ETFS Trust (Form: 485BPOS, Received: 04/30/2018 15:28:10)

ETFS TRUST

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

May 1, 2018

ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF

Ticker: BCI

ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF

Ticker: BCD

ETFS Bloomberg Agriculture Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF

Ticker: AGRI

ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF

Ticker: BEI

ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF

Ticker: BEF

Principal U.S. Listing Exchange: NYSE Arca

This Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) is not a prospectus. The SAI should be read in conjunction with the current prospectus (the “Prospectus”) for each of the funds listed above (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”), each a separate series of ETFS Trust (the “Trust”), as may be revised from time to time.

The current Prospectus for each Fund is dated May 1, 2018. Capitalized terms used herein that are not defined have the same meaning as in the Prospectus, unless otherwise noted. A copy of the Prospectus for each Fund may be obtained, without charge, by calling 1-844-383-7289, visiting www.etfsus.com , or writing to ETFS Trust, c/o ALPS Distributors, Inc., 1290 Broadway, Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado 80203.

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (“SEC”) HAS NOT APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED THESE SECURITIES OR PASSED UPON THE ADEQUACY OF THIS SAI. ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE CONTRARY IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

General Description of the Trust and the Funds	1
Investment Strategies and Risks	1
General Risks	2
Specific Investment Strategies and Risks	3
Proxy Voting Policy	8
Portfolio Holdings Disclosure Policies and Procedures	8
Index Descriptions	9
Investment Limitations	9
Continuous Offering	11
Management of the Trust	12
Brokerage Transactions	21
Additional Information Concerning the Trust	22
Purchase and Redemption of Creation Unit Aggregations	24
Taxes	31
Regulated Investment Company (RIC) Status	31
Taxation of Shareholders	33
Taxation of Fund Investments	35
Foreign Shareholders	37
Other Issues	37
Determination of NAV	39
Dividends and Distributions	39
Financial Statements	40
Miscellaneous Information	40

Appendix A: Proxy Voting Guidelines	41

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST AND THE FUNDS

The Trust was organized as a Delaware statutory trust on January 9, 2014 and is authorized to issue multiple series or portfolios. The Trust is an open-end management investment company, registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The offering of the Trust’s shares is registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”).

Each Fund seeks, before fees and expenses, provide long-term capital appreciation designed to outperform the returns of a particular commodity index (“Index” or “Underlying Index”). ETF Securities Advisors LLC serves as the investment advisor (the “Advisor”) and Vident Investment Advisory, LLC serves as the sub-advisor (the “Sub-Advisor”) to each Fund (the Advisor and Sub-Advisor may be referred to together herein as the “Advisors”). The Advisor is a directly-owned subsidiary of Aberdeen Asset Management Inc. (“Aberdeen”), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Standard Life Aberdeen plc (“SLA plc”). ALPS Distributors, Inc. serves as the distributor (the “Distributor”) of the Creation Units Aggregations of the Funds.

Each Fund is an actively managed exchange traded fund (“ETF”). Each Fund issues and redeems shares at net asset value per share (“NAV”) only in large blocks of shares, typically 50,000 shares or more (“Creation Units” or “Creation Unit Aggregations”), though this may change from time to time. Creation Units are not expected to consist of less than 25,000 shares. These transactions are usually in exchange for a basket of securities included in the relevant Fund’s Index and/or an amount of cash. As a practical matter, only institutions or large investors purchase or redeem Creation Units. Except when aggregated in Creation Units, shares of the Funds are not redeemable securities.

Each Fund intends to qualify each year for treatment as a regulated investment company (a “RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), so that it will not be subject to federal income tax on income and gains that are timely distributed to Fund shareholders. Each Fund will invest its assets, and otherwise conduct its operations, in a manner that is intended to satisfy the qualifying income, diversification and distribution requirements necessary to establish and maintain eligibility for such treatment.

Shares of the Funds are expected to be listed on a national securities exchange, such as NYSE Arca (the “Listing Exchange”), and will trade throughout the day on the Listing Exchange and other secondary markets at market prices that may differ from NAV. As in the case of other publicly traded securities, brokers’ commissions on transactions will be based on commission rates charged by the applicable broker.

The Trust reserves the right to adjust the prices of shares in the future to maintain convenient trading ranges for investors. Any adjustments would be accomplished through stock splits or reverse stock splits, which would have no effect on the net assets of the applicable Fund.

INVESTMENT STRATEGIES AND RISKS

Each Fund is an actively managed exchange-traded fund that seeks to provide a total return designed to exceed the performance of its underlying excess return index through the active management of commodity and commodity-linked futures and other financial instruments. The Funds are not index tracking exchange-traded funds and are not required to invest in all components of the relevant Index. However, each Fund will generally seek to hold similar interests to those included in the relevant Index and will seek exposure to many of the commodities included in the relevant Index.

Under normal market conditions, each Fund intends to achieve its investment objective by investing in exchange-traded commodity futures contracts through its own wholly-owned subsidiary organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands (each a “Subsidiary” and collectively, the “Subsidiaries”). As a means to provide investment returns that are highly correlated to those of the relevant Index, each Subsidiary may also invest directly in commodity-linked instruments, including pooled investment vehicles, exchange-traded funds and other investment companies, and swaps and exchange-traded options on futures contracts, to the extent permitted under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”) and any applicable exemptive relief (collectively, “Commodities-Related Assets” and, together with exchange-traded commodities futures contracts, “Commodities Instruments”).

The remainder of the Fund’s assets that are not invested in its Subsidiary ( i.e. , at least 75% of the Fund’s total assets) will principally be invested in: (1) short term investment grade fixed income securities that include U.S. government securities and money market instruments; and (2) cash and other cash equivalents. The Fund may also invest in agency securities, corporate debt obligations, repurchase agreements and bank instruments but these are not expected to be principal investment strategies. Each Fund will use such instruments to generate a total return for investors.

Each Fund’s investment objective, principal investment strategies and associated risks are described in the Fund’s Prospectus. The sections below supplement these principal investment strategies and risks and describe the Funds’ additional investment policies and the different types of investments that may be made by a Fund as a part of its non-principal investment strategies. With respect to each Fund’s investments, unless otherwise noted, if a percentage limitation on investment is adhered to at the time of investment or contract, a subsequent increase or decrease as a result of market movement or redemption will not result in a violation of such investment limitation.

Each Fund is considered “non-diversified” as such term is used in the 1940 Act.

GENERAL RISKS

Borrowing. Although the Funds do not intend to borrow money, each Fund may do so to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act. Under the 1940 Act, a fund may borrow up to 33% of its net assets. A Fund will borrow only for short-term or emergency purposes.

Borrowing will tend to exaggerate the effect on net asset value of any increase or decrease in the market value of a Fund’s portfolio. Money borrowed will be subject to interest costs that may or may not be recovered by earnings on the securities purchased. A Fund also may be required to maintain minimum average balances in connection with a borrowing or to pay a commitment or other fee to maintain a line of credit; either of these requirements would increase the cost of borrowing over the stated interest rate.

Portfolio Turnover. Each Fund buys and sells portfolio securities in the normal course of its investment activities. The proportion of the Fund’s investment portfolio that is bought and sold during a year is known as the Fund’s portfolio turnover rate. A high portfolio turnover rate could result in the payment by the Fund of increased brokerage costs, expenses and taxes.

Cyber Security. Investment companies, such as the Funds, and their service providers may be subject to operational and information security risks resulting from cyber-attacks. Cyber-attacks include, among other behaviors, stealing or corrupting data maintained online or digitally, denial of service attacks on websites, the unauthorized release of confidential information or various other forms of cyber security breaches. Cyber-attacks affecting the Funds or the Advisor, Sub-Advisor, custodian, transfer agent, intermediaries and other third-party service providers may adversely impact the Funds. For instance, cyber-attacks may interfere with the processing of shareholder transactions, impact the Fund’s ability to calculate its net asset value, cause the release of private shareholder information or confidential company information, impede trading, subject a Fund to regulatory fines or financial losses, and cause reputational damage. The Funds may also incur additional costs for cyber security risk management purposes. Similar types of cyber security risks are also present for issuers of securities in which a Fund invests, which could result in material adverse consequences for such issuers, and may cause a Fund’s investment in such portfolio companies to lose value.

Taxes Risk . To qualify for the favorable U.S. federal income tax treatment accorded to RICs, each Fund must, among other things, derive in each taxable year at least 90% of its gross income from certain prescribed sources. Each Fund may obtain exposure to the commodities markets by entering into commodity-linked derivative instruments, such as listed futures contracts, forward currency contracts, swaps and structured notes. Income from certain commodity-linked derivative instruments in which the Funds invest may not be considered qualifying income under the 90% test noted above. Each Fund intends to invest in such commodity-linked derivative instruments indirectly through its Subsidiary. The Funds have secured an opinion of counsel based on customary representations that actual distributions made to a Fund should be treated as “qualifying income”. The Funds believe that income from a Subsidiary will be qualifying income because it expects that each Subsidiary will make annual distributions of its earnings and profits. To the extent the Funds make direct investments in commodity-linked derivative instruments, they will seek to restrict the resulting income from such instruments so that, when combined with its other non-qualifying income, the Funds’ non-qualifying income is less than 10% of their gross income. In addition, each Fund must satisfy a quarterly asset diversification test. Failure to comply with the qualifying income test or the asset diversification test could have significant negative tax consequences to Fund shareholders. Please refer to the section of this SAI entitled “Taxes – Regulated Investment Company (RIC) Status” for a more detailed explanation of the tax risks associated with the Funds’ commodity investments.

SPECIFIC INVESTMENT STRATEGIES AND RISKS

Commodity Futures. Each Fund may, through its Subsidiary, invest in exchange-traded commodity futures contracts as part of its principal investment strategies. Commodity futures contracts are an agreement to buy or sell a certain amount of a commodity at a specific price on a specific date (their expiry) which are negotiated and traded on futures exchanges. Commodity futures contracts are generally based upon commodities within the following commodity groups: energy, industrial metals, agriculture, precious metals, foods and fibers, and livestock.

Commodity futures contracts are traded on futures exchanges which provide a central marketplace to negotiate and transact futures contracts, a clearing corporation to process trades and a secondary market. Commodity futures exchanges provide standardization with regards to certain key features such as expiry dates, contract sizes and terms and conditions of delivery. Commodity futures exchanges set a maximum permissible price movement either up or down during a single trading day and when this limit has been reached, no trades may be placed that day at a price beyond that limit. Exchanges may also impose position limit rules limiting the value or number of contracts in one commodity that may be held by one market participant to ensure that the amount of futures contracts that any one party may hold in a particular commodity at any point in time to ensure that no one participant can control a significant portion of the market in a particular commodity.

More commonly, as futures contracts near expiry, they are often replaced with a later dated contract in a process known as “rolling”. This involves selling the contracts before they expire and purchasing similar contacts that have a later expiry date. Any difference between the price for the nearer delivery month contract and the price for distant month contract is known as a ‘roll yield’ and this can be either a positive amount or a negative amount. Futures contracts may be satisfied at expiry by delivery of the relevant commodity from one party to the other.

Commodity futures contract prices are generally comprised of the price of the relevant commodity as well as the costs of storing the physical commodity. Storage costs include (i) the time value of money invested in the physical commodity, (ii) plus the costs of storing the commodity, (iii) less any benefits of owning the physical commodity not obtained by the holder of a futures contract (the “convenience yield”).

Due to the volatility of commodity futures and the risk of credit risk exposure to the counterparty to the contract, commodity futures exchanges each have clearing corporations which act as counterparty to all contracts by either buying or selling directly to the market participants. This means that when each Subsidiary purchases or sells commodity futures contracts their obligations will be to the clearing house; and it will be the clearinghouse that is obliged to satisfy the Subsidiaries’ rights under a commodity futures contract.

To ensure a party to a futures contract fulfils its obligations to the clearing house, all participants are required to post and maintain a level of collateral (the collateral is known as “margin”). An exchange will set the margin requirements for the contracts which trade there and these can be modified the term of the futures contract. Margin requirements range upward from less than 5% of the value of the futures contract being traded. Margin requirements can be offset by other opposing futures transactions; margin payments will continue to be required.

When the price of a particular futures contract increases (in the case of a sale) or decreases (in the case of a purchase) and any loss on the futures contract means that the margin already held does not satisfy margin requirements, further margin must be posted. Conversely, if there is a favorable price change in the futures contract any excess margin may be removed from the relevant deposit account. Any margin deposited by a Subsidiary should earn interest income.

SEC guidance sets out certain requirements with respect to coverage of futures positions by registered investment companies which the Fund and Subsidiary will comply with. This includes, in certain circumstances, the need to segregate cash or liquid securities on its books and records and to engage in other appropriate measures to ensure its obligations under particular futures or derivative contracts are covered. Cash settled futures contracts will require a Fund to segregate liquid assets in an amount equal to its daily mark-to-market (net) obligation under that contract. Any securities held in a segregated account or otherwise earmarked for these purposes may not be sold while the Fund maintains the relevant position, unless they are replaced with other permissible assets. A Fund may also purchase put options as a means of covering their investments if they are on the same futures contract and their strike price is as high or higher than the price of the relevant contracts. The Subsidiary may not enter into futures positions if such positions will require the Fund to set aside or earmark more than 100% of its net assets.

Derivatives. Each Fund may use derivative instruments as part of its investment strategies. Generally, derivatives are financial contracts whose value depends upon, or is derived from, the value of an underlying asset, reference rate or index, and may relate to bonds, interest rates, currencies, commodities, and related indexes. Examples of derivative instruments include forward contracts, currency and interest rate swaps, currency options, futures contracts, options on futures contracts and swap agreements. The Fund’s use of derivative instruments will be underpinned by investments in short-term, high-quality instruments, such as U.S. money market securities.

With respect to certain kinds of derivative transactions that involve obligations to make future payments to third parties, including, but not limited to, futures contracts, forward contracts, swap contracts, the purchase of securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis, or reverse repurchase agreements, under applicable federal securities laws, rules, and interpretations thereof, the Funds must “set aside” (referred to sometimes as “asset segregation”) liquid assets, or engage in other measures to “cover” open positions with respect to such transactions in a manner consistent with the 1940 Act. In complying with such requirements, the Fund will include assets of any wholly-owned subsidiary in which that Fund invests on an aggregate basis. For example, with respect to forward contracts and futures contracts that are not contractually required to “cash-settle,” the Funds must cover its open positions by setting aside liquid assets equal to the contracts’ full, notional value. The Funds treat deliverable forward contracts for currencies that are liquid as the equivalent of “cash-settled” contracts. As such, the Funds may set aside liquid assets in an amount equal to the Fund’s daily marked-to-market (net) obligation (i.e., the Fund’s daily net liability if any) rather than the full notional amount under such deliverable forward contracts. Similarly, with respect to futures contracts that are contractually required to “cash-settle” the Funds may set aside liquid assets in an amount equal to the Fund’s daily marked-to-market (net) obligation rather than the notional value. Each Fund reserves the right to modify these policies in the future.

Effective April 24, 2012, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) revised, among other things, CFTC Rule 4.5 and rescinded CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(4). Accordingly, the Advisor has registered with the CFTC as a commodity pool operator (“CPO”) under the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) with regard to each Fund and its Subsidiary. The CFTC has adopted amendments to its regulations of CPOs managing funds registered under the 1940 Act that “harmonize” the SEC’s and the CFTC’s regulatory schemes. The adopted amendments to the CFTC regulations allow CPOs to registered investment companies to satisfy certain recordkeeping, reporting and disclosure requirements that would otherwise apply to them under Part 4 of the CFTC’s regulations by continuing to comply with comparable SEC requirements. To the extent that the CFTC recordkeeping, disclosure and reporting requirements deviate from the comparable SEC requirements, such deviations are not expected to materially adversely affect the ability of a Fund to continue to operate and achieve its investment objective. If, however, these requirements or future regulatory changes result in a Fund having difficulty in achieving its investment objective, the Trust may determine to reorganize or close such Fund, materially change the Fund’s investment objective and strategies, or operate the Fund as a regulated commodity pool pursuant to the Advisor’s CPO registration.

Swap Agreements. Each Fund may enter into swap agreements, including interest rate swaps. A typical interest rate swap involves the exchange of a floating interest rate payment for a fixed interest payment. Swap agreements may be used to hedge or achieve exposure to, for example, interest rates, and money market securities without actually purchasing such securities. Each Fund may use swap agreements to invest in a market without owning or taking physical custody of the underlying securities in circumstances in which direct investment is restricted for legal reasons or is otherwise impracticable. Swap agreements will tend to shift a Fund’s investment exposure from one type of investment to another or from one payment stream to another.

Options on Futures Contracts. Each Fund reserves the right to buy or sell options on listed futures contracts. An option on a futures contract gives the purchaser the right, in exchange for payment of a premium, to assume a position in a futures contract at a specified exercise price during the term of the option. A put option gives the purchaser of the option the right to sell, and the writer of the option the obligation to buy, the underlying security or instrument at any time during the option period. A call option on a security gives the purchaser of the option the right to buy, and the writer of the option the obligation to sell, the underlying security or instrument at any time during the option period. A premium is paid to the writer of an option as consideration for undertaking the obligation in the contract.

Each Fund may purchase and write options on an exchange or over the counter (“OTC”). OTC options differ from exchange-traded options in several respects. They are transacted directly with dealers and not with a clearing corporation, and therefore entail the risk of non-performance by the dealer. OTC options are available for a greater variety of securities and for a wider range of expiration dates and exercise prices than are available for exchange-traded options. Because OTC options are not traded on an exchange, pricing is done normally by reference to information from a market maker. It is the SEC’s position that OTC options are generally illiquid.

When a Fund purchases or sells an options contract, the Fund will segregate its assets as described above under ‘Derivatives’.

There are significant risks associated with a Fund’s use of options contracts, including the following: (1) the success of a strategy may depend on the Advisor’s ability to predict movements in the prices of individual commodities, currencies or securities, fluctuations in markets and movements in interest rates; (2) there may be an imperfect or no correlation between the changes in market value of the commodities, currencies or securities and the price of options; (3) although the Fund intends to enter into options contracts only if there is an active market for such contracts, there is no assurance that an active market will exist for the contracts at any particular time; (4) trading restrictions or limitations may be imposed by an exchange; and (5) government regulations may restrict trading in options contracts.

Cash Items. The Funds invest a portion of their assets in cash or cash items pending other investments or to maintain liquid assets required in connection with some of the Funds’ investments. These cash items and other high quality debt securities may include money market instruments, such as securities issued by the U.S. Government and its agencies, bankers’ acceptances, commercial paper, bank certificates of deposit and investment companies that invest primarily in such instruments.

Corporate Debt Obligations. Corporate debt obligations are interest bearing securities in which the corporate issuer has a contractual obligation to pay interest at a stated rate on specific dates and to repay principal periodically or on a specified maturity date. Notes, bonds, debentures and commercial paper are the most common types of corporate debt securities. The primary differences between the different types of corporate debt securities are their maturities and secured or un-secured status. Commercial paper has the shortest term and is usually unsecured. Corporate debt may be issued by domestic or foreign companies of all kinds, including those with small-, mid- and large-capitalizations. Corporate debt may be rated investment-grade or below investment-grade and may carry variable or floating rates of interest.

Exchange Traded Products. Each Fund may invest in exchange traded products (“ETPs”), which include exchange traded funds registered under the 1940 Act, exchange traded commodity trusts and exchange traded notes.

Exchange Traded Funds. Each Fund may invest in ETFs. ETFs are investment companies that trade like stocks on a securities exchange at market prices rather than NAV. As a result, ETF shares may trade at a price greater than NAV (premium) or less than NAV (discount). If a Fund invests in an ETF, the Fund will indirectly bear fees and expenses charged by the ETF in addition to the Fund’s direct fees and expenses. Investments in ETFs are also subject to brokerage and other trading costs that could result in greater expenses for a Fund.

Exchange Traded Notes. Each Fund may invest in exchange-traded notes (“ETNs”). ETNs generally are senior, unsecured, unsubordinated debt securities issued by a sponsor, such as an investment bank. ETNs are traded on exchanges and the returns are linked to the performance of market indexes. In addition to trading ETNs on exchanges, investors may redeem ETNs directly with the issuer on a periodic basis, typically in a minimum amount of 50,000 units, or hold the ETNs until maturity. The value of an ETN may be influenced by time to maturity, level of supply and demand for the ETN, volatility and lack of liquidity in the underlying market, changes in the applicable interest rates, and economic, legal, political or geographic events that affect the referenced market. Because ETNs are debt securities, they are subject to credit risk. If the issuer has financial difficulties or goes bankrupt, the Fund may not receive the return it was promised. If a rating agency lowers an issuer’s credit rating, the value of the ETN may decline and a lower credit rating reflects a greater risk that the issuer will default on its obligation. There may be restrictions on the Fund’s right to redeem its investment in an ETN. There are no periodic interest payments for ETNs, and principal is not protected. The Fund’s decision to sell its ETN holdings may be limited by the availability of a secondary market.

Fixed-Income Securities. Each Fund invests in fixed income securities, such as U.S. Treasury notes and bonds. Fixed income securities change in value in response to interest rate changes and other factors, such as the perception of the issuer’s creditworthiness. For example, the value of fixed income securities will generally decrease when interest rates rise, which may cause the value of the Fund to decrease. In addition, investments in fixed income securities with longer maturities will generally fluctuate more in response to interest rate changes. The capacity of traditional dealers to engage in fixed income trading has not kept pace with the bond market’s growth and dealer inventories of bonds are at or near historic lows relative to market size. Because market makers provide stability to fixed income markets, the significant reduction in dealer inventories could lead to decreased liquidity and increased volatility, which may become exacerbated during periods of economic or political stress. In addition, liquidity risk may be magnified in a rising interest rate environment in which investor redemptions (or selling of fund shares in the secondary market) from fixed income funds may be higher than normal.

Floating Rate Notes. Each Fund may invest in floating-rate and adjustable rate obligations, such as demand notes, bonds, and commercial paper. Variable- and floating-rate securities generally are less sensitive to interest rate changes but may decline in value if their interest rates do not rise as much, or as quickly, as interest rates in general. Conversely, floating-rate securities will not generally increase in value if interest rates decline. When a Fund holds variable- or floating-rate securities, a decrease (or, in the case of inverse floating-rate securities, an increase) in market interest rates will adversely affect the income received from such securities and the net asset value of the Fund’s shares.

These securities may bear interest at a rate that resets based on standard money market indices or are remarketed at current market rates. They may permit the holder to demand payment of principal at any time or at specified intervals not exceeding 397 days. The issuer of such obligations may also have the right to prepay, in its discretion, the principal amount of the obligations plus any accrued interest. The “reset date” of securities held by a Fund may not be longer than 397 days. Given that most floating-rate securities reset their interest rates prior to their final maturity date, the Fund uses the period to the next reset date to calculate the securities contribution to the average portfolio maturity of the Fund.

Lending Portfolio Securities. While the Funds do not currently engage in securities lending, each Fund may lend portfolio securities to certain creditworthy borrowers in U.S. and non-U.S. markets in an amount not to exceed one third (331/3%) of the value of its total assets. The borrowers provide collateral that is marked to market daily, in an amount at least equal to the current market value of the securities loaned. A Fund may terminate a loan at any time and obtain the securities loaned. A Fund receives the value of any interest or cash or non-cash distributions paid on the loaned securities. A Fund cannot vote proxies for securities on loan, but may recall loans to vote proxies if a material issue affecting the Fund’s economic interest in the investment is to be voted upon. Distributions received on loaned securities in lieu of dividend payments (i.e., substitute payments) would not be considered qualified dividend income.

With respect to loans that are collateralized by cash, the borrower will be entitled to receive a fee based on the amount of cash collateral. A Fund is compensated by the difference between the amount earned on the reinvestment of cash collateral and the fee paid to the borrower. In the case of collateral other than cash, a Fund is compensated by a fee paid by the borrower equal to a percentage of the market value of the loaned securities. Any cash collateral may be reinvested in certain short-term instruments either directly on behalf of the lending Fund or through one or more joint accounts or money market funds, which may include those managed by the Advisor.

A Fund may pay a portion of the interest or fees earned from securities lending to a borrower as described above, and to one or more securities lending agents that would be approved by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board”) and who would administer the lending program for the Funds in accordance with guidelines that would be approved by the Board. In such capacity, the lending agent causes the delivery of loaned securities from a Fund to borrowers, arranges for the return of loaned securities to the Fund at the termination of a loan, requests deposit of collateral, monitors the daily value of the loaned securities and collateral, requests that borrowers add to the collateral when required by the loan agreements, and provides recordkeeping and accounting services necessary for the operation of the program.

Money Market Instruments. Each Fund may invest a portion of its assets in high-quality money market instruments on an ongoing basis to provide liquidity or for other reasons. The instruments in which a Fund may invest include: (i) short-term obligations issued by the U.S. Government; (ii) negotiable certificates of deposit (“CDs”), fixed time deposits and bankers’ acceptances of U.S. and foreign banks and similar institutions; (iii) commercial paper rated at the date of purchase “Prime-1” by Moody’s or “A-1+” or “A-1” by Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) or, if unrated, of comparable quality as determined by the Fund; and (iv) repurchase agreements. U.S. government securities are obligations of, or guaranteed by, the U.S. government, its agencies or government-sponsored enterprises and such obligations may be short-, intermediate- or long-term. CDs are short-term negotiable obligations of commercial banks. Time deposits are non-negotiable deposits maintained in banking institutions for specified periods of time at stated interest rates. Banker’s acceptances are time drafts drawn on commercial banks by borrowers, usually in connection with international transactions.

Illiquid Securities. Each Fund may invest up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities (calculated at the time of investment). Illiquid securities include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets, as determined in accordance with SEC staff guidance.

Investment Company Securities. Each Fund may invest in the securities of other investment companies subject to applicable limitations under Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act. Pursuant to Section 12(d)(1), each Fund may invest in the securities of another investment company (the “acquired company”) provided that the Fund, immediately after such purchase or acquisition, does not own in the aggregate: (i) more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company; (ii) securities issued by the acquired company having an aggregate value in excess of 5% of the value of the total assets of the Fund; or (iii) securities issued by the acquired company and all other investment companies (other than treasury stock of the Fund) having an aggregate value in excess of 10% of the value of the total assets of the Fund. To the extent allowed by law or regulation, the Fund may invest its assets in securities of investment companies that are money market funds in excess of the limits discussed above.

If the Fund invests in and, thus, is a shareholder of, another investment company, the Fund’s shareholders will indirectly bear the Fund’s proportionate share of the fees and expenses paid by such other investment company, including advisory fees, in addition to both the management fees payable directly by the Fund to the Fund’s own investment advisor and the other expenses that the Fund bears directly in connection with the Fund’s own operations.

Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act restricts investments by registered investment companies in securities of other registered investment companies, including each Fund. The acquisition of a Fund’s Shares by registered investment companies is subject to the restrictions of Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act, except as may be permitted by exemptive rules under the 1940 Act or as may at some future time be permitted by an exemptive order that permits registered investment companies to invest in a Fund beyond the limits of Section 12(d)(1), subject to certain terms and conditions, including that the registered investment company enter into an agreement with that Fund regarding the terms of the investment.

Each Fund may rely on Section 12(d)(1)(F) and Rule 12d1-3 of the 1940 Act, which provide an exemption from Section 12(d)(1) that allows a Fund to invest all of its assets in other registered funds, including ETFs, if, among other conditions: (a) a Fund, together with its affiliates, acquires no more than three percent of the outstanding voting stock of any acquired fund, and (b) the sales load charged on a Fund’s shares is no greater than the limits set forth in Rule 2341 of the Rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”).

Investment in the Subsidiaries. Each Fund intends to achieve commodity exposure through investment in its respective Subsidiary. Each Fund’s investment in its Subsidiary may not exceed 25% of the Fund’s total assets at each quarter-end of the Fund’s fiscal year. Each Subsidiary may invest in derivatives including futures, forwards, option and swap contracts, notes, and other investments intended to serve as margin or collateral or otherwise support the Subsidiary’s derivatives positions. The Subsidiaries are not registered under the 1940 Act. Each Fund, as the sole shareholder of its respective Subsidiary, will not have all of the protections offered to investors in RICs. The Board has oversight responsibility for the investment activities of each Fund, including its investment in its respective Subsidiary, and the Fund’s role as the sole shareholder of its respective Subsidiary.

Changes in the laws of the United States (where the Funds are organized) and/or the Cayman Islands (where each Subsidiary is incorporated), could result in the inability of the Funds and/or the Subsidiaries to operate as described in this SAI and could negatively affect the Funds and their shareholders. For example, the Cayman Islands does not currently impose any income, corporate or capital gains tax, estate duty, inheritance tax, gift tax or withholding tax on the Subsidiaries. If Cayman Islands law changes such that the Subsidiaries must pay Cayman Islands taxes, Fund shareholders would likely suffer decreased investment returns.

Repurchase Agreements. Each Fund may enter into repurchase agreements with counterparties that are deemed to present acceptable credit risks. A repurchase agreement is a transaction in which a Fund purchases securities or other obligations from a bank or securities dealer (or its affiliate) and simultaneously commits to resell them to a counterparty at an agreed-upon date or upon demand and at a price reflecting a market rate of interest unrelated to the coupon rate or maturity of the purchased obligations. Each Fund maintains custody of the underlying obligations prior to their repurchase, either through its regular custodian or through a special “tri-party” custodian or sub-custodian that maintains separate accounts for both the Fund and its counterparty. Thus, the obligation of the counterparty to pay the repurchase price on the date agreed to or upon demand is, in effect, secured by such obligations.

U.S. Government Securities. Each Fund may invest in obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or the agencies or instrumentalities of the U.S. government. Each Fund may also purchase intermediate and long-term obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or the agencies or instrumentalities of the U.S. government. U.S. government securities are obligations of, or guaranteed by, the U.S. government, its agencies or government-sponsored enterprises. U.S. government securities are subject to market and interest rate risk, and may be subject to varying degrees of credit risk. U.S. government securities include inflation-indexed fixed income securities, such as U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). U.S. government securities include zero coupon securities, which tend to be subject to greater market risk than interest-paying securities of similar maturities

PROXY VOTING POLICY

Each Fund has delegated proxy voting responsibilities to the Advisor, subject to the Board’s oversight. In delegating proxy responsibilities, the Board has directed that proxies be voted consistent with each Fund’s and its shareholders’ best interests and in compliance with all applicable proxy voting rules and regulations. The Advisor has engaged a third party proxy solicitation firm to assist with voting proxies in a timely manner and who has adopted proxy voting policies and guidelines for this purpose (“Proxy Voting Policies”). A copy of the Proxy Voting Policies is set forth in Appendix A to this SAI. The Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) is responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of the Proxy Voting Policies. The Proxy Voting Policies have been adopted by the Trust as the policies and procedures that the Advisor will use when voting proxies on behalf of the Funds.

The Proxy Voting Policies address, among other things, material conflicts of interest that may arise between the interests of the Funds and the interests of the Advisor. The Proxy Voting Policies will ensure that all issues brought to shareholders are analyzed in light of the Advisor’s fiduciary responsibilities.

Information regarding how a Fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period is available without charge, upon request, by calling 1-844-383-7289 or from the Funds’ website at http://www.etfsus.com , and on the SEC’S website at http://www.sec.gov.

PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS DISCLOSURE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

The Trust has adopted a Portfolio Holdings Policy (the “Policy”) designed to govern the disclosure of each Fund’s portfolio holdings and the use of material non-public information about Fund holdings. The Policy applies to all officers, employees, and agents of the Funds, including the Advisor. The Policy is designed to ensure that the disclosure of information about each Fund’s portfolio holdings is consistent with applicable legal requirements and otherwise in the best interest of the Funds.

As exchange-traded funds, information about each Fund’s portfolio holdings is made available on a daily basis in accordance with the provisions of any Order of the SEC applicable to the Funds, regulations of the Funds’ Listing Exchange and other applicable SEC regulations, orders and no-action relief. Such information typically reflects all or a portion of a Fund’s anticipated portfolio holdings as of the next Business Day.

A “Business Day” is any day on which the Listing Exchange is open for business. As of the date of this SAI, the Listing Exchange observes the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.

Information about a Fund’s portfolio holdings is made available on a daily basis in accordance with the provisions of any Order of the SEC applicable to each Fund, regulations of each Fund’s Listing Exchange and other applicable SEC regulations, orders and no-action relief. Such information typically reflects all or a portion of the Fund’s anticipated portfolio holdings as of the next Business Day. This information is used in connection with the Creation and Redemption process and is disseminated on a daily basis through the facilities of the Listing Exchange, the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) and/or third-party service providers.

The Advisor may disclose on its website at the start of each Business Day the identities and quantities of the securities and other assets held by each Fund that will form the basis of the Fund’s calculation of its NAV on that Business Day. The portfolio holdings so disclosed are based on information as of the close of business on the prior Business Day and/or trades that have been completed prior to the opening of business on that Business Day and that are expected to settle on that Business Day.

Daily access to each Fund’s portfolio holdings with no lag time is permitted to personnel of the Advisor, the Distributor and the Fund’s administrator (“Administrator”), custodian and accountant and other agents or service providers of the Trust who have need of such information in connection with the ordinary course of their respective duties to the Fund. The Fund’s CCO may authorize disclosure of portfolio holdings.

Each Fund may disclose its complete portfolio holdings or a portion of its portfolio holdings online at www.etfsus.com . Online disclosure of such holdings is publicly available at no charge.

Each Fund will disclose its complete portfolio holdings schedule in public filings with the SEC on a quarterly basis, based on the Fund’s fiscal year, within sixty (60) days of the end of the quarter, and will provide that information to shareholders, as required by federal securities laws and regulations thereunder.

No person is authorized to disclose a Fund’s portfolio holdings or other investment positions except in accordance with the Policy. The Board reviews the implementation of the Policy on a periodic basis.

INDEX DESCRIPTIONS

The Index of each Fund was created using proprietary methodology developed by Bloomberg Indexes (“Bloomberg”). Bloomberg (the “Index Provider”) is independent of the Funds and the Advisors. Each Fund is an actively managed exchange traded fund and is not designed to track the relevant Index.

A description of each Index on which a Fund is based is provided in the relevant Fund’s Prospectus under “Principal Investment Strategies” with certain additional details provided below. Additional information about the Indexes of the Bloomberg Indices including the components and weightings of the Indexes, as well as the rules that govern inclusion and weighting in each of the Indexes, is available at www.bloombergindices.com .

Index Availability: Each Index is calculated and disseminated throughout each day the Listing Exchange is open for trading.

Changes to the Index Methodology. Each Index is governed by a published, rules-based methodology. Changes to the methodology will be publicly disclosed at www.bloombergindices.com , prior to implementation.

INVESTMENT LIMITATIONS

The following fundamental investment policies and limitations supplement those set forth in the Prospectus, as it applies to each Fund’s Prospectus. Unless otherwise noted, whenever a fundamental investment policy or limitation states a maximum percentage of a Fund’s assets that may be invested in any security or other asset, or sets forth a policy regarding quality standards, such standard or percentage limitation will be determined immediately after and as a result of the Fund’s acquisition of such security or other asset. Accordingly, other than with respect to a Fund’s limitations on borrowings, any subsequent change in values, net assets, or other circumstances will not be considered when determining whether the investment complies with the Fund’s investment policies and limitations.

Each Fund’s fundamental investment policies cannot be changed without the approval of the holders of a majority of the Fund’s outstanding voting securities as defined under the 1940 Act. Each Fund, however, may change the non-fundamental investment policies described below, its investment objective without a shareholder vote.

Fundamental Policies. The following investment policies and limitations are fundamental and may NOT be changed without shareholder approval.

A Fund, as a fundamental investment policy, may not:

Senior Securities

Issue senior securities, except as permitted under the 1940 Act.

Borrowing

Borrow money, except as permitted under the 1940 Act.

Underwriting

Act as an underwriter of another issuer’s securities, except to the extent that a Fund may be considered an underwriter within the meaning of the Securities Act in the disposition of portfolio securities.

Concentration (ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF and ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF)

Purchase the securities of any issuer (other than securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities) if, as a result, more than 25% of the Fund’s total assets would be invested in the securities of companies whose principal business activities are in the same industry.

Concentration (ETFS Bloomberg Agriculture Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF Only)

Concentration (ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF and ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF Only)

Real Estate

Purchase or sell real estate unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments (but this shall not prevent a Fund from investing in securities or other instruments backed by real estate, real estate investment trusts or securities of companies engaged in the real estate business).

Commodities

Directly purchase or sell physical commodities unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments (but this shall not prevent a Fund from purchasing or selling options and futures contracts or from investing in securities or other instruments backed by physical commodities.

Loans

Lend any security or make any other loan except as permitted under the 1940 Act.

This means that no more than 33 1/3% of its total assets would be lent to other parties. This limitation does not apply to purchases of debt securities or to repurchase agreements, or to acquisitions of loans, loan participations or other forms of debt instruments, permissible under the Fund’s investment policies.

With respect to issuing Senior Securities , as noted above, a Fund is not permitted to issue senior securities, except that a Fund may borrow from any bank if immediately after such borrowing the value of the Fund’s total assets is at least 300% of the principal amount of all of the Fund’s borrowings ( i.e. , the principal amount of the borrowings may not exceed 33 1/3% of the Fund’s total assets). In the event that such asset coverage shall at any time fall below 300% a Fund shall, within three days thereafter (not including Sundays and holidays), reduce the amount of its borrowings to an extent that the asset coverage of such borrowing shall be at least 300%. The fundamental investment limitations set forth above limit the Fund’s ability to engage in certain investment practices and purchase securities or other instruments to the extent permitted by, or consistent with, applicable law. As such, these limitations will change as the statute, rules, regulations or orders (or, if applicable, interpretations) change, and no shareholder vote will be required or sought.

