporate form or to “go dark” (i.e., going private transactions) without shareholder approval.

Reincorporation involves re-establishing the company in a different legal jurisdiction. Invesco generally will vote for proposals to reincorporate a company if the board and management have demonstrated sound financial or business reasons for the move. Invesco generally will oppose proposals to reincorporate if they are solely part of an anti-takeover defense or intended to limit directors’ liability.

Invesco will generally support proposals that ask the board to consider non-shareholder constituencies or other non-financial effects when evaluating a merger or business combination.

PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

The following guidelines apply to all institutional and retail funds and accounts that have explicitly authorized Invesco Advisers, Inc. (“Invesco”) to vote proxies associated with securities held on their behalf (collectively, “Clients”).

A. INTRODUCTION

Invesco Ltd. (“IVZ”), the ultimate parent company of Invesco, has adopted a global policy statement on corporate governance and proxy voting (the “Invesco Global Proxy Policy”). The policy describes IVZ’s views on governance matters and the proxy administration and governance approach. Invesco votes proxies by using the framework and procedures set forth in the Invesco Global Proxy Policy, while maintaining the Invesco-specific guidelines described below.

B. PROXY VOTING OVERSIGHT: THE MUTUAL FUNDS’ BOARD OF TRUSTEES

In addition to the Global Invesco Proxy Advisory Committee, the Invesco mutual funds’ board of trustees provides oversight of the proxy process through quarterly reporting and an annual in-person presentation by Invesco’s Global Head of Proxy Governance and Responsible Investment.

C. USE OF THIRD PARTY PROXY ADVISORY SERVICES

Invesco has direct access to third party proxy advisory analyses and recommendations (currently provided by Glass Lewis (“GL”) and Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (“ISS”)), among other research tools, and uses the information gleaned from those sources to make independent voting decisions.

Invesco’s proxy administration team performs extensive initial and ongoing due diligence on the proxy advisory firms that it engages. When deemed appropriate, representatives from the proxy advisory firms are asked to deliver updates directly to the mutual funds' board of trustees. Invesco conducts semi-annual, in-person policy roundtables with key heads of research from ISS and GL to ensure transparency, dialogue and engagement with the firms. These meetings provide Invesco with an opportunity to assess the firms’ capabilities, conflicts of interest and service levels, as well as provide investment professionals with direct insight into the advisory firms’ stances on key governance and proxy topics and their policy framework/methodologies. Invesco’s proxy administration team also reviews the annual SSAE 16 reports for, and the periodic proxy guideline updates published by, each proxy advisory firm to ensure that their guidelines remain consistent with Invesco’s policies and procedures. Furthermore, each proxy advisory firm completes an annual due diligence questionnaire submitted by Invesco, and Invesco conducts on-site due diligence at each firm, in part to discuss their responses to the questionnaire.

If Invesco becomes aware of any material inaccuracies in the information provided by ISS or GL, Invesco’s proxy administration team will investigate the matter to determine the cause, evaluate the adequacy of the proxy advisory firm’s control structure and assess the efficacy of the measures instituted to prevent further errors.

ISS and GL provide updates to previously issued proxy reports when necessary to incorporate newly available information or to correct factual errors. ISS also has a Feedback Review Board, which provides a mechanism for stakeholders to communicate with ISS about issues related to proxy voting and policy formulation, research, and the accuracy of data contained in ISS reports.

D. PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES

The following guidelines describe Invesco’s general positions on various common proxy issues. The guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive or prescriptive. Invesco’s proxy process is investor-driven, and each portfolio manager retains ultimate discretion to vote proxies in the manner that he or she deems to be the most appropriate, consistent with the proxy voting principles and philosophy discussed in the Invesco Global Proxy Policy. Individual proxy votes therefore will differ from these guidelines from time to time.

I. Corporate Governance

Management teams of companies are accountable to the boards of directors and directors of publicly held companies are accountable to shareholders. Invesco endeavors to vote the proxies of companies in a manner that will reinforce the notion of a board’s accountability. Consequently, Invesco generally votes against any actions that would impair the rights of shareholders or would reduce shareholders’ influence over the board.

The following are specific voting issues that illustrate how Invesco applies this principle of accountability.

Elections of directors

In uncontested director elections for companies that do not have a controlling shareholder, Invesco generally votes in favor of slates if they are comprised of at least a majority of independent directors and if the boards’ key committees are fully independent. Key committees include the audit, compensation and governance or nominating Committees. Invesco’s standard of independence excludes directors who, in addition to the directorship, have any material business or family relationships with the companies they serve. Contested director elections are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Director performance

Invesco generally withholds votes from directors who exhibit a lack of accountability to shareholders, either through their level of attendance at meetings or by adopting or approving egregious corporate-governance or other policies. In cases of material financial restatements, accounting fraud, habitually late filings, adopting shareholder rights plan (“poison pills”) without shareholder approval, or other areas of poor performance, Invesco may withhold votes from some or all of a company’s directors. In situations where directors’ performance is a concern, Invesco may also support shareholder proposals to take corrective actions, such as so-called “clawback” provisions.

Auditors and Audit Committee members

Invesco believes a company’s audit committee has a high degree of responsibility to shareholders in matters of financial disclosure, integrity of the financial statements and effectiveness of a company’s internal controls. Independence, experience and financial expertise are critical elements of a well-functioning audit committee. When electing directors who are members of a company’s audit committee, or when ratifying a company’s auditors, Invesco considers the past performance of the committee and holds its members accountable for the quality of the company’s financial statements and reports.

Majority standard in director elections

The right to elect directors is the single most important mechanism shareholders have to promote accountability. Invesco supports the nascent effort to reform the U.S. convention of electing directors, and generally votes in favor of proposals to elect directors by a majority vote.

Staggered Boards/Annual Election of Directors

Invesco generally supports proposals to elect each director annually rather than electing directors to staggered multi-year terms because annual elections increase a board's level of accountability to its shareholders.

Supermajority voting requirements

Unless required by law in the state of incorporation, Invesco generally votes against actions that would impose any supermajority voting requirement, and generally supports actions to dismantle existing supermajority requirements.

Responsiveness of Directors

Invesco generally withholds votes for directors who do not adequately respond to shareholder proposals that were approved by a majority of votes cast the prior year.

Cumulative Voting

The practice of cumulative voting can enable minority shareholders to have representation on a company’s board. Invesco generally supports proposals to institute the practice of cumulative voting at companies whose overall corporate-governance standards indicate a particular need to protect the interests of minority shareholders.

Proxy Access

Invesco generally supports shareholders’ nominations of directors in the proxy statement and ballot because it increases the accountability of the board to shareholders. Invesco will generally consider the proposed minimum period of ownership (e.g., three years), minimum ownership percentage (e.g., three percent), limitations on a proponent’s ability to aggregate holdings with other shareholders and the maximum percentage of directors who can be nominated when determining how to vote on proxy access proposals.

