(a) The
Registrant has adopted a code of ethics that applies to its principal executive
officers and principal financial and accounting officer.
(f)
Pursuant to Item 13(a)(1), the Registrant is attaching as an exhibit a copy of
its code of ethics that applies to its principal executive officers and
principal financial and accounting officer.
Item 3. Audit Committee
Financial Expert.
(a)(1) The Registrant has an
audit committee financial expert serving on its audit committee.
(2) The audit committee
financial expert is Mary C. Choksi and she is "independent" as
defined under the relevant Securities and Exchange Commission Rules and
Releases.
Principal Accountant Fees
and Services.
The aggregate fees paid to
the principal accountant for professional services rendered by the principal
accountant for the audit of the registrant’s annual financial statements or for
services that are normally provided by the principal accountant in connection
with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements were $89,822 for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 and $84,534 for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
There were no fees paid to
the principal accountant for assurance and related services rendered by the
principal accountant to the registrant that are reasonably related to the
performance of the audit of the registrant's financial statements and are not
reported under paragraph (a) of Item 4.
There were no fees paid to
the principal accountant for assurance and related services rendered by the
principal accountant to the registrant's investment adviser and any entity
controlling, controlled by or under common control with the investment adviser
that provides ongoing services to the registrant that are reasonably related to
the performance of the audit of their financial statements.
There were no fees paid to
the principal accountant for professional services rendered by the principal
accountant to the registrant for tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning.
The aggregate fees paid to
the principal accountant for professional services rendered by the principal
accountant to the registrant’s investment adviser and any entity controlling,
controlled by or under common control with the investment adviser that provides
ongoing services to the registrant for tax compliance, tax advice and tax
planning were $0 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 and $20,000 for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The services for which these fees
were paid included professional fees in connection with tax treatment of
equipment lease transactions and professional fees in connection with an
Indonesia withholding tax refund claim.
The aggregate fees paid to
the principal accountant for products and services rendered by the principal
accountant to the registrant not reported in paragraphs (a)-(c) of Item 4 were
$0 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 and $123 for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019. The services for which these fees were paid included
review of materials provided to the fund Board in connection with the
investment management contract renewal process.
The aggregate fees paid to
the principal accountant for products and services rendered by the principal
accountant to the registrant’s investment adviser and any entity controlling,
controlled by or under common control with the investment adviser that provides
ongoing services to the registrant not reported in paragraphs (a)-(c) of Item 4
were $49,800 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 and $145,644 for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The services for which these fees were
paid included valuation services related to Fair Value engagement, the issuance
of an Auditor’s Certificate for South Korean regulatory shareholders
disclosures, professional fees in connection with determining the feasibility
of a U.S. direct lending structure, and assets under management certification.
(e) (1) The registrant’s
audit committee is directly responsible for approving the services to be
provided by the auditors, including:
(i) pre-approval of
all audit and audit related services;
(ii) pre-approval of
all non-audit related services to be provided to the Fund by the auditors;
(iii) pre-approval of
all non-audit related services to be provided to the registrant by the auditors
to the registrant’s investment adviser or to any entity that controls, is
controlled by or is under common control with the registrant’s investment
adviser and that provides ongoing services to the registrant where the
non-audit services relate directly to the operations or financial reporting of
the registrant; and
(iv) establishment by
the audit committee, if deemed necessary or appropriate, as an alternative to
committee pre-approval of services to be provided by the auditors, as required
by paragraphs (ii) and (iii) above, of policies and procedures to permit such
services to be pre-approved by other means, such as through establishment of
guidelines or by action of a designated member or members of the committee;
provided the policies and procedures are detailed as to the particular service
and the committee is informed of each service and such policies and procedures
do not include delegation of audit committee responsibilities, as contemplated
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, to management; subject, in the case
of (ii) through (iv), to any waivers, exceptions or exemptions that may be
available under applicable law or rules.
(e) (2) None of the services
provided to the registrant described in paragraphs (b)-(d) of Item 4 were
approved by the audit committee pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01
of regulation S-X.
(f) No disclosures are required
by this Item 4(f).