With respect to Borrowing , as noted above, a Fund may not borrow money, except that a Fund may (i) borrow money from banks for temporary or emergency purposes (but not for leverage or the purchase of investments) and (ii) engage in other transactions permissible under the 1940 Act that may involve a borrowing (such as obtaining short-term credits as are necessary for the clearance of transactions, engaging in delayed-delivery transactions, or purchasing certain futures, forward contracts and options), provided that the combination of (i) and (ii) shall not exceed 33-1/3% of the value of the Fund’s total assets (including the amount borrowed), less the Fund’s liabilities (other than borrowings).

Non-Fundamental Policies. The following investment policies are not fundamental and may be changed without shareholder approval.

80% Policy (ETFS Bloomberg Agriculture Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF Only)

Under normal circumstances, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in futures contracts and other securities in an amount that provides investment exposure to agricultural commodities. If, subsequent to an investment, the 80% requirement is no longer met, the Fund’s future investments will be made in a manner that will bring the Fund into compliance with this policy. Prior to any change in the Fund’s 80% policy, the Fund will provide shareholders with 60 days’ notice.

80% Policy (ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF and ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF Only)

Under normal circumstances, each Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in futures contracts and other securities in an amount that provides investment exposure to energy commodities. If, subsequent to an investment, the 80% requirement is no longer met, the Fund’s future investments will be made in a manner that will bring the Fund into compliance with this policy. Prior to any change in the Fund’s 80% policy, each Fund will provide shareholders with 60 days’ notice.

Illiquid Securities

The Funds may not invest, in the aggregate, more than 15% of its net assets in securities with legal or contractual restrictions on resale, securities that are not readily marketable and repurchase agreements with more than seven days to maturity.

CONTINUOUS OFFERING

The method by which Creation Unit Aggregations of shares are created and traded may raise certain issues under applicable securities laws. Because new Creation Unit Aggregations of shares are issued and sold by the Funds on an ongoing basis, at any point a “distribution,” as such term is used in the Securities Act, may occur. Broker-dealers and other persons are cautioned that some activities on their part may, depending on the circumstances, result in their being deemed participants in a distribution in a manner which could render them statutory underwriters and subject them to the prospectus delivery requirement and liability provisions of the Securities Act.

For example, a broker-dealer firm or its client may be deemed a statutory underwriter if it takes Creation Unit Aggregations after placing an order with the Funds’ Distributor, breaks them down into constituent shares, and sells such shares directly to customers, or if it chooses to couple the creation of a supply of new shares with an active selling effort involving solicitation of secondary market demand for shares. A determination of whether one is an underwriter for purposes of the Securities Act must take into account all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the activities of the broker-dealer or its client in the particular case, and the examples mentioned above should not be considered a complete description of all the activities that could lead to a categorization as an underwriter.

Broker-dealer firms should also note that dealers who are not “underwriters” but are effecting transactions in shares, whether or not participating in the distribution of shares, generally are required to deliver a prospectus. This is because the prospectus delivery exemption in Section 4(3) of the Securities Act is not available in respect of such transactions as a result of Section 24(d) of the 1940 Act. Firms that incur a prospectus delivery obligation with respect to shares of a Fund are reminded that, pursuant to Rule 153 under the Securities Act, a prospectus delivery obligation under Section 5(b)(2) of the Securities Act owed to an exchange member in connection with the sale on the Listing Exchange is satisfied by the fact that the prospectus is available at the Listing Exchange upon request. The prospectus delivery mechanism provided in Rule 153 is only available with respect to transactions on an exchange.

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST

Board Responsibilities. The Board is responsible for overseeing the management and affairs of the Funds and the Trust. The Board has considered and approved contracts, as described herein, under which certain companies provide essential management and administrative services to the Trust. Like most ETFs, the day-to-day business of the Trust, including the day-to-day management of risk, is performed by third-party service providers, such as the Advisor, Distributor and Administrator. The Board is responsible for overseeing the Trust’s service providers and, thus, has oversight responsibility with respect to the risk management performed by those service providers. Risk management seeks to identify and eliminate or mitigate the potential effects of risks, i.e. , events or circumstances that could have material adverse effects on the business, operations, shareholder services, investment performance or reputation of the Trust or the Funds. Under the overall supervision of the Board and the Audit Committee (discussed in more detail below), the service providers to the Funds employ a variety of processes, procedures and controls to identify risks relevant to the operations of the Trust and the Funds to lessen the probability of their occurrence and/or to mitigate the effects of such events or circumstances if they do occur. Each service provider is responsible for one or more discrete aspects of the Trust’s business ( e.g. , the Advisor is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund’s portfolio investments) and, consequently, for managing the risks associated with that activity.

The Board’s role in risk management oversight begins before the inception of a Fund, at which time the Fund’s Advisor presents the Board with information concerning the investment objective, strategies and risks of the Fund. Additionally, a Fund’s Advisor provides the Board with an overview of, among other things, its investment philosophy, brokerage practices and compliance infrastructure. Thereafter, the Board oversees the risk management of the Fund’s operations, in part, by requesting periodic reports from and otherwise communicating with various personnel of the Fund and its service providers, including the Trust’s CCO and the Fund’s independent registered public accountants. The Board and, with respect to identified risks that relate to its scope of expertise, the Audit Committee oversee efforts by management and service providers to manage risks to which the Funds may be exposed.

The Board is responsible for overseeing the nature, extent and quality of the services provided to the Funds by the Advisor and receives information about those services at its regular meetings. In addition, on at least an annual basis, in connection with its consideration of whether to renew the Advisory Agreement with the Advisor, the Board meets with the Advisor to review such services. Among other things, the Board regularly considers the Advisor’s adherence to each Fund’s investment restrictions and compliance with various Fund policies and procedures and with applicable securities regulations. The Board also reviews information about each Fund’s performance and investments.

The Trust’s CCO meets regularly with the Board to review and discuss compliance and other issues. At least annually, the Trust’s CCO provides the Board with a report reviewing the adequacy and effectiveness of the Trust’s policies and procedures and those of its service providers, including the Advisor. The report addresses the operation of the policies and procedures of the Trust and each service provider since the date of the last report; material changes to the policies and procedures since the date of the last report; any recommendations for material changes to the policies and procedures; and material compliance matters since the date of the last report.

The Board receives reports from the Trust’s service providers regarding operational risks, portfolio valuation and other matters. Annually, an independent registered public accounting firm reviews with the Audit Committee its audit of the Trust’s financial statements, focusing on major areas of risk encountered by the Trust and noting any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the Trust’s internal controls.

The Board recognizes that not all risks that may affect a Fund can be identified, that it may not be practical or cost-effective to eliminate or mitigate certain risks, that it may be necessary to bear certain risks (such as investment-related risks) to achieve a Fund’s goals, and that the processes, procedures and controls employed to address certain risks may be limited in their effectiveness. Moreover, despite the periodic reports the Board receives and the Board’s discussions with the service providers to a Fund, it may not be made aware of all of the relevant information of a particular risk. Most of the Trust’s investment management and business affairs are carried out by or through the Funds’ Advisor and other service providers, each of which has an independent interest in risk management but whose policies and the methods by which one or more risk management functions are carried out may differ from the Trust’s and each other’s in the setting of priorities, the resources available or the effectiveness of relevant controls. As a result of the foregoing and other factors, the Board’s risk management oversight is subject to substantial limitations.

Members of the Board and Officers of the Trust. There are two members of the Board, both of whom are not interested persons of the Trust, as that term is defined in the 1940 Act (“Independent Trustees”). Stephen O’Grady, an Independent Trustee, serves as Chairperson of the Board. The Board is comprised exclusively (100%) of Independent Trustees. There is an Audit Committee of the Board that is chaired by an Independent Trustee and comprised solely of Independent Trustees. The Audit Committee chair presides at the Committee meetings, participates in formulating agendas for Committee meetings, and coordinates with management to serve as a liaison between the Independent Trustees and management on matters within the scope of responsibilities of the Committee as set forth in its Board-approved charter. The Trust has determined its leadership structure is appropriate given the specific characteristics and circumstances of the Trust. The Trust made this determination in consideration of, among other things, the fact that the Independent Trustees constitute 100% of the Board, the number of Independent Trustees that constitute the Board, the amount of assets under management in the Trust, and the number of Funds overseen by the Board. The Board also believes that its leadership structure facilitates the orderly and efficient flow of information to the Independent Trustees from Fund management.

The Board of Trustees has two standing committees: the Audit Committee and Nominating Committee. The Audit Committee and Nominating Committee are chaired by an Independent Trustee and composed of Independent Trustees.

Set forth below are the names, ages, positions with the Trust, length of term of office, and the principal occupations and other directorships held during at least the last five years of each of the persons currently serving as a Trustee of the Trust, as well as information about each officer. The business address of each Trustee and officer is ETFS Trust, 405 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10174.

Name and Year of Birth	Position(s) Held with the Trust, Term of Office and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years	Number of Portfolios in Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During Past 5 Years
Independent Trustees

Stephen O’Grady* (1946)	Trustee, 2014 – present; Chairperson, April 2018 – present	GFI Group Inc. (GFIG) Financial Brokerage, Head of ETF Unit, February 2011-January 2012; Kellogg Capital, Partner, January 2011-April 2014	5	Trustee, Greenhaven Continuous Commodity ETF (GCC), January 2013-December 2015; Trustee, Virtus ETFs (formerly Infracap Master Limited Partnership ETF), October 2014-present.

Name and Year of
Birth

Position(s)
Held with
the Trust,
Term of
Office and
Length of
Time Served

Principal Occupation(s)
During Past 5 Years

Number of
Portfolios in
Fund
Complex
Overseen
by Trustee

Other
Directorships Held
by Trustee During
Past 5 Years

William M. Thomas**
(1962)

Trustee,
2014 – present

Wedgewood Partners, President, August 2015 to present;

ActiveETF Partners, Managing Partner, December 2012-August 2015

President and Interested Trustee, Grail Advisors ETF Trust, 2009-2011; Chairman, Squirrel Island, Maine, Squirrel Island Board of Overseers, 2009-2015.

Name and Year of Birth	Position(s) Held with Trust	Term of Office* and Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years

Officers of the Trust
Bev Hendry*** (1953)	President	Since 2018	Currently, Chairman-Americas for Aberdeen Standard Life plc. He is a member of the Aberdeen Standard Management Executive Committee. He is also an active member of the Aberdeen Charitable Foundation Board which aims to provide a positive economic and social benefit in the communities in which Aberdeen employees live and work. Bev has thirty years of experience in the asset management industry having joined Aberdeen at its headquarters in Scotland in 1987 where he set up Aberdeen’s mutual fund business. Bev moved to the United States in 1995 to establish Aberdeen’s business in the Americas based out of Fort Lauderdale where the firm’s initial focus was Latin America. Following a series of acquisitions Aberdeen relocated its US headquarters to Philadelphia where Bev is now based and he is also responsible for Aberdeen Standard’s operations in New York, Stamford, Boston, Miami, Toronto and Sao Paulo. Bev graduated with an MA in Economics from the University of Aberdeen. He is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) and began his career with Deloitte.
Alan Goodson*** (1974)	Vice President	Since 2018	Currently, Head of Product — Americas, for Aberdeen Asset Management Inc. overseeing Product Management and Product Development for Aberdeen’s registered and unregistered investment companies in the U.S. and Canada. Mr. Goodson is Director and Vice President of Aberdeen Asset Management Inc. and joined Aberdeen in 2000.
Andrea Melia*** (1969)	Treasurer	Since 2018	Currently, Vice President and Head of Fund Operations Traditional Assets — Americas for Aberdeen Asset Management Inc. Ms. Melia joined Aberdeen Asset Management Inc. in September 2009. Prior to joining Aberdeen. Ms. Melia was Director of fund administration and accounting oversight for Princeton Administrators LLC, a division of BlackRock Inc. and had worked with Princeton Administrators since 1992.
Adam Rezak*** (1969)	Chief Compliance Officer	Since 2014	Currently, Chief Compliance Officer of ETF Securities Advisors LLC, since July 2014. Prior to joining ETF Securities Advisors LLC, Mr. Rezak was Chief Compliance Officer of Guggenheim Partners from October 2007 to December 2013.
Megan Kennedy*** (1974)	Secretary	Since 2018	Currently, Head of Product Management for Aberdeen Asset Management Inc., overseeing Product Management for Aberdeen's registered investment companies in the US and Canada. Ms. Kennedy joined Aberdeen Asset Management Inc. in 2005 as a Senior Fund Administrator. Ms. Kennedy was promoted to Assistant Treasurer Collective Funds/North American Mutual Funds in February 2008 and promoted to Treasurer Collective Funds/North American Mutual Funds in July 2008.
JoAnn Carter*** (1964)	Assistant Secretary	Since 2017	Currently, Assistant Vice President of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., since August 2013. Prior to joining JPMorgan Chase Bank, Ms. Carter was a Senior Associate at BNY Mellon from 2011 to 2013 .

*	Chair of the Audit Committee.
**	Chair of the Governance and Nominating Committee.
***	Elected by and serves at the pleasure of the Board.
+	As of April 30, 2018.

Board Committees. The Board has established the following standing committees:

Audit Committee . The Board has a standing Audit Committee that is composed of each Independent Trustees of the Trust. The Audit Committee operates under a written charter approved by the Board. The principal responsibilities of the Audit Committee include: recommending which firm to engage as each Fund’s independent registered public accounting firm and whether to terminate this relationship; reviewing the independent registered public accounting firm’s compensation, the proposed scope and terms of its engagement, and the firm’s independence; pre-approving audit and non-audit services provided by each Fund’s independent registered public accounting firm to the Trust and certain other affiliated entities; serving as a channel of communication between the independent registered public accounting firm and the Trustees; reviewing the results of each external audit, including any qualifications in the independent registered public accounting firm’s opinion, any related management letter, management’s responses to recommendations made by the independent registered public accounting firm in connection with the audit, reports submitted to the Committee by the internal auditing department of the Trust’s Administrator that are material to the Trust as a whole, if any, and management’s responses to any such reports; reviewing each Fund’s audited financial statements and considering any significant disputes between the Trust’s management and the independent registered public accounting firm that arose in connection with the preparation of those financial statements; considering, in consultation with the independent registered public accounting firm and the Trust’s senior internal accounting executive, if any, the independent registered public accounting firms’ report on the adequacy of the Trust’s internal financial controls; reviewing, in consultation with each Fund’s independent registered public accounting firm, major changes regarding auditing and accounting principles and practices to be followed when preparing each Fund’s financial statements; and other audit related matters. All of the Independent Trustees currently serve as members of the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee also acts as the Trust’s qualified legal compliance committee. The Audit Committee met three (3) times during the fiscal period ended December 31, 2017.

Nominating Committee . The Board has a standing Nominating Committee that is composed of each Independent Trustees of the Trust. The Nominating Committee operates under a written charter approved by the Board. The principal responsibility of the Nominating Committee is to consider, recommend and nominate candidates to fill vacancies on the Trust’s Board, if any. The Nominating Committee will not consider nominees recommended by shareholders. The Secretary of the Trust shall submit all nominations to the Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee shall assess shareholder nominees in the same manner it reviews its own nominations. All of the Independent Trustees currently serve as members of the Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee did not meet during the fiscal period ended December 31, 2017.

Individual Trustee Qualifications. The Trust has concluded that each of the Trustees should serve on the Board because of their ability to review and understand information about the Funds provided to them by management, to identify and request other information they may deem relevant to the performance of their duties, to question management and other service providers regarding material factors bearing on the management and administration of the Fund, and to exercise their business judgment in a manner that serves the best interests of the Fund’s shareholders. The Trust has concluded that each of the Trustees should serve as a Trustee based on their own experience, qualifications, attributes and skills as described below.

The Trust has concluded that Mr. O’Grady should serve as Trustee of the Fund because of the experience he has gained as a Partner in charge of the ETF Market Making unit of a prominent financial services firm, and his extensive knowledge of and experience in the financial services industry generally.

The Trust has concluded that Mr. Thomas should serve as Trustee of the Fund because of the experience he has gained as chief executive officer of a firm specializing in financial services, his experience in and knowledge of the financial services industry generally, and his service as chairman for another ETF family.

Fund Shares Owned by Board Members. The following table shows the dollar amount range of each Trustee’s “beneficial ownership” of shares of the Funds and each other series of the Trust as of the end of the most recently completed calendar year. Dollar amount ranges disclosed are established by the SEC. “Beneficial ownership” is determined in accordance with Rule 16a-1(a)(2) under the 1934 Act. The Trustees and officers of the Trust collectively own less than 1% of the outstanding shares of the Trust.

Name of Trustee	Dollar Range of Equity Securities in the Funds ¹	Aggregate Dollar Range of Equity Securities in All Registered Investment Companies Overseen by Trustee in Family of Investment Companies ²
Interested Trustee
Graham Tuckwell ³	None	None
Independent Trustees
Stephen O’Grady	None	None
William M. Thomas	None	None

1	Values based on Trustees’ ownership as of date of this SAI.
2	As of the date of this SAI, the Funds are the only registered investment companies overseen by the Trustees.
3	Graham Tuckwell resigned as Trustee on April 27, 2018 upon the acquisition of the Advisor by Aberdeen.

Board Compensation. The Trust will pay the following fees to the Trustees during its current fiscal period ended December 31, 2017.

Name of Trustee		Aggregate Compensation from the Trust	Pension or Retirement Benefits Accrued as Part of Company Expenses	Estimated Annual Benefits upon Retirement	Total Compensation from the Funds and Fund Complex*
	Interested Directors
Graham Tuckwell ²	None		None	None	None

	Independent Directors
Stephen O’Grady	$	18,003	None	None	$	18,003
William M. Thomas	$	18,003	None	None	$	18,003

1	The Trust is the only trust in the “Fund Complex.”
2	Graham Tuckwell resigned as Trustee on April 27, 2018 upon the acquisition of the Advisor by SLA plc.

Control Persons and Principal Holders of Securities. Although the Trust does not have information concerning the beneficial ownership of shares held in the names of DTC Participants, as of April 3, 2018, the name, address and percentage ownership of each DTC Participant that owned of record 5% or more of the outstanding Shares of the Fund is set forth in the table below.

To the knowledge of the Trust’s management, as of the date of this prospectus, the officers and Trustees of the Trust, as a group, beneficially owned less than one percent of the Fund’s outstanding shares.

Fund Name	Participant Name and Address	Percentage of Ownership
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. 185 Hudson Street, Jersey City NJ, 07311	46.68	%*
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery St, San Francisco CA 94104	14.85	%
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	National Financial Services LLC 499 Washington Boulevard, Jersey City, NJ 07310	8.91	%
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	Merrill Lynch 4800 Deer Lake Drive E, Jacksonville, FL 32246	8.29	%
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. 200 South 108 ^th Avenue, Omaha, NE 68154	7.48	%
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery St, San Francisco CA 94104	36.44	%*
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. 200 South 108 ^th Avenue, Omaha, NE 68154	31.37	%*
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	National Financial Services LLC 499 Washington Boulevard, Jersey City, NJ 07310	13.87	%
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	Pershing LLC 1 Pershing Plaza, Jersey City, NJ 07399	5.43	%
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. 185 Hudson Street, Jersey City NJ, 07311	61.38	%*
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	JPMorgan 1 Metro Tech Center, Brooklyn, NY 11201	30.69	%*
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. 101 Montgomery St, San Francisco CA 94104	5.31	%

*	A person who beneficially owns, directly or indirectly, 25% or more of the voting securities of a Fund may be deemed to “control” (as defined in the 1940 Act) that Fund, and may be able to exercise a controlling influence over any matter submitted to shareholders of that Fund.

Investment Advisor. ETF Securities Advisors LLC serves as investment advisor to the Funds pursuant to an investment advisory agreement between the Trust and the Advisor. The Advisor is a Delaware limited liability corporation registered as an investment advisor under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), located at 405 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10174. The Advisor is a directly-owned subsidiary of Aberdeen, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of SLA plc, a London stock exchange listed company. As of December 31, 2017, SLA plc and its affiliates had assets under management totaling in excess of $778.8 billion.

At a special in-person meeting on April 23, 2018, the Board, including all of the Independent Trustees, approved (1) an interim advisory agreement between the Advisor and the Trust, on behalf of each Fund, pursuant to Rule 15a-4(b)(2) of the 1940 Act (the “Interim Agreement”), and (2) a new advisory agreement for the Funds that will become effective upon its approval by Fund shareholders (the “New Advisory Agreement” and, together with the Interim Agreement, the “Investment Advisory Agreement”). The Interim Agreement went effective upon the closing of Aberdeen’s acquisition of the Advisor on April 27, 2018. The material terms and compensation payable to the Advisor under the Interim Agreement are identical to those of the prior investment advisory agreement and the New Advisory Agreement, except that (1) the Board, or a majority of a Fund’s outstanding voting securities, may terminate the Interim Agreement at any time, without the payment of any penalty, on not more than 10 calendar days’ written notice to the Advisor; (2) compensation earned by the Advisor under the Interim Agreement is held in an escrow account in accordance with Rule 15a-4(b)(2)(vi) of the 1940 Act; and (3) the Interim Agreement terminates upon either shareholder approval of a new advisory agreement for a Fund or the 150th day following the Interim Agreement’s effective date, whichever occurs first. The terms and compensation payable to the Advisor under the New Advisory Agreement are identical to those of the prior investment advisory agreement, except with respect to the effective dates.

Under the Investment Advisory Agreement, the Advisor has overall responsibility for the general management and administration of the Trust. The Advisor provides an investment program for the Funds. The Advisor also arranges for transfer agency, custody, fund administration, and all other non-distribution-related services necessary for the Funds to operate. Each Fund pays the Advisor a fee equal to a percentage of the Fund’s average daily net assets, as set forth below:

Fund	Management Fee*
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	0.29	%
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	0.29	%
ETFS Bloomberg Agriculture Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	0.39	%
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	0.39	%
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	0.39	%

The Advisor has contractually agreed to waive the management fees that it receives from each Fund in an amount equal to the management fee paid to the Advisor by the Fund’s Subsidiary. This undertaking will continue in effect for so long as the Fund invests in the Subsidiary and may be terminated only with the approval of the Fund’s Board of Trustees. The management fee in the table above represents the total amount of fees paid to the Advisor by the Fund and the Subsidiary.

The table below shows the actual aggregate advisory fees paid by each Fund, as well as expenses waived or reimbursed by the Advisor, during the most recent fiscal period:

Name of Fund*	Advisory Fees Paid		Reimbursements and Waivers by the Advisor
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF
Fiscal period ended December 31, 2017	$	9,656	$	(1,604	)
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF
Fiscal period ended December 31, 2017	$	135,665	$	(15,323	)
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF
Fiscal period ended December 31, 2017	$	12,171	$	(1,938	)

*	The Funds commenced operations on March 30, 2017

Pursuant to the Investment Advisory Agreement, the Advisor has agreed to pay all expenses of the Funds, except for: (i) brokerage expenses and other fees, charges, taxes, levies or expenses (such as stamp taxes) incurred in connection with the execution of portfolio transactions or in connection with creation and redemption transactions (including without limitation any fees, charges, taxes, levies or expenses related to the purchase or sale of an amount of any currency, or the patriation or repatriation of any security or other asset, related to the execution of portfolio transactions or any creation or redemption transactions); (ii) legal fees or expenses in connection with any arbitration, litigation or pending or threatened arbitration or litigation, including any settlements in connection therewith; (iii) compensation and expenses of the Trust’s CCO; (iv) extraordinary expenses (in each case as determined by a majority of the Independent Trustees); (v) distribution fees and expenses paid by the Trust under any distribution plan adopted pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act; (vi) interest and taxes of any kind or nature (including, but not limited to, income, excise, transfer and withholding taxes); (vii) any fees and expenses related to the provision of securities lending services; and (viii) the advisory fee payable to the Advisor. The internal expenses of pooled investment vehicles in which a Fund may invest (acquired fund fees and expenses) are not expenses of the Funds and are not paid by the Advisor.

The Advisor, from its own resources, including profits from advisory fees received from the Funds, provided such fees are legitimate and not excessive, may make payments to broker-dealers and other financial institutions for their expenses in connection with the distribution of a Fund shares, and otherwise currently pays all distribution costs for the Funds’ shares.

The New Advisory Agreement, with respect to each Fund, continues in effect for two years from its effective date, and thereafter is subject to annual approval by (i) the Board of Trustees of the Trust or (ii) the vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities (as defined in the 1940 Act) of each Fund, provided that in either event such continuance also is approved by a vote of a majority of the Trustees of the Trust who are not interested persons (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Fund, by a vote cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval. If the shareholders of a Fund fail to approve the New Advisory Agreement, the Advisor may continue to serve in the manner and to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act and rules and regulations thereunder.

The New Advisory Agreement, with respect to each Fund, is terminable without any penalty, by vote of the Board of Trustees of the Trust or by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Fund, or by the Advisor, in each case on not less than thirty (30) days’ nor more than sixty (60) days’ prior written notice to the other party; provided that a shorter notice period shall be permitted for a Fund in the event its shares are no longer listed on a national securities exchange. The Investment Advisory Agreement will terminate automatically and immediately in the event of its “assignment” (as defined in the 1940 Act).

The Advisor is also responsible for the general management and administration of each Subsidiary pursuant to a separate investment advisory agreement with the Subsidiaries.

Sub-Advisor. The Advisor has retained Vident Investment Advisory, LLC (the “Sub-Advisor”), 300 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 330, Roswell, Georgia 30076, to serve as sub-advisor to the Fund. The Sub-Advisor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vident Financial, LLC. Under a sub-advisory agreement between the Advisor and the Sub-Advisor (the “Sub-Advisory Agreement”) the Sub-Advisor is responsible for trading portfolio securities on behalf of the Funds, including selecting broker-dealers to execute purchase and sale transactions as instructed by the Advisor or in connection with any rebalancing or reconstitution of the Index, subject to the supervision of the Advisor and the Board of Trustees. Under the Sub-Advisory Agreement, the Advisor pays the Sub-Advisor a fee, calculated daily and paid monthly, at an annual rate of 0.04% of the average daily net assets of each Fund subject to a minimum annual fee of $18,000.

For the period March 30, 2017, the commencement date of the ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF, ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF, and ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF, to December 31, 2017, the Advisor paid the Sub-Advisor fees in the amount of $47,468.

After the initial two-year term, the continuance of the Sub-Advisory Agreement must be specifically approved at least annually: (i) by the vote of the Trustees or by a vote of the shareholders of the Fund; and (ii) by the vote of a majority of the Trustees who are not parties to the Sub-Advisory Agreement or “interested persons” or of any party thereto, cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval. The Sub-Advisory Agreement will terminate automatically in the event of its assignment, and is terminable at any time without penalty by the Trustees of the Trust or, with respect to the Fund, by a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund. The Sub-Advisory Agreement also may be terminated, at any time, by the Advisor or Sub-Advisor upon 60 days’ written notice to the other party. As used in the Sub-Advisory Agreement, the terms “majority of the outstanding voting securities,” “interested persons” and “assignment” have the same meaning as such terms in the 1940 Act.

The Sub-Advisor is also responsible for the day-to-day management of each Subsidiary pursuant to a separate investment sub-advisory agreement with the Subsidiaries.

Portfolio Manager. This section includes information about the Funds’ portfolio manager, including information about other accounts managed, the dollar range of Shares owned and compensation.

Denise Krisko serves as portfolio manager (“Portfolio Manager”) of the Funds.

Compensation. The Portfolio Manager receives a fixed base salary and discretionary bonus that are not tied to the performance of the Funds. This compensation is not paid by the Trust or the Advisor.

Description of Material Conflicts of Interest. Because the Portfolio Manager manages assets for other investment companies, pooled investment vehicles and/or other accounts, there may be an incentive to favor one client over another, resulting in conflicts of interest. The other accounts may have the same investment objectives as the Funds. Therefore, a potential conflict of interest may arise as a result of the identical investment objectives, whereby the Portfolio Manager could favor one account over another. Another potential conflict could include the Portfolio Manager’s knowledge about the size, timing, and possible market impact of Fund trades, whereby the Portfolio Manager could use this information to the advantage of other accounts and to the disadvantage of the Funds. However, the Sub-Advisor has established policies and procedures to ensure that the purchase and sale of securities among all accounts managed by the Portfolio Manager are fairly and equitably allocated.

Other Accounts Managed by the Portfolio Manager. In addition to the Funds, the Portfolio Manager managed the following other accounts as of December 31, 2017.

Name

Registered Investment Companies*

Other Pooled Investment Vehicles*

Other Accounts*

Number of Accounts

Total Assets

($ millions)

Number of Accounts

Total Assets

($ millions)

Number of Accounts

Total Assets

($ millions)

Denise Krisko

4,825

16.5

none

N/A

* None of the accounts managed by the Portfolio Manager are subject to performance based advisory fees.

Portfolio Manager Fund Ownership. The Funds are required to show the dollar range of the Portfolio Manager’s “beneficial ownership” of shares of the Funds as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal year. Dollar amount ranges disclosed are established by the SEC. “Beneficial ownership” is determined in accordance with Rule 16a-1(a)(2) under the Exchange Act. As of the date of this SAI, the portfolio manager did not own shares of the Funds.

Codes of Ethics. The Trust, the Advisor, the Sub-Advisor and the Distributor have each adopted a Code of Ethics pursuant to Rule 17j-1 under the 1940 Act and Rule 204A-1 under the Advisors Act, where applicable. Each Code of Ethics permits personnel subject to that Code of Ethics to invest in securities for their personal investment accounts, subject to certain limitations, including securities that may be purchased or held by the Funds. Each Code of Ethics is on public file with, and is available from, the SEC.

Administrator, Custodian, and Transfer Agent. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”) serves as administrator, custodian and transfer agent for the Funds. JPMorgan’s principal address is 383 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10179. Under the Administration Agreement with the Trust, JPMorgan (“Administrator”), subject to the general supervision of the Trust’s Board of Trustees, provides various administrative, compliance, tax, accounting and financial reporting services for the maintenance and operations of the Trust and the Funds. In addition, JPMorgan makes available the office space, equipment, personnel and facilities required to provide such services. Under the Global Custody Agreement with the Trust, JPMorgan (“Custodian”) holds the Trust’s cash and securities, maintains such cash and securities in separate accounts in the name of the Trust, maintains a statement of accounts for each account of the Trust, and may provide other services pursuant to the Custody Agreement and related agreements. The Custodian, upon the order of the Trust, receives, delivers and releases securities and makes payments for securities purchased by the Trust for the Funds. The Custodian is authorized to appoint one or more sub-custodians and is authorized to appoint foreign custodians or foreign custody managers for Trust investments outside the United States. Pursuant to an Agency Services Agreement with the Trust, JPMorgan (“Transfer Agent”) acts as transfer agent for the Trust’s authorized and issued shares of beneficial interest, and as dividend disbursing agent of the Trust. JPMorgan also provides services, as applicable, for any wholly-owned subsidiary of the Funds. As compensation for the foregoing services, JPMorgan receives certain out-of-pocket costs, transaction fees and asset-based fees which are accrued daily and paid monthly by the Trust from the Trust’s custody account with JPMorgan.

The following table sets forth the administration, custodian and transfer agency expenses of each Fund paid by the Advisor to JPMorgan for the fiscal period noted:

Fund*	Administration, Custodian, Transfer Agency Expenses Paid During Fiscal Period Ended December 31, 2017
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	$	53,317
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	$	73,060
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	$	53,081

*The Funds commenced operations on March 30, 2017.

Distributor. ALPS Distributors, Inc. serves as Distributor for the Trust and its principal address is 1290 Broadway, Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado 80203. The Distributor has entered into a Distribution Agreement with the Trust pursuant to which it will serve as distributor with respect to Creation and Redemption of Creation Unit Aggregations. The Distribution Agreement will continue for two years from its effective date and is renewable annually. Shares will be continuously offered for sale by a Fund through the Distributor only in Creation Unit Aggregations, as described in the applicable Prospectus and below in the Creation and Redemption of Creation Unit Aggregations section. Shares in less than Creation Unit Aggregations are not distributed by the Distributor. The Distributor will deliver the applicable Prospectus and, upon request, this SAI to Authorized Participants (as defined below) purchasing Creation Unit Aggregations and will maintain records of both orders placed with it and confirmations of acceptance furnished by it. The Distributor is a broker-dealer registered under the 1934 Act and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). The Distributor is not affiliated with ETF Securities Limited, the Advisor, or any stock exchange.

The Distribution Agreement for each Fund will provide that it may be terminated at any time, without the payment of any penalty, on at least sixty (60) days’ prior written notice to the other party (i) by vote of a majority of the Independent Trustees or (ii) by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the Fund. The Distribution Agreement will terminate automatically in the event of its “assignment” (as defined in the 1940 Act).

The Distributor may also enter into agreements with securities dealers (“Soliciting Dealers”) who will solicit purchases of Creation Unit Aggregations of shares. Such Soliciting Dealers may also be Authorized Participants (as defined below) or DTC Participants (as defined below).

12b-1 Plan. The Trust has adopted a Plan of Distribution pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act (the “Plan”) pursuant to which each Fund may reimburse the Distributor up to a maximum annual rate of 0.25% of its average daily net assets.

Under the Plan and as required by Rule 12b-1, the Trustees will receive and review after the end of each calendar quarter a written report provided by the Distributor of the amounts expended under the Plan and the purpose for which such expenditures were made. With the exception of the Distributor and its affiliates, no “interested person” of the Trust (as that term is defined in the 1940 Act) and no Trustee of the Trust has a direct or indirect financial interest in the operation of the Plan or any related agreement.

The Plan was adopted in order to permit the implementation of the Fund’s method of distribution. However, no such fee is currently paid by the Funds.

Intermediary Compensation. The Advisor or its affiliates, out of their own resources and not out of Fund assets ( i.e. , without additional cost to the Funds or their shareholders), may pay certain broker dealers, banks and other financial intermediaries (“Intermediaries”) for certain activities related to the Funds, including participation in activities that are designed to make Intermediaries more knowledgeable about exchange traded products, including the Funds, or for other activities, such as marketing and educational training or support. These arrangements are not financed by the Funds and, thus, do not result in increased Fund expenses. They are not reflected in the fees and expenses listed in the fees and expenses sections of any Fund’s Prospectus and they do not change the price paid by investors for the purchase of a Fund’s shares or the amount received by a shareholder as proceeds from the redemption of Fund shares.

Such compensation may be paid to Intermediaries that provide services to the Funds, including marketing and education support (such as through conferences, webinars and printed communications). The Advisor periodically assesses the advisability of continuing to make these payments. Payments to an Intermediary may be significant to the Intermediary, and amounts that Intermediaries pay to your advisor, broker or other investment professional, if any, may also be significant to such advisor, broker or investment professional. Because an Intermediary may make decisions about what investment options it will make available or recommend, and what services to provide in connection with various products, based on payments it receives or is eligible to receive, such payments create conflicts of interest between the Intermediary and its clients. For example, these financial incentives may cause the Intermediary to recommend the Funds over other investments. The same conflict of interest exists with respect to your financial advisor, broker or investment professionals if he or she receives similar payments from his or her Intermediary firm.

Intermediary information is current only as of the date of this SAI. Please contact your advisor, broker or other investment professional for more information regarding any payments his or her Intermediary firm may receive. Any payments made by the Advisor or its affiliates to an Intermediary may create the incentive for an Intermediary to encourage customers to buy shares of the Funds.

If you have any additional questions, please call 1-844-383-7289.

BROKERAGE TRANSACTIONS

The Advisor assumes general supervision over placing orders on behalf of the Funds for the purchase and sale of portfolio securities. In selecting the brokers or dealers for any transaction in portfolio securities, the Advisor’s policy is to make such selection based on factors deemed relevant, including but not limited to, the breadth of the market in the security; the price of the security; the reasonableness of the commission or mark-up or mark-down, if any; execution capability; settlement capability; back office efficiency; and the financial condition of the broker or dealer, both for the specific transaction and on a continuing basis. The overall reasonableness of brokerage commissions paid is evaluated by the Advisor based upon its knowledge of available information as to the general level of commissions paid by other institutional investors for comparable services. Brokers may also be selected because of their ability to handle special or difficult executions, such as may be involved in large block trades, less liquid securities, broad distributions, or other circumstances. The Advisor does not consider the provision or value of research, products or services a broker or dealer may provide, if any, as a factor in the selection of a broker or dealer or the determination of the reasonableness of commissions paid in connection with portfolio transactions. The Trust has adopted policies and procedures that prohibit the consideration of sales of a Fund’s shares as a factor in the selection of a broker or a dealer to execute its portfolio transactions. To the extent creation or redemption transactions are conducted on a cash or “cash in lieu” basis, a Fund may contemporaneously transact with broker-dealers for the purchase or sale of portfolio securities in connection with such transactions (see “Creation and Redemption of Creation Unit Aggregations” herein). Such orders may be placed with an Authorized Participant in its capacity as broker-dealer or with an affiliated broker-dealer of such Authorized Participant. In such cases, the Funds will require such broker-dealer to achieve execution at a price that is at least as favorable to the Fund as the value of such securities used to calculate the Fund’s NAV. The broker-dealer will be required to reimburse the Funds for, among other things, any difference between the price (including applicable brokerage commissions, taxes and transaction costs) at which such securities were bought or sold and the value of such securities used to calculate a Fund’s NAV. This amount will vary depending on the quality of the execution and may be capped at amounts determined by the Advisor in its sole discretion.