Shareholder access

On business matters with potential financial consequences, Invesco generally votes in favor of proposals that would increase shareholders’ opportunities to express their views to boards of directors, proposals that would lower barriers to shareholder action and proposals to promote the adoption of generally accepted best practices in corporate governance. Furthermore, Invesco generally votes for shareholder proposals that are designed to protect shareholder rights if a company’s corporate governance standards indicate that such additional protections are warranted.

Exclusive Forum

Invesco generally supports proposals that would designate a specific jurisdiction in company bylaws as the exclusive venue for certain types of shareholder lawsuits in order to reduce costs arising out of multijurisdictional litigation.

II. Compensation and Incentives

Invesco believes properly constructed compensation plans that include equity ownership are effective in creating incentives that induce management and employees of companies to create greater shareholder wealth. Invesco generally supports equity compensation plans that promote the proper alignment of incentives with shareholders’ long-term interests, and generally votes against plans that are overly dilutive to existing shareholders, plans that contain objectionable structural features, and plans that appear likely to reduce the value of the Client’s investment.

Following are specific voting issues that illustrate how Invesco evaluates incentive plans.

Executive compensation

Invesco evaluates executive compensation plans within the context of the company’s performance under the executives’ tenure. Invesco believes independent compensation committees are best positioned to craft executive-compensation plans that are suitable for their company-specific circumstances. Invesco views the election of independent compensation committee members as the appropriate mechanism for shareholders to express their approval or disapproval of a company’s compensation practices. Therefore, Invesco generally does not support shareholder proposals to limit or eliminate certain forms of executive compensation. In the interest of reinforcing the notion of a compensation committee’s accountability to shareholders, Invesco generally supports proposals requesting that companies subject each year’s compensation record to an advisory shareholder vote, or so-called “say on pay” proposals.

Equity-based compensation plans

Invesco generally votes against plans that contain structural features that would impair the alignment of incentives between shareholders and management. Such features include the ability to reprice or reload options without shareholder approval, the ability to issue options below the stock’s current market price, or the ability automatically to replenish shares without shareholder approval.

Employee stock-purchase plans

Invesco generally supports employee stock-purchase plans that are reasonably designed to provide proper incentives to a broad base of employees, provided that the price at which employees may acquire stock is at most a 15 percent discount from the market price.

Severance agreements

Invesco generally votes in favor of proposals requiring advisory shareholder ratification of executives’ severance agreements. However, Invesco generally opposes proposals requiring such agreements to be ratified by shareholders in advance of their adoption. Given the vast differences that may occur in these agreements, some severance agreements are evaluated on an individual basis.

III. Capitalization

Examples of management proposals related to a company’s capital structure include authorizing or issuing additional equity capital, repurchasing outstanding stock, or enacting a stock split or reverse stock split. On requests for additional capital stock, Invesco analyzes the company’s stated reasons for the request. Except where the request could adversely affect the Client’s ownership stake or voting rights, Invesco generally supports a board’s decisions on its needs for additional capital stock. Some capitalization proposals require a case-by-case analysis. Examples of such proposals include authorizing common or preferred stock with special voting rights, or issuing additional stock in connection with an acquisition.

IV. Mergers, Acquisitions and Other Corporate Actions

Issuers occasionally require shareholder approval to engage in certain corporate actions such as mergers, acquisitions, name changes, dissolutions, reorganizations, divestitures and reincorporations and the votes for these types of corporate actions are generally determined on a case-by-case basis.

V. Anti-Takeover Measures

Practices designed to protect a company from unsolicited bids can adversely affect shareholder value and voting rights, and they potentially create conflicts of interests among directors, management and shareholders. Except under special issuer-specific circumstances, Invesco generally votes to reduce or eliminate such measures. These measures include adopting or renewing “poison pills”, requiring supermajority voting on certain corporate actions, classifying the election of directors instead of electing each director to an annual term, or creating separate classes of common or preferred stock with special voting rights. Invesco generally votes against management proposals to impose these types of measures, and generally votes for shareholder proposals designed to reduce such measures. Invesco generally supports shareholder proposals directing companies to subject their anti-takeover provisions to a shareholder vote.

VI. Environmental, Social and Corporate Responsibility Issues

Invesco believes that a company’s response to environmental, social and corporate responsibility issues and the risks attendant to them can have a significant effect on its long-term shareholder value. Invesco recognizes that to manage a corporation effectively, directors and management must consider not only the interest of shareholders, but also the interests of employees, customers, suppliers and creditors, among others. While Invesco generally affords management discretion with respect to the operation of a company’s business, Invesco will evaluate such proposals on a case-by-case basis and will vote proposals relating to these issues in a manner intended to maximize long-term shareholder value.

VII. Routine Business Matters

Routine business matters rarely have the potential to have a material effect on the economic prospects of Clients’ holdings, so Invesco generally supports a board’s discretion on these items. However, Invesco generally votes against proposals where there is insufficient information to make a decision about the nature of the proposal. Similarly, Invesco generally votes against proposals to conduct other unidentified business at shareholder meetings.

D. EXCEPTIONS

Client Maintains Right to Vote Proxies

In the case of institutional or sub-advised Clients, Invesco will vote the proxies in accordance with these guidelines and the Invesco Global Proxy Policy, unless the Client retains in writing the right to vote or the named fiduciary of a Client (e.g., the plan sponsor of an ERISA Client) retains in writing the right to direct the plan trustee or a third party to vote proxies.

B. Board of Directors

Loomis Sayles believes that an issuer’s independent, qualified board of directors is the foundation of good corporate governance. Loomis Sayles supports proxy proposals that reflect the prudent exercise of the board’s obligation to provide leadership and guidance to management in fulfilling its obligations to its shareholders.

Annual Election of Directors: Vote for proposals to repeal classified boards and to elect all directors annually.

Chairman and CEO are Separate Positions: Vote for proposals that require the positions of chairman and CEO to be held by different persons.

Director and Officer Indemnification and Liability Protection:

A. Vote against proposals concerning director and officer indemnification and liability protection that limit or eliminate entirely director and officer liability for monetary damages for violating the duty of care, or that would expand coverage beyond legal expenses to acts such as gross negligence that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligations than mere carelessness.

B. Vote for only those proposals that provide such expanded coverage in cases when a director's or officer's legal defense was unsuccessful if (i) the director or officer was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that the director or officer reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company, and (ii) if the director's or officer’s legal expenses only would be covered.

Director Nominees in Contested Elections: Votes in a contested election of directors or a “vote no” campaign must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors: (1) long-term financial performance of the issuer relative to its industry; management's track record; (2) background to the proxy contest; qualifications of director nominees (both slates); (3) evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders as well as the likelihood that the proposed objectives and goals can be met; and (4) stock ownership positions.

Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections:

A. Vote for proposals involving routine matters such as election of directors, provided that at least two-thirds of the directors would be independent and affiliated or inside nominees do not serve on any board committee.

B. Vote against nominees that are CFOs of the subject company and, generally, against nominees that the Proxy Voting Service has identified as not acting in the best interests of shareholders. Vote against nominees that have attended less than 75% of board and committee meetings, unless a reasonable cause (e.g., health or family emergency) for the absence is noted and accepted by the Proxy Voting Service and the board. Vote against affiliated or inside nominees who serve on a board committee or if less than two-thirds of the board would be independent. Vote against governance or nominating committee members if there is no independent lead or presiding director and if the position of CEO and chairman are not held by separate individuals. Generally, vote against audit committee members if auditor ratification is not proposed, except in cases involving mutual fund board members, who are not required to submit auditor ratification for shareholder approval pursuant to Investment Company Act of 1940 rules. Vote against compensation committee members when Loomis Sayles or the Proxy Voting Service recommends a vote against the issuer's "say on pay" advisory vote. A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed when electing directors of foreign companies.

C. Generally, vote against all members of a board committee and not just the chairman or a representative thereof in situations where the Proxy Voting Service finds that the board committee has not acted in the best interests of shareholders.

D. Vote as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service when directors are being elected as a slate and not individually.

Independent Audit, Compensation and Nominating Committees: Vote for proposals requesting that the board audit, compensation and/or nominating committees include independent directors exclusively.

Independent Board Chairman:

A. Vote for shareholder proposals that generally request the board to adopt a policy requiring its chairman to be "independent," as defined by a relevant exchange or market with respect to any issuer whose enterprise value is, according to the Proxy Voting Service, greater than or equal to $10 billion.

B. Vote such proposals on a case-by-case basis when, according to the Proxy Voting Service, the issuer's enterprise value is less than $10 billion.

Multiple Directorships: Vote for a director nominee that is a chair or chief executive officer that sits on fewer than three company boards. Vote against a director nominee that is a chair or chief executive officer that sits on three or more company boards, unless a convincing argument to vote for that nominee is made by the Proxy Voting Service, in which case, the recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed.

Staggered Director Elections: Vote against proposals to classify or stagger the board.

Stock Ownership Requirements: Generally vote against shareholder proposals requiring directors to own a minimum amount of company stock in order to qualify as a director, or to remain on the board.

Term of Office: Vote against shareholder proposals to limit the tenure of outside directors.

C. Ratification of Auditor

Loomis Sayles generally supports proposals for the selection or ratification of independent auditors, subject to consideration of various factors such as independence and reasonableness of fees.

A. Generally vote for proposals to ratify auditors.

B. Vote against ratification of auditors where an auditor has a financial interest in or association with the company, and is therefore not independent; or there is reason to believe that the independent auditor has rendered an opinion which is neither accurate nor indicative of the company's financial position. In general, if non-audit fees amount to 35% or more of total fees paid to a company's auditor we will vote against ratification and against the members of the audit committee.

C. Vote against ratification of auditors and vote against members of the audit committee where it is known that an auditor has negotiated an alternative dispute resolution procedure.

D. Remuneration and Benefits

Loomis Sayles believes that an issuer’s compensation and benefit plans must be designed to ensure the alignment of executives’ and employees’ interests with those of its shareholders.

401(k) Employee Benefit Plans: Vote for proposals to implement a 401(k) savings plan for employees.

Compensation Plans: Proposals with respect to compensation plans generally will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.

Compensation in the Event of a Change in Control: Votes on proposals regarding executive compensation in the event of a change in control of the issuer will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Director Related Compensation: Vote for proposals that are required by and comply with the applicable state or listing requirements governing the issuer. All other proposals relating to director compensation will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (“ESOPs”): Vote for proposals that request shareholder approval in order to implement an ESOP or to increase authorized shares for existing ESOPs, except in cases when the number of shares allocated to the ESOP is "excessive" (i.e., generally greater than five percent of outstanding shares), in which case the recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed.

Golden Coffins: Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals relating to the obligation of an issuer to provide remuneration or awards to survivors of executives payable upon such executive's death.

Golden and Tin Parachutes:

A. Vote for shareholder proposals to have golden (top management) and tin (all employees) parachutes submitted for shareholder ratification.

B. Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals to ratify or cancel golden or tin parachutes.

OBRA (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act)-Related Compensation Proposals:

A. Vote for proposals to amend shareholder-approved plans to include administrative features or place a cap on the annual grants any one participant may receive to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.

B. Vote for amendments to add performance goals to existing compensation plans to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.

C. Vote for cash or cash-and-stock bonus plans to exempt the compensation from taxes under the provisions of Section 162(m) of OBRA.

D. Votes on amendments to existing plans to increase shares reserved and to qualify the plan for favorable tax treatment under the provisions of Section 162(m) should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Shareholder Proposals to Limit Executive and Director Pay Including Executive Compensation Advisory Resolutions (“Say on Pay”):

A. Generally, vote for shareholder proposals that seek additional disclosure of executive and director pay information.

B. Review on a case-by-case basis (1) all shareholder proposals that seek to limit executive and director pay and (2) all advisory resolutions on executive pay other than shareholder resolutions to permit such advisory resolutions.

C. Vote against proposals to link all executive or director variable compensation to performance goals.

D. Vote for an annual review of executive compensation.

E. Non-binding advisory votes on executive compensation will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.

F. For foreign domiciled issuers where a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation is proposed concurrently with a binding vote on executive compensation, and the recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service is the same for each proposal, a vote will be entered as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service.

Share Retention by Executives: Generally vote against shareholder proposals requiring executives to retain shares of the issuer for fixed periods unless the board and the Proxy Voting Service recommend voting in favor of the proposal.

Stock Option Plans: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed using the following as a guide:

A. Vote against stock option plans which expressly permit repricing of underwater options.

B. Vote against proposals to make all stock options performance based.

C. Vote against stock option plans that could result in an earnings dilution above the company specific cap considered by the Proxy Voting Service.

D. Vote for proposals that request expensing of stock options.

E. Capital Structure Management Issues

Adjustments to Par Value of Common Stock: Vote for management proposals to reduce the par value of common stock.

Authority to Issue Shares: Vote for proposals by boards to authorize the issuance of shares (with or without preemptive rights) to the extent the size of the proposed issuance in proportion to the issuer’s issued ordinary share capital is consistent with industry standards and the recommendations of the issuer’s board and the Proxy Voting Service are in agreement. Proposals that do not meet the above criteria will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Blank Check Preferred Authorization:

A. Vote for proposals to create blank check preferred stock in cases when the company expressly states that the stock will not be used as a takeover defense or carry superior voting rights, and expressly states conversion, dividend, distribution and other rights.