(g) The aggregate non-audit
fees paid to the principal accountant for services rendered by the principal
accountant to the registrant and the registrant’s investment adviser and any
entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the investment
adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant were $49,800 for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 and $165,767 for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
(h) The registrant’s audit
committee of the board has considered whether the provision of non-audit
services that were rendered to the registrant’s investment adviser (not
including any sub-adviser whose role is primarily portfolio management and is
subcontracted with or overseen by another investment adviser), and any entity
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the investment adviser
that provides ongoing services to the registrant that were not pre-approved
pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X is compatible
with maintaining the principal accountant’s independence.
Members of the Audit Committee are: Mary C. Choksi,
Michael Luttig and Larry D. Thompson
.
Item
6. Schedule of Investments. N/A
Item
7
. Disclosure of Proxy Voting
Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies.
The board of trustees of the
Fund has delegated the authority to vote proxies related to the portfolio
securities held by the Fund to the Fund’s investment manager Franklin Advisers,
Inc. in accordance with the Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures (Policies)
adopted by the investment manager.
The investment manager has delegated
its administrative duties with respect to the voting of proxies for securities
to the Proxy Group within Franklin Templeton Companies, LLC (Proxy Group), an
affiliate and wholly owned subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc. All proxies
received by the Proxy Group will be voted based upon the investment manager’s
instructions and/or policies. The investment manager votes proxies solely in
the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders.
To assist it in analyzing proxies of
equity securities, the investment manager subscribes to Institutional
Shareholder Services, Inc. (ISS), an unaffiliated third-party corporate
governance research service that provides in-depth analyses of shareholder
meeting agendas, vote recommendations, vote execution services, ballot
reconciliation services, recordkeeping and vote disclosure services. In
addition, the investment manager subscribes to Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC
(Glass Lewis), an unaffiliated third-party analytical research firm, to receive
analyses and vote recommendations on the shareholder meetings of publicly held
U.S. companies, as well as a limited subscription to its international
research. Also, the investment manager has a supplemental subscription to
Egan-Jones Proxy Services (Egan-Jones), an unaffiliated third party proxy
advisory firm, to receive analyses and vote recommendations. Although analyses
provided by ISS, Glass Lewis, Egan-Jones, and/or another independent third
party proxy service provider (each a "Proxy Service") are thoroughly
reviewed and considered in making a final voting decision, the investment
manager does not consider recommendations from a Proxy Service or any third
party to be determinative of the investment manager's ultimate decision.
Rather, the investment manager exercises its independent judgment in making
voting decisions. For most proxy proposals, the investment manager’s evaluation
should result in the same position being taken for all Funds. In some cases,
however, the evaluation may result in a Fund voting differently, depending upon
the nature and objective of the Fund, the composition of its portfolio and
other factors. As a matter of policy, the officers, directors/trustees and
employees of the investment manager and the Proxy Group will not be influenced
by outside sources whose interests conflict with the interests of the Fund and
its shareholders. Efforts are made to resolve all conflicts in the best
interests of the investment manager’s clients. Material conflicts of interest
are identified by the Proxy Group based upon analyses of client, distributor,
broker-dealer and vendor lists, information periodically gathered from
directors and officers, and information derived from other sources, including
public filings. In situations where a material conflict of interest is
identified, the Proxy Group may vote consistent with the voting recommendation
of a Proxy Service; or send the proxy directly to the Fund's board or a
committee of the board with the investment manager's recommendation regarding
the vote for approval.
Where a material conflict of
interest has been identified, but the items on which the investment manager’s
vote recommendations differ from a Proxy Service and relate specifically to (1)
shareholder proposals regarding social or environmental issues, (2) “Other
Business” without describing the matters that might be considered, or (3) items
the investment manager wishes to vote in opposition to the recommendations of
an issuer’s management, the Proxy Group may defer to the vote recommendations
of the investment manager rather than sending the proxy directly to the Fund's
board or a board committee for approval.