Brokerage Commissions. For the fiscal period ended December 31, 2017, the Funds did not pay any brokerage commissions; however, the Subsidiary for each of the ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF, ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF, and ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF paid brokerage commissions in the amount of $32,271, $2,011, and $1,799, respectively.

Directed Brokerage. From March 30, 2017, the commencement date of the ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF, ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF, and ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF, to December 31, 2017, the Funds did not pay commissions on brokerage transactions directed to brokers pursuant to an agreement or understanding whereby the broker provides research or other brokerage services to the Advisor or Sub-Advisor.

Affiliated Brokers. The Funds may execute brokerage or other agency transactions through registered broker-dealer affiliates of the Fund, the Advisor, the Sub-Advisor or the Distributor for a commission in conformity with the 1940 Act, the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC. These rules require that commissions paid to the affiliate by the Fund for exchange transactions not exceed “ usual and customary” brokerage commissions. The rules define “usual and customary” commissions to include amounts which are “reasonable and fair compared to the commission, fee or other remuneration received or to be received by other brokers in connection with comparable transactions involving similar securities being purchased or sold on a securities exchange during a comparable period of time.” The Trustees, including those who are not “interested persons” of the Fund, have adopted procedures for evaluating the reasonableness of commissions paid to affiliates and review these procedures periodically.

From March 30, 2017, the commencement date of the ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF, ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF, and ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF, through the fiscal period ended December 31, 2017, the Funds did not pay brokerage commissions to affiliated brokers.

Regular Broker-Dealers. The Funds are required to identify any securities of its “regular brokers and dealers” (as such term is defined in the 1940 Act) which it may hold at the close of its most recent fiscal year. “Regular brokers or dealers” of the Trust are the ten brokers or dealers that, during the most recent fiscal year: (i) received the greatest dollar amounts of brokerage commissions from the Trust’s portfolio transactions; (ii) engaged as principal in the largest dollar amounts of portfolio transactions of the Trust; or (iii) sold the largest dollar amounts of the Trust’s shares. From March 30, 2017, the commencement date of the ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF, ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF, and ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF, through the fiscal period ended December 31, 2017, the Funds did not pay brokerage commissions to affiliated brokers.

Portfolio Turnover. Portfolio turnover may vary from year to year, as well as within a year. High turnover rates are likely to result in comparatively greater brokerage expenses. The overall reasonableness of brokerage commissions is evaluated by the Advisor based upon its knowledge of available information as to the general level of commissions paid by the other institutional investors for comparable services.

The portfolio turnover rate for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2017 was 0% for the ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF, the ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF and the ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE TRUST

Shares. The Trust was established as a Delaware statutory trust on January 9, 2014, and consists of multiple series of funds (“Funds”). Each Fund issues shares of beneficial interest. The Board may establish additional Funds. The Trust is registered with the SEC as an open-end management investment company.

Each share issued by a Fund has a pro rata interest in the assets of the Fund. Shares have no preemptive, exchange, subscription or conversion rights and are freely transferable. Each share is entitled to participate equally in dividends and distributions declared by the Board with respect to the Fund, and in the net distributable assets of a Fund on liquidation.

Each share has one vote with respect to matters upon which a shareholder vote is required consistent with the requirements of the 1940 Act and the rules promulgated thereunder. Shares of all Funds vote together as a single class except that if the matter being voted on affects only a particular Fund or if a matter affects a particular Fund differently from other Funds, that Fund will vote separately on such matter.

Under Delaware law, the Trust is not required to hold an annual meeting of shareholders unless required to do so under the 1940 Act. The policy of the Trust is not to hold an annual meeting of shareholders unless required to do so under the 1940 Act. All shares (regardless of the Fund) have non-cumulative voting rights for the Board. Under Delaware law, Trustees of the Trust may be removed by vote of the shareholders.

Following the creation of the initial Creation Unit Aggregation(s) of shares of a Fund and immediately prior to the commencement of trading in such Fund’s shares, a holder of shares may be a “control person” of the Fund, as defined in the 1940 Act. The Funds cannot accurately predict the length of time for which one or more shareholders may remain a control person or persons of a Fund.

Shareholders may make inquiries by writing to the Trust, c/o ALPS Distributors, Inc., 1290 Broadway, Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado 80203.

Absent an applicable exemption or other relief from the SEC or its staff, beneficial owners of more than 5% of the shares of a Fund may be subject to the reporting provisions of Section 13 of the 1934 Act and the SEC’s rules promulgated thereunder. In addition, absent an applicable exemption or other relief from the SEC staff, officers and Trustees of the Funds and beneficial owners of 10% of the shares of a Fund (“Insiders”) may be subject to the insider reporting, short-swing profit and short-sale provisions of Section 16 of the 1934 Act and the SEC’s rules promulgated thereunder. Beneficial owners and Insiders should consult with their own legal counsel concerning their obligations under Sections 13 and 16 of the 1934 Act.

Termination of the Trust or the Fund. The Trust or a Fund may be terminated by a majority vote of the Board of Trustees or the affirmative vote of a super-majority of the holders of the Trust or a Fund entitled to vote on termination. Although the shares are not automatically redeemable upon the occurrence of any specific event, the Trust’s organizational documents provide that the Board will have the unrestricted power to alter the number of shares in a Creation Unit Aggregation. In the event of a termination of the Trust or the Fund, the Board, in its sole discretion, could determine to permit the shares to be redeemable in aggregations smaller than Creation Unit Aggregations or to be individually redeemable. In such circumstances, the Trust may make redemptions in-kind, for cash, or for a combination of cash and securities. In the case of such a termination, shares of the Trust or a Fund would cease trading on its listing Exchange approximately 7 days prior to redemption proceeds being available.

Role of the Depositary Trust Company (“DTC”). DTC acts as Securities Depository for the shares of the Trust. Shares of the Funds are represented by securities registered in the name of DTC or its nominee and deposited with, or on behalf of, DTC.

DTC, a limited-purpose trust company, was created to hold securities of its participants (“DTC Participants”) and to facilitate the clearance and settlement of securities transactions among the DTC Participants in such securities through electronic book-entry changes in accounts of the DTC Participants, thereby eliminating the need for physical movement of securities’ certificates. DTC Participants include securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations and certain other organizations, some of which (and/or their representatives) own DTC. More specifically, DTC is owned by a number of DTC Participants and by the Listing Exchange, the AMEX and FINRA. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as banks, brokers, dealers and trust companies that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a DTC Participant, either directly or indirectly (“Indirect Participants”).

Beneficial ownership of shares is limited to DTC Participants, Indirect Participants and persons holding interests through DTC Participants and Indirect Participants. Ownership of beneficial interests in shares (owners of such beneficial interests are referred to herein as “Beneficial Owners”) is shown on, and the transfer of ownership is effected only through, records maintained by DTC (with respect to DTC Participants) and on the records of DTC Participants (with respect to Indirect Participants and Beneficial Owners that are not DTC Participants). Beneficial Owners will receive from or through the DTC Participant a written confirmation relating to their purchase of shares. No Beneficial Owner shall have the right to receive a certificate representing such shares.

Conveyance of all notices, statements and other communications to Beneficial Owners is effected as follows. Pursuant to the Depositary Agreement between the Trust and DTC, DTC is required to make available to the Trust upon request and for a fee to be charged to the Trust a listing of the shares of a Fund held by each DTC Participant. The Trust shall inquire of each such DTC Participant as to the number of Beneficial Owners holding shares, directly or indirectly, through such DTC Participant. The Trust shall provide each such DTC Participant with copies of such notice, statement or other communication, in such form and number and at such place as such DTC Participant may reasonably request, in order that such notice, statement or communication may be transmitted by such DTC Participant, directly or indirectly, to such Beneficial Owners. In addition, the Trust shall pay to each such DTC Participant a fair and reasonable amount as reimbursement for the expenses attendant to such transmittal, all subject to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

Share distributions shall be made to DTC or its nominee, Cede & Co., as the registered holder of all shares of the Trust. DTC or its nominee, upon receipt of any such distributions, shall immediately credit DTC Participants’ accounts with payments in amounts proportionate to their respective beneficial interests in shares of a Fund as shown on the records of DTC or its nominee. Payments by DTC Participants to Indirect Participants and Beneficial Owners of shares held through such DTC Participants will be governed by standing instructions and customary practices, as is now the case with securities held for the accounts of customers in bearer form or registered in a “street name,” and will be the responsibility of such DTC Participants.

The Trust has no responsibility or liability for any aspect of the records relating to or notices to Beneficial Owners, or payments made on account of beneficial ownership interests in such shares, or for maintaining, supervising or reviewing any records relating to such beneficial ownership interests, or for any other aspect of the relationship between DTC and the DTC Participants or the relationship between such DTC Participants and the Indirect Participants and Beneficial Owners owning through such DTC Participants. DTC may decide to discontinue its service with respect to shares of the Trust at any time by giving reasonable notice to the Trust and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. Under such circumstances, the Trust shall take action to find a replacement for DTC to perform its functions at a comparable cost.

PURCHASE AND REDEMPTION OF CREATION UNIT AGGREGATIONS

Each Fund issues and redeems its Fund Shares on a continuous basis, at net asset value, only in a large specified number of Fund Shares called a “Creation Unit,” either principally in-kind for a designated portfolio of securities or in cash for the value of such securities. The value of each Fund is determined once each business day, as described under “Determination of Net Asset Value.” Creation Unit sizes are 50,000 Fund Shares per Creation Unit. The Creation Unit size for each Fund may change. Authorized Participants (as defined below) will be notified of such change. The principal consideration for creations and redemptions for each Fund is set forth in the table below:

FUND	CREATION*	REDEMPTION*
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	Cash	Cash

ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	Cash	Cash

ETFS Bloomberg Agriculture Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	Cash	Cash

ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	Cash	Cash

ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	Cash	Cash

May be revised at any time without notice.

Purchase (Creation). The Trust issues and sells Fund Shares only in Creation Units on a continuous basis through the Principal Underwriter, without a sales load (but subject to transaction fees), at their NAV per share next determined after receipt of an order, on any Business Day (as defined below), in proper form pursuant to the terms of the Authorized Participant Agreement (“Participant Agreement”). A “Business Day” with respect to a Fund is, generally, any day on which the Listing Exchange is open for business.

Fund Deposit. The consideration for purchase of a Creation Unit of a Fund generally consists of either (i) the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of securities (the “Deposit Securities”) per each Creation Unit and the Cash Component (defined below), computed as described below or (ii) the cash value of the Deposit Securities (“Deposit Cash”) and “Cash Component,” computed as described below. When accepting purchases of Creation Units for cash, a Fund may incur additional costs associated with the acquisition of Deposit Securities that would otherwise be provided by an in-kind purchaser.

Together, the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable, and the Cash Component constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit of each Fund. The “Cash Component,” which may include a Dividend Equivalent Payment, is an amount equal to the difference between the net asset value of the Fund Shares (per Creation Unit) and the market value of the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable. The “Dividend Equivalent Payment” enables a Fund to make a complete distribution of dividends on the day preceding the next dividend payment date, and is an amount equal, on a per Creation Unit basis, to the dividends on all the portfolio securities of a Fund (“Dividend Securities”) with ex-dividend dates within the accumulation period for such distribution (the “Accumulation Period”), net of expenses and liabilities for such period, as if all of the Dividend Securities had been held by a Fund for the entire Accumulation Period. The Accumulation Period begins on the ex-dividend date for a Fund and ends on the day preceding the next ex-dividend date. If the Cash Component is a positive number (i.e., the net asset value per Creation Unit exceeds the market value of the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable), the Cash Component shall be such positive amount. If the Cash Component is a negative number (i.e., the net asset value per Creation Unit is less than the market value of the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable), the Cash Component shall be such negative amount and the creator will be entitled to receive cash in an amount equal to the Cash Component. The Cash Component serves the function of compensating for any differences between the net asset value per Creation Unit and the market value of the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable. Computation of the Cash Component excludes any stamp duty or other similar fees and expenses payable upon transfer of beneficial ownership of the Deposit Securities, if applicable, which shall be the sole responsibility of the Authorized Participant (as defined below).

The Custodian, through NSCC, makes available on each Business Day, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern time), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security or the required amount of Deposit Cash, as applicable, to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous Business Day) for each Fund. Such Fund Deposit is subject to any applicable adjustments as described below, in order to effect purchases of Creation Units of the Fund until such time as the next-announced composition of the Deposit Securities or the required amount of Deposit Cash, as applicable, is made available.

The identity and number of shares of the Deposit Securities or the amount of Deposit Cash, as applicable, required for a Fund Deposit for each Fund changes as rebalancing adjustments, interest payments and corporate action events are reflected from time to time by the Advisor with a view to the investment objective of each Fund.

As noted above, the Trust reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of Deposit Cash to replace any Deposit Security, which shall be added to the Cash Component, including, without limitation, in situations where the Deposit Security: (i) may not be available in sufficient quantity for delivery, (ii) may not be eligible for transfer through the systems of DTC for corporate securities and municipal securities; (iii) may not be eligible for trading by an Authorized Participant (as defined below) or the investor for which it is acting; (iv) would be restricted under the securities laws or where the delivery of the Deposit Security to the Authorized Participant would result in the disposition of the Deposit Security by the Authorized Participant becoming restricted under the securities laws, or (v) in certain other situations (collectively, “non-standard orders”). The Trust also reserves the right to: permit or require the substitution of Deposit Securities in lieu of Deposit Cash. The adjustments described above will reflect changes, known to the Advisor on the date of announcement to be in effect by the time of delivery of the Fund Deposit resulting from certain corporate actions.

Procedures for Purchase of Creation Unit Aggregations. To be eligible to place orders with the Principal Underwriter, as facilitated via the Transfer Agent, to purchase a Creation Unit of a Fund, an entity must be (i) a “Participating Party”, i.e. , a broker-dealer or other participant in the clearing process through the Continuous Net Settlement System of the NSCC (the “Clearing Process”), a clearing agency that is registered with the SEC; or (ii) a DTC Participant. In addition, each Participating Party or DTC Participant (each, an “Authorized Participant”) must execute a Participant Agreement that has been agreed to by the Principal Underwriter and the Transfer Agent, and that has been accepted by the Trust, with respect to purchases and redemptions of Creation Units. Each Authorized Participant will agree, pursuant to the terms of a Participant Agreement, on behalf of itself or any investor on whose behalf it will act, to certain conditions, including that it will pay to the Trust, an amount of cash sufficient to pay the Cash Component together with the creation transaction fee (described below) and any other applicable fees, taxes and additional variable charge.

All orders to purchase Fund Shares directly from a Fund, including non-standard orders, must be placed for one or more Creation Units and in the manner and by the time set forth in the Participant Agreement and/or the applicable order form (the “Closing Time”). The date on which an order to purchase Creation Units (or an order to redeem Creation Units, as set forth below) is received and accepted is referred to as the “Order Placement Date.”

An Authorized Participant may require an investor to make certain representations or enter into agreements with respect to the order ( e.g. , to provide for payments of cash, when required). Investors should be aware that their particular broker may not have executed a Participant Agreement and that, therefore, orders to purchase Fund Shares directly from a Fund in Creation Units have to be placed by the investor’s broker through an Authorized Participant that has executed a Participant Agreement. In such cases there may be additional charges to such investor. At any given time, there may be only a limited number of broker-dealers that have executed a Participant Agreement and only a small number of such Authorized Participants may have international capabilities. A Fund may direct an Authorized Participant to deliver Deposit Securities, Deposit Cash and Cash Component directly to the Portfolio on behalf of each Fund.

On days when the Exchange or the bond markets close earlier than normal, a Fund may require orders to create Creation Units to be placed earlier in the day. In addition, if a market or markets on which a Fund’s investments are primarily traded is closed, the Fund will also generally not accept orders on such day(s). Orders must be transmitted by an Authorized Participant by telephone or other transmission method acceptable to the Distributor pursuant to procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement and in accordance with the applicable order form. Those placing orders through an Authorized Participant should allow sufficient time to permit proper submission of the purchase order by the cut-off time on such Business Day. Economic or market disruptions or changes, or telephone or other communication failure may impede the ability to reach the Distributor or an Authorized Participant.

Fund Deposits must be delivered by an Authorized Participant through the Federal Reserve System (for cash and U.S. government securities), or through DTC (for corporate securities and municipal securities), through a subcustody agent (for foreign securities) and/or through such other arrangements allowed by the Trust or its agents. With respect to foreign Deposit Securities, the Custodian shall cause the subcustodian of a Fund to maintain an account into which the Authorized Participant shall deliver, on behalf of itself or the party on whose behalf it is acting, such Deposit Securities. Foreign Deposit Securities must be delivered to an account maintained at the applicable local subcustodian. The Fund Deposit transfer must be ordered by the Authorized Participant in a timely fashion so as to ensure the delivery of the requisite number of Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable, to the account of a Fund or its agents by no later than the Settlement Date. The “Settlement Date” for a Fund is generally the second Business Day after the Order Placement Date. All questions as to the number of Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash to be delivered, as applicable, and the validity, form and eligibility (including time of receipt) for the deposit of any tendered securities or cash, as applicable, will be determined by the Trust, whose determination shall be final and binding. The amount of cash represented by the Cash Component must be transferred directly to the Custodian through the Federal Reserve Bank wire transfer system in a timely manner so as to be received by the Custodian no later than the Settlement Date. If the Cash Component and the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable, are not received in a timely manner by the Settlement Date, the creation order may be cancelled. Upon written notice to the Distributor, such canceled order may be resubmitted the following Business Day using a Fund Deposit as newly constituted to reflect the then current NAV of each Fund. The delivery of Creation Units so created generally will occur no later than the second Business Day following the day on which the purchase order is deemed received by the Distributor.

The order shall be deemed to be received on the Business Day on which the order is placed provided that the order is placed in proper form prior to the applicable cut-off time and the federal funds in the appropriate amount are deposited by 2:30 p.m. Eastern time (per applicable instructions), with the Custodian on the Settlement Date. If the order is not placed in proper form as required, or federal funds in the appropriate amount are not received by 3:30 p.m. Eastern time (per applicable instructions) on the Settlement Date, then the order may be deemed to be rejected and the Authorized Participant shall be liable to the Fund for losses, if any, resulting therefrom. A creation request is considered to be in “proper form” if all procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement, order form and this SAI are properly followed.

Issuance of a Creation Unit. Except as provided herein, Creation Units will not be issued until the transfer of good title to the Trust of the Deposit Securities or payment of Deposit Cash, as applicable, and the payment of the Cash Component have been completed. When the subcustodian has confirmed to the Custodian that the required Deposit Securities (or the cash value thereof) have been delivered to the account of the relevant subcustodian or subcustodians, the Principal Underwriter and the Advisor shall be notified of such delivery, and the Trust will issue and cause the delivery of the Creation Units.

In instances where the Trust accepts Deposit Securities for the purchase of a Creation Unit, the Creation Unit may be purchased in advance of receipt by the Trust of all or a portion of the applicable Deposit Securities as described below. In these circumstances, the initial deposit will have a value greater than the net asset value of each Fund Shares on the date the order is placed in proper form since in addition to available Deposit Securities, cash must be deposited in an amount equal to the sum of (i) the Cash Component, plus (ii) an additional amount of cash equal to a percentage of the market value as set forth in the Participant Agreement, of the undelivered Deposit Securities (the “Additional Cash Deposit”), which shall be maintained in a general non-interest bearing collateral account. An additional amount of cash shall be required to be deposited with the Trust, pending delivery of the missing Deposit Securities to the extent necessary to maintain the Additional Cash Deposit with the Trust in an amount at least equal to the applicable percentage, as set forth in the Participant Agreement, of the daily marked to market value of the missing Deposit Securities. The Trust may use such Additional Cash Deposit to buy the missing Deposit Securities at any time. Authorized Participants will be liable to the Trust for all costs, expenses, dividends, income and taxes associated with missing Deposit Securities, including the costs incurred by the Trust in connection with any such purchases. These costs will be deemed to include the amount by which the actual purchase price of the Deposit Securities exceeds the market value of such Deposit Securities on the day the purchase order was deemed received by the Principal Underwriter plus the brokerage and related transaction costs associated with such purchases. The Trust will return any unused portion of the Additional Cash Deposit once all of the missing Deposit Securities have been properly received by the Custodian or purchased by the Trust and deposited into the Trust. In addition, a transaction fee as set forth below under “Creation Transaction Fees” will be charged in all cases and an additional variable charge may also be applied. The delivery of Creation Units so created generally will occur no later than the Settlement Date.

Acceptance of Orders of Creation Units. The Trust reserves the absolute right to reject an order for Creation Units transmitted in respect of each Fund at its discretion, including, without limitation, if (a) the order is not in proper form; (b) the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable, delivered by the Participant are not as disseminated through the facilities of the NSCC for that date by the Custodian; (c) the investor(s), upon obtaining the Fund Shares ordered, would own 80% or more of the currently outstanding shares of a Fund; (d) acceptance of the Deposit Securities would have certain adverse tax consequences to the Fund; (e) the acceptance of the Fund Deposit would, in the opinion of counsel, be unlawful; (f) the acceptance of the Fund Deposit would otherwise, in the discretion of the Trust or the Advisor, have an adverse effect on the Trust or the rights of beneficial owners; (g) the acceptance or receipt of the order for a Creation Unit would, in the opinion of counsel to the Trust, be unlawful; or (h) in the event that circumstances outside the control of the Trust, the Custodian, the Transfer Agent and/or the Advisor make it for all practical purposes not feasible to process orders for Creation Units. Examples of such circumstances include acts of God or public service or utility problems such as fires, floods, extreme weather conditions and power outages resulting in telephone, telecopy and computer failures; market conditions or activities causing trading halts; systems failures involving computer or other information systems affecting the Trust, the Principal Underwriter, the Custodian, the Transfer Agent, DTC, NSCC, Federal Reserve System, or any other participant in the creation process, and other extraordinary events. The Trust or its agents shall communicate to the Authorized Participant its rejection of an order. The Trust, the Transfer Agent, the Custodian and the Principal Underwriter are under no duty, however, to give notification of any defects or irregularities in the delivery of Fund Deposits nor shall either of them incur any liability for the failure to give any such notification. The Trust, the Transfer Agent, the Custodian and the Principal Underwriter shall not be liable for the rejection of any purchase order for Creation Units.

All questions as to the number of shares of each security in the Deposit Securities and the validity, form, eligibility and acceptance for deposit of any securities to be delivered shall be determined by the Trust, and the Trust’s determination shall be final and binding.

Redemption. Fund Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their net asset value next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by a Fund through the Transfer Agent and only on a Business Day. Except upon liquidation of the fund, the Trust will not redeem shares in amounts less than Creation Units. Investors must accumulate enough Fund Shares in the secondary market to constitute a Creation Unit in order to have such Fund Shares redeemed by the Trust. There can be no assurance, however, that there will be sufficient liquidity in the public trading market at any time to permit assembly of a Creation Unit. Investors should expect to incur brokerage and other costs in connection with assembling a sufficient number of Fund Shares to constitute a redeemable Creation Unit. With respect to each Fund, the Custodian, through the NSCC, makes available immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m. Eastern time) on each Business Day, the list of the names and share quantities of each Fund’s portfolio securities that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form (as defined below) on that day (“Fund Securities”). Fund Securities received on redemption may not be identical to Deposit Securities.

Redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit are paid either in-kind or in cash or a combination thereof, as determined by the Trust. With respect to in-kind redemptions of a Fund, redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit will consist of Fund Securities — as announced by the Custodian on the Business Day of the request for redemption received in proper form plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the net asset value of the Fund Shares being redeemed, as next determined after a receipt of a request in proper form, and the value of the Fund Securities (the “Cash Redemption Amount”), less a fixed redemption transaction fee and any applicable additional variable charge as set forth below. In the event that the Fund Securities have a value greater than the net asset value of the Fund Shares, a compensating cash payment equal to the differential is required to be made by or through an Authorized Participant by the redeeming shareholder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at the Trust’s discretion, an Authorized Participant may receive the corresponding cash value of the securities in lieu of the in-kind securities value representing one or more Fund Securities.

Procedures for Redemption of Creation Units. Upon receipt of a redemption request, each Fund will make a corresponding request to the Portfolio. Redemption proceeds from the Portfolio will be delivered to the redeeming Authorized Participant. The Portfolio may deliver redemption proceeds directly to a redeeming Authorized Participant. After the Trust has deemed an order for redemption received, the Trust will initiate procedures to transfer the requisite Fund Securities and the Cash Redemption Amount to the Authorized Participant by the Settlement Date. With respect to in-kind redemptions of a Fund, the calculation of the value of the Fund Securities and the Cash Redemption Amount to be delivered upon redemption will be made by the Custodian according to the procedures set forth under “Determination of Net Asset Value”, computed on the Business Day on which a redemption order is deemed received by the Trust. Therefore, if a redemption order in proper form is submitted to the Principal Underwriter by a DTC Participant by the Closing Time on the Order Placement Date, and the requisite number of Fund Shares are delivered to the Custodian prior to 2:30 p.m. Eastern time (per applicable instructions) on the Settlement Date, then the value of the Fund Securities and the Cash Redemption Amount to be delivered will be determined by the Custodian on such Order Placement Date. If the requisite number of Fund Shares are not delivered by 2:30 p.m. Eastern time (per applicable instructions) on the Settlement Date, a Fund will not release the underlying securities for delivery unless collateral is posted in such percentage amount of missing Fund Shares as set forth in the Participant Agreement (marked to market daily).

With respect to in-kind redemptions of a Fund, in connection with taking delivery of shares of Fund Securities upon redemption of Creation Units, an Authorized Participant must maintain appropriate custody arrangements with a qualified broker-dealer, bank or other custody providers in each jurisdiction in which any of the Fund Securities are customarily traded (or such other arrangements as allowed by the Trust or its agents), to which account such Fund Securities will be delivered. Deliveries of redemption proceeds generally will be made within two Business Days of the trade date.

If it is not possible to make other such arrangements, or if it is not possible to effect deliveries of the Fund Securities, the Trust may in its discretion exercise its option to redeem such Fund Shares in cash, and the redeeming investor will be required to receive its redemption proceeds in cash. In addition, an investor may request a redemption in cash that each Fund may, in its sole discretion, permit. In either case, the investor will receive a cash payment equal to the NAV of its Fund Shares based on the NAV of Fund Shares next determined after the redemption request is received in proper form (minus a redemption transaction fee and additional charge for requested cash redemptions specified above, to offset the Trust’s brokerage and other transaction costs associated with the disposition of Fund Securities).

An Authorized Participant submitting a redemption request is deemed to represent to the Trust that it (or its client) (i) owns outright or has full legal authority and legal beneficial right to tender for redemption the requisite number of Fund Shares to be redeemed and can receive the entire proceeds of the redemption, and (ii) the Fund Shares to be redeemed have not been loaned or pledged to another party nor are they the subject of a repurchase agreement, securities lending agreement or such other arrangement which would preclude the delivery of such Fund Shares to the Trust. The Trust reserves the right to verify these representations at its discretion, but will typically require verification with respect to a redemption request from a Fund in connection with higher levels of redemption activity and/or short interest in a Fund. If the Authorized Participant, upon receipt of a verification request, does not provide sufficient verification of its representations as determined by the Trust, the redemption request will not be considered to have been received in proper form and may be rejected by the Trust.

Redemptions of Fund Shares for Fund Securities will be subject to compliance with applicable federal and state securities laws and each Fund (whether or not it otherwise permits cash redemptions) reserves the right to redeem Creation Units for cash to the extent that the Trust could not lawfully deliver specific Fund Securities upon redemptions or could not do so without first registering the Fund Securities under such laws. An Authorized Participant or an investor for which it is acting subject to a legal restriction with respect to a particular security included in the Fund Securities applicable to the redemption of Creation Units may be paid an equivalent amount of cash. The Authorized Participant may request the redeeming investor of the Fund Shares to complete an order form or to enter into agreements with respect to such matters as compensating cash payment. Further, an Authorized Participant that is not a “qualified institutional buyer,” (“QIB”) as such term is defined under Rule 144A of the Securities Act, will not be able to receive Fund Securities that are restricted securities eligible for resale under Rule 144A. An Authorized Participant may be required by the Trust to provide a written confirmation with respect to QIB status in order to receive Fund Securities.

The right of redemption may be suspended or the date of payment postponed with respect to each Fund (1) for any period during which the Exchange is closed (other than customary weekend and holiday closings); (2) for any period during which trading on the Exchange is suspended or restricted; (3) for any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which disposal of the Fund Shares or determination of the NAV of the Fund Shares is not reasonably practicable; or (4) in such other circumstance as is permitted by the SEC.

Required Early Acceptance of Orders. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as described in the Participant Agreement and the applicable order form, a Fund may require orders to be placed up to one or more Business Days prior to the trade date, as described in the Participant Agreement or the applicable order form, in order to receive the trade date’s net asset value. Orders to purchase Fund Shares that are submitted on the Business Day immediately preceding a holiday or a day (other than a weekend) that the equity markets in the relevant foreign market are closed will not be accepted. Authorized Participants may be notified that the cut-off time for an order may be earlier on a particular Business Day, as described in the Participant Agreement and the applicable order form.

Creation/Redemption Transaction Fee. A transaction fee, as set forth in the table below, is imposed for the transfer and other transaction costs associated with the purchase or redemption of Creation Units, as applicable. Authorized Participants will be required to pay a fixed creation transaction fee and/or a fixed redemption transaction fee, as applicable, on a given day regardless of the number of Creation Units created or redeemed on that day. Each Fund may adjust the transaction fee from time to time. An additional charge or a variable charge (discussed below) will be applied to certain creation and redemption transactions, including non-standard orders and whole or partial cash purchases or redemptions. With respect to creation orders, Authorized Participants are responsible for the costs of transferring the securities constituting the Deposit Securities to the account of the Trust and with respect to redemption orders, Authorized Participants are responsible for the costs of transferring the Fund Securities from the Trust to their account or on their order. Investors who use the services of a broker or other such intermediary may also be charged a fee for such services.

Creation and Redemption Transaction Fees:

Fund	Transaction Fee*		Maximum Transaction Fee**
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	$	250		2	%

ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	$	250		2	%

ETFS Bloomberg Agriculture Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	$	250		2	%

ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	$	250		2	%

ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	$	250		2	%

From time to time, a Fund may waive all or a portion of its applicable transaction fee(s). An additional charge of up to three (3) times the standard transaction fee may be charged to the extent a transaction is outside of the clearing process.

In addition to the transaction fees listed above, a Fund may charge an additional variable fee for creations and redemptions in cash to offset brokerage and impact expenses associated with the cash transaction. The variable transaction fee will be calculated based on historical transaction cost data and the Advisor’s view of current market conditions; however, the actual variable fee charged for a given transaction may be lower or higher than the trading expenses incurred by a Fund with respect to that transaction.

Placement of Redemption Orders Using the Clearing Process. Orders to redeem Creation Unit Aggregations through the Clearing Process must be delivered through a Participating Party that has executed the Participant Agreement. Except as described herein, an order to redeem Creation Unit Aggregations using the Clearing Process is deemed received by the Trust on the Transmittal Date if: (i) such order is received by JPMorgan (in its capacity as Transfer Agent) not later than the Closing Time on such Transmittal Date, and (ii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed. Such order will be effected based on the NAV of a Fund as next determined. The consideration for redemption of Creation Unit Aggregations of each Fund generally consists of (i) a designated portfolio of equity securities and other instruments that closely approximate the holdings of the Fund (the “Fund Securities”) and (ii) an amount of cash denominated in U.S. dollars (the “Cash Redemption Amount”) as described below. The requisite Fund Securities and the Cash Redemption Amount generally will be transferred by the second NSCC Business Day following the date on which such request for redemption is deemed received.

Placement of Redemption Orders Outside the Clearing Process . Orders to redeem Creation Unit Aggregations outside the Clearing Process must be delivered through a DTC Participant that has executed the Participant Agreement. An order to redeem Creation Unit Aggregations outside the Clearing Process is deemed received by the Trust on the Transmittal Date if: (i) such order is received by JPMorgan (in its capacity as Transfer Agent) not later than the Closing Time on such Transmittal Date; (ii) such order is accompanied or followed by the requisite number of shares of the Fund specified in such order, which delivery must be made through DTC to the Custodian no later than 2:30 p.m., Eastern time, on the contracted settlement date; and (iii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed. After the Trust has deemed an order for redemption outside the Clearing Process received, the Trust will initiate procedures to transfer the requisite Fund Securities which are expected to be delivered within two Business Days and the Cash Redemption Amount to the Authorized Participant on behalf of the redeeming Beneficial Owner by the Settlement Date. In certain cases, Authorized Participants will redeem and create Creation Unit Aggregations of the same Fund on the same trade date. In these instances, the Trust reserves the right to settle these transactions on a net basis.

If the requisite number of shares of a Fund is not delivered on the Transmittal Date as described above, a Fund may reject or revoke acceptance of the redemption request because the Authorized Participant has not satisfied all of the settlement requirements.

The current procedures for collateralization of missing shares require, among other things, that any cash collateral shall be in the form of U.S. dollars in immediately available funds and shall be held by the Custodian and marked-to-market daily, and that the fees of the Custodian and any sub-custodians in respect of the delivery, maintenance and redelivery of the cash collateral shall be payable by the Authorized Participant. The Authorized Participant’s agreement will permit the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, to purchase the missing shares or acquire the Deposit Securities and the Cash Component underlying such shares at any time and will subject the Authorized Participant to liability for any shortfall between the cost to the Trust of purchasing such shares, Deposit Securities or Cash Component and the value of the collateral.

The calculation of the value of the Fund Securities and the Cash Redemption Amount to be delivered upon redemption will be made according to the procedures set forth under Determination of NAV computed on the Business Day on which a redemption order is deemed received by the Trust. Therefore, if a redemption order in proper form is submitted by a DTC Participant not later than the Closing Time on the Transmittal Date, and the requisite number of shares of the Fund are delivered prior to the DTC cut-off time, then the value of the Fund Securities and the Cash Redemption Amount to be delivered will be determined on such Transmittal Date. If, however, a redemption order is submitted by a DTC Participant not later than the Closing Time on the Transmittal Date but either (i) the requisite number of shares of the Fund are not delivered by the DTC cut-off-time on such Transmittal Date, or (ii) the redemption order is not submitted in proper form, then the redemption order will not be deemed received as of the Transmittal Date. In such case, the value of the Fund Securities and the Cash Redemption Amount to be delivered will be computed on the Business Day that such order is deemed received by the Trust on which the shares of the Fund are delivered through DTC by the DTC cut-off-time on such Business Day pursuant to a properly submitted redemption order.

A Fund may also, in its sole discretion, upon request of a shareholder, provide such redeemer a portfolio of securities that differs from the exact composition of the Fund Securities but does not differ in NAV.

Redemptions of shares for Fund Securities will be subject to compliance with applicable federal and state securities laws and the Funds (whether or not it otherwise permits cash redemptions) reserves the right to redeem Creation Unit Aggregations for cash to the extent that the Trust could not lawfully deliver specific Fund Securities upon redemptions or could not do so without first registering the Fund Securities under such laws. An Authorized Participant or an investor for which it is acting subject to a legal restriction with respect to a particular security included in the Fund Securities applicable to the redemption of a Creation Unit Aggregation may be paid an equivalent amount of cash. The Authorized Participant may request the redeeming Beneficial Owner of the shares to complete an order form or to enter into agreements with respect to such matters as compensating cash payment.

Cash Redemptions. A Fund may pay out the proceeds of redemptions of Creation Unit Aggregations solely in cash or through any combination of cash or securities. In addition, an investor may request a redemption in cash that a Fund may, in its sole discretion, permit. In either case, the “Cash Component” is an amount equal to the difference between the net asset value of the Shares (per redemption Unit) and the market value of the equivalent portfolio securities or the equivalent cash amount, as applicable. If the Cash Component is a negative number ( i.e. , the net asset value per Redemption Unit exceeds the market value of the portfolio Securities or Cash amount, as applicable), the Cash Component shall be such negative amount and the redeemer will owe the fund the equivalent amount. If the Cash Component is a positive number ( i.e. , the net asset value per Redemption Unit is more than the market value of the Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable), the Cash Component shall be such positive amount and the creator will be entitled to receive cash in an amount equal to the Cash Component. The Cash Component serves the function of compensating for any differences between the net asset value per Creation Unit and the market value of the Deposit Securities or Deposit Cash, as applicable. the investor will receive a cash payment equal to the NAV of its shares based on the NAV of shares of the Fund next determined after the redemption request is received in proper form (minus a redemption transaction fee and additional charge for requested cash redemptions specified above, to offset the Trust’s brokerage and other transaction costs associated with the disposition of Fund Securities). Proceeds will be paid to the Authorized Participant redeeming shares on behalf of the redeeming investor as soon as practicable after the date of redemption. If the Authorized Participant acts as a broker for a Fund in connection with the sale of Fund Securities, the Authorized Participant will also be required to pay certain brokerage commissions, taxes, and transaction and market impact costs as discussed under the heading “Brokerage Transactions” herein.