B. Vote for shareholder proposals to have blank check preferred stock placements, other than those shares issued for the purpose of raising capital or making acquisitions in the normal course of business, submitted for shareholder ratification.

C. Review proposals to increase the number of authorized blank check preferred shares on a case-by-case basis.

Common Stock Authorization: Vote against proposed common stock authorizations that increase the existing authorization by more than 100% unless a clear need for the excess shares is presented by the company. A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed.

Greenshoe Options (French issuers only): Vote for proposals by boards of French issuers in favor of greenshoe options that grant the issuer the flexibility to increase an over-subscribed securities issuance by up to 15% so long as such increase takes place on the same terms and within thirty days of the initial issuance, provided that the recommendation of the issuer’s board and the Proxy Voting Service are in agreement. Proposals that do not meet the above criteria will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Reverse Stock Splits: Vote for management proposals to reduce the number of outstanding shares available through a reverse stock split.

Share Cancellation Programs: Vote for management proposals to reduce share capital by means of cancelling outstanding shares held in the issuer's treasury.

Share Repurchase Programs: Vote for management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms.

Stock Distributions, Splits and Dividends: Generally vote for management proposals to increase common share authorization, provided that the increase in authorized shares following the split or dividend is not greater than 100 percent of existing authorized shares.

F. Mergers, Asset Sales and Other Special Transactions

Proposals for transactions that have the potential to affect the ownership interests and/or voting rights of the issuer’s shareholders, such as mergers, asset sales and corporate or debt restructuring, will be considered on a case-by-case basis, based on (1) whether the best economic result is being created for shareholders, (2) what changes in corporate governance will occur, (3) what impact they will have on shareholder rights, (4) whether the proposed transaction has strategic merit for the issuer, and (5) other factors as noted in each section below, if any.

Asset Sales: Votes on asset sales will be determined on a case-by-case basis after considering the impact on the balance sheet/working capital, value received for the asset, and potential elimination of inefficiencies.

Conversion of Debt Instruments: Votes on the conversion of debt instruments will be considered on a case-by-case basis after the recommendation of the relevant Loomis Sayles equity or fixed income analyst is obtained.

Corporate Restructuring: Votes on corporate restructuring proposals, including minority squeeze-outs, leveraged buyouts, spin-offs, liquidations, and asset sales will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Debt Restructurings: Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part of a debt-restructuring plan. Consider the following issues:

A. Dilution - How much will ownership interest of existing shareholders be reduced, and how extreme will dilution to any future earnings be?

B. Change in Control - Will the transaction result in a change in control of the company?

C. Bankruptcy – Loomis Sayles’ Corporate Actions Department is responsible for consents related to bankruptcies and debt holder consents related to restructurings.

D. Potential Conflicts of Interest – For example, clients may own securities at different levels of the capital structure; in such cases, Loomis Sayles will exercise voting or consent rights for each such client based on that client’s best interests, which may differ from the interests of other clients.

Delisting a Security: Proposals to delist a security from an exchange will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Fair Price Provisions:

A. Vote for fair price proposals, as long as the shareholder vote requirement embedded in the provision is no more than a majority of disinterested shares.

B. Vote for shareholder proposals to lower the shareholder vote requirement in existing fair price provisions.

Greenmail:

A. Vote for proposals to adopt anti-greenmail charter or bylaw amendments or otherwise restrict a company’s ability to make greenmail payments.

B. Review anti-greenmail proposals on a case-by-case basis when they are bundled with other charter or bylaw amendments.

Liquidations: Proposals on liquidations will be voted on a case-by-case basis after reviewing relevant factors including but not necessarily limited to management's efforts to pursue other alternatives, the appraisal value of assets, and the compensation plan for executives managing the liquidation.

Mergers and Acquisitions: Votes on mergers and acquisitions should be considered on a case-by-case basis, generally taking into account relevant factors, including but not necessarily limited to: anticipated financial and operating benefits; offer price (cost vs. premium); prospects of the combined companies; how the deal was negotiated; and changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights.

Poison Pills:

A. Vote for shareholder proposals that ask a company to submit its poison pill for shareholder ratification.

B. Review on a case-by-case basis shareholder proposals to redeem a company's poison pill.

C. Review on a case-by-case basis management proposals to ratify a poison pill.

Reincorporation Provisions: Proposals to change a company's domicile will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Right to Adjourn: Vote for the right to adjourn in conjunction with a vote for a merger or acquisition or other proposal, and vote against the right to adjourn in conjunction with a vote against a merger or acquisition or other proposal.

Spin-offs: Votes on spin-offs will be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on relevant factors including but not necessarily limited to the tax and regulatory advantages, planned use of sale proceeds, market focus, and managerial incentives.

Tender Offer Defenses: Proposals concerning tender offer defenses will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

G. Shareholder Rights

Loomis Sayles believes that issuers have a fundamental obligation to protect the rights of their shareholders. Pursuant to its fiduciary duty to vote shares in the best interests of its clients, Loomis Sayles considers proposals relating to shareholder rights based on whether and how they affect and protect those rights.

Appraisal Rights: Vote for proposals to restore, or provide shareholders with, rights of appraisal.

Bundled Proposals: Review on a case-by-case basis bundled or "conditioned" proxy proposals. In the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, examine the benefits and costs of the packaged items. In instances when the joint effect of the conditioned items is not in shareholders' best interests, vote against the proposals. If the combined effect is positive, support such proposals.

Confidential Voting: Vote for shareholder proposals that request corporations to adopt confidential voting, use independent tabulators and use independent inspectors of election as long as the proposals include clauses for proxy contests as follows: in the case of a contested election, management should be permitted to request that the dissident group honor its confidential voting policy. If the dissidents agree, the policy remains in place. If the dissidents do not agree, the confidential voting policy is waived. Vote for management proposals to adopt confidential voting.

Counting Abstentions: Votes on proposals regarding counting abstentions when calculating vote proposal outcomes will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Cumulative Voting: Vote for proposals to permit cumulative voting, except where the issuer already has in place a policy of majority voting.

Equal Access: Vote for shareholder proposals that would allow significant company shareholders equal access to management's proxy material in order to evaluate and propose voting recommendations on proxy proposals and director nominees, and in order to nominate their own candidates to the board.

Exclusive Forum Provisions: Vote against proposals mandating an exclusive forum for any shareholder lawsuits. Vote against the members of the issuer’s governance committee in the event of a proposal mandating an exclusive forum without shareholder approval.

Independent Proxy: Vote for proposals to elect an independent proxy to serve as a voting proxy at shareholder meetings.

Majority Voting: Vote for proposals to permit majority rather than plurality or cumulative voting for the election of directors/trustees.