To avoid certain potential conflicts
of interest, the investment manager will employ echo voting or pass-through
voting, if possible, in the following instances: (1) when the Fund invests in
an underlying fund in reliance on any one of Sections 12(d)(1)(F) or (G) of the
1940 Act, the rules thereunder, or pursuant to a SEC exemptive order
thereunder; (2) when the Fund invests uninvested cash in affiliated money
market funds pursuant to the rules under the 1940 Act or any exemptive orders
thereunder (“cash sweep arrangement”); or (3) when required pursuant to the
Fund’s governing documents or applicable law. Echo voting means that the
investment manager will vote the shares in the same proportion as the vote of
all of the other holders of the underlying fund's shares. With respect to
instances when a Franklin Templeton U.S. registered investment company invests
in an underlying fund in reliance on any one of Sections 12(d)(1)(F) or (G) of
the 1940 Act, the rules thereunder, or pursuant to an SEC exemptive order
thereunder, and there are no other unaffiliated shareholders also invested in
the underlying fund, the investment manager will vote in accordance with the
recommendation of such investment company’s board of trustees or directors. In
addition, to avoid certain potential conflicts of interest, and where required
under a fund’s governing documents or applicable law, the investment manager
will employ pass-through voting when a Franklin Templeton U.S. registered
investment company invests in an underlying fund in reliance on Section
12(d)(1)(E) of the 1940 Act, the rules thereunder, or pursuant to an SEC
exemptive order thereunder. In “pass-through voting,” a feeder fund will
solicit voting instructions from its shareholders as to how to vote on the
master fund’s proposals.
The recommendation of management on
any issue is a factor that the investment manager considers in determining how
proxies should be voted. However, the investment manager does not consider
recommendations from management to be determinative of the investment manager’s
ultimate decision. As a matter of practice, the votes with respect to most
issues are cast in accordance with the position of the company's management.
Each issue, however, is considered on its own merits, and the investment manager
will not support the position of the company's management in any situation
where it deems that the ratification of management’s position would adversely
affect the investment merits of owning that company’s shares.
Engagement with issuers.
The investment manager believes that
engagement with issuers is important to good corporate governance and to assist
in making proxy voting decisions. The investment manager may engage with
issuers to discuss specific ballot items to be voted on in advance of an annual
or special meeting to obtain further information or clarification on the
proposals. The investment manager may also engage with management on a range of
environmental, social or corporate governance issues throughout the year.
Investment manager’s proxy voting
policies and principles
. The
investment manager has adopted general proxy voting guidelines, which are
summarized below. These guidelines are not an exhaustive list of all the issues
that may arise and the investment manager cannot anticipate all future
situations. In all cases, each proxy and proposal (including both management
and shareholder proposals) will be considered based on the relevant facts and
circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
Board of directors.
The investment manager supports an
independent, diverse board of directors, and prefers that key committees such
as audit, nominating, and compensation committees be comprised of independent
directors. The investment manager supports boards with strong risk management
oversight. The investment manager will generally vote against management
efforts to classify a board and will generally support proposals to declassify
the board of directors. The investment manager will consider withholding votes
from directors who have attended less than 75% of meetings without a valid
reason. While generally in favor of separating Chairman and CEO positions, the
investment manager will review this issue as well as proposals to restore or
provide for cumulative voting on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration
factors such as the company’s corporate governance guidelines or provisions and
performance. The investment manager generally will support non-binding
shareholder proposals to require a majority vote standard for the election of
directors; however, if these proposals are binding, the investment manager will
give careful review on a case-by-case basis of the potential ramifications of
such implementation.
In the event of a contested
election, the investment manager will review a number of factors in making a
decision including management’s track record, the company’s financial
performance, qualifications of candidates on both slates, and the strategic
plan of the dissidents and/or shareholder nominees.
Ratification of auditors of
portfolio companies.
The
investment manager will closely scrutinize the independence, role and
performance of auditors. On a case-by-case basis, the investment manager will
examine proposals relating to non-audit relationships and non-audit fees. The
investment manager will also consider, on a case-by-case basis, proposals to
rotate auditors, and will vote against the ratification of auditors when there
is clear and compelling evidence of a lack of independence, accounting
irregularities or negligence. The investment manager may also consider whether
the ratification of auditors has been approved by an appropriate audit
committee that meets applicable composition and independence requirements.
Management and director
compensation.