Redemptions of shares for Fund Securities will be subject to compliance with applicable federal and state securities laws and each Fund (whether or not it otherwise permits cash redemptions) reserves the right to redeem Creation Unit Aggregations for cash to the extent that the Trust could not lawfully deliver specific Fund Securities upon redemptions or could not do so without first registering the Fund Securities under such laws.

In-Kind Redemptions . The ability of the Trust to effect in-kind creations and redemptions is subject, among other things, to the condition that, within the time period from the date of the order to the date of delivery of the securities, there are no days that are holidays in the applicable foreign market. For every occurrence of one or more intervening holidays in the applicable foreign market that are not holidays observed in the U.S. equity market, the redemption settlement cycle may be extended by the number of such intervening holidays. In addition to holidays, other unforeseeable closings in a foreign market due to emergencies may also prevent the Trust from delivering securities within the normal settlement period. The Funds will not suspend or postpone redemption beyond seven days, except as permitted under Section 22(e) of the 1940 Act. Section 22(e) provides that the right of redemption may be suspended or the date of payment postponed with respect to a Fund (1) for any period during which the Listing Exchange is closed (other than customary weekend and holiday closings); (2) for any period during which trading on the Listing Exchange is suspended or restricted; (3) for any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which disposal of the shares of the Fund’s portfolio securities or determination of its net asset value is not reasonably practicable; or (4) in such other circumstance as is permitted by the SEC.

TAXES

The following is a summary of certain federal income tax considerations generally affecting the Funds and their shareholders that supplements the discussion in the Prospectus. No attempt is made to present a comprehensive explanation of the federal, state, local or foreign tax treatment of the Funds or their shareholders, and the discussion here and in the Prospectus is not intended to be a substitute for careful tax planning.

The following general discussion of certain federal income tax consequences is based on the Code and the regulations issued thereunder as in effect on the date of this SAI. New legislation, as well as administrative changes or court decisions, may significantly change the conclusions expressed herein, and may have a retroactive effect with respect to the transactions contemplated herein.

The recently enacted tax legislation commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”) makes significant changes to the U.S. federal income tax rules for taxation of individuals and corporations, generally effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. Many of the changes applicable to individuals are temporary and would apply only to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026. There are only minor changes with respect to the specific rules only applicable to RICs, such as the Funds. The Tax Act, however, makes numerous other changes to the tax rules that may affect shareholders and the Funds. You are urged to consult with your own tax advisor regarding how the Tax Act affects your investment in the Funds.

Shareholders are urged to consult their own tax advisors regarding the application of the provisions of tax law described in this SAI in light of the particular tax situations of the shareholders and regarding specific questions as to federal, state, or local taxes.

REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANY (RIC) STATUS

Each Fund intends to qualify and elects to be treated as a RIC under the Code. By following such a policy, each Fund expects to eliminate or reduce to a nominal amount the federal taxes to which it may be subject. A Fund that qualifies as a RIC will generally not be subject to federal income taxes on the net investment income and net realized capital gains that the Fund timely distributes to its shareholders. The Board reserves the right not to maintain the qualification of a Fund as a RIC if it determines such course of action to be beneficial to shareholders.

In order to qualify as a RIC under the Code, each Fund must distribute annually to its shareholders at least an amount equal to the sum of 90% of the Fund’s net investment company taxable income for such year (including, for this purpose, dividends, taxable interest, and the excess of net short-term capital gains over net long-term capital losses, less operating expenses), computed without regard to the dividends-paid deduction, and 90% of its net tax-exempt interest income for such year, if any (the “Distribution Requirement”) and also must meet certain additional requirements. One of these additional requirements for RIC qualification is that a Fund must receive at least 90% of the its gross income each taxable year from dividends, interest, payments with respect to certain securities loans, gains from the sale or other disposition of stock, securities or foreign currencies, or other income (including but not limited to gains from options, futures or forward contracts) derived with respect to the Fund’s business of investing in such stock, securities, foreign currencies and net income from interests in qualified publicly traded partnerships (the “Qualifying Income Test”). A second requirement for qualification as a RIC is that a Fund must diversify its holdings so that, at the end of each quarter of a Fund’s taxable year: (a) at least 50% of the market value of such Fund’s total assets is represented by cash and cash items, U.S. government securities, securities of other RICs, and other securities, with these other securities limited, in respect to any one issuer, to an amount not greater than 5% of the value of such Fund’s total assets or 10% of the outstanding voting securities of such issuer, including the equity securities of a qualified publicly traded partnership; and (b) not more than 25% of the value of its total assets is invested, including through corporations in which a Fund owns a 20% or more voting stock interest, in the securities (other than U.S. government securities or securities of other RICs) of any one issuer or the securities (other than the securities of another RIC) of two or more issuers that such Fund controls and which are engaged in the same or similar trades or businesses or related trades or businesses, or the securities of one or more qualified publicly traded partnerships (the “Asset Test”).

If a Fund fails to satisfy the Qualifying Income Test or the Asset Test, the Fund may be eligible for relief provisions if the failures are due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect and if a penalty tax is paid with respect to each failure to satisfy the applicable requirements. Additionally, relief is provided for certain de minimis failures of the Asset Test where a Fund corrects the failure within a specified period of time. In order to be eligible for the relief provisions with respect to a failure to meet the Asset Test, a Fund may be required to dispose of certain assets. If these relief provisions are not available to a Fund and it fails to qualify for treatment as a RIC for a taxable year, all of its taxable income would be subject to tax at regular corporate income tax rates (which the Tax Act has reduced to 21%) without any deduction for distributions to shareholders, and its distributions (including capital gains distributions) generally would be taxable as ordinary income dividends to its shareholders, subject to the dividends-received deduction for corporate shareholders and the lower tax rates on qualified dividend income received by non-corporate shareholders. In addition, a Fund could be required to recognize unrealized gains, pay substantial taxes and interest, and make substantial distributions before requalifying as a RIC. The Board reserves the right not to maintain the qualification of a Fund for treatment as a RIC if it determines such course of action to be beneficial to shareholders. If a Fund determines that it will not qualify for treatment as a RIC, the Fund will establish procedures to reflect the anticipated tax liability in the Fund’s NAV.

Each Fund intends to distribute annually to its shareholders substantially all of its investment company taxable income (computed without regard to the dividends-paid deduction) and any realized net capital gain (after taking into account any capital loss carryovers). If a Fund failed to satisfy the Distribution Requirement for any taxable year, the Fund would be taxed as a regular corporation, with consequences generally similar to those described above. If a Fund meets the Distribution Requirement but retains some or all of its income or gains, it will be subject to federal income tax to the extent any such income or gains are not distributed.

Excise Tax

Notwithstanding the Distribution Requirement described above, each Fund will be subject to a nondeductible 4% federal excise tax on certain undistributed income if it does not distribute (and is not deemed to distribute) to its shareholders in each calendar year an amount at least equal to 98% of its ordinary income for the calendar year plus 98.2% of its capital gain net income for the twelve months ended October 31 of that year, subject to an increase for any shortfall in the prior year’s distribution. For this purpose, any ordinary income or capital gain net income retained by a Fund and subject to corporate income tax will be considered to have been distributed. The Funds intend to declare and distribute dividends and distributions in amounts and at times necessary to avoid the application of this 4% excise tax, but can make no assurances that such tax liability will be completely eliminated. A Fund may in certain circumstances be required to liquidate Fund investments in order to make sufficient distributions to avoid federal excise tax liability at a time when the investment advisor might not otherwise have chosen to do so, and liquidation of investments in such circumstances may affect the ability of a Fund to satisfy the requirement for qualification as a RIC.

A Fund may elect to treat part or all of any “qualified late year loss” as if it had been incurred in the succeeding taxable year in determining such Fund’s taxable income, net capital gain, net short-term capital gain, and earnings and profits. The effect of this election is to treat any such “qualified late year loss” as if it had been incurred in the succeeding taxable year in characterizing Fund distributions for any calendar year. A “qualified late year loss” generally includes net capital loss, net long-term capital loss, or net short-term capital loss incurred after October 31 of the current taxable year (commonly referred to as “post-October losses”) and certain other late-year losses.

Capital losses in excess of capital gains (“net capital losses”) are not permitted to be deducted against a RIC’s net investment income. Instead, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, potentially subject to certain limitations, a RIC may carry net capital losses from any taxable year forward to offset capital gains in future years. Each Fund is permitted to carry net capital losses forward indefinitely. To the extent subsequent capital gains are offset by such losses, they will not result in U.S. federal income tax liability to the applicable Fund and may not be distributed as capital gains to shareholders. Generally, a Fund may not carry forward any losses other than net capital losses. The carryover of capital losses may be limited under the general loss limitation rules if a Fund experiences an ownership change as defined in the Code.

TAXATION OF SHAREHOLDERS

Subject to certain limitations and requirements, dividends reported by a Fund as qualified dividend income will be taxable to non-corporate shareholders at rates of up to 20%. In general, dividends may be reported by a Fund as qualified dividend income if they are paid from dividends received by such Fund on common and preferred stock of U.S. corporations or on stock of certain eligible foreign corporations, provided that certain holding period and other requirements are met by the Fund with respect to the dividend-paying stocks in its portfolio. Subject to certain limitations, eligible foreign corporations include those incorporated in possessions of the United States or in certain countries with comprehensive tax treaties with the United States, and other foreign corporations if the stock with respect to which the dividends are paid is readily tradable on an established securities market in the United States. A dividend will not be treated as qualified dividend income to the extent that: (i) the shareholder has not held the shares on which the dividend was paid for more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins on the date that is 60 days before the date on which the shares become “ex-dividend” (which is the day on which declared distributions (dividends or capital gains) are deducted from a Fund’s assets before it calculates the net asset value) with respect to such dividend, (ii) a Fund has not satisfied similar holding period requirements with respect to the securities it holds that paid the dividends distributed to the shareholder), (iii) the shareholder is under an obligation (whether pursuant to a short sale or otherwise) to make related payments with respect to substantially similar or related property, or (iv) the shareholder elects to treat such dividend as investment income under section 163(d)(4)(B) of the Code. Therefore, if you lend your shares in a Fund, such as pursuant to a securities lending arrangement, you may lose the ability to treat dividends (paid while the shares are held by the borrower) as qualified dividend income. Distributions that the Funds receive from an ETF or an underlying fund taxable as a RIC will be treated as qualified dividend income only to the extent so reported by such ETF or underlying fund.

The Funds’ trading strategies and investments in their wholly-owned Subsidiaries may significantly limit their ability to distribute dividends eligible for treatment as qualified dividend income.

A Fund’s participation in loans of securities may affect the amount, timing, and character of distributions to the Fund’s shareholders. If a Fund participates in a securities lending transaction and receives a payment in lieu of dividends (a “substitute payment”) with respect to securities on loan in a securities lending transaction, such income generally will not constitute qualified dividend income. In addition, dividends attributable to such income will not be eligible for taxation at the rates applicable to qualified dividend income for individual shareholders.

Although dividends generally will be treated as distributed when paid, any dividend declared by a Fund in October, November or December and payable to shareholders of record in such a month that is paid during the following January will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as received by shareholders on December 31 of the calendar year in which it was declared.

If a Fund’s distributions exceed its current and accumulated earnings and profits, all or a portion of the distributions made in the taxable year may be treated as a return of capital to shareholders. A return of capital distribution generally will not be taxable but will reduce the shareholder’s cost basis and result in a higher capital gain or lower capital loss when the Shares on which the distribution was received are sold. After a shareholder’s basis in the Shares has been reduced to zero, distributions in excess of earnings and profits will be treated as gain from the sale of the shareholder’s Shares.

A Fund’s shareholders will be notified annually by each Fund (or its administrative agent) as to the federal tax status of all distributions made by such Fund. Distributions may be subject to state and local taxes. Shareholders who have not held Fund Shares for a full year should be aware that a Fund may report and distribute to a shareholder, as ordinary dividends or capital gain dividends, a percentage of income that is not equal to the percentage of such Fund’s ordinary income or net capital gain, respectively, actually earned during the shareholder’s period of investment in the Fund.

A taxable shareholder may wish to avoid investing in a Fund shortly before a dividend or other distribution, because the distribution will generally be taxable even though it may economically represent a return of a portion of the shareholder’s investment.

Shareholders who have not held Shares of a Fund for a full year should be aware that the Fund may report and distribute to a shareholder, as ordinary dividends or capital gain dividends, a percentage of income that is not equal to the percentage of the Fund’s ordinary income or net capital gain, respectively, actually earned during the shareholder’s period of investment in the Fund.

Sales, Exchanges or Redemptions of Shares

A sale of Shares or redemption of Creation Units in a Fund may give rise to a gain or loss. In general, any gain or loss realized upon a taxable disposition of Shares will be treated as capital gain or loss if the Shares are capital assets in the shareholder’s hands, and will be long-term capital gain or loss if the Shares have been held for more than 12 months, and short-term capital gain or loss if the Shares are held for 12 months or less. Any loss realized upon a taxable disposition of Shares held for six months or less will be treated as long-term, rather than short-term, to the extent of any amounts treated as distributions to the shareholder of long-term capital gain with respect to the Shares (including any amounts credited to the shareholder as undistributed capital gains). All or a portion of any loss realized upon a taxable disposition of Shares of a Fund will be disallowed if substantially identical Shares of the Fund are purchased (through reinvestment of dividends or otherwise) within 30 days before or after the disposition. In such a case, the basis of the newly purchased Shares will be adjusted to reflect the disallowed loss.

An Authorized Participant who exchanges securities for Creation Units generally will recognize gain or loss from the exchange. The gain or loss will be equal to the difference between the market value of the Creation Units at the time of the exchange and the sum of the exchanger’s aggregate basis in the securities surrendered plus the amount of cash paid for such Creation Units. The ability of Authorized Participants to receive a full or partial cash redemption of Creation Units of the Funds may limit the tax efficiency of the Funds A person who redeems Creation Units will generally recognize a gain or loss equal to the difference between the sum of the aggregate market value of any securities received plus the amount of any cash received for such Creation Units and the exchanger’s basis in the Creation Units. The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), however, may assert that an Authorized Participant may not be permitted to currently deduct losses realized upon an exchange of securities for Creation Units under the rules governing “wash sales” (for an Authorized Participant that does not mark-to-market its holdings), or on the basis that there has been no significant change in economic position.

Any gain or loss realized upon the creation of Creation Units will generally be treated as long-term capital gain or loss if the securities exchanged for such Creation Units have been held for more than one year (and were held as capital assets in the hands of the exchanging Authorized Participant). Any capital gain or loss realized upon the redemption of Creation Units will generally be treated as long-term capital gain or loss if the Shares comprising the Creation Units have been held for more than one year. Otherwise, such capital gains or losses will be treated as short-term capital gains or losses.

The Trust on behalf of each Fund has the right to reject an order for a purchase of Shares of a Fund if the purchaser (or group of purchasers) would, upon obtaining the Shares so ordered, own 80% or more of the outstanding Shares of that Fund and if, pursuant to Section 351 of the Code, that Fund would have a basis in the securities different from the market value of such securities on the date of deposit. The Trust also has the right to require information necessary to determine beneficial Share ownership for purposes of the 80% determination. If a Fund does issue Creation Units to a purchaser (or group of purchasers) that would, upon obtaining the Shares so ordered, own 80% or more of the outstanding Shares of the Fund, the purchaser (or a group of purchasers) may not recognize gain or loss upon the exchange of securities for Creation Units.

Persons purchasing or redeeming Creation Units should consult their own tax advisors with respect to the tax treatment of any creation or redemption transaction and whether the wash sales rule applies and when a loss may be deductible.

Cost Basis Reporting

The cost basis of Shares acquired by purchase will generally be based on the amount paid for the Shares and then may be subsequently adjusted for other applicable transactions as required by the Code. The difference between the selling price and the cost basis of Shares generally determines the amount of the capital gain or loss realized on the sale or exchange of Shares. Contact the broker through whom you purchased your Shares to obtain information with respect to the available cost basis reporting methods and elections for your account.

Medicare Tax

U.S. individuals with adjusted gross income (subject to certain adjustments) exceeding certain threshold amounts ($250,000 if married and filing jointly or if considered a “surviving spouse” for federal income tax purposes, $125,000 if married filing separately, and $200,000 in other cases) are subject to a 3.8% Medicare contribution tax on all or a portion of their “net investment income.” This 3.8% tax also applies to all or a portion of the undistributed net investment income of certain shareholders that are estates and trusts. For these purposes, interest, dividends and certain capital gains (including capital gain distributions and capital gains realized on the sale of Shares of a Fund or the redemption of Creation Units), among other categories of income, are generally taken into account in computing a shareholder’s net investment income.

TAXATION OF FUND INVESTMENTS

Certain of the Funds’ investments may be subject to complex provisions of the Code (including provisions relating to hedging transactions, straddles, integrated transactions, foreign currency contracts, forward foreign currency contracts, and notional principal contracts) that, among other things, may affect a Fund’s ability to qualify as a RIC, affect the character of gains and losses realized by the Funds (e.g., may affect whether gains or losses are ordinary or capital), accelerate recognition of income to the Funds and defer losses and, in limited cases, subject the Funds to U.S. federal income tax on income from their foreign securities. These rules could therefore affect the character, amount and timing of distributions to shareholders. These provisions also may require the Funds to mark to market certain types of positions in their portfolios (i.e., treat them as if they were closed out) which may cause the Funds to recognize income without receiving cash with which to make distributions in amounts necessary to satisfy the RIC Distribution Requirement and for avoiding excise taxes. Accordingly, in order to avoid certain income and excise taxes, a Fund may be required to liquidate its investments at a time when the investment advisor might not otherwise have chosen to do so. The Funds intend to monitor their transactions, intend to make appropriate tax elections, and intend to make appropriate entries in their books and records in order to mitigate the effect of these rules and preserve their qualification for treatment as RICs.

In particular, the Funds’ investments in derivatives may be subject to numerous special and complex tax rules. These rules could affect whether gains and losses recognized by a Fund are treated as ordinary income and loss or capital gain and loss or whether capital gains and losses are long-term or short-term in nature, accelerate the recognition of income to the Fund and/or defer the Fund’s ability to recognize losses. In turn, those rules may affect the amount, timing or character of the income distributed by a Fund. Certain derivative investment by the Funds, such as exchange-traded products and over-the-counter derivatives may not produce qualifying income for purposes of the “Qualifying Income Test” described above, which must be met in order for a Fund to maintain its status as a RIC under the Code. In addition, the determination of the value and the identity of the issuer of such derivative investments are often unclear for purposes of the “Asset Test” described above. The Funds intend to carefully monitor such investments to ensure that any non-qualifying income does not exceed permissible limits and to ensure that they are adequately diversified under the Asset Test. The Funds, however, may not be able to accurately predict the non-qualifying income from these investments and there are no assurances that the IRS will agree with the Funds’ determination under the “Asset Test” with respect to such derivatives.

Each Fund is required for federal income tax purposes to mark-to-market and recognize as income for each taxable year its net unrealized gains and losses on certain futures contracts as of the end of the year as well as those actually realized during the year. Gain or loss from futures and options contracts on broad-based indexes required to be marked to market will be 60% long-term and 40% short-term capital gain or loss. Application of this rule may alter the timing and character of distributions to shareholders. A Fund may be required to defer the recognition of losses on futures contracts, options contracts and swaps to the extent of any unrecognized gains on offsetting positions held by the Fund. These provisions may also require the Funds to mark-to-market certain types of positions in their portfolios (i.e., treat them as if they were closed out), which may cause a Fund to recognize income without receiving cash with which to make distributions in amounts necessary to satisfy the Distribution Requirement and for avoiding the excise tax discussed above. In addition, to the extent a wholly-owned Subsidiary of a Fund trades in futures contracts described above, the special 60% long-term and 40% short-term capital gain or loss treatment will not pass through to a Fund when the Fund receives dividend distributions from the Subsidiary; rather such dividend distributions will be treated as ordinary income to a Fund.

If a Fund invests in certain zero coupon securities or any other securities that are sold at original issue discount and thus do not make periodic cash interest payments, the Fund will be required to include as part of its current income the imputed interest on such obligations even though the Fund has not received any interest payments on such obligations during that period. However, each Fund must distribute to its shareholders, at least annually, all or substantially all of its investment company taxable income (determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid), including such accrued income, to qualify for treatment as a RIC under the Code and avoid U.S. federal income and excise taxes. Therefore, a Fund may have to dispose of its portfolio securities, potentially under disadvantageous circumstances, to generate cash, or may have to borrow cash, to satisfy distribution requirements. Such a disposition of securities may potentially result in additional taxable gain or loss to a Fund and may affect the amount and timing of distributions from such Fund. Any market discount recognized on a bond is taxable as ordinary income. A market discount bond is a bond acquired in the secondary market at a price below redemption value or adjusted issue price if issued with original issue discount. Absent an election by a Fund to include the market discount in income as it accrues, gain on the Fund’s disposition of such an obligation will be treated as ordinary income rather than capital gain to the extent of the accrued market discount.

Subsidiary Investment

Each Fund expects to invest up to 25% of its total assets in its Subsidiary, which each Fund expects to be treated as a controlled foreign corporation under the Code. Each of the Funds expects its Subsidiary will make actual annual distributions in an amount at least equal to the subpart F income attributed to such Fund. To the extent a Subsidiary makes such distributions out of earnings and profits, each Fund expects such distributions to be treated as “qualifying income”. In September 2016, the IRS issued proposed regulations that would generally require a Subsidiary to distribute its income each year in order for a Fund to treat that income as “qualifying income”. The Funds have secured an opinion of counsel based on customary representations that actual distributions made to a Fund should be treated as “qualifying income”. The Funds believe that income from a Subsidiary will be qualifying income because it expects that each Subsidiary will make annual distributions of its earnings and profits. The Advisor will carefully monitor each Fund’s investments in its Subsidiary to ensure that no more than 25% of the Fund’s assets are invested in the Subsidiary.

Each Fund wholly-owns its respective Subsidiary. A U.S. person who owns (directly, indirectly or constructively) 10 percent or more of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock or 10 percent or more of the total value of shares of all classes of stock of a foreign corporation is a “U.S. Shareholder” for purposes of the controlled foreign corporation (“CFC”) provisions of the Code. A foreign corporation is a CFC if, on any day of its taxable year, more than 50 percent of the voting power or value of its stock is owned (directly, indirectly or constructively) by “U.S. Shareholders.” Because the Funds are each a U.S. person that will own all of the stock of its Subsidiary, the Funds will each be a “U.S. Shareholder” and the Subsidiaries will each be a CFC. In general, each “U.S. Shareholder” is required to file IRS Form 5471 with its U.S. federal income tax (or information) returns providing information about its ownership of the CFC and the CFC. In addition, a “U.S. Shareholder” may in certain circumstances be required to report a disposition of shares in the Subsidiaries by attaching IRS Form 5471 to its U.S. federal income tax (or information) return that it would normally file for the taxable year in which the disposition occurs. In general, these filing requirements will apply to investors of the Funds if the investor is a U.S. person who owns directly, indirectly or constructively (within the meaning of Sections 958(a) and (b) of the Code) 10 percent or more of the total combined voting power of all classes of voting stock or 10 percent or more of the total value of shares of all classes of stock of a foreign corporation that is a CFC for an uninterrupted period of 30 days or more during any tax year of the foreign corporation, and who owned that stock on the last day of that year.

Foreign Investments

If a Fund acquires any equity interest in certain foreign investment entities (i) that receive at least 75% of their annual gross income from passive sources (such as interest, dividends, certain rents and royalties, or capital gains) or (ii) where at least 50% of the corporation’s assets (computed based on average fair market value) either produce or are held for the production of passive income (“passive foreign investment companies” or “PFICs”), the Fund will generally be subject to one of the following special tax regimes: (i) the Fund may be liable for U.S. federal income tax, and an additional interest charge, on a portion of any “excess distribution” from such foreign entity or any gain from the disposition of such shares, even if the entire distribution or gain is paid out by the Fund as a dividend to its shareholders; (ii) if the Fund were able and elected to treat a PFIC as a “qualified electing fund” or “QEF,” the Fund would be required each year to include in income, and distribute to shareholders in accordance with the distribution requirements set forth above, the Fund’s pro rata share of the ordinary earnings and net capital gains of the PFIC, whether or not such earnings or gains are distributed to the Fund; or (iii) the Fund may be entitled to mark-to-market annually shares of the PFIC, and in such event would be required to distribute to shareholders any such mark-to-market gains in accordance with the distribution requirements set forth above. Each Fund intends to make the appropriate tax elections, if possible, and take any additional steps that are necessary to mitigate the effect of these rules. A Fund may limit and/or manage its holdings in passive foreign investment companies to limit its tax liability or maximize its return from these investments.

A Fund may be subject to withholding and other taxes imposed by foreign countries, including taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains with respect to any investments in those countries. Any such taxes would, if imposed, reduce the yield on or return from those investments. Tax conventions between certain countries and the U.S. may reduce or eliminate such taxes in some cases. The Funds do not expect to satisfy the requirements for passing through to their shareholders any share of foreign taxes paid by the Funds, with the result that shareholders will not include such taxes in their gross incomes and will not be entitled to a tax deduction or credit for any such taxes on their own tax returns.

FOREIGN SHAREHOLDERS

Any foreign shareholders in the Funds may be subject to U.S. withholding and estate tax and are encouraged to consult their tax advisors prior to investing in the Funds. Foreign shareholders (i.e., nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations, partnerships, trusts and estates) are generally subject to U.S. withholding tax at the rate of 30% (or a lower tax treaty rate) on distributions derived from taxable ordinary income. A Fund may, under certain circumstances, report all or a portion of a dividend as an “interest-related dividend” or a “short-term capital gain dividend,” which would generally be exempt from this 30% U.S. withholding tax, provided certain other requirements are met. Short-term capital gain dividends received by a nonresident alien individual who is present in the U.S. for a period or periods aggregating 183 days or more during the taxable year are not exempt from this 30% withholding tax. Gains realized by foreign shareholders from the sale or other disposition of shares of a Fund generally are not subject to U.S. taxation, unless the recipient is an individual who is physically present in the U.S. for 183 days or more per year. Foreign shareholders who fail to provide an applicable IRS form may be subject to backup withholding on certain payments from a Fund. Backup withholding will not be applied to payments that are subject to the 30% (or lower applicable treaty rate) withholding tax described in this paragraph. Different tax consequences may result if the foreign shareholder is engaged in a trade or business within the United States. In addition, the tax consequences to a foreign shareholder entitled to claim the benefits of a tax treaty may be different than those described above.

Unless certain non-U.S. entities that hold Fund Shares comply with IRS requirements that generally require them to report information regarding U.S. persons investing in, or holding accounts with, such entities, a 30% withholding tax may apply to Fund distributions payable to such entities and may apply to redemptions and certain capital gain dividends payable to such entities after December 31, 2018. A non-U.S. shareholder may be exempt from the withholding described in this paragraph under an applicable intergovernmental agreement between the U.S. and a foreign government, provided that the shareholder and the applicable foreign government comply with the terms of the agreement.

OTHER ISSUES

Backup Withholding

A Fund (or financial intermediaries, such as brokers, through which a shareholder holds Shares) generally is required to withhold and to remit to the U.S. Treasury a percentage of the taxable distributions and sale or redemption proceeds paid to any shareholder who fails to properly furnish a correct taxpayer identification number, who has under-reported dividend or interest income, or who fails to certify that he, she or it is not subject to such withholding. The backup withholding tax rate is 24%. Backup withholding is not an additional tax. Any amounts withheld may be credited against the shareholder’s U.S. federal income tax liability, provided the appropriate information is furnished to the IRS.

Certain Potential Tax Reporting Requirements

Under U.S. Treasury regulations, if a shareholder recognizes a loss of $2 million or more for an individual shareholder or $10 million or more for a corporate shareholder (or certain greater amounts over a combination of years), the shareholder must file with the IRS a disclosure statement on IRS Form 8886. Direct shareholders of portfolio securities are in many cases excepted from this reporting requirement, but under current guidance shareholders of a RIC are not excepted. A shareholder who fails to make the required disclosure to the IRS may be subject to substantial penalties. The fact that a loss is reportable under these regulations does not affect the legal determination of whether the taxpayer’s treatment of the loss is proper. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors to determine the applicability of these regulations in light of their individual circumstances.

State and Local Taxes

A Fund may be subject to tax or taxes in certain states where the Fund does business. Furthermore, in those states which have income tax laws, the tax treatment of a Fund and of Fund shareholders with respect to distributions by the Fund may differ from federal tax treatment.

General Considerations

The federal income tax discussion set forth above is for general information only. Prospective investors should consult their tax advisors regarding the specific federal income tax consequences of purchasing, holding and disposing of Shares of a Fund, as well as the effect of state, local and foreign tax law and any proposed tax law changes.

DETERMINATION OF NAV

The NAV of each Fund’s shares is calculated each day the national securities exchanges are open for trading as of the close of regular trading on the Listing Exchange, generally 4:00 p.m. New York time (the “NAV Calculation Time”). NAV per share is calculated by dividing a Fund’s net assets by the number of Fund shares outstanding.

In calculating each Fund’s NAV, Fund investments generally are valued using market valuations. Short-term debt securities with remaining maturities of sixty (60) days or less generally are valued on the basis of amortized cost, which approximates fair value. U.S. fixed income assets may be valued as of the announced closing time for such securities on any day that the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association announces an early closing time. The values of any assets or liabilities of a Fund that are denominated in a currency other than the U.S. dollar are converted into U.S. dollars using an exchange rate deemed appropriate by the Fund.

Investments in futures are valued at market value, which is generally determined using the last reported official closing price or last trading price on the exchange or market on which the futures contract is primarily traded at the time of valuation. Generally, trading in futures, U.S. government securities (such as U.S. Treasury securities), money market instruments and certain fixed-income securities is substantially completed each day at various times prior to the NAV Calculation Time. The values of such securities used in computing the NAV of a Fund are, unless fair valued, determined as of such times.

In certain instances, such as when reliable market valuations are not readily available or are not deemed to reflect current market values, the Fund’s investments will be valued in accordance with the Fund’s pricing policy and procedures. Securities that may be valued using “fair value” pricing may include, but are not limited to, securities for which there are no current market quotations or whose issuer is in default or bankruptcy, securities subject to corporate actions (such as mergers or reorganizations), securities subject to non-U.S. investment limits or currency controls, and securities affected by “significant events.” An example of a significant event is an event occurring after the close of the market in which a security trades but before the Fund’s next NAV Calculation Time that may materially affect the value of the Fund’s investment ( e.g. , government action, natural disaster, or significant market fluctuation). Price movements in U.S. markets that are deemed to affect the value of foreign securities, or reflect changes to the value of such securities, also may cause securities to be “fair valued.”

When fair-value pricing is employed, the prices of securities used by a Fund to calculate its NAV may differ from quoted or published prices for the same securities.

Fund shares are purchased or sold on a national securities exchange at market prices, which may be higher or lower than NAV. No secondary sales will be made to brokers or dealers at a concession by the Distributor or by the Fund. Purchases and sales of shares in the secondary market, which will not involve the Fund, will be subject to customary brokerage commissions and charges. Transactions in Fund shares will be priced at NAV only if you purchase or redeem shares directly from a Fund in Creation Units.

DIVIDENDS AND DISTRIBUTIONS

The Fund pays out dividends and distributes its net capital gains, if any, to shareholders at least annually.

The Trust reserves the right to declare special distributions if, in its reasonable discretion, such action is necessary or advisable to preserve the status of a Fund as a RIC or to avoid imposition of income or excise taxes on undistributed income.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The Funds’ audited financial statements for the period ended December 31, 2017, including notes thereto and the report of Cohen & Company, Ltd., the Funds’ Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, are incorporated by reference into this SAI.

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION

Counsel. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, with offices located at 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004, serves as legal counsel to the Trust.

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm. Cohen & Company, Ltd., with offices located at 1350 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44115, serves as the independent registered public accounting firm to the Trust.

Appendix A – Proxy Voting Policies

2018

PROXY PAPER™

GUIDELINES

AN OVERVIEW OF THE GLASS LEWIS APPROACH TO PROXY ADVICE

UNITED STATES

(GLASS LEWIS LOGO)

Table of Contents

GUIDELINES INTRODUCTION	1

Summary of Changes for the 2018 United States Policy Guidelines	1

A BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT SERVES THE INTERESTS OF SHAREHOLDERS	3

Election of Directors	3

Independence	3

Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Board Independence	5

Committee Independence	5

Independent Chair	5

Performance	6

Voting Recommendations on the Basis of Performance	7

Board Responsiveness	7

The Role of a Committee Chair	8

Audit Committees and Performance	9

Standards for Assessing the Audit Committee	9

Compensation Committee Performance	11

Nominating and Governance Committee Performance	13

Board-Level Risk Management Oversight	15

Environmental and Social Risk Oversight	16

Director Commitments	16

Other Considerations	17

Controlled Companies	18

Significant Shareholders	19

Governance Following an IPO or Spin-Off	19

Dual-Listed or Foreign Incorporated Companies	20

Mutual Fund Boards	20

Declassified Boards	21

Board Composition and Refreshment	22

Board Gender Diversity	22

Proxy Access	23

Majority Vote for the Election of Directors	23

The Plurality Vote Standard	23

Advantages of a Majority Vote Standard	24

Conflicting Proposals	24

TRANSPARENCY AND INTEGRITY IN FINANCIAL REPORTING	25

Auditor Ratification	25

Voting Recommendations on Auditor Ratification	25

Pension Accounting Issues	26

THE LINK BETWEEN COMPENSATION AND PERFORMANCE	27

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (“Say-on-Pay”)	27

Say-on-Pay Voting Recommendations	28

Company Responsiveness	29

Pay for Performance	29

Short-Term Incentives	30

Long-Term Incentives	30

Transitional and One-Off Awards	31

Recoupment Provisions (“Clawbacks”)	32

Hedging of Stock	32

Pledging of Stock	32

Compensation Consultant Independence	33

CEO Pay Ratio	33

Frequency of Say-on-Pay	34

Vote on Golden Parachute Arrangements	34

Equity-Based Compensation Plan Proposals	34

Option Exchanges	35

Option Backdating, Spring-Loading and Bullet-Dodging	36

Director Compensation Plans	37

Employee Stock Purchase Plans	37

Executive Compensation Tax Deductibility (IRS 162(m) Compliance)	37

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE AND THE SHAREHOLDER FRANCHISE	39


Anti-Takeover Measures	39

Poison Pills (Shareholder Rights Plans)	39

NOL Poison Pills	40

Fair Price Provisions	40

Reincorporation	41

Exclusive Forum and Fee-Shifting Bylaw Provisions	41

Authorized Shares	42

Advance Notice Requirements	43

Virtual Shareholder Meetings	43

Voting Structure	44

Dual-Class Share Structures	44

Cumulative Voting	44

Supermajority Vote Requirements	45

Transaction of Other Business	45

Anti-Greenmail Proposals	45

Mutual Funds: Investment Policies and Advisory Agreements	45

Real Estate Investment Trusts	46

Preferred Stock Issuances at REITs	46

Business Development Companies	46

Authorization to Sell Shares at a Price Below Net Asset Value	46

COMPENSATION, ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND GOVERNANCE SHAREHOLDER INITIATIVES	48

III

Guidelines Introduction

Glass Lewis evaluates these guidelines on an ongoing basis and formally updates them on an annual basis. This year we’ve made noteworthy revisions in the following areas, which are summarized below but discussed in greater detail in the relevant section of this document:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES FOR THE 2018 UNITED STATES POLICY GUIDELINES

BOARD GENDER DIVERSITY

We have added a discussion of how Glass Lewis considers gender diversity on boards of directors. As with previous years, Glass Lewis will continue to closely review the composition of the board and may note as a concern instances where we believe the board lacks representation of diverse director candidates, including those boards which have no female directors.

In 2018, we will not make voting recommendations solely on the basis of the diversity of the board; rather, it will be one of many considerations we make when evaluating companies’ oversight structures. Beginning in 2019, however, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against the nominating committee chair of a board that has no female members. Depending on other factors, including the size of the company, the industry in which the company operates and the governance profile of the company, we may extend this recommendation to vote against other nominating committee members. Also, when making these voting recommendations, we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations and may refrain from recommending shareholders vote against directors of companies outside the Russell 3000 index, or when boards have provided a sufficient rationale for not having any female board members, or have disclosed a plan to address the lack of diversity on the board.

DUAL-CLASS SHARE STRUCTURES

We have added a discussion of how Glass Lewis considers dual-class share structures when analyzing a company’s governance. Glass Lewis believes dual-class voting structures are typically not in the best interests of common shareholders and that allowing one vote per share generally operates as a safeguard for common shareholders by ensuring that those who hold a significant minority of shares are able to weigh in on issues set forth by the board.

With regards to our evaluation of corporate governance following an IPO or spin-off within the past year, we have not changed our general approach; however, we will now include the presence of dual-class share structures as an additional factor in determining whether shareholder rights are being severely restricted indefinitely.

BOARD RESPONSIVENESS

In light of evolving investor sentiment, we have clarified that we consider that the board generally has an imperative to respond to shareholder dissent from a proposal at an annual meeting of more than 20% of votes cast — particularly in the case of a compensation or director election proposal.