Preemptive Rights: Votes with respect to preemptive rights generally will be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service subject to the Common Stock Authorization requirements above.

Proxy Access: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed with regard to proposals intended to grant shareholders the right to place nominees for director on the issuer’s proxy ballot (“Proxy Access”). Vote for such proposals when they require the nominating shareholder(s) to hold, in aggregate, at least 3% of the voting shares of the issuer for at least three years, and be allowed to nominate up to 25% of the nominees. All other proposals relating to Proxy Access will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board:

A. Vote for proposals that seek to fix the size of the board.

B. Vote against proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board without shareholder approval.

Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors:

A. Vote against proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.

B. Vote against proposals that provide that only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies.

C. Vote for proposals to restore shareholder ability to remove directors with or without cause and proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.

Shareholder Advisory Committees: Proposals to establish a shareholder advisory committee will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Shareholder Rights Regarding Special Meetings:

A. Vote for proposals that set a threshold of 10% of the outstanding voting stock as a minimum percentage allowable to call a special meeting of shareholders. Vote against proposals that increase or decrease the threshold from 10%.

B. Vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to call special meetings.

Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirements: Vote against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve charter and bylaw amendments.

Unequal Voting Rights:

A. Vote against dual class exchange offers and dual class recapitalizations.

B. Vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to eliminate an existing dual class voting structure.

Written Consent: Vote for proposals regarding the right to act by written consent when the Proxy Voting Service recommends a vote for the proposal. Proposals regarding the right to act by written consent where the Proxy Voting Service recommends a vote against will be sent to the Proxy Committee for determination. Generally vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to take action by written consent.

H. Environmental and Social Matters

Loomis Sayles has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of its clients.

Loomis Sayles believes good corporate governance, including those practices that address ESG Matters, is essential to the effective management of a company’s financial, litigation and reputation risk, the maximization of its long-term economic performance and sustainability, and the protection of its shareholders' best interests, including the maximization of shareholder value.

Proposals on environmental and social matters cover a wide range of issues, including environmental and energy practices and their impacts, labor matters, diversity and human rights. These proposals may be voted as recommended by the Proxy Voting Service or may, in the determination of the Proxy Committee, be reviewed on a case-by-case basis if the Proxy Committee believes that a particular proposal (i) could have a material impact on an industry or the growth and sustainability of an issuer; (ii) is appropriate for the issuer and the cost to implement would not be excessive; (iii) is appropriate for the issuer in light of various factors such as reputational damage or litigation risk; or (iv) is otherwise appropriate for the issuer.

Loomis Sayles will consider whether such proposals are likely to enhance the value of the client’s investments after taking into account the costs involved, pursuant to its fiduciary duty to its clients.

I. General Corporate Governance

Loomis Sayles has a fiduciary duty to its clients with regard to proxy voting matters, including routine proposals that do not present controversial issues. The impact of proxy proposals on its clients’ rights as shareholders must be evaluated along with their potential economic benefits.

Changing Corporate Name: Vote for management proposals to change the corporate name.

Charitable and Political Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures: Votes on proposals regarding charitable contributions, political contributions, and lobbying expenditures, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Proposals of UK issuers concerning political contributions will be voted for if the issuer states that (a) it does not intend to make any political donations or incur any expenditures in respect to any political party in the EU; and (b) the proposal is submitted to ensure that the issuer does not inadvertently breach the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and sections 366 and 367 of the Companies Act 2006.

Delivery of Electronic Proxy Materials: Vote for proposals to allow electronic delivery of proxy materials to shareholders.

Disclosure of Prior Government Service: Review on a case-by-case basis all proposals to disclose a list of employees previously employed in a governmental capacity.

Non-Material Miscellaneous Bookkeeping Proposals: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed regarding miscellaneous bookkeeping proposals of a non-material nature.

Reimbursement of Proxy Contest Defenses: Generally, proposals concerning all proxy contest defense cost reimbursements should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Reimbursement of Proxy Solicitation Expenses: Proposals to provide reimbursement for dissidents waging a proxy contest should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

State Takeover Statutes: Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to opt in or out of state takeover statutes (including control share acquisition statutes, control share cash-out statutes, freeze out provisions, fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract provisions, anti-greenmail provisions, and disgorgement provisions).

Technical Amendments to By-Laws: A recommendation of the Proxy Voting Service will generally be followed regarding technical or housekeeping amendments to by-laws or articles designed to bring the by-laws or articles into line with current regulations and/or laws.

Transition Manager Ballots: Any ballot received by Loomis Sayles for a security that was held for a client by a Transition Manager prior to Loomis Sayles’ management of the client’s holdings will be considered on a case-by case basis by the Proxy Committee (without the input of any Loomis Sayles analyst or portfolio manager) if such security is no longer held in the client’s account with Loomis Sayles.

J. Mutual Fund Matters

Election of Mutual Fund Trustees: Vote for nominees who oversee fewer than 60 mutual fund portfolios. Vote against nominees who oversee 60 or more mutual fund portfolios that invest in substantially different asset classes (e.g., if the applicable portfolios include both fixed income funds and equity funds). Vote on a case-by-case basis for or against nominees who oversee 60 or more mutual fund portfolios that invest in substantially similar asset classes (e.g., if the applicable portfolios include only fixed income funds or only equity funds). These policies will be followed with respect to funds advised by Loomis Sayles and its affiliates, as well as funds for which Loomis Sayles acts as subadviser and other third parties.

Mutual Fund Distribution Agreements: Votes on mutual fund distribution agreements should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Mutual Fund Fundamental Investment Restrictions: Votes on amendments to a mutual fund's fundamental investment restrictions should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Mutual Fund Investment Advisory Agreements: Votes on mutual fund investment advisory agreements should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

¹ Loomis Sayles does not engage in securities lending. However, some clients do opt to lend securities, availing themselves of their custodians’ services.

Proxy Voting - LSV.

LSV's standard investment management agreement expressly authorizes LSV to vote proxies on behalf of the client's account. Therefore, unless the client expressly reserves proxy voting responsibility, it is LSV's responsibility to vote proxies relating to securities held for the client's account.

ERISA Clients. With respect to ERISA plan clients, unless proxy voting responsibility has been expressly reserved, LSV, as the investment adviser for the account, must, subject to this policy, seek to vote all proxies relating to securities held for the plan's account. If LSV is responsible for voting, LSV shall make appropriate arrangements with each account custodian to have proxies forwarded, on a timely basis to the appropriate person, and shall endeavor to correct delays or other problems relating to timely delivery of proxies and proxy materials.

Fiduciary obligations of prudence and loyalty require an investment adviser with proxy voting responsibility to vote proxies on issues that affect the value of the client's investment. Proxy voting decisions must be made solely in the best interests of the client's account. In voting proxies, LSV is required to consider those factors that may affect the value of the client's investment and may not subordinate the interests of the client to unrelated objectives.