A company’s
equity-based compensation plan should be in alignment with the shareholders’
long-term interests. The investment manager believes that executive
compensation should be directly linked to the performance of the company. The
investment manager evaluates plans on a case-by-case basis by considering
several factors to determine whether the plan is fair and reasonable, including
the ISS quantitative model utilized to assess such plans and/or the Glass Lewis
evaluation of the plans. The investment manager will generally oppose plans
that have the potential to be excessively dilutive, and will almost always
oppose plans that are structured to allow the repricing of underwater options,
or plans that have an automatic share replenishment “evergreen” feature. The
investment manager will generally support employee stock option plans in which
the purchase price is at least 85% of fair market value, and when potential
dilution is 10% or less.
Severance compensation arrangements
will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, although the investment manager will
generally oppose “golden parachutes” that are considered to be excessive. The
investment manager will normally support proposals that require a percentage of
directors’ compensation to be in the form of common stock, as it aligns their
interests with those of shareholders.
The investment manager will review
non-binding say-on-pay proposals on a case-by-case basis, and will generally
vote in favor of such proposals unless compensation is misaligned with
performance and/or shareholders’ interests, the company has not provided
reasonably clear disclosure regarding its compensation practices, or there are
concerns with the company’s remuneration practices.
Anti-takeover mechanisms and
related issues.
The
investment manager generally opposes anti-takeover measures since they tend to
reduce shareholder rights. However, as with all proxy issues, the investment
manager conducts an independent review of each anti-takeover proposal. On
occasion, the investment manager may vote with management when the research
analyst has concluded that the proposal is not onerous and would not harm the
Fund or its shareholders’ interests. The investment manager generally supports
proposals that require shareholder rights’ plans (“poison pills”) to be subject
to a shareholder vote and will closely evaluate such plans on a case-by-case
basis to determine whether or not they warrant support. In addition, the
investment manager will generally vote against any proposal to issue stock that
has unequal or subordinate voting rights. The investment manager generally
opposes any supermajority voting requirements as well as the payment of
“greenmail.” The investment manager generally supports “fair price” provisions
and confidential voting. The investment manager will review a company’s
proposal to reincorporate to a different state or country on a case-by-case
basis taking into consideration financial benefits such as tax treatment as
well as comparing corporate governance provisions and general business laws
that may result from the change in domicile.
Changes to capital structure.
The investment manager realizes that a
company's financing decisions have a significant impact on its shareholders,
particularly when they involve the issuance of additional shares of common or
preferred stock or the assumption of additional debt. The investment manager
will review, on a case-by-case basis, proposals by companies to increase
authorized shares and the purpose for the increase. The investment manager will
generally not vote in favor of dual-class capital structures to increase the
number of authorized shares where that class of stock would have superior
voting rights. The investment manager will generally vote in favor of the
issuance of preferred stock in cases where the company specifies the voting,
dividend, conversion and other rights of such stock and the terms of the
preferred stock issuance are deemed reasonable. The investment manager will
review proposals seeking preemptive rights on a case-by-case basis.
Mergers and corporate
restructuring.
Mergers and
acquisitions will be subject to careful review by the research analyst to
determine whether they would be beneficial to shareholders. The investment
manager will analyze various economic and strategic factors in making the final
decision on a merger or acquisition. Corporate restructuring proposals are also
subject to a thorough examination on a case-by-case basis.
Environmental and social issues.
The investment manager considers
environmental and social issues alongside traditional financial measures to
provide a more comprehensive view of the value, risk and return potential of an
investment. Companies may face significant financial, legal and reputational
risks resulting from poor environmental and social practices, or negligent
oversight of environmental or social issues. Franklin Templeton’s “Responsible
Investment Principles and Policies” describes the investment manager’s approach
to consideration of environmental, social and governance issues within the
investment manager’s processes and ownership practices.
The investment manager will review
shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis and may support those that serve
to enhance value or mitigate risk, are drafted appropriately, and do not
disrupt the course of business or require a disproportionate or inappropriate
use of company resources. In the investment manager’s experience, those
companies that are managed well are often effective in dealing with the
relevant environmental and social issues that pertain to their business. As
such, the investment manager will generally give management discretion with
regard to environmental and social issues. However, in cases where management
and the board have not demonstrated adequate efforts to mitigate material
environmental or social risks, have engaged in inappropriate or illegal
conduct, or have failed to adequately address current or emergent risks that
threaten shareholder value, the investment manager may choose to support
well-crafted shareholder proposals that serve to promote or protect shareholder
value. This may include seeking appropriate disclosure regarding material
environmental and social issues.