With regards to companies where voting control is held through a dual-class share structure with disproportionate voting and economic rights, we will carefully examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining whether board responsiveness is warranted. Where vote results indicate that a majority of unaffiliated shareholders supported a shareholder proposal or opposed a management proposal, we believe the board should demonstrate an appropriate level of responsiveness.

VIRTUAL SHAREHOLDER MEETINGS

Glass Lewis is aware that a relatively small but growing contingent of companies have elected to hold shareholder meetings by virtual means only. We believe that virtual meeting technology can be a useful complement to a traditional, in-person shareholder meeting by expanding participation of shareholders who are unable to attend a shareholder meeting in person (i.e. a “hybrid meeting”). However, we also believe that virtual-only meetings have the potential to curb the ability of a company’s shareholders to meaningfully communicate with the company’s management.

In 2018, we will not make voting recommendations solely on the basis that a company is holding a virtual-only meeting. When analyzing the governance profile of companies that choose to hold virtual-only meetings, we look for robust disclosure in a company’s proxy statement which assures shareholders that they will be afforded the same rights and opportunities to participate as they would at an in-person meeting. Beginning in 2019, however, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against members of the governance committee of a board where the board is planning to hold a virtual-only shareholder meeting and the company does not provide such disclosure.

DIRECTOR COMMITMENTS

While there is no change to our director overboarding policy, we have clarified our approach to evaluating outside commitments of directors who serve in executive roles other than CEO (e.g., executive chair). When determining whether to apply our limit of two total board memberships for public executives, we will evaluate the specific duties and responsibilities of their executive role in addition to the company’s disclosure regarding that director’s time commitments.

CEO PAY RATIO

We have added a discussion of the CEO Pay Ratio disclosure required beginning in 2018. Glass Lewis will display the pay ratio as a data point in our Proxy Papers, as available. While we believe the pay ratio has the potential to provide additional insight when assessing a company’s pay practices, at this time it will not be a determinative factor in our voting recommendations.

PAY FOR PERFORMANCE

While there is no change to our pay-for-performance model, we have added clarification regarding the Glass Lewis grading system. Consistent with previous years, our pay-for-performance grades guide our evaluation of compensation committee effectiveness, and we generally recommend voting against compensation committee members at companies with a pattern of failing our pay-for-performance analysis. Unlike a school letter grade, however, a “C” does not indicate a significant lapse; rather, a “C” in the Glass Lewis grade system identifies companies where the pay and performance percentile rankings relative to peers are generally aligned.

A Board of Directors that Serves the Interests of Shareholders

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

The purpose of Glass Lewis’ proxy research and advice is to facilitate shareholder voting in favor of governance structures that will drive performance, create shareholder value and maintain a proper tone at the top. Glass Lewis looks for talented boards with a record of protecting shareholders and delivering value over the medium- and long-term. We believe that a board can best protect and enhance the interests of shareholders if it is sufficiently independent, has a record of positive performance, and consists of individuals with diverse backgrounds and a breadth and depth of relevant experience.

INDEPENDENCE

The independence of directors, or lack thereof, is ultimately demonstrated through the decisions they make. In assessing the independence of directors, we will take into consideration, when appropriate, whether a director has a track record indicative of making objective decisions. Likewise, when assessing the independence of directors we will also examine when a director’s track record on multiple boards indicates a lack of objective decision-making. Ultimately, we believe the determination of whether a director is independent or not must take into consideration both compliance with the applicable independence listing requirements as well as judgments made by the director.

We look at each director nominee to examine the director’s relationships with the company, the company’s executives, and other directors. We do this to evaluate whether personal, familial, or financial relationships (not including director compensation) may impact the director’s decisions. We believe that such relationships make it difficult for a director to put shareholders’ interests above the director’s or the related party’s interests. We also believe that a director who owns more than 20% of a company can exert disproportionate influence on the board, and therefore believe such a director’s independence may be hampered, in particular when serving on the audit committee.

Thus, we put directors into three categories based on an examination of the type of relationship they have with the company:

Independent Director — An independent director has no material financial, familial or other current relationships with the company, its executives, or other board members, except for board service and standard fees paid for that service. Relationships that existed within three to five years ¹ before the inquiry are usually considered “current” for purposes of this test.

1 NASDAQ originally proposed a five-year look-back period but both it and the NYSE ultimately settled on a three-year look-back prior to finalizing their rules. A five-year standard is more appropriate, in our view, because we believe that the unwinding of conflicting relationships between former management and board members is more likely to be complete and final after five years. However, Glass Lewis does not apply the five-year look-back period to directors who have previously served as executives of the company on an interim basis for less than one year.

2 If a company does not consider a non-employee director to be independent, Glass Lewis will classify that director as an affiliate.

Affiliated Director — An affiliated director has, (or within the past three years, had) a material financial, familial or other relationship with the company or its executives, but is not an employee of the company. ² This includes directors whose employers have a material financial relationship with the company. ³ In addition, we view a director who either owns or controls 20% or more of the company’s voting stock, or is an employee or affiliate of an entity that controls such amount, as an affiliate. ⁴

We view 20% shareholders as affiliates because they typically have access to and involvement with the management of a company that is fundamentally different from that of ordinary shareholders. More importantly, 20% holders may have interests that diverge from those of ordinary holders, for reasons such as the liquidity (or lack thereof) of their holdings, personal tax issues, etc.

Glass Lewis applies a three-year look back period to all directors who have an affiliation with the company other than former employment, for which we apply a five-year look back.

Definition of “Material” : A material relationship is one in which the dollar value exceeds:

●

$50,000 (or where no amount is disclosed) for directors who are paid for a service they have agreed to perform for the company, outside of their service as a director, including professional or other services; or

●

$120,000 (or where no amount is disclosed) for those directors employed by a professional services firm such as a law firm, investment bank, or consulting firm and the company pays the firm, not the individual, for services. ⁵ This dollar limit would also apply to charitable contributions to schools where a board member is a professor; or charities where a director serves on the board or is an executive; ⁶ and any aircraft and real estate dealings between the company and the director’s firm; or

●

1% of either company’s consolidated gross revenue for other business relationships (e.g., where the director is an executive officer of a company that provides services or products to or receives services or products from the company). ⁷

Definition of “Familial” — Familial relationships include a person’s spouse, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, nieces, nephews, in-laws, and anyone (other than domestic employees) who shares such person’s home. A director is an affiliate if: i) he or she has a family member who is employed by the company and receives more than $120,000 in annual compensation; or, ii) he or she has a family member who is employed by the company and the company does not disclose this individual’s compensation.

Definition of “Company” — A company includes any parent or subsidiary in a group with the company or any entity that merged with, was acquired by, or acquired the company.

Inside Director — An inside director simultaneously serves as a director and as an employee of the company. This category may include a board chair who acts as an employee of the company or is paid as an employee of the company. In our view, an inside director who derives a greater amount of income as a result of affiliated transactions with the company rather than through compensation paid by the company (i.e., salary, bonus, etc. as a company employee) faces a conflict between making decisions that are in the best interests of the company versus those in the director’s own best interests. Therefore, we will recommend voting against such a director.

3 We allow a five-year grace period for former executives of the company or merged companies who have consulting agreements with the surviving company. (We do not automatically recommend voting against directors in such cases for the first five years.) If the consulting agreement persists after this five-year grace period, we apply the materiality thresholds outlined in the definition of “material.”

4 This includes a director who serves on a board as a representative (as part of his or her basic responsibilities) of an investment firm with greater than 20% ownership. However, while we will generally consider him/her to be affiliated, we will not recommend voting against unless (i) the investment firm has disproportionate board representation or (ii) the director serves on the audit committee.

5 We may deem such a transaction to be immaterial where the amount represents less than 1% of the firm’s annual revenues and the board provides a compelling rationale as to why the director’s independence is not affected by the relationship.

6 We will generally take into consideration the size and nature of such charitable entities in relation to the company’s size and industry along with any other relevant factors such as the director’s role at the charity. However, unlike for other types of related party transactions, Glass Lewis generally does not apply a look-back period to affiliated relationships involving charitable contributions; if the relationship between the director and the school or charity ceases, or if the company discontinues its donations to the entity, we will consider the director to be independent.

7 This includes cases where a director is employed by, or closely affiliated with, a private equity firm that profits from an acquisition made by the company. Unless disclosure suggests otherwise, we presume the director is affiliated.

Additionally, we believe a director who is currently serving in an interim management position should be considered an insider, while a director who previously served in an interim management position for less than one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered independent. Moreover, a director who previously served in an interim management position for over one year and is no longer serving in such capacity is considered an affiliate for five years following the date of his/her resignation or departure from the interim management position.

VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE BASIS OF BOARD INDEPENDENCE

Glass Lewis believes a board will be most effective in protecting shareholders’ interests if it is at least two-thirds independent. We note that each of the Business Roundtable, the Conference Board, and the Council of Institutional Investors advocates that two-thirds of the board be independent. Where more than one-third of the members are affiliated or inside directors, we typically ⁸ recommend voting against some of the inside and/ or affiliated directors in order to satisfy the two-thirds threshold.

In the case of a less than two-thirds independent board, Glass Lewis strongly supports the existence of a presiding or lead director with authority to set the meeting agendas and to lead sessions outside the insider chair’s presence.

In addition, we scrutinize avowedly “independent” chairs and lead directors. We believe that they should be unquestionably independent or the company should not tout them as such.

COMMITTEE INDEPENDENCE

We believe that only independent directors should serve on a company’s audit, compensation, nominating, and governance committees. ⁹ We typically recommend that shareholders vote against any affiliated or inside director seeking appointment to an audit, compensation, nominating, or governance committee, or who has served in that capacity in the past year.

Pursuant to Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as of January 11, 2013, the SEC approved new listing requirements for both the NYSE and NASDAQ which require that boards apply enhanced standards of independence when making an affirmative determination of the independence of compensation committee members. Specifically, when making this determination, in addition to the factors considered when assessing general director independence, the board’s considerations must include: (i) the source of compensation of the director, including any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee paid by the listed company to the director (the “Fees Factor”); and (ii) whether the director is affiliated with the listing company, its subsidiaries, or affiliates of its subsidiaries (the “Affiliation Factor”).

Glass Lewis believes it is important for boards to consider these enhanced independence factors when assessing compensation committee members. However, as discussed above in the section titled Independence, we apply our own standards when assessing the independence of directors, and these standards also take into account consulting and advisory fees paid to the director, as well as the director’s affiliations with the company and its subsidiaries and affiliates. We may recommend voting against compensation committee members who are not independent based on our standards.

INDEPENDENT CHAIR

Glass Lewis believes that separating the roles of CEO (or, more rarely, another executive position) and chair creates a better governance structure than a combined CEO/chair position. An executive manages the business according to a course the board charts. Executives should report to the board regarding their performance in achieving goals set by the board. This is needlessly complicated when a CEO chairs the board, since a CEO/ chair presumably will have a significant influence over the board.

8 With a staggered board, if the affiliates or insiders that we believe should not be on the board are not up for election, we will express our concern regarding those directors, but we will not recommend voting against the other affiliates or insiders who are up for election just to achieve two-thirds independence. However, we will consider recommending voting against the directors subject to our concern at their next election if the issue giving rise to the concern is not resolved.

9 We will recommend voting against an audit committee member who owns 20% or more of the company’s stock, and we believe that there should be a maximum of one director (or no directors if the committee is comprised of less than three directors) who owns 20% or more of the company’s stock on the compensation, nominating, and governance committees.

While many companies have an independent lead or presiding director who performs many of the same functions of an independent chair (e.g., setting the board meeting agenda), we do not believe this alternate form of independent board leadership provides as robust protection for shareholders as an independent chair.

It can become difficult for a board to fulfill its role of overseer and policy setter when a CEO/chair controls the agenda and the boardroom discussion. Such control can allow a CEO to have an entrenched position, leading to longer-than-optimal terms, fewer checks on management, less scrutiny of the business operation, and limitations on independent, shareholder-focused goal-setting by the board.

A CEO should set the strategic course for the company, with the board’s approval, and the board should enable the CEO to carry out the CEO’s vision for accomplishing the board’s objectives. Failure to achieve the board’s objectives should lead the board to replace that CEO with someone in whom the board has confidence.

Likewise, an independent chair can better oversee executives and set a pro-shareholder agenda without the management conflicts that a CEO and other executive insiders often face. Such oversight and concern for shareholders allows for a more proactive and effective board of directors that is better able to look out for the interests of shareholders.

Further, it is the board’s responsibility to select a chief executive who can best serve a company and its shareholders and to replace this person when his or her duties have not been appropriately fulfilled. Such a replacement becomes more difficult and happens less frequently when the chief executive is also in the position of overseeing the board.

Glass Lewis believes that the installation of an independent chair is almost always a positive step from a corporate governance perspective and promotes the best interests of shareholders. Further, the presence of an independent chair fosters the creation of a thoughtful and dynamic board, not dominated by the views of senior management. Encouragingly, many companies appear to be moving in this direction—one study indicates that only 10 percent of incoming CEOs in 2014 were awarded the chair title, versus 48 percent in 2002. ¹⁰ Another study finds that 47 percent of S&P 500 boards now separate the CEO and chair roles, up from 37 percent in 2009, although the same study found that only 28 percent of S&P 500 boards have truly independent chairs. ¹¹

We do not recommend that shareholders vote against CEOs who chair the board. However, we typically recommend that our clients support separating the roles of chair and CEO whenever that question is posed in a proxy (typically in the form of a shareholder proposal), as we believe that it is in the long-term best interests of the company and its shareholders.

Further, where the company has neither an independent chair nor independent lead director, we will recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee.

PERFORMANCE

The most crucial test of a board’s commitment to the company and its shareholders lies in the actions of the board and its members. We look at the performance of these individuals as directors and executives of the company and of other companies where they have served.

We find that a director’s past conduct is often indicative of future conduct and performance. We often find directors with a history of overpaying executives or of serving on boards where avoidable disasters have occurred serving on the boards of companies with similar problems. Glass Lewis has a proprietary database of directors serving at over 8,000 of the most widely held U.S. companies. We use this database to track the performance of directors across companies.

10 Ken Favaro, Per-Ola Karlsson and Gary L. Nelson. “The $112 Billion CEO Succession Problem.” ( Strategy+Business , Issue 79, Summer 2015).

11 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2014, p. 23.

VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE BASIS OF PERFORMANCE

We typically recommend that shareholders vote against directors who have served on boards or as executives of companies with records of poor performance, inadequate risk oversight, excessive compensation, audit-or accounting-related issues, and/or other indicators of mismanagement or actions against the interests of shareholders. We will reevaluate such directors based on, among other factors, the length of time passed since the incident giving rise to the concern, shareholder support for the director, the severity of the issue, the director’s role (e.g., committee membership), director tenure at the subject company, whether ethical lapses accompanied the oversight lapse, and evidence of strong oversight at other companies.

Likewise, we examine the backgrounds of those who serve on key board committees to ensure that they have the required skills and diverse backgrounds to make informed judgments about the subject matter for which the committee is responsible.

We believe shareholders should avoid electing directors who have a record of not fulfilling their responsibilities to shareholders at any company where they have held a board or executive position. We typically recommend voting against:

A director who fails to attend a minimum of 75% of board and applicable committee meetings, calculated in the aggregate. ¹²

A director who belatedly filed a significant form(s) 4 or 5, or who has a pattern of late filings if the late filing was the director’s fault (we look at these late filing situations on a case-by-case basis).

A director who is also the CEO of a company where a serious and material restatement has occurred after the CEO had previously certified the pre-restatement financial statements.

A director who has received two against recommendations from Glass Lewis for identical reasons within the prior year at different companies (the same situation must also apply at the company being analyzed).

All directors who served on the board if, for the last three years, the company’s performance has been in the bottom quartile of the sector and the directors have not taken reasonable steps to address the poor performance.

BOARD RESPONSIVENESS

Glass Lewis believes that any time 20% or more of shareholders vote contrary to the recommendation of management, the board should, depending on the issue, demonstrate some level of responsiveness to address the concerns of shareholders. These include instances when 20% or more of shareholders (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes): WITHHOLD votes from (or vote AGAINST) a director nominee, vote AGAINST a management-sponsored proposal, or vote FOR a shareholder proposal. In our view, a 20% threshold is significant enough to warrant a close examination of the underlying issues and an evaluation of whether or not a board response was warranted and, if so, whether the board responded appropriately following the vote, particularly in the case of a compensation or director election proposal. While the 20% threshold alone will not automatically generate a negative vote recommendation from Glass Lewis on a future proposal (e.g., to recommend against a director nominee, against a say-on-pay proposal, etc.), it may be a contributing factor to our recommendation to vote against management’s recommendation in the event we determine that the board did not respond appropriately.

12 However, where a director has served for less than one full year, we will typically not recommend voting against for failure to attend 75% of meetings. Rather, we will note the poor attendance with a recommendation to track this issue going forward. We will also refrain from recommending to vote against directors when the proxy discloses that the director missed the meetings due to serious illness or other extenuating circumstances.

As a general framework, our evaluation of board responsiveness involves a review of publicly available disclosures ( e.g. , the proxy statement, annual report, 8-Ks, company website, etc.) released following the date of the company’s last annual meeting up through the publication date of our most current Proxy Paper. Depending on the specific issue, our focus typically includes, but is not limited to, the following:

●

At the board level, any changes in directorships, committee memberships, disclosure of related party transactions, meeting attendance, or other responsibilities;

●

Any revisions made to the company’s articles of incorporation, bylaws or other governance documents;

●

Any press or news releases indicating changes in, or the adoption of, new company policies, business practices or special reports; and

●

Any modifications made to the design and structure of the company’s compensation program, as well as an assessment of the company’s engagement with shareholders on compensation issues as discussed in the CD&A, particularly following a material vote against a company’s say-on-pay.

Our Proxy Paper analysis will include a case-by-case assessment of the specific elements of board responsiveness that we examined along with an explanation of how that assessment impacts our current voting recommendations.

THE ROLE OF A COMMITTEE CHAIR

Glass Lewis believes that a designated committee chair maintains primary responsibility for the actions of his or her respective committee. As such, many of our committee-specific voting recommendations are against the applicable committee chair rather than the entire committee (depending on the seriousness of the issue). However, in cases where we would ordinarily recommend voting against a committee chair but the chair is not specified, we apply the following general rules, which apply throughout our guidelines:

●

If there is no committee chair, we recommend voting against the longest-serving committee member or, if the longest-serving committee member cannot be determined, the longest-serving board member serving on the committee (i.e., in either case, the “senior director”); and

●

If there is no committee chair, but multiple senior directors serving on the committee, we recommend voting against both (or all) such senior directors.

In our view, companies should provide clear disclosure of which director is charged with overseeing each committee. In cases where that simple framework is ignored and a reasonable analysis cannot determine which committee member is the designated leader, we believe shareholder action against the longest serving committee member(s) is warranted. Again, this only applies if we would ordinarily recommend voting against the committee chair but there is either no such position or no designated director in such role.

On the contrary, in cases where there is a designated committee chair and the recommendation is to vote against the committee chair, but the chair is not up for election because the board is staggered, we do not recommend voting against any members of the committee who are up for election; rather, we will note the concern with regard to the committee chair.

AUDIT COMMITTEES AND PERFORMANCE

Audit committees play an integral role in overseeing the financial reporting process because “[v]ibrant and stable capital markets depend on, among other things, reliable, transparent, and objective financial information to support an efficient and effective capital market process. The vital oversight role audit committees play in the process of producing financial information has never been more important.” ¹³

When assessing an audit committee’s performance, we are aware that an audit committee does not prepare financial statements, is not responsible for making the key judgments and assumptions that affect the financial statements, and does not audit the numbers or the disclosures provided to investors. Rather, an audit committee member monitors and oversees the process and procedures that management and auditors perform. The 1999 Report and Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees stated it best:

A proper and well-functioning system exists, therefore, when the three main groups responsible for financial reporting — the full board including the audit committee, financial management including the internal auditors, and the outside auditors — form a ‘three legged stool’ that supports responsible financial disclosure and active participatory oversight. However, in the view of the Committee, the audit committee must be ‘first among equals’ in this process, since the audit committee is an extension of the full board and hence the ultimate monitor of the process.

STANDARDS FOR ASSESSING THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

For an audit committee to function effectively on investors’ behalf, it must include members with sufficient knowledge to diligently carry out their responsibilities. In its audit and accounting recommendations, the Conference Board Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise said “members of the audit committee must be independent and have both knowledge and experience in auditing financial matters.” ¹⁴

We are skeptical of audit committees where there are members that lack expertise as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or corporate controller, or similar experience. While we will not necessarily recommend voting against members of an audit committee when such expertise is lacking, we are more likely to recommend voting against committee members when a problem such as a restatement occurs and such expertise is lacking.

Glass Lewis generally assesses audit committees against the decisions they make with respect to their oversight and monitoring role. The quality and integrity of the financial statements and earnings reports, the completeness of disclosures necessary for investors to make informed decisions, and the effectiveness of the internal controls should provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements are materially free from

errors. The independence of the external auditors and the results of their work all provide useful information by which to assess the audit committee.

When assessing the decisions and actions of the audit committee, we typically defer to its judgment and generally recommend voting in favor of its members. However, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following: ¹⁵

All members of the audit committee when options were backdated, there is a lack of adequate controls in place, there was a resulting restatement, and disclosures indicate there was a lack of documentation with respect to the option grants.

13 Audit Committee Effectiveness – What Works Best.” PricewaterhouseCoopers. The Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation. 2005.

14 Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise. The Conference Board. 2003.

15 As discussed under the section labeled “Committee Chair,” where the recommendation is to vote against the committee chair but the chair is not up for election because the board is staggered, we do not recommend voting against the members of the committee who are up for election; rather, we will note the concern with regard to the committee chair.

The audit committee chair, if the audit committee does not have a financial expert or the committee’s financial expert does not have a demonstrable financial background sufficient to understand the financial issues unique to public companies.

The audit committee chair, if the audit committee did not meet at least four times during the year.

The audit committee chair, if the committee has less than three members.

Any audit committee member who sits on more than three public company audit committees, unless the audit committee member is a retired CPA, CFO, controller or has similar experience, in which case the limit shall be four committees, taking time and availability into consideration including a review of the audit committee member’s attendance at all board and committee meetings. ¹⁶

All members of an audit committee who are up for election and who served on the committee at the time of the audit, if audit and audit-related fees total one-third or less of the total fees billed by the auditor.

The audit committee chair when tax and/or other fees are greater than audit and audit-related fees paid to the auditor for more than one year in a row (in which case we also recommend against ratification of the auditor).

All members of an audit committee where non-audit fees include fees for tax services (including, but not limited to, such things as tax avoidance or shelter schemes) for senior executives of the company. Such services are prohibited by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”).

All members of an audit committee that reappointed an auditor that we no longer consider to be independent for reasons unrelated to fee proportions.

10.

All members of an audit committee when audit fees are excessively low, especially when compared with other companies in the same industry.

11.

The audit committee chair ¹⁷ if the committee failed to put auditor ratification on the ballot for shareholder approval. However, if the non-audit fees or tax fees exceed audit plus audit-related fees in either the current or the prior year, then Glass Lewis will recommend voting against the entire audit committee.

12.

All members of an audit committee where the auditor has resigned and reported that a section 10A ¹⁸ letter has been issued.

13.

All members of an audit committee at a time when material accounting fraud occurred at the company. ¹⁹

14.

All members of an audit committee at a time when annual and/or multiple quarterly financial statements had to be restated, and any of the following factors apply:

16 Glass Lewis may exempt certain audit committee members from the above threshold if, upon further analysis of relevant factors such as the director’s experience, the size, industry-mix and location of the companies involved and the director’s attendance at all the companies, we can reasonably determine that the audit committee member is likely not hindered by multiple audit committee commitments.

17 As discussed under the section labeled “Committee Chair,” in all cases, if the chair of the committee is not specified, we recommend voting against the director who has been on the committee the longest.

18 Auditors are required to report all potential illegal acts to management and the audit committee unless they are clearly inconsequential in nature. If the audit committee or the board fails to take appropriate action on an act that has been determined to be a violation of the law, the independent auditor is required to send a section 10A letter to the SEC. Such letters are rare and therefore we believe should be taken seriously.

19 Research indicates that revenue fraud now accounts for over 60% of SEC fraud cases, and that companies that engage in fraud experience significant negative abnormal stock price declines—facing bankruptcy, delisting, and material asset sales at much higher rates than do non-fraud firms (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. “Fraudulent Financial Reporting: 1998-2007.” May 2010).

●

The restatement involves fraud or manipulation by insiders;

●

The restatement is accompanied by an SEC inquiry or investigation;

●

The restatement involves revenue recognition;

●

The restatement results in a greater than 5% adjustment to costs of goods sold, operating expense, or operating cash flows; or

●

The restatement results in a greater than 5% adjustment to net income, 10% adjustment to assets or shareholders equity, or cash flows from financing or investing activities.

15.

All members of an audit committee if the company repeatedly fails to file its financial reports in a timely fashion. For example, the company has filed two or more quarterly or annual financial statements late within the last five quarters.

16.

All members of an audit committee when it has been disclosed that a law enforcement agency has charged the company and/or its employees with a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

17.

All members of an audit committee when the company has aggressive accounting policies and/or poor disclosure or lack of sufficient transparency in its financial statements.

18.

All members of the audit committee when there is a disagreement with the auditor and the auditor resigns or is dismissed (e.g., the company receives an adverse opinion on its financial statements from the auditor).

19.

All members of the audit committee if the contract with the auditor specifically limits the auditor’s liability to the company for damages. ²⁰

20.

All members of the audit committee who served since the date of the company’s last annual meeting, and when, since the last annual meeting, the company has reported a material weakness that has not yet been corrected, or, when the company has an ongoing material weakness from a prior year that has not yet been corrected.

We also take a dim view of audit committee reports that are boilerplate, and which provide little or no information or transparency to investors. When a problem such as a material weakness, restatement or late filings occurs, we take into consideration, in forming our judgment with respect to the audit committee, the transparency of the audit committee report.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE PERFORMANCE

Compensation committees have a critical role in determining the compensation of executives. This includes deciding the basis on which compensation is determined, as well as the amounts and types of compensation to be paid. This process begins with the hiring and initial establishment of employment agreements, including the terms for such items as pay, pensions and severance arrangements. It is important in establishing compensation arrangements that compensation be consistent with, and based on the long-term economic performance of, the business’s long-term shareholders returns.

Compensation committees are also responsible for the oversight of the transparency of compensation. This oversight includes disclosure of compensation arrangements, the matrix used in assessing pay for performance, and the use of compensation consultants. In order to ensure the independence of the board’s compensation consultant, we believe the compensation committee should only engage a compensation consultant that is not also providing any services to the company or management apart from their contract with the compensation committee. It is important to investors that they have clear and complete disclosure of all the significant terms of compensation arrangements in order to make informed decisions with respect to the oversight and decisions of the compensation committee.

20 The Council of Institutional Investors. “Corporate Governance Policies,” p. 4, April 5, 2006; and “Letter from Council of Institutional Investors to the AICPA,” November 8, 2006.

Finally, compensation committees are responsible for oversight of internal controls over the executive compensation process. This includes controls over gathering information used to determine compensation, establishment of equity award plans, and granting of equity awards. For example, the use of a compensation consultant who maintains a business relationship with company management may cause the committee to make decisions based on information that is compromised by the consultant’s conflict of interests. Lax controls can also contribute to improper awards of compensation such as through granting of backdated or spring-loaded options, or granting of bonuses when triggers for bonus payments have not been met.

Central to understanding the actions of a compensation committee is a careful review of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) report included in each company’s proxy. We review the CD&A in our evaluation of the overall compensation practices of a company, as overseen by the compensation committee. The CD&A is also integral to the evaluation of compensation proposals at companies, such as advisory votes on executive compensation, which allow shareholders to vote on the compensation paid to a company’s top executives.

When assessing the performance of compensation committees, we will consider recommending that share- holders vote against the following: ²¹

All members of a compensation committee during whose tenure the committee failed to address shareholder concerns following majority shareholder rejection of the say-on-pay proposal in the previous year. Where the proposal was approved but there was a significant shareholder vote (i.e., greater than 20% of votes cast) against the say-on-pay proposal in the prior year, if the board did not respond sufficiently to the vote including actively engaging shareholders on this issue, we will also consider recommending voting against the chair of the compensation committee or all members of the compensation committee, depending on the severity and history of the compensation problems and the level of shareholder opposition.

All members of the compensation committee who are up for election and served when the company failed to align pay with performance if shareholders are not provided with an advisory vote on executive compensation at the annual meeting. ²²

Any member of the compensation committee who has served on the compensation committee of at least two other public companies that have consistently failed to align pay with performance and whose oversight of compensation at the company in question is suspect.

All members of the compensation committee (during the relevant time period) if the company entered into excessive employment agreements and/or severance agreements.

21 As discussed under the section labeled “Committee Chair,” where the recommendation is to vote against the committee chair and the chair is not up for election because the board is staggered, we do not recommend voting against any members of the committee who are up for election; rather, we will note the concern with regard to the committee chair.

22 If a company provides shareholders with a say-on-pay proposal, we will initially only recommend voting against the company’s say-on-pay proposal and will not recommend voting against the members of the compensation committee unless there is a pattern of failing to align pay and performance and/or the company exhibits egregious compensation practices. However, if the company repeatedly fails to align pay and performance, we will then recommend against the members of the compensation committee in addition to recommending voting against the say-on-pay proposal. For cases in which the disconnect between pay and performance is marginal and the company has outperformed its peers, we will consider not recommending against compensation committee members. In addition, if a company provides shareholders with a say-on-pay proposal, we will initially only recommend voting against the company’s say-on-pay proposal and will not recommend voting against the members of the compensation committee unless there is a pattern of failing to align pay and performance and/or the company exhibits egregious compensation practices. However, if the company repeatedly fails to align pay and performance, we will then recommend against the members of the compensation committee in addition to recommending voting against the say-on-pay proposal.

All members of the compensation committee when performance goals were changed (i.e., lowered) when employees failed or were unlikely to meet original goals, or performance-based compensation was paid despite goals not being attained.

All members of the compensation committee if excessive employee perquisites and benefits were allowed.

The compensation committee chair if the compensation committee did not meet during the year.

All members of the compensation committee when the company repriced options or completed a “self tender offer” without shareholder approval within the past two years.

All members of the compensation committee when vesting of in-the-money options is accelerated.

10.

All members of the compensation committee when option exercise prices were backdated. Glass Lewis will recommend voting against an executive director who played a role in and participated in option backdating.

11.

All members of the compensation committee when option exercise prices were spring-loaded or otherwise timed around the release of material information.

12.

All members of the compensation committee when a new employment contract is given to an executive that does not include a clawback provision and the company had a material restatement, especially if the restatement was due to fraud.

13.

The chair of the compensation committee where the CD&A provides insufficient or unclear information about performance metrics and goals, where the CD&A indicates that pay is not tied to performance, or where the compensation committee or management has excessive discretion to alter performance terms or increase amounts of awards in contravention of previously defined targets.

14.

All members of the compensation committee during whose tenure the committee failed to implement a shareholder proposal regarding a compensation-related issue, where the proposal received the affirmative vote of a majority of the voting shares at a shareholder meeting, and when a reasonable analysis suggests that the compensation committee (rather than the governance committee) should have taken steps to implement the request. ²³

NOMINATING AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE PERFORMANCE

The nominating and governance committee, as an agent for the shareholders, is responsible for the governance by the board of the company and its executives. In performing this role, the committee is responsible and accountable for selection of objective and competent board members. It is also responsible for providing leadership on governance policies adopted by the company, such as decisions to implement shareholder proposals that have received a majority vote. (At most companies, a single committee is charged with these oversight functions; at others, the governance and nominating responsibilities are apportioned among two separate committees.)

Consistent with Glass Lewis’ philosophy that boards should have diverse backgrounds and members with a breadth and depth of relevant experience, we believe that nominating and governance committees should consider diversity when making director nominations within the context of each specific company and its industry. In our view, shareholders are best served when boards make an effort to ensure a constituency that is not only reasonably diverse on the basis of age, race, gender and ethnicity, but also on the basis of geographic knowledge, industry experience, board tenure and culture.

23 In all other instances (i.e ., a non-compensation-related shareholder proposal should have been implemented) we recommend that shareholders vote against the members of the governance committee.

Regarding the committee responsible for governance, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following: ²⁴

All members of the governance committee ²⁵ during whose tenure a shareholder proposal relating to important shareholder rights received support from a majority of the votes cast (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes) and the board has not begun to implement or enact the proposal’s subject matter. ²⁶ Examples of such shareholder proposals include those seeking a declassified board structure, a majority vote standard for director elections, or a right to call a special meeting. In determining whether a board has sufficiently implemented such a proposal, we will examine the quality of the right enacted or proffered by the board for any conditions that may unreasonably interfere with the shareholders’ ability to exercise the right (e.g., overly restrictive procedural requirements for calling a special meeting).

The governance committee chair, ²⁷ when the chair is not independent and an independent lead or presiding director has not been appointed. ²⁸

In the absence of a nominating committee, the governance committee chair when there are less than five or the whole nominating committee when there are more than 20 members on the board.

The governance committee chair, when the committee fails to meet at all during the year.

The governance committee chair, when for two consecutive years the company provides what we consider to be “inadequate” related party transaction disclosure (i.e., the nature of such transactions and/or the monetary amounts involved are unclear or excessively vague, thereby preventing a shareholder from being able to reasonably interpret the independence status of multiple directors above and beyond what the company maintains is compliant with SEC or applicable stock exchange listing requirements).

The governance committee chair, when during the past year the board adopted a forum selection clause (i.e., an exclusive forum provision) ²⁹ without shareholder approval, or if the board is currently seeking shareholder approval of a forum selection clause pursuant to a bundled bylaw amendment rather than as a separate proposal.

All members of the governance committee during whose tenure the board adopted, without shareholder approval, provisions in its charter or bylaws that, through rules on director compensation, may inhibit the ability of shareholders to nominate directors.

24 As discussed in the guidelines section labeled “Committee Chair,” where we would recommend to vote against the committee chair but the chair is not up for election because the board is staggered, we do not recommend voting against any members of the committee who are up for election; rather, we will note the concern with regard to the committee chair.

25 If the board does not have a committee responsible for governance oversight and the board did not implement a shareholder proposal that received the requisite support, we will recommend voting against the entire board. If the shareholder proposal at issue requested that the board adopt a declassified structure, we will recommend voting against all director nominees up for election.

26 Where a compensation-related shareholder proposal should have been implemented, and when a reasonable analysis suggests that the members of the compensation committee (rather than the governance committee) bear the responsibility for failing to implement the request, we recommend that shareholders only vote against members of the compensation committee.

27 As discussed in the guidelines section labeled “Committee Chair,” if the committee chair is not specified, we recommend voting against the director who has been on the committee the longest. If the longest-serving committee member cannot be determined, we will recommend voting against the longest-serving board member serving on the committee.

28 We believe that one independent individual should be appointed to serve as the lead or presiding director. When such a position is rotated among directors from meeting to meeting, we will recommend voting against the governance committee chair as we believe the lack of fixed lead or presiding director means that, effectively, the board does not have an independent board leader.

29 A forum selection clause is a bylaw provision stipulating that a certain state, typically where the company is incorporated, which is most often Delaware, shall be the exclusive forum for all intra-corporate disputes (e.g., shareholder derivative actions, assertions of claims of a breach of fiduciary duty, etc.). Such a clause effectively limits a shareholder’s legal remedy regarding appropriate choice of venue and related relief offered under that state’s laws and rulings.

In addition, we may recommend that shareholders vote against the chair of the governance committee, or the entire committee, where the board has amended the company’s governing documents to reduce or remove important shareholder rights, or to otherwise impede the ability of shareholders to exercise such right, and has done so without seeking shareholder approval. Examples of board actions that may cause such a recommendation include: the elimination of the ability of shareholders to call a special meeting or to act by written consent; an increase to the ownership threshold required for shareholders to call a special meeting; an increase to vote requirements for charter or bylaw amendments; the adoption of provisions that limit the ability of shareholders to pursue full legal recourse—such as bylaws that require arbitration of shareholder claims or that require shareholder plaintiffs to pay the company’s legal expenses in the absence of a court victory ( i.e. , “fee-shifting” or “loser pays” bylaws); the adoption of a classified board structure; and the elimination of the ability of shareholders to remove a director without cause.

Regarding the nominating committee, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the following: ³⁰

All members of the nominating committee, when the committee nominated or renominated an individual who had a significant conflict of interest or whose past actions demonstrated a lack of integrity or inability to represent shareholder interests.

The nominating committee chair, if the nominating committee did not meet during the year.

In the absence of a governance committee, the nominating committee chair ³¹ when the chair is not independent, and an independent lead or presiding director has not been appointed. ³²

The nominating committee chair, when there are less than five or the whole nominating committee when there are more than 20 members on the board. ³³

The nominating committee chair, when a director received a greater than 50% against vote the prior year and not only was the director not removed, but the issues that raised shareholder concern were not corrected. ³⁴

In addition, we may consider recommending shareholders vote against the chair of the nominating committee where the board’s failure to ensure the board has directors with relevant experience, either through periodic director assessment or board refreshment, has contributed to a company’s poor performance.