General Policies. LSV has adopted proxy voting guidelines that provide direction in determining how various types of proxy issues are to be voted. LSV has engaged an expert independent third party to design guidelines for client accounts that are updated for current corporate governance issues, helping to ensure that clients' best interests are served by voting decisions. Clients are sent a copy of their respective guidelines on an annual basis.

LSV's quantitative investment process does not provide output or analysis that would be functional in analyzing proxy issues. LSV therefore has retained an expert independent third party to assist in proxy voting, currently Glass Lewis & Co. ("GLC"). GLC implements LSV's proxy voting process, provides assistance in developing guidelines and provides analysis of proxy issues on a case-by-case basis. LSV is responsible for monitoring GLC to seek to ensure that proxies are appropriately voted. LSV will vote issues contrary to, or issues not covered by, the guidelines only when LSV believes it is in the best interest of the client. Where the client has provided proxy voting guidelines to LSV, those guidelines will be followed. In certain circumstances, clients are permitted to direct their vote in a particular solicitation. Direction from a client on a particular proxy vote will take precedence over the guidelines. LSV's use of GLC is not a delegation of LSV's fiduciary obligation to vote proxies for clients.

Should a material conflict arise between LSV's interest and that of its clients, LSV will vote the proxies in accordance with the recommendation of the independent third party proxy voting service. A written record will be maintained describing the conflict of interest, and an explanation of how the vote made was in the client's best interest.

LSV may be unable or may choose not to vote proxies in certain situations. For example, LSV may refrain from voting a proxy if (i) the cost of voting the proxy exceeds the expected benefit to the client, (ii) LSV is not given enough time to process the vote, (iii) voting the proxy requires the security to be "blocked" or frozen from trading or (iv) it is otherwise impractical or impossible to vote the proxy, such as in the case of voting a foreign security that must be cast in person.

Clients may receive a copy of this proxy voting policy and LSV's voting record for their account by request. LSV will additionally provide any mutual fund for which LSV acts as adviser or sub-adviser, a copy of LSV's voting record for the fund so that the fund may fulfill its obligation to report proxy votes to fund shareholders.

Record Keeping.

1. Copies of its proxy voting policies and procedures.

2. A copy of each proxy statement received regarding client securities (maintained by the proxy voting service and/or available on EDGAR).

3. A record of each vote cast on behalf of a client (maintained by the proxy voting service).

4. A copy of any document created that was material to the voting decision or that memorializes the basis for that decision (maintained by the proxy voting service).

5. A copy of clients' written requests for proxy voting information and a copy of LSV's written response to a client's request for proxy voting information for the client's account.

6. LSV will ensure that it may obtain access to the proxy voting service's records promptly upon LSV's request.

The above listed information is intended to, among other things, enable clients to review LSV's proxy voting procedures and actions taken in individual proxy voting situations.

LSV will maintain required materials in an easily accessible place for not less than five years from the end of the fiscal year during which the last entry took place, the first two years in LSV's principal office.

Consideration of Environmental, Social and Governance Factors.

LSV became a signatory to the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) in April 2014. GLC is also a signatory to the PRI. The PRI provides a framework, through its six principles, for consideration of environmental, social and governance ("ESG") factors in portfolio management and investment decision-making. The six principles ask an investment manager, to the extent consistent with its fiduciary duties, to seek to: (1) incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes; (2) be an active owner and incorporate ESG issues into its ownership policies and practices; (3) obtain appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which it invests; (4) promote acceptance and implementation of the PRI principles within the investment industry; (5) work to enhance its effectiveness in implementing the PRI principles; and (6) report on its activities and progress toward implementing the PRI principles.

In addition, through GLC, LSV is able to offer ESG-focused guidelines that include an additional level of analysis for clients seeking to vote consistent with widely-accepted enhanced ESG practices. These ESG-focused guidelines are designed for clients with a focus on disclosing and mitigating company risk with regard to ESG issues.

If a client has elected not to have LSV vote proxies for their account, the client will receive all voting information or solicitations directly from their custodian or proxy voting agent. Because of LSV’s quantitative investment process, LSV does not formulate or provide independent analysis of proxy issues.

Proxy Voting - PineBridge.

I. Introduction

Proxy voting is an important right of shareholders, such as PineBridge Clients, for which PineBridge must take reasonable care and diligence to ensure such rights are properly and timely exercised. PineBridge, as a fiduciary for its Clients, must vote proxies in each Client’s best interest.

II. Policy Statement

Proxy Procedures

As a registered investment adviser that votes (or delegates the voting of) securities held in Client portfolios, PineBridge has implemented proxy voting procedures that are reasonably designed to help ensure that a) PineBridge votes proxies in the best interest of its Clients; b) describes its proxy voting procedures to its Clients, and c) discloses to Clients how they may obtain information on how PineBridge voted their proxies. These procedures are designed to help enable PineBridge to manage material conflicts of interest. While PineBridge must disclose its votes upon request to Clients, no public disclosure is required. (Note that disclosure is required for any mutual funds advised by PineBridge, on Form N-PX.)

Record-Keeping

PineBridge must retain (i) these proxy voting policies and procedures; (ii) proxy statements received regarding Client securities; (iii) records of votes it casts on behalf of Clients; (iv) records of Client requests for proxy voting information, and; (v) any documents prepared by PineBridge that were material to making a decision how to vote, or that memorialized the basis for the decision. PineBridge may rely on proxy statements filed on EDGAR instead of keeping its own copies and rely on proxy statements and records of proxy votes cast by PineBridge that are maintained by contract with a third-party proxy voting service or other third party.

Proxies of Shares of Non-U.S. Corporations

PineBridge has implemented general voting policies with respect to non-U.S. shares owned by Clients. However, although U.S. companies must give shareholders at least 20 days’ advance notice to vote proxies, some non-U.S. companies may provide considerably shorter notice or none at all. PineBridge is not required to “rush” voting decisions in order to meet an impractical deadline, and as a result, PineBridge or PineBridge affiliates’ regional designees under certain circumstances may not vote certain proxies. In addition, certain non-U.S. regulations impose additional costs to a Portfolio that votes proxies, and PineBridge will take that into consideration when determining whether to or not to vote.

In the case of a material conflict between the interests of PineBridge and those of its Clients, PineBridge will take steps to address such conflicts (which may include consulting with counsel) and will attempt to resolve all conflicts in the Client’s best interest.

III. Procedures

• Compliance is responsible for ensuring that the PineBridge ADV includes the appropriate language summarizing PineBridge’s proxy voting procedures and for updating the summary in the ADV whenever the procedures are updated. Compliance is also responsible for consulting with Legal to ensure that PineBridge’s proxy voting policy is kept up to date and in a form appropriate for transmission to Clients.