The investment manager will consider
supporting a shareholder proposal seeking disclosure and greater board
oversight of lobbying and corporate political contributions if the investment
manager believes that there is evidence of inadequate oversight by the
company’s board, if the company’s current disclosure is significantly
deficient, or if the disclosure is notably lacking in comparison to the company’s
peers.
Governance matters.
The investment manager generally supports
the right of shareholders to call special meetings and act by written consent.
However, the investment manager will review such shareholder proposals on a
case-by-case basis in an effort to ensure that such proposals do not disrupt
the course of business or require a disproportionate or inappropriate use of
company resources.
Proxy access.
In cases where the investment manager is
satisfied with company performance and the responsiveness of management, it
will generally vote against shareholder proxy access proposals not supported by
management. In other instances, the investment manager will consider such
proposals on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors such as the size
of the company, ownership thresholds and holding periods, nomination limits
(e.g., number of candidates that can be nominated), the intentions of the
shareholder proponent, and shareholder base.
Global corporate governance.
Many of the tenets discussed above are
applied to the investment manager's proxy voting decisions for international
investments. However, the investment manager must be flexible in these
worldwide markets. Principles of good corporate governance may vary by country,
given the constraints of a country’s laws and acceptable practices in the
markets. As a result, it is on occasion difficult to apply a consistent set of
governance practices to all issuers. As experienced money managers, the
investment manager's analysts are skilled in understanding the complexities of
the regions in which they specialize and are trained to analyze proxy issues
germane to their regions.
The investment manager will
generally attempt to process every proxy it receives for all domestic and
foreign securities. However, there may be situations in which the investment
manager may be unable to successfully vote a proxy, or may choose not to vote a
proxy, such as where: (i) a proxy ballot was not received from the custodian
bank; (ii) a meeting notice was received too late; (iii) there are fees imposed
upon the exercise of a vote and it is determined that such fees outweigh the
benefit of voting; (iv) there are legal encumbrances to voting, including
blocking restrictions in certain markets that preclude the ability to dispose
of a security if the investment manager votes a proxy or where the investment
manager is prohibited from voting by applicable law, economic or other
sanctions, or other regulatory or market requirements, including but not
limited to, effective Powers of Attorney; (v) additional documentation or the
disclosure of beneficial owner details is required; (vi) the investment manager
held shares on the record date but has sold them prior to the meeting date;
(vii) a proxy voting service is not offered by the custodian in the market;
(viii) due to either system error or human error, the investment manager’s
intended vote is not correctly submitted; (ix) the investment manager believes
it is not in the best interest of the Fund or its shareholders to vote the
proxy for any other reason not enumerated herein; or (x) a security is subject
to a securities lending or similar program that has transferred legal title to
the security to another person.
In some non-U.S. jurisdictions, even
if the investment manager uses reasonable efforts to vote a proxy on behalf of
the Fund, such vote or proxy may be rejected because of (a) operational or
procedural issues experienced by one or more third parties involved in voting
proxies in such jurisdictions; (b) changes in the process or agenda for the
meeting by the issuer for which the investment manager does not have sufficient
notice; or (c) the exercise by the issuer of its discretion to reject the vote
of the investment manager. In addition, despite the best efforts of the Proxy
Group and its agents, there may be situations where the investment manager's
votes are not received, or properly tabulated, by an issuer or the issuer's
agent.
The investment manager or its
affiliates may, on behalf of one or more of the proprietary registered
investment companies advised by the investment manager or its affiliates,
determine to use its best efforts to recall any security on loan where the
investment manager or its affiliates (a) learn of a vote on a material event
that may affect a security on loan and (b) determine that it is in the best
interests of such proprietary registered investment companies to recall the
security for voting purposes.
Procedures for meetings involving
fixed income securities & privately held issuers.
From time to time, certain custodians may
process events for fixed income securities through their proxy voting channels
rather than corporate action channels for administrative convenience. In such
cases, the Proxy Group will receive ballots for such events on the ISS voting
platform. The Proxy Group will solicit voting instructions from the investment
manager for each Fund involved. If the Proxy Group does not receive voting
instructions from the investment manager, the Proxy Group will take no action
on the event. The investment manager may be unable to vote a proxy for a fixed
income security, or may choose not to vote a proxy, for the reasons described
above.