BOARD-LEVEL RISK MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT

Glass Lewis evaluates the risk management function of a public company board on a strictly case-by-case basis. Sound risk management, while necessary at all companies, is particularly important at financial firms which inherently maintain significant exposure to financial risk. We believe such financial firms should have a chief risk officer reporting directly to the board and a dedicated risk committee or a committee of the board charged with risk oversight. Moreover, many non-financial firms maintain strategies which involve a high level of exposure to financial risk. Similarly, since many non-financial firms have complex hedging or trading strategies, those firms should also have a chief risk officer and a risk committee.

30 As discussed in the guidelines section labeled “Committee Chair,” where we would recommend to vote against the committee chair but the chair is not up for election because the board is staggered, we do not recommend voting against any members of the committee who are up for election; rather, we will note the concern with regard to the committee chair.

31 As discussed under the section labeled “Committee Chair,” if the committee chair is not specified, we will recommend voting against the director who has been on the committee the longest. If the longest-serving committee member cannot be determined, we will recommend voting against the longest- serving board member on the committee.

32 In the absence of both a governance and a nominating committee, we will recommend voting against the board chair on this basis, unless if the chair also serves as the CEO, in which case we will recommend voting against the longest-serving director.

33 In the absence of both a governance and a nominating committee, we will recommend voting against the board chair on this basis, unless if the chair also serves as the CEO, in which case we will recommend voting against the the longest-serving director.

34 Considering that shareholder discontent clearly relates to the director who received a greater than 50% against vote rather than the nominating chair, we review the severity of the issue(s) that initially raised shareholder concern as well as company responsiveness to such matters, and will only recommend voting against the nominating chair if a reasonable analysis suggests that it would be most appropriate. In rare cases, we will consider recommending against the nominating chair when a director receives a substantial ( i.e. , 20% or more) vote against based on the same analysis.

Our views on risk oversight are consistent with those expressed by various regulatory bodies. In its December 2009 Final Rule release on Proxy Disclosure Enhancements, the SEC noted that risk oversight is a key competence of the board and that additional disclosures would improve investor and shareholder understanding of the role of the board in the organization’s risk management practices. The final rules, which became effective on February 28, 2010, now explicitly require companies and mutual funds to describe (while allowing for some degree of flexibility) the board’s role in the oversight of risk.

When analyzing the risk management practices of public companies, we take note of any significant losses or writedowns on financial assets and/or structured transactions. In cases where a company has disclosed a sizable loss or writedown, and where we find that the company’s board-level risk committee’s poor oversight contributed to the loss, we will recommend that shareholders vote against such committee members on that basis. In addition, in cases where a company maintains a significant level of financial risk exposure but fails to disclose any explicit form of board-level risk oversight (committee or otherwise)35, we will consider recommending to vote against the board chair on that basis. However, we generally would not recommend voting against a combined chair/CEO, except in egregious cases.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL RISK OVERSIGHT

Companies face significant financial, legal and reputational risks resulting from poor environmental and social practices, or negligent oversight thereof. Therefore, Glass Lewis views the identification, mitigation and management of environmental and social risks as integral components when evaluating a company’s overall risk exposure. We believe boards should ensure that management conducts a complete risk analysis of company operations, including those that have environmental and social implications. Directors should monitor management’s performance in managing and mitigating these environmental and social risks in order to eliminate or minimize the risks to the company and its shareholders. In cases where the board or management has failed to sufficiently identify and manage a material environmental or social risk that did or could negatively impact shareholder value, we will recommend shareholders vote against directors responsible for risk oversight in consideration of the nature of the risk and the potential effect on shareholder value.

DIRECTOR COMMITMENTS

We believe that directors should have the necessary time to fulfill their duties to shareholders. In our view, an overcommitted director can pose a material risk to a company’s shareholders, particularly during periods of crisis. In addition, recent research indicates that the time commitment associated with being a director has been on a significant upward trend in the past decade. ³⁶ As a result, we generally recommend that shareholders vote against a director who serves as an executive officer of any public company while serving on more than two public company boards and any other director who serves on more than five public company boards.

Because we believe that executives will primarily devote their attention to executive duties, we generally will not recommend that shareholders vote against overcommitted directors at the companies where they serve as an executive.

When determining whether a director’s service on an excessive number of boards may limit the ability of the director to devote sufficient time to board duties, we may consider relevant factors such as the size and location of the other companies where the director serves on the board, the director’s board roles at the companies in question, whether the director serves on the board of any large privately-held companies, the director’s tenure on the boards in question, and the director’s attendance record at all companies. In the case of directors who serve in executive roles other than CEO (e.g., executive chair), we will evaluate the specific duties and responsibilities of that role in determining whether an exception is warranted.

35 A committee responsible for risk management could be a dedicated risk committee, the audit committee, or the finance committee, depending on a given company’s board structure and method of disclosure. At some companies, the entire board is charged with risk management.

36 For example, the 2015-2016 NACD Public Company Governance Survey states that, on average, directors spent a total of 248.2 hours annual on board-related matters during the past year, which it describes as a “historically high level” that is significantly above the average hours recorded in 2006. Additionally, the 2015 Spencer Stuart Board Index indicates that the average number of outside board seats held by CEOs of S&P 500 companies is 0.6, down from 0.7 in 2009 and 0.9 in 2004.

We may also refrain from recommending against certain directors if the company provides sufficient rationale for their continued board service. The rationale should allow shareholders to evaluate the scope of the directors’ other commitments, as well as their contributions to the board including specialized knowledge of the company’s industry, strategy or key markets, the diversity of skills, perspective and background they provide, and other relevant factors. We will also generally refrain from recommending to vote against a director who serves on an excessive number of boards within a consolidated group of companies or a director that represents a firm whose sole purpose is to manage a portfolio of investments which include the company.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

In addition to the three key characteristics — independence, performance, experience — that we use to evaluate board members, we consider conflict-of-interest issues as well as the size of the board of directors when making voting recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest

We believe board members should be wholly free of identifiable and substantial conflicts of interest, regardless of the overall level of independent directors on the board. Accordingly, we recommend that shareholders vote against the following types of directors:

A CFO who is on the board: In our view, the CFO holds a unique position relative to financial reporting and disclosure to shareholders. Due to the critical importance of financial disclosure and reporting, we believe the CFO should report to the board and not be a member of it.

A director who provides — or a director who has an immediate family member who provides — material consulting or other material professional services to the company. These services may include legal, consulting, or financial services. We question the need for the company to have consulting relationships with its directors. We view such relationships as creating conflicts for directors, since they may be forced to weigh their own interests against shareholder interests when making board decisions. In addition, a company’s decisions regarding where to turn for the best professional services may be compromised when doing business with the professional services firm of one of the company’s directors.

A director, or a director who has an immediate family member, engaging in airplane, real estate, or similar deals, including perquisite-type grants from the company, amounting to more than $50,000. Directors who receive these sorts of payments from the company will have to make unnecessarily complicated decisions that may pit their interests against shareholder interests.

Interlocking directorships: CEOs or other top executives who serve on each other’s boards create an interlock that poses conflicts that should be avoided to ensure the promotion of shareholder interests above all else. ³⁷

All board members who served at a time when a poison pill with a term of longer than one year was adopted without shareholder approval within the prior twelve months. ³⁸ In the event a board is classified and shareholders are therefore unable to vote against all directors, we will recommend voting against the remaining directors the next year they are up for a shareholder vote. If a poison pill with a term of one year or less was adopted without shareholder approval, and without adequate justification, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against all members of the governance committee. If the board has, without seeking shareholder approval, and without adequate justification, extended the term of a poison pill by one year or less in two consecutive years, we will consider recommending that shareholders vote against the entire board.

37 We do not apply a look-back period for this situation. The interlock policy applies to both public and private companies. We will also evaluate multiple board interlocks among non-insiders (i.e., multiple directors serving on the same boards at other companies), for evidence of a pattern of poor oversight.

38 Refer to Section V. Governance Structure and the Shareholder Franchise for further discussion of our policies regarding anti-takeover measures, including poison pills.

Size of the Board of Directors

While we do not believe there is a universally applicable optimum board size, we do believe boards should have at least five directors to ensure sufficient diversity in decision-making and to enable the formation of key board committees with independent directors. Conversely, we believe that boards with more than 20 members will typically suffer under the weight of “too many cooks in the kitchen” and have difficulty reaching consensus and making timely decisions. Sometimes the presence of too many voices can make it difficult to draw on the wisdom and experience in the room by virtue of the need to limit the discussion so that each voice may be heard.

To that end, we typically recommend voting against the chair of the nominating committee (or the governance committee, in the absence of a nominating committee) at a board with fewer than five directors or more than 20 directors. ³⁹

CONTROLLED COMPANIES

We believe controlled companies warrant certain exceptions to our independence standards. The board’s function is to protect shareholder interests; however, when an individual, entity (or group of shareholders party to a formal agreement) owns more than 50% of the voting shares, the interests of the majority of shareholders are the interests of that entity or individual. Consequently, Glass Lewis does not apply our usual two-thirds board independence rule and therefore we will not recommend voting against boards whose composition reflects the makeup of the shareholder population.

Independence Exceptions

The independence exceptions that we make for controlled companies are as follows:

We do not require that controlled companies have boards that are at least two-thirds independent. So long as the insiders and/or affiliates are connected with the controlling entity, we accept the presence of non-independent board members.

The compensation committee and nominating and governance committees do not need to consist solely of independent directors.

●

We believe that standing nominating and corporate governance committees at controlled companies are unnecessary. Although having a committee charged with the duties of searching for, selecting, and nominating independent directors can be beneficial, the unique composition of a controlled company’s shareholder base makes such committees weak and irrelevant.

●

Likewise, we believe that independent compensation committees at controlled companies are unnecessary. Although independent directors are the best choice for approving and monitoring senior executives’ pay, controlled companies serve a unique shareholder population whose voting power ensures the protection of its interests. As such, we believe that having affiliated directors on a controlled company’s compensation committee is acceptable. However, given that a controlled company has certain obligations to minority shareholders we feel that an insider should not serve on the compensation committee. Therefore, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against any insider (the CEO or otherwise) serving on the compensation committee.

Controlled companies do not need an independent chair or an independent lead or presiding director. Although an independent director in a position of authority on the board — such as chair or presiding director — can best carry out the board’s duties, controlled companies serve a unique shareholder population whose voting power ensures the protection of its interests.

39 The Conference Board, at p. 23 in its May 2003 report “Corporate Governance Best Practices, Id.,” quotes one of its roundtable participants as stating, “[w]hen you’ve got a 20 or 30 person corporate board, it’s one way of assuring that nothing is ever going to happen that the CEO doesn’t want to happen.”

Size of the Board of Directors

We have no board size requirements for controlled companies.

Audit Committee Independence

Despite a controlled company’s status, unlike for the other key committees, we nevertheless believe that audit committees should consist solely of independent directors. Regardless of a company’s controlled status, the interests of all shareholders must be protected by ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the company’s financial statements. Allowing affiliated directors to oversee the preparation of financial reports could create an insurmountable conflict of interest.

Board Responsiveness at Dual-Class Companies

SIGNIFICANT SHAREHOLDERS

Where an individual or entity holds between 20-50% of a company’s voting power, we believe it is reasonable to allow proportional representation on the board and committees (excluding the audit committee) based on the individual or entity’s percentage of ownership.

GOVERNANCE FOLLOWING AN IPO OR SPIN-OFF

We believe companies that have recently completed an initial public offering (“IPO”) or spin-off should be allowed adequate time to fully comply with marketplace listing requirements and meet basic corporate governance standards. Generally speaking, Glass Lewis refrains from making recommendations on the basis of governance standards (e.g., board independence, committee membership and structure, meeting attendance, etc.) during the one-year period following an IPO.

However, some cases warrant shareholder action against the board of a company that have completed an IPO or spin-off within the past year. When evaluating companies that have recently gone public, Glass Lewis will review the terms of the applicable governing documents in order to determine whether shareholder rights are being severely restricted indefinitely. We believe boards that approve highly restrictive governing documents have demonstrated that they may subvert shareholder interests following the IPO. In conducting this evaluation, Glass Lewis will consider:

The adoption of anti-takeover provisions such as a poison pill or classified board

Supermajority vote requirements to amend governing documents

The presence of exclusive forum or fee-shifting provisions

Whether shareholders can call special meetings or act by written consent

The voting standard provided for the election of directors

The ability of shareholders to remove directors without cause

The presence of evergreen provisions in the Company’s equity compensation arrangements

The presence of a dual-class share structure which does not afford common shareholders voting power that is aligned with their economic interest

In cases where a board adopts an anti-takeover provision preceding an IPO, we will consider recommending to vote against the members of the board who served when it was adopted if the board: (i) did not also commit to submit the anti-takeover provision to a shareholder vote at the company’s first shareholder meeting following the IPO; or (ii) did not provide a sound rationale or sunset provision for adopting the anti-takeover provision in question.

In our view, adopting an anti-takeover device unfairly penalizes future shareholders who (except for electing to buy or sell the stock) are unable to weigh in on a matter that could potentially negatively impact their ownership interest. This notion is strengthened when a board adopts a classified board with an infinite duration or a poison pill with a five- to ten-year term immediately prior to going public, thereby insulated management for a substantial amount of time.

In addition, shareholders should also be wary of companies that adopt supermajority voting requirements before their IPO. Absent explicit provisions in the articles or bylaws stipulating that certain policies will be phased out over a certain period of time, long-term shareholders could find themselves in the predicament of having to attain a supermajority vote to approve future proposals seeking to eliminate such policies.

DUAL-LISTED OR FOREIGN-INCORPORATED COMPANIES

For companies that trade on multiple exchanges or are incorporated in foreign jurisdictions but trade only in the U.S., we will apply the governance standard most relevant in each situation. We will consider a number of factors in determining which Glass Lewis country-specific policy to apply, including but not limited to: (i) the corporate governance structure and features of the company including whether the board structure is unique to a particular market; (ii) the nature of the proposals; (iii) the location of the company’s primary listing, if one can be determined; (iv) the regulatory/governance regime that the board is reporting against; and (v) the availability and completeness of the company’s SEC filings.

MUTUAL FUND BOARDS

Mutual funds, or investment companies, are structured differently from regular public companies (i.e., operating companies). Typically, members of a fund’s advisor are on the board and management takes on a different role from that of regular public companies. Thus, we focus on a short list of requirements, although many of our guidelines remain the same.

The following mutual fund policies are similar to the policies for regular public companies:

Size of the board of directors — The board should be made up of between five and twenty directors.

The CFO on the board — Neither the CFO of the fund nor the CFO of the fund’s registered investment advisor should serve on the board.

Independence of the audit committee — The audit committee should consist solely of independent directors.

Audit committee financial expert — At least one member of the audit committee should be designated as the audit committee financial expert.

The following differences from regular public companies apply at mutual funds:

Independence of the board — We believe that three-fourths of an investment company’s board should be made up of independent directors. This is consistent with a proposed SEC rule on investment company boards. The Investment Company Act requires 40% of the board to be independent, but in 2001, the SEC amended the Exemptive Rules to require that a majority of a mutual fund board be independent. In 2005, the SEC proposed increasing the independence threshold to 75%. In 2006, a federal appeals court ordered that this rule amendment be put back out for public comment, putting it back into “proposed rule” status. Since mutual fund boards play a vital role in overseeing the relationship between the fund and its investment manager, there is greater need for independent oversight than there is for an operating company board.

When the auditor is not up for ratification — We do not recommend voting against the audit committee if the auditor is not up for ratification. Due to the different legal structure of an investment company compared to an operating company, the auditor for the investment company (i.e., mutual fund) does not conduct the same level of financial review for each investment company as for an operating company.

Non-independent chair — The SEC has proposed that the chair of the fund board be independent. We agree that the roles of a mutual fund’s chair and CEO should be separate. Although we believe this would be best at all companies, we recommend voting against the chair of an investment company’s nominating committee as well as the board chair if the chair and CEO of a mutual fund are the same person and the fund does not have an independent lead or presiding director. Seven former SEC commissioners support the appointment of an independent chair and we agree with them that “an independent board chair would be better able to create conditions favoring the long-term interests of fund shareholders than would a chair who is an executive of the advisor.” (See the comment letter sent to the SEC in support of the proposed rule at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/indchair.pdf .)

Multiple funds overseen by the same director — Unlike service on a public company board, mutual fund boards require much less of a time commitment. Mutual fund directors typically serve on dozens of other mutual fund boards, often within the same fund complex. The Investment Company Institute’s (“ICI”) Overview of Fund Governance Practices, 1994-2012, indicates that the average number of funds served by an independent director in 2012 was 53. Absent evidence that a specific director is hindered from being an effective board member at a fund due to service on other funds’ boards, we refrain from maintaining a cap on the number of outside mutual fund boards that we believe a director can serve on.

DECLASSIFIED BOARDS

Glass Lewis favors the repeal of staggered boards and the annual election of directors. We believe staggered boards are less accountable to shareholders than boards that are elected annually. Furthermore, we feel the annual election of directors encourages board members to focus on shareholder interests.

Empirical studies have shown: (i) staggered boards are associated with a reduction in a firm’s valuation; and (ii) in the context of hostile takeovers, staggered boards operate as a takeover defense, which entrenches management, discourages potential acquirers, and delivers a lower return to target shareholders.

In our view, there is no evidence to demonstrate that staggered boards improve shareholder returns in a takeover context. Some research has indicated that shareholders are worse off when a staggered board blocks a transaction; further, when a staggered board negotiates a friendly transaction, no statistically significant difference in premium occurs. ⁴⁰ Additional research found that charter-based staggered boards “reduce the market value of a firm by 4% to 6% of its market capitalization” and that “staggered boards bring about and not merely reflect this reduction in market value.” ⁴¹ A subsequent study reaffirmed that classified boards reduce shareholder value, finding “that the ongoing process of dismantling staggered boards, encouraged by institutional investors, could well contribute to increasing shareholder wealth.” ⁴²

40 Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV, Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Further Findings and a Reply to Symposium Participants,” 55 Stanford Law Review 885-917 (2002).

41 Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen, “The Costs of Entrenched Boards” (2004).

42 Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen and Charles C.Y. Wang, “Staggered Boards and the Wealth of Shareholders: Evidence from a Natural Experiment,” SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1706806 (2010), p. 26.

Shareholders have increasingly come to agree with this view. In 2016, 92% of S&P 500 companies had declassified boards, up from approximately 40% a decade ago. ⁴³ Management proposals to declassify boards are approved with near unanimity and shareholder proposals on the topic also receive strong shareholder support; in 2014, shareholder proposals requesting that companies declassify their boards received average support of 84% (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes), whereas in 1987, only 16.4% of votes cast favored board declassification. ⁴⁴ Further, a growing number of companies, nearly half of all those targeted by shareholder proposals requesting that all directors stand for election annually, either recommended shareholders support the proposal or made no recommendation, a departure from the more traditional management recommendation to vote against shareholder proposals.

Given our belief that declassified boards promote director accountability, the empirical evidence suggesting staggered boards reduce a company’s value and the established shareholder opposition to such a structure, Glass Lewis supports the declassification of boards and the annual election of directors.

BOARD COMPOSITION AND REFRESHMENT

Glass Lewis strongly supports routine director evaluation, including independent external reviews, and periodic board refreshment to foster the sharing of diverse perspectives in the boardroom and the generation of new ideas and business strategies. Further, we believe the board should evaluate the need for changes to board composition based on an analysis of skills and experience necessary for the company, as well as the results of the director evaluations, as opposed to relying solely on age or tenure limits. When necessary, shareholders can address concerns regarding proper board composition through director elections.

In our view, a director’s experience can be a valuable asset to shareholders because of the complex, critical issues that boards face. This said, we recognize that in rare circumstances, a lack of refreshment can contribute to a lack of board responsiveness to poor company performance.

On occasion, age or term limits can be used as a means to remove a director for boards that are unwilling to police their membership and enforce turnover. Some shareholders support term limits as a way to force change in such circumstances.

While we understand that age limits can aid board succession planning, the long-term impact of age limits restricts experienced and potentially valuable board members from service through an arbitrary means. We believe that shareholders are better off monitoring the board’s overall composition, including the diversity of its members, the alignment of the board’s areas of expertise with a company’s strategy, the board’s approach to corporate governance, and its stewardship of company performance, rather than imposing inflexible rules that don’t necessarily correlate with returns or benefits for shareholders.

However, if a board adopts term/age limits, it should follow through and not waive such limits. If the board waives its term/age limits, Glass Lewis will consider recommending shareholders vote against the nominating and/or governance committees, unless the rule was waived with sufficient explanation, such as consummation of a corporate transaction like a merger.

BOARD GENDER DIVERSITY

Glass Lewis recognizes the importance of ensuring that the board is comprised of directors who have a diversity of skills, thought and experience, as such diversity benefits companies by providing a broad range of perspectives and insights. ⁴⁵ As with previous years, Glass Lewis will continue to closely review the composition of the board and may note as a concern instances where we believe the board lacks representation of diverse director candidates, including those boards which have no female directors.

43 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2016, p. 14.

44 Lucian Bebchuk, John Coates IV and Guhan Subramanian, “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence, and Policy”.

45 http://www.glasslewis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017-In-Depth-Report-Gender-Diversity.pdf .

In 2018, we will not make voting recommendations solely on the basis of the diversity of the board. Rather, it will be one of many considerations we make when evaluating companies’ oversight structures. Beginning in 2019, however, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against the nominating committee chair of a board that has no female members. Depending on other factors, including the size of the company, the industry in which the company operates and the governance profile of the company, we may extend this recommendation to vote against other nominating committee members. When making these voting recommendations, we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations and may refrain from recommending shareholders vote against directors of companies outside the Russell 3000 index, or when boards have provided a sufficient rationale for not having any female board members or have disclosed a plan to address the lack of diversity on the board.

PROXY ACCESS

In lieu of running their own contested election, proxy access would not only allow certain shareholders to nominate directors to company boards but the shareholder nominees would be included on the company’s ballot, significantly enhancing the ability of shareholders to play a meaningful role in selecting their representatives. Glass Lewis generally supports affording shareholders the right to nominate director candidates to management’s proxy as a means to ensure that significant, long-term shareholders have an ability to nominate candidates to the board.

Companies generally seek shareholder approval to amend company bylaws to adopt proxy access in response to shareholder engagement or pressure, usually in the form of a shareholder proposal requesting proxy access, although some companies may adopt some elements of proxy access without prompting. Glass Lewis considers several factors when evaluating whether to support proposals for companies to adopt proxy access including the specified minimum ownership and holding requirement for shareholders to nominate one or more directors, as well as company size, performance and responsiveness to shareholders.

For a discussion of recent regulatory events in this area, along with a detailed overview of the Glass Lewis approach to Shareholder Proposals regarding Proxy Access, refer to Glass Lewis’ Proxy Paper Guidelines for Shareholder Initiatives , available at www.glasslewis.com .

MAJORITY VOTE FOR THE ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Majority voting for the election of directors is fast becoming the de facto standard in corporate board elections. In our view, the majority voting proposals are an effort to make the case for shareholder impact on director elections on a company-specific basis.

While this proposal would not give shareholders the opportunity to nominate directors or lead to elections where shareholders have a choice among director candidates, if implemented, the proposal would allow shareholders to have a voice in determining whether the nominees proposed by the board should actually serve as the overseer-representatives of shareholders in the boardroom. We believe this would be a favorable outcome for shareholders.

The number of shareholder proposals requesting that companies adopt a majority voting standard has declined significantly during the past decade, largely as a result of widespread adoption of majority voting or director resignation policies at U.S. companies. In 2016, 88% of the S&P 500 Index had implemented a resignation policy for directors failing to receive majority shareholder support, compared to 76% in 2011. ⁴⁶

THE PLURALITY VOTE STANDARD

Today, most US companies still elect directors by a plurality vote standard. Under that standard, if one shareholder holding only one share votes in favor of a nominee (including that director, if the director is a shareholder), that nominee “wins” the election and assumes a seat on the board. The common concern among companies with a plurality voting standard is the possibility that one or more directors would not receive a majority of votes, resulting in “failed elections.”

46 Spencer Stuart Board Index, 2016, p. 12.

ADVANTAGES OF A MAJORITY VOTE STANDARD

If a majority vote standard were implemented, a nominee would have to receive the support of a majority of the shares voted in order to be elected. Thus, shareholders could collectively vote to reject a director they believe will not pursue their best interests. Given that so few directors (less than 100 a year) do not receive majority support from shareholders, we think that a majority vote standard is reasonable since it will neither result in many failed director elections nor reduce the willingness of qualified, shareholder-focused directors to serve in the future. Further, most directors who fail to receive a majority shareholder vote in favor of their election do not step down, underscoring the need for true majority voting.

We believe that a majority vote standard will likely lead to more attentive directors. Although shareholders only rarely fail to support directors, the occasional majority vote against a director’s election will likely deter the election of directors with a record of ignoring shareholder interests. Glass Lewis will therefore generally support proposals calling for the election of directors by a majority vote, excepting contested director elections.

In response to the high level of support majority voting has garnered, many companies have voluntarily taken steps to implement majority voting or modified approaches to majority voting. These steps range from a modified approach requiring directors that receive a majority of withheld votes to resign (i.e., a resignation policy) to actually requiring a majority vote of outstanding shares to elect directors.

We feel that the modified approach does not go far enough because requiring a director to resign is not the same as requiring a majority vote to elect a director and does not allow shareholders a definitive voice in the election process. Further, under the modified approach, the corporate governance committee could reject a resignation and, even if it accepts the resignation, the corporate governance committee decides on the director’s replacement. And since the modified approach is usually adopted as a policy by the board or a board committee, it could be altered by the same board or committee at any time.

CONFLICTING PROPOSALS

On January 16, 2015, the SEC announced that for the 2015 proxy season it would not opine on the application of Rule 14a-8(i)(9) that allows companies to exclude shareholder proposals, including those seeking proxy access, that conflict with a management proposal on the same issue. While the announcement did not render the rule ineffective, a number of companies opted not to exclude a shareholder proposal but rather to allow shareholders a vote on both management and shareholder proposals on the same issue, generally proxy access. The management proposals typically imposed more restrictive terms than the shareholder proposal in order to exercise the particular shareholder right at issue, e.g. , a higher proxy access ownership threshold. On October 22, 2015, the SEC issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14H (“SLB 14H”) clarifying its rule concerning the exclusion of certain shareholder proposals when similar items are also on the ballot. SLB 14H increases the burden on companies to prove to SEC staff that a conflict exists; therefore, some companies may still choose to place management proposals alongside similar shareholder proposals in the coming year.

When Glass Lewis reviews conflicting management and shareholder proposals, we will consider the following:

●

The nature of the underlying issue;

●

The benefit to shareholders from implementation of the proposal;

●

The materiality of the differences between the terms of the shareholder proposal and management proposal;

●

The appropriateness of the provisions in the context of a company’s shareholder base, corporate structure and other relevant circumstances; and

●

A company’s overall governance profile and, specifically, its responsiveness to shareholders as evidenced by a company’s response to previous shareholder proposals and its adoption of progressive shareholder rights provisions.

Transparency and Integrity in Financial Reporting

AUDITOR RATIFICATION

The auditor’s role as gatekeeper is crucial in ensuring the integrity and transparency of the financial information necessary for protecting shareholder value. Shareholders rely on the auditor to ask tough questions and to do a thorough analysis of a company’s books to ensure that the information provided to shareholders is complete, accurate, fair, and that it is a reasonable representation of a company’s financial position. The only way shareholders can make rational investment decisions is if the market is equipped with accurate information about a company’s fiscal health. As stated in the October 6, 2008 Final Report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury:

“The auditor is expected to offer critical and objective judgment on the financial matters under consideration, and actual and perceived absence of conflicts is critical to that expectation. The Committee believes that auditors, investors, public companies, and other market participants must understand the independence requirements and their objectives, and that auditors must adopt a mindset of skepticism when facing situations that may compromise their independence.”

As such, shareholders should demand an objective, competent and diligent auditor who performs at or above professional standards at every company in which the investors hold an interest. Like directors, auditors should be free from conflicts of interest and should avoid situations requiring a choice between the auditor’s interests and the public’s interests. Almost without exception, shareholders should be able to annually review an auditor’s performance and to annually ratify a board’s auditor selection. Moreover, in October 2008, the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession went even further, and recommended that “to further enhance audit committee oversight and auditor accountability ... disclosure in the company proxy statement regarding shareholder ratification [should] include the name(s) of the senior auditing partner(s) staffed on the engagement.” ⁴⁷

On August 16, 2011, the PCAOB issued a Concept Release seeking public comment on ways that auditor independence, objectivity and professional skepticism could be enhanced, with a specific emphasis on mandatory audit firm rotation. The PCAOB convened several public roundtable meetings during 2012 to further discuss such matters. Glass Lewis believes auditor rotation can ensure both the independence of the auditor and the integrity of the audit; we will typically recommend supporting proposals to require auditor rotation when the proposal uses a reasonable period of time (usually not less than 5-7 years), particularly at companies with a history of accounting problems.

VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS ON AUDITOR RATIFICATION

We generally support management’s choice of auditor except when we believe the auditor’s independence or audit integrity has been compromised. Where a board has not allowed shareholders to review and ratify an auditor, we typically recommend voting against the audit committee chair. When there have been material restatements of annual financial statements or material weaknesses in internal controls, we usually recommend voting against the entire audit committee.

47 “Final Report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.” p. VIII:20, October 6, 2008.

Reasons why we may not recommend ratification of an auditor include:

When audit fees plus audit-related fees total less than the tax fees and/or other non-audit fees.

Recent material restatements of annual financial statements, including those resulting in the reporting of material weaknesses in internal controls and including late filings by the company where the auditor bears some responsibility for the restatement or late filing. ⁴⁸

When the auditor performs prohibited services such as tax-shelter work, tax services for the CEO or CFO, or contingent-fee work, such as a fee based on a percentage of economic benefit to the company.

When audit fees are excessively low, especially when compared with other companies in the same industry.

When the company has aggressive accounting policies.

When the company has poor disclosure or lack of transparency in its financial statements.

Where the auditor limited its liability through its contract with the company or the audit contract requires the corporation to use alternative dispute resolution procedures without adequate justification.

We also look for other relationships or concerns with the auditor that might suggest a conflict between the auditor’s interests and shareholder interests.

PENSION ACCOUNTING ISSUES

A pension accounting question occasionally raised in proxy proposals is what effect, if any, projected returns on employee pension assets should have on a company’s net income. This issue often arises in the executive-compensation context in a discussion of the extent to which pension accounting should be reflected in business performance for purposes of calculating payments to executives.

Glass Lewis believes that pension credits should not be included in measuring income that is used to award performance-based compensation. Because many of the assumptions used in accounting for retirement plans are subject to the company’s discretion, management would have an obvious conflict of interest if pay were tied to pension income. In our view, projected income from pensions does not truly reflect a company’s performance.

48 An auditor does not audit interim financial statements. Thus, we generally do not believe that an auditor should be opposed due to a restatement of interim financial statements unless the nature of the misstatement is clear from a reading of the incorrect financial statements.

The Link Between Compensation and Performance

Glass Lewis carefully reviews the compensation awarded to senior executives, as we believe that this is an important area in which the board’s priorities are revealed. Glass Lewis strongly believes executive compensation should be linked directly with the performance of the business the executive is charged with managing. We believe the most effective compensation arrangements provide for an appropriate mix of performance-based short- and long-term incentives in addition to fixed pay elements while promoting a prudent and sustainable level of risk-taking.

Glass Lewis believes that comprehensive, timely and transparent disclosure of executive pay is critical to allowing shareholders to evaluate the extent to which pay is aligned with company performance. When reviewing proxy materials, Glass Lewis examines whether the company discloses the performance metrics used to determine executive compensation. We recognize performance metrics must necessarily vary depending on the company and industry, among other factors, and may include a wide variety of financial measures as well as industry-specific performance indicators. However, we believe companies should disclose why the specific performance metrics were selected and how the actions they are designed to incentivize will lead to better corporate performance.

Moreover, it is rarely in shareholders’ interests to disclose competitive data about individual salaries below the senior executive level. Such disclosure could create internal personnel discord that would be counterproductive for the company and its shareholders. While we favor full disclosure for senior executives and we view pay disclosure at the aggregate level (e.g., the number of employees being paid over a certain amount or in certain categories) as potentially useful, we do not believe share-holders need or will benefit from detailed reports about individual management employees other than the most senior executives.

ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (“SAY-ON-PAY”)

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) required companies to hold an advisory vote on executive compensation at the first shareholder meeting that occurs six months after enactment of the bill (January 21, 2011).

This practice of allowing shareholders a non-binding vote on a company’s compensation report is standard practice in many non-US countries, and has been a requirement for most companies in the United Kingdom since 2003 and in Australia since 2005. Although say-on-pay proposals are non-binding, a high level of “against” or “abstain” votes indicates substantial shareholder concern about a company’s compensation policies and procedures.

Given the complexity of most companies’ compensation programs, Glass Lewis applies a highly nuanced approach when analyzing advisory votes on executive compensation. We review each company’s compensation on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that each company must be examined in the context of industry, size, maturity, performance, financial condition, its historic pay for performance practices, and any other relevant internal or external factors.

We believe that each company should design and apply specific compensation policies and practices that are appropriate to the circumstances of the company and, in particular, will attract and retain competent executives and other staff, while motivating them to grow the company’s long-term shareholder value.

Where we find those specific policies and practices serve to reasonably align compensation with performance, and such practices are adequately disclosed, Glass Lewis will recommend supporting the company’s approach. If, however, those specific policies and practices fail to demonstrably link compensation with performance, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against the say-on-pay proposal.

Glass Lewis reviews say-on-pay proposals on both a qualitative basis and a quantitative basis, with a focus on several main areas:

●

The overall design and structure of the company’s executive compensation programs including selection and challenging nature of performance metrics;

●

The implementation and effectiveness of the company’s executive compensation programs including pay mix and use of performance metrics in determining pay levels;

●

The quality and content of the company’s disclosure;

●

The quantum paid to executives; and

●

The link between compensation and performance as indicated by the company’s current and past pay-for-performance grades.

We also review any significant changes or modifications, and the rationale for such changes, made to the company’s compensation structure or award amounts, including base salaries.

SAY-ON-PAY VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS

In cases where we find deficiencies in a company’s compensation program’s design, implementation or management, we will recommend that shareholders vote against the say-on-pay proposal. Generally such instances include evidence of a pattern of poor pay-for-performance practices ( i.e. , deficient or failing pay- for-performance grades), unclear or questionable disclosure regarding the overall compensation structure ( e.g. , limited information regarding benchmarking processes, limited rationale for bonus performance metrics and targets, etc.), questionable adjustments to certain aspects of the overall compensation structure (e.g., limited rationale for significant changes to performance targets or metrics, the payout of guaranteed bonuses or sizable retention grants, etc.), and/or other egregious compensation practices.

Although not an exhaustive list, the following issues when weighed together may cause Glass Lewis to recommend voting against a say-on-pay vote:

●

Inappropriate peer group and/or benchmarking issues;

●

Inadequate or no rationale for changes to peer groups;

●

Egregious or excessive bonuses, equity awards or severance payments, including golden handshakes and golden parachutes;

●

Problematic contractual payments, such as guaranteed bonuses;

●

Targeting overall levels of compensation at higher than median without adequate justification;

●

Performance targets not sufficiently challenging, and/or providing for high potential payouts;

●

Performance targets lowered without justification;

●

Discretionary bonuses paid when short- or long-term incentive plan targets were not met;

●

Executive pay high relative to peers not justified by outstanding company performance; and

●

The terms of the long-term incentive plans are inappropriate (please see “Long-Term Incentives” on page 30).

In instances where a company has simply failed to provide sufficient disclosure of its policies, we may recommend shareholders vote against this proposal solely on this basis, regardless of the appropriateness of compensation levels.

Where we identify egregious compensation practices, we may also recommend voting against the compensation committee based on the practices or actions of its members during the year. Such practices may include: approving large one-off payments, the inappropriate, unjustified use of discretion, or sustained poor pay for performance practices.

COMPANY RESPONSIVENESS

At companies that received a significant level of shareholder opposition (20% or greater) to their say-on-pay proposal at the previous annual meeting, we believe the board should demonstrate some level of engagement and responsiveness to the shareholder concerns behind the discontent, particularly in response to shareholder engagement. While we recognize that sweeping changes cannot be made to a compensation program without due consideration and that a majority of shareholders voted in favor of the proposal, given that the average approval rate for say-on-pay proposals is about 90% we believe the compensation committee should provide some level of response to a significant vote against, including engaging with large shareholders to identify their concerns. In the absence of any evidence that the board is actively engaging shareholders on these issues and responding accordingly, we may recommend holding compensation committee members accountable for failing to adequately respond to shareholder opposition, giving careful consideration to the level of shareholder protest and the severity and history of compensation problems.

PAY FOR PERFORMANCE

Glass Lewis believes an integral part of a well-structured compensation package is a successful link between pay and performance. Our proprietary pay-for-performance model was developed to better evaluate the link between pay and performance of the top five executives at US companies. Our model benchmarks these executives’ pay and company performance against peers selected using Equilar’s market-based peer groups and across five performance metrics. By measuring the magnitude of the gap between two weighted-average percentile rankings (executive compensation and performance), we rank companies based on a grade system. The grades guide our evaluation of compensation committee effectiveness, and we generally recommend voting against compensation committee members at companies with a pattern of failing our pay-for-performance analysis. Unlike a school letter system, however, the letter “C” in the Glass Lewis grade system does not indicate a significant lapse; rather, a “C” in the Glass Lewis grade system identifies companies where the pay and performance percentile rankings relative to peers are generally aligned. This suggests that the company neither overpays nor underpays its executives relative to its comparator group.