• If a Client or potential Client requests a copy of the Proxy Voting Policy from Client Relations or Sales, Compliance should be contacted for the most recent version, or it may be obtained from the intranet. Client Relations will send to such Client a copy of the current version of the voting procedures within 7 days and will ensure that Compliance receives a log of each Client’s request and the action taken.

• If a Client requests access to the records of how PineBridge voted its proxies, the Client should be assured that this will be provided, and Operations should be consulted. Operations has access to these proxy voting records.

• PineBridge has established a Stewardship Committee (the “Committee”), which is responsible for defining and monitoring PineBridge's proxy voting strategy and process. The Committee is comprised of members of senior management, portfolio management, Compliance, Legal, Product and Operations.

• The Committee conducts an annual review of the proxy voting guidelines for domestic and non-U.S. Portfolios. Guidelines are reviewed to ensure that the interests of PineBridge’s Clients are best served.

• Issues not addressed in the voting guidelines are determined on a case-by-case basis with input from the Committee and portfolio managers.

• PineBridge has engaged a third-party vendor to administer proxy voting on its behalf. The vendor receives, in a majority of cases, proxies directly from the Client’s custodian and votes them based on PineBridge’s voting guidelines.

• In circumstances where PineBridge receives proxies directly, these proxies must be sent to the vendor promptly. The vendor then votes them in accordance with PineBridge’s voting guidelines. The vendor maintains a listing of all votes cast on behalf of PineBridge Clients.

Proxy Voting - Principal.

Background

Rule 206(4)-6 under the Advisers Act requires every investment adviser who exercises voting authority with respect to client securities to adopt and implement written policies and procedures, reasonably designed to ensure that the adviser votes proxies in the best interest of its clients. The procedures must address material conflicts that may arise in connection with proxy voting. The Rule further requires the adviser to provide a concise summary of the adviser’s proxy voting process and offer to provide copies of the complete proxy voting policy and procedures to clients upon request. Lastly, the Rule requires that the adviser disclose to clients how they may obtain information on how the adviser voted their proxies.

Policy

Principal believes that proxy voting and the analysis of corporate governance issues, in general, are important elements of the portfolio management services provided to advisory clients. Principal’s guiding principles in performing proxy voting are to make decisions that (i) favor proposals that tend to maximize a company's shareholder value and (ii) are not influenced by conflicts of interest. These principles reflect Principal’s belief that sound corporate governance creates a framework within which a company can be managed in the interests of its shareholders.

In addition, as a fiduciary, Principal also monitors certain Clients’ ability to participate in class action events through the regular portfolio management process. Accordingly, Principal has adopted the policies and procedures set out below, which are designed to ensure that Principal complies with legal, fiduciary, and contractual obligations with respect to proxy voting and class actions.

Proxy Voting Procedures

Principal has implemented these procedures with the premise that portfolio management personnel base their determinations of whether to invest in a particular company on a variety of factors, and while corporate governance is one such factor, it may not be the primary consideration. As such, the principles and positions reflected in the procedures are designed to guide in the voting of proxies, and not necessarily in making investment decisions.

The Investment Accounting Department has assigned a Proxy Voting Team to manage the proxy voting process. The Investment Accounting Department has delegated the handling of class action activities to a Senior Investment Accounting Leader.

Institutional Shareholder Services

Based on the Principal’s investment philosophy and approach to portfolio construction and given the complexity of the issues that may be raised in connection with proxy votes, Principal has retained the services of Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”). ISS is a leading global provider of investment decision support tools. ISS offers proxy voting solutions to institutional clients globally. The services provided to Principal include in- depth research, voting recommendations, vote execution, recordkeeping, and reporting.

Principal has elected to follow the ISS Standard Proxy Voting Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), which embody the positions and factors that Principal’s Portfolio Management Teams (“PM Teams”) generally consider important in casting proxy votes.¹ The Guidelines address a wide variety of individual topics, including, among other matters, shareholder voting rights, anti-takeover defenses, board structures, the election of directors, executive and director compensation, reorganizations, mergers, and various shareholder proposals. In connection with each proxy vote, ISS prepares a written analysis and recommendation (“ISS Recommendation”) that reflects ISS’s application of the Guidelines to the particular proxy issues. ISS Proxy Voting Guidelines Summaries are accessible to all PM Teams on the ISS system. They are also available from the Proxy Voting Team.

Voting Against ISS Recommendations

On any particular proxy vote, Portfolio Managers may decide to diverge from the Guidelines. Where the Guidelines do not direct a particular response and instead list relevant factors, the ISS Recommendation will reflect ISS’s own evaluation of the factors.

If the Portfolio Manager’s judgment differs from that of ISS, a written record is created reflecting the process (See Appendix titled “Report for Proxy Vote(s) Against the ISS Recommendation(s)”), including:

1. The requesting PM Team’s reasons for the decision;

2. The approval of the lead Portfolio Manager for the requesting PM Team;

3. Notification to the Proxy Voting Team and other appropriate personnel (including other Principal Portfolio Managers who may own the particular security);

4. A determination that the decision is not influenced by any conflict of interest; and review and approval by the Compliance Department.

(In certain cases, Portfolio Managers may not be allowed to vote against ISS recommendations due to a perceived conflict of interest. For example, Portfolio Managers will vote with ISS recommendations in circumstances where Principal is an adviser to the Principal CITs and those CITs invest in Principal mutual funds.)

Conflicts of Interest

Principal has implemented procedures designed to prevent conflicts of interest from influencing proxy voting decisions. These procedures include our use of the Guidelines and ISS Recommendations. Proxy votes cast by Principal in accordance with the Guidelines and ISS Recommendations are generally not viewed as being the product of any conflicts of interest because Principal casts such votes pursuant to a pre-determined policy based upon the recommendations of an independent third party.

Our procedures also prohibit the influence of conflicts of interest where a PM Team decides to vote against an ISS Recommendation, as described above. In exceptional circumstances, the approval process may also include consultation with the Principal’s senior management, the Law Department, Outside Counsel, and/or the Client whose account may be affected by the conflict. Principal maintains records of the resolution of any proxy voting conflict of interest.

Proxy Voting Instructions and New Accounts

Institutional Accounts

As part of the new account opening process for discretionary institutional Clients that require Principal to vote proxies, Principal’s Investment Accounting Department is responsible for sending a proxy letter to the Client’s custodian. This letter instructs the custodian to send the Client’s proxy materials to ISS for voting. The custodian must complete the letter and provide it to ISS, with a copy to Principal’s Investment Accounting Department. This process is designed to ensure and document that the custodian is aware of its responsibility to send proxies to ISS.

The Investment Accounting Department is responsible for maintaining this proxy instruction letter in the Client’s file and for scanning it into Principal’s OnBase system. These steps are part of Principal’s Account Opening Process.