In the rare instance where there is
a vote for a privately held issuer, the decision will generally be made by the
relevant portfolio managers or research analysts.
The Proxy Group will monitor such
meetings involving fixed income securities or privately held issuers for
conflicts of interest in accordance with these procedures. If a fixed income or
privately held issuer is flagged as a potential conflict of interest, the
investment manager may nonetheless vote as it deems in the best interests of
the Fund. The investment manager will report such decisions on an annual basis
to the Fund board as may be required.
Shareholders may view the complete
Policies online at franklintempleton.com. Alternatively, shareholders may
request copies of the Policies free of charge by calling the Proxy Group
collect at (954) 527-7678 or by sending a written request to: Franklin
Templeton Companies, LLC, 300 S.E. 2nd Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1923,
Attention: Proxy Group. Copies of the Fund’s proxy voting records are available
online at franklintempleton.com and posted on the SEC website at www.sec.gov.
The proxy voting records are updated each year by August 31 to reflect the most
recent 12-month period ended June 30.
Item 8. Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management
Investment Companies.
(a)(1) As of February 26, 2021, the portfolio managers
of the Fund are as follows:
Sonal Desai, Ph.D, Glenn I. Voyles, CFA,
Justin G. MA, CFA and David Yuen,
CFA,
serve
as the portfolio management team responsible for managing the Fund's
portfolio investment. Each of them has experience
managing Franklin mutual
funds and private accounts
Ms. Desai
has been a portfolio manager of the Fund since
December 2018. She joined Franklin Templeton in 2009.
Mr. Voyles
has been a portfolio manager of the Fund since 2006.
He joined Franklin Templeton in 1993.
Mr. Ma
has been a portfolio manager of the Fund since 2013.
He joined Franklin Templeton in 2006.
Mr. Yuen
has been a portfolio manager of the Fund since 2019. He
joined Franklin Templeton in 1988.
|
Number of Other Registered
Investment Companies Managed1
|
Assets of Other Registered
Investment Companies Managed
|
Number of Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles Managed1
|
Assets of Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles Managed
|
Number of Other Accounts
Managed1
|
Assets of Other Accounts Managed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The various pooled investment
vehicles and accounts listed are managed by a team of investment professionals.
Accordingly, the individual managers listed would not be solely responsible for
managing such listed amounts.
Portfolio managers that
provide investment services to the Fund may also provide services to a variety
of other investment products, including other funds, institutional accounts and
private accounts. The advisory fees for some of such other products and
accounts may be different than that charged to the Fund and may include performance
based compensation (as noted in the chart above, if any). This may result in
fees that are higher (or lower) than the advisory fees paid by the Fund. As a
matter of policy, each fund or account is managed solely for the benefit of the
beneficial owners thereof. As discussed below, the separation of the trading
execution function from the portfolio management function and the application
of objectively based trade allocation procedures help to mitigate potential
conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of the portfolio managers
managing accounts with different advisory fees.
Conflicts.
The management of multiple funds, including the Fund,
and accounts may also give rise to potential conflicts of interest if the funds
and other accounts have different objectives, benchmarks, time horizons, and
fees as the portfolio manager must allocate his or her time and investment
ideas across multiple funds and accounts. The investment manager seeks to
manage such competing interests for the time and attention of portfolio
managers by having portfolio managers focus on a particular investment
discipline. Most other accounts managed by a portfolio manager are managed
using the same investment strategies that are used in connection with the
management of the Fund. Accordingly, portfolio holdings, position sizes,
and industry and sector exposures tend to be similar across similar portfolios,
which may minimize the potential for conflicts of interest. As noted above, the
separate management of the trade execution and valuation functions from the
portfolio management process also helps to reduce potential conflicts of
interest. However, securities selected for funds or accounts other than the
Fund may outperform the securities selected for the Fund. Moreover, if a
portfolio manager identifies a limited investment opportunity that may be
suitable for more than one fund or other account, the Fund may not be able to
take full advantage of that opportunity due to an allocation of that
opportunity across all eligible funds and other accounts. The investment
manager seeks to manage such potential conflicts by using procedures intended
to provide a fair allocation of buy and sell opportunities among funds and
other accounts.