The grades “A” and “B” are also designated to companies which align pay with performance. However, these grades indicate lower compensation levels relative to the market and to company performance. A “B” grade stems from slightly higher performance levels in comparison to market peers while executives earn relatively less than peers. Receiving an “A” in our analysis shows that the company is paying significantly less than peers while outperforming the comparator group.

A grade of “D” or “F” in our analysis is due to high pay and low performance relative to the comparator group. In our analysis, we differentiate between a disconnect between pay and performance, “D”, and a significant disconnect, “F”. An “F” grade in our analysis indicates that executives receive significantly higher compensation than peers while underperforming the market.

We also use this analysis to inform our voting decisions on say-on-pay proposals. As such, if a company receives a failing grade from our proprietary model, we are more likely to recommend that shareholders vote against the say-on-pay proposal. However, other qualitative factors such as an effective overall incentive structure, the relevance of selected performance metrics, significant forthcoming enhancements or reasonable long-term payout levels may give us cause to recommend in favor of a proposal even when we have identified a disconnect between pay and performance.

SHORT-TERM INCENTIVES

A short-term bonus or incentive (“STI”) should be demonstrably tied to performance. Whenever possible, we believe a mix of corporate and individual performance measures is appropriate. We would normally expect performance measures for STIs to be based on company-wide or divisional financial measures as well as non-financial factors such as those related to safety, environmental issues, and customer satisfaction. While we recognize that companies operating in different sectors or markets may seek to utilize a wide range of metrics, we expect such measures to be appropriately tied to a company’s business drivers.

Further, the target and potential maximum awards that can be achieved under STI awards should be disclosed. Shareholders should expect stretching performance targets for the maximum award to be achieved. Any increase in the potential target and maximum award should be clearly justified to shareholders.

Glass Lewis recognizes that disclosure of some measures may include commercially confidential information. Therefore, we believe it may be reasonable to exclude such information in some cases as long as the company provides sufficient justification for non-disclosure. However, where a short-term bonus has been paid, companies should disclose the extent to which performance has been achieved against relevant targets, including disclosure of the actual target achieved.

Where management has received significant STIs but short-term performance over the previous year prima facie appears to be poor or negative, we believe the company should provide a clear explanation of why these significant short-term payments were made. In addition, we believe that where companies use non-GAAP or bespoke metrics, clear reconciliations between these figures and GAAP figures in audited financial statement should be provided.

LONG-TERM INCENTIVES

Glass Lewis recognizes the value of equity-based incentive programs, which are often the primary long-term incentive for executives. When used appropriately, they can provide a vehicle for linking an executive’s pay to company performance, thereby aligning their interests with those of shareholders. In addition, equity-based compensation can be an effective way to attract, retain and motivate key employees.

There are certain elements that Glass Lewis believes are common to most well-structured long-term incentive (“LTI”) plans. These include:

●

No re-testing or lowering of performance conditions;

●

Performance metrics that cannot be easily manipulated by management;

●

Two or more performance metrics;

●

At least one relative performance metric that compares the company’s performance to a relevant peer group or index;

●

Performance periods of at least three years;

●

Stretching metrics that incentivize executives to strive for outstanding performance while not encouraging excessive risk-taking; and

●

Individual limits expressed as a percentage of base salary.

Performance measures should be carefully selected and should relate to the specific business/industry in which the company operates and, especially, the key value drivers of the company’s business. As with short-term incentive plans, the basis for any adjustments to metrics or results should be clearly explained.

While cognizant of the inherent complexity of certain performance metrics, Glass Lewis generally believes that measuring a company’s performance with multiple metrics serves to provide a more complete picture of the company’s performance than a single metric; further, reliance on just one metric may focus too much management attention on a single target and is therefore more susceptible to manipulation. When utilized for relative measurements, external benchmarks such as a sector index or peer group should be disclosed and transparent. The rationale behind the selection of a specific index or peer group should also be disclosed. Internal benchmarks should also be disclosed and transparent, unless a cogent case for confidentiality is made and fully explained. Similarly, actual performance and vesting levels for previous grants earned during the fiscal year should be disclosed.

We also believe shareholders should evaluate the relative success of a company’s compensation programs, particularly with regard to existing equity-based incentive plans, in linking pay and performance when evaluating new LTI plans to determine the impact of additional stock awards. We will therefore review the company’s pay-for-performance grade (see below for more information) and specifically the proportion of total compensation that is stock-based.

TRANSITIONAL AND ONE-OFF AWARDS

Glass Lewis believes shareholders should generally be wary of awards granted outside of the standard incentive schemes outlined above, as such awards have the potential to undermine the integrity of a company’s regular incentive plans, the link between pay and performance or both. We generally believe that if the existing incentive programs fail to provide adequate incentives to executives, companies should redesign their compensation programs rather than make additional grants.

However, we recognize that in certain circumstances, additional incentives may be appropriate. In these cases, companies should provide a thorough description of the awards, including a cogent and convincing explanation of their necessity and why existing awards do not provide sufficient motivation. Further, such awards should be tied to future service and performance whenever possible.

Similarly, we acknowledge that there may be certain costs associated with transitions at the executive level. We believe that sign-on arrangements should be clearly disclosed and accompanied by a meaningful explanation of the payments and the process by which the amounts are reached. Furthermore, the details of and basis for any “make-whole” payments (which are paid as compensation for forfeited awards from a previous employer) should be provided.

While in limited circumstances such deviations may not be inappropriate, we believe shareholders should be provided with a meaningful explanation of any additional benefits agreed upon outside of the regular arrangements. For severance or sign-on arrangements, we may consider the executive’s regular target compensation levels or the sums paid to other executives (including the recipient’s predecessor, where applicable) in evaluating the appropriateness of such an arrangement.

Additionally, we believe companies making supplemental or one-time awards should also describe if and how the regular compensation arrangements will be affected by these additional grants. In reviewing a company’s use of supplemental awards, Glass Lewis will evaluate the terms and size of the grants in the context of the company’s overall incentive strategy and granting practices, as well as the current operating environment.

RECOUPMENT PROVISIONS (“CLAWBACKS”)

We believe it is prudent for boards to adopt detailed and stringent bonus recoupment policies to prevent executives from retaining performance-based awards that were not truly earned. We believe such “clawback” policies should be triggered in the event of a restatement of financial results or similar revision of performance indicators upon which bonuses were based. Such policies would allow the board to review all performance-related bonuses and awards made to senior executives during the period covered by a restatement and would, to the extent feasible, allow the company to recoup such bonuses in the event that performance goals were not actually achieved. We further believe clawback policies should be subject to only limited discretion to ensure the integrity of such policies.

Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC to create a rule requiring listed companies to adopt policies for recouping certain compensation during a three-year look-back period. The rule applies to incentive-based compensation paid to current or former executives if the company is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to erroneous data resulting from material non-compliance with any financial reporting requirements under the securities laws. However, the SEC has yet to finalize the relevant rules.

These recoupment provisions are more stringent than under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in three respects: (i) the provisions extend to current or former executive officers rather than only to the CEO and CFO; (ii) it has a three-year look-back period (rather than a twelve-month look-back period); and (iii) it allows for recovery of compensation based upon a financial restatement due to erroneous data, and therefore does not require misconduct on the part of the executive or other employees.

HEDGING OF STOCK

Glass Lewis believes that the hedging of shares by executives in the shares of the companies where they are employed severs the alignment of interests of the executive with shareholders. We believe companies should adopt strict policies to prohibit executives from hedging the economic risk associated with their shareownership in the company.

PLEDGING OF STOCK

Glass Lewis believes that shareholders should examine the facts and circumstances of each company rather than apply a one-size-fits-all policy regarding employee stock pledging. Glass Lewis believes that shareholders benefit when employees, particularly senior executives have “skin-in-the-game” and therefore recognizes the benefits of measures designed to encourage employees to both buy shares out of their own pocket and to retain shares they have been granted; blanket policies prohibiting stock pledging may discourage executives and employees from doing either.

However, we also recognize that the pledging of shares can present a risk that, depending on a host of factors, an executive with significant pledged shares and limited other assets may have an incentive to take steps to avoid a forced sale of shares in the face of a rapid stock price decline. Therefore, to avoid substantial losses from a forced sale to meet the terms of the loan, the executive may have an incentive to boost the stock price in the short term in a manner that is unsustainable, thus hurting shareholders in the long-term. We also recognize concerns regarding pledging may not apply to less senior employees, given the latter group’s significantly more limited influence over a company’s stock price. Therefore, we believe that the issue of pledging shares should be reviewed in that context, as should polices that distinguish between the two groups.

Glass Lewis believes that the benefits of stock ownership by executives and employees may outweigh the risks of stock pledging, depending on many factors. As such, Glass Lewis reviews all relevant factors in evaluating proposed policies, limitations and prohibitions on pledging stock, including:

●

The number of shares pledged;

●

The percentage executives’ pledged shares are of outstanding shares;

●

The percentage executives’ pledged shares are of each executive’s shares and total assets;

●

Whether the pledged shares were purchased by the employee or granted by the company;

●

Whether there are different policies for purchased and granted shares;

●

Whether the granted shares were time-based or performance-based;

●

The overall governance profile of the company;

●

The volatility of the company’s stock (in order to determine the likelihood of a sudden stock price drop);

●

The nature and cyclicality, if applicable, of the company’s industry;

●

The participation and eligibility of executives and employees in pledging;

●

The company’s current policies regarding pledging and any waiver from these policies for employees and executives; and

●

Disclosure of the extent of any pledging, particularly among senior executives.

COMPENSATION CONSULTANT INDEPENDENCE

As mandated by Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as of January 11, 2013, the SEC approved new listing requirements for both the NYSE and NASDAQ which require compensation committees to consider six factors in assessing compensation advisor independence. These factors include: (1) provision of other services to the company; (2) fees paid by the company as a percentage of the advisor’s total annual revenue; (3) policies and procedures of the advisor to mitigate conflicts of interests; (4) any business or personal relationships of the consultant with any member of the compensation committee; (5) any company stock held by the consultant; and (6) any business or personal relationships of the consultant with any executive officer of the company. According to the SEC, “no one factor should be viewed as a determinative factor.” Glass Lewis believes this six-factor assessment is an important process for every compensation committee to undertake but believes companies employing a consultant for board compensation, consulting and other corporate services should provide clear disclosure beyond just a reference to examining the six points to allow shareholders to review the specific aspects of the various consultant relationships.

We believe compensation consultants are engaged to provide objective, disinterested, expert advice to the compensation committee. When the consultant or its affiliates receive substantial income from providing other services to the company, we believe the potential for a conflict of interest arises and the independence of the consultant may be jeopardized. Therefore, Glass Lewis will, when relevant, note the potential for a conflict of interest when the fees paid to the advisor or its affiliates for other services exceeds those paid for compensation consulting.

CEO PAY RATIO

As mandated by Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Consumer and Protection Act, beginning in 2018, issuers will be required to disclose the median annual total compensation of all employees except the CEO, the total annual compensation of the CEO or equivalent position, and the ratio between the two amounts. Glass Lewis will display the pay ratio as a data point in our Proxy Papers, as available. While we recognize that the pay ratio has the potential to provide additional insight when assessing a company’s pay practices, at this time it will not be a determinative factor in our voting recommendations.

FREQUENCY OF SAY-ON-PAY

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires companies to allow shareholders a non-binding vote on the frequency of say-on-pay votes, i.e. every one, two or three years. Additionally, Dodd-Frank requires companies to hold such votes on the frequency of say-on-pay votes at least once every six years.

We believe companies should submit say-on-pay votes to shareholders every year. We believe that the time and financial burdens to a company with regard to an annual vote are relatively small and incremental and are outweighed by the benefits to shareholders through more frequent accountability. Implementing biannual or triennial votes on executive compensation limits shareholders’ ability to hold the board accountable for its compensation practices through means other than voting against the compensation committee. Unless a company provides a compelling rationale or unique circumstances for say-on-pay votes less frequent than annually, we will generally recommend that shareholders support annual votes on compensation.

VOTE ON GOLDEN PARACHUTE ARRANGEMENTS

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires companies to provide shareholders with a separate non-binding vote on approval of golden parachute compensation arrangements in connection with certain change-in-control transactions. However, if the golden parachute arrangements have previously been subject to a say-on-pay vote which shareholders approved, then this required vote is waived.

Glass Lewis believes the narrative and tabular disclosure of golden parachute arrangements benefits all shareholders. Glass Lewis analyzes each golden parachute arrangement on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, among other items: the nature of the change-in-control transaction, the ultimate value of the payments particularly compared to the value of the transaction, any excise tax gross-up obligations, the tenure and position of the executives in question before and after the transaction, any new or amended employment agreements entered into in connection with the transaction, and the type of triggers involved (i.e., single vs. double).

EQUITY-BASED COMPENSATION PLAN PROPOSALS

We believe that equity compensation awards, when not abused, are useful for retaining employees and providing an incentive for them to act in a way that will improve company performance. Glass Lewis recognizes that equity-based compensation plans are critical components of a company’s overall compensation program and we analyze such plans accordingly based on both quantitative and qualitative factors.

Our quantitative analysis assesses the plan’s cost and the company’s pace of granting utilizing a number of different analyses, comparing the program with absolute limits we believe are key to equity value creation and with a carefully chosen peer group. In general, our model seeks to determine whether the proposed plan is either absolutely excessive or is more than one standard deviation away from the average plan for the peer group on a range of criteria, including dilution to shareholders and the projected annual cost relative to the company’s financial performance. Each of the analyses (and their constituent parts) is weighted and the plan is scored in accordance with that weight.

We compare the program’s expected annual expense with the business’s operating metrics to help determine whether the plan is excessive in light of company performance. We also compare the plan’s expected annual cost to the enterprise value of the firm rather than to market capitalization because the employees, managers and directors of the firm contribute to the creation of enterprise value but not necessarily market capitalization (the biggest difference is seen where cash represents the vast majority of market capitalization). Finally, we do not rely exclusively on relative comparisons with averages because, in addition to creeping averages serving to inflate compensation, we believe that some absolute limits are warranted.

We then consider qualitative aspects of the plan such as plan administration, the method and terms of exercise, repricing history, express or implied rights to reprice, and the presence of evergreen provisions. We also closely review the choice and use of, and difficulty in meeting, the awards’ performance metrics and targets, if any. We believe significant changes to the terms of a plan should be explained for shareholders and clearly indicated. Other factors such as a company’s size and operating environment may also be relevant in assessing the severity of concerns or the benefits of certain changes. Finally, we may consider a company’s executive compensation practices in certain situations, as applicable.

We evaluate equity plans based on certain overarching principles:

●

Companies should seek more shares only when needed;

●

Requested share amounts should be small enough that companies seek shareholder approval every three to four years (or more frequently);

●

If a plan is relatively expensive, it should not grant options solely to senior executives and board members;

●

Dilution of annual net share count or voting power, along with the “overhang” of incentive plans, should be limited;

●

Annual cost of the plan (especially if not shown on the income statement) should be reasonable as a percentage of financial results and should be in line with the peer group;

●

The expected annual cost of the plan should be proportional to the business’s value;

●

The intrinsic value that option grantees received in the past should be reasonable compared with the business’s financial results;

●

Plans should not permit re-pricing of stock options;

●

Plans should not contain excessively liberal administrative or payment terms;

●

Plans should not count shares in ways that understate the potential dilution, or cost, to common shareholders. This refers to “inverse” full-value award multipliers;

●

Selected performance metrics should be challenging and appropriate, and should be subject to relative performance measurements; and

●

Stock grants should be subject to minimum vesting and/or holding periods sufficient to ensure sustainable performance and promote retention.

OPTION EXCHANGES

Glass Lewis views option repricing plans and option exchange programs with great skepticism. Shareholders have substantial risk in owning stock and we believe that the employees, officers, and directors who receive stock options should be similarly situated to align their interests with shareholder interests.

We are concerned that option grantees who believe they will be “rescued” from underwater options will be more inclined to take unjustifiable risks. Moreover, a predictable pattern of repricing or exchanges substantially alters a stock option’s value because options that will practically never expire deeply out of the money are worth far more than options that carry a risk of expiration.

In short, repricings and option exchange programs change the bargain between shareholders and employees after the bargain has been struck.

There is one circumstance in which a repricing or option exchange program may be acceptable: if macroeconomic or industry trends, rather than specific company issues, cause a stock’s value to decline dramatically and the repricing is necessary to motivate and retain employees. In this circumstance, we think it fair to conclude that option grantees may be suffering from a risk that was not foreseeable when the original “bargain” was struck. In such a circumstance, we will recommend supporting a repricing if the following conditions are true:

●

Officers and board members cannot participate in the program;

●

The stock decline mirrors the market or industry price decline in terms of timing and approximates the decline in magnitude;

●

The exchange is value-neutral or value-creative to shareholders using very conservative assumptions and with a recognition of the adverse selection problems inherent in voluntary programs; and

●

Management and the board make a cogent case for needing to motivate and retain existing employees, such as being in a competitive employment market.

OPTION BACKDATING, SPRING-LOADING AND BULLET-DODGING

Glass Lewis views option backdating, and the related practices of spring-loading and bullet-dodging, as egregious actions that warrant holding the appropriate management and board members responsible. These practices are similar to re-pricing options and eliminate much of the downside risk inherent in an option grant that is designed to induce recipients to maximize shareholder return.

Backdating an option is the act of changing an option’s grant date from the actual grant date to an earlier date when the market price of the underlying stock was lower, resulting in a lower exercise price for the option. Since 2006, Glass Lewis has identified over 270 companies that have disclosed internal or government investigations into their past stock-option grants.

Spring-loading is granting stock options while in possession of material, positive information that has not been disclosed publicly. Bullet-dodging is delaying the grants of stock options until after the release of material, negative information. This can allow option grants to be made at a lower price either before the release of positive news or following the release of negative news, assuming the stock’s price will move up or down in response to the information. This raises a concern similar to that of insider trading, or the trading on material non-public information.

The exercise price for an option is determined on the day of grant, providing the recipient with the same market risk as an investor who bought shares on that date. However, where options were backdated, the executive or the board (or the compensation committee) changed the grant date retroactively. The new date may be at or near the lowest price for the year or period. This would be like allowing an investor to look back and select the lowest price of the year at which to buy shares.

A 2006 study of option grants made between 1996 and 2005 at 8,000 companies found that option backdating can be an indication of poor internal controls. The study found that option backdating was more likely to occur at companies without a majority independent board and with a long-serving CEO; both factors, the study concluded, were associated with greater CEO influence on the company’s compensation and governance practices. ⁴⁹

Where a company granted backdated options to an executive who is also a director, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against that executive/director, regardless of who decided to make the award. In addition, Glass Lewis will recommend voting against those directors who either approved or allowed the backdating. Glass Lewis feels that executives and directors who either benefited from backdated options or authorized the practice have breached their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.

49 Lucian Bebchuk, Yaniv Grinstein and Urs Peyer. “LUCKY CEOs.” November, 2006.

Given the severe tax and legal liabilities to the company from backdating, Glass Lewis will consider recommending voting against members of the audit committee who served when options were backdated, a restatement occurs, material weaknesses in internal controls exist and disclosures indicate there was a lack of documentation. These committee members failed in their responsibility to ensure the integrity of the company’s financial reports.

When a company has engaged in spring-loading or bullet-dodging, Glass Lewis will consider recommending voting against the compensation committee members where there has been a pattern of granting options at or near historic lows. Glass Lewis will also recommend voting against executives serving on the board who benefited from the spring-loading or bullet-dodging.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLANS

Glass Lewis believes that non-employee directors should receive reasonable and appropriate compensation for the time and effort they spend serving on the board and its committees. However, a balance is required. Fees should be competitive in order to retain and attract qualified individuals, but excessive fees represent a financial cost to the company and potentially compromise the objectivity and independence of non-employee directors. We will consider recommending supporting compensation plans that include option grants or other equity-based awards that help to align the interests of outside directors with those of shareholders. However, equity grants to directors should not be performance-based to ensure directors are not incentivized in the same manner as executives but rather serve as a check on imprudent risk-taking in executive compensation plan design.

Glass Lewis uses a proprietary model and analyst review to evaluate the costs of equity plans compared to the plans of peer companies with similar market capitalizations. We use the results of this model to guide our voting recommendations on stock-based director compensation plans.

EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLANS

Glass Lewis believes that employee stock purchase plans (“ESPPs”) can provide employees with a sense of ownership in their company and help strengthen the alignment between the interests of employees and shareholders. We evaluate ESPPs by assessing the expected discount, purchase period, expected purchase activity (if previous activity has been disclosed) and whether the plan has a “lookback” feature. Except for the most extreme cases, Glass Lewis will generally support these plans given the regulatory purchase limit of $25,000 per employee per year, which we believe is reasonable. We also look at the number of shares requested to see if a ESPP will significantly contribute to overall shareholder dilution or if shareholders will not have a chance to approve the program for an excessive period of time. As such, we will generally recommend against ESPPs that contain “evergreen” provisions that automatically increase the number of shares available under the ESPP each year.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TAX DEDUCTIBILITY (IRS 162(M) COMPLIANCE)

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code allows companies to deduct compensation in excess of $1 million for the CEO and the next three most highly compensated executive officers, excluding the CFO, if the compensation is performance-based and is paid under shareholder-approved plans. Companies therefore submit incentive plans for shareholder approval to take of advantage of the tax deductibility afforded under 162(m) for certain types of compensation.

We believe the best practice for companies is to provide robust disclosure to shareholders so that they can make fully-informed judgments about the reasonableness of the proposed compensation plan. To allow for meaningful shareholder review, we prefer that disclosure should include specific performance metrics, a maximum award pool, and a maximum award amount per employee. We also believe it is important to analyze the estimated grants to see if they are reasonable and in line with the company’s peers.

We typically recommend voting against a 162(m) proposal where: (i) a company fails to provide at least a list of performance targets; (ii) a company fails to provide one of either a total maximum or an individual maximum; or (iii) the proposed plan or individual maximum award limit is excessive when compared with the plans of the company’s peers.

The company’s record of aligning pay with performance (as evaluated using our proprietary pay-for-performance model) also plays a role in our recommendation. Where a company has a record of setting reasonable pay relative to business performance, we generally recommend voting in favor of a plan even if the plan caps seem large relative to peers because we recognize the value in special pay arrangements for continued exceptional performance.

As with all other issues we review, our goal is to provide consistent but contextual advice given the specifics of the company and ongoing performance. Overall, we recognize that it is generally not in shareholders’ best interests to vote against such a plan and forgo the potential tax benefit since shareholder rejection of such plans will not curtail the awards; it will only prevent the tax deduction associated with them.

Governance Structure and the Shareholder Franchise

ANTI-TAKEOVER MEASURES

POISON PILLS (SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS PLANS)

Glass Lewis believes that poison pill plans are not generally in shareholders’ best interests. They can reduce management accountability by substantially limiting opportunities for corporate takeovers. Rights plans can thus prevent shareholders from receiving a buy-out premium for their stock. Typically we recommend that shareholders vote against these plans to protect their financial interests and ensure that they have an opportunity to consider any offer for their shares, especially those at a premium.

We believe boards should be given wide latitude in directing company activities and in charting the company’s course. However, on an issue such as this, where the link between the shareholders’ financial interests and their right to consider and accept buyout offers is substantial, we believe that shareholders should be allowed to vote on whether they support such a plan’s implementation. This issue is different from other matters that are typically left to board discretion. Its potential impact on and relation to shareholders is direct and substantial. It is also an issue in which management interests may be different from those of shareholders; thus, ensuring that shareholders have a voice is the only way to safeguard their interests.

In certain circumstances, we will support a poison pill that is limited in scope to accomplish a particular objective, such as the closing of an important merger, or a pill that contains what we believe to be a reasonable qualifying offer clause. We will consider supporting a poison pill plan if the qualifying offer clause includes each of the following attributes:

●

The form of offer is not required to be an all-cash transaction;

●

The offer is not required to remain open for more than 90 business days;

●

The offeror is permitted to amend the offer, reduce the offer, or otherwise change the terms;

●

There is no fairness opinion requirement; and

●

There is a low to no premium requirement.

Where these requirements are met, we typically feel comfortable that shareholders will have the opportunity to voice their opinion on any legitimate offer.

NOL POISON PILLS

Similarly, Glass Lewis may consider supporting a limited poison pill in the event that a company seeks shareholder approval of a rights plan for the express purpose of preserving Net Operating Losses (NOLs). While companies with NOLs can generally carry these losses forward to offset future taxable income, Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code limits companies’ ability to use NOLs in the event of a “change of ownership.” ⁵⁰ In this case, a company may adopt or amend a poison pill (“NOL pill”) in order to prevent an inadvertent change of ownership by multiple investors purchasing small chunks of stock at the same time, and thereby preserve the ability to carry the NOLs forward. Often such NOL pills have trigger thresholds much lower than the common 15% or 20% thresholds, with some NOL pill triggers as low as 5%.

Glass Lewis evaluates NOL pills on a strictly case-by-case basis taking into consideration, among other factors, the value of the NOLs to the company, the likelihood of a change of ownership based on the size of the holding and the nature of the larger shareholders, the trigger threshold and whether the term of the plan is limited in duration ( i.e. , whether it contains a reasonable “sunset” provision) or is subject to periodic board review and/ or shareholder ratification. However, we will recommend that shareholders vote against a proposal to adopt or amend a pill to include NOL protective provisions if the company has adopted a more narrowly tailored means of preventing a change in control to preserve its NOLs. For example, a company may limit share transfers in its charter to prevent a change of ownership from occurring.

Furthermore, we believe that shareholders should be offered the opportunity to vote on any adoption or renewal of a NOL pill regardless of any potential tax benefit that it offers a company. As such, we will consider recommending voting against those members of the board who served at the time when an NOL pill was adopted without shareholder approval within the prior twelve months and where the NOL pill is not subject to shareholder ratification.

FAIR PRICE PROVISIONS

Fair price provisions, which are rare, require that certain minimum price and procedural requirements be observed by any party that acquires more than a specified percentage of a corporation’s common stock. The provision is intended to protect minority shareholder value when an acquirer seeks to accomplish a merger or other transaction which would eliminate or change the interests of the minority shareholders. The provision is generally applied against the acquirer unless the takeover is approved by a majority of “continuing directors” and holders of a majority, in some cases a supermajority as high as 80%, of the combined voting power of all stock entitled to vote to alter, amend, or repeal the above provisions.

The effect of a fair price provision is to require approval of any merger or business combination with an “interested shareholder” by 51% of the voting stock of the company, excluding the shares held by the interested shareholder. An interested shareholder is generally considered to be a holder of 10% or more of the company’s outstanding stock, but the trigger can vary.

Generally, provisions are put in place for the ostensible purpose of preventing a back-end merger where the interested shareholder would be able to pay a lower price for the remaining shares of the company than he or she paid to gain control. The effect of a fair price provision on shareholders, however, is to limit their ability to gain a premium for their shares through a partial tender offer or open market acquisition which typically raise the share price, often significantly. A fair price provision discourages such transactions because of the potential costs of seeking shareholder approval and because of the restrictions on purchase price for completing a merger or other transaction at a later time.

50 Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code refers to a “change of ownership” of more than 50 percentage points by one or more 5% shareholders within a three-year period. The statute is intended to deter the “trafficking” of net operating losses.

Glass Lewis believes that fair price provisions, while sometimes protecting shareholders from abuse in a takeover situation, more often act as an impediment to takeovers, potentially limiting gains to shareholders from a variety of transactions that could significantly increase share price. In some cases, even the independent directors of the board cannot make exceptions when such exceptions may be in the best interests of shareholders. Given the existence of state law protections for minority shareholders such as Section 203 of the Delaware Corporations Code, we believe it is in the best interests of shareholders to remove fair price provisions.

REINCORPORATION

In general, Glass Lewis believes that the board is in the best position to determine the appropriate jurisdiction of incorporation for the company. When examining a management proposal to reincorporate to a different state or country, we review the relevant financial benefits, generally related to improved corporate tax treatment, as well as changes in corporate governance provisions, especially those relating to shareholder rights, resulting from the change in domicile. Where the financial benefits are de minimis and there is a decrease in shareholder rights, we will recommend voting against the transaction.

However, costly, shareholder-initiated reincorporations are typically not the best route to achieve the furtherance of shareholder rights. We believe shareholders are generally better served by proposing specific shareholder resolutions addressing pertinent issues which may be implemented at a lower cost, and perhaps even with board approval. However, when shareholders propose a shift into a jurisdiction with enhanced shareholder rights, Glass Lewis examines the significant ways would the company benefit from shifting jurisdictions including the following:

●

Is the board sufficiently independent?

●

Does the company have anti-takeover protections such as a poison pill or classified board in place?

●

Has the board been previously unresponsive to shareholders (such as failing to implement a shareholder proposal that received majority shareholder support)?

●

Do shareholders have the right to call special meetings of shareholders?

●

Are there other material governance issues of concern at the company?

●

Has the company’s performance matched or exceeded its peers in the past one and three years?

●

How has the company ranked in Glass Lewis’ pay-for-performance analysis during the last three years?

●

Does the company have an independent chair?

We note, however, that we will only support shareholder proposals to change a company’s place of incorporation in exceptional circumstances.

EXCLUSIVE FORUM AND FEE-SHIFTING BYLAW PROVISIONS

Glass Lewis recognizes that companies may be subject to frivolous and opportunistic lawsuits, particularly in conjunction with a merger or acquisition, that are expensive and distracting. In response, companies have sought ways to prevent or limit the risk of such suits by adopting bylaws regarding where the suits must be brought or shifting the burden of the legal expenses to the plaintiff, if unsuccessful at trial.

Glass Lewis believes that charter or bylaw provisions limiting a shareholder’s choice of legal venue are not in the best interests of shareholders. Such clauses may effectively discourage the use of shareholder claims by increasing their associated costs and making them more difficult to pursue. As such, shareholders should be wary about approving any limitation on their legal recourse including limiting themselves to a single jurisdiction ( e.g. , Delaware) without compelling evidence that it will benefit shareholders.

For this reason, we recommend that shareholders vote against any bylaw or charter amendment seeking to adopt an exclusive forum provision unless the company: (i) provides a compelling argument on why the provision would directly benefit shareholders; (ii) provides evidence of abuse of legal process in other, non- favored jurisdictions; (iii) narrowly tailors such provision to the risks involved; and (iv) maintains a strong record of good corporate governance practices.

Moreover, in the event a board seeks shareholder approval of a forum selection clause pursuant to a bundled bylaw amendment rather than as a separate proposal, we will weigh the importance of the other bundled provisions when determining the vote recommendation on the proposal. We will nonetheless recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee for bundling disparate proposals into a single proposal (refer to our discussion of nominating and governance committee performance in Section I of the guidelines).

Similarly, some companies have adopted bylaws requiring plaintiffs who sue the company and fail to receive a judgment in their favor pay the legal expenses of the company. These bylaws, also known as “fee-shifting” or “loser pays” bylaws, will likely have a chilling effect on even meritorious shareholder lawsuits as shareholders would face an strong financial disincentive not to sue a company. Glass Lewis therefore strongly opposes the adoption of such fee-shifting bylaws and, if adopted without shareholder approval, will recommend voting against the governance committee. While we note that in June of 2015 the State of Delaware banned the adoption of fee-shifting bylaws, such provisions could still be adopted by companies incorporated in other states.

AUTHORIZED SHARES

Glass Lewis believes that adequate capital stock is important to a company’s operation. When analyzing a request for additional shares, we typically review four common reasons why a company might need additional capital stock:

Stock Split — We typically consider three metrics when evaluating whether we think a stock split is likely or necessary: The historical stock pre-split price, if any; the current price relative to the company’s most common trading price over the past 52 weeks; and some absolute limits on stock price that, in our view, either always make a stock split appropriate if desired by management or would almost never be a reasonable price at which to split a stock.

Shareholder Defenses — Additional authorized shares could be used to bolster takeover defenses such as a poison pill. Proxy filings often discuss the usefulness of additional shares in defending against or discouraging a hostile takeover as a reason for a requested increase. Glass Lewis is typically against such defenses and will oppose actions intended to bolster such defenses.

Financing for Acquisitions — We look at whether the company has a history of using stock for acquisitions and attempt to determine what levels of stock have typically been required to accomplish such transactions. Likewise, we look to see whether this is discussed as a reason for additional shares in the proxy.

Financing for Operations — We review the company’s cash position and its ability to secure financing through borrowing or other means. We look at the company’s history of capitalization and whether the company has had to use stock in the recent past as a means of raising capital.

Issuing additional shares can dilute existing holders in limited circumstances. Further, the availability of additional shares, where the board has discretion to implement a poison pill, can often serve as a deterrent to interested suitors. Accordingly, where we find that the company has not detailed a plan for use of the proposed shares, or where the number of shares far exceeds those needed to accomplish a detailed plan, we typically recommend against the authorization of additional shares. Similar concerns may also lead us to recommend against a proposal to conduct a reverse stock split if the board does not state that it will reduce the number of authorized common shares in a ratio proportionate to the split.

While we think that having adequate shares to allow management to make quick decisions and effectively operate the business is critical, we prefer that, for significant transactions, management come to shareholders to justify their use of additional shares rather than providing a blank check in the form of a large pool of unallocated shares available for any purpose.

ADVANCE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

We typically recommend that shareholders vote against proposals that would require advance notice of shareholder proposals or of director nominees.

These proposals typically attempt to require a certain amount of notice before shareholders are allowed to place proposals on the ballot. Notice requirements typically range between three to six months prior to the annual meeting. Advance notice requirements typically make it impossible for a shareholder who misses the deadline to present a shareholder proposal or a director nominee that might be in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.

We believe shareholders should be able to review and vote on all proposals and director nominees. Shareholders can always vote against proposals that appear with little prior notice. Shareholders, as owners of a business, are capable of identifying issues on which they have sufficient information and ignoring issues on which they have insufficient information. Setting arbitrary notice restrictions limits the opportunity for shareholders to raise issues that may come up after the window closes.

VIRTUAL SHAREHOLDER MEETINGS

A relatively small but growing contingent of companies have elected to hold shareholder meetings by virtual means only. Glass Lewis believes that virtual meeting technology can be a useful complement to a traditional, in-person shareholder meeting by expanding participation of shareholders who are unable to attend a shareholder meeting in person (i.e. a “hybrid meeting”). However, we also believe that virtual-only meetings have the potential to curb the ability of a company’s shareholders to meaningfully communicate with the company’s management.

Prominent shareholder rights advocates, including the Council of Institutional Investors, have expressed concerns that such virtual-only meetings do not approximate an in-person experience and may serve to reduce the board’s accountability to shareholders. When analyzing the governance profile of companies that choose to hold virtual-only meetings, we look for robust disclosure in a company’s proxy statement which assures shareholders that they will be afforded the same rights and opportunities to participate as they would at an in-person meeting.

In 2018, we will not make voting recommendations solely on the basis that a company is holding a virtual-only meeting. Beginning in 2019, however, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against members of the governance committee of a board where the board is planning to hold a virtual-only shareholder meeting and the company does not provide such disclosure.

VOTING STRUCTURE

DUAL-CLASS SHARE STRUCTURES

Glass Lewis believes dual-class voting structures are typically not in the best interests of common shareholders. Allowing one vote per share generally operates as a safeguard for common shareholders by ensuring that those who hold a significant minority of shares are able to weigh in on issues set forth by the board.

Furthermore, we believe that the economic stake of each shareholder should match their voting power and that no small group of shareholders, family or otherwise, should have voting rights different from those of other shareholders. On matters of governance and shareholder rights, we believe shareholders should have the power to speak and the opportunity to effect change. That power should not be concentrated in the hands of a few for reasons other than economic stake.

We generally consider a dual-class share structure to reflect negatively on a company’s overall corporate governance. Because we believe that companies should have share capital structures that protect the interests of non-controlling shareholders as well as any controlling entity, we typically recommend that shareholders vote in favor of recapitalization proposals to eliminate dual-class share structures. Similarly, we will generally recommend against proposals to adopt a new class of common stock.

With regards to our evaluation of corporate governance following an IPO or spin-off within the past year, we will now include the presence of dual-class share structures as an additional factor in determining whether shareholder rights are being severely restricted indefinitely.

When analyzing voting results from meetings of shareholders at companies controlled through dual-class structures, we will carefully examine the level of approval or disapproval attributed to unaffiliated shareholders when determining whether board responsiveness is warranted. Where vote results indicate that a majority of unaffiliated shareholders supported a shareholder proposal or opposed a management proposal, we believe the board should demonstrate an appropriate level of responsiveness.

CUMULATIVE VOTING

Cumulative voting increases the ability of minority shareholders to elect a director by allowing shareholders to cast as many shares of the stock they own multiplied by the number of directors to be elected. As companies generally have multiple nominees up for election, cumulative voting allows shareholders to cast all of their votes for a single nominee, or a smaller number of nominees than up for election, thereby raising the likelihood of electing one or more of their preferred nominees to the board. It can be important when a board is controlled by insiders or affiliates and where the company’s ownership structure includes one or more shareholders who control a majority-voting block of company stock.

Glass Lewis believes that cumulative voting generally acts as a safeguard for shareholders by ensuring that those who hold a significant minority of shares can elect a candidate of their choosing to the board. This allows the creation of boards that are responsive to the interests of all shareholders rather than just a small group of large holders.