SMA – Wrap Accounts

Principal’s SMA Operations Department is responsible for servicing wrap accounts, which includes providing instructions to the relevant wrap sponsor for setting up accounts with ISS.

Fixed Income and Private Investments

Voting decisions with respect to Client investments in fixed income securities and the securities of privately-held issuers will generally be made by the relevant Portfolio Managers based on their assessment of the particular transactions or other matters at issue.

Client Direction

Clients may choose to vote proxies themselves, in which case they must arrange for their custodians to send proxy materials directly to them. Clients may provide specific vote instructions for their own ballots. Upon request, Principal may be able to accommodate individual Clients that have developed their own guidelines. Clients may also discuss with Principal the possibility of receiving individualized reports or other individualized services regarding proxy voting conducted on their behalf. Such requests should be centralized through Principal’s Proxy Voting Team.

Securities Lending

At times, neither Principal nor ISS will be allowed to vote proxies on behalf of Clients when those Clients have adopted a securities lending program. Typically, Clients who have adopted securities lending programs have made a general determination that the lending program provides a greater economic benefit than retaining the ability to vote proxies. Notwithstanding this fact, in the event that a proxy voting matter has the potential to materially enhance the economic value of the Client’s position and that position is lent out, Principal will make reasonable efforts to inform the Client that neither Principal nor ISS is able to vote the proxy until the lent security is recalled.

Abstaining from Voting Certain Proxies

Principal shall at no time ignore or neglect their proxy voting responsibilities. However, there may be times when refraining from voting is in the Client’s best interest, such as when Principal’s analysis of a particular proxy issue reveals that the cost of voting the proxy may exceed the expected benefit to the Client. Such proxies may be voted on a best-efforts basis. These issues may include, but are not limited to:

• Restrictions for share blocking countries;²

• Casting a vote on a foreign security may require that the adviser engage a translator;

• Restrictions on foreigners’ ability to exercise votes;

• Requirements to vote proxies in person;

• Requirements to provide local agents with power of attorney to facilitate the voting instructions;

• Untimely notice of shareholder meeting;

• Restrictions on the sale of securities for a period of time in proximity to the shareholder meeting.

Proxy Solicitation

Employees should inform Principal’s Proxy Voting Team of the receipt of any solicitation from any person related to Clients’ proxies. As a matter of practice, Principal does not reveal or disclose to any third party how Principal may have voted (or intend to vote) on a particular proxy until after such proxies have been counted at a shareholder’s meeting. However, the Proxy Voting Team may disclose that it is Principal’s general policy to follow the ISS Guidelines. At no time may any Employee accept any remuneration in the solicitation of proxies.

Handling of Information Requests Regarding Proxies

Employees may be contacted by various entities that request or provide information related to particular proxy issues. Specifically, investor relations, proxy solicitation, and corporate/financial communications firms (e.g., Ipreo, DF King, Georgeson Shareholder) may contact Principal to ask questions regarding total holdings of a particular stock across advisory Clients, or how Principal intends to vote on a particular proxy. In addition, issuers may call (or hire third parties to call) with intentions to influence Principal’s votes (i.e., to vote against ISS).

Employees that receive information requests related to proxy votes should forward such communications (e.g., calls, e-mails, etc.) to Principal’s Proxy Voting Team. The Proxy Voting Team will take steps to verify the identity of the caller and his/her firm prior to exchanging any information. In addition, the Proxy Voting Team may consult with the appropriate Portfolio Manager(s) and/or the CCO with respect to the type of information that can be disclosed. Certain information may have to be provided pursuant to foreign legal requirements (e.g., Section 793 of the UK Companies Act).

External Managers

Where Client assets are placed with managers outside of Principal, whether through separate accounts, funds- of-funds or other structures, such external managers are responsible for voting proxies in accordance with the managers’ own policies. Principal may, however, retain such responsibilities where deemed appropriate.

Proxy Voting Errors

In the event that any Employee becomes aware of an error related to proxy voting, he/she must promptly report that matter to Principal’s Proxy Voting Team. The Proxy Voting Team will take immediate steps to determine whether the impact of the error is material and to address the matter. The Proxy Voting Team, with the assistance of the CCO (or designee), will generally prepare a memo describing the analysis and the resolution of the matter. Supporting documentation (e.g., correspondence with ISS, Client, Portfolio Managers/ analysts, etc.) will be maintained by the Compliance Department. Depending on the severity of the issue, the Law Department, Outside Counsel, and/or affected Clients may be contacted. However, Principal may opt to refrain from notifying non- material de minimis errors to Clients.

Recordkeeping

Principal must maintain the documentation described in the following section for a period of not less than five (5) years, the first two (2) years at the principal place of business. The Proxy Voting Team, in coordination with ISS, is responsible for the following procedures and for ensuring that the required documentation is retained.

Client request to review proxy votes:

• Any request, whether written (including e-mail) or oral, received by any Employee of Principal, must be promptly reported to the Proxy Voting Team. All written requests must be retained in the Client’s permanent file.

• The Proxy Voting Team records the identity of the Client, the date of the request, and the disposition (e.g., provided a written or oral response to Client’s request, referred to third party, not a proxy voting client, other dispositions, etc.) in a suitable place.

• The Proxy Voting Team furnishes the information requested to the Client within a reasonable time period (generally within 10 business days). Principal maintains a copy of the written record provided in response to Client’s written (including e-mail) or oral request. A copy of the written response should be attached and maintained with the Client’s written request, if applicable and maintained in the permanent file.

• Clients are permitted to request the proxy voting record for the 5 year period prior to their request.

Proxy statements received regarding client securities:

• Upon inadvertent receipt of a proxy, Principal will forward the proxy to ISS for voting, unless the client has instructed otherwise.

Note: Principal is permitted to rely on proxy statements filed on the SEC’s EDGAR system instead of keeping their own copies.

Proxy voting records:

• Principal’s proxy voting record is maintained by ISS. The Proxy Voting Team, with the assistance of the Investment Accounting and SMA Operations Departments, periodically ensures that ISS has complete, accurate, and current records of Clients who have instructed Principal to vote proxies on their behalf.

• Principal maintains documentation to support the decision to vote against the ISS recommendation.

• Principal maintains documentation or any communications received from third parties, other industry analysts, third party service providers, company’s management discussions, etc. that were material in the basis for any voting decision.

¹ Principal has various Portfolio Manager Teams organized by asset classes and investment strategies.

² In certain markets where share blocking occurs, shares must be “frozen” for trading purposes at the custodian or sub- custodian in order to vote. During the time that shares are blocked, any pending trades will not settle. Depending on the market, this period can last from one day to three weeks. Any sales that must be executed will settle late and potentially be subject to interest charges or other punitive fees.