The structure of a portfolio
manager’s compensation may give rise to potential conflicts of interest. A
portfolio manager’s base pay and bonus tend to increase with additional and
more complex responsibilities that include increased assets under management. As
such, there may be an indirect relationship between a portfolio manager’s
marketing or sales efforts and his or her bonus.
Finally, the management of
personal accounts by a portfolio manager may give rise to potential conflicts
of interest. While the funds and the investment manager have adopted a code of
ethics which they believe contains provisions designed to prevent a wide range
of prohibited activities by portfolio managers and others with respect to their
personal trading activities, there can be no assurance that the code of ethics
addresses all individual conduct that could result in conflicts of interest.
The investment manager and
the Fund have adopted certain compliance procedures that are designed to
address these, and other, types of conflicts. However, there is no guarantee that
such procedures will detect each and every situation where a conflict arises.
Compensation.
The
investment manager seeks to maintain a compensation program that is
competitively positioned to attract, retain and motivate top-quality investment
professionals. Portfolio managers receive a base salary, a cash incentive bonus
opportunity, an equity compensation opportunity, and a benefits package. Portfolio
manager compensation is reviewed annually and the level of compensation is based
on individual performance, the salary range for a portfolio manager’s level of
responsibility and
Franklin Templeton
guidelines
.
Portfolio managers are provided no
financial incentive to favor one fund or account over another. Each portfolio
manager’s compensation consists of the following three elements:
Base salary
Each portfolio manager is paid a base salary.
Annual
bonus
Annual bonuses are structured
to align the interests of the portfolio manager with those of the Fund’s
shareholders. Each portfolio manager is eligible to receive an annual bonus.
Bonuses generally are split between cash (50% to 65%) and restricted shares of
Resources stock (17.5% to 25%) and mutual fund shares (17.5% to 25%). The
deferred equity-based compensation is intended to build a vested interest of
the portfolio manager in the financial performance of both Resources and mutual
funds advised by the investment manager.
The
bonus plan is intended to provide a competitive level of annual bonus
compensation that is tied to the portfolio manager achieving consistently
strong investment performance, which aligns the financial incentives of the
portfolio manager and Fund shareholders.
The Chief Investment Officer of the investment manager and/or other officers of
the investment manager, with responsibility for the Fund, have discretion in
the granting of annual bonuses to portfolio managers in accordance with
Franklin Templeton guidelines.
The
following factors are generally used in determining bonuses under the plan:
Investment performance.
Primary consideration is given to the historic
investment performance of all accounts managed by the portfolio manager over
the 1, 3 and 5 preceding years measured against risk benchmarks developed by
the fixed income management team. The pre-tax performance of each fund managed
is measured relative to a relevant peer group and/or applicable benchmark as
appropriate.
Non-investment performance.
The more qualitative contributions of the portfolio
manager to the investment manager’s business and the investment management
team, including business
knowledge,
productivity, customer service, creativity, and contribution to team goals,
are evaluated in determining the amount of any bonus
award.
Responsibilities.
The
characteristics
and complexity of funds managed by the
portfolio
manager are factored in the investment manager’s appraisal.
Additional long-term equity-based compensation
Portfolio managers may also be awarded restricted
shares or units of Resources stock or restricted shares or units of one or more
mutual funds. Awards of such deferred equity-based compensation typically vest
over time, so as to create incentives to retain key talent.
Portfolio managers also
participate in benefit plans and programs available generally to all employees
of the investment manager.
Ownership
of Fund shares.
The
investment manager has a policy of encouraging portfolio managers to invest in
the funds they manage. Exceptions arise when, for example, a fund is closed to
new investors or when tax considerations or jurisdictional constraints cause
such an investment to be inappropriate for the portfolio manager. The
following is the dollar range of Fund shares beneficially owned by each
portfolio manager (such amounts may change from time to time):
|
Dollar
Range
of Fund Shares Beneficially Owned
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item 9. Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End
Management Investment
Company and
Affiliated
Purchasers. N/A
Item
10
. Submission of Matters to
a Vote of Security Holders.
There have been no changes to the procedures by which
shareholders may recommend nominees to the Registrant's Board of Trustees that
would require disclosure herein.