We review cumulative voting proposals on a case-by-case basis, factoring in the independence of the board and the status of the company’s governance structure. But we typically find these proposals on ballots at companies where independence is lacking and where the appropriate checks and balances favoring shareholders are not in place. In those instances we typically recommend in favor of cumulative voting.

Where a company has adopted a true majority vote standard ( i.e. , where a director must receive a majority of votes cast to be elected, as opposed to a modified policy indicated by a resignation policy only), Glass Lewis will recommend voting against cumulative voting proposals due to the incompatibility of the two election methods. For companies that have not adopted a true majority voting standard but have adopted some form of majority voting, Glass Lewis will also generally recommend voting against cumulative voting proposals if the company has not adopted antitakeover protections and has been responsive to shareholders.

Where a company has not adopted a majority voting standard and is facing both a shareholder proposal to adopt majority voting and a shareholder proposal to adopt cumulative voting, Glass Lewis will support only the majority voting proposal. When a company has both majority voting and cumulative voting in place, there is a higher likelihood of one or more directors not being elected as a result of not receiving a majority vote. This is because shareholders exercising the right to cumulate their votes could unintentionally cause the failed election of one or more directors for whom shareholders do not cumulate votes.

SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIREMENTS

Glass Lewis believes that supermajority vote requirements impede shareholder action on ballot items critical to shareholder interests. An example is in the takeover context, where supermajority vote requirements can strongly limit the voice of shareholders in making decisions on such crucial matters as selling the business. This in turn degrades share value and can limit the possibility of buyout premiums to shareholders. Moreover, we believe that a supermajority vote requirement can enable a small group of shareholders to overrule the will of the majority shareholders. We believe that a simple majority is appropriate to approve all matters presented to shareholders.

TRANSACTION OF OTHER BUSINESS

We typically recommend that shareholders not give their proxy to management to vote on any other business items that may properly come before an annual or special meeting. In our opinion, granting unfettered discretion is unwise.

ANTI-GREENMAIL PROPOSALS

Glass Lewis will support proposals to adopt a provision preventing the payment of greenmail, which would serve to prevent companies from buying back company stock at significant premiums from a certain shareholder. Since a large or majority shareholder could attempt to compel a board into purchasing its shares at a large premium, the anti-greenmail provision would generally require that a majority of shareholders other than the majority shareholder approve the buyback.

MUTUAL FUNDS: INVESTMENT POLICIES AND ADVISORY AGREEMENTS

Glass Lewis believes that decisions about a fund’s structure and/or a fund’s relationship with its investment advisor or sub-advisors are generally best left to management and the members of the board, absent a showing of egregious or illegal conduct that might threaten shareholder value. As such, we focus our analyses of such proposals on the following main areas:

●

The terms of any amended advisory or sub-advisory agreement;

●

Any changes in the fee structure paid to the investment advisor; and

●

Any material changes to the fund’s investment objective or strategy.

We generally support amendments to a fund’s investment advisory agreement absent a material change that is not in the best interests of shareholders. A significant increase in the fees paid to an investment advisor would be reason for us to consider recommending voting against a proposed amendment to an investment advisory agreement or fund reorganization. However, in certain cases, we are more inclined to support an increase in advisory fees if such increases result from being performance-based rather than asset-based. Furthermore, we generally support sub-advisory agreements between a fund’s advisor and sub-advisor, primarily because the fees received by the sub-advisor are paid by the advisor, and not by the fund.

In matters pertaining to a fund’s investment objective or strategy, we believe shareholders are best served when a fund’s objective or strategy closely resembles the investment discipline shareholders understood and selected when they initially bought into the fund. As such, we generally recommend voting against amendments to a fund’s investment objective or strategy when the proposed changes would leave shareholders with stakes in a fund that is noticeably different than when originally purchased, and which could therefore potentially negatively impact some investors’ diversification strategies.

REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS

The complex organizational, operational, tax and compliance requirements of Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”) provide for a unique shareholder evaluation. In simple terms, a REIT must have a minimum of 100 shareholders (the “100 Shareholder Test”) and no more than 50% of the value of its shares can be held by five or fewer individuals (the “5/50 Test”). At least 75% of a REITs’ assets must be in real estate, it must derive 75% of its gross income from rents or mortgage interest, and it must pay out 90% of its taxable earnings as dividends. In addition, as a publicly traded security listed on a stock exchange, a REIT must comply with the same general listing requirements as a publicly traded equity.

In order to comply with such requirements, REITs typically include percentage ownership limitations in their organizational documents, usually in the range of 5% to 10% of the REITs outstanding shares. Given the complexities of REITs as an asset class, Glass Lewis applies a highly nuanced approach in our evaluation of REIT proposals, especially regarding changes in authorized share capital, including preferred stock.

PREFERRED STOCK ISSUANCES AT REITS

Glass Lewis is generally against the authorization of preferred shares that allows the board to determine the preferences, limitations and rights of the preferred shares (known as “blank-check preferred stock”). We believe that granting such broad discretion should be of concern to common shareholders, since blank-check preferred stock could be used as an antitakeover device or in some other fashion that adversely affects the voting power or financial interests of common shareholders. However, given the requirement that a REIT must distribute 90% of its net income annually, it is inhibited from retaining capital to make investments in its business. As such, we recognize that equity financing likely plays a key role in a REIT’s growth and creation of shareholder value. Moreover, shareholder concern regarding the use of preferred stock as an anti-takeover mechanism may be allayed by the fact that most REITs maintain ownership limitations in their certificates of incorporation. For these reasons, along with the fact that REITs typically do not engage in private placements of preferred stock (which result in the rights of common shareholders being adversely impacted), we may support requests to authorize shares of blank-check preferred stock at REITs.

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES

Business Development Companies (“BDCs”) were created by the U.S. Congress in 1980; they are regulated under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and are taxed as regulated investment companies (“RICs”) under the Internal Revenue Code. BDCs typically operate as publicly traded private equity firms that invest in early stage to mature private companies as well as small public companies. BDCs realize operating income when their investments are sold off, and therefore maintain complex organizational, operational, tax and compliance requirements that are similar to those of REITs—the most evident of which is that BDCs must distribute at least 90% of their taxable earnings as dividends.

AUTHORIZATION TO SELL SHARES AT A PRICE BELOW NET ASSET VALUE

Considering that BDCs are required to distribute nearly all their earnings to shareholders, they sometimes need to offer additional shares of common stock in the public markets to finance operations and acquisitions. However, shareholder approval is required in order for a BDC to sell shares of common stock at a price below Net Asset Value (“NAV”). Glass Lewis evaluates these proposals using a case-by-case approach, but will recommend supporting such requests if the following conditions are met:

●

The authorization to allow share issuances below NAV has an expiration date of one year or less from the date that shareholders approve the underlying proposal (i.e. the meeting date);

●

The proposed discount below NAV is minimal (ideally no greater than 20%);

●

The board specifies that the issuance will have a minimal or modest dilutive effect (ideally no greater than 25% of the company’s then-outstanding common stock prior to the issuance); and

●

A majority of the company’s independent directors who do not have a financial interest in the issuance approve the sale.

In short, we believe BDCs should demonstrate a responsible approach to issuing shares below NAV, by proactively addressing shareholder concerns regarding the potential dilution of the requested share issuance, and explaining if and how the company’s past below-NAV share issuances have benefitted the company.

Compensation, Environmental, Social and Governance Shareholder Initialtives

Glass Lewis generally believes decisions regarding day-to-day management and policy decisions, including those related to social, environmental or political issues, are best left to management and the board as they in almost all cases have more and better information about company strategy and risk. However, when there is a clear link between the subject of a shareholder proposal and value enhancement or risk mitigation, Glass Lewis will recommend in favor of a reasonable, well-crafted shareholder proposal where the company has failed to or inadequately addressed the issue.

We believe that shareholders should not attempt to micromanage a company, its businesses or its executives through the shareholder initiative process. Rather, we believe shareholders should use their influence to push for governance structures that protect shareholders and promote director accountability. Shareholders should then put in place a board they can trust to make informed decisions that are in the best interests of the business and its owners, and hold directors accountable for management and policy decisions through board elections. However, we recognize that support of appropriately crafted shareholder initiatives may at times serve to promote or protect shareholder value.

To this end, Glass Lewis evaluates shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis. We generally recommend supporting shareholder proposals calling for the elimination of, as well as to require shareholder approval of, antitakeover devices such as poison pills and classified boards. We generally recommend supporting proposals likely to increase and/or protect shareholder value and also those that promote the furtherance of shareholder rights. In addition, we also generally recommend supporting proposals that promote director accountability and those that seek to improve compensation practices, especially those promoting a closer link between compensation and performance, as well as those that promote more and better disclosure of relevant risk factors where such disclosure is lacking or inadequate.

For a detailed review of our policies concerning compensation, environmental, social and governance shareholder initiatives, please refer to our comprehensive Proxy Paper Guidelines for Shareholder Initiatives , available at www.glasslewis.com .

DISCLAIMER

This document is intended to provide an overview of Glass Lewis’ proxy voting policies and guidelines. It is not intended to be exhaustive and does not address all potential voting issues. Additionally, none of the information contained herein should be relied upon as investment advice. The content of this document has been developed based on Glass Lewis’ experience with proxy voting and corporate governance issues, engagement with clients and issuers and review of relevant studies and surveys, and has not been tailored to any specific person.

No representations or warranties express or implied, are made as to the accuracy or completeness of any information included herein. In addition, Glass Lewis shall not be liable for any losses or damages arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use, reliance on or inability to use any such information. Glass Lewis expects its subscribers possess sufficient experience and knowledge to make their own decisions entirely independent of any information contained in this document.

All information contained in this report is protected by law, including but not limited to, copyright law, and none of such information may be copied or otherwise reproduced, repackaged, further transmitted, transferred, disseminated, redistributed or resold, or stored for subsequent use for any such purpose, in whole or in part, in any form or manner or by any means whatsoever, by any person without Glass Lewis’ prior written consent.

North America			UNITED STATES

			Headquarters
			One Sansome Street
			Suite 3300
			San Francisco, CA 94104
			+1 415 678 4110
			+1 888 800 7001

			44 Wall Street
			Suite 2001
			New York, NY 10005
			+1 212 797 3777

Europe			IRELAND
			15 Henry Street
			Limerick
			+353 61 292 800

			UNITED KINGDOM
			80 Coleman Street
			Suite 4.02
			London, EC2R 5BJ
			+44 207 653 8800


			GERMANY
			IVOX Glass Lewis
			Kaiserallee 23a
			76133 Karlsruhe
			+49 721 3549622

Asia Pacific			AUSTRALIA
			CGI Glass Lewis
			Suite 5.03, Level 5
			255 George St
			Sydney NSW 2000
			+61 2 9299 9266

www.glasslewis.com

	@GlassLewis

	@CGIGlassLewis

	@MeetylConnect

	Glass, Lewis & Co.

PART C: OTHER INFORMATION

Item 28.	Exhibits

(a)(1)	Certificate of Trust of ETFS Trust (the “Registrant” or the “Trust”) dated January 9, 2014, as filed with the state of Delaware on January 10, 2014, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (a)(1) of the Registrant’s Initial Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) via EDGAR Accession No. 0000930413-14-003692 on August 15, 2014.

(a)(2)	Registrant’s Declaration of Trust dated January 9, 2014 is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (a)(2) of the Registrant’s Initial Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0000930413-14-003692 on August 15, 2014.

(b)	Registrant’s By-Laws dated August 4, 2014 are incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (b) of the Registrant’s Initial Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0000930413-14-003692 on August 15, 2014.

(c)	Not applicable.

(d)(1)	Investment Advisory Agreement dated December 2, 2014 between the Registrant and ETF Securities Advisors LLC is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(1) of Pre-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0000930413-15-000063 on January 7, 2015.

(d)(2)	Revised Schedule A to the Investment Advisory Agreement dated December 2, 2014 between the Registrant and ETF Securities Advisors LLC is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(2) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 11 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0001387131-17-001503 on March 20, 2017.

(d)(3)	Interim Investment Advisory Agreement dated April 23, 2018, effective April 27, 2018, between the Registrant and ETF Securities Advisors LLC is filed herewith.

(d)(4)	Sub-Advisory Agreement dated December 11, 2015 between ETF Securities Advisors LLC and Vident Investment Advisory, LLC is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(2) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0001387131-16-005220 on May 2, 2016.

(d)(5)	Revised Schedules A and B to the Sub-Advisory Agreement dated December 11, 2015 between ETF Securities Advisors LLC and Vident Investment Advisory, LLC are incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(5) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 11 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0001387131-17-001503 on March 20, 2017.

(d)(6)	Sub-Advisory Agreement dated April 27, 2018 between ETF Securities Advisors LLC and Vident Investment Advisory, LLC is filed herewith.

(d)(7)	Investment Advisory Agreement dated March 17, 2017 between ETF Securities Advisors LLC and each of the ETFS All Commodity Fund Limited, ETFS All Commodity Longer Dated Fund Limited, ETFS All Agriculture Fund Limited, ETFS All Energy Fund Limited, and ETFS Energy Longer Dated Fund Limited is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(7) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 11 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0001387131-17-001503 on March 20, 2017.

(d)(8)	Sub-Advisory Agreement dated as of March 17, 2017 between ETF Securities Advisors LLC and Vident Investment Advisory, LLC, on behalf of each of the ETFS All Commodity Fund Limited, ETFS All Commodity Longer Dated Fund Limited, ETFS All Agriculture Fund Limited, ETFS All Energy Fund Limited, and ETFS Energy Longer Dated Fund Limited, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (d)(8) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 11 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0001387131-17-001503 on March 20, 2017.

(d)(9)	Fee Waiver Agreement dated as of April 27, 2018 between the Trust and ETF Securities Advisors LLC is filed herewith.

(e)(1)	Distribution Agreement dated December 22, 2014 between the Registrant and ALPS Distributors, Inc. is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (e)(1) of Pre-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0000930413-15-000063 on January 7, 2015.

(e)(2)	Amendment No. 2, dated January 26, 2017, to the Distribution Agreement dated December 22, 2014 between the Registrant and ALPS Distributors, Inc. is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (e)(2) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 11 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0001387131-17-001503 on March 20, 2017.

(e)(3)	Form of Authorized Participant Agreement is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (e)(2) of Pre-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0000930413-15-000063 on January 7, 2015.

(f)	Not applicable.

(g)(1)	Global Custody Agreement dated December 4, 2014 between the Registrant and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (g) of Pre-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0000930413-15-000063 on January 7, 2015.

(g)(2)	Amendment, dated March 21, 2017, to the Global Custody Agreement dated December 4, 2014 between the Registrant and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is filed herewith.

(h)(1)	Administration Agreement dated January 6, 2015 between the Registrant and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (h)(1) of Pre-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0000930413-15-000063 on January 7, 2015.

(h)(2)	Amendment, dated March 21, 2017, to the Administration Agreement dated January 6, 2015 between the Registrant and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is filed herewith.

(h)(3)	Agency Services Agreement dated December 4, 2014 between the Registrant and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (h)(2) of Pre-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0000930413-15-000063 on January 7, 2015.

(h)(4)	Amendment, dated March 23, 2017, to the Agency Services Agreement dated December 4, 2014 between the Registrant and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is filed herewith.

(i)(1)	Opinion and Consent of Counsel, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, relating to the ETFS Zacks Earnings Large-Cap US Index Fund, ETFS Zacks Earnings Small-Cap US Index Fund, ETFS Diversified-Factor U.S. Large Cap Index Fund and ETFS Diversified-Factor Developed Europe Index Fund, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (i) of Pre-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0000930413-15-000063 on January 7, 2015.

(i)(2)	Opinion and Consent of Counsel, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, relating to the ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF, ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF, ETFS Bloomberg Agriculture Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF, ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF and ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (i)(2) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 11 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0001387131-17-001503 on March 20, 2017.

(j)	Consent of independent registered accounting firm is filed herewith.

(k)	Not applicable.

(l)	Not applicable.

(m)(1)	Distribution and Service Plan, adopted December 2, 2014, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (m) of Pre-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0000930413-15-000063 on January 7, 2015.

(m)(2)	Revised Exhibit A to the Distribution and Service Plan, adopted December 2, 2014, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (m)(2) of Post-Effective Amendment No. 11 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0001387131-17-001503 on March 20, 2017. as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0001387131-17-001503 on March 20, 2017.

(n)	Not applicable.

(o)	Not applicable.

(p)(1)	Code of Ethics of the Registrant is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit (p)(1) of Pre-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A (File Nos. 333-198170 and 811-22986), as filed with the SEC via EDGAR Accession No. 0000930413-15-000063 on January 7, 2015.

(p)(2)	Code of Ethics of Aberdeen Asset Management Inc., the parent company of ETF Securities Advisors LLC, is filed herewith.

(p)(3)	Code of Ethics of Vident Investment Advisory, LLC is filed herewith.

(p)(4)	Code of Ethics of ALPS Distributors, Inc. is filed herewith.

(q)	Powers of Attorney for Stephen O’Grady, William M. Thomas, Bev Hendry, Alan Goodson, and Andrea Melia, dated April 27, 2018 are filed herewith.

Item 29.

Persons Controlled by or under Common Control with the Registrant

As of the date of this Registration Statement, the Registrant owns 100% of the ETFS All Commodity Fund Limited, ETFS All Commodity Longer Dated Fund Limited, ETFS Agriculture Fund Limited, ETFS Energy Fund Limited and ETFS Energy Longer Dated Fund Limited, each an exempted company organized under Cayman Islands law. The Registrant is not under common control with any other person.

Item 30.

Indemnification

The Trustees shall not be responsible or liable in any event for any neglect or wrongdoing of any officer, agent, employee, adviser or principal underwriter of the Trust, nor shall any Trustee be responsible for the act or omission of any other Trustee, and, subject to the provisions of the By-Laws, the Trust out of its assets may indemnify and hold harmless each and every Trustee and officer of the Trust from and against any and all claims, demands, costs, losses, expenses, and damages whatsoever arising out of or related to such Trustee’s or officer’s performance of his or her duties as a Trustee or officer of the Trust; provided that nothing herein contained shall indemnify, hold harmless or protect any Trustee or officer from or against any liability to the Trust or any Shareholder to which he or she would otherwise be subject by reason of willful misfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence or reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of his or her office.

Every note, bond, contract, instrument, certificate or undertaking and every other act or thing whatsoever issued, executed or done by or on behalf of the Trust or the Trustees or any of them in connection with the Trust shall be conclusively deemed to have been issued, executed or done only in or with respect to their or his or her capacity as Trustees or Trustee, and such Trustees or Trustee shall not be personally liable thereon.

Insofar as indemnification for liability arising under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) may be permitted to Trustees, officers and controlling persons of the Registrant pursuant to the foregoing provisions, or otherwise, the Registrant has been advised that in the opinion of the SEC such indemnification is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act and is, therefore, unenforceable. In the event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities (other than the payment by the Registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a director, officer or controlling person of the Registrant in the successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such Trustee, officer, or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, the Registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issue.

Item 31.

Business and other Connections of the Investment Advisors

ETF Securities Advisors LLC (the “Advisor”) serves as investment advisor for each series of the Trust. The principal address of the Advisor is 405 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10174. The Advisor is an investment advisor registered under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 and is registered as a Commodity Pool Operator with the National Futures Association.

Vident Investment Advisory, LLC (the “Sub-Adviser”) serves as sub-adviser for each series of the Trust. The principal address of the Sub-Adviser is 300 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 330, Atlanta, Georgia 30076. The Sub-Adviser is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and is registered as a commodity pool operator and commodity trading adviser with the National Futures Association.

Any other business, profession, vocation or employment of a substantial nature in which each director or principal officer of the Adviser and Sub-Adviser is or has been, at any time during the last two fiscal years, engaged for his or her own account or in the capacity of director, officer, employee, partner or trustee are as follows:

ETF Securities Advisors LLC

Name and Position with Adviser	Name of Other Company	Connection with Other Company
Adam Rezak – Chief Compliance Officer	ALPS Distributors Inc.*	Registered Representative
Steve Dunn – Managing Director	DEAWM Distributors Inc.**	Head of ETF Strategists and Divisional Manager
Steven Dunn – Managing Director	ALPS Distributors Inc.*	Registered Representative

*The principal address of ALPS Distributors Inc. is 1290 Broadway, Suite 1100, Denver, CO 80203

**The principal address of DEAWM Distributors Inc. is 222 South Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL 60606-5808

Vident Investment Advisory, LLC

Name and Position with Sub-Adviser

Name of Other Company

Connection with Other Company

Anne Czizek, Chief Operating Officer

Gordian Compliance Solutions, LLC*

Operational Compliance Services, LLC**

Sr. Compliance Consultant

Managing Member & Compliance Consultant

*The principal address of Gordian Compliance Solutions is 235 Montgomery St, Suite 1120, San Francisco, CA 94104.

Additional information as to any other business, profession, vocation or employment of a substantial nature engaged in by each such officer and director is included in the Trust’s Statement of Additional Information.

Item 32.

Principal Underwriters

(a) ALPS Distributors, Inc. acts as the distributor for the Registrant and the following investment companies: 1290 Funds, Acacia Trust, ALPS Series Trust, The Arbitrage Funds, AQR Funds, Barings Funds Trust, BBH Trust, Bluerock Total Income Plus Real Estate Fund, Brandes Investment Trust, Broadview Funds Trust, Brown Capital Management Mutual Funds, Centre Funds, CION Ares Diversified Credit Fund, Columbia ETF Trust, Columbia ETF Trust I, Columbia ETF Trust II, Cortina Funds, Inc., CRM Mutual Fund Trust, CSOP ETF Trust, Cullen Funds Trust, DBX ETF Trust, Elevation ETF Trust, ETFS Trust, Financial Investors Trust, Firsthand Funds, FS Credit Income Fund, FS Energy Total Return Fund, FS Series Trust, Goehring & Rozencwajg Investment Funds, Goldman Sachs ETF Trust, Griffin Institutional Access Credit Fund, Griffin Institutional Access Real Estate Fund, Hartford Funds Exchange-Traded Trust, Hartford Funds NextShares Trust, Heartland Group, Inc., Henssler Funds, Inc., Holland Series Fund, Inc., Index Funds, IndexIQ Active ETF Trust, Index IQ ETF Trust, IVY NextShares Trust, James Advantage Funds, Janus Detroit Street Trust, Lattice Strategies Trust, Laudus Trust, Litman Gregory Funds Trust, Longleaf Partners Funds Trust, M3Sixty Funds Trust, Mairs & Power Funds Trust, Meridian Fund, Inc., Natixis ETF Trust, Northern Lights Fund Trust (on behalf of the 13D Activist Fund), NorthStar Real Estate Capital Income Fund, NorthStar Real Estate Capital Income Fund-ADV, NorthStar Real Estate Capital Income Fund-C, NorthStar Real Estate Capital Income Fund-T, NorthStar/Townsend Institutional Real Estate Fund, Pax World Series Trust I, Pax World Funds Trust III, Principal Exchange-Traded Funds, Reality Shares ETF Trust, Resource Credit Income Fund, Resource Real Estate Diversified Income Fund, RiverNorth Funds, Sierra Total Return Fund, Smead Funds Trust, SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust, SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF Trust, Stadion Investment Trust, Stone Harbor Investment Funds, Stone Ridge Trust, Stone Ridge Trust II, Stone Ridge Trust III, Stone Ridge Trust IV, Stone Ridge Trust V, Total Income + Real Estate Fund, USCF ETF Trust, USCF Mutual Funds Trust, Wasatch Funds, WesMark Funds, Westcore Trust, and Wilmington Funds.

(b) To the best of Registrant’s knowledge, the directors and executive officers of ALPS Distributors, Inc., are as follows:

Name*	Position with Underwriter	Positions with Fund
Edmund J. Burke	Director	None
Jeremy O. May	President, Director	None
Bradley J. Swenson	Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer	None
Robert J. Szydlowski	Senior Vice President, Chief Technology Officer	None
Eric T. Parsons	Vice President, Controller and Assistant Treasurer	None
Randall D. Young**	Secretary	None
Gregg Wm. Givens**	Vice President, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary	None
Douglas W. Fleming**	Assistant Treasurer	None

Name*	Position with Underwriter	Positions with Fund
Steven Price	Senior Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer	None
Liza Orr	Vice President, Senior Counsel	None
Jed Stahl	Vice President, Senior Counsel	None
Josh Eihausen	Vice President, Associate Senior Counsel	None
Troy A. Duran	Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer	None
James Stegall	Vice President	None
Gary Ross	Senior Vice President	None
Kevin Ireland	Senior Vice President	None
Mark Kiniry	Senior Vice President	None
Tison Cory	Vice President, Intermediary Operations	None
Stephen J. Kyllo	Vice President, Deputy Chief Compliance Officer	None
Hilary Quinn	Vice President	None
Jennifer Craig	Assistant Vice President	None

*Except as otherwise noted, the principal business address for each of the above directors and executive officers is 1290 Broadway, Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado 80203.

**The principal business address for Messrs. Young, Givens and Fleming is 333 W. 11 ^th Street, 5 ^th Floor, Kansas City, Missouri 64105.

Item 33.

Location of Accounts and Records:

Books or other documents required to be maintained by Section 31(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and the rules promulgated thereunder, are maintained as follows:

Registrant:

ETFS Trust

405 Lexington Avenue

New York, New York 10174

Adviser:

ETF Securities Advisors LLC

405 Lexington Avenue

New York, New York 10174

Sub-Adviser:

Vident Investment Advisory, LLC

300 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 330

Roswell, Georgia 30076

Distributor:

ALPS Distributors, Inc.

1290 Broadway Suite 1100

Denver, Colorado 80203

Custodian:

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

383 Madison Avenue

New York, New York 10179

Item 34.

Management Services

Not Applicable.

Item 35.

Undertakings

Not Applicable.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“1933 Act”), and the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, the Registrant certifies that it meets all of the requirements for effectiveness of this registration statement pursuant to Rule 485(b) under the 1933 Act and has duly caused this Post-Effective Amendment No. 13 to its Registration Statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, duly authorized, in the city of New York and state of New York, on this 30 ^th day of April, 2018.

	ETFS Trust

	/s/ Bev Hendry*
	President

Pursuant to the requirements of the 1933 Act, this Post-Effective Amendment No. 13 to the Registration Statement has been signed below by the following persons in the capacity and on the date indicated.

Signatures	Title	Date

/s/ Bev Hendry*	President	April 30, 2018
Bev Hendry

/s/ Andrea Melia*	Treasurer	April 30, 2018
Andrea Melia

/s/ Stephen O’Grady*	Trustee	April 30, 2018
Stephen O’Grady

/s/ William M. Thomas*	Trustee	April 30, 2018
William M. Thomas

*By:	/s/ Adam Rezak
	Adam Rezak (Attorney-in-Fact)

Exhibits

Exhibit No.		Exhibit

EX-99D3		Interim Investment Advisory Agreement dated April 23, 2018, effective April 27, 2018, between the Registrant and ETF Securities Advisors LLC

EX-99D6		Sub-Advisory Agreement dated April 27, 2018 between ETF Securities Advisors LLC and Vident Investment Advisory, LLC

EX-99D9		Fee Waiver Agreement dated as of April 27, 2018 between the Trust and ETF Securities Advisors LLC

EX-99G2		Amendment, dated March 21, 2017 to the Global Custody Agreement dated December 4, 2014 between the Registrant and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

EX-99.H2		Amendment, dated March 21, 2017 to the Administration Agreement dated January 6, 2015 between the Registrant and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

EX-99.H5		Amendment, dated March 23, 2017 to the Agency Services Agreement dated December 4, 2014 between the Registrant and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

EX-99.J		Consent of independent registered accounting firm

EX-99.P2		Code of Ethics of Aberdeen Asset Management Inc., the parent company of ETF Securities Advisors LLC

EX-99.P3		Code of Ethics of Vident Investment Advisor, LLC

EX-99.P4		Code of Ethics of ALPS Distributors, Inc.

EX-99.Q		Powers of Attorney for Stephen O’Grady, William M. Thomas, Bev Hendry, Alan Goodson, and Andrea Melia, dated April 27, 2018

	REGISTRATION STATEMENT	☒
	UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
	Pre-Effective Amendment No.	☐

	☒	immediately upon filing pursuant to paragraph (b)
	☐	on (date) pursuant to paragraph (b)
	☐	60 days after filing pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)
	☐	on (date) pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)
	☐	75 days after filing pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)
	☐	on (date) pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 485.


Management Fees ⁽¹⁾	0.29%
Distribution and Service (12b-1) Fees	0.00%
Other Expenses	0.00%
Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses	0.29%


1 Year	3 Years	5 Years	10 Years
$30	$93	$163	$368


Management Fees ⁽¹⁾	0.29%
Distribution and Service (12b-1) Fees	0.00%
Other Expenses	0.00%
Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses	0.29%

	and/or
	REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940	☒

Adam Rezak		W. John McGuire
ETF Securities Advisors LLC		Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
405 Lexington Avenue		1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
New York, New York 10174		Washington, D.C. 20004


Summary
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCI)	1
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BCD)	6
ETFS Bloomberg Agriculture Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (AGRI)	11
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BEI)	16
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF (BEF)	21
Additional Information About the Funds	26
Additional Principal Risk Information About the Funds	29
Portfolio Holdings	33
Management of the Funds	33
Additional Information on Buying and Selling Fund Shares	35
Share Trading Prices	35
Determination of Net Asset Value	35
Dividends and Distributions	36
Book Entry	36
Delivery of Shareholder Documents – Householding	36
Frequent Purchases and Redemption of Fund Shares	36
Investments by Registered Investment Companies	36
Additional Tax Information	37
Distribution	39
Premium/Discount and NAV Information	39
Additional Notices	39
Financial Highlights	41


Management Fees ⁽¹⁾	0.39%
Distribution and Service (12b-1) Fees	0.00%
Other Expenses ⁽²⁾	0.00%
Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses	0.39%


Name of Fund		Advisory Fee Rate*
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF		0.29%
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF		0.29%
ETFS Bloomberg Agriculture Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF		0.39%
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF		0.39%
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Strategy Longer Dated K-1 Free ETF		0.39%


	Selected Data For A Share Outstanding Throughout The Periods Indicated
	Per Share Operating Performance
	Investment Operations
	Net asset value, beginning of period		Net investment income (loss) ^(c)		Net realized and unrealized gains (losses) on investments		Total from investment operations
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF
March 30, 2017* through December 31, 2017	$	25.00	$	0.13	$	0.58	$	0.71
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF
March 30, 2017* through December 31, 2017		25.00		0.03		1.03		1.06
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF
March 30, 2017* through December 31, 2017		25.00		0.01		2.06		2.07


Selected Data For A Share Outstanding Throughout The Periods Indicated
Per Share Operating Performance																	Ratios/Supplemental Data
Distributions											Total Return ^(a)						Ratios To Average Net Assets ^(b)												Supplemental Data
Net investment income			Net realized gains			Total distributions			Net asset value, end of period		Net asset value ^(d)			Market value (Unaudited) ^(e)			Expenses before expense reductions			Expenses net of waivers, if any			Net investment income (loss) before expense reductions			Net investment income (loss) net of waivers if any			Net assets, end of period (000)		Portfolio turnover rate ^(a)(f)

$	(1.23	)	$	—	^(g)	$	(1.23	)	$	24.48		3.05	%		3.09	%		0.36	%		0.32	%		0.66	%		0.70	%	$	78,346		—	%

	(0.02	)		—	^(g)		(0.02	)		26.04		4.24			3.08			0.78			0.72			0.13			0.19			3,906		—

	(1.74	)		—			(1.74	)		25.33		8.66			8.88			0.92			0.85			(0.03	)		0.05			2,533		—


Call:	1-844-383-7289 Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. (Eastern time)	Write:	ETFS Trust c/o ALPS Distributors, Inc. 1290 Broadway, Suite 1100 Denver, Colorado 80203
Visit:	www.etfsus.com

ETFS TRUST		ETF SECURITIES ADVISORS LLC

By:	/s/ Alan R. Goodson	By:	/s/ Alan R. Goodson
	Name: Alan Goodson		Name: Alan Goodson
	Title: Vice President		Title: Director

Name of Series:	Fee %:
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	0.29%
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	0.29%
ETFS Bloomberg Agriculture Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	0.39%
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	0.39%
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	0.39%


To the Adviser at:	ETF Securities Advisors LLC 48 Wall Street New York, NY 10005 Attention: Managing Director and the Chief Compliance Officer

To the Trust’s CCO at:	ETFS Trust c/o ETF Securities Advisors LLC 48 Wall Street New York, NY 10005 Attention: Chief Compliance Officer

To the Sub-Adviser at:	Vident Investment Advisory, LLC 300 Colonial Center Parkway Suite 330 Roswell, GA 30076 Attention: Compliance/Legal Department


ADVISER:	SUB-ADVISER:
ETF Securities Advisors LLC	Vident Investment Advisory, LLC

ADVISER:		SUB-ADVISER :

ETF Securities Advisors LLC		Vident Investment Advisory, LLC

By Aberdeen Asset Management Inc., its managing member

By:	/s/ Alan R. Goodson	By:	/s/ Denise Krisko

Title:	Director	Title:	President

Date: April 27, 2018		Date: April 27, 2018

	Very truly yours,

	ETF SECURITIES ADVISORS LLC

	By Aberdeen Asset Management Inc., its sole member

	By:	/s/ Alan R. Goodson
	Name: Alan Goodson
	Title: Director

	ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED

	ETFS TRUST,
	for and on behalf of the Funds listed on Schedule A hereto

	By:	/s/ Alan R. Goodson
	Name: Alan Goodson
	Title: Vice President

Fund	Subsidiary
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	ETFS All Commodity Fund Limited
ETFS Bloomberg All Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	ETFS All Commodity Longer Dated Fund Limited
ETFS Bloomberg Agriculture Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	ETFS Agriculture Fund Limited
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Strategy K-1 Free ETF	ETFS Energy Fund Limited
ETFS Bloomberg Energy Commodity Longer Dated Strategy K-1 Free ETF	ETFS Energy Longer Dated Fund Limited

ETFS TRUST

By:	/s/ Graham Tuckwell
Name: Graham Tuckwell Title: Trustee

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

By:	/s/ Anna Marie Calla Minniti
Name: Anna Marie Calla Minniti Title: Vice President

Name and address of Financial Institution (broker-dealer, bank, ESOP, 401(k) plan sponsors, etc.)	Account Name (indicate if any of the accounts are individually or jointly held.)	Account Type (a,b,c,d)	Account Number

Security (Include full name of issuer) and exchange ticker symbol (or Cusip) Number)	# of Shares and Principal Amount

Date of Transactions	Security and exchange ticker symbol (or Cusip Number)	Nature of transaction (e.g, Purchase or Sale)	Number of shares and principal amount	Price at which transaction was effected	Name of broker/dealer effecting transaction

Introduction	3
Applicability	4
General Standards of Business Conduct	5
Conflicts of Interest	5
Protecting Confidential Information	5
Insider Trading	5
Limitation on Trading DST Stock	6
Excess Trading	6
Gifts and Entertainment	7
Improper Payments or Rebates	8
Service on a Board of Directors/Outside Business Activities	9
Political Contributions	9
Personal Securities Transactions – Restrictions & Reporting Requirements	10
Access Persons	10
Investment Persons	14
Sanctions	19
Compliance and Supervisory Procedures	20
Appendix A – Broker/Dealers with Electronic Feeds (updated June 30, 2016)	23
Appendix B – Sub-Advisers to ALPS Advisors, Inc. (Updated March 31, 2017)	24
Appendix C – Glossary of Defined Terms*	25

Cash or Cash Equivalent Gifts received from the same Business Partner which would aggregate less than $100/twelve months	Prohibited from giving or receiving Quarterly disclosure required, no approval required
Gifts received from the same Business Partner which would aggregate equal/more than $100/twelve months	Approval required, Quarterly disclosure required, strictly prohibited for FINRA registered reps
Promotional gifts such as those that bear a logo valued less than $50	Quarterly disclosure not required, approval not required
Gifts given to or received by a wide group of recipients (e.g. gift basket to a department) that are reasonable in nature	Quarterly disclosure not required, approval not required
Gifts given on behalf of ALPS Holdings or its subsidiaries (from an ALPS budget)	Indication of who received the gift must be included via regular expense reports, gifts must be reasonable in nature
Gifts of any value given or received by Investment Persons (as defined in Glossary) to or from a broker/dealer	Must be pre-cleared with their immediate supervisor and the CCO (or designee)

Entertainment provided by and for ALPS employees	Approval/Disclosure Required
Entertainment provided on behalf of ALPS or its subsidiaries (from an ALPS budget) valued at $250 or less per person per event	Indication of who was present must be included via expense reports
Entertainment provided to an ALPS employee at $250 or less per person per event	Quarterly disclosure required (excluding entertainment of de minimis value - below approx. $50), no approval required
Entertainment provided on behalf of ALPS or its subsidiaries (from an ALPS budget) valued at equal/more than $250 per person per event	Typically not allowed, Approval required, Indication of who was present must be included via expense reports
Entertainment provided to an ALPS employee at equal/more than $250 per person per event	Typically not allowed, Approval required, Quarterly disclosure required
Attendance and participation at industry sponsored events	No approval required, no disclosure required
Entertainment of any value given or received by Investment Persons (as defined on page 5) to or from a broker/dealer	Must be pre-cleared with their immediate supervisor and the CCO (or designee)